In sinusoidal operation, yes. But as I said before, I wanted to just consider the DC characteristics.
My focus is where the control circuit the control lies.
For transient and sinusoidal, yes. But I am talking only about steady state DC.Wrong. I leads E into capacitance for any signal, not only sinusoids.
And as I already explained, I agree with that. My focus in not on what is required, but where it resides. Remember driver vs rack and pinion?Control requires voltage and current. The terminal relationships are reciprocal and equal in importance, as already demonstrated.
For transient and sinusoidal, yes. But I am talking only about steady state DC.
And as I already explained, I agree with that. My focus in not on what is required, but where it resides. Remember driver vs rack and pinion?
Yes, true, but it complicates the discussion. The control point at AC should be applicable to DC.This discussion is about real transistors in real world applications. You won't find a text anywhere or any paper that restricts current control to steady state DC. Even steady state has a trun on at some point. Either way, if you want to discuss transistors, you must consider all signals that will be amplified.
You are still trying to discuss what happens, whereas I am focusing on where it happens. The driver or the rack and pinion, remember?Doesn't matter. Reciprosity proves current is equal as a controlling agent.
Yes, true, but it complicates the discussion. The control point at AC should be applicable to DC.
You are still trying to discuss what happens, whereas I am focusing on where it happens. The driver or the rack and pinion, remember?
Yes, and one type of signal is steady state DC.There's no complication at all. All electronics are concerned with signals, and to say it's too complicated is to say electronics is too complicated. It's not complicated, it's essential.
I used the steering analogy to illustrate my point. That is valid in a discussion. You are veering to what instead of where again.I couldn't give a damn about stearing. I'm talking about electronics. Where it happens is where voltage and current are reciprocal, proving current is just as important as voltage as a controlling agent.
Yes, and one type of signal is steady state DC.
I used the steering analogy to illustrate my point. That is valid in a discussion. You are veering to what instead of where again.
No so, it makes the discussion more complicated to discuss AC.So what? All signals are important. DC has a startup transient. You're making another trival argument and wasting time.
I don't deny that it is, but I am focusing on where the control is, not what the control is.I am proving that current is just as important as a controlling agent, and you're trying to avoid dealing with that, just as you're trying to avoid discussing signals. Once again, you're just avoiding reality because it proves your preconceived notions are wrong.
No so, it makes the discussion more complicated to discuss AC.
I don't deny that it is, but I am focusing on where the control is, not what the control is.
Yes, for me. Why complicate things?For you maybe. Not for me and certainly not for the experinced members. If you think it's complicated, then go back to school and we'll talk once you're prepared. In electronics, all signals are important. You just need to learn how to discuss them intelligently, and not run away from them. If you do your homework, it's very simple.
Control has a location. The question is where.I've treated what, where, how, why. This discussion is about control, not location. Your only focus is to keep moving the target to avoid having an intelligent discussion.
Yes, for me. Why complicate things?
Control has a location. The question is where.
No so, it makes the discussion more complicated to discuss AC.It's not complicated, but essential. In electronics, all signals are important.
And what happens at steady DC? Does not the Ic increase with Vbe?The answer is at the emitter-base junction where drift current is found. But more importantly, in the base region, where diffusion current gradient controls out the output current. Current at the junction has a reciprocal relationship with voltage, proving current is just as important as a controlling agent. Current located in the base, injected from the emitter, ultimately controls output current.
I just asked one. And what about the equations in Sedra & Smith? Or the answer from the prof from the U. of Colorado?There's you where, what how and why. Everything has been covered. Do you intend to go on for another 13 pages dodging, avoiding, sidestepping? Just stop now because all your questions have been answered.
No so, it makes the discussion more complicated to discuss AC.
And what happens at steady DC? Does not the Ic increase with Vbe?
I just asked one. And what about the equations in Sedra & Smith? Or the answer from the prof from the U. of Colorado?
The simple can prove me wrong just as well as the complicated.No it's simple. In electronics, all signals are important. You just don’t want to deal with anything that proves you wrong
And does not Vbe increase with Ic?Ic increases with IB and IE.
So they do, but no one designates Ic as controlling Vbe. One instead may say that Vbe controls Ic, although it is a bad design practice to do so directly.The equations in Sedra and Smith exhibit reciprocity.
True, but Ib controls Ic and Ic through Vce.The equations that give IC as a function of IB and IE don't require voltage as a controlling variable.
What you consider proof, anyway. True, the prof did not explain fully, but his answer proves that he at least thinks BJT is a voltage controlled device. That has to be given due consideration. And the credentials for Kevin Aylward, the other person I referenced are not be be ignored either.What about the prof? He made an unsubstantiated comment, we've given proof.
The simple can prove me wrong just as well as the complicated.
And does not Vbe increase with Ic?
So they do, but no one designates Ic as controlling Vbe. One instead may say that Vbe controls Ic, although it is a bad design practice to do so directly.
What you consider proof, anyway. True, the prof did not explain fully, but his answer proves that he at least thinks BJT is a voltage controlled device. That has to be given due consideration. And the credentials for Kevin Aylward, the other person I referenced are not be be ignored either.
I don't think so.The simple has proven you wrong.
Nonsense. No one tries to control Vbe with Ic. It is the other way around. Reciprocity is meaningless with respect to this point.Yes, through the principle of reciprocity, the equations for which has already been given. This proves that current is just as important in control as voltage.
And no one tries to control Vbe through Ic either. S&S gives the equations, but they never say one should control Vbe with Ic and Ie. As I said before about models, they do a great job for what I device will do, but not for how and why. Current is not the answer for why, voltage is.One may also say IC controls VBE through the principle of reciprocity, as already been discussed. Even S&S treats this, and the equations that give IC as a function of IB and IE don't require VBE. This is given in many texts including the afore mentioned Gray and Mayer. S&S isn't a text on device physics, and as such, isn't a complete treatment of the subject. G&M does better though it's not a devices text either. But the CC model is given, and is valid. I don't care if it's bad design practice; we are talking about what is the control. Current is the answer.
This is more than an engineering question. It is a theoretical question. In fact, Vbe has no place in design within the active region except to work around it and compensate. The linear relationship if Ib is to Ic is what works best for design. I never denied that. Both the prof and KA did not submit a extensive proof, but they did explain it a little. As I said before, just their opinions should be respected.In engineering, unsubstantiated opinions are useless. Engineering only cares about what can be proven. We've proven over and over that current is a control agent. The prof has proven nothing.
And he also worked in a few interesting places. I don't think I gave links to false information, just to different viewpoints. I never said false information before. My exact statement was "Bring them on. But I hope they can show me their reasoning, and not just throw out some links that only parrot the false viewpoint that has been published before." As far as I determine all the information was correct, but its interpretation differs.The credentials for Kevin Aylware are kind of a joke. He has attained a BS and a few grad courses. Many here have better creds. You said earlier that we better not just give a bunch of links to incorrect information, and that’s all you’ve had from the start.
Nonsense. No one tries to control Vbe with Ic. It is the other way around. Reciprocity is meaningless with respect to this point.
And no one tries to control Vbe through Ic either.
S&S gives the equations, but they never say one should control Vbe with Ic and Ie
As I said before about models, they do a great job for what I device will do, but not for how and why.
This is more than an engineering question. It is a theoretical question. In fact, Vbe has no place in design within the active region except to work around it and compensate. The linear relationship if Ib is to Ic is what works best for design. I never denied that.
I never denied that. Both the prof and KA did not submit a extensive proof, but they did explain it a little. As I said before, just their opinions should be respected.
And he also worked in a few interesting places.
I don't think I gave links to false information, just to different viewpoints. I never said false information before. My exact statement was "Bring them on. But I hope they can show me their reasoning, and not just throw out some links that only parrot the false viewpoint that has been published before."
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?