How does a transistor amplify current or voltage?

[Ratchit]

Brownout,

It's got nothing at all to do with being in the same equation. The fact that the relationship is reciprocal proves that current is a controlling agent, equal to voltage. In devices, the equations are more than just "two variables" They exhibit real physical reciprocity, observable at the device level as well at the atomic one. The fact, as I pointed out before, that the voltage at the junction depends on continuous injection of current proves that current is at least equal as a controlling agent ( a realtionship that does not hold in real voltage devices ). Neither you nor any of your experts every want to deal with this reality.

Reciprocity proves nothing in this case. We have Vbe and Ic. Surely you are not going to suggest that we are going to regard Ic as controlling Vbe.

You said the basic matches the advanced. Thus the basic E-M model correctly shows current control. I've already explained why and how.

From a functional standpoint yes, but not from a causal viewpoint.

The truth is in the theory that we've given you. All you have to do is learn it.

You did not explain why Vbe is not causal.

Irrelevant. We've explained the issues completely. You're rejection of reason and logic doesn't change that.

Your explanations focused mostly on the functional, not the causal.

Then take the time to understand. You're arguing from a position of admitted ignorance.

Not complete ignorance.

Meaningless statement.

Correct statement.

Oh yeah, the worlds' foremost expert on transistors, that nobody ever heard of before, who's greatest achievement was to get an A in a physics class. He should come to ETO, so we can give him a proper education.

If he would deal with the issues we've been dealing with, he might have something to go on. But you'll never hear any expert address anything beyond the rudimentary one-way exponential equations, because it goes against their cult-like belief.

And I don't think you addressed the causal relationship but instead concentrated the functional relationship instead.

Ratch

 

[Ratchit]

Mr. Al,

...and to exemplify that fact a little we can look at the Vbe and the Ib and note that there are a number of Vbe values that do not cause any change in Ic, ...

I don't think your statement is correct. If it is, then my Sedra and Smith are wrong and my viewpoint is incorrect.

Ratch

 

[Claude Abraham]

Ratchit, the "Vbe is causal" argument you keep re-iterating has been demolished wholesale. A cause must have an independent existance apart from the effect. Vbe does not. A cause must chronologically precede the effect. Vbe does not.

Everything semicon phy demonstrates makes it clear that the only real cause of anything is Sue the singer. Once the charge travels through the mic cable & reaches the bjt, Ib & Ie are immediately modified, followed by the space charge distribution, depletion width, & Vbe.

You present nothing whatsoever to support your case other than "Kevin as well as this prof said so". Do you plan on doing EE or physics for a career someday? If so, I can assure you that knowing how to do research is necesary to survive. Obtaining & using peer-reviewed info that has been verified scientifically is the only sound way of doing things.

Proclaiming that nearly everybody alive is wrong, & then putting forth theories that cannot be verified, fly in the face of known scientific laws, will get you nowhere. Is EE your livelihood, or just a hobby? You seem to get a rush telling EE's such as myself, how inadequate I am, my views are limited, my knowledge is limited, I don't know what is causal or consequential. Arguinh with you is pointless because you do not impose logic upon yourself. If what you preach is illogical, it doesn't matter to you.

What part of this statement is not clear to you:

The effect cannot precede its own cause? The cause must be able to exist w/o the effect.

How can anything other than Sue be the cause?

If you cannot address these questions, please do not reply with a smug "because I & KA & prof say so".

 

[Ratchit]

Claude,

Note the terms I emphasized in bold print. KA begins by declaring that diode voltage Vd is the cause of diode current Id. He then states that in a similar manner, bjt Ie is caused by Vbe. THen, of course, Ic is achieved via Vcb with Ib being a residue. Ultimately he concludes that Ic is caused by Vbe w/ Ie intermediate.

That is a very good summary of KA's assertion.

He assumes the very thing he attempts to "prove". He states that Vbe has more importance than Ie/Ib because Vbe is what he regards as "causal". As I stated before, the b-e & b-c junctions possess capacitance. For a fixed dc bias, & small ac signa, this cap is usually modeled as constant value w/ reasonable accuracy. For large signal operation, Cbe & Cbc are nonlinear, i.e. value changes w/ charge.

Yes, Vbe is a good choice for being the cause. If we are doing steady state DC, then the effects of capacitance go away, but Vbe is still there.

In order to change Vbe, currents Ib & Ie must pre-exist Vbe. What poart of "Eli the ice man" is giving you trouble Ratchit? You cannot "apply Vbe". Take a simple singer, mic, cable, & 1 stage bjt preamp. When Sue sings how does Vbe change? The mic diaphragn vibrates due to Sue being the "cause". Current & voltage, i.e. charge, travel through the mic cable. When this charge arrives at the mic preamp bjt b-e terminals, what happens?

ELI the iceman applies to AC. It does not apply to steady state DC.

COnduction continues. As charges enter base & emitter regions, Ie & Ib increase. The Vbe barrier has already been established with the dc bias circuit. These new added charges have energy imparted to them by Sue. THen as the charges diffuse/drift, they cross the b-e jcn. But since the number of charges, i.e. "current density", is increased, a larger population of charge carriers is stored at each side of the depletion zone. These charges take finite time to recombine - carrier lifetime. This additional accumulation of excess minority charge results in a change in the local E field, depletion width, & ultimately potential Vbe.

I think you have the tail wagging the dog. I believe that the Vbe voltage causes the Ib current to happen.

So you simply cannot "change Vbe, or apply Vbe" & claim the the change in Ie/Ib is merely "caused by Vbe". The changes in Ib/Ie take place due to Sue & chronologically precede the change in Vbe. Vbe is not "causing" Ib/Ie to change.

Certainly I can. Sedra and Smith show that.

In order to change the local E field & depletion width, a source of energy/work is needed. Vbe is not energy. Vbe is energy per unit charge LOST in crossing the junction. How can a bjt's Vbe be the energy source that changes E field, Ib/Ie, depletion width? Vbe is not an active energy source. Only Sue can provide said energy.

The increase in current is due to Sue. The increase in voltage at the mic element is also due to Sue. These increased quantities ultimately result in an increase in Ib/Ie/Ic & Vbe as well. In order to establish 1 specific entity as the cause, it must exist independently of its consequences. Ib/Vbe/Ie/Ic cannot exist independently of each other. Ie/Ib take place earlier in time than Vbe (change). A consequence cannot precede its cause.

Yes, Sue does change Vbe. She has a functional relationship with Vbe. Vbe has a causal relationship with Ic. Whether Ib or Ic take place before or after Vbe is irrelevant. That does not take away from Vbe being the cause of Ib and Ic and noted in Sedra and Smith.

But Sue is totally independent of all these quantites. If Sue turns off her mic, her singing still produces energy. She can proagate acoustic pressure waves w/o Ib/Vbe/Ie. Sue is what is causal.

Sue is not singing to the base emitter junction. Vbe is the causal element.

KA makes no attempt to explain how Vbe being the alleged cause of Ie/Ib, can respond to stimulus after Ib/Ie does. If the bjt was really VC, every semicon OEM would already know it. If Vbe was the cause of Ib/Ie, why do the semicon physics texts never mention it? This causal theory cannot withstand even a mild scrutiny. Several years ago I sent KA an email informing him what I just now stated. He never replied, & never printed my email on his site.

I don't think it matters as to causality what responds first or last. That is why I wanted to only consider steady state DC. Then precedence goes away. In the active region, each Ic has a particular value of Vbe and Ic also has a particular value of Vbe. Why don't you try again. Maybe he was too busy last time, and will respond this time.

KA has no use for peer review, he is only interested in stating his view of the world w/o any debate from anyone. Science does not advance that way. Causality is a mental block some just cannot overcome.

Yes, cause and effect is hard to shake off.

Ratch

 

[Ratchit]

Electrician,

Thanks for your contribution, which shows four viewpoints of transistor operation including the ones we have been debating. After listing the four ways of looking at transistor operation, the book says they are going to analyze the emitter-base control viewpoint, and the excess base charge viewpoint. This shows that the emitter base control viewpoint is alive and well, and not some flat earth theory some folks would have you believe.

Ratch

 

[Ratchit]

Claude,

Ratchit, the "Vbe is causal" argument you keep re-iterating has been demolished wholesale. A cause must have an independent existance apart from the effect. Vbe does not. A cause must chronologically precede the effect. Vbe does not.

No it has not been demolished. I don't believe that for a minute. The causal is what happens inside the BJT, the functional is what happens outside.

Everything semicon phy demonstrates makes it clear that the only real cause of anything is Sue the singer. Once the charge travels through the mic cable & reaches the bjt, Ib & Ie are immediately modified, followed by the space charge distribution, depletion width, & Vbe.

Both the manufacturers and you are looking at the functional relationship. That is fine and useful, but it is not the casual relationship.

You present nothing whatsoever to support your case other than "Kevin as well as this prof said so". Do you plan on doing EE or physics for a career someday? If so, I can assure you that knowing how to do research is necesary to survive. Obtaining & using peer-reviewed info that has been verified scientifically is the only sound way of doing things.

I presented my reasons why, even if you discount them. I only mentioned those two parties to show you that I did not come up with that viewpoint by myself. And that it was not a crackpot idea. No, I am retired. Not to derail the subject, but the climate scientists sponsored by the UN had their papers and reports peer reviewed. But it did not prevent errors from being propagated. I agree with peer review, but it is not the end all for everything.

Proclaiming that nearly everybody alive is wrong, & then putting forth theories that cannot be verified, fly in the face of known scientific laws, will get you nowhere. Is EE your livelihood, or just a hobby? You seem to get a rush telling EE's such as myself, how inadequate I am, my views are limited, my knowledge is limited, I don't know what is causal or consequential. Arguinh with you is pointless because you do not impose logic upon yourself. If what you preach is illogical, it doesn't matter to you.

I never said that everybody is wrong with respect to the functional aspects of current control. I said many times that it works. I only said I disagreed with you as to what is the casual factor. I never said that your functional knowledge is limited or incorrect. In fact, it was you who keep telling me that my viewpoint is incorrect, yet The Electrician submited material that shows my viewpoint is valid.

What part of this statement is not clear to you:

The effect cannot precede its own cause? The cause must be able to exist w/o the effect.

How can anything other than Sue be the cause?

I understand the statement perfectly. The problem lies with what is the lowest level of the cause. I believe the lowest level is Vbe. You don't. The Electrician's material says both viewpoints are valid.

If you cannot address these questions, please do not reply with a smug "because I & KA & prof say so".

As I said before, I realize they do not provide an extensive proof. But the very fact they subscribe to the idea shows that it is not crazy.

Ratch

 

[BrownOut]

Reciprocity proves nothing in this case. We have Vbe and Ic. Surely you are not going to suggest that we are going to regard Ic as controlling Vbe.

You're wrong again. You've conviently neglected Ie.

From a functional standpoint yes, but not from a causal viewpoint.

Yes, from a causal stand point, or else it wouldn't be constructed that way.

Not complete ignorance.

Ok, incomplete ignorance.

Correct statement.

Correct that it is meaningless.

You did not explain why Vbe is not causal.

Your explanations focused mostly on the functional, not the causal.

And I don't think you addressed the causal relationship but instead concentrated the functional relationship instead.

Same old copout from the same old dropout.

 

[MrAl]

Hello again,


Brownout:
You've made some very good points (difficult to quote every one of them) that are bringing us to a level where i think we can begin to understand what is REALLY going on and thus how to classify it. I think you're basic argument is that we have to choose one classification over the other because it is more in line with what is really happening. As a means to assist that end, i will offer one more analogy i hope everyone interested will consider at least briefly.


We all know what a CRT oscilloscope is, and we all know what a CRT television set is. What they have in common is that they both accelerate an electron that gets aimed at the screen and the goal is mainly to get that electron to travel in the correct trajectory so that it hits the screen at exactly some point. What differs between them however is exactly how they get that electron to change its direction of travel.
The scope uses an electrostatic principle, where a voltage is built up across the plates and that causes the deflection of the electron.
The TV however uses a magnetic principle, and that magnetic field requires a current to build up the field.
One clearly mostly depends on a buildup of voltage, the other clearly a buildup of current (and thus magnetic field).
It's not that the voltage buildup never requires any current, nor that they current buildup never requires voltage (surely accross the coils), but because the main characteristic that is assumed to cause the change in the path of the electron is voltage for one device and current for the other device, we would have to say that the deflection for one device is voltage controlled and the other device is current controlled. Of course one is electrostatic and one is electromagnetic, but if we have to state the cause of these two then we go with either voltage or current, but not both really.

Interesting is that the voltage requires a buildup of charge. From this point of view i have to wonder though if we have to say that everything is basically charge controlled.

 

[Claude Abraham]

Regarding "both viewpoints being valid", that does not infer causality. My eqns 1), 2), & 3) are all valid equations. Eqn 1) conveys the current gain of the device. Ic = beta*Ib informs us that that the current gain of the stage is limited to the current gain of the raw bjt device. Eqn 1) is very important.

Eqn 2) Ic = alpha*Ies*exp((Vbe/Vt)-1), conveys that the transconductance of the stage can never exceed that of the raw bjt device. A small signal change in Ic, i.e. "ic", requires a change in Ib/Vbe/Ie, i.e. "ib/vbe/ie", where lower case denoted ac values. So for a given output ic swing, we need a swing in ib/vbe/ie. Eqn 1) conveys the needed ib. Eqn 2) conveys the needed vbe.

Eqn 3) conveys the needed ie, per Ic = alpha*Ie.

Ratchit, you openly admit that ib/ie precede vbe, but you insist that vbe is the cause. At this point it is pointless to continue. I cannot have a discussion with one who defied logic. If an effect can take place before its future cause, then anybody can claim that this causes that, w/o proof, & showing chronological order of events is meaningless.

Even lay people know that the cause must always come first. A cable tv network was doing some research on an environmental issue. Some people alleged that a company dumped waste into a river which was the cause of a toxin being carried downstream. The company was not at that site long, so some figured the new company must have released that toxin into the river.

But the company was cleared by the investigation & the EPA. How did they know the company was not the cause of the toxin? A thorough search of records & reports of the toxin showed that the problem began before the company started. There was years of elepsed time between the toxin being found & the company commencing business.

The lay people concluded that the cause cannot come after the effect. FWIW whenever an event A causes another event B, a transfer of energy and/or momentum is involved. A bowling ball can strike a pin causing it to fall. The ball is the cause because it transferred energy to the pin(s). The ball's energy was established beforehand & independent of the pin. If the ball misses the pin entirely (something I would do) its energy is disipated at the back end.

Suppose that the bowling alley personnel were playing with me. They attach fishing lie to a pin, the lone pin standing. I roll the ball attempting to convert the spare. But before the ball arrives, someone yanks on the fishing line, yanking the pin down. The ball then rolls through the empty space where the pin was.

Since the pin fell before the ball arrived, it is safe to say that the ball was not the cause of the pin falling.

So it goes with Ib/Vbe/Ie. You assert Vbe as the cause, & not only can you not demonstrate your position, but rather, all known scientific findings negate your thesis completely. Debating you is too easy.

 

[Ratchit]

Brownout,

You're wrong again. You've conviently neglected Ie.

Ie and Ic are almost the same, especially at high beta.

Yes, from a causal stand point, or else it wouldn't be constructed that way.

?????

Ok, incomplete ignorance.

Correct that it is meaningless.

Same old copout from the same old dropout.

You are not advancing your argument by these pejorative comments. No one knows everything, including you, as demonstrated by your insistence that emitter base control was not a valid viewpoint. Gray and Searle say otherwise.

Ratch

 

[Ratchit]

Claude,

Regarding "both viewpoints being valid", that does not infer causality. My eqns 1), 2), & 3) are all valid equations. Eqn 1) conveys the current gain of the device. Ic = beta*Ib informs us that that the current gain of the stage is limited to the current gain of the raw bjt device. Eqn 1) is very important.

Regarding "both viewpoints being valid", that does not infer causality. My eqns 1), 2), & 3) are all valid equations. Eqn 1) conveys the current gain of the device. Ic = beta*Ib informs us that that the current gain of the stage is limited to the current gain of the raw bjt device. Eqn 1) is very important.

Eqn 2) Ic = alpha*Ies*exp((Vbe/Vt)-1), conveys that the transconductance of the stage can never exceed that of the raw bjt device. A small signal change in Ic, i.e. "ic", requires a change in Ib/Vbe/Ie, i.e. "ib/vbe/ie", where lower case denoted ac values. So for a given output ic swing, we need a swing in ib/vbe/ie. Eqn 1) conveys the needed ib. Eqn 2) conveys the needed vbe.

Eqn 3) conveys the needed ie, per Ic = alpha*Ie.

No the two viewpoints do not infer casuality, I never said that it does. I believe you and your equations are referring to the functional, and not the causal relationship again.

Ratchit, you openly admit that ib/ie precede vbe, but you insist that vbe is the cause. At this point it is pointless to continue. I cannot have a discussion with one who defied logic. If an effect can take place before its future cause, then anybody can claim that this causes that, w/o proof, & showing chronological order of events is meaningless.

I went back five pages and I could not find myself agreeing to such a statement about what comes first. At steady state DC, it is meaningless anyway.

Even lay people know that the cause must always come first. A cable tv network was doing some research on an environmental issue. Some people alleged that a company dumped waste into a river which was the cause of a toxin being carried downstream. The company was not at that site long, so some figured the new company must have released that toxin into the river.

But the company was cleared by the investigation & the EPA. How did they know the company was not the cause of the toxin? A thorough search of records & reports of the toxin showed that the problem began before the company started. There was years of elepsed time between the toxin being found & the company commencing business.

The lay people concluded that the cause cannot come after the effect. FWIW whenever an event A causes another event B, a transfer of energy and/or momentum is involved. A bowling ball can strike a pin causing it to fall. The ball is the cause because it transferred energy to the pin(s). The ball's energy was established beforehand & independent of the pin. If the ball misses the pin entirely (something I would do) its energy is disipated at the back end.

Suppose that the bowling alley personnel were playing with me. They attach fishing lie to a pin, the lone pin standing. I roll the ball attempting to convert the spare. But before the ball arrives, someone yanks on the fishing line, yanking the pin down. The ball then rolls through the empty space where the pin was.

Since the pin fell before the ball arrived, it is safe to say that the ball was not the cause of the pin falling.

No need to depict any more analogies. I already did so once with the driver and the linkage to the rack and pinion for steering. I consider the driver to be the driving function, and the rack and pinion to be the causal element that really turns the wheels. So in my thinking, the rack and pinion is relates to Vbe.

Ratch

 

[Claude Abraham]

Brownout,

Ie and Ic are almost the same, especially at high beta.

?????

You are not advancing your argument by these pejorative comments. No one knows everything, including you, as demonstrated by your insistence that emitter base control was not a valid viewpoint. Gray and Searle say otherwise.

Ratch

To say that Ie & Ic are almost the same esp. at high beta completely misses the point in amplifying devices. If base current was on the same order of magnitude as Ie, then the bjt would be of little use regarding current gain.

Let's not forget that the change in Vbe, i.e. vbe, is very small compared w/ Vbc, Vce, or vbc/vce. In an amp stage, an output voltage swing of 1 to 10V, vcb & vce, may be accompanied by a vbe swing of 100 uV! The fact that vbe swings only 100 uV while vce/vcb swing 1 to 10V demonstrates the great value a bjt offers as an ammplifier, namely high voltage & current gain. The 1.0 amp ic swing may require only 10 mA or less ib swing. Again, that makes the bjt good.

Just because ib & vbe are small compared to the other quantities does not make them unimportant. You keep pressing the issue that since Ic almost equals Ie, & Ib is much smaller, that we can neglect its contribution. But that same argument can be said for Vbe, Vbe is much smaller than Vcb/Vce. Again, a small ib & a small vbe can produce a large Ic & a large Vbc/Vce. That is what amplifiers are all about.

FWIW, just as desirable as it is to make ib as small as feasible, it is the same for vbe. Ideally transconductance should be very high/infinite, requiring no vbe swing. An emitter follower would be a perfect buffer, voltage gain of 1, & current gain infinite. Vbe & Ib both go to zero ideally. But vbe/ib are real world entities we must deal with.

One more thing, 1 advantage of bjt over FET is higher transconductance gm. Please don't argue, any reference will affirm me, that for a given die size, temp, & current level, gm for a bjt is larger than for a FET. In other words, an amp stage built with a bjt will exhibit higher voltage gain than a FET stage, all else the same. The less input voltage needed, the better.

Your understanding of both bjt & FET is too limited to argue with a pro. You need to study the basics, then you will be better equipped to discuss these matters. After advancing your education, I doubt that you will be challenging the science community, but instead, applying your knowledge to produce gadgets that benefit humanity. That is what I do. Cheers.

 

[BrownOut]

Ie and Ic are almost the same, especially at high beta.

So, what's your point? The value of the current is almost the same, but the functioning of the emitter is vastly different from the collector. The emitter acts as a control element. To leave it out of the analysis is a brain-dead argument. Insisting that only steady state be considered is likewise a brain-dead argument.

You are not advancing your argument by these pejorative comments. No one knows everything, including you, as demonstrated by your insistence that emitter base control was not a valid viewpoint. Gray and Searle say otherwise.

Neither do you advance your argument by spamming nor reciting the same discredited verse over and over. And I never said it wasn't a valid viewpoint. But a viewpoint doesn't tell you want goes on inside the device. Myself and others have schooled you on where and how control takes place in the BJT.

Further, there have been no pejorative comments. You’re the one who said you’re not taking the time to understand the very thing you’re categorically rejecting.

 

[MrAl]

Hello again,


Nature does not allow either quantity to change without the other, except when we force it to with something like superconducting and i dont think that's what we really want to concentrate on in this thread. The electron has both a charge and an electric field. Which one do we want to say is more important or more basic to nature?
The movement of the charges causes change, but the electric field causes that movement.

 

[Electroenthusiast]

In simple words,
The change in input is amplified, and it is the output.
In common emitter, there will be a small changes in base current due to applied signal(that which should be amplified)
and it gets amplified (based on value of Hfe-beta).

And it depends, how you design it... Whether you design it as Current Amp/ Voltage Amp.

 

[Ratchit]

Claude,

To say that Ie & Ic are almost the same esp. at high beta completely misses the point in amplifying devices. If base current was on the same order of magnitude as Ie, then the bjt would be of little use regarding current gain.

I said they were the same in answer to Brownout's statement that I neglected Ie. I don't know what the postulation of Ib being the same order of magnitude as Ie is supposed to mean.

Let's not forget that the change in Vbe, i.e. vbe, is very small compared w/ Vbc, Vce, or vbc/vce. In an amp stage, an output voltage swing of 1 to 10V, vcb & vce, may be accompanied by a vbe swing of 100 uV! The fact that vbe swings only 100 uV while vce/vcb swing 1 to 10V demonstrates the great value a bjt offers as an ammplifier, namely high voltage & current gain. The 1.0 amp ic swing may require only 10 mA or less ib swing. Again, that makes the bjt good.

Just because ib & vbe are small compared to the other quantities does not make them unimportant. You keep pressing the issue that since Ic almost equals Ie, & Ib is much smaller, that we can neglect its contribution. But that same argument can be said for Vbe, Vbe is much smaller than Vcb/Vce. Again, a small ib & a small vbe can produce a large Ic & a large Vbc/Vce. That is what amplifiers are all about.

Why the presentation about amplifiers? I thought we were discussing what controls a BJT in a causual vs functional manner.

FWIW, just as desirable as it is to make ib as small as feasible, it is the same for vbe. Ideally transconductance should be very high/infinite, requiring no vbe swing. An emitter follower would be a perfect buffer, voltage gain of 1, & current gain infinite. Vbe & Ib both go to zero ideally. But vbe/ib are real world entities we must deal with.

Agreed, but what is the point?

One more thing, 1 advantage of bjt over FET is higher transconductance gm. Please don't argue, any reference will affirm me, that for a given die size, temp, & current level, gm for a bjt is larger than for a FET. In other words, an amp stage built with a bjt will exhibit higher voltage gain than a FET stage, all else the same. The less input voltage needed, the better

Same comment as above.

Your understanding of both bjt & FET is too limited to argue with a pro. You need to study the basics, then you will be better equipped to discuss these matters. After advancing your education, I doubt that you will be challenging the science community, but instead, applying your knowledge to produce gadgets that benefit humanity. That is what I do. Cheers.

You keep throwing in FET's into the mix which I consider irrelevant to the discussion. I am not the first one to express doubt about whether a BJT is a CC or CV device. And those that do are also professionals with very good credentials. They explained to me why a BJT is a CV device causally, and a CC device functionally. You have not done so to my satisfaction. That is no poor reflection on your part. You really tried hard, but I still don't see it that way. .

Ratch

 

[Ratchit]

Brownout,

So, what's your point? The value of the current is almost the same, but the functioning of the emitter is vastly different from the collector. The emitter acts as a control element. To leave it out of the analysis is a brain-dead argument. Insisting that only steady state be considered is likewise a brain-dead argument.

My point is that if you control the Ic with Vbe, then you automatically control Ie. That is in answer to your comment that I ignored Ie. A steady state DC analysis simplifies things.

Neither do you advance your argument by spamming nor reciting the same discredited verse over and over. And I never said it wasn't a valid viewpoint. But a viewpoint doesn't tell you want goes on inside the device. Myself and others have schooled you on where and how control takes place in the BJT.

If I am spamming, you should report me to the moderators. You threatened to do so before. What have I been selling? Literally. Disagreement is not spamming. If I sound repetitive, it is because you are repetitive. The same arguments produce the same answers. A vewpoint does lead to certain assumptions that can be made about what goes on inside a BJT. You and others have schooled me on what you think goes on inside a BJT, but I think you are looking at it from a functional view, not a causal one.

Further, there have been no pejorative comments. You’re the one who said you’re not taking the time to understand the very thing you’re categorically rejecting.

I said that I will take the time in the future to study and reflect on what you are trying to infuse into this discussion.

Ratch

 

[Claude Abraham]

Ratchit, how can a bjt or any device be CC functionally & CV causally? I've presented much relevant info detailing that Vbe cannot be the cause. However, you keep telling that I have not proved Ib nor Ie as the cause. My response has been that only changes in energy/momentum can ever be the true cause of anything. To control a bjt a functional relation is all we need externally

Internally, as I've stated it's all about QM. The cause at the QM level is energy tranfer. Free charge carriers transfer energy to an atom in the lattice giving up some energy of its owm while imparting energy freeing a valence band electron to become conduction band. To do this requires current, namely Ib/Ie, as well as voltage Vbe, since real world semicon devices have band gap energy requirements. Sonce Ib/Ie lead Vbe, Vbe cannot be causal.

Causality is pointless anyway because it can never be settled. In another thread, a doubter asked me about Ohm's law & causality, when I responded that energy tranfer is the cause. His reply was "what causes energy transfer?" Even if a cause could be fully verified empirically, one can ask "what is the mechanism behind that cause?", or "why does it behave in that manner?"

You've given no evidence of any kind except that a few others share your opposition to the common CC model of the bjt. None of thenm provide info detailing what makes it VC. KA presents some weak lame grasping at straws attempts which I replied to several years ago in a letter directly to him. I've never heard back from him. He has no interest in engaging with anyone knowledgeable.

I suggest you return to uni for an MSEE. Is your BS a full EE? Or is it EET? If full EE, the MS won't take as long. If you get a rush challenging semicon OEM & unis, then an advanced degree would benefit you immensely, esp. a Ph.D. Not only do currently not have the chops, you don't even understand the info we've presented. You don't know enough to get the right answer, & in addition, you can't recognize the right answer when someone else puts it before you.

Nothing personal but you are telling us that the whole world doesn't get it, but for you & the people you reference, who don't explain it either. KA presents nothing but sophomoric claptrap. I'm amazed that a uni would award him even a mere BS.

 

[BrownOut]

My point is that if you control the Ic with Vbe, then you automatically control Ie. That is in answer to your comment that I ignored Ie. A steady state DC analysis simplifies things.

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.

If I am spamming, you should report me to the moderators. You threatened to do so before. What have I been selling? Literally. Disagreement is not spamming. If I sound repetitive, it is because you are repetitive. The same arguments produce the same answers.

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.

You and others have schooled me on what you think goes on inside a BJT, but I think you are looking at it from a functional view, not a causal one.

What we know goes on. We've given you the causal view. You've given us nothing.

I said that I will take the time in the future to study and reflect on what you are trying to infuse into this discussion.

Until you do, you don't know enough to discuss it intelligently.

 

[Ratchit]

Claude,

Ratchit, how can a bjt or any device be CC functionally & CV causally? I've presented much relevant info detailing that Vbe cannot be the cause. However, you keep telling that I have not proved Ib nor Ie as the cause. My response has been that only changes in energy/momentum can ever be the true cause of anything. To control a bjt a functional relation is all we need externally

It is like asking who controls a boat, the helmsman or the rudder. The helmsman is in functional control of the boat, but the rudder is causing the boat to turn. I consider Vbe to be the rudder.

Internally, as I've stated it's all about QM. The cause at the QM level is energy tranfer. Free charge carriers transfer energy to an atom in the lattice giving up some energy of its owm while imparting energy freeing a valence band electron to become conduction band. To do this requires current, namely Ib/Ie, as well as voltage Vbe, since real world semicon devices have band gap energy requirements. Sonce Ib/Ie lead Vbe, Vbe cannot be causal.

To say it's QM is too general. Just about every material thing is QM related. From a macro view, Vbe controls Ic. Lag or lead is irrelevant. If there is some slippage in the link between the helmsman and rudder, the helmsman's command will lead the rudder's control, but it is still the rudder causing the boat to turn.

Causality is pointless anyway because it can never be settled. In another thread, a doubter asked me about Ohm's law & causality, when I responded that energy tranfer is the cause. His reply was "what causes energy transfer?" Even if a cause could be fully verified empirically, one can ask "what is the mechanism behind that cause?", or "why does it behave in that manner?"

Tell him that energy travels from a higher concentration to a lower concentration. That is a law that is true, even if it cannot be explained.

You've given no evidence of any kind except that a few others share your opposition to the common CC model of the bjt. None of thenm provide info detailing what makes it VC. KA presents some weak lame grasping at straws attempts which I replied to several years ago in a letter directly to him. I've never heard back from him. He has no interest in engaging with anyone knowledgeable.

I said it was because Vbe controls Ic, according to the equations in Sedra and Smith. You chose to disregard that evidence or say it is too simplistic. I suggested earlier that perhaps you could try to communicate with KA again. Perhaps he is more available now.

I suggest you return to uni for an MSEE. Is your BS a full EE? Or is it EET? If full EE, the MS won't take as long. If you get a rush challenging semicon OEM & unis, then an advanced degree would benefit you immensely, esp. a Ph.D. Not only do currently not have the chops, you don't even understand the info we've presented. You don't know enough to get the right answer, & in addition, you can't recognize the right answer when someone else puts it before you.

I have a full EE degree, but I don't think a return to the U is a great career move. I am retired with no financial worries, so it is not necessary to do so. I don't understand what you presented because although I find it to be correct, I don't think much of it pertains to the discussion, or your conclusions contradict what I believe to be true.

Nothing personal but you are telling us that the whole world doesn't get it, but for you & the people you reference, who don't explain it either. KA presents nothing but sophomoric claptrap. I'm amazed that a uni would award him even a mere BS.

You have to assume that he complete the coursework and passed the tests while attending his school. I cannot find anything he said to be false.

Ratch