Re: [time-nuts] TAPR TICC boxed (input protection)

They are relevant when a high input impedance buffer is used making it easier to add series/shunt overload protection. Protecting against 400 volts and higher is feasible this way. Adding overload protection to a 50 ohm input is an interesting challenge but it can be done. Precede the 50 ohm

Re: [time-nuts] TAPR TICC boxed (input protection)

David wrote: If the 10pA specification is guaranteed by design, then wouldn't they have to be testing the 1pA "A" parts? That assumes the parts are produced by exactly the same process, which is very often not a safe assumption. One of them may undergo extra process steps, for example, or

Re: [time-nuts] TAPR TICC boxed (input protection)

Hi If you go back in the thread, it started out as a “general purpose front end” design. One of the suggested parameters on that design was a high impedance input capability in the 1mega ohm range. Noise on a hi-z input is always an issue and input protection just makes it worse. About

Re: [time-nuts] TAPR TICC boxed (input protection)

David wrote: I ended up qualifying 2N3904s based on manufacturer and lot and I think we ended up using ones from Motorola. I wish detailed process information like National had was available from every manufacturer. It is, if you ask the process engineers for it. (From the Big Boys, that

Re: [time-nuts] TAPR TICC boxed (input protection)

David wrote: I ended up qualifying 2N3904s based on manufacturer and lot and I think we ended up using ones from Motorola. I wish detailed process information like National had was available from every manufacturer. It is, if you ask the process engineers for it. (From the Big Boys, that

Re: [time-nuts] TAPR TICC boxed (input protection)

I have a really naive question: how can picoamp leakage parts be relevant in low impedance input pulse conditioning to an interval counter? Tim N3QE > On Apr 11, 2017, at 7:46 AM, Bob kb8tq wrote: > > Hi > > >> On Apr 11, 2017, at 7:05 AM, Charles Steinmetz

Re: [time-nuts] TAPR TICC boxed (input protection)

Hi Testing can mean a lot of different things. Did they test every single part they shipped for every parameter? Did they just do a sample of parts and decide the lot was good? Did they test a sample of parts for a sub-set of the specs and decide they were good? Did they test them after

Re: [time-nuts] TAPR TICC boxed (input protection)

Hi > On Apr 11, 2017, at 7:05 AM, Charles Steinmetz wrote: > > David wrote: > >> I ended up qualifying 2N3904s based on manufacturer and lot and I >> think we ended up using ones from Motorola. I wish detailed process >> information like National had was available from

Re: [time-nuts] TAPR TICC boxed (input protection)

0 in "2001: A Space Odyssey." Bill Hawkins -Original Message- From: time-nuts [mailto:time-nuts-boun...@febo.com] On Behalf Of Bob kb8tq Sent: Sunday, April 09, 2017 1:34 PM To: Discussion of precise time and frequency measurement Subject: Re: [time-nuts] TAPR TICC boxed (i

Re: [time-nuts] TAPR TICC boxed (input protection)

From: David <davidwh...@gmail.com> >>> To: Discussion of precise time and frequency measurement >>> <time-nuts@febo.com> >>> Sent: Saturday, April 8, 2017 10:00 AM >>> Subject: Re: [time-nuts] TAPR TICC boxed (input protection) >>> >

Re: [time-nuts] TAPR TICC boxed (input protection)

On Sat, 8 Apr 2017 16:30:38 -0400, you wrote: >David wrote: > >> I mentioned this in connection with some manufacturers using gold >> doping in transistors which would not normally be expected to have >> gold doping. So you end up with a bunch of lessor named 2N3904s which >> meet the 2N3904

Re: [time-nuts] TAPR TICC boxed (input protection)

On Sat, 8 Apr 2017 21:43:31 +0200, you wrote: >Am 08.04.2017 um 17:52 schrieb David: >> >> If they are not being tested, then where is the maximum specified >> leakage number coming from? For a small signal bipolar transistor it >> will typically be 25nA, 50nA, or 100nA, but the InterFET

Re: [time-nuts] TAPR TICC boxed (input protection)

nt? > >Tom > >> From: David <davidwh...@gmail.com> >> To: Discussion of precise time and frequency measurement >> <time-nuts@febo.com> >> Sent: Saturday, April 8, 2017 10:00 AM >> Subject: Re: [time-nuts] TAPR TICC boxed (input protection) >&g

Re: [time-nuts] TAPR TICC boxed (input protection)

David wrote: I mentioned this in connection with some manufacturers using gold doping in transistors which would not normally be expected to have gold doping. So you end up with a bunch of lessor named 2N3904s which meet the 2N3904 specifications but are useless if you were looking for low

Re: [time-nuts] TAPR TICC boxed (input protection)

David wrote: So gold doping does work with PNP devices. Previously when I brought it up, I was told gold doping only applied to NPN devices leading to my confusion. Since I posted, I dug through my books and found a few more references on point: A couple of textbooks say commercial PNP

Re: [time-nuts] TAPR TICC boxed (input protection)

Am 08.04.2017 um 17:52 schrieb David: If they are not being tested, then where is the maximum specified leakage number coming from? For a small signal bipolar transistor it will typically be 25nA, 50nA, or 100nA, but the InterFET datasheet (1) shows 10pA maximum and 1pA maximum for the A

Re: [time-nuts] TAPR TICC boxed (input protection)

The Siliconix PAD1 at 1pA and 0.8pF is still available : http://www.micross.com/pdf/LSM_PAD1_TO-72.pdf On Sat, Apr 8, 2017 at 4:52 PM, David wrote: > On Thu, 6 Apr 2017 22:23:43 -0400, you wrote: > > >David wrote: > > > >> I know one thing to watch out for if you are

Re: [time-nuts] TAPR TICC boxed (input protection)

com> To: Discussion of precise time and frequency measurement <time-nuts@febo.com> Sent: Saturday, April 8, 2017 10:00 AM Subject: Re: [time-nuts] TAPR TICC boxed (input protection) On Fri, 7 Apr 2017 01:06:17 -0400, you wrote: controlling the offset voltage. We ended up painting the

Re: [time-nuts] TAPR TICC boxed (input protection)

On Thu, 6 Apr 2017 22:23:43 -0400, you wrote: >David wrote: > >> I know one thing to watch out for if you are looking for low >> leakage is gold doping > >Anything that increases carrier mobility increases leakage current (all >else equal -- i.e., for each particular device geometry). This

Re: [time-nuts] TAPR TICC boxed (input protection)

On Fri, 7 Apr 2017 01:06:17 -0400, you wrote: >Another thing to watch out for if you need very low leakage, is if the >package is transparent. All junctions are photodiodes. > >Maybe it's less of a problem now with SMTs, than it was with glass body >diodes or translucent transistor packages. >

Re: [time-nuts] TAPR TICC boxed (input protection)

On Fri, 7 Apr 2017 04:09:38 -0400, you wrote: >David wrote: > >>> what doping is used for PNP RF transistors and saturated switches >>> if it is not gold? Does it also increase leakage? > >I replied: > >> Gold doping doesn't affect the speed of BJTs in the active region very >> much -- its

Re: [time-nuts] TAPR TICC boxed (input protection)

David wrote: what doping is used for PNP RF transistors and saturated switches if it is not gold? Does it also increase leakage? I replied: Gold doping doesn't affect the speed of BJTs in the active region very much -- its purpose is to reduce minority carrier lifetime and, thereby, to

Re: [time-nuts] TAPR TICC boxed (input protection)

Another thing to watch out for if you need very low leakage, is if the package is transparent. All junctions are photodiodes. Maybe it's less of a problem now with SMTs, than it was with glass body diodes or translucent transistor packages. Andy ___

Re: [time-nuts] TAPR TICC boxed (input protection)

David wrote: I know one thing to watch out for if you are looking for low leakage is gold doping Anything that increases carrier mobility increases leakage current (all else equal -- i.e., for each particular device geometry). This accounts for the much higher leakage of Schottky and

Re: [time-nuts] TAPR TICC boxed (input protection)

On Wed, 5 Apr 2017 02:40:13 -0400, you wrote: >David wrote: > >> So collector-base junctions make good low leakage high voltage diodes >> although they are slow > >I guess it depends on what one means by "slow" and "fast." I was referring to within the same transistor; emitter-base junctions are

Re: [time-nuts] TAPR TICC boxed (input protection)

David wrote: So collector-base junctions make good low leakage high voltage diodes although they are slow I guess it depends on what one means by "slow" and "fast." The B-C junction of an MPSH10/MMBTH10 or 2N/PN/MMBT5179 switches on in <1nS and off in <2nS, which is comparable with Schottky

Re: [time-nuts] TAPR TICC boxed (input protection)

On Wed, 5 Apr 2017 09:13:34 +1200 (NZST), you wrote: >A protection diode needs to also have a fast turn on with little or no >overshoot of the forward voltage. That would be ideal but forward turn on time is rarely specified and usually assumed to be fast and some fast diodes have appallingly

Re: [time-nuts] TAPR TICC boxed (input protection)

A protection diode needs to also have a fast turn on with little or no overshoot of the forward voltage. Reverse recovery time can be an issue if one is relying on the clamp for protection against a periodic overload such as when an input is overdriven by a sinewave input and one wishes to

Re: [time-nuts] TAPR TICC boxed (input protection)

Low current measurements take a lot of time on the automatic test equipment and time in this case is measured in seconds. The same applies to low frequency noise. For an example, take a look at the National (now TI) LMC6001 and LMC6081: https://goo.gl/LCY2vR Unlike National, TI does not care

Re: [time-nuts] TAPR TICC boxed (input protection)

The FJH1100 is specified for reverse leakage of 10pA at 15v (which is also the absolute maximum working voltage), and 3pA reverse leakage at 5v. Junction capacitance is 2pF. They cost $8.90 each at Mouser. The B-C junction of an MPSH10 or MMBTH10 (SMT version) has only half as much reverse

Re: [time-nuts] TAPR TICC boxed (input protection)

Hi One interesting “feature” of leakage specs: They often reflect the measurement limit rather than the actual device performance. If they are guaranteed by test, the limit may be orders of magnitude above the actual performance. That’s on top of the likely “rated at max temperature” part