BJT Can be Considered a CCCS in some situations

[[email protected]]

Certainly, but there is nothing that you can teach me.

I can certainly learn something from
you. About bullshiting!

You simply don't understand. Seriously, I am not trying to insult, I am
telling you that you are truly out of your depth with advanced E&M. You
clearly don't have a degree in an E&M related subject, so what makes you
think that you actually understand E&M? As I stated, all magnetic fields
are due to charge. Period.

A magnetic field is simply charge viewed from a different frame of
reference.

This is obviously beyond your existing knowledge. Special Relativity
tells us how the same object appears in different reference frames.
Applying special relativity to electric fields result in magnetic
fields.


Bullshit!




In essence it is. Sure, our measurements of a battery and a magnet are
different, but the reason for this is only because of our relative
motion with respect to the charges that cause the electric field and the
magnetic field.

EVEN MORE BULLSHIT!!!!

God, you're getting to be
ridiculous now!

This question is meaningless. FETs and BJTs can both be used for the
same function.

The question is obviously NOT
answerable by YOU!

I am not comparing to Special Relativity, I am telling you that special
relativity tells us that that magnetic fields are simply electric fields
when view from a moving reference frame. Maxwell's Equations and Special
Relativity are intimately related.

Its sad, that you simply don't understand that your knowledge is only

that, say, technician level. This is all much more deeper than you can
possible comprehend with your current level of understanding.

<<Snippage of Mindless Pseudo-Techno
Babble>>

You've really over-done your
bullshit, Holmes! It's one thing
to "fake-it-till-you-make-it", but
it's another thing to spout absolute
RUBBISH!

Go back to High schoool!


Slick

 

[[email protected]]

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!

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

 

[Kevin Aylward]

Kevin Aylward wrote:

EVEN MORE BULLSHIT!!!!

What you really mean is that you don't understand anything but
elementary E&M.

Nothing I am saying is invented by me. Its all standard stuff which is
covered in any reasonably advanced E&M course. You are simply not aware
of this standard stuff because you don't have a degree in any E&M
related subject.

Its incredible naive of you to spout of like this. All your doing is
making yourself look foolish.

God, you're getting to be
ridiculous now!

Indeed it is getting ridiculous. Listen sonny you're way, way out of
your depth.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maxwell's_equations

Quote:
"The fact that both electric and magnetic fields are combined into a
single tensor expresses the fact that, according to relativity, both of
these are different aspects of the same thing-by changing frames of
reference, what seemed to be an electric field in one frame can appear
as a magnetic field in another frame, and vice versa"

There are numerous references on the web which describe basic relativity
and its application to electromagnetisem. You would do well to read
them, instaed of spouting off about things that you are simply cluless
about. Seriously, this stuff *is* to advanced for you, so don't even
contemplating disagreing. You simply dont have the background.


or http://www.fact-index.com/m/ma/magnetic_field.html

" It was Albert Einstein who, using special relativity showed that
electric and magnetic fields are two aspects of the same thing (a rank-2
tensor), and that one observer may perceive a magnetic force where a
moving observer perceives an electrostatic force. Thus, using
relativity, magnetic forces may be predicted from knowledge of
electrostatic forces alone. The equations given above are valid under
relativity-indeed, their validity without relativity is questionable."

Need I go on?

You've really over-done your
bullshit, Holmes! It's one thing
to "fake-it-till-you-make-it", but
it's another thing to spout absolute
RUBBISH!

Go back to High schoool!

Your a joke dude. You are truly an example of
http://www.apa.org/journals/psp/psp7761121.html

You don't learn relativistic electromagnetics at high school, which
appears to be the level you're at.

Kevin Aylward
[email protected]
http://www.anasoft.co.uk
SuperSpice, a very affordable Mixed-Mode
Windows Simulator with Schematic Capture,
Waveform Display, FFT's and Filter Design.

 

[Paul Burridge]

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!

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

 

[John Larkin]

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

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

John

 

[[email protected]]

What you really mean is that you don't understand anything but
elementary E&M.

What you really mean is that you are full of
shit!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maxwell's_equations

Quote:
"The fact that both electric and magnetic fields are combined into a
single tensor expresses the fact that, according to relativity, both of
these are different aspects of the same thing-by changing frames of
reference, what seemed to be an electric field in one frame can appear
as a magnetic field in another frame, and vice versa"

It's obvious that electric and magnetic fields
are intimately related, i don't argue that.

But to say an ideal LC tank circuit is in the same
state whether the current has stopped (capacitor charged,
voltage highest), or whether the current is maximum (cap
discharged, magnetic field greatest around the inductor),
is ludicrous.

Practical engineers don't give a shit
about speed-of-light frames of reference,
so please get off your high horse, you don't know
what you are spouting about.

There are numerous references on the web which describe basic relativity
and its application to electromagnetisem. You would do well to read
them, instaed of spouting off about things that you are simply cluless
about. Seriously, this stuff *is* to advanced for you, so don't even
contemplating disagreing. You simply dont have the background.

Neither do you. At least i don't pretend!



Slick

 

[[email protected]]

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

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

 

[Spehro Pefhany]

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

John

Possibly the chicken never came at all.


Best regards,
Spehro Pefhany

 

[Richard The Troll]

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

The rooster "came" first. ;-)

 

[Kevin Aylward]

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

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
[email protected]
http://www.anasoft.co.uk
SuperSpice, a very affordable Mixed-Mode
Windows Simulator with Schematic Capture,
Waveform Display, FFT's and Filter Design.

 

[Kevin Aylward]

It's obvious that electric and magnetic fields
are intimately related, i don't argue that.

But to say an ideal LC tank circuit is in the same
state whether the current has stopped (capacitor charged,
voltage highest), or whether the current is maximum (cap
discharged, magnetic field greatest around the inductor),
is ludicrous.

No one claimed this. The issue here is that you simply cant understand
what is actually being said. You continually make daft claims showing
that you have missed the ball completely.

There is no relation to the idea of magnetic fields being electric
fields viewed in motion and the state of an LC tank. Its chalk and
cheese mate.

Practical engineers don't give a shit
about speed-of-light frames of reference,

Still clueless again. Where did you get this daft idea that reference
frames are going at the speed of light?

A reference is a frame that can move at any velocity. For charge
travelling down a wire, this velocity is very slow indeed.

Lastly, you are not an electronic engineer, this is trivially obvious to
anyone.

so please get off your high horse, you don't know
what you are spouting about.

Oh dear...its sad that you are so ignorant that you don't understand
that you are so ignorant.

Neither do you.
http://www.anasoft.co.uk/physics/gr/index.html

At least i don't pretend!

Oh yes you do. Everything you have said is from the point of view of a
technician who has learned a few buzz words here and there. You don't
understand what you say yourself, let alone what other more experienced
dudes say.

Kevin Aylward
[email protected]
http://www.anasoft.co.uk
SuperSpice, a very affordable Mixed-Mode
Windows Simulator with Schematic Capture,
Waveform Display, FFT's and Filter Design.

 

[Fred Bartoli]

The rooster "came" first. ;-)

Which came first ? The rooster or his eggs ?

 

[Rich The Philosophizer]

I read in sci.electronics.design that Rich The Philosophizer
g>) about 'BJT Can be Considered a CCCS in some situations', on Thu, 16
Dec 2004:
Is it? Since the constellations have no well-defined boundaries, how can
anyone tell which on contains the First Point of Aries (which hasn't
been in Aries for a long time). According to one web page:

It has taken about 2,000 years to cross Pisces, and it will cross into
the next zodiacal constellation, Aquarius, in about the year 2600.

Anyone know what the celestial co-ordinates of the First Point of Aries
are?

When the Moon is in the Seventh House,
And Jupiter Aligns with Mars,
Then Peace will Guide the Planets,
And Love will Steer the Stars!

All Together Now...

;^j
Rich

 

[Paul Burke]

When the Moon is in the Seventh House,
And Jupiter Aligns with Mars,
Then Peace will Guide the Planets,
And Love will Steer the Stars!

All Together Now...

Sodomy, fellatio, cunnilingus, pederasty,
Father, why do these words sound so nasty?

We inherited the LP of the show after my cousin bought it and her good
Catholic mother made her get rid of it.

Paul Burke

 

[John Woodgate]

I read in sci.electronics.design that Rich The Philosophizer
g>) about 'BJT Can be Considered a CCCS in some situations', on Fri, 17
Dec 2004:

When the Moon is in the Seventh House,
And Jupiter Aligns with Mars,
Then Peace will Guide the Planets,
And Love will Steer the Stars!

All Together Now...

It was about 240 years too soon. Look forward to it happening in 2600.

 

[Kevin Aylward]

No, he's just talking about different models.

No I am not!!!!

I am specifically discussing device physics in this context.

Sure, at a much *higher* level, all of science is arbitrary models, but
I am not debating at the Einstein quote of:

"Physical concepts are free creations of the human mind, and are not,
however it may seem, uniquely determined by the external world"

I am giving the "correct" standard explanation as to how the bipolar
transistor works at a practical device physics point of view. The
bipolar transistor is a VCCS is *the* standard accepted semiconductor
physics view.

Kevin Aylward
[email protected]
http://www.anasoft.co.uk
SuperSpice, a very affordable Mixed-Mode
Windows Simulator with Schematic Capture,
Waveform Display, FFT's and Filter Design.

 

[Paul Burridge]

Sodomy, fellatio, cunnilingus, pederasty,
Father, why do these words sound so nasty?

We inherited the LP of the show after my cousin bought it and her good
Catholic mother made her get rid of it.

What show's it come from? I remember the hit single in the pop charts
around 1969 or thereabouts.

 

[Rich Grise]

What show's it come from? I remember the hit single in the pop charts
around 1969 or thereabouts.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/september/27/newsid_3107000/3107815.stm

Cheers!
Rich

 

[Paul Burridge]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/september/27/newsid_3107000/3107815.stm

Hmmm.. Heady days indeed!