Christer said:
Nothing to do with 'mutual understanding', or lack thereof, old chap: one need only understand the workings of the BJT to a first-order level to realise, in the first instance, that one cannot generate a change in said BJTs collector current without generating a causal change in its base-emitter voltage.
From this, it should logically and rapidly become clear to one that the notion of 'current feedback', as presently 'understood' in many applications note, is manifest :bs:
That's funny... beta is what moves current in a BJT... the VBE is just an irritant to getting there.
mikeks said:
Yes, I entirely agree, but this once again just proves that you haven't understood one iota of what I have been wrinting, so it has everything in the world to do with understanding. Either reread the thread and make a serious attempt to understand what I have been writing, or drop it. I won't try to explain the same things over and over again, when you seem to simply ignore what I write.
Christer said:
The 'theoretical model' you've referred to is unrealistic, incorrect, misleading and may only be of very limited use in the most elementary classrooms; nothing to do with reality.
mikeks said:
Yes, you finally start to understand something of what I have written. Now read and try to understand the rest of it too.
mikeks said:
Then you only have to understand it too. There are plenty of EEs on this forum who have understood it, so I am sure you can too, if you just want too.
Christer said:
I have understood your position, recognised it to be incorrect, demonstrated why it is flawed and adduced ice-cold, hard evidence of the irrefutable kind to support my position.
You, on the other hand, have, with tedious regularity ad nauseum, merely recycled hackneyed kitsch from elementary school textbooks that bears no relationship with reality.
Why are you trying to persuade each other? Nothing better to do? Thy physics will remain unchanged, regardless this discussion.
PMA said:
Actually, this discussion may be of use in preventing interested university students from being misled into perpetuity.
Since it isn't really, and never has been, an issue about true or false, and especially not about particular persons being right or wrong, I don't think I have even tried to persuade Mike of anything, except that things can be viewed from different points of view and that models exist on different levels of abstraction. That ought to be so elementary and obvious that no persuasion should be necessary.
However, you are absolutetly right Pavel that this is just a waste of time, that at least I could waste on better things. I have nothing really to add to what I have already written. And then I mean what I have written, not the random cut out quotes from my posts that Mike is using to misunderstand me. 😉
Enough of this discussion.
However, you are absolutetly right Pavel that this is just a waste of time, that at least I could waste on better things. I have nothing really to add to what I have already written. And then I mean what I have written, not the random cut out quotes from my posts that Mike is using to misunderstand me. 😉
Enough of this discussion.
Christer, Mikeks, take a break from this thread. If you want to argue by email, go right ahead.
Guys
Show some schematics, discuss transfer functions, poles and zeros, feedback factors and stability margins and....
You are all good engineers with good understanding of electoronics and able to create very good circuits.
Why are you wasting your intelectual potential like this?
Show some schematics, discuss transfer functions, poles and zeros, feedback factors and stability margins and....
You are all good engineers with good understanding of electoronics and able to create very good circuits.
Why are you wasting your intelectual potential like this?
- Status
- Not open for further replies.