>> Feel free to correct me where my understanding :-)
>
> Are you forgetting about the constant heater current? ;-)

My course was this millennium (just)...

Post a reply to this message

On 13-5-2016 9:28, Stephen wrote:
> On 5/13/2016 7:52 AM, Thomas de Groot wrote:
>> On 13-5-2016 0:52, dick balaska wrote:
>>> Am 2016-05-11 02:53, also sprach Thomas de Groot:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> So, what are you waiting for to implement this in your next alpha?
>>>> Should have been done yesterday.
>>>>
>>>
>>> It is already done, and not done.
>>>
>>
>> Somehow I always get the dead cat.
>>
>
> You are doing something wrong, then.
> Try going to the world where it's living. See, easy.
>

It is living but I burn my fingers instead.

-- 
Thomas

Post a reply to this message

On 5/13/2016 11:52 AM, scott wrote:
>>> Feel free to correct me where my understanding :-)
>>
>> Are you forgetting about the constant heater current? ;-)
>
> My course was this millennium (just)...

Just going back to basics.

There is a look of the quantum about thermionic emission.

-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On 5/13/2016 1:06 PM, Thomas de Groot wrote:
> On 13-5-2016 9:28, Stephen wrote:
>> On 5/13/2016 7:52 AM, Thomas de Groot wrote:
>>> On 13-5-2016 0:52, dick balaska wrote:
>>>> Am 2016-05-11 02:53, also sprach Thomas de Groot:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> So, what are you waiting for to implement this in your next alpha?
>>>>> Should have been done yesterday.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> It is already done, and not done.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Somehow I always get the dead cat.
>>>
>>
>> You are doing something wrong, then.
>> Try going to the world where it's living. See, easy.
>>
>
> It is living but I burn my fingers instead.
>

On consideration, I still think that you are doing something wrong.


-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On 5/13/2016 1:14 PM, Stephen wrote:
>> It is living but I burn my fingers instead.
>>
>
> On consideration, I still think that you are doing something wrong.


Just a shot in the dark. Are you keeping your eye on Maxwell's Demon?


-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On 13-5-2016 14:17, Stephen wrote:
> On 5/13/2016 1:14 PM, Stephen wrote:
>>> It is living but I burn my fingers instead.
>>>
>>
>> On consideration, I still think that you are doing something wrong.
>
>
> Just a shot in the dark. Are you keeping your eye on Maxwell's Demon?
>
>

Argh! Forgot about that one!

-- 
Thomas

Post a reply to this message

Am 13.05.2016 um 11:20 schrieb scott:
>>> As clipka mentioned, a transistor used in digital circuits is either in
>>> a state where the current flow is zero ("off") OR the voltage drop is
>>> zero ("on"), so heat output is usually zero. It's switching between
>>> those two states, when both voltage and current are non-zero, that
>>> significant heat is dissipated within the transistor.
>>
>> Um... no?
> 
> It was a while ago I did my electronics course, but I was under the
> impression a FET worked a bit like a voltage controlled resistor. So
> with zero volts on the gate the resistance between drain and source was
> effectively infinite (so no current would flow), and as you increase the
> gate voltage the resistance went down to almost zero at a high enough
> gate voltage (so there would be current flowing, determined by whatever
> the output was connected to, but the voltage drop across the transistor
> would be near-zero).
> 
> For digital circuits you switch between fully on and fully off, whereas
> in an analog design (eg audio amplifier) you work in the "inbetween"
> region, controlling the output current based on the gate voltage. In
> this inbetween region, you have a non-zero voltage drop, and a non-zero
> current flow, so this generates heat inside the device according to P=VI.
> 
> Feel free to correct me where my understanding :-)

There is a fallacy here: In contrast to a bipolar transistor, where the
voltage drop is more or less constant, in a FET it is the resistance
that is more or less constant (and low but non-zero), while the voltage
drop may actually vary wildly, depending on the current flowing; if
there is /any/ external mechanism that serves to stabilize the voltage
across the FET's source-drain channel, it /will/ remain high, and
according to R=V/I will instead drag the current up with it.

Note that R=V/I can be rewritten as I=V/R, so that P=VI = V^2/R --
meaning that, given a sufficiently stabilized voltage, a constant
near-zero resistance will actually lead to a *near-infinite* power
consumption (and consequently heat generation).

You can easily check this by connecting the terminals of a sufficiently
strong power source, such as a car battery, with a sufficiently constant
low-ohmic resistor, such as a piece of thick copper wire. (Spoiler
alert: *Don't!*)

And voltage-stabilizing elements are abundant in any modern digital
circuitry -- you want the power rails' voltage to be as stabile as
possible, after all; also, all the transistor gates to be switched
inevitably act as capacitances themselves, and you have parasitic
capacitances between the "wires"; at the same time you want to minimize
any current-stabilizing effects, such as parasitic inductivity, as they
stand in the way of increasing operating speed.


So again, no -- the fact that in modern digital circuitry switched-on
FETs don't draw any power is not because of any inherent near-zero
voltage drop in the on-state (as demonstrated above such an effect does
not exist), but because due to the design of the circuitry the current
is, for all purposes and intents, actually zero (which happens to have
the side effect that the voltage drop is indeed also zero) when the
circuitry is in a steady state. (As a matter of fact, switched-on FETs
/do/ consume power whenever they participate in the charging or
discharging of another FET's gate.)

Post a reply to this message

Am 12.05.2016 um 19:24 schrieb Stephen:

> Yes, that's right. My job was to run about with a butterfly net and
> collect the petrol vapour.

That explains a lot. :)

Post a reply to this message

On 5/17/2016 9:29 PM, clipka wrote:
> Am 12.05.2016 um 19:24 schrieb Stephen:
>
>> Yes, that's right. My job was to run about with a butterfly net and
>> collect the petrol vapour.
>
> That explains a lot. :)
>

It does. :P

-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

> There is a fallacy here: In contrast to a bipolar transistor, where the
> voltage drop is more or less constant, in a FET it is the resistance
> that is more or less constant (and low but non-zero), while the voltage
> drop may actually vary wildly, depending on the current flowing;

I thought the resistance (between source and drain) changes 
significantly as you change the gate voltage though? Otherwise how does 
a FET amplifier work? Like this one:

http://newton.ex.ac.uk/teaching/CDHW/Electronics2/PHY2028-C16.1.gif

That's the bit I'm missing/not understanding. If the effective 
resistance (Vds/Id) is always a constant, near zero (much less than 10K 
I assume), then wouldn't that mean the outputs in that circuit (Vd and 
Vs) were always 7.5V or thereabouts?

Post a reply to this message