Like sophie said , the argument you brought in is used in a purely electrostatic situation , charged objects repulsion etc, in a circuit PD moves charges and forms current
Well ok I agree then. When reading a larger chunk of that text, then everything seems fine, except that one line sticks out, and there's a feeling that that one line is wrong.but the charge moves BECAUSE of the voltage force. When the sentence say the opposite - how can it be correct?
I have to say that William Beatty and / or his tutors must just have been out of their depth about the mechanism which makes a transistor work. Of course there is a 'good' (accurate) description in many text books. The point is that the description cannot be reduced to a trivial level whilst remaining accurate. How is that 'unsatisfactory'? Life is not full of simple solutions to all problems. If someone can't understand the full description then they are either limited by the level of their basic ability or by how much they are prepared to work at it. (Like weight lifting and triathlons).And regarding 'learning style' I feel the same way as Mr. WJB:
"When I went into engineering school, I found it extremely odd that there were still no good explanations of bipolar transistors. Sure, there were detailed mathematical treatments. Just multiply the Base current by "hfe" to obtain the Collector current. Or, treat the transistor as a two-port network with a system of equations inside. Ebers-Moll and all that. But these were similar to black-box circuits, and none of them said HOW a transistor works, how can a small current have any effect on a larger one???? And nobody else seemed curious. Everyone else in the class seemed to think that to memorize the equations was the same as learning concepts and gaining understanding of the device. (R. Feynman calls this the Euclidean or "Greek viewpoint;" the love of mathematics, as opposed to the physicists' "Babylonian viewpoint" where concepts are far more important than equations.) I'm a total Babylonian. For me, math is useless at the start, equations are like those black box Spice programs which might work great, but they don't tell you any details of what's happening inside a device in the real world. I can learn the math, but that just means I can run a "mental spice program" without needing any computer, and I still don't know how transistors work. First tell me what "Transistor Action" is all about. Show me animated pictures, use analogies. Only after I've attained a visual and gut-level understanding of something, only then is the math useful to me for refining it and adding all the details. However, for me the math alone is not a genuine explanation. Math is just a tool or a recipe, a crutch for those who want nothing except the final numerical result, and it certainly does not confer expert knowledge."