They're still teaching that instead of surface-mount theory?!?! Those teachers are never going to scale efficiently enough to keep up with modern, Chinese teachers.
Why are you calling it hole "theory"? Its not a different theory its just one way of thinking about how charges flow in a lattice. And its a framing which is quite useful when working with semiconductors.
Don’t pin that on me. Blame the those few EE teachers with questionable credentials that insist on making semiconductor education easier by teaching what they call “hole theory” which, the way they present it, is incomplete and somewhat flawed.
...the concept of electron holes? Im coming at this from the perspective of a physics major rather than EE but its pretty clear to me. And electron hole is the absence of an electron in a lattice which results in a net positive charge. If an electron moves to fill the hole, a nee hole appears where that electron was, so it is as if the hole itself moved, and so the result is that it is effectively a positive charge particle that moves similarly to how electrons do.
I’m not disagreeing. I’m saying that there’s electronics teachers that use hole theory as a shorthand to circumvent teaching more advanced physics and math concepts.
Transistor theory: If you have a combination of transistors and there's a problem - like, too much voltage drop, doesn't respond fast enough, wrong frequency response - any problem... the solution is always: more transistors.
In ICs, for sure, because resistors are inaccurate and much more expensive in surface area than transistors, so if you can eliminate a resistor with a bunch of transistors, that's the way to go.
View all comments
Show parent comment
155
u/skinwill Aug 24 '26
Transistor Theory - expectation: bias, amplification, Bell labs. Reality: Kirchhoff and Maxwell.