Talk:Zener diode

message: Why is the letter "U" used here for the abbreviation of Voltage? According to every book I have on the subject, and the way we were all taught electronics in school in the US, the standard abbreviation is "E" or "V". Why confuse the readers by stepping away from common terminology used in electronics?
--Craxd (talk) 13:54, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Ahh, because this is Wikipedia and 250 years ago some German professor called it "U" short for "Unterwissenschaftgespannungsarbeit", so in true Wikimania we must forever follow the European tradition. And if you don't, a horde of British schoolboys taking first form electricity will make it their life's work to keep reverting it. --Wtshymanski (talk) 14:01, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: By what evidence is U the most common symbol used for Voltage in the English speaking world?  Why shouldn't the most common symbol be used here? Labradore (talk) 14:10, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: That would mean editing the diagrams. Is this at all significant? The symbols mean what we define them to mean after all. Those who know electronics, know V is U, and for those who don't, any old letter will do. --Wtshymanski (talk) 16:09, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, the Germans do use 'U' as the symbol for voltage, but all the English speaking countries that I know of use 'V' (and apparently, America does as well). 109.145.22.224 (talk) 14:22, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

text:  At least in Denmark, U is also used, rather than the weird use of E or (more understandable) V. I believe U is common in most European cultures. The weird E seems to be an American artifact. I have never seen it before.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.239.195.102 (talk) 18:31, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Voltage Terminology

message: "A reverse-biased Zener diode will exhibit a controlled breakdown and allow the current to keep the voltage across the Zener diode at the Zener voltage. For example, a diode with a Zener breakdown voltage of 3.2 V will exhibit a voltage drop of 3.2 V if reverse bias voltage applied across it is more than its Zener voltage."
Uh ?  Surely this can be re-worded so as to make sense. 
Actually, this is the best explanation I have seen, and that includes the one found in Horowitz & Hill.  The current flow increases as the voltage across the diode increases past the diode's Zener voltage, and works to keep the voltage that appears across the diode at a constant.   (The Zener voltage is something designed into the diode and is a fixed value for a given diode.)  So if you put a voltmeter across the Zener diode and turn up the voltage (in the reverse-bias sense) the voltage shown on the voltmeter will rise to the Zener voltage and then stay there, even as the applied voltage continues to rise.
Charles Antonelli Nov 2009  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.211.4.71 (talk) 16:27, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Meaningless Statement

message: IIs the reason that a normal diode "destroys itself" due to avalanche breakdown?  If so, then we should say this explicitly.  Also, a diode doesn't ever really destroy itself, unless it is connected to a very low resistance path.  In this case, a diode can destroy itself in reverse bias as well as forward bias, can it not?  So, we should remove this vagueness I think, and be a bit more clear.  I can make the changes, I just want to check with the other authors first.  I guess I could also check a textbook, but I don't have one with me right at this moment.  --User:Dgrant
:Sort of.  Avalanche breakdown in itself doesn't damage the device; in fact the effect is used a lot for small current amplification in devices like p-i-n avalanche photodiodes.  What really destroys the device is the excessive current flow.  If that current flow is limited by external circuitry, the diode could remain operational in its avalanche breakdown region.  So yes, as you said, the diode can just as easily be destroyed at high forward bias because of excessive current. -- uberpenguin @ 2006-06-25 13:14Z
What is not clear to me is what happens when a zener is destroyed. Does it go open circuit or closed circuit? One can imagine that it would go open circuit at catasrophic destruction but what about otherwise?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.240.180.162 (talk) 13:16, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: If you could find a citation for this, it would be useful to the article. Perhaps the people who design intrinsic-safety barriers have written on this topic. If you had a high-energy supply available, you'd probably blow up the diode rather than melting it; I've seen the top of an IC case blown off by a fairly small portable computer power supply, for example. --Wtshymanski (talk) 15:11, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Like most semiconductor devices, whether they fail open of short circuit depends on many factors.  As noted above, an example that fails short circuit in a particular scenario, when the device is replaced can fail open circuit second time around.  What is well known is that semiconductor devices make better fuses than fuses do, which makes protecting semiconductors in power circuits problematic. 109.145.22.224 (talk) 14:29, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Diode destruction

message: There seems to be disagreement on whether Zener is pronounced like "zeener" or "zenner," possibly a British/American distinction.  Authoritative comments on this would be helpful. --teejaydub
:The Chambers Dictionary (British) says "zeener", which is annoying, because I have always pronounced it "zenner". Perhaps "zenner" is more natural for Brits because of the "zed"/"zee" thing. --Heron 20:22, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Probably no very useful to resurrect a ten-year old debate, especially as the article currently says nothing about this, but for what it's worth, the OED gives the pronunciation as /ˈziːnə(r)/, that is, ZEEner. SpinningSpark 08:40, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: pronunciation

message: "Zener diodes are widely used in electronic circuits." - when else are diodes used? I'm totally deleting that one. Fresheneesz 21:34, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is unreasonable and detracts from the Wikipedia page, especially as the article has so many serious problems which need to be sorted. On your basis half of Wikipedia could be deleted. The point is that Zener diodes are widely used in electronic circuits as opposed to to one or two specialist applications. I really cant see your point of view or your logic. CPES (talk) 13:30, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: unneccessary statement

message: Most or all of this article was transwikied to wikibooks 18:37, 16 August 2006. Anyone know why? The user (IP only) did not copy the edit history or talk... I'll be happy to do that if there's a reason it was sent over. --SB_Johnny | talk 23:55, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Transwiki note 

message: "If insufficient current flows through D, then UOUT will be unregulated, and could rise as high as UIN." - could someone provide a reference for this claim.  A zener diode can be modelled as a perfect zener diode with a resistor in series and a resistor in parallel.  Whilst the output is unregulated at low currents (heavily dependent on the current flow through the diode), the output voltage will always be less than the nominal zener voltage. --PeterJeremy 00:50, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Behaviour at low current 

message: I once saw a thing called a "thyrector" in an old 60's era schematic. I remember it being drawn as ->|<- so I imagine it as being two Zener diodes connected in opposite directions, which would provide A/C voltage regulation. Is this correct? This would make it different from, say, a "diac" which
would avalanche above the break voltage.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.68.159.105 (talk) 00:47, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: As you mentioned, it is common to use two Zener diodes connected in series opposition (i.e., in series with opposite bias) to make a cheap voltage regulator (with nominal output of close to V_Z + 0.7\,\text{V} at room temperature). This combination is also used for gate oxide protection because oxides can usually withstand voltages of the same order of magnitude as most commercial Zener breakdown voltages (however, when standard inputs should never stray from each other by more than a small amount (e.g., operational amplifier inputs under negative feedback), standard diodes connected in "parallel opposition" are used). Because this combination is so popular and (in the regulator case) depends on nearly symmetric operation, "double anode Zener diodes" (DAZD) can be purchased that combine two matched Zener diodes in "series opposition" on one part. The name "thyrector" is a synonym for DAZD. Personally, I prefer "DAZD" (which I pronounce "daz-dee"); however, because DAZD fabrication may allow for shortcuts that are unlike what you would see in Zener fabrication, having a non-Zener name might be more truthful. I also notice that DAZD's are usually drawn as two Zener's, whereas thyrectors are usually drawn sharing a "hat" (which may or may not look like a Zener hat). —TedPavlic (talk) 18:32, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

text: Can you be more specific? If you understand Zener breakdown, then consider two Zener's in series with opposite bias. The one with sufficiently large reverse bias will act like a voltage source at V_Z (e.g., 4.3 V). The one in forward bias will act like a voltage source at (around) 0.7 V. Together, they'll act like a 5.0 V voltage source (with a little series resistance to dissipate any disagreement with the surrounding source). The same goes in reverse, but the voltage source is -5.0 V. —TedPavlic (talk) 18:35, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is this the same as a "thyrector"? 

message: Other than specifications for a particular zener diode, are there any references that have been used?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.64.2.77 (talk) 16:21, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  References? 

message: The article says "Note that because it is almost always the reverse breakdown property of the Zener diode which is useful, in circuit schematics the Zener diodes typically point in the opposite direction of traditional diodes – the arrows point in the opposite direction to the current."
1) I cannot find any examples of this
2) The article shows the normal diagram.  So either the diagram is wrong, or this statement is wrong.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.218.13.96 (talk) 01:48, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: In the diagram under "Uses", the current flow is downward, counter to the direction of the arrow.  As the article says, a Zener is seldom used with a forward current, but always with a reverse current; the arrow points from the p-type region to the n-type region, as in other diodes.  Dicklyon (talk) 02:07, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I misread the statement.  I took it to be saying that the symbol for a Zener diode would show anode and cathode differently from other diodes.  Thanks.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.218.13.96 (talk) 02:53, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I've modified the statement for clarity. Does it help? I've also moved an image from the lead part of the article into the usage section. Now the circuit sits next to a figure showing how positive current flow relates to the circuit symbol (and also shows how the circuit symbol relates to common diode packages). —TedPavlic | (talk) 15:38, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Circuit symbol? 

message: although there are many customised versions (with as little as 0.03V difference, as seen on Digikey), here are the more common voltages (for quick reference): [2.4V, 2.7V, 3.0V,] 3.3V, 3.9V, 4.3V, 4.7V, 5.1V, 5.6V, 6.2V, 6.8V, 7.5V, 8.2V, 9.1V, 10V, 11V, 12V, 13V, 15V, 16V, 18V, 20V, 24V, 27V, 30V, 33V, 36V, 39V, 47V, 51V, 56V, 62V, 68V, 75V, 82V, 91V, 100V, 110V, 150V, 160V, 180V and 200V. Charlieb000 (talk) 00:13, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  common voltages 

message: I recently read this page to find out what a zener diode is and how it works but found this page to be unclear on what is considered a zener diode and what is not, as well as on how a zener diode works and how this differs from other diodes that are not considered zeners. Allow me to explain what confused me:
* The page seems to intermingle the words "mechanism", "effect", "type", "breakdown", "zener" and "avalanche" without clearly explaining what is what. 
* The first paragraph indicates there are two "mechanisms" or "types":
:Many diodes described as "zener" diodes rely instead on avalanche breakdown as the mechanism. Both types are used.
:However, there is no clear mention of two "types" or "mechanisms" in that paragraph. It does mentions the "breakdown voltage" aka "avalanche point" and "avalanche breakdown", but it is not clear what these are and whether they are the "mechanisms" in question.
* Later on the page, there is mention of the "zener effect" and the "avalanche effect", which may also be the two "mechanisms" or "types" referred to, in which case this should be explained immediately and not that far down the page.
* The first paragraph says that both "types" are referred to as "zener diodes", but later on there is mention of avalanche diodes as if these are a different thing based on the "other" mechanism. It should be made more clear if these are a sub-type of zeners, or a different thing entirely.
A little reordering of information and consistency in wording might solve a lot of this. The first paragraph should then explain what a zener diode is and, if appropriate, what similar types of diode are not considered zeners and the difference between the two. It should explain what mechanisms are involved and the various terms used to refer to them. Where there are multiple terms for the same thing, this should be explained once and only one of the terms should be used on the rest of the page.
Unfortunately, I was reading this page to find out about zeners, so I am unable to rewrite the page to explain them myself. If somebody can clarify, I might be able to rewrite the page to make it more clear to the uninitialized.
— SkyLined (talk) 13:31, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, the avalanche diode uses the same current vs voltage graph as the zener diode even thought the former explains that "Avalanche diodes are optimized for avalanche effect so they exhibit small but significant voltage drop under breakdown conditions, unlike Zener diodes that always maintain a voltage higher than breakdown." - so it seems that the two graphs could not be the same. This only adds to my confusion :( — SkyLined (talk) 13:37, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  A bit more clarity is needed 

message: Please see the corresponding discussion thread at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Electronics. Thanks! • Sbmeirow • Talk • 23:34, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for Discussion of {{tn|Semiconductor packages}} in electronic articles  

message: I have gone through the article and made the capitalisation of Zener consistently capitalised.  I saw that about a year ago the article was made lower case, but this was not done thoroughly and the article remained inconsistent.  It is arguable whether the word has yet entered the lexicon as a common noun—books sources seem fairly divided on this. I found a MoS, Science and Technical Writing: A Manual of Style which categorically says "Zener" should be capitalised.  In the absence of any better authority, I think we should go with that. SpinningSpark 15:48, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Capitalisation 

message: Neon and Argon bulbs were used as voltage references long before the Zener Diode was invented. It might be useful to add something on these classical parts in the history. --Mccainre (talk) 20:11, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Vacuum Tube voltage references

message: The article says about very thin (<1 µm) depletion region and field of value 500kV/m at 5V reverse voltage. Obviously it is wrong: 5V/1µm=5MV/m, 10 times more. And an article [Zener effect] referenced here says about 30 MV/m (Zener breakdown voltage is found to occur at electric field intensity of about 3×10^7 V/m), another 6 times more.
It should also be noted that electric field is not uniform in entire depletion region thickness: only PIN diode can have uniform field in the non-doped 'I' region, and the depletion region must contain the non-doped one plus some margins, which holds electric charges necessary to create the field. Along a line of electric field in a PN junction the field is strongest just on a boundary between P and N regions (assuming flat junction geometry and uniform permittivity); for uniform P and N region doping, the field decreases linearly from PN boundary to boundary between depletion region and each of mobile charge regions. This creates a possibility that the field in the PN boundary is strong enough to create electron-hole pairs due to Zener effect, and these electron and/or holes create more carriers due to avalanche effect, rather than creating carriers due to Zener effect in entire volume of the depletion region.
JerzyTarasiuk (talk) 19:36, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Electric field strength in Zener diode 

message: A significant portion of this Wikipedia article and substantially all of this page at Engineers Edge are verbatim copies of each other, including some illustrations. Wikipedia is not citing the latter, and the latter is claiming copyright, all rights reserved, without attribution to Wikipedia. Who is the rightful copyright holder? 24.76.182.33 (talk) 17:55, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Seems like the website you link to is the ripoff, given that the three images it shares with wikipedia are described as self-made by wikipedia users, dating back to 2006-2008: 1 2 3.  (one of the creators) can probably confirm. --Nanite (talk) 19:45, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  and to clarify, three drawings created by three different wikipedia authors. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 00:28, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: The intro of the current Engineers Edge article is very close to text from Wikipedia in 2010 to 2012 era. The wikipedia intro text evolved over many edits to a point where it almost matches the Engineers Edge article. Also, doing a rough comparison of the two current articles results in many groups of identical or similar text too. The EE article smells very fishy! • Sbmeirow • Talk • 02:17, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Plagiarism or Copyright Violation 

message: Who invented it? Someone called Zener? When? --Hugh7 (talk) 05:22, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: This information was already in the intro area, but I moved it into a new section.  • Sbmeirow • Talk • 05:48, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: History

message: This sentence is wrong I believe. "The two types of diode are in fact constructed the same way and both effects are present in diodes of this type". The avalanche effect is dominant in lightly doped PN diodes which has fatter depletion regions so there is space for the electrons to really pick up speed. While zener effect occurs in heavily doped PN diodes where the electric field is made stronger in that thin region. reference - harvard  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aditya8795 (talk • contribs) 19:12, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  diodes are made differently 

message: The voltage (horizontal) scale of this characteristic curve is inconsistent. On the right side, at a particular image size, +0.65V measures 80px from the vertical axis along the horizontal axis. However, on the left side, -17.1V measures 120px. If the scale were consistent, +0.65V would be only about 5px from the vertical axis on the right side (or -17.1 would be, impractically, 2100px). It's been a few decades since I worked with this stuff, so maybe this is common, but I think it looks deceptive to a general audience. A log scale could be used (and shown with markings on the axis). Better, use a lower zener voltage say, 3.1V; at 0.025 V/px, +0.65V is 26px on the right, and -3.1V is 124px on the left. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AlanM1 (talk • contribs) 19:13, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree it's not ideal, and sadly there is no such thing as a two-sided log scale plot. :-) A lower zener voltage and plain linear plot would indeed be ideal. Perhaps we can just plot these formulas: https://www.onsemi.cn/pub/Collateral/AND8250-D.PDF --Nanite (talk) 21:26, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

text: (ec)  I modified the diagram, uploaded as a new file, and will update the article. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 21:29, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  FWIW, the caption addressed the difference in scale, which I didn't see (or I probably would have just left it alone). Doh!  —[AlanM1(talk)]— 21:34, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inconsistent scale in diagram