Talk:Semiconductor device

Origin of American type numbers- no of junctions?

Anyone know the reason for the 1N, 2N, 3N designations on diodes and transistors etc. My theory is that its to do with the number of junctions in the device. Any confirmations??--Light current 00:58, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Best not to have theories. The prefix digit 1, 2, 3, in the JEDEC type number is one less than the number of leads on the device - so a dual-gate MOSFET, which has no junctions at all, will be a 3NXXX device, because it has 4 leads. I've no idea why "N". --Wtshymanski 13:07, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Ah-ha! Makes some sense! But it does happen to equal the no of junctions in bipolar devices (which came before mosfets)--Light current 13:17, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

I was around before there were more than 2 junctions. It is an interesting coincidence, but the number refers to the quantity of leads available outside the package -1 (discrete devices). With some packages a lead might be available both as a tab and as a lead. 208.106.20.67 06:18, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Our typical reader

The article presents information. But would it be helpful to a typical reader? The article is informationally dense, terms are used which an electronic engineer or technician would know and would have no trouble with. Terms such a "discrete component" and thermionic device" are introduced one after another in rapid sequence. But a person who has heard the term "Semiconductor device" and has little electronic education would have a hard time reading and understanding. Could we discuss a method to make a more flowing, readable article ? Terryeo 16:26, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

This sounds like a perfect opportunity for you to be bold and improve the article!

Atlant 16:32, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Go for it. An anonymous edit that I mostly reverted was a bit of an attempt, but it removed everything that made the lead paragraph meaningful and substituted incorrect simplified language that meant almost nothing. I'm sure you'll do better. Dicklyon 18:32, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

3D images

What's with those images? They seem to have extreme verical exaggeration, show not much structure other than contact plugs and poly gates, and have no sensible structure below the surface of the silicon. Surely we can come up with something more meaningful. Dicklyon 03:10, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

If you can get me some GDSII and the associated fab layer equations and thicknesses, I'd be more than happy to create whatever picture you'd like. Don't forget though, that most of the interesting detail (depending on what you consider interesting) is hidden by the routing layers, which is why they were stripped in the original pictures. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by David Carron (talk • contribs) 16:32, 4 January 2007 (UTC).

I might be able to get some SEM images of the III-V transistors and MEMS I'll be working on this semester... -- mattb @ 2007-01-04T16:38Z

an image is nothing but some refection of any object or thing.3D images is a topic with much interest — Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.149.49.227 (talk) 10:00, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Alan Herries Wilson

So someone removed my unexplained addition of a "see also" link to Alan Herries Wilson. I thought the rationale for this would be obvious to anyone reading that bio, but here it is: the History of semiconductor device development section begins with the Cat's-whisker detector and Metal rectifier - next we jump World War II, implying that nothing else happened in early research during this time. This is not true, as the bio explains: "During the period 1931–1932 Wilson formulated a theory explaining how energy bands of electrons can make a material a conductor, a semiconductor or an insulator. In 1932 he was awarded the Adams Prize; the essay he wrote for this prize became the basis for his book The Theory of Metals published in 1936. His book Semi-conductors and Metals was published in 1939." "Crystal Fire" (ISBN 978-0-393-31851-7) says (p. 66) "The major advance in the understanding of these curious metals was achieved by the British theorist Alan Wilson, who published two papers entitled "The Theory of Electronic Semi-Conductors" in 1931." I started reading that book a long time ago, and am taking forever to finish it, so I just punted and added the "see also", hoping that someone would run with it, just as someone else started the biography article on him. Wbm1058 (talk) 16:13, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

I see (answering my own question)... I suppose if this is about device development, and Wilson didn't develop any device (just theory), that justifies the lack of a mention here. Wbm1058 (talk) 16:13, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Introduction line not very helpful

As someone who knows nothing about this topic, the very first paragraph of this wiki doesn't help me conceptualize what this device is, is used for, or does. "A semiconductor device is an electronic component that relies on the electronic properties of a semiconductor material (primarily silicon, germanium, and gallium arsenide, as well as organic semiconductors) for its function. Semiconductor devices have replaced vacuum tubes in most applications. They use electrical conduction in the solid state rather than the gaseous state or thermionic emission in a vacuum."

To me, this reads as "This device is a device that relies on a thing and some metal for its function. This device replaced another thing. This thing uses a fancy-word thing or a very-fancy-word-thing." It would be much easier to understand if it read something more like this, "This device is a device that [is used for example applications.] [It] relies on a thing and some metal for its [specific detail regarding] function. This device replaced another thing [which was important or innovative because...]. This thing uses a fancy-word thing or a very-fancy-word-thing [which makes semiconductors better/helpful/innovative/something than something else the general public could relate to]." Sweeeetheart (talk) 22:10, 19 January 2021 (UTC)