Why the common emmiter
|
|
Thread rating:  |
yehia3@gmail.com - 24 Apr 2007 19:38 GMT hello every body, i have a quistion. Why do we use the common emmiter ?
Bob Myers - 24 Apr 2007 20:00 GMT > hello every body, i have a quistion. Why do we use the common emmiter ? As opposed to what?
Describe what the CE, CB, and CC configurations do in terms of voltage and current gain, and input and output impedance, and you should have your answer.
Bob M.
Eeyore - 24 Apr 2007 20:50 GMT > hello every body, i have a quistion. Why do we use the common emmiter ? It's popular because it has both current and voltage gain.
We do also use the common base and the common collector (emitter follower) too you know.
Graham
John Larkin - 24 Apr 2007 21:47 GMT >> hello every body, i have a quistion. Why do we use the common emmiter ? > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > >Graham Just look at the transistor symbol. Obviously the emitter is heavier, so it settles down to ground.
But I'm still confused about PNP's. I figure the emitters must be helium implanted, since they tend to go up.
John
Eeyore - 24 Apr 2007 23:10 GMT > But I'm still confused about PNP's. I figure the emitters must be > helium implanted, since they tend to go up. Except in the 'old days' of course.
Graham
redbelly - 26 Apr 2007 12:20 GMT On Apr 24, 4:47 pm, John Larkin <jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 24 Apr 2007 20:50:35 +0100, Eeyore > [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > > John Unless, of course, you live in the southern hemisphere ...
Mark
John Larkin - 26 Apr 2007 19:16 GMT >On Apr 24, 4:47 pm, John Larkin ><jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > >Mark Don't be silly. Nobody lives in the southern hemisphere.
John
redbelly - 27 Apr 2007 00:35 GMT On Apr 26, 2:16 pm, John Larkin <jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
> >On Apr 24, 4:47 pm, John Larkin > ><jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > > John Of course nobody lives there permanently. However, the scientists in Antarctica do need to account for the transistors in their equipment running in "inverted down-under" mode. If transistor-inversion were not accounted for properly in their data analysis, then we'd all be hearing reports (erroneously) of the south pole's ozone **surplus**.
Thankfully, we are smart enough to know better.
Mark
Michael A. Terrell - 27 Apr 2007 01:42 GMT > On Apr 26, 2:16 pm, John Larkin > <jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 39 lines] > > Thankfully, we are smart enough to know better. Don't be silly. The scientists are smart enough to turn their equipment upside down so it works, just like it does in the real world.
 Signature Service to my country? Been there, Done that, and I've got my DD214 to prove it. Member of DAV #85.
Michael A. Terrell Central Florida
redbelly - 27 Apr 2007 22:47 GMT On Apr 26, 8:42 pm, "Michael A. Terrell" <mike.terr...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> > On Apr 26, 2:16 pm, John Larkin > > <jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 50 lines] > Michael A. Terrell > Central Florida You give them too much credit. It was one of their technicians who said to them, "Hey! We can turn the equipment upside down so it works, just like it does in the real world!"
LOL
Mark
Michael A. Terrell - 28 Apr 2007 00:13 GMT > You give them too much credit. It was one of their technicians who > said to them, "Hey! We can turn the equipment upside down so it [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Mark Do you always have to state the obvious?
When was the last time a research team admitted, "While we were sleeping off three weeks of heavy drinking, one of our lowly techs figured everything out. The theory, and the required equipment to prove the theory. He then designed and built the required device and wrote the documentation. After we saw that it worked, we shot him and dumped his body down an abandoned well so the truth would never come out."
 Signature Service to my country? Been there, Done that, and I've got my DD214 to prove it. Member of DAV #85.
Michael A. Terrell Central Florida
Charles - 24 Apr 2007 21:45 GMT > hello every body, i have a quistion. Why do we use the common emmiter ? Has the best power gain and moderate input/output impedances.
Jon Slaughter - 24 Apr 2007 23:31 GMT > hello every body, i have a quistion. Why do we use the common emmiter ? Its the only amplifier configuration.
CB is a switch. It is normally to unstable for use as an amplifier(or you can think of it as an amplifier with positive feedback that saturates or cuts off the transistor very easily).
CC is a unity gain buffer. It has a high impedence input so that you do not load the output of whatever your taking(sorta like how a volt meter works... volt meters would be useless if when you used them they did not give you the right voltage). Its output is low impedence which means that it can drive a load.
CE is a relatively stable amplifier. It will take a voltage signal and amplify it. Here though there is a loading effect. By adding a CC at the end then you can buffer the amplifier so that you get the best of both worlds. You get gain from the CE + low loading effects.
CB and CC do not amplify(in the sense of taking a small single and making it larger) but they have other important properties.
Eeyore - 25 Apr 2007 00:09 GMT > CB and CC do not amplify Ahem !
Graham
John Popelish - 25 Apr 2007 00:44 GMT > Its the only amplifier configuration. Man, do you have a lot of wonderful things to learn about transistors.
Any configuration with more power out than power in has gain.
CE, CB and CC can all have power gain.
> CB is a switch. It is normally to unstable for use as an amplifier(or you > can think of it as an amplifier with positive feedback that saturates or > cuts off the transistor very easily). I don't know where to start. CB puts the input impedance in the output circuit as negative feedback. This makes the output more linear (less like a switch).
> CC is a unity gain buffer. It has a high impedence input so that you do not > load the output of whatever your taking(sorta like how a volt meter works... > volt meters would be useless if when you used them they did not give you the > right voltage). Its output is low impedence which means that it can drive a > load. Good. And that current gain at unity voltage gain represents real power gain.
> CE is a relatively stable amplifier. It will take a voltage signal and > amplify it. Here though there is a loading effect. By adding a CC at the [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > CB and CC do not amplify(in the sense of taking a small single and making it > larger) but they have other important properties. Of course, they do. CB amplifiers can produce voltage gain and CC can produce current gain. That is getting a bigger signal (in a power sense) out than you put in.
Michael Black - 25 Apr 2007 01:01 GMT >> hello every body, i have a quistion. Why do we use the common emmiter ? > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > can think of it as an amplifier with positive feedback that saturates or > cuts off the transistor very easily). Now this is a roundabout way to force us to do the guy's homework.
Common base are used when one wants to do impedance transformation. So when you want to use that 8 ohm speaker as a microphone, you use a common base amplifier because the low impedance input will better match the microphone, and you will get some gain as well as a higher output impedance.
One should point out that common base amplifiers are not uncommon in radio work, because they do that impedance transformation and because their relatively low gain is a good thing. If it had more gain, it would require more effort to ensure that it wasn't unstable.
Michael
Bob Myers - 25 Apr 2007 04:52 GMT > Now this is a roundabout way to force us to do the guy's homework. Well, I tried in my original response to avoid doing that, but it looks like some folks just have that overwhelming urge to explain....
;-)
Bob M.
Michael Black - 25 Apr 2007 14:32 GMT >> Now this is a roundabout way to force us to do the guy's homework. > > Well, I tried in my original response to avoid doing that, but it > looks like some folks just have that overwhelming urge to explain.... I seriously thought that was a good answer of yours. Because it pointed the way, without actually providing the answer.
Michael
John Larkin - 25 Apr 2007 01:29 GMT >> hello every body, i have a quistion. Why do we use the common emmiter ? > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >can think of it as an amplifier with positive feedback that saturates or >cuts off the transistor very easily). Common-base has the same voltage gain as common-emitter, and it's just as linear and sometimes more stable.
John
Bob Myers - 25 Apr 2007 04:49 GMT >> hello every body, i have a quistion. Why do we use the common emmiter ? > > Its the only amplifier configuration. It most certainly is not. Take a look at the output stage of most audio amps, and get back to us, OK?
(Hint: "amplifier" does not necessary equate to "voltage gain.")
Bob M.
Jon Slaughter - 25 Apr 2007 05:58 GMT Anyone else want to point out my ignorance and that I must have an IQ of -3? By amplification I ment voltage amplification... I thought it would be clear because usually that is how they are configured. A unity gain buffer is unity in voltage but you don't say a unity gain voltage buffer? When you talk about amplification it is almost always in the context of voltage amplification? If you talk about current "amplification" it is almost always talked about as current "gain"?
Also, aren't all transistors configured for power gain? wouldn't it be worthless if both voltage and current decreased?
I was wrong about the CC and what I ment was a base biased configuration. I was trying to give the 3 common modes that transistors are used as: Switching, Amplification, and buffering.
Now amplification means voltage amplification because buffering is current "amplification". If not then why call it a unity gain buffer and not a current amplifier? Ok, maybe some people do but some of you have acted like I commited a cardinal sin and it must mean I have no clue about what I was talking about. In fact I was atleast 2/3 right and if you stop grading me like a test then I might not be as dumb as some of you want to make me out to be. Maybe I got some termiology mixed up but it is enough to point that out instead of trying to ridicule me.
Obviously if I said a switch it must be the configuration for a switch. i.e. base biasing. So just changed CC to Base biased and that fixes that problem. Just prefix all amplifications with voltage amplification and then that fixes the other issue.
I guess 10 more people are going to reply to my original and say the same stuff the last 10 said and call me a retard? Now I really feel like a retard. Thanks guys.
You know, its one thing to point out the mistake like John Larkin did and its another to try and make the person completely feel like a retard even when the mistakes are more about terminology than anything else. Maybe I should have been more clear or re-read my post but its not like I'm writing a thesis. Sometimes I jsut get confused on the names cause I don't mess with transistors much. Actually all I have ever did was a simple *voltage* amplifier. I have read about them and actually just got finished reading again... but the details don't stay in my brain when I don't use them. The book I was reading only discussed CE and CB and base bias so I assumed CC was that base bias because I recalled that there were only 3 configurations. I'm going to have to see exactly how CC works now to see the difference.
John Popelish - 25 Apr 2007 06:15 GMT > Anyone else want to point out my ignorance and that I must have an IQ of -3? (snip)
Don't take it so hard or so personally. I get focused on an idea (often a completely mistaken tangent) and say something stupid, almost daily. I have tried (and sometimes it is hard) to just smile and say thank you when someone points out how silly my contribution was.
You gave us all an opportunity to wax poetic on transistor configurations. Besides, its a lot more fun to criticize someone than just to dive in and and write a tutorial. Stick around. You'll get your chance to correct me. ;-)
Jon Slaughter - 25 Apr 2007 07:01 GMT >> Anyone else want to point out my ignorance and that I must have an IQ >> of -3? [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > and write a tutorial. Stick around. You'll get your chance to correct me. > ;-) I know... sometimes its hurts though!! ;) We all want to know everything and when someone points out that you don't it stings... and when they make you feel stupid then its even worse..
What sucks is that I just got finished reviewing the damn sh.t and I should have known but I completely forgot all the names of the different configurations ;/ I do understand how the work but unfortunately the book I'm reading didn't conver CC(or if it did it used a different name or I just haven't got to it yet). I really need to get in some practice with some transistor circuits soon... hopefully I'll be able to play around more with them later.
I guess I'm more mad at myself than anyone. I hate when I try to be helpful but end up making it worse. I should atleast double check what I'm saying to make sure but I tend to be lazy and just type what ever pops in my mind...
Oh well... no hard feelings ;)
John Larkin - 25 Apr 2007 16:43 GMT >>> Anyone else want to point out my ignorance and that I must have an IQ >>> of -3? [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] >when someone points out that you don't it stings... and when they make you >feel stupid then its even worse.. Everybody makes a mistake now and then, especially so when the consequences are low, as in no planes will crash or anything like that. Just say "oops" and get on with life... it's no big deal. I see my mistakes as reminders that I should brush up on something, which then keeps me from making the same mistake later when it really matters, as when serious things might be involved.
John
Rich Grise - 25 Apr 2007 20:03 GMT > On Wed, 25 Apr 2007 01:01:11 -0500, "Jon Slaughter" >>"John Popelish" <jpopelish@rica.net> wrote in message [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > then keeps me from making the same mistake later when it really > matters, as when serious things might be involved. Speaking of mistakes, I was in the liquor store the other day to buy a bottle, and there was some kid at the counter. I asked, "Are you in line?" and he sort of stepped aside and said "go ahead". So I got my bottle, handed the proprietor two fives, he rang it up, put it in the register, and asked for another $1.77 or something. I was confused - "What? You can't make change out of the till?" And some minor discussion ensued, and the guy realized that I had given him two fives, not a five and a one, and he was just mortified - "Oh, I make mistake! So sorry!"
I said, "Oh, a mistake. No big deal, everybody makes mistakes - that's how we learn stuff. :-)" The guy counted out the correct change, and all was well.
On the way out the door, the kid that had been standing watching the whole transaction said, "Yeah, I learned something here too."
It made me feel good.
Cheers! Rich
John Popelish - 25 Apr 2007 22:54 GMT (snip)
> And some minor discussion > ensued, and the guy realized that I had given him two fives, not a five [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > how we learn stuff. :-)" The guy counted out the correct change, and > all was well. (snip)
When I was trained as a cashier (at age 15) I was taught to always lay the tendered money on the shelf above the cash drawer, till the customer had accepted his change and left. Then to put it in the drawer, close it and serve the next customer.
That way, if there was a question about what was given, the dispute was easily settled. My employer was not so much worried about my mistakes but with people intentionally scamming me by claiming they had given me a big bill and were short changed. A couple times people didn't notice where I put their money and started protesting loudly about being short changed, but quickly bowed out when I picked up their payment and showed it to them. Sadly, it seems that such practices and how to count out change are becoming a lost art.
John Popelish - 25 Apr 2007 17:59 GMT >>> Anyone else want to point out my ignorance and that I must have an IQ >>> of -3? [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > I'm reading didn't conver CC(or if it did it used a different name or I just > haven't got to it yet). They are often referred to as emitter followers, since the output voltage from the emitter "follows or parallels the input voltage on the base.
I am dyslexic, and regularly get NPN and PNP substituted for each other, when describing a circuit. I don't have the problem with schematics, for some reason.
> I really need to get in some practice with some > transistor circuits soon... hopefully I'll be able to play around more with > them later. > > I guess I'm more mad at myself than anyone. I hate when I try to be helpful > but end up making it worse. You made it quite a bit better for the O.P. Lots of people who were not willing to help with what looked like homework, were more than happy to correct someone who was willing.
> I should atleast double check what I'm saying to > make sure but I tend to be lazy and just type what ever pops in my mind... You can always offer a double your money back, guarantee.
> Oh well... no hard feelings ;) I don't believe you, but hope you'll heal. ;-)
John Larkin - 25 Apr 2007 19:45 GMT >I am dyslexic, and regularly get NPN and PNP substituted for >each other, when describing a circuit. I don't have the >problem with schematics, for some reason. I always draw the emitters up on PNPs and the emitters down on NPN's. Voltages are more positive at the top of the sheet, and current flows down.
I draw mosfsts sort of like IGBTs...
| | | | |- --| | n-ch mosfet |> | | | |
because the "proper" symbol is a mess.
You write awfully well for being dyslexic.
John
John Popelish - 25 Apr 2007 22:47 GMT (snip)
> You write awfully well for being dyslexic. My oldest posts (before my emailer had spell checking) were a mess. I still can't seem to write the word "to" as anything but "ot" and have to go back and correct it most of the time. It was in my spell checker (I assume as an acronym for off topic or old testament or something), but I managed to delete ot from the dictionary, so the spell checker now catches those. I can read something I am composing, and it looks fine, but as soon as I see it in a reply or in, Google, all the errors jump out at me. I used to get pissed about writing so poorly, but it didn't help, so I gave it up.
John Larkin - 26 Apr 2007 01:25 GMT >(snip) >> You write awfully well for being dyslexic. [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >to get pissed about writing so poorly, but it didn't help, >so I gave it up. I have a few words I often mis-type. "Status" is one, and "the" sometimes comes out "teh."
status status stayst status stayus
see?
John
John Popelish - 26 Apr 2007 02:34 GMT > I have a few words I often mis-type. "Status" is one, and "the" > sometimes comes out "teh." I do and see that a lot.
> status status stayst status stayus > > see? For a few years, I could not type 'ratio' without it coming out 'ration', automatically. I finally got tired of missing it (the spell checker is no help) and now every time (well, almost every time) I type 'ratio', I slow down and force myself to leave the 'n' off. But the fingers always put up an argument. "t-i-o is always followed by n, dammit."
John Larkin - 26 Apr 2007 04:36 GMT >> I have a few words I often mis-type. "Status" is one, and "the" >> sometimes comes out "teh." [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >myself to leave the 'n' off. But the fingers always put up >an argument. "t-i-o is always followed by n, dammit." A lot of my typing errors are homonyms. Weird.
Not that I can type... I'm still a two-finger, gotta-see-the-keyboard typer. That's probably why I'm a pretty good programmer... I type slow enough to think about what I'm doing.
John
ehsjr - 26 Apr 2007 02:33 GMT > (snip) > >> You write awfully well for being dyslexic. Yup. And he writes awfully well, period. You're no slouch, either.
Ed
> My oldest posts (before my emailer had spell checking) were a mess. I > still can't seem to write the word "to" as anything but "ot" and have to [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > out at me. I used to get pissed about writing so poorly, but it didn't > help, so I gave it up. John Larkin - 26 Apr 2007 04:37 GMT >>I am dyslexic, and regularly get NPN and PNP substituted for >>each other, when describing a circuit. I don't have the [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > >I draw mosfsts sort of like IGBTs... ^^^^^^^
See? Can't spell!
John
Michael A. Terrell - 26 Apr 2007 04:48 GMT > >>I am dyslexic, and regularly get NPN and PNP substituted for > >>each other, when describing a circuit. I don't have the [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > John Gee, John. No one is perfect. If you were someone would want to nail you to a cross. :)
 Signature Service to my country? Been there, Done that, and I've got my DD214 to prove it. Member of DAV #85.
Michael A. Terrell Central Florida
John Larkin - 27 Apr 2007 20:51 GMT >hello every body, i have a quistion. Why do we use the common emmiter ? Does anybody remember the dual emitter transistor? You could have common emitter-emitter, or common emitter and common base at the same time.
John
Bill Bowden - 27 Apr 2007 21:12 GMT On Apr 27, 12:51 pm, John Larkin <jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
> >hello every body, i have a quistion. Why do we use the common emmiter ? > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > John I only remeber the dual gate fet that had a wire ring around all the leads that you removed after the fet was installed. And if you wanted to remove the fet from the circuit you needed to wrap some wire around the leads to avoid static. But it never worked since the wire would come loose and the thing was always dead when I got it back in the circuit.
-Bill
|
|
|