Re: BJT transistor beta, vs Ebers-Moll, Gummel-Poon, and the other tools God has given us
From: Active8 (reply2group_at_ndbbm.net)
Date: 12/07/04
- Next message: Guy Macon: "Re: Why -48V for telephone lines, and not positive?"
- Previous message: Paul Burke: "Serial number labels"
- In reply to: Jim Thompson: "Re: BJT transistor beta, vs Ebers-Moll, Gummel-Poon, and the other tools God has given us"
- Next in thread: Jim Thompson: "Re: BJT transistor beta, vs Ebers-Moll, Gummel-Poon, and the other tools God has given us"
- Reply: Jim Thompson: "Re: BJT transistor beta, vs Ebers-Moll, Gummel-Poon, and the other tools God has given us"
- Reply: Kevin Aylward: "Re: BJT transistor beta, vs Ebers-Moll, Gummel-Poon, and the other tools God has given us"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Tue, 7 Dec 2004 06:59:25 -0500
On Mon, 06 Dec 2004 22:10:06 -0700, Jim Thompson wrote:
> On 6 Dec 2004 18:44:49 -0800, Winfield Hill
> <hill_a@t_rowland-dotties-harvard-dot.s-edu> wrote:
>
>>Jim Thompson wrote...
>>>
>>> Sorry to burst your bubble, but gm (for a BJT) is only
>>> a function of current, and NOT the size of the device.
>>
>> Right, assuming Is is constant across the devices...
>> (Someone always has to play the devil's advocate).
>
> And WHERE is it that IS figures into gm ???
q
gm = Ie -----
KT
so it figures into Ie
-- Best Regards, Mike
- Next message: Guy Macon: "Re: Why -48V for telephone lines, and not positive?"
- Previous message: Paul Burke: "Serial number labels"
- In reply to: Jim Thompson: "Re: BJT transistor beta, vs Ebers-Moll, Gummel-Poon, and the other tools God has given us"
- Next in thread: Jim Thompson: "Re: BJT transistor beta, vs Ebers-Moll, Gummel-Poon, and the other tools God has given us"
- Reply: Jim Thompson: "Re: BJT transistor beta, vs Ebers-Moll, Gummel-Poon, and the other tools God has given us"
- Reply: Kevin Aylward: "Re: BJT transistor beta, vs Ebers-Moll, Gummel-Poon, and the other tools God has given us"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]