FETs Vesus Bipolars, Why More Efficient?
Dr. Slick
I've been using Mosfets for quite some
time now, and have enjoyed the greater
efficiency and gain that you get with them,
versus BJTs in VHF radio frequency applications.
I know the greater efficiency has partyly to do
with the much higher low frequency impedance
of the gate versus the diode of the base-emitter
junction, but i'd like to know the other reasons
if someone could explain them to me.
Thanks for your input.
Slick
Ken Smith
Here's one:
The storage effects in the bipolar makes you class C amplifier have a
wider conduction angle. In a MOSFET, the turn on and turn off speeds are
much more equal so the conduction time is delayed but not increased.
--
--
kens...@rahul.net forging knowledge
Active8
Low Rds(on) for two - that and the aforementioned fast switching
work together to lower power dissipation... but *how much* does that
really help at VHF?
--
Best Regards,
Mike
Paul Burridge
I think you meant to say "...much higher *high* frequency
impedance..."?
--
"What is now proved was once only imagin'd." - William Blake, 1793.
Ken Smith
Dr. Slick <radi...@aol.com> wrote:
[....]
> No. The gate is like a capacitor in a FET, so at
>higher frequencies, the reactance of the cap is small,
>and you only have the ohmic (real) losses.
Don't forget those inductances.
Paul Burridge
> No. The gate is like a capacitor in a FET, so at
>higher frequencies, the reactance of the cap is small,
>and you only have the ohmic (real) losses. At lower
>frequencies and DC, the capacitive reactance is very
>high. Xc=1/(2Pi*F*C), where F is the frequency in
>cycles/sec.
Mea culpa. I thought you were referring to the signal impedance across
the B/E diode in a BJT.
Ken Smith
>news:<cmupu4$2d2$4...@blue.rahul.net>...
>> In article <1d15af91.04111...@posting.google.com>,
>> Dr. Slick <radi...@aol.com> wrote:
>> [....]
>> > No. The gate is like a capacitor in a FET, so at
>> >higher frequencies, the reactance of the cap is small,
>> >and you only have the ohmic (real) losses.
>>
>> Don't forget those inductances.
>> --
>
>you have to get into UHF or microwaves before
>they get bad.
Depends on what you call bad. With higher power MOSFETs (BLF276 IIRC) the
input impedance hits zero angle before 200MHz so at 100MHz, it will be
effecting the impedance.
Ken Smith
>news:<u4t6p0pv7jtdsimd8...@4ax.com>...
>> On 10 Nov 2004 11:27:48 -0800, radi...@aol.com (Dr. Slick) wrote:
>>
>> > No. The gate is like a capacitor in a FET, so at
>> >higher frequencies, the reactance of the cap is small,
>> >and you only have the ohmic (real) losses. At lower
>> >frequencies and DC, the capacitive reactance is very
>> >high. Xc=1/(2Pi*F*C), where F is the frequency in
>> >cycles/sec.
>>
>> Mea culpa. I thought you were referring to the signal impedance across
>> the B/E diode in a BJT.
>
>
>diode has significant current across it past the threshold
>voltage, whereas the FETs have more of a capacitor for the
>gate-source where very little DC current flows.
>
> That's why a BJT is more like a current-controlled-
>current-source, and the FETs are more like voltage-controlled
>-current-sources.
At high frequencies, both look like charge controlled current sources.
The normal base current of a bipolar is a leak that takes the charge away.
Paul Burridge
> Well, i kind of am, in the sense that the base-emmiter
>diode has significant current across it past the threshold
>voltage, whereas the FETs have more of a capacitor for the
>gate-source where very little DC current flows.
>
> That's why a BJT is more like a current-controlled-
>current-source, and the FETs are more like voltage-controlled
>-current-sources.
I can see where you're comin' from; but you're gonna upset a lot of
folks here with that last para!
Ken Smith
Dr. Slick <radi...@aol.com> wrote:
>kens...@green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote in message
>> >
>> >yeah, the series parasitic inductance too, but
>> >you have to get into UHF or microwaves before
>> >they get bad.
>>
>> Depends on what you call bad. With higher power MOSFETs (BLF276 IIRC) the
>> input impedance hits zero angle before 200MHz so at 100MHz, it will be
>> effecting the impedance.
>>
>
>so it would be about XL=2*pi*f*L
>
> So the inductive reactance would be about 1.25 Ohms
>at 100 MHz. Certainly affecting the impedance, but
>still pretty low.
Instead of counting on my memory. I dug out the BLF276's data sheet.
At 100MHz Zin = 1.3 -j1.7 (points taken from graph)
A 1.25Ohms Xl would be very important in this case since it is about as
big as R and Xc. Th package on this is a 6 pins as source configuration.
Winfield Hill
>
> Why do you think that? 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.
--
Thanks,
- Win
Paul Burridge
>Paul Burridge <p...@notthisbit.osiris1.co.uk> wrote in message news:<br38p0hv4gv9h9rjr...@4ax.com>...
>> On 11 Nov 2004 11:58:44 -0800, radi...@aol.com (Dr. Slick) wrote:
>>
>> > Well, i kind of am, in the sense that the base-emmiter
>> >diode has significant current across it past the threshold
>> >voltage, whereas the FETs have more of a capacitor for the
>> >gate-source where very little DC current flows.
>> >
>> > That's why a BJT is more like a current-controlled-
>> >current-source, and the FETs are more like voltage-controlled
>> >-current-sources.
>>
>> I can see where you're comin' from; but you're gonna upset a lot of
>> folks here with that last para!
>
>
> Why do you think that? CCCS for bipolars and VCCS for
>FETs is standard in most texts.
FETs are certainly accurately modelled as VCCS in a certain regions of
operation. BJTs are *inaccurately* modelled as CCCS. Vbe's what you
really want to look at with BJTs.
Dr. Slick
> >
> > The storage effects in the bipolar makes you class C amplifier have a
> > wider conduction angle. In a MOSFET, the turn on and turn off speeds are
> > much more equal so the conduction time is delayed but not increased.
>
> Low Rds(on) for two - that and the aforementioned fast switching
> work together to lower power dissipation... but *how much* does that
> really help at VHF?
Certainly the fast switching leads to less dissipated power,
but then bipolars may be comparable in this area.
But yeah, lower Rds (on) is certainly a factor.
S.
Fred Bartoli
"Paul Burridge" <p...@notthisbit.osiris1.co.uk> a écrit dans le message de
news:16gap0138huajj8b3...@4ax.com...
Please, tell us more :-)
--
Thanks,
Fred.
Dr. Slick
> >
> > Parasitic inductance is usually less than about 2nH,
> >so it would be about XL=2*pi*f*L
> >
> > So the inductive reactance would be about 1.25 Ohms
> >at 100 MHz. Certainly affecting the impedance, but
> >still pretty low.
>
> Instead of counting on my memory. I dug out the BLF276's data sheet.
>
> At 100MHz Zin = 1.3 -j1.7 (points taken from graph)
>
> A 1.25Ohms Xl would be very important in this case since it is about as
> big as R and Xc. Th package on this is a 6 pins as source configuration.
>
mag[Z]=sqrt(1.3**2+1.7**2)
so it's still going to be low impedance.
S.
Dr. Slick
Not a very convincing argument!
Dr. Slick
> >>
> >> > Well, i kind of am, in the sense that the base-emmiter
> >> >diode has significant current across it past the threshold
> >> >voltage, whereas the FETs have more of a capacitor for the
> >> >gate-source where very little DC current flows.
> >> >
> >> > That's why a BJT is more like a current-controlled-
> >> >current-source, and the FETs are more like voltage-controlled
> >> >-current-sources.
> >
> > Why do you think that? CCCS for bipolars and VCCS for
> >FETs is standard in most texts.
>
> FETs are certainly accurately modelled as VCCS in a certain regions of
> operation. BJTs are *inaccurately* modelled as CCCS. Vbe's what you
> really want to look at with BJTs.
Well, it can be either base current or Vbe, obviously.
But you talk about the "Beta current gain factor" as
(delta Collector current)/(delta base current), and they
don't describe FETs like this.
However, you are correct that "gm" or "transconductance"
can be either dIdrain/dVgate or dIc/dVbe.
The point is that MOSFETs have far less gate current
than do BJTs have base current.
Slick
Winfield Hill
>
> The point is that MOSFETs have far less gate current
> than do BJTs have base current.
At high frequencies you may find just the opposite is true.
--
Thanks,
- Win
Winfield Hill
>
> Winfield Hill wrote ...
>> Dr. Slick wrote...
>>>
>>> Why do you think that? 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.
>
> Not a very convincing argument!
Read our textbook, AoE, you'll find my argument well stated.
--
Thanks,
- Win
Paul Burridge
<fred._canxxxel_this_bartoli@RemoveThatAlso_free.fr_AndThisToo> wrote:
>Please, tell us more :-)
Oh, I couldn't possibly. ;-)
Jim Thompson
<fred._canxxxel_this_bartoli@RemoveThatAlso_free.fr_AndThisToo> wrote:
>
>"Paul Burridge" <p...@notthisbit.osiris1.co.uk> a écrit dans le message de
>news:16gap0138huajj8b3...@4ax.com...
[snip]
>>
>> FETs are certainly accurately modelled as VCCS in a certain regions of
>> operation. BJTs are *inaccurately* modelled as CCCS. Vbe's what you
>> really want to look at with BJTs.
>
>Please, tell us more :-)
Paul doesn't have a clue... he's just parroting ;-)
...Jim Thompson
--
| James E.Thompson, P.E. | mens |
| Analog Innovations, Inc. | et |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus |
| Phoenix, Arizona Voice:(480)460-2350 | |
| E-mail Address at Website Fax:(480)460-2142 | Brass Rat |
| http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |
I love to cook with wine. Sometimes I even put it in the food.
Kevin Aylward
>> On 11 Nov 2004 11:58:44 -0800, radi...@aol.com (Dr. Slick) wrote:
>>
>>> Well, i kind of am, in the sense that the base-emmiter
>>> diode has significant current across it past the threshold
>>> voltage, whereas the FETs have more of a capacitor for the
>>> gate-source where very little DC current flows.
>>>
>>> That's why a BJT is more like a current-controlled-
>>> current-source, and the FETs are more like voltage-controlled
>>> -current-sources.
>>
>> I can see where you're comin' from; but you're gonna upset a lot of
>> folks here with that last para!
>
>
Because its the way it is. Bipolar transistor are voltage controlled.
Period.
>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.
Kevin Aylward
salesE...@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
Bullshit.
Paul Burridge
Don't pay any attention, Win. This guy is a notorious idiot from
rec.radio.amateur.antenna and he just *loves* wind people up.
Guy Macon
You don't have a clue as to who you are talking to, do you?
Read this: [ http://www.artofelectronics.com/ ]
Ken Smith
Now look at the angle. When you go to match down to the low impedance, it
really matters about the phase.
Ken Smith
Compare the base current on a 2N5641 making 3W of 100MHz to the gate
current of any MOSFET you care to select, and I expect you will find it
certainly is true.
I mension the 2N5641 because I tried to find a MOSFET equivelent and could
not for exactly this reason.
Dr. Slick
> >
> > Why do you think that?
>
> Because its the way it is. Bipolar transistor are voltage controlled.
> Period.
>
Are you gonna argue that at DC, Mosfets have more gate current
than the base current of BJTs? Wrong.
> >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.
But you talk about the "Beta current gain factor" as
(delta Collector current)/(delta base current), and they
don't describe FETs like this.
However, you are correct that "gm" or "transconductance"
can be either dIdrain/dVgate or dIc/dVbe.
The point is that MOSFETs have far less gate current
than do BJTs have base current.
Slick
Guy Macon
Dr. Slick wrote:
>
>"Kevin Aylward" <salesE...@anasoft.co.uk> wrote:
[snip]
Just killfile him, doc. He is ineducable, and life is too short to
spend arguing with someone who is never, ever wrong about anything.
Kevin Aylward
> "Kevin Aylward" <salesE...@anasoft.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:<Nftld.9823$P7....@fe2.news.blueyonder.co.uk>...
>>>
>>> Why do you think that?
>>
>> Because its the way it is. Bipolar transistor are voltage controlled.
>> Period.
>>
>
> Are you gonna argue that at DC, Mosfets have more gate current
> than the base current of BJTs?
Of course not. Whatever base/gate current flows is, esentialy,
irrelevant as to how the transistor operates.
> Wrong.
This comment makes no sense.
>
>
>
>>> 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.
Base current is not in the first order equation for transistor operation
because the base current does not *control* the emitter/collector
current.
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
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.
>
> But you talk about the "Beta current gain factor" as
> (delta Collector current)/(delta base current), and they
> don't describe FETs like this.
>
> However, you are correct that "gm" or "transconductance"
> can be either dIdrain/dVgate or dIc/dVbe.
Trying to teach your grandpa to suck eggs I see.
>
> The point is that MOSFETs have far less gate current
> than do BJTs have base current.
Then this is what should be said. This base current controlled nonsense
is fundamentally incorrect, and leads to much confusion. A bipolar
transistor is a voltage controlled device that just happens to have a
non-linear resistance strapped across it.
Fred Bartoli
"Jim Thompson" <thegr...@example.com> a écrit dans le message de
news:cvgcp0hg2ud2ocgu2...@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 13 Nov 2004 10:37:31 +0100, "Fred Bartoli"
> <fred._canxxxel_this_bartoli@RemoveThatAlso_free.fr_AndThisToo> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Paul Burridge" <p...@notthisbit.osiris1.co.uk> a écrit dans le message de
> >news:16gap0138huajj8b3...@4ax.com...
> [snip]
> >>
> >> FETs are certainly accurately modelled as VCCS in a certain regions of
> >> operation. BJTs are *inaccurately* modelled as CCCS. Vbe's what you
> >> really want to look at with BJTs.
> >
> >Please, tell us more :-)
>
> Paul doesn't have a clue... he's just parroting ;-)
>
Yes indeed. And we also all know where his remark came from...
I just feel sometimes a bit irritated when, more often than not, he plays Mr
know it all and shouts things he picked here and there, and he have no clue
about.
--
Thanks,
Fred.
Kevin Aylward
I am wrong on many things. Unfortunately, you will never be capable of
instigating such errors on my part.
Your doing yourself quite a disservice dude.
Winfield Hill
>
> You're doing yourself quite a disservice dude.
Don't worry about it Kevin, "Dr. Slick" must be a troll.
--
Thanks,
- Win
Rich The Philosophizer
> Kevin Aylward wrote...
>>
>> You're doing yourself quite a disservice dude.
>
> Don't worry about it Kevin, "Dr. Slick" must be a troll.
What I see is the three of them, each knowing they're right,
insisting that they're right, and not realizing that all three
of them _are_ right, but they (a) think that because they are,
everybody who sees the problem a different way must, necessarily,
be wrong, and (b) forgetting that they're talking about three
different subjects anyway!
;^j
Rich
Dr. Slick
> >
> > 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.
>
No argument there. You have to apply a voltage to
induce a current flow. You should write a book!
>
> >
> > But you talk about the "Beta current gain factor" as
> > (delta Collector current)/(delta base current), and they
> > don't describe FETs like this.
> >
> > However, you are correct that "gm" or "transconductance"
> > can be either dIdrain/dVgate or dIc/dVbe.
>
> Trying to teach your grandpa to suck eggs I see.
>
I'll teach yo' momma to suck THIS!
> >
> > The point is that MOSFETs have far less gate current
> > than do BJTs have base current.
>
> Then this is what should be said. This base current controlled nonsense
> is fundamentally incorrect, and leads to much confusion. A bipolar
> transistor is a voltage controlled device that just happens to have a
> non-linear resistance strapped across it.
>
Read any basic electrons textbook, and they
will talk about Beta current gain:
http://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scots_Guide/info/comp/active/BiPolar/bpcur.html
And this is one you need to read too:
http://www.americanmicrosemi.com/tutorials/mosfets.htm
Slick
Paul Burridge
<fred._canxxxel_this_bartoli@RemoveThatAlso_free.fr_AndThisToo> wrote:
>
>"Jim Thompson" <thegr...@example.com> a écrit dans le message de
>news:cvgcp0hg2ud2ocgu2...@4ax.com...
>> On Sat, 13 Nov 2004 10:37:31 +0100, "Fred Bartoli"
>> <fred._canxxxel_this_bartoli@RemoveThatAlso_free.fr_AndThisToo> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >"Paul Burridge" <p...@notthisbit.osiris1.co.uk> a écrit dans le message de
>> >news:16gap0138huajj8b3...@4ax.com...
>> [snip]
>> >>
>> >> FETs are certainly accurately modelled as VCCS in a certain regions of
>> >> operation. BJTs are *inaccurately* modelled as CCCS. Vbe's what you
>> >> really want to look at with BJTs.
>> >
>> >Please, tell us more :-)
>>
>> Paul doesn't have a clue... he's just parroting ;-)
>>
>
>Yes indeed. And we also all know where his remark came from...
>I just feel sometimes a bit irritated when, more often than not, he plays Mr
>know it all and shouts things he picked here and there, and he have no clue
>about.
I get criticised when I *don't* remember things I've been told and you
say you find it irritating when I *do* so I can't win, can I?
Paul Burridge
<hill_a@t_rowland-dotties-harvard-dot.s-edu> 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's not a doctor of anything but he does - believe it or not - have
an E.E degree.
Jim Thompson
>"Kevin Aylward" <salesE...@anasoft.co.uk> wrote in message news:<%QJld.12051$P7.1...@fe2.news.blueyonder.co.uk>...
>> >
>> > 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.
>>
>
> No argument there. You have to apply a voltage to
>induce a current flow. You should write a book!
>
>
[snip]
Forcing a current doesn't induce a voltage ?:-)
ChrisGibboGibson
[snip]
>Forcing a current doesn't induce a voltage ?:-)
>
In a superconducting inductor?
Gibbo
Guy Macon
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. Faraday was self-taught and had never
mastered mathematics, but (unlike the case with a certain bigot
here who regularly flames the self-taught) this didn't stop
Maxwell from learning from Faraday's work.
I thus conclude that it is meaningless to claim that a voltage
"causes" a current or that a current "causes" a voltage. One
might as well claim that it resistance "causes" voltage and that
conductance "causes" current.
Ken Smith
Guy Macon <http://www.guymacon.com> wrote:
[...]
>I thus conclude that it is meaningless to claim that a voltage
>"causes" a current or that a current "causes" a voltage. One
>might as well claim that it resistance "causes" voltage and that
>conductance "causes" current.
Everything can be explained as the actions of invisible magic unicorns.
They cause the digits to appear on your DVM and fool you into thinking
that there is a voltage and a current. In fact neither exist.
The universe was formed some 15E9 years ago so we know that no voltages or
currents have been around longer than that. This sets a lower limit on
the frequency and hence the energy of the photons that are the real story.
Paul Burridge
> No argument there. You have to apply a voltage to
>induce a current flow. You should write a book!
Erm, no. You could just induce a magnetic field...
Rich The Philosophizer
Nah. Can't break even either. Can't even quit the game. You're damned
if you do, and damned if you don't.
For these times, when you're at a crossroads of life, and the signs
all say, "STOP" "DO NOT ENTER" "NO RIGHT TURN" "NO LEFT TURN" "NO
U-TURN" "NO PARKING" and "Do Not Back Up, Sever Tire Damage!", I
always fall back on the short-form Serenity Prayer:
"Fuck it."
;^j
Rich
Rich The Philosophizer
> On 14 Nov 2004 14:36:54 -0800, radi...@aol.com (Dr. Slick) wrote:
>
>>"Kevin Aylward" <salesE...@anasoft.co.uk> wrote in message news:<%QJld.12051$P7.1...@fe2.news.blueyonder.co.uk>...
>>> >
>>> > 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.
>>>
>>
>> No argument there. You have to apply a voltage to
>>induce a current flow. You should write a book!
>>
>>
> [snip]
>
> Forcing a current doesn't induce a voltage ?:-)
>
Force and Voltage are nothing but a difference in potential.
Current is merely the rate of flow.
To induce it, you need movement of The Magnetic Line Of
Force. (this is also the origin of one of the 6th/7th
dimensionalities so far.)
;^j
Rich
Rich The Philosophizer
>
> 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
Kevin Aylward
> 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. Faraday was self-taught and had never
> mastered mathematics, but (unlike the case with a certain bigot
> here who regularly flames the self-taught) this didn't stop
> Maxwell from learning from Faraday's work.
Things are way different now. A country bumpkin will never contribute to
physics today. Its way to advanced.
>
> I thus conclude that it is meaningless to claim that a voltage
> "causes" a current or that a current "causes" a voltage. One
> might as well claim that it resistance "causes" voltage and that
> conductance "causes" current.
Yes, in the *bigger* scheme of things, its all arbitrary models, but
this discussion is at an engineering level, and at that level the
"correct" model of a transistor is as a voltage controlled device. One
has to draw a line somewhere in treating somthing as relativly "correct"
and something else as relativly "wrong".
If we *want* to get into the bigger philosophical picture, then electric
and magnetic field are both fictitious, That is they cannot possibly be
physically real. This is because Relativity shows that, for example, a
magnetic field is simply an electric field viewed from a different frame
of reference. How is it possible of a real object to actually cease to
exit and then re-exist, just because of the observers change in motion?
What is considered the real object in E&M is the Electromagnetic field
tensor. This is an object that is frame independent. Real objects in
physics are considered to be frame invariant.
Kevin Aylward
> "Kevin Aylward" <salesE...@anasoft.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:<%QJld.12051$P7.1...@fe2.news.blueyonder.co.uk>...
>>>
>>> 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.
>>
>
> No argument there. You have to apply a voltage to
> induce a current flow. You should write a book!
>
>
>
>>
>>>
>>> But you talk about the "Beta current gain factor" as
>>> (delta Collector current)/(delta base current), and they
>>> don't describe FETs like this.
>>>
>>> However, you are correct that "gm" or "transconductance"
>>> can be either dIdrain/dVgate or dIc/dVbe.
>>
>> Trying to teach your grandpa to suck eggs I see.
>>
>
> I'll teach yo' momma to suck THIS!
>
>
>
>
>
>>>
>>> The point is that MOSFETs have far less gate current
>>> than do BJTs have base current.
>>
>> Then this is what should be said. This base current controlled
>> nonsense is fundamentally incorrect, and leads to much confusion. A
>> bipolar transistor is a voltage controlled device that just happens
>> to have a non-linear resistance strapped across it.
>>
>
>
> 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
>
>
> http://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scots_Guide/info/comp/active/BiPolar/bpcur.html
Note the nice graphs on
http://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scots_Guide/info/comp/active/BiPolar/page2.html
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...
>
> And this is one you need to read too:
>
> http://www.americanmicrosemi.com/tutorials/mosfets.htm
>
>
You out of your depth mate.
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
> >
> > 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
> "Kevin Aylward" <salesE...@anasoft.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:<pSYld.15339$P7.1...@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.
Rich The Philosophizer
> Dr. Slick wrote:
>> "Kevin Aylward" <salesE...@anasoft.co.uk> wrote in message
>> news:<pSYld.15339$P7.1...@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
Kevin Aylward
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.
Paul Burridge
<nu...@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. ;->
Active8
> 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
Yes. v = L.di/dt :0
--
Best Regards,
Mike
Active8
> On Tue, 16 Nov 2004 08:08:13 GMT, Rich The Philosophizer
> <nu...@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
lemonjuice
>> "Kevin Aylward" <salesE...@anasoft.co.uk> wrote in message
>> news:<Nftld.9823$P7....@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.
lemonjuice
Active8
> "Kevin Aylward" <salesE...@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
Kevin Aylward
> "Kevin Aylward" <salesE...@anasoft.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>> "Kevin Aylward" <salesE...@anasoft.co.uk> wrote in message
>>> news:<Nftld.9823$P7....@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. And your point would be,
other that trolling?
>> 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.
> 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.
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.
>>
>
>
>> 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.
> 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?
lemonjuice
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
Yeah, I know. Interestingly, it doesn't amaze me any more.
Thanks!
Rich
Rich The Philosophizer
> On Tue, 16 Nov 2004 08:08:13 GMT, Rich The Philosophizer
> <nu...@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
You did. You were attempting to take me to task for only stating that a
bipolar was voltage controlled and introduced another method of
controlling the current, to wit your comment on diffusion current.
>> And your point would be,
>> other that trolling?
> You sound more of a troll by stating inaccuracies
And what inaccuracies would these have been?
>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...
Indeed.
>
>>
>>>> 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 .
ROTHLMAO
Oh dear, you never read my tutorials then, The one that covers the Early
effect. http://www.anasoft.co.uk/EE/bipolardesign1/bipolardesign1.html.
Hint, see the Avmax=Va/Vt
Maybe you should have a look at my BipolerOutputCharacteristics.sss SS
example as well.
Like, I've wrote a spice tool and you troll away that I don't know the
basics of transistors, in addition to being a pro analogue designer for
25 years. Get real sonny boy. Tell, me how do you think I implemented
this http://www.anasoft.co.uk/DeviceDesigner.html Hint: it requires the
full implementation of the BSim3 model in my GUI?
I don't know who you are. Lemonjice is new to me, but its is always
amusing to see these newbies pop up that don't my technical record in
the NG (10,00 postings) over the last 6 years or so. Yes, I am an
arrogant bastard, but technically, no one ever defeats me. Period.
But I welcome every opportunity that allows me to post a link to my SS
site, so please do continue to make inferences that I am not the full
shilling, and I will be compeled to refute such inferences by more
postings to my SUPERSPICE site, http://www.anasoft.co.uk/
> I can't teach you what your school didnt . Enroll for night classes or
> shut up. LOL
Again, see above. You must be laughing at yourself.
>>>
>>>> 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.
Again, ROTFLMAO. You out of your depth. If you think that you are goanna
convince anyone that I am technically inept, it a no contest. You should
stick to the Kevin's an arrogant bastard, you might have more success
with that one.
And, oh goody, another excuse for me to post a link to my web pages that
have AnaSoft on them oh joy. You will see from my papers on General
Relativity, http://www.anasoft.co.uk/physics/gr/index.html, that I am
well aquainted with the geometrical properties of the earth.
> 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
You mean giving correct technical information is not useful?
Unfortunately, many don't take being wrong well. That's not my problem.
> ... or you talk intelligently or shut up.
Once you ID something that I have said that is not intelligent, feel
free to repeat your request. Of course, I will freely ignore it.
Dr. Slick
>
> > 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
> >
> > 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
Look in the mirror, butt-fuck...
S.
Kevin Aylward
> "Kevin Aylward" <salesE...@anasoft.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:<%8imd.22752$P7.1...@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?
Active8
> "Kevin Aylward" <salesE...@anasoft.co.uk> wrote in message news:<%8imd.22752$P7.1...@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
Active8
>
> We all know your trolling now.
>
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
Kevin Aylward
> 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.
lemonjuice
>Kevin Aylward" <salesE...@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
>
> 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.
Dr. Slick
> >>
> >
> > 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
Ib is not part of that equation and therefor won't turn up in the
derivative, troll.
--
Best Regards,
Mike
lemonjuice
wrote:
mmmm
I don't remember what the ideal diode equation is ... but i seem to
remember that a simplified model of a transistor consists of looking at
it like 2 diodes.
so the 2 ideal diodes equation would be something like ...
Ib = Ic - Ie
Ic ~ f(Vbe, Vbc,T) Ie ~ g(Vbe,Vbc,T) f and g are continous
functions so it'd seem d Ib/d Vbe exists
Kevin Aylward
> On Thu, 18 Nov 2004 05:14:06 -0500, Active8 <reply...@ndbbm.net>
> wrote:
>
>> On 17 Nov 2004 13:05:02 -0800, Dr. Slick wrote:
>>
>>> Active8 <reply...@ndbbm.net> wrote in message
> news:<jls7pvft...@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.
>
> mmmm
> I don't remember what the ideal diode equation is ...
ROTFLMAO
> but i seem to
> remember that a simplified model of a transistor consists of looking
> at it like 2 diodes.
> so the 2 ideal diodes equation would be something like ...
> Ib = Ic - Ie
> Ic ~ f(Vbe, Vbc,T) Ie ~ g(Vbe,Vbc,T) f and g are continous
> functions so it'd seem d Ib/d Vbe exists
The first order simplified model sets Ic=Ie
lemonjuice
LOL what an accurate model ... 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
SO Ib = Ic - Ie
Ic ~ f(Vbe, Vbc,T) Ie ~ g(Vbe,Vbc,T) f and g are continous
functions seem d Ib/d Vbe exists .
BTW d Ib /d Vbe d ....is the derivative of Ib with respect to Vbe. LOL
Dr. Slick
> >>>
> >>> 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.
Active8
>>On Thu, 18 Nov 2004 17:36:18 GMT, "Kevin Aylward"
> <salesE...@anasoft.co.uk> wrote:
>>lemonjuice wrote:
>
>>> mmmm
>>> I don't remember what the ideal diode equation is ...
>>
>>ROTFLMAO
>>The first order simplified model sets Ic=Ie
>
> LOL what an accurate model ...
Hey moron. Even if Ib was as high as 1/20th of Ic, it's pretty
insignificant for all practical puposes. Before you blab off again,
consider that a bias net impedance of 1/10 Zin (and thus a bias
current of 10X Ib) is considered a "stiff" current source.
> 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.
If you look at the book, you'll see the diode equation is rewritten
as
Ic = Io(exp(Vbe/Vt) - 1)
So Win is also saying that Ic = Ie - look closely... he's set Ic as
a function of Vbe. :P
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.
> SO Ib = Ic - Ie
> Ic ~ f(Vbe, Vbc,T) Ie ~ g(Vbe,Vbc,T) f and g are continous
> functions seem d Ib/d Vbe exists .
> BTW d Ib /d Vbe d ....is the derivative of Ib with respect to Vbe. LOL
Id = Io(exp(Vbe/Vt) - 1)
Look! No Ib! I can't get d(Ib)/dVbe from it.
--
Best Regards,
Mike
Active8
Another blabber mouth who hasn't read up on Ebers-Moll.
--
Best Regards,
Mike
Kevin Aylward
In works quite well for many applcations.
>... yeah I heard its called the Kaylwards
> model or something similar
Don't be daft. Its a standard approximation, i.e the collector current
equals the emitter current. Its usually accurate to 1%. This compares
well with 5% and 2% standard resisters.
>... 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
> SO Ib = Ic - Ie
Yes more accurate models do this this. And your point would be?
> Ic ~ f(Vbe, Vbc,T) Ie ~ g(Vbe,Vbc,T) f and g are continous
> functions seem d Ib/d Vbe exists .
> BTW d Ib /d Vbe d ....is the derivative of Ib with respect to Vbe. LOL
Its obvious you are a clueless amateur, now go away sonny boy.
Kevin Aylward
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...
lemonjuice
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. :P
Win says Ic ~ Ie. Section 2.11 ... So don't lie. He's even got a
nice graph of Ib versus Vbe that proves Ib isn't as insignificant as
you claim. 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.
>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.
Figure 2.32 in the "Art of Electronics" has a nice picture of the
lemonjuice
<salesE...@anasoft.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> Ic ~ f(Vbe, Vbc,T) Ie ~ g(Vbe,Vbc,T) f and g are continous
>> functions seem d Ib/d Vbe exists .
>> BTW d Ib /d Vbe d ....is the derivative of Ib with respect to Vbe.
LOL
>
>Its obvious you are a clueless amateur, now go away sonny boy.
>
Oh its your only hope in life now. LOL
lemonjuice
Kevin Aylward
> On Fri, 19 Nov 2004 07:06:00 -0500, Active8 <reply...@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. :P
>
> 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.
Active8
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
Active8
> 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
> 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
> lemonjuice wrote:
>> On Fri, 19 Nov 2004 07:06:00 -0500, Active8 <reply...@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. :P
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
lemonjuice
Polish up on both and maybe I'll waste a few minutes with you again. LOL
lemonjuice
<salesE...@anasoft.co.uk> wrote:
>lemonjuice wrote:
>> On Fri, 19 Nov 2004 07:06:00 -0500, Active8 <reply...@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. :P
>>
>> 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.
>
Dr. Slick
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Hint: take the derivative of the ideal
> >>>>> diode equation with respect to Vbe.
> >
> >
> > 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?
I'm talking conventional current flow, dumbass,
as in current flowing INTO the base and out through
the emitter.
Read the basics, dumbfuck.
Slick
Kevin Aylward
> "Kevin Aylward" <salesE...@anasoft.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:<Dlmnd.10775$Y7....@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
Dr. Slick
> >
> > 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.
>
And your "papers" are also fiction.
> > 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.
>
DUhh! Can you say, "Current Gain"? As in beta?
> >
> > Read the basics, dumbfuck.
> >
> You are so clueless its unreal.
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?
I think this website might help
you with your problem, Kevin:
http://www.impotence.org/confront/index.asp
I hope you find this informative and
helpful!
Slick
Kevin Aylward
> "Kevin Aylward" <salesE...@anasoft.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:<6cCnd.18643$Y7....@fe1.news.blueyonder.co.uk>...
>>>
>>> Are you talking about electron current flow?
>>
>> Dont care. It can be electrons or holes.
>>
>>>
>>> I'm talking conventional current flow, dumbass,
>>
>> Conventional current flow is fictional.
>>
>
> And your "papers" are also fiction.
Well they correct your trivial misunderstandings. Like, the base current
is the relevant current in the diode equation. Yeah right on. You put
your foot right in it that time.
>
>
>
>>> as in current flowing INTO the base and out through
>>> the emitter.
>>
>> This current is say, only 1/100 of the current going across the base
>> emmiter diode junction.
>>
>
> DUhh! Can you say, "Current Gain"? As in beta?
I was keeping it simple, just for you. Those as technically illiterate
as you cant handle algebra, so I just used a number instead.
>
>
>
>>>
>>> Read the basics, dumbfuck.
>>>
>> You are so clueless its unreal.
>
>
> Bottom line: there is an equation
> expressing Ibase as a function of Vbe.
> Do you know what it is? Or do i have to
> post it?
Ib = area.(ibe1/BF + ibe2/BR + ibe2)
Ic = area.(ibe1/Kqb-Ibc1/kqb - ibc1/BR -ibc2)
ibe1 = is.(exp(Vbe/NF.Vt) - 1)
ibe2 = ise.(exp(Vbe/NE.Vt) - 1)
ibc1 = is.(exp(Vbc/NR.Vt) - 1)
ibc2 = isc.(exp(Vbc/NC.Vt) - 1)
Kqb = Kq1.(1 + sqrt(1+4.Kq2))/2
Kq1 = 1/(1-Vbc/Vaf - Vbe/Var)
Kq2 = ibe1/IKF + ibc2/IKR
is = area.iss.(exp(Vjs/NS.Vt) - 1)
None of this means that base current controls the collector current.
Indeed, the hfe equations are empirical fudge factors in spice.
Look, you daft twat, like I have wrote 100,000 lines of a Spice
simulator and you think that you know more than me on this subject? All
your doing is proving to everyone what a right f*$%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.
Dr. Slick
>
> 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.
Even your own "papers for wiping your ass"
use beta or current gain!
Talk about fucking yourself in the arse!
> >
> > 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!
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.
Think about it, dumbshit.
Guess what? We don't disagree
as much as you would like!
> 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. And then incorrectly
used the equations because you don't really
understand them.
Read the basics Bitch.
Now go play with your dildo.
Slick
Active8
> "Kevin Aylward" <salesE...@anasoft.co.uk> wrote in message news:<VYhod.19283$08.1...@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
Kevin Aylward
> "Kevin Aylward" <salesE...@anasoft.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:<VYhod.19283$08.1...@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.