PNP transistor and argument with my teacher

[Studiot]

SC, At least we are agreed on the last line of mine you quoted.

 

[sophiecentaur]

SC, At least we are agreed on the last line of mine you quoted.

I think it's worse than that, actually. After centuries, things were slowly improving. Then this version of comprehensive came along. They're now reaping the whirlwind.

 

[jim hardy]

I like to dance over the corpses of my enemies!

That's natural enough. But don't humiliate a man in public; preservation of self image is a primal instinct and any cornered critter might lash out.

I do like your attention to detail.

 

[Femme_physics]

Ah, sorry for coming back late. I just took a bit of a break.

I always maintain myself with grace I didn't mean to make a mountain out of a molehill, just wanted my 100. But, admittance that he was wrong and I was right, he could have at least done. I did the entire conversation with him in hushed tone. Although, yea, I spread it to the entire class so they'll know :P

But... congrats! A perfect score! You've got a 100 AND you were the only one!

Thanks :) Although he made another mistake with another classmate's test, so both of us are the only ones who got a 100. (he's the one who helped me run the simulator to the question, although he avoided this question as it was a choice question).

And more... you had the self confidence that you were right and ready to proof it!

Oh yea, something felt fishy about it. I'm glad I had it, too :)

 

[Averagesupernova]

Femme, your attitude towards your teachers sounds exactly like mine when I was in school. Keep it up! I am sure some days they loved me and others they hated me.

 

[jim hardy]

Femme i promised you i'd take a look in my old GE transistor manuals for something on the significance of the order of the letters in that measurement.

The 1958 manual is consistent but doesn't define their conventions of notation.
They always show the correct polarity for a forward biased junction in accordance with that meter lead connection i gave you.
So they are consistent.
Interestingly in their explanations they swap back and forth seamlessly between electron and conventional current flows, as us old vacuum tube guys all learned to do. To them it was intuitive and things were less formal in those days before advent of "Publish or Perish".

The 1964 manual says in section "Explanation of parameter symbols" that:
V_KJis "Voltage between terminals K and J"
and a page earlier that K is the measurement electrode and J the reference one.
Why they called them electrodes rather than pins or terminals i don't know.

So V_BE would mean base voltage as measured with reference to emitter,
which for a forwared biased NPN silicon transistor would be positive and for a PNP negative..

Not significant now, i just wanted to close the loop.

Interestingly that 1964 edition addresses conventional vs electron current flow :

The question itself of "which way does current flow" is academic. In practical circuit design it can even be a trivial consideration, except where accurate communication is involved; of real importance is that one try to be consistent. Consistency is not always easy, however, when dealing with the semiconductor "world of opposites".

It then goes on to explain why conventional current is more intuitive for semiconductor work.
They were consistent in both the 1958 and 1964 editions.

Sophie dislikes electron current flow,
i am ambidextrous about it and will use either. But i grew up on octal tubes.

since tubes are virtually gone from circuit design one should adopt the "coin of the realm" which is conventional current.
Electron flow is like Latin - good to know for understanding our roots, but not much good for pickup lines..

old jim

PS Belated congratulations on that good grade!