Re: FETs Vesus Bipolars, Why More Efficient?

From: lemonjuice (exskimos_at_anonymous.to)
Date: 12/01/04 

Date: 1 Dec 2004 02:11:48 -0800

On Tue, 30 Nov 2004 18:38:42 -0500, Active8 <reply2group@ndbbm.net>
wrote:

>On 30 Nov 2004 12:41:09 -0800, lemonjuice wrote:
>
>>>>>Hey Poindexter. Do you thing you can find Integral f(x) dx with
only
>>>>>one point? Even if one limit if integration is at infinity, it's
>>>>>still a point, i.e. dx has two ends.
>>>>
>>>> OK... man then ... In fact 1 of the many possible definitions of
>>>> Potential says its related to the work done in bringing a unit
>> charge
>>>> from infinity to an electrical field.
>>>>
>>>> So man you already got your second point defined. When I say
whats
>> the
>>>> potential you already know its related to infinity.
>>>
>>>Look up equipotential surfaces. Like I said, my Rx antenna has a
>>>voltage at the feed that's proportional to it's length and the
>>>strength of the electric field in V/m.
>>
>
>WHy are you cutting
>> Electrical field strength = Potential ... Thats another new theory
>> (grin)
>>
>> BTW equipotential surfaces have nothing to do with this.
>>
>> Look up the definition of Electrostatic potential.
>>
>> For a point (x,y,z) its mathematically its
>>
>> V(x,y,z) = q/4 * pi * epsilonnought * r
>> As I said before the reference point is at infinity.
>
>But the original equation used to arrive at that has variables for
>two potentials - one gets set to zero at a distance of infinity -
>and two points - one which gets set to infinity as one of two limits
>of integration.

The original equation is dV/dx = E
How many constants are in the solution?
Only 1. Why?
Because its a 1st Order differential equation.
What is the value of the constant .
Zero.

So the answer is simply V= E*x

Very very simple.

I'm not talking about Potential difference which is the potentail
between 2 points ... but the Potential of a single point
If you ever heard that Potential difference = Potential ...(grin) then
you have another new theory unheard of to me. Anyone who knows about
this theory send me a post please. Sounds
like Kevins "electrons with a centripetal force" theory. (double
grin)

Look you examine a point P(x,y,z) in an electrical field. According
to your reasoning its wrong to talk about the potential of the single
point. Lets assume you're right.
As Potential is Energy per unit charge you are claiming
that bringing a unit charge from far off to that point would involve
zero energy. So you violate the law of conservation of energy because
you assume that the energy of all unit charges in an electrical field
are zero.

This is just one of the many ways to show why your idea is wrong.

>There's no rule stating that one point must be at
>infinity.
>
>This is basic physics, dude.

Its what physicists use and there is a physical reason why infinity
is known to be a point of zero potential.
Try guessing why ... as you say its "basics physics"