Why does the Darlington pair have a higher input resistance?

On July 7, in one of our discussions, LvW asked me an interesting question about the famous Darlington pair: "By the way: Some days ago I stumbled over the question: What are the advantages/disadvantages of the Darlington-pair? Do you have a short answer?"

It was an exact hit because this circuit was one of my favorite circuit solutions. I immediately replied: "I have also thought a lot about the Darlington pair... I have even found an interesting phenomenon in its operation - the first transistor introduces negative feedback between the collector and the base of the second transistor. That is why, its collector voltage cannot be below 0.7 V (disadvantage)." A big advantage of this 2-transistor circuit is that it behaves like a three-pin transistor (collector, base, emitter). This allows ordinary transistors to be replaced by Darlington "transistors" (TIP) and v.v. I have often seen my son do it during car repairs...

But the warm summer came, we went on vacation and the discussion ended...
...

Esterday I was pleasantly surprised to see that LvW resumed the discussion:

"I think, it is nothing else than an emitter follower (seen from T1) with an active emitter resistance (in put resistance of T2). As a consequence, the input resistance at the base node of T1 has increased correspondingly (doubled). This is the only advantage of the Darlington pair if compared with a single BJT. Some people think that the drastic increase of the current gain beta=beta1*beta2 would be an enormous improvement - however, this is not so important. The only positive consequence is - as mentioned - the increase of the input resistance. We should not overlook that the transconductance gm - if compared with a single transistor having the same collector current Ic as T2 - is reduced by 50%. Hence, the voltage gain of a single transistor can be made larger (same Ic) - but for the price of a smaller input resistance."

Here is my answer:

My explanation

I completely agree with you. I will only explain it more "philosophically" as an example of applying a "circuit philosophy":) I will use the simplest possible words, without any terms and clichés... as though we do not know anything about emitter follower, series negative feedback, Miller theorem etc... we only know the simplest electrical concepts... In other words, I will try to answer a question like, "Why is the grass green:)?

So, what is the trick here?

If there was only T1 with a grounded emitter (simple common-emitter stage), the input voltage source would pass a relatively high base current through T1's base-emitter junction.

The clever trick here is that "something" like a (non-linear) resistor is inserted between T1's emitter and ground... and the amplified base current (i.e., the collector current) passes through it. We can think of this current-supplied element as a voltage source connected contrary in series to the input voltage. As a result, T1's base current decreases many times while the input voltage is the same... and the input resistance artificially increases.

So, the conclusion is: Whatever we put in the emitter of a transistor, as long as it has some resistance (linear or nonlinear), the input resistance increases. Interesting are the cases when the "thing" is nonlinear and it behaves like a "dynamic resistor". Then it either helps or hinders the input voltage in its quest to change the base current.

In our case (an emitter follower with voltage-stabilizing emitter "resistor"), when the input voltage increases, the base, collector and emitter currents increase as well... but the dynamic resistance (of T2's base-emitter junction) decreases. So, it helps the input voltage source to increase T1's base current... and, as a result, decreases the input resistance.

In other cases (an emitter follower with current-stabilizing emitter "resistor"), when the input voltage increases, the base, collector and emitter currents increase as well... but now the dynamic resistance (emitter "current source") increases, too. It hinders the input voltage source to increase T1's base current... and, as a result, the input resistance increases.



Comments

  1. 1.) Yes - I also completely agree to the first part of your text.

    Quote: "We can think of this current-supplied element as a voltage source connected contrary in series to the input voltage. As a result, T1's base current decreases many times while the input voltage is the same... and the input resistance artificially increases."

    This is an exact description of the negative feedback principle.

    2.) But I must admit that I cannot follow (and I disagree to) the second to last section. The input resistance decreases to a lower value because the base-emitter resistance of T2 is decreasing?
    Why is it decreasing ? For a fixed DC operational point, the small-signal parameters are fixed!

    Or did I misunderstand some parts of your wording?

    ReplyDelete
  2. I was quick to explain and saved some details. Indeed, there is always a series negative feedback (emitter degeneration) that increases the input resistance. But unlike the case where a constant resistor is inserted in the emitter (classic emitter degeneration), here the resistance changes dynamically in the opposite direction... and this phenomenon decreases the input resistance. As a result, the input resistance is increased to a lesser extent than in the classical case.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Cyril, I cannot agree. When we discuss input resistances of transistors we have to restrict ourself to small-signal parameters (h11, rbe, g, ...). Hence, there is no "dynamic change" of the resistance in the emitter path of T1.
    The feedback action for T1 is performed by the base-emitter resistance rbe (h11) of the second transistor. And this resistance rbe has a fixed value - determined by the emitter current of T1 (identical to the base current for T2).
    An ohmic resistor Re of the same value (Re=rbe) would have exactly the same feedback effect and the same influence on the input resistance at the base of T1.


    ReplyDelete
  4.  Lutz,

    I mean that, like any diode (voltage-stabilizing) element, T2 base-emitter junction has low "differential resistance" whose IV curve is almost vertical. It is obtained by changing its "static" resistance when the voltage across the junction varies. This "varying static resistance" is named "dynamic resistance".

    Thus, the junction has a low but constant differential resistance that is obtained by varying (dynamic) relatively high static resistance.

    This fully intuitive explanation is different than the classic formal definition of the differential resistance.

    I repeat again: What is "dynamic" (varying) here is the static (ohmic) resistance of the junction.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Cyril, yes - I know and I understand your desription of a "dynamic resistance". But I am sure that you will agree to the following:
    Knowing how in mathematics the differentiating procedure is defined, there is no fundamental difference between the definition of the "dynamic" and the "differential" resistance for a device with a non-linear I-V. curve.
    Both are identical under "small-signal" conditions (as required for all our considerations here regarding amplification, feedback, input resistances,...).

    ReplyDelete
  6. Lutz, for me "dynamic" means "varying" or, more precisely, "self-varying". Now imagine a non-linear element like diode whose vertical part of the IV curve is linear (the exponent is approximated by a line). So, its differential resistance is constant; it is the same in any point of this part. Then, what is dynamic (varying) here?

    ReplyDelete
  7. OK, Cyril - of course, I can imagine what happens with the time-varying static resistor for an exponential I-V characteristics.
    But the question is - does this kind of definition helps to describe and understand the properties of the Darlington pair (our original subject for discussion) ?

    ReplyDelete
  8. Lutz, I think there are two questions here to be answered:

    1. What is "dynamic resistance"?

    2. Does it help to understand the properties of the Darlington pair?

    Let's begin with the first question...

    There are a few kinds of resistances related to non-linear resistors: static, dynamic, differential, AC, small-signal... and we have to know what each of them means.

    "Static" implies that the resistance does not change when the voltage across or current through the resistor (operating point) varies. So, this is the well-known "Ohm's resistance".

    "Dynamic" implies that some resistance changes when the voltage or current change. What is this resistance? I claim this is the static resistance.

    So, "dynamic resistance" means "changing static resistance".

    "Differential", "AC" and "small-signal" imply a ratio between voltage and current changes. It will vary, when the operating point varies, in most cases of non-linear resistors... and then it can be named "dynamic" ("changing", according to Cambridge dictionary).

    But there are cases when some section of the IV curve is linear... or we assume it is linear. Examples are the vertical parts of "ideal" diodes and the horizontal parts of "ideal" transistors. Then differential, AC and small-signal resistances do not change... they are not "dynamic"... they are "static".

    So, my conclusion is:

    "Differential" is not always (equivalent to) "dynamic" while, in this cases of non-linear resistors, their static resistance is always dynamic (changing).

    So, my final conclusion is:

    "Dynamic resistance" means "changing static resistance"... and it is not correct to name it "differential resistance".

    ReplyDelete
  9. Cyril - I am afraid, that there are some parts which I cannot agree upon:

    * Quote: There are a few kinds of resistances related to non-linear resistors: static, dynamic, differential, AC, small-signal... and we have to know what each of them means.

    Yes - very important in order to avoid misundersandings.

    * Quote: "Static" implies that the resistance does not change when the voltage across or current through the resistor (operating point) varies. So, this is the well-known "Ohm's resistance".

    Yes, of course, but there is another „static resistance“: The DC ratio Vo/Io as given by a nonlinear I-V-characteristic in a fixed operational point.

    * Quote: "Dynamic" implies that some resistance changes when the voltage or current change. What is this resistance? I claim this is the static resistance.

    OK - this is in accordance with my comment above.

    * Quote: So, "dynamic resistance" means "changing static resistance".

    OK - but now we have a problem: What is the value of this resistance?
    Example: The ratio changes from R1=V1/I1=900 Ohm to R2=V2/I2=1000 Ohm. What do you think is the value of rdyn ? Is it rdyn=R2-R1=100 Ohm?

    * Quote: "Differential", "AC" and "small-signal" imply a ratio between voltage and current changes. It will vary, when the operating point varies, in most cases of non-linear resistors... and then it can be named "dynamic" ("changing", according to Cambridge dictionary).

    With other words: You speak about the slope of the non-linear I-V-curve.
    Because this slope is found by differentiating the non-linear function it is correct and logical to use the term „differential resistance“ (independent on Cambridge Dictionary).
    More over, because the tangent (slope) applies to small signal changes only (Delta approaches zero), this diff. resistance reflects the reality (and may be applied to) „small signals“ only.
    Because all of our AC calculations/formulas are linear (and therefore, only valid for small signals) , we also can use the term „AC resistance“.

    * Quote: But there are cases when some section of the IV curve is linear... or we assume it is linear. Examples are the vertical parts of "ideal" diodes and the horizontal parts of "ideal" transistors. Then differential, AC and small-signal resistances do not change... they are not "dynamic"... they are "static".

    No, I don`t think, we should use the term „static“ in these cases because this would violate our definition of „static“ at the beginning (and it will create misunderstandings).
    „Static resistances“ are always the ratio of DC values,.
    In these special cases, the differential resistance can be regarded as fixed and not dependent on the operational DC conditions - like the slope of the Ic=f(Vce) curves .

    * Quote: So, my final conclusion is:
    "Dynamic resistance" means "changing static resistance"... and it is not correct to name it "differential resistance".

    That`s right. Both (dynamic and differential) differ considerably.
    But - with respect to my comments above - where is a need to use the „dynamic“ resistance at all? For which purpose - and how to calculate?
    Example from above:
    rdyn=R2-R1=100 Ohm or
    rdyn=(V2-V1)/(I2-I1) ?

    ReplyDelete
  10. Hi Lutz! Thanks for your profound comment... Only you can write such a convincing explanation!

    Let me first make the reservation that this approach is qualitative, heuristic ... and it is intended for intuitive explanation of the phenomena in the nonlinear elements. Its goal is not to calculate.

    Its place is in the beginning and only after then can we apply the classical differential approach. Inventing, understanding, calculating, troubleshooting, implementing... are different activities and each of them requires specific tools...

    As you have noted, only ohmic resistors, whose resistance R = V/I does not change when we change the voltage or current, are truly "static" (in the sense of "constant"). In the case of non-linear resistors, the ratio V/I ("static resistance") is constant only if both voltage and current are constant. But when one of them changes, the ratio changes as well... so the resistance is "dynamic" (in the sense of "self-changing").

    So, what does "static resistance" mean in the case of non-linear resistors? Here is my answer:

    Normally, a nonlinear resistor is "dynamic" - its resistance varies when either voltage or current varies. But imagine that at some point it "freezes" and its resistance stops changing. This "frozen resistance" is the static resistance at this point… it is a constant ohmic resistance. By the way, such a "controllable non-linear resistor" can be emulated by a microcontroller.

    So, "dynamic resistor" means "varying static resistor"... and "static resistor" means "frozen dynamic resistance"...

    ReplyDelete
  11. Quote: "Normally, a nonlinear resistor is "dynamic" - its resistance varies when either voltage or current varies."

    Yes - agreed. HOWEVER: When you say "its resistance varies" - I think you mean the DC ratio V/I, right? Hence, to be exact, we should read: ...its STATIC resistance varies....

    More than that, using the term "dynamic resistor" you mean exclusively the description of this varying part - but we cannot attribute any fixed value to this "dynamic" resistance, correct?

    ReplyDelete
  12. Ezactly, Lutz! You seem to be reading my thoughts:-)

    1. Yes, "the DC ratio V/I" varies... but we can imagine that some variable ohmic resistor (rheostat) varies. We can even emulate the non-linear resistor by a real rheostat... or, by a more sophisticated digital resistor controlled by a microcontroller... I don't know why but, as far as I can remember, you do not like rheostats?

    2. Exactly, the dynamic resistance does not have "any fixed value" like the related differential resistance. This is the paradox in the linear part of a non-linear resistor - a varying ("dynamic") resistance creates a constant ("differential") resistance. I usually say that the varying resistance is real while the differential resistance is an "illusion"...

    If you have some time, look at my first material from 2007 about dynamic resistance (https://www.circuit-fantasia.com/circuit_stories/inventing_circuits/dynamic_resistance/dynamic_resistance.htm). I used it to explain the phenomenon of negative differential resistance (https://www.circuit-fantasia.com/circuit_stories/inventing_circuits/r_decreased_resistance/r_decreased_resistance.htm).

    Again, I want to thank you for the skillful discussion. I think it is a good illustration for my students of how difficult the path to the real truth is (I use the blog to communicate with them). I would be very happy if any of them get involved here... although I am aware of how difficult the most basic circuit concepts are for them.

    I will introduce them to the concept of static and differential resistance observed in the diode IV curve at the next laboratory exercise (the name of the lab is Static Investigation of Diodes). Then I will offer them to get acquainted with our discussion. I hope you have nothing against it.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Cyril, why do you think that "...the differential resistance is an "illusion"...?
    When we apply a sufficiently small ac voltage to a well biased non-linear part (diode or BJT) we can measure a corresponding ac current. This observation fulfills the standard definition of a resistance, does it not?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Lutz, imagine that you apply a voltage across a variable resistor (rheostat) and begin changing this voltage. At the same time, I begin moving its wiper so that the operating point moves along a new IV curve (straight line) as shown here - https://www.circuit-fantasia.com/circuit_stories/inventing_circuits/dynamic_resistance/iv_curves2_1000.jpg. In this example, the new IV curve has a negative slope; so, it represents an N-shaped differential negative resistor.

      What is a real resistor and what is a fictional (virtual) resistor here... an "illusion"? The continously changing ohmic resistor or the negative resistor? I think the former is real and the latter is an "illusion".

      So, you have the illusion that you see a negative resistor but, in fact, it is a real positive resistor...

      Delete
    2. Cyril - as far as the term "illusion" is concerned, you spoke about the differential resistance ! Now - in your example, you describe some observations obtained for a "dynamic" resistance (variation of a rheostat). So - I am somewhat confused about the value and the subject of this example......

      Delete
    3. Yes, Lutz... In my opinion, the differential resistance is an "illusion". (In this case) it creates the illusion of a constant resistance while, in fact, there is only continously changing ohmic resistance. I named it "dynamic resistance".

      Let me repeat it again. There is a real ohmic resistor with linear IV curve passing through the coordinate origin. Its "ohmic resistance" continously varies in such a way that the IV curve of this variable ("dynamic") resistor is again a straight line... but now it does not pass through the origin. It represents a "differential resistance".

      This viewpoint helps me to imagine what happens here... not to calculate the value of the differential resistance...

      Delete
    4. .......but the existence of this "illusion" can be proven and demonstrated by measurements.

      Or do you mean that any assumed value for a differential resistance is only an approximation because - strictly spoken - it is exact for voltage and current changes approaching zero?

      Delete
  14. I forgot to mention another aspect: Both, the capacitive and inductive impedances are the result of differentiation (i=dq/dt for sinusoidal voltages). Hence, they also are differential resistances - an "illusion"?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. If you mean the current, no, it is not an illusion. It is something material that moves inside a "candit" (conductor). Only its magnitude is a result of differentiation...

      Delete
  15. Dear Lutz,

    After talking so much about all kinds of resistance, maybe the three movies in my last post will be interesting to you:-)?

    https://circuitstories.blogspot.com/2021/10/blog-post.html

    I made them to show to my students how simple the idea behind this legendary 19th century device is...

    ReplyDelete
  16. Only to clarify... The first "potentiometer" is a "water potentiometer with a probe as a wiper"... the second one is a "water potentiometer with a finger as a wiper":) and the third one is a "paper potentiometer" (a graphite film on a paper). I intend to do even more exotic experiments with "banana potentiometer", "apple potentiometer", "body potentiometer", etc :-)

    I would be very happy if you comment on my fun experiments there (my students understand English). For example, you could tell them about a more serious application - "water rheostats" that were used in the distant past to regulate lighting in theaters and other applications.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Hi Cyril, I'm sure you're interested in "positive criticism" and not just simple applause ("great, wonderful,...", right?).
    Therefore:
    1) Assuming that the students know about the working principle of classical potentiometers (and of course, the conducting capabilities of other material) , I suppose that they will not be too much impresssed by the experiments

    2.) In case the students are beginners and do not know about the principle of "voltage division", the experiments are a good start to answer the question: What did you observe and WHY?

    3.) As we have discussed some time ago, these experiments show that Ohms law - if written in the form V=I*R - must not be interpreted as "effect=f(cause)" because it is false to say that a current I could "produce" a voltage V across a resistor R.
    In contrary, voltage V is always the precondition for a current - and what we can observe is nothing else than the fact that "voltage division" is identical to "E-field division" according to V=E*length.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hi Lutz,

      It is wonderful that you began considering my new web initiative... because I was afraid you might be offended by my invitation to visit our "laboratory of miracles":-)

      We have known each other for a long time… and you can probably guess that I am doing several experiments at once in my blog... and they are not only technical but also psychological. I am testing how my students (no reaction for now), my colleagues (no reaction), friends (no reaction), web like-minded people from the web like you (there is a reaction) will react…

      Indeed, I prefer a real assessment to praise made out of courtesy...

      These IT students are pretty weird - from my observations so far, I can say that they don't know what a voltage divider and potentiometer is ... and they don't know how to calculate it. At best, they know it but do not understand it… or they formally "understand" it (just memorizing the formula). Okay, let's check it out with my students tomorrow when I have two consecutive labs. At the beginning I will ask them to draw and explain it. Maybe there will be some progress this year?

      I completely second your viewpoint at Ohm's law written in the form V = I.R. We can assume that the current "creates" a voltage only for convenience...

      Delete
  18. I forgot to mention that I have translated the Bulgarian text into German language.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Lutz, it is a big gesture on your part that you did this job...

      I decided to post in my blog in both English and Bulgarian ... but I am not sure if that is a good idea. The other is to make two versions... but I find it difficult to maintain...

      Aren't you thinking of blogging too?

      Delete
  19. "Aren't you thinking of blogging too?"

    No - I don`t.
    Remember: I stopped working as an instructor/lecturer/professor 16 years ago.
    I am really surprised and impressed about the fact that you still are "in full action" with "warm bodies" (students).

    ReplyDelete
  20. Hi Lutz,

    Greetings from me and my students in the lab :-)

    ReplyDelete
  21. Dear Lutz,

    The result of my test was desperate. Of the 16 students present, only a few had heard about a potentiometer and voltage divider. But they study Electrical Engineering at the same time as Semiconductor Devices. Next students will study them one after the other.

    But it was a fantastic lab exercise. I gave them the basic electrical concepts for 20 minutes (ideal and real voltage and current sources) ... and for the next 20 minutes I considered (ideal and real) voltmeter and ammeter.

    Finally, I even showed them the idea of ​​an (almost) ideal op-amp ammeter (a transimpedance amplifier with a real ammeter in the place of R). Two clever students remained after the exercise to discuss it. They got the clever idea.

    I recorded the labs by a small solid-state recorder pinched on the lapel of my shirt. If I had the strength for it, I would make an exciting circuit story...

    I am happy... but I am terribly tired after this extreme experiment...

    Regards,

    Cyril

    ReplyDelete
  22. "The result of my test was desperate. Of the 16 students present, only a few had heard about a potentiometer and voltage divider. But they study Electrical Engineering at the same time as Semiconductor Devices."

    Hi Cyril, the students - are they beginners (first semester)? Did you expect better results?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hi Lutz,

      They are 3rd semester students. As far as I know (from my experience with my grandson :-), they met with electricity in the physics course at school and now, as I said, they start the Electrical Engineering course at the same time as the Semiconductor Devices course. But let's not have illusions - there will also not deal with a voltage divider, as in any course on the so-called "theoretical" Electrical Engineering and Measurements. There is a big discrepancy between these old disciplines and the requirements of circuitry; they deal with abstract things... but we need concrete devices.

      But this semester I will help them fill in the gaps in their knowledge ... even if we switch to online learning. Then I will use all possible web resources ...

      Delete
  23. Cyril - I must admit that I am really surprised. No knowledge about two resistors in series with voltage division? Sounds unbelievable. Do they know what "current" is and why it can exist in a conductive material?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. There are many amazing things in this IT world...The important thing here is the software ... then the hardware comes ... and there is no place for the basic circuit concepts... They think they don't need them ... In such conditions, I struggle to give them at least most general circuit culture...

      But there is something very valuable here - they are open to accepting unconventional explanations. They tend to think ... and I manage, with a lot of enthusiasm and effort, to make them think ... and this is the most valuable human quality - thinking and understanding... not only knowledge.

      I am currently listening to the recordings from yesterday (a few hours) and extracting the wisdom I said there :-) It would be really great to write all this (and that in English) ... but it takes so much time ...

      Delete
  24. "....the most valuable human quality - thinking and understanding... not only knowledge."

    Yes Cyril - I am totally with you.
    You may remember that I have very often commented on the topic of "How does the BJT work". Some circuits can certainly be calculated with the assumption "Ib controls Ic" - but for the understanding of the transistor principle the physics is important:
    Ic is determined and controlled exclusively by Vbe.
    In this context, I have often been personally attacked ("stubborn, pathological,...") by people who cannot admit to having believed in something wrong so far.
    (And it is only a "belief", there is no proof for current control).

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hi Lutz,

      I am very well acquainted with your "struggle". Moreover, I have taken part in many of these discussions. This is an example of a worthy defense of one's own idea.

      I similarly defend my ideas, such as "dynamic resistance". I think that the great benefit of this is that interesting discussions arise that lead to the truth.

      Delete

  25. Just to test my translation program:

    Да, Кирил - напълно съм с теб.
    Може би си спомняш, че много често съм коментирал темата "Как работи BJT". Някои схеми със сигурност могат да се изчислят с предположението "Ib контролира Ic" - но за разбирането на принципа на транзистора е важна физиката:
    Ic се определя и контролира изключително от Vbe.
    В този контекст често съм бил нападан лично ("упорит, патологичен,...") от хора, които не могат да признаят, че досега са вярвали в нещо погрешно.
    (И това е само "вяра", няма никакви доказателства за контрола на тока).

    Translated with www.DeepL.com/Translator (free version)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Dear Lutz,

      The translation is very good, as if it was written by a Bulgarian native speaker (only two word endings were missing).

      I use Google Translate. It would be interesting to compare the two translators. For this purpose, you can translate the same text with Google Translate and send it to me to compare them.

      Your idea to send the translation to a native speaker is very good because really only he can judge if the translation is good.

      Delete
  26. Finally, let me share that today I finally finished converting my audio recording from the last lab exercise into text. In the end, I did it "by hand", listening to sentence by sentence and writing it in another "circuit story" (https://circuitstories.blogspot.com/2021/10/blog-post_17.html). It was hard work that lasted for hours. I did it for my students but I am not sure if they will appreciate it. If not, it may benefit other web visitors.

    I invite them to take part with comments... but from my life experience I am convinced that it is a very difficult job to get someone to do this (you are a big exception). Maybe writing a comment under someone's material is not so easy because it requires not only desire but also ability.

    I think it will be interesting for you to take a look at this "brainstorming". But I guess your translator will have a hard time because I have used an informal (non-academic) style of expression, often grammatically incorrect. I have expressed myself casually and simply, as people talk to each other at home and on the street when friends meet.

    This is also an experiment I am doing in the name of true understanding. Of course, it would be great if you write a comment under the post (in Bulgarian, through your "super translator").

    I failed to persuade even those directly related to this matter (my former students from the distant past) to do so. In my opinion, the reason is trivial - the envy you feel when you see that someone is doing something more than you. Although to see a student envies his former teacher is quite strange...

    ReplyDelete
  27. Hello Cyril - I suppose, it will take some time to translate, read, understand your text - and place some substantial comments on it.
    In the meantime I like to tell you that I have analyzed - as a concurrent to the Darlington pair - the so called "Sziklai pair" in detail.
    My question to you: What is your opinion regarding this two-transistor combination - in comparison to Darlington? Have you some experience with Sziklai?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Dear Lutz,

      Thanks for your attention to my web endeavor. If you still have problems with translation, we can use, as usual, English as an intermediary. The main problem for me is that students do not like to write and discuss like us. Maybe this desire comes with age ...

      The unpleasant thing is that today the rector issued an order to switch to online learning from tomorrow. I just prepared the lab for interesting experiments ... now it will remain closed for months ... But I will use the richness of the web and the photos accumulated over the years in our video meetings…

      For the first time, I came across the clever Sziklai's circuit in the book "Electronics?... nothing easier!" of J.P. Oehmichen (French) - https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/372587736830. Here is a photo of this page from my book (translated to Bulgarian) - https://photos.app.goo.gl/X7zc75QbNaZgPeXj9.

      In general, I share what is written about it in Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sziklai_pair). But there is one thing that puzzles me in the name "complementary feedback pair" - this is the word "feedback". Where is the feedback here?

      Delete
    2. Looking at both (Sziklai and Darlington) configurations, I think there is one fundamental drawback in them - the base current of the second transistor is not limited by a resistor when the first transistor is saturated. In the voltage follower circuit this is not a problem. But if the configuration is powered by an "ideal" voltage source (without a load resistor in the emitter or collector)?

      Delete
    3. Cyril - I agree with you. In contrast to the Darlington pair, I cannot see where and why the Sziklay combination should contain any internal feedback.

      * Darlington: Series combination of common collector (T1) and common-emitter (T2). Hence, T2 provides negative feedback to T1.

      * Sziklay: Series combination of two transistors in common-emitter configuration. No internal feedback.

      Delete
    4. Здравейте, Кирил - ето няколко коментара от мен:

      * Казвате, че в природата почти няма източници на ток и фотодиодът е изключение. По-скоро мисля, че фотодиодът, разбира се, е и източник на напрежение (когато е в покой) - свързвате няколко от тези елементи последователно, за да увеличите наличното напрежение.
      Мисля, че когато говорите за "източник на ток", винаги имате предвид идеален източник на ток (който съществува само като модел). В противен случай всеки източник на напрежение може да се нарече и източник на ток, тъй като може да подава ток.

      * В раздела "Как да направим лош източник на напрежение" казвате, че токът "създава напрежение на входа на резистор". Първоначално може да се мисли по този начин за изчисляване на вериги.
      Но ако знаете как се дефинира понятието "ток" и защо той може да протича през резистор (Е-поле), възниква противоречие.
      Въпрос: Можете ли да обясните какво представлява токът (пренос на заряди)?

      * За мен е много голям скок, ако първо обясните най-простите основи на термините "напрежение, ток, съпротивление" и след това преминете към операционни усилватели и отрицателни резистори. Разбира ли това начинаещите?

      * Някъде казвате, че "всяка отрицателна обратна връзка генерира виртуална земя". Но това е вярно само за операционния усилвател с (предполагаемо) безкрайно голямо усилване.


      Translated with www.DeepL.com/Translator (free version)

      Delete
    5. Hi Lutz,

      I am sorry for the delay. Yesterday I got very tired of this online learning with my students ... today I had to do some tasks ... and just now I am writing to you (but I was thinking about it today).

      I decided to try your translator in the opposite direction (from Bulgarian to German) to see if it will translate Bulgarian perfectly. But I still think that English (in the role of today's "Esperanto") is a better option because through it our valuable thoughts:-) can become available to many more people.

      ----------------------------

      Ich wundere mich wirklich, wenn sie sagen, dass sie Solarmodule in Reihe schalten... und sie sollen Stromquellen sein. Ich bin zum ersten Mal darauf gestoßen, als ein Bekannter von mir ein Solarpanel auf dem Dach seines Wohnmobils anbringen wollte. die Spannung, dies zu erforschen...

      Ich stimme zu, dass jede Spannungsquelle Strom liefern kann. Die Frage ist, was diesen Strom bestimmt - der Innenwiderstand der Quelle oder der "externe" Widerstand der Last... je nachdem, was überwiegt.

      Der Strom wirkt wie ein "elektrisches Getriebe", das die Spannung über die Entfernung überträgt. Es ist nicht der Strom, der den Abfall am Eingang des Widerstands erzeugt, sondern die Eingangsspannung.

      Wenn ich über perfekte passive Schaltungen in der Elektrotechnik nachdenke, zeige ich schließlich (nur konzeptionell), wie sie in der Elektronik perfekt werden. Auf diese Weise versuche ich, das Interesse der Schüler zu wecken und sie zu motivieren.
      Wenn ich die Idee des Phänomens der "virtuellen Erde" erkläre, versuche ich, das Phänomen der negativen Rückkopplung nicht zu Beginn einzuführen. Erst später erwähne ich, dass es in der Praxis so gehandhabt wird.

      Übersetzt mit www.DeepL.com/Translator (kostenlose Version)

      -----------------------------
      Now, for comparison, the same text translated by GoogleTranslate:

      Ich fange an, nacheinander zu antworten…

      Tatsächlich war ich überrascht zu erfahren, dass sie Sonnenkollektoren in Reihe schalten … und sie sollten Stromquellen sein. Ich bin zum ersten Mal darauf gestoßen, als ein Bekannter von mir ein Solarpanel auf das Dach des Wohnmobils stellen wollte. Spannung, dieses Thema zu studieren…

      Ich stimme zu, dass jede Spannungsquelle Strom liefern kann. Es kommt darauf an, wer diesen Strom bestimmt - den Innenwiderstand der Quelle oder den "äußeren" Widerstand der Last - welcher von beiden dominiert.

      Der Strom fungiert als "elektrische Übertragung", die Spannung über eine Entfernung überträgt. Nicht der Strom erzeugt den Abfall am Eingang des Widerstands, sondern die Eingangsspannung.

      Wenn ich mir die perfekten passiven Schaltungen in der Elektrotechnik anschaue, zeige ich schließlich (nur konzeptionell) wie sie in der Elektronik perfekt werden. Auf diese Weise versuche ich, das Interesse der Schüler zu wecken, sie zu motivieren.

      Wenn ich die Idee des Phänomens „virtueller Tisch“ erkläre, versuche ich, das Phänomen des negativen Feedbacks nicht gleich zu Beginn vorzustellen. Erst später erwähne ich, dass es auf diese Weise tatsächlich realisiert wird.

      Delete
  28. Regarding the existence of some negative feedback in both 2-transistor pairs: I think it is possible they consider the collector-emitter part of T1 as a sort of negative feedback network connected between T2's collector and base (guess only).

    ReplyDelete
  29. By the way, maybe you will be interested to take a look at one of my online exercises? Here is the end of Lab 2 (Static Investigation of Diodes) - https://photos.google.com/album/AF1QipN-fnxlfdMQmFcoKhhtLe8K5mTcnxj9VTvBKi1J/photo/AF1QipNs07AgqiaqhPt0Jqe9LN2rtw8EVYZ3sE-AYhOF.

    ReplyDelete
  30. Apparently, my creative activity has risen from studying with students. I decided to ask a question we have come across many times - about the nature of the electrical concept "source resistance":

    https://circuitstories.blogspot.com/2021/10/it-is-said-that-real-voltage-source-has.html

    https://www.researchgate.net/post/Is_the_source_internal_resistance_really_a_resistance

    I hope it will be interesting for you...

    ReplyDelete
  31. Here are my comments:

    1.) Regarding Sziklay: As far as the "naked" two-transistor block is concerned, there is no feedback at all. Evidence: The differential input resistance of the whole device is identical to the input resistance of the 1st transistor (h11, hie). Hence, no feedback. In contrast, for Darlington the input resistance is doubled (if compared with h11_Q1). Of course, the situation changes when the lower node (emitter Q1, collector Q2) is connected with an external resistor.

    2.) Source resistance: Thank you for the link and your interesting explanation. I agree to everything - as far as the "source resistor" of a DC source is concerned. However, I think your explanation does not hold for AC sources (example: output stages of transistor amplifiers). In these cases, the output resistance consists of "real" ohmic parts which consumes energy.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. By the way: The link "Static investigation of diodes" did not work.

      Delete
    2. Hi Lutz,

      I will answer later. Try this link :

      https://photos.app.goo.gl/SY8gsNAHD5yKpFuh6

      Delete
    3. Dear Lutz,

      I added additional text to my story about source internal resistance. There I considered two more sources - a mains source and an electronic "source" that you mentioned.

      Delete
  32. Hi Cyril - I will be not available for 5 days. Me and my wife - we will travel to Berlin (my hometown until 1961). Ciao.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment