I looked in the book of Electronic Devices and Circuit Theory and in the section of a common collector amplifier configuration with a voltage divider, it shows that: $$ V_B=\frac{VCCR_2}{R_1+R_2} $$

However on other voltage divider amplifiers with a collector resistor the solution is: $$ V_{TH} =\frac{VCCR_2}{R_1+R_2} $$

and to get \$ V_B, \$ the solution to be used is \$ V_B = V_{TH}-I_BR_{TH} \$

Obviously, both will yield a different answer. So I was wondering if why the first formula above must be used instead of applying Thevenin's Theorem (VTH, RTH)?

It can't be because of the voltage divider approximation which is \$ \beta R_E \ge 10R_2\$, I calculated it but \$ 10R_2 \$ is still bigger and it still uses the first formula.

I searched for youtube tutorial videos and no one explained why. Here's the schematic and the solution: (There's also on YouTube if that's needed)

Youtube link

Emitter-follower circuit


  • \$\begingroup\$ Schematic please???? There is a schematic editor available to you within your question editing features here. Help us help you! \$\endgroup\$ – jonk May 12 at 8:17
  • \$\begingroup\$ @jonk I already added it \$\endgroup\$ – pxrry May 12 at 8:23
  • \$\begingroup\$ Do you think it might help in interpreting your equation to label your components??? I mean, I might guess at \$R_1\$. But I'd rather not. That said, I think I know what to say. But I think it would still improve your question to label things. \$\endgroup\$ – jonk May 12 at 8:31
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ @jonk Oh, I'm sorry for that. I revised it again. \$\endgroup\$ – pxrry May 12 at 8:38
  • \$\begingroup\$ The first formula neglects the base current - a rather rough approximation because Ib=66µA and the divider current is less than 120µA \$\endgroup\$ – LvW May 12 at 8:57

The schematic is roughly this:


simulate this circuit – Schematic created using CircuitLab

This is the same as (using a Thevenin divider approach):


simulate this circuit

From this it is easy to work out (from KVL) that:

$$V_\text{TH}-I_B\cdot R_\text{TH}-V_{\text{BE}_1}-I_E\cdot R_\text{E}=0\:\text{V}$$

But also you know that \$I_E=\left(\beta+1\right)\cdot I_B\$ so it follows that:

$$V_\text{TH}-I_B\cdot R_\text{TH}-V_{\text{BE}_1}-\left(\beta+1\right)\cdot I_B\cdot R_\text{E}=0\:\text{V}$$

And therefore that:

$$I_B=\frac{V_\text{TH}-V_{\text{BE}_1}}{R_\text{TH}+\left(\beta+1\right)\cdot R_\text{E}}$$

This means that if \$\beta\ge 100\$ then \$I_b\le 63\:\mu\text{A}\$ and that \$V_B=V_\text{TH}-I_B\cdot R_\text{TH}\ge 8.36\:\text{V}\$.

(With \$\beta\ge 300\$ this works out to \$V_B\approx 9.06\:\text{V}\$.)

From there, you can work out the rest.

  • \$\begingroup\$ I clearly understand this but why on websites and videos that I search for and also the answer that I provided from my post (it is from a solution manual), ignored the base current? So it's just VB=VCC*RC/(R1+R2)? \$\endgroup\$ – pxrry May 12 at 14:01
  • \$\begingroup\$ @pxrry It would be really bad to ignore the base current if the resistor divider at the base has a high impedance, because of the voltage drop then caused. But most designs will set the divider to a relatively low impedance. Doing so means that the error in using that over-simple formula (the unaccounted voltage drop) is relatively small. Given that anything within 10% of where you think it is can be considered "good enough" and given the complexity of trying to teach someone a harder-t--grasp formula, the simpler idea is often used instead. \$\endgroup\$ – jonk May 12 at 17:51

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.