()blivion
Active Member
When we come up with conflicting theories for explaining a phenomenon, generally the "better" one wins ("wins" meaning "is accepted as the physical truth"). What I am saying is in this case neither theory is better, so there can be no one winner among them. With this in mind, when you claim "It is NOT the question if one or another principle is "better" or not." you are simply splitting hairs. The truth is as I said, neither principles are better, so neither (or both) can be physically correct as well.Winterstone said:It is NOT the question if one or another principle is "better" or not. The question is simply: What is the physical truth? And there can be only one answer.
So then, how do BJT's physically work?
As far as I know, (I could easily be slightly off), physically the volume{current} of minority charge carriers (which each have a potential{voltage}) moving through the E-B junction, induce an electric field{voltage} on the C-B junction. This induced field weakens what should be an impassable C-B depletion layer. This weakening allows majority charge carriers to pass from the emitter, past the base, into the collector... even though there is a reverse biased junction in that path.
Again...
It is the volume{current} of carriers, combined with the resistance to this carrier flow, that creates the accumulation of potential{voltage}. Thus the internal workings of the bjt transistor function on both voltage and current at the same time, as I have already said.
Of course I do, this is exactly why I say the two control methods simplify to the same thing. You cannot have a current flow through a load without voltage across it. Conversely, a load can not have a voltage across it without having a current going through it.Winterstone said:[Do] you think that a current can exist only if there is a driving voltage?
It isn't rocket science, this is basic Ohm's law we are talking about.
Last edited: