Re: CK722 Fans

After my first real summer job in 1955 working on a CNR steel relay gang in
BC I stopped in Edmonton and bought two CK722s and a Weller soldering gun.
I still have the gun and it works great. IIRC the two CK722s cost more than
the gun. When I got home I started building an audio amp for my xtal set
and one of the leads just broke off right at the case and I didn't
mishandle it. I was finally able to a tack a lead back on. I then mounted
the transistors on a separate pieces of wood and soldered the leads to
fahenstock clips. Those 2 are long gone but I did find one in a junk box at
a hamfest for free. I'm still a little hesitant to put it to use for fear a
lead might break off. I've heard that germanium transistors don't age well
and some kind of migration degrades their specs.

--

73
Hank WD5JFR
"Watson A.Name - "Watt Sun, the Dark Remover"" <NOSPAM@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote
in message news:118ujv6fq33s4de@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> Seems to be a pent-up demand for those ol' timers, that just can't seem
> to be quenched. Always someone who's willing to pay exhorbitant prices
> for the nearly useless critters. There were three up for bid this week
> on Ebay, starting at $15 and buy it now for $30. Last I checked, they
> were all spoken for. Unfortunately I had to delete them from my items
> i'm watching and I don't have the item numbers. But the picture showed
> them sticking out of a DMM that had the transistor checker and the DMM
> read somethig like 77 for the gain, so they were apparently working.
> But they all looked like they had short leads, so presumably they were
> all pulls or from an experimenter's junque box. Who know what kind of
> abuse they had been subjected to?
>
> I still have a data*** for the 2N107, which was GE's answer to the
> CK722. I don't think it was ever as popular, and I don't remember what
> the price was or which was cheaper. But according to the GE manual, 4th
> Ed., the 2N107 and its NPN sister the 2N170 were rated for Vce= -12V,
> IC= 10mA and 50mW (107) and 6V, 20mA and 25mW (170). I don't think the
> CK722 was much better. Neither of my two substitution manuals from the
> early '60s has the CK722, so I don't have an authoritative source. If
> someone has a data*** or other reference for the CK722, please post
> it. Thanks.
>
>
> --
> @@F@r@o@m@@O@r@a@n@g@e@@C@o@u@n@t@y@,@@C@a@l@,@@w@h@e@r@e@@
> ###Got a Question about ELECTRONICS? Check HERE First:###
> http://users.pandora.be/educypedia/electronics/databank.htm
> My email address is whitelisted. *All* email sent to it
> goes directly to the trash unless you add NOSPAM in the
> Subject: line with other stuff. alondra101 <at> hotmail.com
> Don't be ripped off by the big book dealers. Go to the URL
> that will give you a choice and save you money(up to half).
> http://www.everybookstore.com You'll be glad you did!
> Just when you thought you had all this figured out, the gov't
> changed it: http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Units/binary.html
> @@t@h@e@@a@f@f@l@u@e@n@t@@m@e@e@t@@t@h@e@@E@f@f@l@u@e@n@t@@
>
>


.