Talk:Gunn diode

message: In a Gunn effect diode (eg:GaAs diode)the main principle used is that a differential resistance region is formed when a very high DC voltage is applied to a multi-valley compound.when the applied voltage reaches the threshhold value there is the formation of a high field domain which causes current to drop considerably.gunn diode has four oscillation modes
1)Gunn oscillation mode
2)staable amplification mode
3)LSA oscillation mode
4)Bias circuit oscillation mode
--61.1.225.137 17:58, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Gunn diode

message: Who is the Gunn diode named after? Or why is it a proper noun?? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 213.48.15.234 (talk • contribs).
:Our article Scientific phenomena named after people#G says it's named after John Battiscombe Gunn; please feel free to be bold and add that to the article!
:Atlant 12:10, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Who's "Gunn"? 

message: This paper appears in: Spectrum, IEEE
Issue Date: Jan. 1968
Volume: 5 Issue:1
On page(s): 47 - 56
ISSN: 0018-9235
Digital Object Identifier: 10.1109/MSPEC.1968.5215632 
Date of Current Version: 25 August 2009
Sponsored by: IEEE 
Abstract
Until recently, investigators have been frustrated in their attempts at applying microwave and millimeter-wave frequencies to semiconductor devices. During the last few years, the discovery of avalanche transit-time and Gunn effects in bulk semiconductors has been met with overwhelming enthusiasm. The successful fabrication of models presently utilizing these negative-conductance phenomena has given these high-frequency devices an optimistic outlook for the future.
References
   1. "Special Issue on Semiconductor Bulk-Effect and Transit-Time Devices",  IEEE Trans. Electron Devices,  vol. ED-13,  pp. 1966. 
   2. R. L. Johnston , B. C. DeLoach and B. G. Cohen   "A silicon diode microwave oscillator",  Bell System Tech. J.,  vol. 44,  pp. 369 1965. 
   3. W. T. Read   "A proposed high-frequency negative-resistance diode",  Bell System Tech. J.,  vol. 37,  pp. 401 1958. 
   4. J. B. Gunn   "Microwave oscillations of current in III-V semiconductors",  Solid-State Commun.,  vol. 1,  pp. 88 1963. 
   5. J. B. Gunn   "Instabilities of current in III-V semiconductors",  IBM J. Res. Develop.,  vol. 8,  pp. 141 1964. 
   6. J. B. Gunn   "Instabilities of current and of potential distribution in GaAs and InP",  Symp. Plasma Effects Solids,  pp. 1964. 
   7. M. E. Hines   "Noise theory for the Read type avalanche diode",  IEEE Trans. Electron Devices,  vol. ED-13,  pp. 158 1966. 
   8. J. Josenhans   "Noise spectra of Read diode and Gunn oscillators",  Proc. IEEE,  vol. 54,  pp. 1478 1966. 
   9. L. S. Bowman and C. A. Burrus Jr.  "Pulse-driven silicon p-n junction avalanche oscillators for the 0.9- to 20-mm band",  IEEE Trans. Electron Devices,  vol. ED-14,  pp. 1967. 
  10. B. K. Ridley and T. B. Watkins   "The possibility of negative resistance effects in semiconductors",  Proc. Phys. Soc. (London),  vol. 78,  pp. 293 1961. 
  11. C. Hilsum   "Transferred electron amplifiers and oscillators",  Proc. IRE,  vol. 50,  pp. 185 1962. 
  12. H. Kroemer   "Theory of the Gunn effect",  Proc. IEEE,  vol. 52,  pp. 1736 1964. 
  13. J. B. Gunn and B. J. Elliott   "Measurement of the negative differential mobility of electrons in GaAs",  Phys. Letters,  vol. 22,  pp. 369 1966. 
  14. D. M. Chang and J.L. Moll   "Direct observation of the drift velocity as a function of the electric field in gallium arsenide",  Appl. Phys. Letters,  vol. 9,  pp. 283 1966. 
  15. H. W. Thim   "Potential distribution and field dependence of electron velocity in bulk GaAs measured with a point contact probe",  Electron. Letters,  vol. 2,  pp. 403 1966. 
  16. J. G. Ruch and G. S. Kino   "Measurements of the velocity-field characteristic of gallium arsenide",  Appl. Phys. Letters,  vol. 10,  pp. 40 1967. 
  17. G. A. Acket   "Determination of the negative differential mobility of n-type gallium arsenide using 8 mm microwaves",  Phys. Letters,  vol. 24A,  pp. 200 1967. 
  18. J. S. Heeks   "Some properties of the moving high-field domain in Gunn effect devices",  IEEE Trans. Electron Devices,  vol. ED-13,  pp. 68 1966. 
  19. P. N. Butcher and W. Fawcett   "Calculation of the velocity-field characteristic for gallium arsenide",  Phys. Letters,  vol. 21,  pp. 489 1966. 
  20. H. Ehrenreich   "Band structure and electron transport of GaAs",  Phys. Rev.,  vol. 120,  pp. 1951 1960. 
  21. J. W. Allen , M. Shyam and G. L. Pearson   "Gunn oscillations in indium arsenide",  Appl. Phys. Letters,  vol. 9,  pp. 39 1966. 
  22. A. G. Foyt and A. L. McWhorter   "The Gunn effect in polar semiconductors",  IEEE Trans. Electron Devices,  vol. ED-13,  pp. 79 1966. 
  23. G. W. Ludwig , R. E. Halsted and M. S. Aven   "Current saturation and instability CdTe and ZnSe",  IEEE Trans. Electron Devices,  vol. ED-13,  pp. 671 1966. 
  24. J. A. Copeland   "A new mode of operation for bulk negative-resistance oscillators",  Proc. IEEE,  vol. 54,  pp. 1479 1966. 
  25. J. A. Copeland   "LSA oscillator diode theory",  J. Appl. Phys.,  vol. 38,  pp. 3096 1967. 
  26. A. J. Shuskus and M. P. Shaw   "Current instabilities in gallium arsenide",  Proc. IEEE,  vol. 53,  pp. 1804 1965. 
  27. M. P. Shaw and A. J. Shuskus   "Current instability above the Gunn threshold",  Proc. IEEE,  vol. 54,  pp. 1580 1966. 
  28. J. A. Copeland   "CW operation of LSA oscillator diodes 44 to 88 GHz",  Bell Syst. Tech. J.,  vol. 46,  pp. 284 1967. 
  29. J. A. Copeland and R. R. Spiwak   "LSA operation of bulk n-GaAs diodes",  1967 Internat'l Solid-State Circuit Conf.,  pp.
  30. K. Kennedy   Negative conductance in bulk gallium arsenide of high frequencies,  pp. 1966. 
  31. B. K. Ridley   "Specific negative resistance in solids",  Proc. Phys. Soc. (London),  vol. 82,  pp. 954 1963. 
  32. H. Kroemer   "Nonlinear space-charge domain dynamics in a semiconductor with negative differential mobility",  IEEE Trans. Electron Devices,  vol. ED-13,  pp. 27 1966. 
  33. D. E. McCumber and A. G. Chynoweth   "Theory of negative-conductance amplification and of Gunn instabilities in `two valley' semiconductors",  IEEE Trans. Electron Devices,  vol. ED-13,  pp. 4 1966. 
  34. W. Shockley   "Negative resistance arising from transit time in semiconductor diodes",  Bell System Tech. J.,  vol. 33,  pp. 799 1954. 
  35. H. W. Thim , M. R. Barber , B. W. Hakki , S. Knight and M. Uenohara   "Microwave amplification in a dc-biased bulk semiconductor",  Appl. Phys. Letters,  vol. 7,  pp. 167 1965. 
  36. B. W. Hakki and S. Knight   "Microwave phenomena in bulk GaAs",  IEEE Trans. Electron Devices,  vol. ED-13,  pp. 94 1966. 
  37. H. W. Thim and M. R. Barber   "Microwave amplification in a GaAs bulk semiconductor",  IEEE Trans. Electron Devices,  vol. ED-13,  pp. 110 1966. 
  38. A. G. Foyt and T. M. Quist   "Bulk GaAs microwave amplifiers",  IEEE Trans. Electron Devices,  vol. ED-13,  pp. 199 1966. 
  39. B. W. Hakki and J. P. Beccone   "Microwave negative conductance of bulk GaAs",  Proc. IEEE,  vol. 54,  pp. 916 1966. 
  40. A. L. McWhorter and A. G. Foyt   "Bulk GaAs negative conductance amplifiers",  Appl. Phys. Letters,  vol. 9,  pp. 300 1966. 
  41. H. W. Thim   "Temperature effects in bulk GaAs amplifiers",  IEEE Trans. Electron Devices,  vol. ED-14,  pp. 59 1967. 
  42. H. Kroemer   Detailed theory of the negative conductance of bulk negative mobility amplifiers, in the limit of zero ion density,  pp.
  43. J. B. Gunn   "Properties of a free, steadily traveling electrical domain in GaAs",  IBM J. Res. Develop.,  vol. 10,  pp. 300 1966. 
  44. J. E. Carroll   "Oscillations coveting 4 Gc/s to 31 Gc/s from a single Gunn Diode",  Electron Letters,  vol. 2,  pp. 141 1966. 
  45. J. E. Carroll   "Resonant-circuit operation of Gunn diodes: a self-pumped parametric oscillator",  Electron. Letters,  vol. 2,  pp. 215 1966. 
  46. "Second Special Issue on Semiconductor Bulk-Effect and Transit-Time Devices",  IEEE Trans. Electron Devices,  vol. ED-14,  pp. 1967.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Michael P. Barnett (talk • contribs) 16:45, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Bibliography of 1968 [[Herbert Kroemer]] paper

message: I rearranged the article and brought in material from Discussion page and Linz (or Oklahoma) paper to make article look coherent, continuous, structured, without terminological loose ends, and without red herrings. BUT I did not check that hyperlinks work (several could not have worked before -- they started in lower case). Also, I may have achieved the result that worries me most about WP articles -- looking ok to the uninitiated but wildly misleading as regards fact and perspective. The applications in the Oklahoma paper seems disjoint from the amateur radio and these seem disjoint from the injector (but I do not know about oscillator) applications. And they may be totally subsumed by applications in the monographs. So some checking needs to be done. Would be nice to link here from WP articles on applications.
Michael P. Barnett (talk) 20:26, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Copy editing

message: Is it time to consult a recognized authority. As the only one of us using actual name, should I email him? Michael P. Barnett (talk) 01:48, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Bonilla

message: On my home office PC, the Gunn at the very beginning is not displayed in the colour that indicates a hyperlink, because it is bold face. I went to Edit mode to "fix" it and saw that it is there, in double brackets. Might the link Gunn be worked in again, a bit later in the lead (lede?) to make sure no-one loses out on the link. Michael P. Barnett (talk) 03:39, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: There are a few sentences later in the lede that talk about the general effect and history/discovery, where the name is linked. I think the lede does need an overhaul...talks so much right away about the design of the device rather than about its notable effect, which seems likely to scare away readers who don't already know something about this field. DMacks (talk) 05:47, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: hyperlink

message: I filled out reference 1 to make bibliographic information visible before clicking on link to website. However, I do not know how to code diacritical marks and would be grateful if someone who does could alter the names of the authors to put these in by reference to the paper reached by clicking on link to website. I emailed one of the authors for referral to expert. Bonilla seems more mathematical. 
Michael P. Barnett (talk) 01:59, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Diacritic added to name Gružinskis (just needed to copy and paste the character or entire name from the website) --catslash (talk) 16:24, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: reference 1 and expert opinion

message: The technical content of this article is outside my field of expertize. For precisely that reason, I am uneasy about it. I got through the first ten words
::"A Gunn diode, also known as a transferred electron device (TED) ..." 
and ground to a halt. I think this is because I thought I had heard people talking about transferred electron devices a long time ago, in a way that was not synonymous with Gunn diode. Now I have learned from Wikipedia articles within my field of expertize that many, perhaps a majority, are wildly incorrect. I do not take WK articles on trust and I ran A Google search on "transferred electron device".
This gives as the 5th hit, "TRANSFERRED ELECTRON DEVICES United States Patent 3673469: A transferred electron device, such as an oscillator, [that may contain] a Schottky barrier diode... "  In my ignorance, I think one use of a Gunn diode is as PART of an oscillator. And I think of a diode as a device that lets current pass in one direction, and an oscillator as a device that emits a signal which oscillates back and forth.
The 7th hit is "Recent developments in transferred electron devices" REVIEW ARTICLE, G S Hobson 1974 J. Phys. E: Sci. Instrum. 7 229. The conclusion begins "This brief review of transferred electron devices [note plural] ... such as self-oscillating mixers, direct frequency demodulation without discrimination, ..." Now, might someone like me who does not know what these terms mean, think that there are many kinds of "transferred electon devices" and also wonder why the author of this article refers in most of the paper to transferred electron devices, and only occasionally to "Gunn diode".
Maybe the terms are interchangeable, maybe they are not. But if the sentence can stop me, might it stop other people raising the question of whether the opening sentence of a lede should be free of content that can set some readers on a Google search that can confuse them. But who can be the arbiter of such an issue?
As regards the Gunn diode being unusual. How many Gunn diodes are in equipment that I pass every day, in contrast to diodes of other kinds? Does numerical majority make something unusual (besides being most common)? Might it be better to write something like "the Gunn diode allows current to pass in one direction because of a phenomenon that Gunn discovered that uses a principle which was unexpected [surprising, quite different from those used previsoulsy].
On to np and pn junctions. Might there be readers who would appreciate something more like "it consists of a sandwich [or an open sandwich], of something-one and something-two [and something-three] that are, respectively, rich and poor [and rich] [or the other way round] when in contact, because they come from group something and group something else of the periodic table. [Or whatever adaptation needed for accuracy]  This would enfrachise a lot of people, including many with graduate degrees in science and engineering who did not take course on electronics or sold state physics to continuing to read the article. 
The rest of the lede digs deeper and deeper to the point that I wonder if anyone can understand it who does not know it already. But maybe I am just unusually ignorant relative to typical WK reader seeking information from articles like this. I dug back to see how long the mention of transfer electron device has been in. The change was made on 31 July 2005 on the strength of an article in the newsletter of an electronics company  -- I defer to the experts on whether this is a masterpiece of clarity and accuracy.  Sorry to bob up with it now.Michael P. Barnett (talk) 01:24, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments Feb 23 2011

message: Physics and Electronics make sense.  But why Chemistry? Jpg1954 (talk) 15:03, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  WikiProjects 

message: The article begins
:HISTORICAL BACKGROUND OF HOT ELECTRON PHYSICS (A LOOK OVER THE SHOULDER), C. HILSUM, Royal Signals and Radar Establishment, Malvern, WORCS, England, Solid-State Electronics 1978 Vol. 21. pp. 5-8
:"A field is mature when workers in it are either too young or too old to remember how it all started. ... two phases in this history ... prior to 1960 ... where the scene was set ... the next 5 years". "earliest work on high field effects in solids ... stimulated by ... dielectric breakdown ... theoretical papers ... in the 1930s ... most ... in Russian ... coherent attack ... started in 1947 ... Frohlich ... dielectric breakdown ... introduced ... concept of a hot electron ... supplemented ... by ... Franz, Kawamura, and Lehovec ... in 1951 Shockley ... high fields on homogeneous semiconductors ... limitation ... Yamashita and Inone, and Conwell ... 1958, Stratton ... approximate theories explaining electron and hole transport in high electric fields in both covalent and partly ionic semiconductors ... negative differential resistance at high electric fields, that is a decrease of drift velocity with an increase in voltage, came from Kroemer in 1953" 
The article continues through the focus of experimentalists and theoreticians who worked on the problem. The article provides reminder of what technical terms mean, when the terms are introduced.
If this condensation does not approach copyright violation, it could be replaced by a slightly less terse version, that maintains fair use, or a paraphrase otherwise, and could be continued in this vein (I am willing to, over the next few days, and I could get authoritative opinion on what I drafted). How about a structure that consists of a lede along lines 
:"The Gunn diode is an inexpensive electronic device that is used in many kinds of equipment, that affect our daily lives, which is based on a physical principle discovered by Ian Gunn, and known as the Gunn effect. The experiments that led to this discovery and the interpretation of the results evolved through discussions by several theoretical and experimental scientists with different and, at times, conflicting viewpoints. The development of the present understanding became, in itself, a matter of interest." (then a sentence or two for each of the further sections appropriate to the lede indicating overall content of article).
:Then maybe a simple explanation, that starts with one- or two-sentence free standing explanations of the terms "dielectric breakdown", "hot electron", "negative differential resistance" at the level of simplicity that just requires a general science background, continuing through the controversy, explaining each term that is used, when it is introduced (and I think there need be no more than five or six". Would this violate forking, NOR, NPOV guidelines?
:Then avoid offending the editors who provided the explanations I do not understand, by retaining those as "A more technical explanation". Then a summary of applications? Michael P. Barnett (talk) 15:28, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: ''Historical background ...'' by Cyril Hilsum (1978)

message: from email message just received:
"Diode- this just means that there are two contacts. Some forms of diode are rectifiers, including junction diodes. The Gunn diode, and most TEDs, do not rectify, and either contact can be used as the anode.
 
TEDs- all TEDs involve electron transfer giving a negative differential resistance. That means that throughout some voltage range, the current decreases at the voltage increases. That situation is unstable, and there are a number of ways in which the instability is exploited. If the distance between anode and cathode is long, the actual critical length dpending on the electron concentration, the voltage along the device divides into two regions, with much of the full voltage appearing across a narrow domain. This domain will move cyclically from anode to cathode. This effect was first predicted by Brian Ridley and observed by Ian Gunn. That form of TED is called a Gunn Diode.
The domain has a minimum width, and short samples cannot demonstrate the effect well. In those the mode of oscillation will be determined by the sample environment, and if this includes a resonant cavity, the sample will oscillate at that frequency without domains forming. This is still a Negative Resistance Device or a Transferred Electron Device, though not a Gunn Diode. Hence all Gunn Diodes are TEDs, but not all TEDs are Gunn Diodes. Of course, that does not stop some manufacturers from referring to their microwave oscillators as Gunn Diodes, even though no domains are passing."
this method of communication seems to be working! Michael P. Barnett (talk) 18:57, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: "The full explanation of the Gunn effect was delivered by Alan Chynoweth, of Bell Telephone Laboratories, at a crowded June 1965 conference in New York City. The Bell Labs data showed that only a transferred-electron mechanism could explain why hydrostatic pressure first decreased the threshold field and then suppressed the current oscillations. Electrons heated to transfer to states at higher energies in the conduction band behave like particles of greater mass, decreasing the average velocity of all electrons and producing a negative- conductivity effect."
Apologies for mis-spelling the name.
Jpg1954 (talk) 20:44, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The Voelcker paper states Alan gave the explanation. It does not state explicitly whether Alan was reporting his own results or speaking on behalf of other people at Bell. I ran a citation search on the McComber and Chynoweth paper and found GUNN EFFECT BIBLIOGRAPHY Source: I.E.E.E. transactions on electron devices [0018-9383] yr: 1968 vol: ED15 iss: 10 pg: 777    Will ask authority on topic tomorrow Michael P. Barnett (talk) 03:09, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Further clarification

message: Most un-intuitive. There are (used to be more correct maybe) very simple and much more intuitive explanations, at least for the electrically inclined in freshman text books.  In fact, label TED explains half of what is going on.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.229.112.98 (talk) 21:52, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Confusing Micorscopic Description