Posted on 05/08/2003 10:11:06 AM PDT by Nebullis
I made the original statement. It was you that started the argument about it by accusing me of being a troll in making the statement. Now you say we agree and further say this
Give it up, son. You're just making a monumental ass of yourself.
Your statement actually describes yourself.
In a sense, you should insist on a refund. A transistor is a transistor. Absent the potential of a bias on the base your "back to back diodes" are as useless as a tit on a bull.
That's a nice straw man you've got there. "Absent the potential of a bias on the base" my hind end. Yeah, and "absent a battery a radio is just a hunk of metal and plastic". Like that disproves that radios work? Your squirming aside, if you take two PN junctions (diodes) and join them P-to-P or N-to-N, you will indeed have constructed a working transistor (although not a practical one if the middle of the "sandwich" is too thick). I presented specific facts and argument in the post to which you are responding, and I note you haven't attempted to refute a single one of them -- the best you can do is mouth off and make personally insulting remarks. Typical.
Take your sophistry elsewhere, we're not in the market today.
Did you take a course on "bull" in college as well? I hope the doping lecture was for the benefit of the general public because if it was intended for me, I can only chuckle.
I'm sure that *is* all you can do. Many of the rest of us are capable of a higher level of discourse, however.
I don't know what your problem is, but kindly do not continue to share it with us unless you've got something worthwhile to add to the conversation.
No doubt that is how you use it or many others. But then why address it to all, more than one, or any other specific person(unless it is just convenient) when it is much easier to just leave the "to line" blank?
It seems to me that part of judging the quality of arguments involves some knowledge of the topic at hand. (This is not a criticism of you, merely a statement of opinion.)
You don't have the requisite male anatomy to admit when you're wrong.
A battery is the source of potential dipstick, the base or gate of a transistor is an inherent component of same.
I repeat, get a refund forthwith.
I studied college level EE for five years, but that was 30 years ago, and I've been doing mostly micro-electro-mechanical systems (MEMS) for the last 20 years.
Like General_re, I've forgotten most of what I knew.
The core argument isn't a quibble about diodes and transisitors, it's whether a useful circuit can be designed by an evolutionary process.
The answer to that question is yes.
Well, it may be to you, but here we are discussing a specific circuit. Since you have a background in the subject, you might have some opinion as to the evolved circuit and how it functions. Specifically, how it functions compared to the patented circuit in the environment and uses for which it was designed.
Well, your honesty and integrity cannot be challenged.
In a million turn 10K pot.
Computers are very good at iteration given a problem, a desired solution, a dbase and a good programmer.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.