Talk:Insulated-gate bipolar transistor

message: The cross-section pictures and the equivalent circuits do not fit together. Emitter and Collector have to be exchanged - otherwise the internal devices make no sense since source and collector are connected. Thus the resistor "body region" in the equivalent circuit does not make sense either. It would be the resistance of the ohmic contact shorting FET-Source and BJT-Collector. As a consequence the parasitic transistor will be mainly "off" since the voltage drop is quite low. 130.149.57.205 (talk) 10:51, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree this page deserve more. I plan to work on it, but if someone wants to do it before, please help yourself! Meanwhile, I've added the stub label... CyrilB 16:08, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Yeah. - mako 08:46, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Miscellaneous 

message: :Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~
*Support. - mako 08:46, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: (Initial) Survey

message: ====IGBT====
# mako 21:00, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Approval voting]]

message: # mako 21:00, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: IGBT

message: # mako 21:00, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Insulated gate bipolar transistor

message: The intro section needs to be hacked down and placed into several new sections below.  I'm not going to tackle it until I add more content, but it needs to be done Wefoij 21:28, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I just put a bunch under device structure.  More needs to be done.  Feel free to add / edit.  I'll be back later Wefoij 22:11, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Format Change

message: There's an error in the last cross section picture. At the symbol of the PNP transistor, you should put the arrow at the emitter.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.114.75.190 (talk) 10:21, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  There's an error 

message: i think those both paragraphs are contradictory one to other, u should use only one, i know some igbts require an external diode, but that should be said in the same paragraph
"The additional PN junction blocks reverse current flow. This means that unlike a MOSFET, IGBTs cannot conduct in the reverse direction. In bridge circuits where reverse current flow is needed an additional diode (called a freewheeling diode) is placed in parallel with the IGBT to conduct current in the opposite direction. The penalty isn't as severe as first assumed though, because at the higher voltages where IGBT usage dominates, discrete diodes are of significantly higher performance than the body diode of a MOSFET."
"The reverse bias rating of the N- drift region to collector P+ diode is usually only of tens of volts, so if the circuit application applies a reverse voltage to the IGBT, an additional series diode must be used."  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.171.178.253 (talk) 00:52, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comparison to mosfets 

message: It is indeed unknown who the real inventor of IGBTs is. I left the text as it is where I cannot confirm if it is true or not.Nca01634 (talk) 11:27, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: So put all that into the article, with sources.  What we want to avoid is including statements like "it is controversial" unless we can find a reliable source that discusses such a controversy.  And if inventorship or priority is unclear, we should avoid making any claims about inventorship or priority.  Just listing who did what when, with sources, is the way to keep the viewpoint neutral.  There's no need to presume a concept such as "real inventor" or to make up a controversy if that's not what's out there.  Like most technologies, it has evolved with advances from lots of people. Dicklyon (talk) 16:42, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  It is controversial who the real inventor of IGBT is!!!

message: June 17, 2008 MBanak
I Corrected the Name "Becke", which was listed as "Beck", in several places - I knew the late Hans Becke in the 1980's, then at Bell Labs. We originally called this puppy a COMFET, and I made several myself after learning the technique.  The correct spelling of his name is evident on the Patent, which is already linked in the article as reference "10", as of June 17th, 2008. 
Mbanak (talk) 16:27, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Just wanted to fix the Name of one of the founding inventors. 

message: I think we can all agree that the most popular equivalent circuit for an IGBT is the model that uses just a pnp transistor and a N-channel FET, right? I was reading some stuff online and I found a circuit that, when run in a simulator, appeared to simulate an IGBT far more accurately.  Is this worth mentioning? Thanks.Ilikefood (talk) 18:09, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: edit: I found it. It's here: . Ilikefood (talk) 16:54, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alternate equivalent circuit? 

message: Doesn't 4 transistors make a FULL H-bridge?
Why does the caption say only a half-bridge?
Mikiemike (talk) 03:24, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question about middle-image caption in "Usage" section 

message: The article needs an explanation of the different flavours of IGBT available and the manufacturers' terminology (sometimes different terms for the same thing?): enhancement-mode, depletion-mode, punch-through, non-punch-through, field stop, shorted anode, trench, depletion stop trench, etc. The symbol for a depletion-mode device should be replaced by one for an enhancement-mode device, because this is what most if not all commercial products are. EEye (talk) 18:04, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Terminology 

message: * Comparing the Incomparable - Understanding and Comparing IGBT Module Datasheets
* Criteria for Successful Selection of IGBT and MOSFET Modules
Please discuss here if you find links relevant which I personally do Bmwtroll (talk) 10:17, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Relevant Links 

message: I added Non-Punch-Through-IGBT to NPT#Technology.
Unfortunately until now the NPT-Variant ist not yet mentioned in the article.
In the German counterpart it is said: "Im Gegensatz zu Leistungs-MOSFETs können Punch-Through-IGBTs (PT-IGBT) zur Erhöhung der Stromtragfähigkeit nicht ohne weiteres parallel geschaltet werden. Non-Punch-Through-IGBTs (NPT-IGBT) hingegen besitzen wie die Leistungs-MOSFETs einen positiven Temperaturkoeffizienten und können parallel geschaltet werden. In den meisten IGBT-Hochleistungsmodulen wird das auch getan."
This roghtly translates to: "Unlike power MOSFETs, Punch-Through-IGBTs (PT-IGBT) can not be connected in parallel easily to increase the current carrying capacity. Non-Punch-Through IGBT (NPT-IGBT), however, have a positive temperature coefficient like power MOSFETs and therefore can be connected in parallel. In most IGBT high power modules this is done." 
Maybe someone with knowledge about the technical terms can fit this into the article.
And I suggest to use the first picture of the German article as well. Manorainjan (talk) 20:59, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Non-Punch-Through-IGBT 

message: Please add the IGBT symbol Arghman (talk) 21:17, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Symbol 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Insulated-gate bipolar transistor. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111114011218/http://www.license.umn.edu/Products/Ion-Gel-as-a-Gate-Insulator-in-Field-Effect-Transistors__Z07062.aspx to http://www.license.umn.edu/Products/Ion-Gel-as-a-Gate-Insulator-in-Field-Effect-Transistors__Z07062.aspx
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:25, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: There is an interesting new application for IGBT's: The EMALS system on US Aircraft Carriers.
See these articles:
https://insights.globalspec.com/article/1365/linear-motor-aircraft-launch-system-takes-the-steam-out-of-catapults
https://www.theepochtimes.com/on-the-chinese-communist-partys-tactics-for-stealing-western-military-technologies-part-1-of-2_2461615.html
This is a suggestion.  I have not changed the wiki article. Scott Bowden (talk) 13:26, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I have now added this to the article. Maestro2016 (talk) 03:14, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  IGBT Applications 

message: The article is very much focussed on history but there is rather little information describing the electrical behaviour of IGBTs in normal operation. At least a blackbox description is needed but additional information is welcome. Some example of typical switch cirquits including drive signals, and anlogue applications (if relevant) is also very welcome.150.227.15.253 (talk) 15:52, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  A section with more technical focus on the IGBT itself please! 

message: 85.240.217.166 (talk) 16:12, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wouldn't an IGBT running at 6kV produce X-rays during transition? 

message: Can't really imagine how "insulated gate" part helps bipolar transistors 81.89.66.133 (talk) 15:26, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Needs GIFs 

message: The figure  included from this page has the "arrow" of the circuit symbol connected to the collector region of semiconductor.  I assume this is an error.  What is the best way to report that? LachlanA (talk) 04:38, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Good question. I just realised the same thing, and upon reading through this talk page I notice that this was reported already in 2010, in the very first talk page section "Miscellaneous". Apparently nobody reacted to that then… My understanding is that the labels "emitter" and "collector" should be switched, but it could be some convention which makes sense to people more familiar with these devices (e.g. control voltage is that between gate and other top connector, which is why people think of it as "emitter"). In that case, the article should explain why terminology is the way it is. 37.2.59.8 (talk) 23:12, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Error in figure?