Talk:MOSFET

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on MOSFET. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20130610140024/http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/articleDetails.jsp?arnumber=1049902 to http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/articleDetails.jsp?arnumber=1049902
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20130903030232/http://www.powerguru.org/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/SEMIKRON_application_manual_power_semiconductors.pdf to http://www.powerguru.org/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/SEMIKRON_application_manual_power_semiconductors.pdf
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20160101234641/http://www.automotivedesignline.com/showArticle.jhtml;?articleID=191900470 to http://www.automotivedesignline.com/showArticle.jhtml;?articleID=191900470
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20160102202735/http://www.semikron.com/skcompub/en/application_manual-193.htm to http://www.semikron.com/skcompub/en/application_manual-193.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 16:19, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: In typical bot framed idiocy the first link is to a paywall where reading the article will cost me a week's food.
Weatherlawyer (talk) 15:48, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I suggest that MISFET is merged here.  The article is only a single short paragraph and MOSFET already says nearly all of what is there.  As I understand it, the difference is only a question of the materials used, so it is unlikely that MISFET would ever be substantially different from this article even if it were fully expanded. SpinningSpark 18:52, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: strongly object. These are different concepts. Wikipedia is not paper to squeeze everything into one page. That the page is short means semi engineers don't give a dime for wikipedia, but it does not mean there is nothing to write. Staszek Lem (talk) 16:26, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Exactly; there is not a bit but lots. However it is a highly specialized area, and things are experimental, and experts in materials science are too busy to waste their time here. Staszek Lem (talk) 17:01, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge MISFET 

message: It was at that time the Bell Labs version was given the name bipolar junction transistor, or simply junction transistor, and Lilienfeld's design took the name field effect transistor.  OK, for one, the name transistor came from the contrast with transconductance, the description for vacuum tubes as voltage controlled current sources. (That is, dI/dV). When (year) and who named the Lilienfeld device, which as I understand it didn't really work, a field effect transistor?  That should satisfy the . Gah4 (talk) 15:40, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Naming 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on MOSFET. 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/20140727084407/http://www-device.eecs.berkeley.edu/bsim/Files/BSIMCMG/BSIMCMG106.0.0/BSIMCMG106.0.0_TechnicalManual_20120313.pdf to http://www-device.eecs.berkeley.edu/bsim/Files/BSIMCMG/BSIMCMG106.0.0/BSIMCMG106.0.0_TechnicalManual_20120313.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151228041321/http://www.itrs.net/ to http://www.itrs.net/
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) 22:23, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on MOSFET. 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/20141110225738/http://equars.com/~marco/poli/phd/node20.html to http://equars.com/~marco/poli/phd/node20.html
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) 18:55, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The Applications section has Analog under CMOS circuits - not clear from the content if that is the intended structure. 
Would it be better to have as the top level structure : Digital logic, Signal switching, Power switching, Other analog applications ? 
Also seems strange to have NMOS logic and Power MOSFET under Other types as they have been discussed above (eg under Applications). - Rod57 (talk) 09:19, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Confusing structure in Applications : CMOS : Analog 

message: Per ongoing discussion at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#RfC:_Delete_IABot_talk_page_posts? and Template_talk:Sourcecheck#Can_we_change_the_standard_message_to_says_its_OK_to_delete_the_entire_talk_page_section I'd like to delete the above External links modified section(s). Any objections ? - Rod57 (talk) 09:27, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed talk page edit to delete ''External links modified'' sections 

message: Hi! Anyone know what software  used to create File:MOSFET Structure.png? (This is the first diagram shown in this article.) I need to be able to draw my microelectronic substrates in 3D.... Thanks! --Blue.painting (talk) 18:29, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Software used to create [https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:MOSFET_Structure.png File:MOSFET Structure.png]?

message: The article says: CMOS logic consumes over 7 times less power than NMOS logic,[9] and about 100,000 times less power than bipolar.  Because of the way different logic families scale with clock speed, these numbers are not very useful. Fast switching CMOS uses a lot of power, not switching at all, nearly zero. Which one do you use for the comparison? TTL and NMOS have only a small dependence on clock rate. Gah4 (talk) 21:18, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: The sources are comparing them during the 1970s-1980s. Not sure what the difference is now. I've clarified in the article that the comparison is for the 1970s-1980s. Maestro2016 (talk) 01:31, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, completely different. As above, CMOS current is pretty much proportional to clock speed, and speeds have increased from MHz to GHz. Transistors get smaller (less current) but more of them (more current).  There are CMOS processor now that run at 100W. Gah4 (talk) 02:23, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  ''CMOS logic consumes over 7 times less power than NMOS logic, and about 100,000 times less power than bipolar'' 

message: The article makes some comparisons between BJT and MOSFETs that I am not sure are, in general, true.  The scaling laws are different for the two.  In the early days of CMOS, it was much slower than TTL.  However, CMOS gets much faster when it scales down, while TTL doesn't, so that after not so long, CMOS was faster.  (There were complications in CMOS manufacturing that had to be overcome, though.) As for high power, are high power MOSFETs so much more common than high power BJTs?  Also, I believe that much of analog IC work is still BJT, or a mix of the two. Gah4 (talk) 21:59, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I've now added a sentence to the article mentioning that MOSFETs were initially slower than BJTs. As for power MOSFETs, they account for the majority of the power electronic market as of 2010, with a 53% share, followed by IGBTs with 27% share and then BJTs with just 9% share. As for analog ICs, this this 2002 source says that MOSFETs account for at least 50% or more of the analog IC market. Maestro2016 (talk) 15:43, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  scalng 

message: The article says that analog electronics is mostly MOSFET.  Not quite sure what analog is mostly now, I wonder about stereo amplifiers.  Since mine isn't so new, it might not be representative.  Are stereo amplifiers now mostly MOSFET?  Gah4 (talk) 12:25, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: In 2020, probably so.  I think most are class-D switching amplifiers these days (in every phone, for example), and even high-end class-AB amps use mosfets (see this video). Dicklyon (talk) 17:53, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  analog 

message: The article says: They also have faster switching speed.  It seems to me that this is a side effect of the different scaling laws. For many years, it was TTL and especially ECL that were fast, and MOS was slow. Processors were built with TTL logic and MOS memory. Also, an early problem with CMOS was latch-up where parasitic bipolar transistors would cause devices to fail. Avoiding latch-up, and shrinking to make devices faster, eventually allowed CMOS to pass bipolar in switching speed. Gah4 (talk) 21:18, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  ''They also have faster switching speed'' 

message: New sentence added in MOS sensors section to specifically address some of the applications of MOS and MOSFET sensors for sensing gases. One reference added. Two links added. Nanomaterials21 (talk) 19:41, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Reference and Links 

message: Hey. Just to let everybody know @Maestro2016 the main contributor to this article and MOSFET applications, as well as hundreds of others has been banned for being sock puppet of banned user @Jagged 85, a well known vandal []. You can see Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Jagged 85 and
Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment/Jagged_85 for more info about him. This article and MOSFET applications contains most of the errors and exaggerations regarding Atalla/MOSFET, introduced into dozens of other articles all across Wikipedia. For instance it exaggerate Attalla  and Kahng contribution suggesting that they single-handedly invented MOSFET and all of it's modern application is due to them. I'll copy what I wrote on Transistor talkpage:
"I am currently reading To the Digital Age: Research Labs, Start-up Companies, and the Rise of MOS Technology by Ross Knox Bassett. Bassett is professional historian of science, so his work is as reliable as it gets. I have huge problems with the way this article and other present history of MOS transistor. First of all as Bassett show there was very little new in Attalah and Kahng invention, as Bassett puts it:
"Atalla appears to have conceived it, but it was an invention in a different sense than the transistors of Bardeen and Brattain and Shockley. The invention of both the pointcontact transistor and the junction transistor involved novel effects. The principles that Atalla’s device used were well known; veterans in the field would have recognized them as ones that had been tried without success by Bardeen, Brattain, and Shockley. Atalla recycled these principles using the advanced fabrication techniques that Bell Labs had developed to make diffused bipolar junction transistors. In some sense Atalla’s biggest breakthrough was an intellectual one, thinking that such a device was worth making at all"(page 24). Attalah and Kahng doe not even give this device a name, again from Bassett:
"Atalla and Kahng’s writings provide evidence that even they had ambivalence about what they had done. A name is obviously one of the first steps in the serious consideration of any kind of invention, and Atalla and Kahng’s failure to name their device implies that they saw it as stillborn. They did not even identify their device as a transistor, suggesting a reluctance to even put their work into the same family line as the work of Bardeen, Brattain, and Shockley. Atalla and Kahng’s paper at the 1960 SSDRC did not establish their device as a promising subject for research or even as something recognized by the semiconductor community at large. The conference chairman made no mention of Atalla and Kahng’s work in his brief report on the technical highlights of the conference, although he did mention Bell’s epitaxial transistor. No further work on a device like Atalla and Kahng’s was presented at either the SSDRC or the Electron Device Conference over the next two years. Two articles reviewing the state of the semiconductor field in 1962 made no mention of Atalla and Kahng’s device. Their work seemed to be a dead end".
The reason MOS transistor even received attention was due two factors:first passivation of silicon surfaces by silicon dioxide gave hope the problems of semiconductor surfaces could be resolved, and second invention of integrated circuit change the way transistor are judged, making MOS simplicity attractive to some(page 13). It will take many years and many people working on it to make MOS practical. Again Basset write that, for example in IBM even in 1967 the future of MOS technology was far from clear(page 106). Contribution from people like Wanlass was just as important as Atalla and Kahng work."
To give other example,in MOSFET applications it is said that "MOSFETs are the basis for modern electric road vehicles". The source for that is an obscure 30 years old abstract, which says that "Recent developments in the technology of permanent magnetic materials, power MOSFETs and microcontrollers have opened the way for significant advances in electric vehicle drive systems". Nowhere does it says MOSFET is the basis of modern electric vehicles.This is one example, but it's just a tip of the iceberg. You can also check my edits, where I did cleanup after Maestro2016/Jagged 85 to find many more examples related to source abuse relating to MOSFET and Atalla. In my opinion this article and MOSFET applications should be stabbed, or at very least massively trimmed, because it would simply take too much time to clean them up.
We can add good and neutral pieces of information later, once we verify them.  Also according to Wikipedia:Banning policy:Anyone is free to revert any edits made in violation of a ban, without giving any further reason and without regard to the three-revert rule. I think other articles edited by Maestro2016/Jagged 85 can be cleaned up, as they are smaller. In general if you see exceptional claim that is sourced by hard-to-check source or you simply can't immediately verify it with high quality source, it should be deleted as this was one of Jagged 85 favorite tactics to introduce disinformation.
Thank you.
DMKR2005 (talk) 18:49, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, please revert much or all of the overstatement of the Atalla and Kahng contributions that were added by Maestro2016/Jagged 85.  I'm sure their contribution was valuable and worth mentioning, but the current imbalanced over-emphasis is pretty awful.  I could perhaps help, but am pretty busy with work...  Dicklyon (talk) 02:27, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

text: I don't quite recall whether Lilienfeld was able to show how to make a working FET.  Shockley also "invented" the MOSFET, I think.  But Atalla and Kahng convincingly made one work, iirc.  So that's important.  But to state simply that they "invented" the MOSFET contributes more bias than understanding.  So we should work on that. Not by spamming the names Atalla and Kahng in every possible place, but by discussing the early invention of the FET and MOSFET some place and linking it. Dicklyon (talk) 02:52, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

text: Maestro2016's significant edits to this article were from 27 June 2019 through 12 July 2020. In total, they made nearly 1000 edits. The article grew by 48% during this time. I don't think we need to stub the whole thing. Worst case, we restore the article to its state before this started. Not all of Maestro2016's contributions were problematic but I appreciate that removing them is arguably a safer way to deal with them than reviewing. If we are able to summon the wherewithal to review, we could end up with something better than what we had before Maestro2016 and better than the current revision. ~Kvng (talk) 14:48, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks Dicklyon and Kvng for suggestions. When I said stubbed I mean return to version before Maestro2016/Jagged85 edits. I think that's what we should do. After that we can add more information about Atalla and Kahng contribution. I have Ross Bassett To the Digital Age book with me, which is very good history book about MOSFET. After we return to pre Jagged-85 state, we can add paragraph about Atalla role in MOSFET. There is also MOSFET applications article which is spinoff of this article, and is entirely written by Maestro2016/Jagged 85. What do you think we should do with it? DMKR2005 (talk) 15:17, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: A quick look at MOSFET applications indicates the whole History section should go. I would like to review the rest. I would also like an opportunity to review Maestro2016's changes to this article. I haven't figured out how to do the diff over 1 year and 1000 edits. Any wiki tips would be appreciated. ~Kvng (talk) 15:33, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: If there's anything good in MOSFET applications, it's probably best to merge it into MOSFET and redirect to a section.  I have no objection to rolling back MOSFET to a pre-Maestro state, being careful to put back constructive contributions of others if any are there. Dicklyon (talk) 17:43, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. I think returning to pre-Maestro2016 state and adding Atalla and Kahng contributions is the way to go. DMKR2005 (talk) 21:24, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I struck my comment about merging applications back to the main article.  Maestro did the split, and it was probably a good idea.  Just need to clean up his revisionist emphasis on Atalla everywhere. Dicklyon (talk) 18:32, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you. Speaking on MOSFET applications we would also need to check this article for errors and exaggeration. See for instance above about MOSFET being the basis for modern electric road vehicles DMKR2005 (talk) 20:55, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I thought most power applications had gone to Si MOSFETs by now, but this article suggests that SiC MOSFETs and Si IGBTs are pretty hot in electric cars. Dicklyon (talk) 00:31, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Maestro2016 and Jagged 85 cleanup