Re: BJT Can be Considered a CCCS in some situations

From: Kevin Aylward (salesEXTRACT_at_anasoft.co.uk)
Date: 12/13/04 

Date: Mon, 13 Dec 2004 08:01:58 GMT

radio913@aol.com wrote:
> Kevin Aylward wrote:
>>
>>>>> Please provide a method of producing such a current that doesn't
>>>>> ultimately depend on the use of electric field.
>>
>>
>>>> A superconductive loop, with one side
>>>> moving orthogonal to a magnetic field.
>>
>>
>>>> How did this current get started?
>>
>>
>>> Not with an electric field, but
>>> with
>>> a magnetic field.
>>
>> Oh dear.... Much to learn I see.
>
>
> There is ALWAYS much to learn,
> for everyone, Phds included. And
> ESPECIALLY YOU!

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

>
> Where is the voltage source
> in this example?

Charge.

>Take away the
> magnetic field, and you are just
> moving a wire through space, and
> no current will flow.
>

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.

>
>
>>
>>>>> What if you drove an Ibe with a
>>>>> wire that is moving orthogonal to a magnetic
>>>>> field?
>>
>>
>>>> What is the cause of this magnetic field? Hint: charge.
>>
>>
>>
>>> Are you saying that a magnetic field is
>>> no different from an electric field?
>>
>> Absolutely yes, that is what I am saying. Unfortunately you seem
>> quite aware of relativistic E&M. Applying the lorentz transformation
>> to static electric fields result in magnetism. That is, a magnetic
>> field is no more than an electric field viewed from a different
>> reference frame. There is no separate E and M field, its just the
>> way the same object,
>
>> the electromagnetic field tensor, is measured when one is moving in
>> some specified way. For example, why should the fact the *observer*
>> moving by a line charge magically create a magnetic field?
>>
>
> I would agree that E and H fields are
> intrinsically related, especially considering
> a propagating EM wave, with changing E and H
> fields.

This statement tells me immediately tat you simply don't have the
background to understand the relevance of what I am saying. You are
obviously completely ignorant of standard results regarding Relativity
and Maxwell's Equations, to wit, magnetic effects are derivable from
electric effects simply by the application of S.R. This is much deeper
than you are aware of.

>
> But a magnet is NOT the same as a
> battery!!

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.

>
> God, you need to go back to High
> School Circuits 101!
>

No. You need to know when you are are being instructed by those with
more advanced knowledge.

You are clely unacquainted with the true nature, as currently
understood, of Electromagnetism.

>
>
>
>>
>>>>> You are confusing a SOURCE of voltage
>>>>> potential versus a voltage DROP. A voltage
>>>>> drop across a low impedance is controlled
>>>>> by the current though a high series impedance
>>>>> current source.
>>
>>
>>>> No, you are confusing internal device physics with external
>>>> circuitry.
>>
>
> External circuitry defines how you
> are driving the base.

And your point would be?

>
>
>
>
>>
>>>> The bipolar transister is a voltage controlled device. Period.
>>
>>> Are you saying that a FET works exactly the same way
>>> as a BJT? Wrong.
>>
>> And where on earth the has this ever been suggested?
>>
>> It is clear that you are continually jumping the gun. It would seem
>> that *your* lack of knowledge interprets "the bipolar transistor is
>> a voltage controlled device" as "the fet works exactly the same way
>> as a bipolar". Maybe you need some English comprehension lessons.
>>
>
> Maybe you need to go back to school.

Ho humm...

>
> Ok, so what's the difference between the
> function of the FET versus the BJT?

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

>
>
>
>> You're are so deluded its unreal. You simply don't understand the
>> level of the dudes that you are dealing with. I suggest you do some
>> web searches on Relativity and its application to Maxwell's
>> Equations.
>>
>
> I suggest you stop comparing this
> argument to the Theory of Relativity!
> Absolute Fucking Rubbish Laddie!

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.

The claim that the BJT is current controlled implies that it is the
*motion* of base charge that *causes* the *motion* of charge in the
collector, rather then just the applied voltage itself. Since we can all
agree that the BJT is not magnetically operated, what exact *mechanism*
do you claim for the *motion* of collector charge to be causally related
to base charge *motion*?

The reality is that collector charge motion is not the result of base
charge *motion*, but simply the fact that applying a voltage at the base
emitter causes charge to move from the emitter. It is *not* *motion* of
base charge that instigate the motion of charge from the emitter. Any
charge in the emitter will automatically move when subject to an
electric field. Since motion of base charge is not required to cause
motion of the emitter charge, the transistor cannot be (charge) motion
controlled, i.e. base current controlled.

However... at a *much* deeper level of understanding one might well
indeed claim that it is motion that causes all other motion, but it is
not in the same context of conventional explanations that we are using
here.

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

Quantcast