Talk:Biasing

Collector-to-base bias
The collector-to-base bias has:

IB = (VCC)/(RB+βRC)

which equals

VCC = IBRB + IBβRC = IBRB + ICRC

I'm missing Vbe here, so the equation would be VCC = IBRB + ICRC + Vbe. Can it be neglected because it is very small? --Abdull 11:34, 19 September 2007 (UTC)


 * ... and one more question about the voltage divider bias:
 * Vce = VC - (RC+RE)IC
 * Why's that? VC is the voltage across the collector and ground, right? --Abdull 14:17, 19 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Looks like VC should be VCC (the collector supply voltage). Also it seems like the Vbe is indeed missing. I don't think it should be neglected. -Roger 18:30, 27 October 2007 (UTC)


 * My bad. VC should be VCC.
 * Vbe - theoretically kept everywhere, mostly neglected practically. I'll knock it into the article anyway...
 * xC | ☎  21:50, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Proposal to split article
I propose we move the stuff on BJT biasing to a new article titled "Discrete transistor biasing" or something similar. Thoughts? -Roger 02:23, 11 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I have a few questions about the direction the article is taking -
 * What would the new article be named? "BJT Biasing" or something of the sort seems fine to me. What does the word "discrete" mean in this context?
 * In the article Common emitter, the phrase is a basic bipolar transistor amplifier topology is used without consolidating the various basic topologies in one place. I was thinking of a short article (Basic BJT AMp topolgy or something) which lists the various types, had links to CC CB CE, had the comparison of each (from here) and discussed the differences in their load lines. I'll be adding content on their load lines in this article - Load line (electronics). What are your thoughts about this?
 * Merge from Bias (electrical engineering) seems to be necessary. Or should we maintain the difference between electrical and electronic engineering for this term?
 * xC | ☎  04:34, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
 * The reason I think we should split is because I think this article should be more focused on the general case and the mathematical motivation behind biasing (e.g. Taylor series expansions).
 * I mentioned "discrete" because integrated circuits are usually biased with a current source instead of a resistor network. "Discrete Bipolar Transistor Biasing" might be an appropriate title, though a bit long. Or take away the "discrete" part and add some stuff on current source biasing.
 * Thats a good idea. I created Category:Single-stage_transistor_amplifiers with the intention of creating an introductory article, but never got around to it. Personally I don't like load lines (though I know people who do) and I think the technique is a bit outdated. I think it also might be confusing to some people if you put it in the topology article, but you could still give it a shot. But you should definitely expand the main load line article.
 * Yes, we should definitely merge them. They both boil down to the same ideas, 'cept one has a larger, more general scope.
 * -Roger 18:24, 27 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for explaining the discrete part. Okay, lets shift this article's content to "Discrete Bipolar Transistor Biasing". Even though its a long title, it does seem appropriate.
 * For the main article on the basic topologies, what should be the name of the article? How about "Single Stage Bipolar Transistor Amplifiers"? (Quite a mouthful :P)
 * Ok, I see what you mean. The problem I see with them is just that one is more general a term than the other. How should we go about merging the two?
 * xC | ☎  22:03, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Sounds good. We'll need an introductory paragraph though.
 * 2) "Single-stage transistor amplifiers" might be good. That way we can cover both BJTs and FETs (the article is likely to be small anyway). Plus it'll fit in with the existing category.
 * 3) I'll take a better look once this article is cleaned up.
 * -Roger 22:27, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Okay, so lets get started on the articles-
 * Discrete Bipolar Transistor Biasing
 * Single-stage transistor amplifiers
 * Postpone merging of Q-pt until after the above two have kickstarted.
 * xC | ☎  22:32, 1 November 2007 (UTC)


 * 
 * You shift the content, and leave absolutely no link whatsoever in this page, to that content.
 * Whats the deal with that? xC | ☎  19:11, 2 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Sorry I didn't have much time to work on the articles. Plus I assumed you'd be helping out with it. There are many other articles that could be linked to the new one, like the common emitter/collector/base articles, etc. Its still gonna take some time. -Roger 19:42, 2 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Erm, sorry about that. I'll be getting to it. Happy editing, xC | ☎  05:35, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Suggest merge with Grid bias
Grid bias is an unreference stub and spends most of its content describing the idea of bias. There's a useful discussion of methods of obtaining bias lacking in this article. They could be usefully merged. --Wtshymanski (talk)
 * Support Absolutely, I see no need of it.   Grid biasing could also be discussed in Triode or Control grid. -- Chetvorno TALK 23:19, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

✅ by WP:WPMERGE member ~Kvng (talk) 16:43, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Adding a disabiguation hatnote?
Recent (loosely speaking) editors: Greetings and felicitations. "Bias point" redirects to this article, which is what I hear when someone says "basis point". Does anyone have any objections to my adding a disabiguation hatnote to the article for "basis point"? —DocWatson42 (talk) 08:46, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * None here. ~Kvng (talk) 12:57, 6 August 2019 (UTC)


 * I think it's a good idea – I'm sure that you're not the only one who hears that. (I'm also putting this comment on the other page for the others to see.) And thanks for asking my opinion, I was just a very peripheral editor on of these pages.
 * Ira Leviton (talk) 13:21, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Done. Ira Leviton: You're welcome—I'm just passing through too.  I just was trying to look up the definition of "basis point". —DocWatson42 (talk) 04:54, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Short description
This article's short description when viewed in the search bar currently reads as

"Predetermined voltages or currents establishing prop..."

getting cut off. Reading this, it's hard to understand what this article is or isn't.

Most people view the SD in the search bar when searching for articles. An SD needs to be short so people can read the search results quickly to decide which article they need to click on. In this way, an SD distinguishes similarly-titled articles, not so much similarly-themed articles.

When I do a search result for "bias", the drop-down lists quite a few results that get cut off. Because @Kvng is engaged on this issue I will ask him to shorten the SD for Biasing as best he can; I'll be shortening all those others. Wizmut (talk) 17:49, 26 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Changed it to "Background operating conditions for electronics". "Predetermined voltages or currents..." is also a reasonable abbreviated description. Having a longer description clipped is not the end of the world and it certainly is better than a shorter description that's incorrect or ambiguous. 's shortening was "Calibration in electronics". Biasing is not a calibration; Calibration does not appear anywhere in the article. ~Kvng (talk) 20:52, 26 May 2024 (UTC)