I said before, I am not ignoring or disregarding Ie. But if Vbe controls Ic, it also controls Ie, because Ie and Ic and proportional to each other.Ie is a controlling variable, not a controlled one. Ie controls Ic, not the other way round. In transistors, all signals are important. To ignore any signal, as in ignoring Ie, is a brain dead argument.
One could say you are repetitive too.I didn't threaten to report you. You're only answer to the monumental amount of information that has been presented here is to just write the same flawed verse over and over and over. That's just spamming.
What you think it is, anyway. I gave you my explanation, even if you reject it.What we know goes on. We've given you the causal view. You've given us nothing.
That is your conclusion.Until you do, you don't know enough to discuss it intelligently.
But if Vbe controls Ic, it also controls Ie, because Ie and Ic and proportional to each other.
One could say you are repetitive too.
What I've proven. You’ve given no explanation. You’ve not treated causality that you harp on and on about.What you think it is, anyway. I gave you my explanation, even if you reject it.
That is your conclusion.
Actually, there is consensus. At least five experienced, knowledgable people support the CC model. I don't care what anyone thinks is the answer. But we have smart, experienced people here, and I'm signing on with them
This is like the blind leading the blind this thread.
The mathematical model that works well and is known best does not describe the atomic interactions directly, regardless of how well it works in practice. The Navy is teaching weapons to push buttons and run warships not allow a greater understanding of the fundamental nature of reality to filter into it's ranks.
I tried to argue back a ways that in zero time an instantaneous moment, current can't flow, there can only be an electric field which is the proof that it's the electric field, the voltage between two points that actually controls the semi conductors state. Problem is, I don't understand the math or quantum theory well enough to actually quote equations which would act as a proof.
Another problem though. No other user here can either, just quoting what we've heard or been taught verbatim, or throwing up a few 'known realities' from this or that scientific giant means nothing.
Nothing useful is occurring here aside from a few users arguing, quoting whatever fits their viewpoint with absolutely no regard for learning or understanding. It's like watching monkeys throw poop, and I feel tainted by it for adding comments even to the point I have.
I can be sure of one and only one thing, and that is that tot one single posted 'fact' in this thread means jack squat to the reality that is occurring which runs the devices that are at the point of contention. It'll keep going on without us understanding it, and we'll never quiet manage it.
But don't underestimate the critics. They can spin a tale like no one else can. I have to give them credit regarding that.
Hi again,
This probably wont help, but...
To get charge to flow, you have to have an electric field, but to get an electric field, you had to have assembled some charges, but to assemble some charges you have to have had an electric field, but to...
It was a dark and stormy night. The Captain said, "John, tell us a story", so John began..."It was a dark and stormy night, the Captain said, 'John, tell us a story', so John began...It was a dark and stormy night, the Captain said 'John, tell us a story', so John began...It was a...
Proportional because Ie controls Ic.
Those who support CC have put in the effort to get it right. We've given you complete analysis, including terminal equations, junction currents and charge analysis, and recicprocity, amongst many other analysis and physical explanations. You have nothing but rote recitation of the same discredited verse.
What I've proven. You’ve given no explanation. You’ve not treated causality that you harp on and on about.
It's self evident.
Actually, there is consensus. At least five experienced, knowledgable people support the CC model. I don't care what anyone thinks is the answer. But we have smart, experienced people here, and I'm signing on with them
The US Navy seems to agree with you as well. Transistor Amplifiers
A vacuum-tube amplifier is also a current-control device. The grid bias controls the plate current.
The whole secret to understanding amplifiers is to remember that fact. Current control is the name of the game.
But one member claims, as well as you, that internally Vbe is the ultimate control variable. First of all, the argument is a bit far fetched right on its face. Ib/Vbe/Ie are all both external & internal values. Current is continuous. Electrons injected into the emitter transit through said emitter, & so on. Vbe is also external as well, but when charges transit into the terminals, voltages appear internally. So how can anyone say "CC externally, but VC internally"?
As far as the state of the bjt goes, freezing time does not zero out the currents. If charge is q, then dq/dt = i = current. The current, by definition, is the time derivative of the charge. If we look at an instant in time, do we only see charges, not currents? The instantaneous rate of change is the current. What an argument! If we freeze time, the charges are still, meaning no current, but the voltage remains due to charge separation. Thus voltage is still present but current vanishes!
But don't forget, that voltage is defined in terms of transport, or motion. The voltage between 2 points a & b, is by definition, the energy per unit charge expended transporting said charge from a to b. Hence, if we freeze time, & disallow mention of the past & future, then voltage has no meaning either. At an instant frozen in time, all charges are in fixed locations. To say that a voltage still exists is acknowledging time & motion. Between 2 plates of a charged up cap, there is an E field. In frozen time, what does this mean? It means that a small charge, too small to influence the E field magnitude, would accelerate towards 1 of the plates. Thus voltage has no meaning & is undefined for frozen time frames.
Every time, the critics present an argument as to why Vbe should be treated as the control variable, it does not withstand scrutiny. So another argument gets presented. It was originally offered, that Ie/Ib are consequential, w/ Vbe being the cause. But anyone w/ a scope & current & voltage probes can easily demonstrate that Vbe lags behing Ib/Ie in time. Also, it takes energy to establish and/or change an E field value. Energy over time is power, which is the product of I & V. Conservation of energy demands that Ib/Vbe/Ie must be all non-zero in order to change a bjt state.
So, another straw is being grasped at. In frozen time, the charges are all still. Meaning, Ib/Ie ceases to exist, but Vbe still exists due to charge separation. Another problem is that Ic vanishes as well. You claim that Vbe must be what is controlling Ic, because Ib/Ie cannot exist in a frozen time reference frame. But the quantity being controlled, Ic, vanishes as well. Wow! Frozen time! So by freezing time, moving objects become still. So what happens to the energy & momentum, which by law, must be conserved. They exist in fluid time, but at every solitary instant they disappear???!!!
This time freeze argument is the best ever. This thread is comedic entertainment. Every time the critics put forth an argument, which is quickly refuted, they spin another tale, more fantastic & un-credible than the last. This frozen time frame argument will be very hard to top.
But don't underestimate the critics. They can spin a tale like no one else can. I have to give them credit regarding that.
To get charge to flow, you have to have an electric field, but to get an electric field, you had to have assembled some charges, but to assemble some charges you have to have had an electric field, but to...
Proportional because Ie is mostly Ic.
Yes, you have completely explained why, functionally speaking, a BJT is a CC device.
Yes, I have explained it. Remember the helmsman and rudder analogy?
A consensus does not constitute proof. There was a consensus at one time that every planetary body revolved around the Earth. There are also smart, experience people who don't think the same you do either.
MrAl,
I hope what you are saying is just a point for clarification, and not a reason for saying that causality cannot be determined. Yes, charge flow requires a voltage, and energy is exchanged and transferred when current exists. Voltage can be generated by the separation of charges like the Wimshurt machine does, or by magnetic means the way a dam generator works. That is not important.
What we are talking about is not about the cause and effect of current and voltage in a conductor. We are talking about what is the most basic control element in a BJT. I maintain that it is Vbe because both Ic,Ie,and Ib are intimately tied to it. It does not matter whether Vbe or Ib happen before or after eventwise, or whether the source supplying Vbe has to be able to supply the energy. It does not matter what occurs in Quantumland. The causality is what is really controlling the BJT, and that is Vbe. I will reiterate again that controlling Ib is the functional control of the transtor, and should always be used for design and calculation. But "under the hood" it is really Vbe that is calling the shots.
I illustrated my point earlier with a helmsman and rudder. The helmsman has functional control of the boat, but it is really the rudder that causes the boat to turn. That is what I mean by causality.
Ratch
Proportional because Ie controlls Ic. It doesn't work the other way round
Also why a BJT is a CC device at the junction level. There's actually more to explain, but as you're not getting it, I won't waste any more of my time.
Which has nothing to do with BJT operation. You've utterly failed to explain aything about BJT's.
I never claimed that it did. But the proof is in the details we've posted.
MrAl,
I hope what you are saying is just a point for clarification, and not a reason for saying that causality cannot be determined. Yes, charge flow requires a voltage, and energy is exchanged and transferred when current exists. Voltage can be generated by the separation of charges like the Wimshurt machine does, or by magnetic means the way a dam generator works. That is not important.
What we are talking about is not about the cause and effect of current and voltage in a conductor. We are talking about what is the most basic control element in a BJT. I maintain that it is Vbe because both Ic,Ie,and Ib are intimately tied to it. It does not matter whether Vbe or Ib happen before or after eventwise, or whether the source supplying Vbe has to be able to supply the energy. It does not matter what occurs in Quantumland. The causality is what is really controlling the BJT, and that is Vbe. I will reiterate again that controlling Ib is the functional control of the transtor, and should always be used for design and calculation. But "under the hood" it is really Vbe that is calling the shots.
I illustrated my point earlier with a helmsman and rudder. The helmsman has functional control of the boat, but it is really the rudder that causes the boat to turn. That is what I mean by causality.
Ratch
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?