Talk:2N3055

2N3055

Does anyone knows what is the thermal resistance caspule to air (Rca)?

The 2 N 3055 should always be used with a heatsink because of its high power dissipation. The thermal resistance from mounting baase to ambient is then of little relevance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.244.163.178 (talk) 19:35, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

68.231.184.131 (talk) 23:22, 10 November 2008 (UTC)it is also available in a TO220 case.68.231.184.131 (talk) 23:22, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

68.231.184.131 (talk) 23:22, 10 November 2008 (UTC)It should read" A cheap, very available, medium-power transistor quite often used by amateur Hi Voltage enthusiasts to drive old TV flybacks to make small Tesla coils. Although this transistor is not a hi-frequency type and its switching time is too slow for its efficient use in this. (see Davy's law; I=dV/dT) A higher voltage unit, say driven at 100 volts, or a unit good for several megahertz fT is a much better choice, although more expensive."68.231.184.131 (talk) 23:22, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, all concerns appreciated as good intention, but, this article shouldnt be deleted as irrelevant, it should be extended. The 2N3055 is certainly one of the most impressive transistors of the 20th century, that thing is now in manufacture for almost 50 years. It was used for many applications, and sometimes in very unusual ways (using 50 parallel in some very large regulators because there were no bigger transistors than the 3055) because it was the archetype of the power transistor and engineers had to make due with what they got.

Maybe it could be merged into a section of the History of the Transistor as the article currently only has computer and radio as typical hostorical uses of the transistor. A section "Power Transistors" could tell the story of the evolution from the 3055 to a modern igbt brick that can run the heaviest of industrial equipment and railroad locomotive motors. --89.53.1.150 (talk) 20:07, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Object to deletion

I object to the deletion. There are several other transistor articles: TIP31, 2N2222, 2N3904 to name a few. 86.142.3.11 (talk) 19:28, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

As always WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS but I will tag these as well. --Wtshymanski (talk) 21:52, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

If you wish to contest deletion, simply remove the PROD template per procedures at WP:PROD. 65.93.12.101 (talk) 02:59, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

I was just browsing and found that this article is targeted for deletion. In my opinion this is a mistake, the 2N3055 is an mark in the history of the transistor, for a better explanation please refer to the paper Ellis, J.N.; Osadchy, V.S.; , "The 2N3055: a case history," Electron Devices, IEEE Transactions on , vol.48, no.11, pp.2477-2484, Nov 2001 doi: 10.1109/16.960371 URL: http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/stamp/stamp.jsp?tp=&arnumber=960371&isnumber=20748 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.136.124.164 (talk) 09:26, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Check out the general notability guideline and ask yourself if obscure journal citations really qualify this as notable in a general encyclopediac sense? There's a million parts catalogs that list 2N3055, but that doesn't make this particular part notable in the sense that we use the term on the Wikipedia. --Wtshymanski (talk) 18:28, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

IEEE Transactions on Electron Devices is not an obscure journal. 65.93.12.101 (talk) 02:58, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, it's a little obscure; City of Winnipeg public library doesn't hold it, but U of Manitoba claims to have it. --Wtshymanski (talk) 21:13, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

I doubt the City of Winnipeg public library holds most relevant research journals in any field. It probably only holds the general journals, if that. If your measure of if a journal is obscure or not is if it appears in the City of Winnipeg library, you have a very skewed view of things. 65.93.12.101 (talk) 02:52, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

I understand that an encyclopedia does not have to include all the information that ever existed. In this case in particular (the power transistor 2N3055) I think it is important to maintain the Wikipedia article because this device was a major milestone in the electronic field. It was one the first silicon power transistors and as such it was included in many electronic systems (audio amplifiers, power supplies etc) eventually resulting in a significant cost reduction of these systems. It might not be known by the general public, nevertheless is is an important electronic device and it is well known in the electronic design community. Wikipedia also has articles about the Z80, intel 8080 etc. These are also electronic components that are no longer manufactured. I provided a reference to a paper that appears in a peer reviewed IEEE journal to prove the historical importance of this device, note that it not usual for a paper in a peer reviewed journal to have a title with the name of an electronic component. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.136.124.164 (talk) 19:16, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

If you wish to contest deletion, simply remove the PROD template per procedures at WP:PROD. 65.93.12.101 (talk) 02:59, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Unclear

With changes to the technology, the original process became uneconomical and a similar device, now bearing the designator 2N3055

Similar to what device? Was their an ancestor to the 2N3055 that had some other part number, which was replaced by the JEDEC registerd 2N3055? Looks like something's missing here. --Wtshymanski (talk) 15:25, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

From the article it appears both devices bear the same designation, even though the process was different. So it's a good question, and I'll have to try and research it. — Becksguy (talk) 15:34, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

SO what exactly does JEDEC registery control? If you change the process for the transistor, do you keep it under the same JEDEC number, or could you have a hamster on a wheel inside as long as you nad the same breakdown voltage, Hfe, etc. ? --Wtshymanski (talk) 15:37, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Suggestions

I've tried to put concrete suggestions to improve the article at places where I see weak spots. Please don't neglect this article just because it's squeaked through AfD. I'd hate to think I took all those personal attacks and wound up with no improvement to the article at all. In spite of all the heated protests at AfD I stil see a scarcity of sources for statements here and just about no explanation of the origins and development of the 2N3055, nor do I see an explanation as to why it became a popular part (especially among Wikipedia editors...you'd think I'd eaten their baby or something). --Wtshymanski (talk) 14:53, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

The citation needed tags are helpful, but I removed the top tags because their point was unclear. Why don't you elaborate here instead? I can't see how the treatment could be less technical (it's not all that technical as it is). And what kind of context info are you seeking? Dicklyon (talk) 15:49, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

It's technical in that the parameters give no idea of what they mean or why they are important. The parameters don't explain if this is a particularly large transistor or particularly small. It needs context to explain why this specialized type is specialized and how it differs from, oh, say, a "transistor radio". If we're going to talk about the cooks at the line of battle at Bull Run, we'd darn well better explain why it is important to know who the cooks were and how that affected the battle. Otherwise the reader has an experience rather like the first time looking through a microscope at a drop of pond water; lots of furious activity visible, but no meaning apparent anywhere. --Wtshymanski (talk) 16:12, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

OK, but I still don't see why you eat babies. Dicklyon (talk) 17:00, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

I categorically deny all infantophagia allegations. Now let's get those Wiki microscopes tuned up and get every bus route in Hong Kong listed as a Featured Article. --Wtshymanski (talk) 18:58, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

You've got to just love the consistency here:

However, the cut-off frequency is higher, allowing the newer type of 2N3055 to be more efficient in switching power supplies. Also the higher frequency response has improved performance when used in audio amplifiers.[1] Although the original 2N3055 went into decline relative to epitaxial-base transistors because of high manufacturing costs and the displacement of the linear power supply with the switching power supply,

With 1 intervening sentence we go from saying the 2N3055 was popular in switching power supplies to its decline because of the popularity of switching power supplies. Smooth. What, my 12-year-old hypothetical nephew may ask, is the "epitaxial base" transistor, for that matter. --Wtshymanski (talk) 19:03, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

WP:SOFIXIT—RJH (talk) 19:47, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Tried, but sacred consensus was against me. After all that, I'm gunshy. --Wtshymanski (talk) 20:16, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

WP:SOFIXIT is not the same as WP:TRYTOKILLIT. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 20:32, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Sometimes it is. --Wtshymanski (talk) 20:55, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Good point. Nice sense of humour too. Take care. :) Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 22:19, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

See, again we're lying to, or at least misleading, the reader - by saying the Ft is 2.5 MHz and saying the transistor displays gain up to that frequency, we will mislead a non-technical reader into thinking "Hey, I can use this for AM radio broadcasting!". Context is everything. My ancient and smelly "The Power Semiconductor Data Book for Design Engineers First Edition" has a data sheet dated August 1967, calling it a "single diffused mesa transistor". --Wtshymanski (talk) 17:56, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

No offence, but you do seem to have a thing about Ft values in transistor articles. If some readers are too clueless to understand what transition frequency means, then that's their problem. There's lots of stuff in technical WP articles that I don't understand. --Ef80 (talk) 01:14, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

hometaxial

I don't think this needs to be in quotes. It was rather common. See for instance F.F. Mazda, Discrete electronic components, 1981, ISBN 0521234700, p. 14-15. FuFoFuEd (talk) 03:27, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps there was confusion with homotaxial, which was indeed RCA-only technology. See Modern dictionary of electronics, by Graf 7th ed., page 350. FuFoFuEd (talk) 21:23, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Deletion of hobby uses section

As per WP:BOLD, I have deleted the hobby uses section, which seemed to be disproportionately large given its importance. As written, this section was uncited and rather low on verifiable facts. Chrisjohnson (talk) 11:16, 11 January 2013 (UTC)