Lastly I believe the issue with explaining the offered ccts with the offered convention is you are mixing the different order conventions. The convention of BJT are current controlled devices is a first order convention that happens to be useful in second order just like in first order a resistor is considered to be purely resistive and at higher orders their inductance and capacitance is taken into account.
Hi warsim - I am afraid, it makes not too much sense to continue this discussion.
Perhaps we have a communication problem due to different languages.
(Quote: „I am not going to discuss physics here“). My question: Why not ? From the beginning, I spoke about physical effects - and you are stressing „
conventions" of first and higher order only. I do not know any document, article or textbook which classifies the control mechanism of a BJT as a pure "convention" only.
I must admit that I am a bit disappointed not to see any answers to my pure technical and circuit-oriented questions in my posts#17 and #22. I think, we all are engineers and should be able and willing to answer technical questions?
OK - let`s stop the „discussion“ (unfortunately in most parts non-technical) and let me
summarize:
1.) Up to now, I have seen
not a single publication/textbook which contains some arguments against the voltage-control property of BJT`s (simply stating it would be current-controlled is no counter argument).
2.) However, there are many circuit-based effects and examples (and I have listed some of them in post #17 and #22) which can be explained using voltage-control only (and NOT on the basis of current-control). Unfortunately, no comments from your side.
3.) More than that, the technical fact of BJT`s voltage-control is emphasized by many serious and credible engineers/scientists (see some examples in my former post#33).
Now - every reader of this thread may create his own view.