FETs Vesus Bipolars, Why More Efficient?

[Dr. Slick]

Active8 <reply2group@ndbbm.net> wrote in message news:<1la3vnogsn7k6$.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.


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

Hint for Stupid Trolls:

The base-emmitter junction is like a diode...

Using the ideal diode equation, the "I"
becomes Ibase-emitter.


S.

 

[Rich The Philosophizer]

On Mon, 15 Nov 2004 00:33:27 +0000, Guy Macon wrote:

Jim Thompson wrote:

You have to apply a voltage to induce a current flow.

Forcing a current doesn't induce a voltage ?

Hmmm.

A voltage may exist with no current (insulator).

A current may exist with no voltage (superconductor).

A voltage without current has an electric field but no magnetic field.

A current without voltage has a magnetic field but no electric field.

At one point in history physicists described nature as having 5
fundamental forces: the electric force, the magnetic force, the
strong nuclear force, the weak nuclear force, and the gravitational
force.

In 1856 James Clerk Maxwell (1831-1879), building on Faraday's
work, unified the electric force and the magnetic force into the
electromagnetic force.

Ah. There's your fundamental error. They're _supposed to_ be unified
into Unconditional Love.

;^j
Rich

 

[Active8]

On 18 Nov 2004 12:03:13 -0800, Dr. Slick wrote:

Active8 <reply2group@ndbbm.net> wrote in message news:<1la3vnogsn7k6$.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.

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

Hint for Stupid Trolls:

The base-emmitter junction is like a diode...

Using the ideal diode equation, the "I"
becomes Ibase-emitter.

Another blabber mouth who hasn't read up on Ebers-Moll.
--
Best Regards,
Mike

 

[lemonjuice]

LOL @ mike

 

[Kevin Aylward]

lemonjuice wrote:

On Fri, 19 Nov 2004 07:06:00 -0500, Active8 <reply2group@ndbbm.net
wrote:



Hey moron. Even if Ib was as high as 1/20th of Ic, it's pretty
insignificant for all practical puposes.
Insignificant for all practical purposes? ... I guess the signal you
amplify being a base current means its unimportant.
Without a base current you have no emitter / collector current ..
That is a fact.


yeah I heard its called the Kaylwards
model or something similar ... maybe someone can help me LOL ...
More accurate and well known models
like the Ebers Moll model which I believe the book the "Art of
Electronics" mentions set Ib = Ic - Ie

You submit AoE as a reference in your defence? You've just convicted
yourself.

convicted? Have you read the Legal notice in the book?

If you look at the book, you'll see the diode equation is rewritten
as

Ic = Io(exp(Vbe/Vt) - 1)

Rewritten you say. So its been modified and is not the original diode
equation?

Sad, so sad, that you don't know that the level of the dudes your
conversing with.

The diode equation is

Ie = Io(exp(Vbe/Vt) - 1)

The above is using the approximation, Ie=Ic.

So Win is also saying that Ic = Ie - look closely... he's set Ic as
a function of Vbe.

Win says Ic ~ Ie. Section 2.11 ... So don't lie.

If Ic ~ Ie, then within the approximation, Ie=Ic. That in all cases
where the is an Ie, it is replaced with Ic. This is what is meant be "="
replace one with the other.

He's even got a
nice graph of Ib versus Vbe that proves Ib isn't as insignificant as
you claim.

This is out of context. Of course a 1% error needs accounting for. For
example, an output of 10A would require 100ma drive, not insignificant,
but also not in the context of Mikes answer.

We are just trying to simplify things down to your level.

The equation is an approximation ... that serves in most
cases for the scope of his book. Look at any of the references in
his bibliography on transistors ... None write Ebers Moll equation as
you claim.

He doesn't claim the diode equation is the Ebers Moll equations. Now get
this, it is claimed the diode equation is called the diode equation.

Id = Io(exp(Vbe/Vt) - 1)


Look! No Ib! I can't get d(Ib)/dVbe from it.
Man you're funny. Electronics is simple.

Apparently not for you.

Figure 2.32 in the "Art of Electronics" has a nice picture of the
derivative of Ib with respect to Vbe.

This is not using the emitter diode equation.

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 Fri, 19 Nov 2004 13:15:37 GMT, Kevin Aylward wrote:

lemonjuice wrote:
snip
More accurate and well known models
like the Ebers Moll model which I believe the book the "Art of
Electronics" mentions set Ib = Ic - Ie
SO Ib = Ic - Ie

Yes more accurate models do this this. And your point would be?

Yeah. Looks like my paper on Gummel-Poon starts out by summing diode
equations to account for both diodes, etc.
--
Best Regards,
Mike

 

[Active8]

On Fri, 19 Nov 2004 13:15:15 GMT, Kevin Aylward wrote:

Dr. Slick wrote:

Hint for Stupid Trolls:

The base-emmitter junction is like a diode...

********** BS statement 1000 **********

Using the ideal diode equation, the "I"
becomes Ibase-emitter.


ROTHLMAO

Oh dear...no...no...no...

Hint for ignorant trolls who dont know who is a troll:

Typically 99% of the current in the diode junction flows through into
the collector not the base. Dah...

Put another way, if the current goes through the emitter, and Ie =
Ib + Ic, then statement 1000 is wrong.

--
Best Regards,
Mike

 

[Active8]

On Fri, 19 Nov 2004 17:08:59 GMT, Kevin Aylward wrote:

lemonjuice wrote:
On Fri, 19 Nov 2004 07:06:00 -0500, Active8 <reply2group@ndbbm.net
wrote:

Without a base current you have no emitter / collector current ..
That is a fact.

That doesn't prove that Ib *controls* Ic.

yeah I heard its called the Kaylwards
model or something similar ... maybe someone can help me LOL ...
More accurate and well known models
like the Ebers Moll model which I believe the book the "Art of
Electronics" mentions set Ib = Ic - Ie

You submit AoE as a reference in your defence? You've just convicted
yourself.

convicted? Have you read the Legal notice in the book?

So IOW, If it doesn't support your position, you reject it, even
after citing it in your defence.

If you look at the book, you'll see the diode equation is rewritten
as

Ic = Io(exp(Vbe/Vt) - 1)

Rewritten you say. So its been modified and is not the original diode
equation?


Sad, so sad, that you don't know that the level of the dudes your
conversing with.

The diode equation is

Ie = Io(exp(Vbe/Vt) - 1)

The above is using the approximation, Ie=Ic.

So Win is also saying that Ic = Ie - look closely... he's set Ic as
a function of Vbe.

Why'd you snip this?:
****
You'll find it in section 2.10 - Ebers-Moll Model and if you can
read, read where Win says to think of a transistor as a
transconductance device - collector current determined by Vbe.
******

Win says Ic ~ Ie. Section 2.11 ... So don't lie.

Sec 2.11 does not say that. It says Ie ~ Ic ( "~" here means "approx
equal to" - the squigly "=")

If Ic ~ Ie, then within the approximation, Ie=Ic. That in all cases
where the is an Ie, it is replaced with Ic. This is what is meant be "="
replace one with the other.

He's even got a
nice graph of Ib versus Vbe that proves Ib isn't as insignificant as
you claim.

This is out of context. Of course a 1% error needs accounting for. For
example, an output of 10A would require 100ma drive, not insignificant,
but also not in the context of Mikes answer.

We are just trying to simplify things down to your level.

The equation is an approximation ... that serves in most
cases for the scope of his book. Look at any of the references in
his bibliography on transistors ... None write Ebers Moll equation as
you claim.

He doesn't claim the diode equation is the Ebers Moll equations. Now get
this, it is claimed the diode equation is called the diode equation.


Id = Io(exp(Vbe/Vt) - 1)


Look! No Ib! I can't get d(Ib)/dVbe from it.
Man you're funny. Electronics is simple.

Apparently not for you.

Figure 2.32 in the "Art of Electronics" has a nice picture of the
derivative of Ib with respect to Vbe.

This is not using the emitter diode equation.

No, Its a graph of Ic vs Vbe with an Ib curve added ( the diode eq
is rearanged to solve for Vbe, Kevin - you know the one.)

The Ib curve is *not* the derivative - the slope of it is the
derivative (you said "with respect to" which implies derivative, but
being math challenged, you wouldn't know.)

--
Best Regards,
Mike

 

[Kevin Aylward]

Dr. Slick wrote:

"Kevin Aylward" <salesEXTRACT@anasoft.co.uk> wrote in message
news:<Dlmnd.10775$Y7.3598@fe1.news.blueyonder.co.uk>...

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

Hint for Stupid Trolls:

The base-emmitter junction is like a diode...

Using the ideal diode equation, the "I"
becomes Ibase-emitter.


ROTHLMAO

Oh dear...no...no...no...

Hint for ignorant trolls who dont know who is a troll:

Typically 99% of the current in the diode junction flows through into
the collector not the base. Dah...


BWaHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!! WRONG!

Are you talking about electron current flow?

Dont care. It can be electrons or holes.

I'm talking conventional current flow, dumbass,

Conventional current flow is fictional.

as in current flowing INTO the base and out through
the emitter.

This current is say, only 1/100 of the current going across the base
emmiter diode junction.

Read the basics, dumbfuck.

You are so clueless its unreal.
http://www.apa.org/journals/psp/psp7761121.html

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.

 

[lemonjuice]

"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.

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. 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?

This is the deal.

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.

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.

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.

 

[Rich The Philosophizer]

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. ;-

Nah - I'm the one who popularized them in the first place, by
citing their very incomprehensibility. They are incomprehensible,
of course, by virtue of the fact that my poor little deluded
intellect isn't capable of grasping the grand concepts involved.

;^j
Rich

 

[Kevin Aylward]

Active8 wrote:

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.

I haven't kept a check on the names of all the trolls.

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.

Yeah, that is pretty amusing. The FFT claim to fame is that it is a
specific math method for reducing the amount of computations in doing an
FT. Explaining math methods without math. That's pretty novel I must
say.

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.

 

[Dr. Slick]

"Kevin Aylward" <salesEXTRACT@anasoft.co.uk> wrote in message news:<JYDmd.28499$P7.977@fe2.news.blueyonder.co.uk>...

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.

Thats proof you need to hit the books more, son.

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.

Bottom line is, there is a base current that is
caused by Vbe, so i'm in agreement there. But
this doesn't mean you cannot use beta.

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.

Oh dear, there Kevin goes again,
needing to feed his ego.

I suppose you aren't familiar with ADS?

How about a broadband 88-108 MHz 15 watt
mosfet amplifier? But you aren't an RF guy,
oh well.

Indeed. And your point would be?

Opps! I meant to write:

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

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.

So you are a grad school dropout, eh?

GREAT!

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


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

From who?

Go back to school, mate.


S.

 

[Active8]

On 22 Nov 2004 16:39:19 -0800, Dr. Slick wrote:

"Kevin Aylward" <salesEXTRACT@anasoft.co.uk> wrote in message news:<VYhod.19283$08.18967@fe2.news.blueyonder.co.uk>...

Well they correct your trivial misunderstandings. Like, the base current
is the relevant current in the diode equation. Yeah right on. You put
your foot right in it that time.


snip

Point is,

No, your point was that Ib and not Vbe controls Ic.

you can take the derivative
of Ibe with respect to Vbe, and multiply
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

This may be true, but Ibe WRT Vbe is Vbe controlled, duh! That's
twice you've single handedly disproved yourself. Math aside, like
Kevin pointed out days ago, you need an electric field to get a
current flow.

this with small signal beta to get the
transconductance of a BJT.

So what?

Look, you daft twat,
--

Best Regards,
Mike

 

[Active8]

On 19 Nov 2004 06:20:22 -0800, lemonjuice wrote:

On Fri, 19 Nov 2004 07:06:00 -0500, Active8 <reply2group@ndbbm.net
wrote:


Hey moron. Even if Ib was as high as 1/20th of Ic, it's pretty
insignificant for all practical puposes.
Insignificant for all practical purposes? ... I guess the signal you
amplify being a base current means its unimportant.
Without a base current you have no emitter / collector current .. That
is a fact.


yeah I heard its called the Kaylwards
model or something similar ... maybe someone can help me LOL ...
More accurate and well known models
like the Ebers Moll model which I believe the book the "Art of
Electronics" mentions set Ib = Ic - Ie

You submit AoE as a reference in your defence? You've just convicted
yourself.

convicted? Have you read the Legal notice in the book?

If you look at the book, you'll see the diode equation is rewritten
as

Ic = Io(exp(Vbe/Vt) - 1)

Rewritten you say. So its been modified and is not the original diode
equation?

So Win is also saying that Ic = Ie - look closely... he's set Ic as
a function of Vbe.

Win says Ic ~ Ie. Section 2.11 ... So don't lie. He's even got a
nice graph of Ib versus Vbe

Not in the section on Ebers-Moll. I doubt he did that anywhere in
the book.

that proves Ib isn't as insignificant as
you claim.

Your statement presupposes incorrect assumptions.

--
Best Regards,
Mike

 

[lemonjuice]

On Fri, 19 Nov 2004 17:08:59 GMT, "Kevin Aylward"
<salesEXTRACT@anasoft.co.uk> wrote:

lemonjuice wrote:
On Fri, 19 Nov 2004 07:06:00 -0500, Active8 <reply2group@ndbbm.net
wrote:



Hey moron. Even if Ib was as high as 1/20th of Ic, it's pretty
insignificant for all practical puposes.
Insignificant for all practical purposes? ... I guess the signal you
amplify being a base current means its unimportant.
Without a base current you have no emitter / collector current ..
That is a fact.


yeah I heard its called the Kaylwards
model or something similar ... maybe someone can help me LOL
....
More accurate and well known models
like the Ebers Moll model which I believe the book the "Art of
Electronics" mentions set Ib = Ic - Ie

You submit AoE as a reference in your defence? You've just
convicted
yourself.

convicted? Have you read the Legal notice in the book?

If you look at the book, you'll see the diode equation is rewritten
as

Ic = Io(exp(Vbe/Vt) - 1)

Rewritten you say. So its been modified and is not the original
diode
equation?


Sad, so sad, that you don't know that the level of the dudes your
conversing with.

The diode equation is

Ie = Io(exp(Vbe/Vt) - 1)

The above is using the approximation, Ie=Ic.

Who said it wasn't ? LOL I wrote it below.

So Win is also saying that Ic = Ie - look closely... he's set Ic as
a function of Vbe.


Win says Ic ~ Ie. Section 2.11 ... So don't lie.

You are now lying by cutting out pieces of the original post. You'd

make a great crook. LOL

If Ic ~ Ie, then within the approximation, Ie=Ic. That in all cases
where the is an Ie, it is replaced with Ic. This is what is meant be
"="
replace one with the other.

He's even got a
nice graph of Ib versus Vbe that proves Ib isn't as insignificant
as
you claim.

This is out of context.
Your comment is hilarious. My post is to prove that d Ib / d Vbe exists

and is out of context. Period.

We are just trying to simplify things down to your level.

I'm not a graduate school dropout like you boast of being .... So I'm

levels higher then you. LOL
So you imply The "Art of Electronics " is a simplified book
for idiots? The preface says otherwise. LOL

The equation is an approximation ... that serves in most
cases for the scope of his book. Look at any of the references in
his bibliography on transistors ... None write Ebers Moll equation
as
you claim.

He doesn't claim the diode equation is the Ebers Moll equations. Now
get
this, it is claimed the diode equation is called the diode equation.

Now who ever said that he did? You don't have to be a genius to

understand that a diode is different from a transistor. LOL Man you
need a checkup on your head . LOL

Id = Io(exp(Vbe/Vt) - 1)


Look! No Ib! I can't get d(Ib)/dVbe from it.
Man you're funny. Electronics is simple.

Apparently not for you.
I hear ur trying to understand General relativity but I'm sure I

understand it better. LOL

Figure 2.32 in the "Art of Electronics" has a nice picture of the
derivative of Ib with respect to Vbe.

This is not using the emitter diode equation.
Wrong wrong ... who said it was?????

Now how could d Ib/d Vbe be the diode equation??????
BTW Who cares about the diode equation? ... We are talking about a
transistor ... and I was discussing Ebers Moll equation.

>

 

[Kevin Aylward]

Dr. Slick wrote:

"Kevin Aylward" <salesEXTRACT@anasoft.co.uk> wrote in message
news:<VYhod.19283$08.18967@fe2.news.blueyonder.co.uk>...

Well they correct your trivial misunderstandings. Like, the base
current is the relevant current in the diode equation. Yeah right
on. You put your foot right in it that time.


Never said the base current was as big as the
collector current.

You claimed (inferred) that one uses the base current as the current to
be used in the base-emitter diode equation. This is incorrect.

Even your own "papers for wiping your ass"
use beta or current gain!

Of course they do. Beta has a second order effect. However, this doesn't
mean that base current controls the emitter current.

Bottom line: there is an equation
expressing Ibase as a function of Vbe.
Do you know what it is? Or do i have to
post it?

Ib = area.(ibe1/BF + ibe2/BR + ibe2)

Ic = area.(ibe1/Kqb-Ibc1/kqb - ibc1/BR -ibc2)

ibe1 = is.(exp(Vbe/NF.Vt) - 1)
ibe2 = ise.(exp(Vbe/NE.Vt) - 1)
ibc1 = is.(exp(Vbc/NR.Vt) - 1)
ibc2 = isc.(exp(Vbc/NC.Vt) - 1)

Kqb = Kq1.(1 + sqrt(1+4.Kq2))/2

Kq1 = 1/(1-Vbc/Vaf - Vbe/Var)
Kq2 = ibe1/IKF + ibc2/IKR

is = area.iss.(exp(Vjs/NS.Vt) - 1)

None of this means that base current controls the collector current.
Indeed, the hfe equations are empirical fudge factors in spice.


None of this means you know shit, Holmes.

Just because you can copy equations from
a book doesn't mean you know what they mean!

Indeed. This is plainly obvious by your use of them.

Point is, you can take the derivative
of Ibe with respect to Vbe, and multiply
this with small signal beta to get the
transconductance of a BJT.

You mean doing something like V=I*R*P/P

Sure, you can do that if you want.

Think about it, dumbshit.

Guess what? We don't disagree
as much as you would like!

Not at all. You are fundamentally wrong in claiming that the collector
current is controlled by base current. For the last time, a functional
relation is not proof of a casual relation.

Look, you daft twat, like I have wrote 100,000 lines of a Spice
simulator and you think that you know more than me on this subject?
All your doing is proving to everyone what a right f*$%ing idiot you
are. How do you think I implemented
http://www.anasoft.co.uk/DeviceDesigner.html? Hint, it required
manual coding of the full BSim3 equations so that they could be
inverted to determine WL

You way out of your league sonny boy, no go away and play with your
rattle.


LOL! I've got you a bit pissed, eh Boy?

I think you ripped off other peoples work
and stole all the credit.

Just goes to show the limitations of your thinking ability.

Feel free to show me any product, anywhere, that does what my
DeviceDesigner does without using an iterative approach. My method is
completely unique. If you can figure out how its done, I'll give you a
freebie licence.

And then incorrectly
used the equations because you don't really
understand them.

Feel free to construct a circuit that fails my DeviceDesigner
(http://www.anasoft.co.uk/DeviceDesigner.html) method.

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 Tue, 23 Nov 2004 07:54:52 GMT, Kevin Aylward wrote:

Dr. Slick wrote:
snip


Think about it, dumbshit.

Guess what? We don't disagree
as much as you would like!


Not at all. You are fundamentally wrong in claiming that the collector
current is controlled by base current. For the last time, a functional
relation is not proof of a casual relation.
^^^^^^ he means causal relation. A

"casual relation" might be how one would describe your relation with
your brain cell. It's really best to keep them corraled when they're
all present. Once you let them slip away, it's too late.

--
Best Regards,
Mike

 

[Kevin Aylward]

Active8 wrote:

On Tue, 23 Nov 2004 07:54:52 GMT, Kevin Aylward wrote:

Dr. Slick wrote:
snip


Think about it, dumbshit.

Guess what? We don't disagree
as much as you would like!


Not at all. You are fundamentally wrong in claiming that the
collector current is controlled by base current. For the last time,
a functional relation is not proof of a casual relation.
^^^^^^ he means causal relation.

Opps. Those spelling checkers again.


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.

 

[lemonjuice]

On Mon, 22 Nov 2004 20:33:23 -0500, Active8 <reply2group@ndbbm.net>
wrote:

On 22 Nov 2004 16:39:19 -0800, Dr. Slick wrote:

"Kevin Aylward" <salesEXTRACT@anasoft.co.uk> wrote in message
news:<VYhod.19283$08.18967@fe2.news.blueyonder.co.uk>...

Well they correct your trivial misunderstandings. Like, the base
current
is the relevant current in the diode equation. Yeah right on. You
put
your foot right in it that time.


snip

Point is,

No, your point was that Ib and not Vbe controls Ic.

you can take the derivative
of Ibe with respect to Vbe, and multiply
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
This may be true,
Write the Ebers Moll equation ... Then differentiate ... Its

certainly true.

but Ibe WRT Vbe is Vbe controlled, duh!
Mmmmmm ... many things control Ic ... At least 15 parameters come to my

mind. for one thing try applying a positive Vbc ... then tell me

That's
twice you've single handedly disproved yourself. Math aside, like
Kevin pointed out days ago, you need an electric field to get a
current flow.
Not always ...As I pointed out days ago ....there already exists an

INBUILT electrical field in a transistor ... precisely in 2 different
areas of the device and yet it still does not generate current ... I
won't explain why though it 'd be interesting to hear your version.
Besides if you apply an applied electrical field it works only a very
small area of the transistor ... on the depletion layer.

this with small signal beta to get the
transconductance of a BJT.

So what?
yeah it means a lot to our debate...
Look, you daft twat,

take care