FETs Vesus Bipolars, Why More Efficient?

[Guy Macon]

Ken Smith wrote:

Everything can be explained as the actions of invisible magic unicorns.

Thanks for clearing that up. -Guy "As long as it isn't Trolls" Macon

 

[Dr. Slick]

"Kevin Aylward" <salesEXTRACT@anasoft.co.uk> wrote in message news:<pSYld.15339$P7.10043@fe2.news.blueyonder.co.uk>...

Read any basic electrons textbook, and they
will talk about Beta current gain:

You would be better going to http://www.anasoft.co.uk/EE/index.html

Wrong. Your own site talks about "hfe or beta" which
is the small signal current gain. And the equations
at the end include hfe. Finding it hard to eliminate, eh?

e.g. "...The precise value of the chosen Emitter-Base voltage isn't
important to our argument here, but it does determine the amount of
current we'll see...."

Its a reasonable layman's description, with pictures, of how a
transistor actually works, so you should study it well. You will learn
much from it, probably... well maybe...

You don't know shit, Holmes.

It's obvious that you can replace the delta Ib with
delta Vbe using the ideal diode equation. So in
essence, i don't disagree with you that you can use
Vbe. If you bothered to read my earlier posts, i
mention that gm or transconductance is applicable to
BJTs as well as FETs.

And this is one you need to read too:

http://www.americanmicrosemi.com/tutorials/mosfets.htm


You out of your depth mate.

And you need to go back to the basics, "mate".

It does NOT impress me to see a bunch of
equations that you plagiarized from other
texts and papers, although in reality, that's
what they did too! Hehe!

So you just copied the basic equations
without really understanding them yourself.

You need to think about this more, dude.


Slick

 

[Kevin Aylward]

Dr. Slick wrote:

"Kevin Aylward" <salesEXTRACT@anasoft.co.uk> wrote in message
news:<pSYld.15339$P7.10043@fe2.news.blueyonder.co.uk>...

Read any basic electrons textbook, and they
will talk about Beta current gain:

You would be better going to http://www.anasoft.co.uk/EE/index.html



Wrong.

Nope.

Your own site talks about "hfe or beta" which
is the small signal current gain. And the equations
at the end include hfe. Finding it hard to eliminate, eh?

What part of "first order model" do you have trouble with?

Hfe is only added as a correction to 1st order sums. It is not
fundamental to how a transistor works.

If you actually *understood* the derivations you would understand why
the transistor is voltage controlled. The voltage controlled nature is
the starting point to which one refines from. The papers clearly
illustrate that I know exactly why and when hfe is applicable.

Most competent designs certainly do attempt to eliminate hfe from their
description. A circuit that depends strongly on hfe is a usually a poor
circuit.

e.g. "...The precise value of the chosen Emitter-Base voltage isn't
important to our argument here, but it does determine the amount of
current we'll see...."

Its a reasonable layman's description, with pictures, of how a
transistor actually works, so you should study it well. You will
learn much from it, probably... well maybe...


You don't know shit, Holmes.

Your pretty much on your own with that view, Po.

It's obvious that you can replace the delta Ib with
delta Vbe using the ideal diode equation.

What *are* you harping on about?

So in
essence, i don't disagree with you that you can use
Vbe. If you bothered to read my earlier posts, i
mention that gm or transconductance is applicable to
BJTs as well as FETs.

You claimed that the bipolar transistor was current controlled. This is
incorrect.

And this is one you need to read too:

http://www.americanmicrosemi.com/tutorials/mosfets.htm


You out of your depth mate.


And you need to go back to the basics, "mate".

It does NOT impress me to see a bunch of
equations that you plagiarized from other
texts and papers, although in reality, that's
what they did too! Hehe!

ROTFLMAO.

Simply clueless.

So you just copied the basic equations
without really understanding them yourself.

So, show me *anywhere* on the web or reference texts, where the
following is described:

http://www.anasoft.co.uk/EE/zeropowerstartup/zeropowerstartup.html
http://www.anasoft.co.uk/EE/cmospafl/cmospafl.html
http://www.anasoft.co.uk/EE/widlarlambert/widlarlambert.html - hint I
got an email from Bob Pease on the novalty of this one.
http://www.anasoft.co.uk/EE/VeryLowVoltageBandGap.jpg

And its 10 pints of Guinness.

You need to think about this more, dude.

When did you get your degree in Electronic Engineering? Its pretty
obvious to all that your understanding of this subject matter is pretty
elementary Bantam paperback sort of stuff. You need to have a look at
http://www.apa.org/journals/psp/psp7761121.html, because seriously, you
don't know what you don't know.

You need to understand who your dealing with here. The fact that your
not impressed with technical superiority is pretty much why many layman
are not impressed with Steven Hawking.

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.

 

[Rich The Philosophizer]

On Tue, 16 Nov 2004 07:39:39 +0000, Kevin Aylward wrote:

Dr. Slick wrote:
"Kevin Aylward" <salesEXTRACT@anasoft.co.uk> wrote in message
news:<pSYld.15339$P7.10043@fe2.news.blueyonder.co.uk>...

Read any basic electrons textbook, and they
will talk about Beta current gain:

You would be better going to http://www.anasoft.co.uk/EE/index.html



Wrong.

Nope.

Your own site talks about "hfe or beta" which
is the small signal current gain. And the equations
at the end include hfe. Finding it hard to eliminate, eh?

What part of "first order model" do you have trouble with?

Hfe is only added as a correction to 1st order sums. It is not
fundamental to how a transistor works.

If you actually *understood* the derivations you would understand why
the transistor is voltage controlled. The voltage controlled nature is
the starting point to which one refines from.

Oy! That is _such_ a meme!

The papers clearly
illustrate that I know exactly why and when hfe is applicable.

The papers clearly illustrate that you know exactly squat.
<Gawd, it felt good to type that!>

;^j
Rich

 

[Paul Burridge]

On Tue, 16 Nov 2004 08:08:13 GMT, Rich The Philosophizer
<null@example.net> wrote:

The papers clearly
illustrate that I know exactly why and when hfe is applicable.

The papers clearly illustrate that you know exactly squat.
Gawd, it felt good to type that!

Oh bloody hell! Has Kev referred another hapless soul to his
"papers"? God help the poor bastard. ;->
--

"What is now proved was once only imagin'd." - William Blake, 1793.

 

[Active8]

On 14 Nov 2004 08:52:53 -0800, Winfield Hill wrote:

Kevin Aylward wrote...

You're doing yourself quite a disservice dude.

Don't worry about it Kevin, "Dr. Slick" must be a troll.

He is. Remember his troll on why a VCO in a PLL is an itegrator?
--
Best Regards,
Mike

 

[Active8]

On 14 Nov 2004 23:03:24 GMT, ChrisGibboGibson wrote:

Jim Thompson wrote:

[snip]

Forcing a current doesn't induce a voltage ?


In a superconducting inductor?

Yes. v = L.di/dt :0

--
Best Regards,
Mike

 

[Active8]

On Tue, 16 Nov 2004 11:20:50 +0000, Paul Burridge wrote:

On Tue, 16 Nov 2004 08:08:13 GMT, Rich The Philosophizer
null@example.net> wrote:

The papers clearly
illustrate that I know exactly why and when hfe is applicable.

The papers clearly illustrate that you know exactly squat.
Gawd, it felt good to type that!

Oh bloody hell! Has Kev referred another hapless soul to his
"papers"? God help the poor bastard. ;-

No, just another clueless troll like yourself.
--
Best Regards,
Mike

 

[Active8]

On 16 Nov 2004 04:06:43 -0800, lemonjuice wrote:

"Kevin Aylward" <salesEXTRACT@anasoft.co.uk> wrote:
snip
because the base current does not *control* the emitter/collector
current.

Depends who wrote the equations. In the active bias it may be ignored
to simplify the analysis but so is the contribution due to Vcb. That
doesn't mean that Vcb doesn't affect transistor operation. It does.
Obviously Vbe is assumed also to be around 1 diode drop. What
usefulness for circuit analysis is a voltage value assumed to be
almost constant?

If you want to call it a variable, you'll find plenty of those in
analysis.

Properly biased, Vbe doesn't change much compared to the
cooresponding b-e diode current change.

You can use it as a constant, or use it as a starting point for
analysis.

Notice that Ic is a nonlinear function of Vbe? Isn't that the same
nonlinearity that gives you distortion? It's also that same
nonlinearity that makes RF mixers work, etc.

How could you analyze all that with hfe?

The diode eq must therefore be the starting point. I think hfe was a
convienient figure of merit and it lended itself to the h-param
equivalent circuit.

This is the deal

, Dude.

<snip>
--
Best Regards,
Mike

 

[lemonjuice]

On Tue, 16 Nov 2004 15:36:09 GMT, "Kevin Aylward"
<salesEXTRACT@anasoft.co.uk> wrote:

lemonjuice wrote:
"Kevin Aylward" <salesEXTRACT@anasoft.co.uk> wrote:

"Kevin Aylward" <salesEXTRACT@anasoft.co.uk> wrote in message
news:<Nftld.9823$P7.675@fe2.news.blueyonder.co.uk>...
snipped

CCCS for bipolars and VCCS for
FETs is standard in most texts.

That's why when you look at a I-V curves, for BJTs the
lines are denoted with base current, and for FETs the lines
are denoted with gate voltage.


Nope. Its because knowing the base current can be more useful
than
Vbe, irrespective of the fact that it is the voltage that
controls
the collector current.

Hint:

Ic ~ Io.exp(Vbe.q/KT)

Note the lack of a base current term in this equation.


Well, it can be either base current or Vbe, obviously.

You still miss the point. Basic physics dictates that the flow of
charge, i.e. current is instigared by applying an electric field,
i.e. a voltage, not another current.

Diffusion current is of major importance in semiconductor conduction
and is independent of electrical field.

But this due to thermal energy, so is completely irrelevant to the
discussion as to whether a transistor is Vbe *or* base current
operated.
You seem to be doing some onepmanship here. Sure, the simplified,
first
order model has T in the exponential, and in Is as well, so we can
claim
that a transistor is temperture controlled.
Who said so?
And your point would be,
other that trolling?
You sound more of a troll by stating inaccuracies like badly defining

elementary current flow. ... and hoping to defend them with your cheap
arrogance. Maybe you're only here to get some clients here for your
software... not me Thank you. LOL

Base current is not in the first order equation for transistor
operation because the base current does not *control* the
emitter/collector current.

Depends who wrote the equations.

Not at all.

Trolling again for software sales
In the active bias it may be ignored
to simplify the analysis but so is the contribution due to Vcb.
That
doesn't mean that Vcb doesn't affect transistor operation. It does.

Again, your trolling. What part of "first order model" are you having
trouble understanding.

It seems you never heard of Vcb ... nor how it affects current flow .
I can't teach you what your school didnt . Enroll for night classes or
shut up. LOL

This debate is about what is the "correct" way to describe the
*essentials" of transistor operation, voltage controlled or current
controlled. No one is denying that 2nd order effects don't occur.

Obviously Vbe is assumed also to be around 1 diode drop. What
usefulness for circuit analysis is a voltage value assumed to be
almost constant?
This is the deal.

what deal? I'm not buying anything from you. LOL.

Apply an accelerating voltage to the base emitter. This *voltage*
will

inject carriers into the base region from the emitter. Once in the
base region, they experience the high electric field due to the
collector potential. This field sweeps up the aforementioned
carries
into the
Your description of conduction seems to fit "better" that of a
metal.

Oh. Its the standard one pinched out of pretty much any physics book
you
care to make.

Must be pretty good analysis ... like the earth is flat theory . LOL.

Works for some purposes.

Current flow in a semiconductor is defined by 5 different time and
distance dipendent components, only 2 of these partial differential
expressions include the electrical field component. Besides an
electrical field is already present in some doping profiles of
semiconductors.

And you point would be? Like in what way are you suggesting that any
of
this makes a transistor base current controlled.


collector. Incidentally, some of these carriers just happen to be
lost

out of the base. This base current plays no part in the "control"
of
the collector current. It is simply a nuisance parasitic to
transistor operation.

The recombined carriers contribute partly to the base current.

And your point, in the contect of this current control verses voltage
control debate would be?
My point is I hate people who instead of being useful enjoy pissing

others off ... or you talk intelligently or shut up.

 

[Rich The Philosophizer]

On Tue, 16 Nov 2004 10:55:49 +0000, Kevin Aylward wrote:

Rich The Philosophizer wrote:
On Tue, 16 Nov 2004 07:39:39 +0000, Kevin Aylward wrote:

Dr. Slick wrote:
"Kevin Aylward" <salesEXTRACT@anasoft.co.uk> wrote in message
news:<pSYld.15339$P7.10043@fe2.news.blueyonder.co.uk>...

Read any basic electrons textbook, and they
will talk about Beta current gain:

You would be better going to http://www.anasoft.co.uk/EE/index.html



Wrong.

Nope.

Your own site talks about "hfe or beta" which
is the small signal current gain. And the equations
at the end include hfe. Finding it hard to eliminate, eh?

What part of "first order model" do you have trouble with?

Hfe is only added as a correction to 1st order sums. It is not
fundamental to how a transistor works.

If you actually *understood* the derivations you would understand why
the transistor is voltage controlled. The voltage controlled nature
is the starting point to which one refines from.

Oy! That is _such_ a meme!

The papers clearly
illustrate that I know exactly why and when hfe is applicable.

The papers clearly illustrate that you know exactly squat.
Gawd, it felt good to type that!

Ignorance is bliss I see. Oh dear. Get real Rich. Your pissing in the
wind. It never ceases to amaze me about those who are too ignorant to
know how ignorant they are.

Yeah, I know. Interestingly, it doesn't amaze me any more.

Thanks!
Rich

 

[Dr. Slick]

"Kevin Aylward" <salesEXTRACT@anasoft.co.uk> wrote in message news:<%8imd.22752$P7.13744@fe2.news.blueyonder.co.uk>...

Your own site talks about "hfe or beta" which
is the small signal current gain. And the equations
at the end include hfe. Finding it hard to eliminate, eh?

What part of "first order model" do you have trouble with?

Hfe is only added as a correction to 1st order sums. It is not
fundamental to how a transistor works.

If you actually *understood* the derivations you would understand why
the transistor is voltage controlled. The voltage controlled nature is
the starting point to which one refines from. The papers clearly
illustrate that I know exactly why and when hfe is applicable.

Then you admit that you still use it! Finding it
hard to eliminate, eh? hehe!

Most competent designs certainly do attempt to eliminate hfe from their
description. A circuit that depends strongly on hfe is a usually a poor
circuit.

Duhh! Beta independent transistor biasing is one
of the first things you learn!

http://engr.astate.edu/jdg/Electronics/Lab1/09TransistorBiasing.html

You don't know shit, Holmes.

Your pretty much on your own with that view, Po.

Apparently not, according to the other posters
here! They seem to be quite familiar with your
bullshit!

It's obvious that you can replace the delta Ib with
delta Vbe using the ideal diode equation.

What *are* you harping on about?

Hint: take the derivative of the ideal
diode equation with respect to Vbe.

So in
essence, i don't disagree with you that you can use
Vbe. If you bothered to read my earlier posts, i
mention that gm or transconductance is applicable to
BJTs as well as FETs.

You claimed that the bipolar transistor was current controlled. This is
incorrect.

Wrong. You can see it either way.

It does NOT impress me to see a bunch of
equations that you plagiarized from other
texts and papers, although in reality, that's
what they did too! Hehe!

ROTFLMAO.

Simply clueless.

Simply full of shit.

So, show me *anywhere* on the web or reference texts, where the
following is described:

http://www.anasoft.co.uk/EE/zeropowerstartup/zeropowerstartup.html
http://www.anasoft.co.uk/EE/cmospafl/cmospafl.html
http://www.anasoft.co.uk/EE/widlarlambert/widlarlambert.html - hint I
got an email from Bob Pease on the novalty of this one.
http://www.anasoft.co.uk/EE/VeryLowVoltageBandGap.jpg

And its 10 pints of Guinness.

And its 10 Budweisers if anything
you wrote was meaningful or useful
in any way.

When did you get your degree in Electronic Engineering? Its pretty
obvious to all that your understanding of this subject matter is pretty
elementary Bantam paperback sort of stuff. You need to have a look at
http://www.apa.org/journals/psp/psp7761121.html, because seriously, you
don't know what you don't know.

You need to understand who your dealing with here. The fact that your
not impressed with technical superiority is pretty much why many layman
are not impressed with Steven Hawking.

You're comparing yourself to Steven Hawking?!!

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHHHHHHHAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!

Get real, Mr. Bachelor degree!

It's clear that your vanity with a mere
bachelors is what leads you to write bullshit
"papers" in an attempt to impress people.

Maybe you should go get your Master's
instead of wasting your time on a NG....


Slick

 

[Dr. Slick]

Rich The Philosophizer <null@example.net> wrote in message news:<pan.2004.11.16.07.12.38.871@neodruid.org>...

If you actually *understood* the derivations you would understand why
the transistor is voltage controlled. The voltage controlled nature is
the starting point to which one refines from.

Oy! That is _such_ a meme!

Halarious, eh? "the starting point to which
one refines from"! What the hell is he talking
about here?

The papers clearly
illustrate that I know exactly why and when hfe is applicable.

The papers clearly illustrate that you know exactly squat.
Gawd, it felt good to type that!

The papers clearly illustrate that Kevin
has something to wipe his arse with when
he takes his daily shit...


S.

 

[Dr. Slick]

Active8 <reply2group@ndbbm.net> wrote in message news:<x8viefagn2y7$.dlg@news.individual.net>...

On Tue, 16 Nov 2004 11:20:50 +0000, Paul Burridge wrote:

On Tue, 16 Nov 2004 08:08:13 GMT, Rich The Philosophizer
null@example.net> wrote:

The papers clearly
illustrate that I know exactly why and when hfe is applicable.

The papers clearly illustrate that you know exactly squat.
Gawd, it felt good to type that!

Oh bloody hell! Has Kev referred another hapless soul to his
"papers"? God help the poor bastard. ;-

No, just another clueless troll like yourself.

Look in the mirror, butt-fuck...


S.

 

[Active8]

On 16 Nov 2004 15:43:43 -0800, Dr. Slick wrote:

"Kevin Aylward" <salesEXTRACT@anasoft.co.uk> wrote in message news:<%8imd.22752$P7.13744@fe2.news.blueyonder.co.uk>...

It's obvious that you can replace the delta Ib with
delta Vbe using the ideal diode equation.

What *are* you harping on about?


Hint: take the derivative of the ideal
diode equation with respect to Vbe.


THat doesn't give you delta Ib, dickhead.

--
Best Regards,
Mike

 

[Kevin Aylward]

Dr. Slick wrote:

"Kevin Aylward" <salesEXTRACT@anasoft.co.uk> wrote in message
news:<%8imd.22752$P7.13744@fe2.news.blueyonder.co.uk>...

Your own site talks about "hfe or beta" which
is the small signal current gain. And the equations
at the end include hfe. Finding it hard to eliminate, eh?

What part of "first order model" do you have trouble with?

Hfe is only added as a correction to 1st order sums. It is not
fundamental to how a transistor works.

If you actually *understood* the derivations you would understand why
the transistor is voltage controlled. The voltage controlled nature
is the starting point to which one refines from. The papers clearly
illustrate that I know exactly why and when hfe is applicable.


Then you admit that you still use it! Finding it
hard to eliminate, eh? hehe!

No one claimed hfe had no effect. This was an assumption that you jumped
the gun on.

The debate was about whether or not the transistor was voltage
controlled or current controlled. No one clamed that base current didn't
flow. A functional relation is not evidence of a causal relation. The
misunderstanding is that just because there is base current in a
transistor, than that is why there is emitter current. This is indeed
fundamentally flawed from a basic physic perspective. Emitter current is
caused by the application of a voltage. Period.

Most competent designs certainly do attempt to eliminate hfe from
their description. A circuit that depends strongly on hfe is a
usually a poor circuit.


Duhh! Beta independent transistor biasing is one
of the first things you learn!


http://engr.astate.edu/jdg/Electronics/Lab1/09TransistorBiasing.html

You still aint getting this are you? Your only making yourself look
foolish as I already provided much proof that I am an expert at this.
e.g. http://www.anasoft.co.uk/DeviceDesigner.html.

To continue to imply that I don't know about how to bias up a
transistor, when I have wrote my one software product that automatically
calculates the values of all biasing components shows you are a nothing
more than a troll.

You don't know shit, Holmes.

Your pretty much on your own with that view, Po.


Apparently not, according to the other posters
here!

There are essentially two types of posters here. Ones that are technical
competent, and those that are not. Please present some posts by
technically qualified posters that indicate that I am not technically
qualified. Hint, what about a search on my name and say Win Hill?

They seem to be quite familiar with your
bullshit!

The view of non technically qualified posters on my technical abilities
are worthless.

It's obvious that you can replace the delta Ib with
delta Vbe using the ideal diode equation.

What *are* you harping on about?


Hint: take the derivative of the ideal
diode equation with respect to Vbe.

Look, you are going up the garden path dude. Why are you continually
trying to imply I don't know basic electronics, when its clear that I am
an expert in analogue design. The only dudes that are unable to see this
are those who themselves are not also competent. Its just not on dude.

Regarding the above, you can piss about rearranging equations all you
like, but it doesn't make one relation casual when it isn't. This is the
fundermenatal issue in dertrmining say, does having a cat give you less
stress or is it that people who have less stress like cats more so buy
them. It needs other information other than a simple correlation.

This is the bit you are too ignorant to understand. You think all
functional relations are casual. They aren't. The collector current is
not *caused*, i.e. controlled, by base current. Its that simple, and no
semiconductor physics text book takes that approach.

So in
essence, i don't disagree with you that you can use
Vbe. If you bothered to read my earlier posts, i
mention that gm or transconductance is applicable to
BJTs as well as FETs.

You claimed that the bipolar transistor was current controlled. This
is incorrect.



Wrong.

No its correct.

You can see it either way.

If you have coloured glasses on, sure.

It does NOT impress me to see a bunch of
equations that you plagiarized from other
texts and papers, although in reality, that's
what they did too! Hehe!

ROTFLMAO.

Simply clueless.


Simply full of shit.

Making such vacuous claims does nothing to eliminate the soundness of my
views, and say my papers. http://www.anasoft.co.uk/EE/index.html.

Again, since the evidence is there, your still making yourself foolish.
The only evidence we have about your abilities is what you state in this
thread, and as such, some of your views disagree with any text book on
semiconductor theory.

Lets see some evidence that *your* not full of shit. Post us an original
circuit. For example, I have a really neat original design of a sub 1
Volt bandgap voltage reference in my SuperSpice
(http://www.anasoft.co.uk) examples. Oh dear, there I go again, another
opportunity to tout my wares.

So, show me *anywhere* on the web or reference texts, where the
following is described:

http://www.anasoft.co.uk/EE/zeropowerstartup/zeropowerstartup.html
http://www.anasoft.co.uk/EE/cmospafl/cmospafl.html
http://www.anasoft.co.uk/EE/widlarlambert/widlarlambert.html - hint I
got an email from Bob Pease on the novalty of this one.
http://www.anasoft.co.uk/EE/VeryLowVoltageBandGap.jpg

And its 10 pints of Guinness.


And its 10 Budweisers if anything
you wrote was meaningful or useful
in any way.

Again, vacuous denial with no substance.

We all know your trolling now.

When did you get your degree in Electronic Engineering? Its pretty
obvious to all that your understanding of this subject matter is
pretty elementary Bantam paperback sort of stuff. You need to have a
look at http://www.apa.org/journals/psp/psp7761121.html, because
seriously, you don't know what you don't know.

You need to understand who your dealing with here. The fact that your
not impressed with technical superiority is pretty much why many
layman are not impressed with Steven Hawking.



You're comparing yourself to Steven Hawking?!!

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHHHHHHHAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!

Get real, Mr. Bachelor degree!

It's clear that your vanity with a mere
bachelors is what leads you to write excellent
"papers" in an attempt to impress people.

Indeed. And your point would be?

Maybe you should go get your Master's

Well, I did get an A in General Relativity M.Sc. Physics, and a 3.5 GPA
in 60% of my other MS courses as well, however, I never finished due to
other non academic reasons. I passed all that I undertook.

instead of wasting your time on a NG....

NG postings have got me many sales. Why are you wasting your time
trolling?

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.

 

[Active8]

On Wed, 17 Nov 2004 08:28:25 GMT, Kevin Aylward wrote:

We all know your trolling now.

See my post to Win. Maybe you blew off that old thread where this

Dr. Slick wanker went a trolling on about whether a VCO was an
integrator. He kept blabbering about none of us knowing WTF.

Who was the idiot that said the same of us regarding 'how to write
an FFT code'? That guy claimed we didn't understand it well enough
to explain it without math, LOL.

Maybe we should have taken some finger painting courses.
--
Best Regards,
Mike

 

[lemonjuice]

Kevin Aylward" <salesEXTRACT@anasoft.co.uk> wrote in message

No one claimed hfe had no effect. This was an assumption that you
jumped
the gun on.

The debate was about whether or not the transistor was voltage
controlled or current controlled. No one clamed that base current
didn't
flow. A functional relation is not evidence of a causal relation. The
misunderstanding is that just because there is base current in a
transistor, than that is why there is emitter current.
With no emitter current you WILL ALWAYS have zero base current.
This is indeed
fundamentally flawed from a basic physic perspective. Emitter current
is
caused by the application of a voltage. Period.
Not exact ... It is possible to have an emitter current even without

an applied voltage.

 

[Dr. Slick]

Active8 <reply2group@ndbbm.net> wrote in message news:<jls7pvftpda5.dlg@news.individual.net>...

Hint: take the derivative of the ideal
diode equation with respect to Vbe.


THat doesn't give you delta Ib, dickhead.

Look again, butt-munch.

S.

 

[Active8]

On 17 Nov 2004 13:05:02 -0800, Dr. Slick wrote:

Active8 <reply2group@ndbbm.net> wrote in message news:<jls7pvftpda5.dlg@news.individual.net>...


Hint: take the derivative of the ideal
diode equation with respect to Vbe.


THat doesn't give you delta Ib, dickhead.

Look again, butt-munch.

Ib is not part of that equation and therefor won't turn up in the

derivative, troll.

--
Best Regards,
Mike