Winterstone
Banned
Winterstone:
Yes you are, now get to work or else you get graded with an "F" for this semester and i have to call your parents on the phone
Seriously though, you didnt want to do the original circuit and asked for a new circuit, and i provided one and you did not like that one either, so i provided another one with all the things you wanted and now you say you dont want to do it. Why even bother responding in this thread if you dont want to do the circuit posted in the thread? Start your own thread and do the circuit you want done then. It's that simple.
All:
See, as predicted there is still no analysis of the circuit i wanted to see (except by those who already had done so and didnt constantly complain about the circuit)
Sorry to say - you didn`t understand anything. Instead - you can answer in a polemic way only.
Several times I have stated that it does not matter if I "like" or "dislike" a circuit - and I have shown you what authors with excellent reputation think about the configuration as proposed by you ("disaster").
I have seen no reason to follow your desire and apply basic rules (Ohm`s law, KVL,..) to an unrealistic circuit.
By the way: what is the reason you want me to analyze "your circuits"? I am not in an examination!
There is no need to start my own thread because I have no problems (that means no open questions).
All I have tried up to now is to convince you that there are two commonly used bias schemes that work much more better than "your circuit".
And - in contrast to your statements - I have done a calculation (post#16).
However, you ignore every substantial answer - a very unfortunate discussion (better: exchange of opinions).
I will stop it now from my side.
Respectfully yours
Winterstone
A final remark: Why didn`t you comment the very informative contribution from Claude Abraham (post#73)?
Excerpts:
"The circuit in post #1 can never be employed, regardless of application, "
"Using Ib to control Ic is not good, because of beta variation. "
Last edited: