BJT Can be Considered a CCCS in some situations

Immaculate conception ?:-)

So many dummies vying for Burridge's status, but not enough awards to go around ;-)

...Jim Thompson

Oh dear, a new post. Seems you're rather upset.

"Re: BJT Can be Considered a CCCS in some situations"

The circuit that a voltage controlled bipolar transistor resides in might well be considered a CCCS, as an ad-hoc approximation.

How did this current get started?

What is the cause of this magnetic field? Hint: charge.

No, you are confusing internal device physics with external circuitry.

The bipolar transister is a voltage controlled device. Period.

Suppose, we put you in women clothings, would that then mean that you were a little girlie...err... opps.. sod it.. there goes my argument..shucks...

Ho hum...

F = qE.

Please provide a device physics derivation, from first principles, of Ie and Ic being a direct causal function of Ib.

Kevin Aylward snipped-for-privacy@anasoft.co.uk

Wow. I guess that's the closest I'll get to any sort of agreement from you!

Not with an electric field, but with a magnetic field.

Are you saying that a magnetic field is no different from an electric field?

circuitry.

Are you saying that a FET works exactly the same way as a BJT? Wrong.

Suppose you suck on your Mommy's penis, do that make you a F***ot? Opps, sod it! My argument went out the door too, s*it!

Hint: V=IR, as in IR voltage DROP.

Hint: If you take the Ibase away, is the Vbe there any more? No.

Slick

The argument is over. You lost. Not because your position has no merit but because you don't know how to argue, and instead resort to ad-hominem attacks.

If you are just a troll, which is how you appear to me, then I suppose you will ignore what I say. But if you are trying to win arguments or friends, you should revise your tactics and techniques.

For example, you might want to lurk long enough to figure out who knows what they are talking about and who doesn't. If someone who knows what he is talking about says something that seems wrong to you, don't argue, just ask for enlightenment, instead. Maybe you will learn something.

Also, avoid name-calling and condescension, because these tactics just make you look bad.

HTH!

--Mac

Good point. Let's hope Kevin takes it on board.

No, base voltage is the effect. The only way to get base voltage (and subsequent collector current) is to charge up the base capacitance, and you have to apply current to do that. So the true *cause* of collector current is base current!

John

an

troll.

What Kevin doesn't seem to understand is that a voltage can indeed be the effect of a current.

Hint: The plate voltage across a capacitor becomes larger as it is charged up by a .... CURRENT!

YEAH! Electronics 101!!!!

Slick

Ahmmm...

Yes, a good attempt, and can lead to a more basic principle of what ultimately causes all motion.

This actually leads to the hint I give in another post as to why in a different, or more deeper context, we might well claim that all motion is caused by other motion.

Kevin Aylward snipped-for-privacy@anasoft.co.uk

The egg, obviously. The thing that laid it wasn't a chicken.

John

Which do you reckon came first, John - the chicken or the egg?

(and

I hate to admit this, but this whole argument really IS a sort of "chicken or the egg first?" type of debate.

Oh well...

Slick

Possibly the chicken never came at all.

Best regards, Spehro Pefhany

Charge came first. Charge is equivalent to voltage. Charge moving gives us current. However...

Charge is a number that describes the momentum exchange of (virtual) photons between "charges". It is this momentum exchange, i.e. motion exchange, that is the ultimate "cause" of all motion.

Kevin Aylward snipped-for-privacy@anasoft.co.uk

Which came first ? The rooster or his eggs ?