Jump to content

Talk:Transistor: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous edit
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
SineBot (talk | contribs)
Bots
2,555,116 edits
 
(39 intermediate revisions by 24 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
⚫
{{American English}}
{{Vital article|level=4|topic=Technology|class=C}}

⚫
{{WikiProject Electronics|class=c|importance=Top}}

⚫
{{WikiProject Physics|class=c|importance=high}}
{{annual readership|scale=log}}
{{WP1.0|class=C|importance=mid|category=category}}
{{OnThisDay|date1=2004-07-05|oldid1=4820999|date2=2004-12-23|oldid2=16335529|date3=2005-07-05|oldid3=18192801|date4=2005-12-23|oldid4=32461857|date5=2006-12-23|oldid5=96087572|date6=2007-12-23|oldid6=179410971|date7=2008-12-23|oldid7=259807918}}
{{OnThisDay|date1=2004-07-05|oldid1=4820999|date2=2004-12-23|oldid2=16335529|date3=2005-07-05|oldid3=18192801|date4=2005-12-23|oldid4=32461857|date5=2006-12-23|oldid5=96087572|date6=2007-12-23|oldid6=179410971|date7=2008-12-23|oldid7=259807918}}
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=C|vital=yes|1=
⚫
{{Archive box|auto=long}}
⚫
{{WikiProject Electronics|importance=Top}}
⚫
{{WikiProject Physics|importance=high}}
}}
⚫
{{Archive box|auto=long|age=90|bot=Lowercase sigmabot III}}
{{User:MiszaBot/config
{{User:MiszaBot/config
|archiveheader = {{talkarchivenav|noredlinks=y}}
|archiveheader = {{talkarchivenav|noredlinks=y}}
Line 13: Line 17:
|archive = Talk:Transistor/Archive %(counter)d
|archive = Talk:Transistor/Archive %(counter)d
}}
}}
{{Auto archiving notice |bot=Lowercase sigmabot III |age=90 |small=yes |dounreplied=yes}}
⚫
{{American English}}


==Attributed to Lincoln==
"If you call a tail a leg, how many legs does a dog have? Four. A tail is not a leg." <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Wtshymanski|Wtshymanski]] ([[User talk:Wtshymanski#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Wtshymanski|contribs]]) </small>
:I presume that you are talking about discrete transistors on die. I searched several semiconductor websites (not an exhaustive search by any measure) and did not find any. All the discretes were in packages. The only thing I found on die were integrated circuits. When I think of a discrete transistor, I mean a transistor with a collector, base and emitter and nothing else. A single transistor on a die would have, I think, a substrate. I'm leaning to saying that is not discrete. [[User:Constant314|Constant314]] ([[User talk:Constant314|talk]]) 23:07, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
::No he is talking about discrete transistor dies. He is confusing a die diced from a wafer having one transistor with an monolithic integrated circut die diced from a wafer and having many transistors. A die as a single transistor has the exposed discrete three connections you expect (emitter, base & collector for bipolar or source, drain & gate for MOS). Such die are typically connected by solder bumps. Whereas none of the many transistors in a monolithic IC ever exposes the three discrete connectors you expect, they are inconnected as part of the deposition process and are never discrete from a connection perspective. We don't build much these days with such discrete transistors but consider [[IBM_Solid_Logic_Technology|IBM SLT]] as one example - note the usage of the term "discrete transistors" in [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_Solid_Logic_Technology#/media/File:IBM_SLT_wafers.agr.JPG Steps in manufacturing Solid Logic Technology hybrid wafers]. The reason yr search didn't turn up any references is probably because there are no standards for transistor dies but they were used heavily in the 1960s and are still are available, see e.g. [https://www.fairchildsemi.com/products/die-wafer/|Die & wafer]. When a wafer is diced into individual transistors, they are discrete, it doesn't matter how they are subsequently packaged. [[User:Tom94022|Tom94022]] ([[User talk:Tom94022|talk]]) 00:31, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
:::Of course I'm so stupid that I can't tell the difference between a single unpackaged transistor on a die and an integrated circuit with multiple transistors on a die. This is why I come to Wikipedia, to learn. In any case, so long as the System 360 isn't on the list of discrete transistor computers, I'm content. --[[User:Wtshymanski|Wtshymanski]] ([[User talk:Wtshymanski|talk]]) 02:10, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

== Singular and plural die and dice ==

Unfortunately, both terms are sometimes used both as singular and plural, though dice as singular is just wrong except when referring to a game; a pair of dice is two, while each one is a die. In [https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=cut+into+die%2Ccut+into+dice&year_start=1960&year_end=2008&corpus=15&smoothing=3&share=&direct_url=t1%3B%2Ccut%20into%20dice%3B%2Cc0 books], "cut into die" is not a thing, while "cut into dice" is common. In reference to wafers, see [https://www.google.com/search?q=%22wafer+into+dice%22&source=lnms&tbm=bks&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjX5YDR_pvbAhUkNX0KHfNqA74Q_AUIECgB&biw=1286&bih=601 this search], and [https://www.google.com/search?biw=1286&bih=601&tbm=bks&ei=SXMFW8LFMN2-0PEPl6eC0AE&q=%22wafer+into+die%22&oq=%22wafer+into+die%22&gs_l=psy-ab.3...21883.21883.0.22629.1.1.0.0.0.0.87.87.1.1.0....0...1c.1.64.psy-ab..0.0.0....0.b4qqGa7alw4 this search] (sometimes it's "wafer into die chips" or "into die sized pieces" just because die is so awkward as a plural).


== "grounded emitter, ..." ==
An anon has been reverting with the claim that dice is singular and die is plural. That's just backwards. A better argument for reverting dice to die would be that die is preferred in this industry; but that's questionable. [[User:Dicklyon|Dicklyon]] ([[User talk:Dicklyon|talk]]) 14:02, 23 May 2018 (UTC)


I saw the term grounded emitter used a few times. In literature I've read, the term is common emitter, common base, common collector and likewise with source, gate & drain for FETs. The term grounded is not used in some countries; it is called earthed - ground is called earth. I suggest that the term grounded should be changed to common, which is based, I believe, on network theory.
:In my experience, "dice" can also be a verb: "dice the wafer". See [https://patents.google.com/patent/EP0132520A2 this patent], within the browser, search on "DICE AND PICK". The phrase refers to the operation where, after the wafer was tested, the wafer is sawn into dice (or diced) while attached to a plastic adhesive-coated sheet. Then a machine consults the wafer map, which shows which chips passed, and picks the good chips off the plastic sheet for further processing. The remaining chips are discarded. [[User:Jc3s5h|Jc3s5h]] ([[User talk:Jc3s5h|talk]]) 14:16, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
Thank you. acmefixer@yahoo.com 2022-08-09. [[Special:Contributions/2600:1700:CD40:C510:C569:E860:4740:249A|2600:1700:CD40:C510:C569:E860:4740:249A]] ([[User talk:2600:1700:CD40:C510:C569:E860:4740:249A|talk]]) 09:34, 9 August 2022 (UTC)


:A grounded emitter circuit is a common emitter circuit, but not all common emitter circuits are grounded emitter circuits. The terms are used correctly in the article. [[User:Constant314|Constant<b style="color: #4400bb;">''314''</b>]] ([[User talk:Constant314|talk]]) 11:55, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
:IEEE Std. 100 (7th ed), owing to some sloppy proofreading, is not our friend here. The entry for "Die" says in part "...Note: this is the plural form of die. ... See dice". The entry for "dice" syas in part "...Note:this is the plural form of die." Perfectly ambiguous. And authoritative, it says so right on the frontispiece. --[[User:Wtshymanski|Wtshymanski]] ([[User talk:Wtshymanski|talk]]) 02:06, 24 May 2018 (UTC)


== Patent numbers? ==
As far as the integrated circuit usage is concerned, Googling "Integrated Circuit Dice" turns up only three hits (ignoring Wikipedia) where all three words are present, and they are all links to the company 'Danube Integrated Circuit Engineering' (DICE). However: Googling "Integrated circuit die" turns up pages of hits for the subject of this discussion. On this basis there does not seem to be any on-line evidence supporting the notion that integrated circuits are constructed on dice rather than die. [[Special:Contributions/86.149.136.154|86.149.136.154]] ([[User talk:86.149.136.154|talk]]) 15:28, 25 May 2018 (UTC)


In the article, it says:
:[https://patents.google.com/patent/EP0630048A1/en Counterexample.]] [[User:Jc3s5h|Jc3s5h]] ([[User talk:Jc3s5h|talk]]) 15:31, 25 May 2018 (UTC)


<code>The first bipolar junction transistors were invented by Bell Labs' William Shockley, who applied for patent (2,569,347) on June 26, 1948.</code>
::Well found. I would make the observation that a patent is written by an individual (usually a patent clerk) and is not therefore an authoritative source on correct word usage in any context. In view that the industry generally uses 'die', I would suggest that [[WP:COMMONNAME]] suggests that we stick with it. [[Special:Contributions/86.149.136.154|86.149.136.154]] ([[User talk:86.149.136.154|talk]]) 17:30, 25 May 2018 (UTC)


However, there seems to be an earlier patent ([https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/f8/53/1c/dc0c7b5252a663/US2524033.pdf US2524033]) that describes what appears to be a similar invention, with the patent going to John Bardeen. It was applied for four months before [https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/4c/d7/98/e30fdc30f7dc7d/US2569347.pdf US2569347] and was also granted first (October 3, 1950 versus September 25, 1951). So is this article pointing to the correct patent and order of events? I am fairly experienced with electronics and semiconductors, but patent language and diagrams are so difficult to read that I'm having a hard time figuring out exactly what was claimed in each, and why John Bardeen applied for a patent 4 months before Shockley did for what appears to be a very similar device and design. For example, Figure 7 in Bardeen's patent appears to show a PNP stack, and he mentions that his device shows current gain, which is exactly what a transistor does.
:::I feel judging by the number of Google hits can be very misleading. When a series of words are put in quotes, they must all occur in the order given, which greatly restricts the number of hits. I hypothesize that publications that delve deeply enough into integrated circuits to use the word "die" or "dice" would often not use the phrase "integrated circuit", but instead would use shorter words like wafer, chip, device, IC, etc. If instead you google for the words <u>silicon dice</u> you get lots of hits; several on the first two pages support dice as the plural of die. [[User:Jc3s5h|Jc3s5h]] ([[User talk:Jc3s5h|talk]]) 17:47, 25 May 2018 (UTC)


Would appreciate some feedback or input from someone more experienced than I with reading patents and semiconductor physics (which I have only a passing understanding of). <span style="text-shadow:2px 2px 4px red;">[[User:MrAureliusR|<span style="color:red"> '''<big>M</big>r<big>A</big>urelius<big>R</big>'''</span>]]</span><span style="text-shadow:3px 3px 4px blue;"><small>[[User_talk:MrAureliusR|<sub>Talk!</sub>]]</small></span> 01:10, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
::::Sorry to have gotten us into this semantics issue but as it turns out the IEEE dictionary definition partially quoted about is actually is quite helpful:
::::*"'''die''' (1) A single piece of silicon that contains one or more circuits and is or will be packaged as a unit. ..."
::::*"'''dice''' Multiple pieces of silicon, each of which contains one or more circuits and is or will be packaged as a unit. ..."
::::This supports a die/dice usage. Die as singular is also the [https://www.semiconductors.org/faq/glossary/ SIA definition]. Personally I have always used dies as the plural but can live with die/dice. [[User:Tom94022|Tom94022]] ([[User talk:Tom94022|talk]]) 18:13, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
:::::Evidently, only if it's made of silicon. Jimbo help us describing dies made of GaAs, SiC, germanium, or other materials. It's a very poorly edited dictionary entry. ==[[User:Wtshymanski|Wtshymanski]] ([[User talk:Wtshymanski|talk]]) 19:55, 25 May 2018 (UTC)


:Both were filed by "Bell Telephone Laboratories Inc"
== Transistor aging compared to a vacuum tube ==


:* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_transistor
Is it really appropriate to include aging as a limitation in a section ''comparing them to tubes?'' In isolation it would be a valid concern but compared against a tube with almost infintiely worse long term reliability it becomes an advantage rather than a limitation. I was tempted to simply snip that on sight but I figure I'll raise it here first, I know people can be hesitant to remove sourced material even if as here the source does not directly support the assertion made - the source does not even mention tubes. [[User:3142|3142]] ([[User talk:3142|talk]]) 13:55, 7 January 2019 (UTC)


:* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Bardeen#Invention_of_the_transistor
:I used to work for a semiconductor manufacturer. One of my duties was to waive failures in the accelerated aging tests, provided a reason for the premature failure could be found that would not occur in real products. I agree the bullet about aging of transistors should be removed. [[User:Jc3s5h|Jc3s5h]] ([[User talk:Jc3s5h|talk]]) 15:28, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
:* https://patents.google.com/patent/US2524033A/en?oq=US2524033
:* https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/f8/53/1c/dc0c7b5252a663/US2524033.pdf


:* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Shockley#Development_of_the_transistor
== Wrong link ==
:* https://patents.google.com/patent/US2569347A/en?oq=US2569347
:* https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/4c/d7/98/e30fdc30f7dc7d/US2569347.pdf


:• [[User:Sbmeirow|<span style="color:#8D38C9;">Sbmeirow</span>]] • [[User talk:Sbmeirow|<span style="color:#8D38C9;White;">Talk</span>]] • 03:20, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
2N3904 transistor has incorrect datasheet link <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/195.222.90.140|195.222.90.140]] ([[User talk:195.222.90.140#top|talk]]) 12:28, 9 October 2019 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:Fixed. [[User:Jc3s5h|Jc3s5h]] ([[User talk:Jc3s5h|talk]]) 13:55, 9 October 2019 (UTC)


== Was William Shockley actually one of the threesome who invented the point contact transistor? ==


In the article, it says, "The first working device was a [[point-contact transistor]] invented in 1947 by physicists [[John Bardeen]], [[Walter Brattain]], and [[William Shockley]]". However, I found a different article on the website Electronic Design, authored by Lou Frenzel, that gives contradictory information. Link: https://www.electronicdesign.com/technologies/analog/article/21808701/who-really-did-invent-the-transistor In the article, it says that William Shockley was '''not''' included in the first point contact transistor patent. Not sure what the correct action would be, though. [[User:Attihoch|Attihoch]] ([[User talk:Attihoch|talk]]) 17:18, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
==Germans made the first working Transistor ==
The world's first working device was built in Paris by German scientists [[Herbert Mataré]] and [[Heinrich Welker]] , who preceded the Bell Labs, Moreover their prototype was more advanced than the prototype of Bell Labs. See: https://spectrum.ieee.org/tech-history/silicon-revolution/how-europe-missed-the-transistor
Just because the War Crimes of Germans , it was impossible to receive Global attention for Germans after the war.--[[User:Regtraht|Regtraht]] ([[User talk:Regtraht|talk]]) 18:01, 16 November 2019 (UTC)


== Collector should be at top of PNP symbol ==


The PNP symbol under "Electronic symbol" should be flipped vertically, to put the collector at the top. That's the way it's usually shown in schematics. [[User:BMJ-pdx|BMJ-pdx]] ([[User talk:BMJ-pdx|talk]]) 13:23, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
"he French device “turns out...to be superior to its American counterpart,” read a more measured but still favorable account in Toute la Radio, a technical journal [see drawing and photo]. “The latter has a limited lifetime and appears to be fairly unstable, whereas the existing transistrons do not show any sign of fatigue.”


:I see it both ways. [[User:Constant314|<b style="color: #4400bb;">''Constant314''</b>]] ([[User talk:Constant314|talk]]) 19:23, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
According to Mataré, this superiority could be attributed to the care they employed in fabricating their devices. While observing the process with microscopes, the women working on the small assembly line would measure current-voltage curves for both metal points with oscilloscopes and fix the points rigidly on the germanium with drops of epoxy after the curves matched the desired characteristics. When Brattain and Shockley visited the Paris group in 1950, Mataré showed them telephone amplifiers made with his transistrons—which allowed him to place a call all the way to Algiers. “That’s quite something,” admitted Shockley a bit guardedly, Mataré recalls half a century later." <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Regtraht|Regtraht]] ([[User talk:Regtraht#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Regtraht|contribs]]) 19:28, 16 November 2019 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

Latest revision as of 19:23, 28 November 2024


"grounded emitter, ..."

[edit]

I saw the term grounded emitter used a few times. In literature I've read, the term is common emitter, common base, common collector and likewise with source, gate & drain for FETs. The term grounded is not used in some countries; it is called earthed - ground is called earth. I suggest that the term grounded should be changed to common, which is based, I believe, on network theory. Thank you. acmefixer@yahoo.com 2022-08-09. 2600:1700:CD40:C510:C569:E860:4740:249A (talk) 09:34, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A grounded emitter circuit is a common emitter circuit, but not all common emitter circuits are grounded emitter circuits. The terms are used correctly in the article. Constant314 (talk) 11:55, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Patent numbers?

[edit]

In the article, it says:

The first bipolar junction transistors were invented by Bell Labs' William Shockley, who applied for patent (2,569,347) on June 26, 1948.

However, there seems to be an earlier patent (US2524033) that describes what appears to be a similar invention, with the patent going to John Bardeen. It was applied for four months before US2569347 and was also granted first (October 3, 1950 versus September 25, 1951). So is this article pointing to the correct patent and order of events? I am fairly experienced with electronics and semiconductors, but patent language and diagrams are so difficult to read that I'm having a hard time figuring out exactly what was claimed in each, and why John Bardeen applied for a patent 4 months before Shockley did for what appears to be a very similar device and design. For example, Figure 7 in Bardeen's patent appears to show a PNP stack, and he mentions that his device shows current gain, which is exactly what a transistor does.

Would appreciate some feedback or input from someone more experienced than I with reading patents and semiconductor physics (which I have only a passing understanding of). MrAureliusRTalk! 01:10, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Both were filed by "Bell Telephone Laboratories Inc"
• Sbmeirow • Talk • 03:20, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Was William Shockley actually one of the threesome who invented the point contact transistor?

[edit]

In the article, it says, "The first working device was a point-contact transistor invented in 1947 by physicists John Bardeen, Walter Brattain, and William Shockley". However, I found a different article on the website Electronic Design, authored by Lou Frenzel, that gives contradictory information. Link: https://www.electronicdesign.com/technologies/analog/article/21808701/who-really-did-invent-the-transistor In the article, it says that William Shockley was not included in the first point contact transistor patent. Not sure what the correct action would be, though. Attihoch (talk) 17:18, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Collector should be at top of PNP symbol

[edit]

The PNP symbol under "Electronic symbol" should be flipped vertically, to put the collector at the top. That's the way it's usually shown in schematics. BMJ-pdx (talk) 13:23, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I see it both ways. Constant314 (talk) 19:23, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Transistor&oldid=1260085830"