Holes and other empty spaces

Status
Not open for further replies.

steveb

Joined Jul 3, 2008
2,436
The following is addressed to persons other than Ratch:
Did I perhaps choose the wrong course of action? Should these condescending diatribes simply be deleted in the future? Or edited heavily to remove the condescension? (Ratch: I know your opinion on this. Let other folk speak, if you please.)
Personally, I think you handled that situation properly. That case required some action because the OP, who was just trying to learn, was exposed to some unnecessary comments. It was in bad taste to do that to her. It seemed kind of like members of a family fighting while a guest is visting their house. So, removing the comments from her thread was appropriate.

Also, your moving the nonrelevent posts to another location was proper. Deleting the posts, or even editing them, would not have been a good idea. A forum requires freedom of speech, within the usual limits of course.
 

studiot

Joined Nov 9, 2007
4,998
Surely we have enough posts diverted, entangled and whatnot.

We seem to have three about the subject of the mechanism of transistors, although one of these seems of late to be about the nature of resistance, a subject where we also have other threads.

What we don't seem to have is a thread about holes, although we have several erroneous, or at least inadequate, comments about them scattered over several threads.
 

thingmaker3

Joined May 16, 2005
5,083
And it would also be nice if you criticized others with the same rigor that you do to me, not that I mind.
You've not been paying attention. Your perception of somehow being special or chosen, whether for good or for ill, is in error.

I have no idea what you mean. Can you provide an example?
http://forum.allaboutcircuits.com/showpost.php?p=106187&postcount=9

Use the search function if you want more.

The OP requested the information about holes. If fact, he devoted almost a whole paragraph requesting information. I did not go off on a wild tangent to nowhereville as m4yhem asserts. Read the OP's first post again.
We could rub your nose in it all day and you still wouldn't see it.

I could have let it pass, but I did not. Doesn't that tell you something?
It tells me you should change your tagline from "hopelessly pedantic" to "argumentative for the sake of argument."

On of the reasons for being a student is trying to understand new concepts.
Understanding new concepts is made more difficult by your interjection of confusing esoterica.

Condescending and diatribe is in the eye of the beholder. You should be more concerned as to whether the facts I presented were true or false.
You make false claim re: the electron flow model being invalid. You make false claim re:the current control model of transistors being invalid. You do this using words which are clearly and repeatedly condescending. When you do offer up a more detailed and reasonable version of what you actually meant, it is buried pages deep in nit-picks. If you don't believe this, ask a neutral party. Then investigate the option of learning to express yourself in a more fruitful way.

The correct term is "effective mass". I miswrote the word , and I apologize for the confusion.
Thank you for your clarification.

That seems to be tall order, because many proofs and applications exist which show that electrons do indeed flow.
Then why do you persist in (condescendingly) telling us the electron flow model of transistor operation is not valid?

What we don't seem to have is a thread about holes, although we have several erroneous, or at least inadequate, comments about them scattered over several threads.
We certainly have a thread about "other empty spaces...":(
 

Thread Starter

Ratch

Joined Mar 20, 2007
1,070
thingmaker3,

You've not been paying attention. Your perception of somehow being special or chosen, whether for good or for ill, is in error.
Well, I disagree, but that is a matter of perception.

OK, now I understand what you mean. But I would not change a word of what I said on that particular example.

We could rub your nose in it all day and you still wouldn't see it.
You probably mean that I would not agree with it.

It tells me you should change your tagline from "hopelessly pedantic" to "argumentative for the sake of argument."
All challenges require argument to defend. Your perception is that I challenge too much.

Understanding new concepts is made more difficult by your interjection of confusing esoterica.
Members rely on other sources besides this forum to learn. At least I hope they do. How are you going to protect them from the flood of information they receive outside this forum? You can't. Every member has to learn to absorb what they can and pass over what they cannot.

You make false claim re: the electron flow model being invalid. You make false claim re:the current control model of transistors being invalid. You do this using words which are clearly and repeatedly condescending. When you do offer up a more detailed and reasonable version of what you actually meant, it is buried pages deep in nit-picks. If you don't believe this, ask a neutral party. Then investigate the option of learning to express yourself in a more fruitful way.
I made no such claim. I have no idea to what you are referring. I searched this forum for the words "electron flow model" and the only hits came from this thread. I never proposed a model, and never said models were not useful. I did say that BJTs were voltage controlled by Vbe, but that does not mean that they should be designed that way due to Vbe's small voltage range and Ic exponential dependance of Vbe.

Then why do you persist in (condescendingly) telling us the electron flow model of transistor operation is not valid?
See above.

Ratch
 

Thread Starter

Ratch

Joined Mar 20, 2007
1,070
beenthere,

I see no control here. How do I build a differential amplifier using BJT's will only voltage as the control. We must specifically exclude current here, as we do keep hearing that BJT's are voltage controlled.

Following that, I will ask for a linear power supply regulator, and so on. Surely you can demonstrate that voltage is the sole controlling parameter in each case?
Any BJT used in any application when operated in the active region will have voltage control because it is a voltage controlled device. That means for each value of Ic current, the Vbe voltage will be the same regardless its value of Ib current. Sedra and Smith shows that (Ic=Is*exp(Vbe/Vt). The above statement assumes, of course, that the transistor is the same, the temperature is the same, and the current is low enough so that bulk resistance effects do not "steal" voltage. Again I say, trying to design and implement a BJT circuit by directly controlling its Vbe is not practical due to the small range of Vbe and the exponential relationship of Ic to Vbe.

By the way, what is a definition of "waste product", with reference to Ib? How may we eliminate it?
The small amount of current that get attracted into the base circuit by Vbe.

By manufacturing a BJT with a infinite or close to infinite beta. Then no or scarely any current will exist in the base circuit. Unfortunately, it cannot be done.

Ratch
 

thingmaker3

Joined May 16, 2005
5,083
Members rely on other sources besides this forum to learn. At least I hope they do. How are you going to protect them from the flood of information they receive outside this forum? You can't.
I can take action here. I will continue to do so.

I searched this forum for the words "electron flow model" and the only hits came from this thread.
Your poor choice of search terms is not my concern.

Bottom line: Detrimental posts will be handled as they have been handled.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top