BJT Can be Considered a CCCS in some situations

Guest
Kevin scrawled:

Nope, and I already addressed this, many times. Base current is an
effect. It is an effect due to applied voltage. Now go away, troll.

This current itself is an effect of an electric field, hint: V=IR.

Please provide a method of producing such a current that doesn't
ultimately depend on the use of electric field.
Click to expand...


A superconductive loop, with one side
moving orthogonal to a magnetic field.

What if you drove an Ibe with a
wire that is moving orthogonal to a magnetic
field?

You are confusing a SOURCE of voltage
potential versus a voltage DROP. A voltage
drop across a low impedance is controlled
by the current though a high series impedance
current source.

Hint: V=IR, as in IR voltage DROP.

Hint: If you take the Ibase away,
is the Vbe there any more? No.

Jesus, i hate having to school
the pretentious, lying, wanna-bes
in the basics of electronics!

Read the books more, chump.

Slick
 
On Sat, 11 Dec 2004 09:15:02 -0700, Jim Thompson wrote:

On Sat, 11 Dec 2004 14:03:56 GMT, "Kevin Aylward"
salesEXTRACT@anasoft.co.uk> wrote:

radio913@aol.com wrote:
[snip]

How did this current get started?


Immaculate conception ?:)

[snip]
Jesus, i hate having to school
the pretentious, lying, wanna-bes
in the basics of electronics!


Please provide a device physics derivation, from first principles, of Ie
and Ic being a direct causal function of Ib.

Kevin Aylward

So many dummies vying for Burridge's status, but not enough awards to
go around ;-)
Click to expand...
It's OK, Jim. Simple models for simple minds, right? ;-)

Let Kevin have his voltage control, and let's get on with our lives.
Like the PHB's favorite son said the other day, "Let him be proud."

Cheers!
Rich
 
On Sat, 11 Dec 2004 20:34:13 GMT, Rich Grise <rich@example.net> wrote:

On Sat, 11 Dec 2004 09:15:02 -0700, Jim Thompson wrote:


So many dummies vying for Burridge's status, but not enough awards to
go around ;-)
Click to expand...
Oh, is Jim "fartknocker" Thompson still posting here? I don't believe
he's contributed anything to sum total of scientific understanding
since inventing the electron in 1911. ;-)
--

"What is now proved was once only imagin'd." - William Blake, 1793.
 
On Sat, 11 Dec 2004 19:36:24 GMT, Mac <foo@bar.net> wrote:

Also, avoid name-calling and condescension, because these tactics just
make you look bad.
Click to expand...
Good point. Let's hope Kevin takes it on board.
--

"What is now proved was once only imagin'd." - William Blake, 1793.
 
On Sun, 12 Dec 2004 01:30:28 +0000, Paul Burridge
<pb@notthisbit.osiris1.co.uk> wrote:

Oh, is Jim "fartknocker" Thompson still posting here? I don't believe
he's contributed anything to sum total of scientific understanding
since inventing the electron in 1911. ;-)
Click to expand...
Sorry, I did of course mean 1897. ;-)

--

"What is now proved was once only imagin'd." - William Blake, 1793.
 
On Sat, 11 Dec 2004 13:49:01 -0700, Jim Thompson wrote:

On Sat, 11 Dec 2004 20:34:13 GMT, Rich Grise <rich@example.net> wrote:

On Sat, 11 Dec 2004 09:15:02 -0700, Jim Thompson wrote:

[snip]

So many dummies vying for Burridge's status, but not enough awards to
go around ;-)


It's OK, Jim. Simple models for simple minds, right? ;-)

Let Kevin have his voltage control, and let's get on with our lives.
Like the PHB's favorite son said the other day, "Let him be proud."

Cheers!
Rich


I was pondering Kevin's stance the other day and wondered... if I
apply a voltage to C-E and let the base float, I get current flow...
wonder how come that happens ?:)
Click to expand...
Well, sure, current flows, and if you exceed BVceo, you can get lots and
lots of current! ;-)

But it's not controlled. )-;

Thanks!
Rich
 
On 11 Dec 2004 04:03:18 -0800, radio913@aol.com wrote:

Kevin scrawled:

Nope, and I already addressed this, many times. Base current is an
effect. It is an effect due to applied voltage. Now go away, troll.
Click to expand...
No, base voltage is the effect. The only way to get base voltage (and
subsequent collector current) is to charge up the base capacitance,
and you have to apply current to do that. So the true *cause* of
collector current is base current!

John
 
John Larkin wrote:
On 11 Dec 2004 04:03:18 -0800, radio913@aol.com wrote:

Kevin scrawled:

Nope, and I already addressed this, many times. Base current is
an
effect. It is an effect due to applied voltage. Now go away,
troll.


No, base voltage is the effect. The only way to get base voltage (and
subsequent collector current) is to charge up the base capacitance,
and you have to apply current to do that. So the true *cause* of
collector current is base current!
Click to expand...
What Kevin doesn't seem to understand
is that a voltage can indeed be the effect
of a current.

Hint: The plate voltage across
a capacitor becomes larger as it is
charged up by a .... CURRENT!

YEAH! Electronics 101!!!!

Slick
 
On Sun, 12 Dec 2004 17:41:39 -0800, John Larkin
<jjlarkin@highlandSNIPtechTHISnologyPLEASE.com> wrote:

No, base voltage is the effect. The only way to get base voltage (and
subsequent collector current) is to charge up the base capacitance,
and you have to apply current to do that. So the true *cause* of
collector current is base current!
Click to expand...
Which do you reckon came first, John - the chicken or the egg?
--

"What is now proved was once only imagin'd." - William Blake, 1793.
 
On Mon, 13 Dec 2004 16:36:04 +0000, Paul Burridge
<pb@notthisbit.osiris1.co.uk> wrote:

On Sun, 12 Dec 2004 17:41:39 -0800, John Larkin
jjlarkin@highlandSNIPtechTHISnologyPLEASE.com> wrote:

No, base voltage is the effect. The only way to get base voltage (and
subsequent collector current) is to charge up the base capacitance,
and you have to apply current to do that. So the true *cause* of
collector current is base current!

Which do you reckon came first, John - the chicken or the egg?
Click to expand...

The egg, obviously. The thing that laid it wasn't a chicken.

John
 
John Larkin wrote:
No, base voltage is the effect. The only way to get base voltage
(and
subsequent collector current) is to charge up the base capacitance,
and you have to apply current to do that. So the true *cause* of
collector current is base current!

Which do you reckon came first, John - the chicken or the egg?


The egg, obviously. The thing that laid it wasn't a chicken.
Click to expand...
I hate to admit this, but this whole argument
really IS a sort of "chicken or the egg first?"
type of debate.

Oh well...

Slick
 
On Mon, 13 Dec 2004 16:36:04 +0000, Paul Burridge wrote:

On Sun, 12 Dec 2004 17:41:39 -0800, John Larkin
jjlarkin@highlandSNIPtechTHISnologyPLEASE.com> wrote:

No, base voltage is the effect. The only way to get base voltage (and
subsequent collector current) is to charge up the base capacitance,
and you have to apply current to do that. So the true *cause* of
collector current is base current!

Which do you reckon came first, John - the chicken or the egg?
Click to expand...
The rooster "came" first. ;-)
 
"Richard The Troll" <rtt@example.net> a écrit dans le message de
news:pan.2004.12.14.03.03.44.33611@example.net...
On Mon, 13 Dec 2004 16:36:04 +0000, Paul Burridge wrote:

On Sun, 12 Dec 2004 17:41:39 -0800, John Larkin
jjlarkin@highlandSNIPtechTHISnologyPLEASE.com> wrote:

No, base voltage is the effect. The only way to get base voltage (and
subsequent collector current) is to charge up the base capacitance,
and you have to apply current to do that. So the true *cause* of
collector current is base current!

Which do you reckon came first, John - the chicken or the egg?

The rooster "came" first. ;-)
Click to expand...
Which came first ? The rooster or his eggs ?


--
Thanks,
Fred.
 
On Sat, 11 Dec 2004 13:49:01 -0700, Jim Thompson
<thegreatone@example.com> wrote:

On Sat, 11 Dec 2004 20:34:13 GMT, Rich Grise <rich@example.net> wrote:

On Sat, 11 Dec 2004 09:15:02 -0700, Jim Thompson wrote:

[snip]

So many dummies vying for Burridge's status, but not enough awards to
go around ;-)


It's OK, Jim. Simple models for simple minds, right? ;-)

Let Kevin have his voltage control, and let's get on with our lives.
Like the PHB's favorite son said the other day, "Let him be proud."

Cheers!
Rich


I was pondering Kevin's stance the other day and wondered... if I
apply a voltage to C-E and let the base float, I get current flow...
Click to expand...
Please...don't say "current flow"; you'll start another flame
war! :)

wonder how come that happens ?:)

...Jim Thompson
Click to expand...
 
On 14 Dec 2004 16:45:51 -0800, radio913@aol.com wrote:

Keep chanting E=MC**2 all
you want mate, you ain't foolin'
no one!
Click to expand...
Is Kevin still trying to unify gravity and electromagetism? Dear oh
dear. ;-)
--

"What is now proved was once only imagin'd." - William Blake, 1793.
 
Paul Burridge wrote:
On 14 Dec 2004 16:45:51 -0800, radio913@aol.com wrote:

Keep chanting E=MC**2 all
you want mate, you ain't foolin'
no one!

Is Kevin still trying to unify gravity and electromagetism?
Click to expand...
What the F*&^ are you blabbering about now Mr. Porridge?

Kevin Aylward
salesEXTRACT@anasoft.co.uk
http://www.anasoft.co.uk
SuperSpice, a very affordable Mixed-Mode
Windows Simulator with Schematic Capture,
Waveform Display, FFT's and Filter Design.
 
On Wed, 15 Dec 2004 16:00:35 +0000, Paul Burridge wrote:

On 14 Dec 2004 16:45:51 -0800, radio913@aol.com wrote:

Keep chanting E=MC**2 all
you want mate, you ain't foolin'
no one!

Is Kevin still trying to unify gravity and electromagetism? Dear oh dear.
;-)
Click to expand...
No, that would be me.

;^j
Rich
 
On Wed, 15 Dec 2004 20:28:28 GMT, Rich The Philosophizer
<null@example.net> wrote:

Yeah, but none of them is going to get it until they account for Love in
their equations.
Click to expand...
Hehe! Rich, you're in a '60s timewarp! ;-)
--

"What is now proved was once only imagin'd." - William Blake, 1793.
 
On Thu, 16 Dec 2004 09:24:13 +0000 (UTC), toor@iquest.net (John S.
Dyson) wrote:

People who persist in claiming that a transistor is physically a CCCS
are of similar ilk as those who post (publish) various kinds of nonsense
theoretical nonsense on the physics groups.
Click to expand...
No, there's a big difference. The beta model works, quantitatively, in
90% of design situations, and the goofy physics doesn't.

Perhaps people who are
totally clueless will be influenced by the incorrect rhetoric, but
at least, it makes NO difference to the world that the idiots are
misled.
Click to expand...
I suppose "idiots" includes everyone who publishes bipolar transistor
datasheets; I've never seen one that didn't specify beta.


John
 
On Thu, 16 Dec 2004 00:01:31 +0000, Paul Burridge wrote:

On Wed, 15 Dec 2004 20:28:28 GMT, Rich The Philosophizer
null@example.net> wrote:

Yeah, but none of them is going to get it until they account for Love in
their equations.

Hehe! Rich, you're in a '60s timewarp! ;-)
Click to expand...
Well, it _is_ the Age of Aquarius, you know.

;^j
Rich
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Welcome to EDABoard.com

Sponsor

Back
Top