And the ones before.
I never said I proved it. You should read more carefully.
Facts and truths, proof positive. Correct charts, correct math, correct simulations. All in excellent agreement, all consistent, all bulletproof. You've done nothing to show otherwise.
Glad you see the light.
Not the Fairchild data sheet.
I never said I proved it. You should read more carefully.
In post #395 you wrote "We presented simulaitons and proof." sic
But not proven until Jony130 did so.
With the Jony130 proof.
My friend, if i may call you that, as i can put this as gently as possible...
you dont seem to understand transistor action in its entirety, only partly as you have demonstrated repeatedly.
I had hoped to help you to understand a bit more, but you insist on ignoring the facts and presentations by myself and others
You can not seem to get the idea out of your head that the transistor only works the way you see it to work in spite of three knowledgeable people providing you with an abundance of information to the contrary.
At the very least, you should acknowledge that ANY three terminal element has N modes of operation, where you can control the element in a number of ways (i think it is 6 in total, lets see, be, bc, ce, and their reverses and that's only for voltage).
In other words, treat the transistor as a black box with three terminals and FORGET anything else you were told in the past.
You have to realize also that *we* understand every point *you* have presented so far,
but you have yet to understand one simple and straightforward point: that the transistor can be controlled, at least to some degree, by varying it's collector current and NOTHING else. It doesnt matter if its in saturation for not, for the third time i say this now! Forget about it. Assume sat if you wish, assume active if that suites you better, take your pic, the collector current still controls!
That's it. Either you understand somehow, someday, that the transistor can be controlled from its collector current or you never do. Do us a favor and take a pick or flip a coin.
I've seen this happen many times before with other electrical issues, and it takes a bit of time to sit back and think about it and that's when it becomes more clear.
So are you willing to try to understand how the transistor can be controlled from its collector current, or are you going to argue against this indefinitely, despite all facts to the contrary?
All the other charts, equations, sumlations, etc.
We presented simulaitons and proof." sic Thanks for making my poin
Proven many times and in many ways. Correct charts, correct math, correct simulations. All in excellent agreement, all consistent, all bulletproof. You've done nothing to show otherwise. And you never will.
I prefer Jack Daniels, 80 proof.
They were discredited by the Fairchild data sheet, until Jony130 proved it wrong.
So the "we" included you. You did try to prove Vce increased enough with Ic's increase while in saturation. The Fairchild data contradicted you, so you did not succeed. Jony130 did.
Proven once by a good data chart provided by Jony130. You are right, I cannot disprove the data given by that good ON data sheet, and I never will.
That's the dumbest, illogical thing I've ever heard in my life. It was wrong and irrelevant: it cannot discredit anything
I never said I wasn't included. You're taking more nonsense. It was wrong and irrelevant: it cannot discredit anything. So you make the same dumb comment twice, makes it twice as dumb.
Proven many times and in many ways. Correct charts, correct math, correct simulations. All in excellent agreement, all consistent, all bulletproof. You've done nothing to show otherwise. And you never will.
But until Jony130 showed it wrong, we did not know it was wrong. So it was logical to assume it was right. There is a time sequence of events involved.
On post #399 you said "I never said I proved it. You should read more carefully." So did you try to prove it?
Proven once by a good data chart provided by Jony130. You are right, I cannot disprove the data given by that good ON data sheet, and I never will.
Yes "we" can. And to be honest it is not so hart do to.Can you construct the curves shown in fig. 16 of the ON data sheet from the Ic vs Vce? Show us how if you can.
MrAl,
Yes, and you can move the steering wheel by twisting the tires when the car is on a hoist. But who does that except a mechanic?
You dont really have to forget, you simply have to take a fresh look at it, as you do with any black box.There are many ways to model a transistor, but forgetting something is not my style.
That's just the opposite. You can change one without the other. That's why i mentioned the black box and taking a fresh look at this. The key word there too is "usually". That's right, usually you do assume Ib has the control, but in this case it doesnt. Ic has control, and if you look at it as a black box you can possibly get control in other ways too.It is a matter of perspective and the region of operation. Sure, there is a one to one correspondence between, say Ib and Ic in the active region. You cannot change one without the other. But it is usually assumed that in the active region, Ib is the functional control.
Yes "we" can. And to be honest it is not so hart do to.
And I can not understand why Ic vs Vce curve was no enough for you to admit that Ic current may cause BJT to come out of saturation.
The transistor is not a car. The transistor is an electronic component. Strange though, you seem to say that no one would want to move the steering wheel that way yet you mention at least one person that would anyway. Which is it?
You dont really have to forget, you simply have to take a fresh look at it, as you do with any black box.
That's just the opposite. You can change one without the other. That's why i mentioned the black box and taking a fresh look at this. The key word there too is "usually". That's right, usually you do assume Ib has the control, but in this case it doesnt. Ic has control, and if you look at it as a black box you can possibly get control in other ways too.
That's just the opposite. You can change one without the other. That's why i mentioned the black box and taking a fresh look at this. The key word there too is "usually". That's right, usually you do assume Ib has the control, but in this case it doesnt. Ic has control, and if you look at it as a black box you can possibly get control in other ways too.
Look at it like this:
I present you with a *new* device, *not* a transistor, but it too has three leads. That means we can measure three voltages 'across' and three currents 'through' the device. If we call the voltages v1, v2, and v3, and the currents i1, i2, and i3, we can relate one parameter to the other two algebraically as either of:
v1=v2+v3
v2=v1+v3
v3=v1+v2
and
i1=i2+i3
i2=i1+i3
i3=i1+i2
which means we can control at least one parameter with the other two, and and there are other relationships too if we can establish some inter-terminal resistances, which means some of the currents might depend on some of the voltages, or vice versa.
There could also be internal amplification, which would mean that perhaps v3 for example depended on v2 times a constant like A. Thus, v3=v2*A, and that means other things are possible too.
What this all means is that a three terminal device is a much more complex device that needs to be looked at very carefully, and what is more is that we can not assume that one terminal is the only terminal that can control something else about the device unless the device, under test, proves this to be true.
Let me describe another type of device, which i wont say what it is yet, but we will mark the terminals the same as a transistor, b, c, and e, but those are only letters this time. Thus lead 1 is marked 'b', lead 2 marked 'c', and lead 3 marked 'e'. Now i wont specify what kind of device this is yet, just a few measurements.
Ok, so now we have our new device which we'll call the bce device, and to make it a little simpler we'll connect the 'e' terminal to ground, 0v. Next we measure 1ma flowing into the 'b' terminal from a current generator we have set up to pump 1ma into the 'b' terminal. Next we measure 10ma flowing into the 'c' terminal from another different current generator. Next we measure across the 'c' and 'e' terminals and we measure 0.15 volts. Next we increase the current generator connected to the 'c' terminal to 200ma, and we note that the only thing that changed was the voltage between 'c' and 'e', as it went up to 9.6 volts. Thus, when we increased the current into the 'c' terminal we saw the 'c' to 'e' voltage rise by 9.45 volts, from 0.15 to 9.6 volts.
Any problem with this so far?
Here's yet another 3 terminal device:
Ground the 'e' terminal, pump 1ma into the 'b' terminal, pump 10ma into the 'c' terminal,
measure 150mv between the 'c' terminal and the 'e' terminal. Increase the current into the
'c' terminal to 200ma, measure 2.86 volts from 'c' to 'e' terminals.
Any problem with that?
Any problem with either of these two devices?
Thats becaues Ic-Vce curve don't come from the same manufacture.Some of the points between the two curves do not synchonize, and the final Ic-Vce curve does not match what the manufacturer shows
Because we use the simulation model for 2N4401 I plot Ic = f (Vce) for Ib=const in LTspice (see attached curve)So can you show me how you get 120 ma?
Why to use simulation for such a simple calculation?Another question, did you calculate the 30ma/µs, or did you get it from the simulation?
**broken link removed**That Ic vs Vce is a beautiful graph. Where did you find it? Most of the data sheets don't even have a Ic vs Vbe graph
Thats becaues Ic-Vce curve don't come from the same manufacture.
The collector saturation region come from ON semi and Ic-Vce form Rohm.
Because we use the simulation model for 2N4401 I plot Ic = f (Vce) for Ib=const in LTspice (see attached curve)
And from Ic-Vce curve plot by LTspice it's clearly to see why in LTspice current stop increase when he reache 120mA.
And of course if we change IB then Ic current will stop increases by a different value of a Ic current (see attached file).
Why to use simulation for such a simple calculation?
I think that everyone knows this equation:
V = L * dI/dt so for constant voltage in the inductor equation look like this
V = L *ΔI/Δt
So if we want to know the rate of current change (dI/dt) in amps per second we simple calculate:
ΔI/Δt = V/L = 3V/100µH = 30KA/s = 30mA/µs
MrAl,
No problem comprehending the operating points of either of those two circuits.
Ratch
Oh ok, good, then you have no problem with understanding that with those two different circuits when we increase the current through the c to e terminals (current control) we get a rise in voltage between c and e also in BOTH of those circuits. So why then do you have a problem with the transistor where we increase Ic (current control, almost the same as Ice) and see an increase in Vce, as that is a three terminal device too?
I just dont see how you can understand TWO devices that have an increase in Ice and Vce increases, yet with the TRANSISTOR when we increase Ice and get an increase in Vce you dont understand how that can happen?
I'd really like to know how and why you see the transistor as different than the other two devices. Care to explain?
Ok somehow you're still talking about saturation, but that's ok i guess. So now you agree that the transistor can be Ic controlled (ie current controlled) like those other two circuits i posted that also have three terminals?
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?