Talk:2N3055

message: 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)
thread_title: 2N3055

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

text: 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)

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

text: 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)
thread_title:  Object to deletion 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title: Unclear

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

text:  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)

text: WP:SOFIXIT—RJH (talk) 19:47, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Tried, but sacred consensus was against me. After all that, I'm gunshy. --Wtshymanski (talk) 20:16, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:SOFIXIT is not the same as WP:TRYTOKILLIT. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 20:32, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Sometimes it is. --Wtshymanski (talk) 20:55, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point. Nice sense of humour too. Take care.  Dr.K. λogosπraxis 22:19, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

text: 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)
thread_title: Suggestions

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  Deletion of hobby uses section