PowerBase vs LAPT or ring emitter techology - diyAudio
Go Back   Home > Forums > Amplifiers > Solid State

Solid State Talk all about solid state amplification.

Please consider donating to help us continue to serve you.

Ads on/off / Custom Title / More PMs / More album space / Advanced printing & mass image saving
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 20th December 2007, 05:37 AM   #1
roender is offline roender  Romania
diyAudio Member
 
roender's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Default PowerBase vs LAPT or ring emitter techology

What's the difference between LAPT or ring emitter transistors and PowerBase transistors?
There is any possibility to measure internal parasite base-emitter resistor?
  Reply With Quote
Old 20th December 2007, 08:20 AM   #2
AndrewT is online now AndrewT  Scotland
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Scottish Borders
I asked in vain.
Hope you get the answer.
__________________
regards Andrew T.
  Reply With Quote
Old 20th December 2007, 03:44 PM   #3
jaycee is offline jaycee  United Kingdom
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Norwich, UK
it wouldnt surprise me if they are all pretty much the same thing, with different brand names
  Reply With Quote
Old 20th December 2007, 04:08 PM   #4
KSTR is offline KSTR  Germany
diyAudio Member
 
KSTR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Central Berlin, Germany
From Rod Elliott's pages:

"fT (Current Gain bandwidth Product): This is directly related to device gain and also to the device physical base width (wb). Most of the audio transistors in the industry have high fT (~30MHz), the trade-off is SOA performance with high voltage conditions. ON Semi Power Base Technology (which is unique in the market) has low/medium fT devices (8 to 12MHz) devices like the MJL21193/94 which have excellent SOA above 100V, these devices have wider Bases and also some unique "base spreading resistor" design which make them extremely rugged, used by most high end audio manufacturers."
http://sound.westhost.com/soa.htm

For LAPT, Sanken calls it "Multi-emitter for high-frequency transistor", while "Ring Emitter" is a somewhat generic term, also referred to in many patents.

So, it doesn't look like it's all the same, there are quite different goals.

@Mihai: Your Amp (RMI-FC100) looks very interesting, I'm about to sim it over the holidays.

Anybody tried the Fairchild outputs, like FJA4213/4313? Those look quite promising, high fT, low Cob...

- Klaus
  Reply With Quote
Old 21st December 2007, 05:00 PM   #5
roender is offline roender  Romania
diyAudio Member
 
roender's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Quote:
Originally posted by KSTR

@Mihai: Your Amp (RMI-FC100) looks very interesting, I'm about to sim it over the holidays.

- Klaus

Thank you Klaus

Better than sim, try to build it. I've simulated in LTspice more than a year.
RMI-FC100 amp sound much better than simulate.

Mihai
  Reply With Quote
Old 22nd December 2007, 01:41 PM   #6
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Hi

Motorola introduced their PowerBase as an answer to RCA's hometaxial base technology, I believe.

RCA's hometaxial line was the best in SOA for a few years - but had limited fT. Many amplifier manufacturers used their 2N3055 (including Quad, (it is believed); Sugden and others?).

The PowerBase technology presumably had a thinner base than the old 2N3055- as most fT's were 2 MHz (min). Examples are MJ15015/MJ15003 etc. How was the second breakdown spec. accomplished with a thinner base?

Part of the answer is that the emitters could have been ballasted: even RCA developed ballasting technology to improve Is/b on some of their devices. Part of the answer also is (probably) that the collector has as much to do with SOA as the base. RCA's process built a very deep graded collector junction, so would have had spreading resistance of its own as well as the base. Many newer transistors have very high BVceo (250V) that this probably is used to improve Is/b.

The Ring Emitter technology is a newer development, in that the emitter shapes are more dominated by perimeter than area. THis can be done, for example, by placing extra base contacts where an emitter area would have been. This helps to sustain current gain at high currents by minimising base resistance effects.

But to achieve 30 MHz fT means that the base should be much thinner than the old 2N3055. Perhaps only the collector, and maybe emitter ballasting, are used to improve Is/b.

In summary, what ON Semi, Toshiba and Sharp have done is to optimise the epi layers to achieve high current gain sustain with high Is/b. My guess is that they have at least two collector epi layers, and two base epi layers, one to suppress high current injection and one to provide some spreading resistance.

And it should be possible to measure the various internal resistances by using high frequency small-signal measurements. This is what is routinely used for RF devices; for audio similar measurements ought to be possible at lower frequencies (1-30 MHz).

cheers
John
  Reply With Quote

Reply


Hide this!Advertise here!
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Help needed for Sanken transistors LAPT-3 eradoncic Solid State 11 29th August 2013 07:04 AM
SanKen - LAPT 1965GTO Solid State 3 13th June 2008 04:43 AM
Pioneer Series 20 Ring emitter transistor recommendations needed brothelthug Parts 5 17th May 2006 01:01 AM
about the shorted ring (flux stabilizer ring) haggy Multi-Way 3 4th January 2002 02:04 AM


New To Site? Need Help?

All times are GMT. The time now is 09:33 AM.


vBulletin Optimisation provided by vB Optimise (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2014 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Copyright 1999-2014 diyAudio

Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.3.2