Talk:Schottky diode

message: 'typically 300mv' conflicts with 'Schottky diodes have a drop of only about 0.2 volts.' in opening paragraph.
:Fixed.--Heron 19:26, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: As well as I know, they are between 0.2V and 0.4V, depending on the specific part number and current rating. Gah4 (talk) 18:15, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sentences in conflict 

message: Is it Schottky or Shottky?  There is the Walter Shottky institute in Germany.  Can anyone verify his real spelling? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.209.67.191 (talk) 20:51, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: S. M. Sze (Physics of semiconductor devices,  ) mentions the "Schottky effect", and B. Jayant Baliga (Power Semiconductor Decices  ) has a section on "Schottky Barrier Rectifiers". CyrilB 21:32, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spelling 

message: -how do you pronounce 'schottky'?
- SHOT-key - RC Cola 20:35, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: ch !=> h; k !=> k.  It's Skotecy. -lysdexia 02:14, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: IMHO you're wrong; I speak German and SHOT-key seems to be right. sch [ger] = ʃ [ IPA ] = sh [eng]; k is pronounced similarly in both languages. Torzsmokus 16:39, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pronunciation 

message: Cree Inc. makes SiC schottky diodes with high Vr ratings.  Specs for CSD20120 are: Vr 1200V, If(avg) 20A, Vf(typ) 1.6V @ 10A.  CSD20120 Datasheet (PDF).  —Ryan 23:45, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, it should be introduced alongside of the limitations of Si schottkies (low temp and low voltage). CyrilB 07:49, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Silicon Carbide devices by Cree 

message: It should be corrected that microwave mixers are commonly constructed using silicon schottky diodes for operation past 65 GHz. GaAs schottky diode mixers can be used well into the millimeter wave part of the spectrum...the wiki article indicates only to 5 GHz.
:There are a few applications "just a little" beyond either 5 or even 65Ghz 
:http://www.simics.tec.ufl.edu/papers/sankaran3.pdf -- a schottky with an estimated cutoff of 400Ghz
:http://trs-new.jpl.nasa.gov/dspace/handle/2014/8909 -- a schottky diode used within a device at the 1400-1900 Ghz range
:http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=3433020 -- a reciever operating in the 250Ghz range
:Andy t roo (talk) 14:13, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Schottky diode speed 

message: Why are there two applications sections? Nano Dan (talk) 20:54, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I combined them into one, but the content needs to be re-written to be more coherent and with less repeating.. probably expanded too... Nano Dan (talk) 00:37, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Applications 

message: What about a V/I graph? I find those very useful.  151.61.26.186 (talk) 16:21, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Graph 

message: The article now says "When current flows through a diode, it has some internal resistance to that current flow, which causes a small voltage drop across the diode terminals. A normal diode has between 0.7-1.7 volt drops...." Resistance doesn't correspond to a voltage drop without a specified current, so this must be wrong. I'm removing the wrong part, but something informative should be inserted 71.141.88.244 (talk) 23:52, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I think this sentence is using the word "resistance" in the colloquial sense. I like the edit though. --Steve (talk) 23:56, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wrong physics 

message: Too many editors who are not competant or experts.  Needs a major clean up and re-org.  It is such a fundemental component, deserves better.  I really really do not like mention of commercial companies in the body of the article.  A reference should be made to a published scientific article, not a commercial brochure or a copany web site. I will come back when have a chance.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.229.112.98 (talk) 22:10, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disaster zone 

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: Once again, User:VQuakr, you are reverting my edits for no good reason. You reverted the bold lines. Please explain why those lines do not belong in the article.
Before I began work on the article, the paragraph originally read: 
The above paragraph contains material that is complete rot. The current does not cause the voltage to appear, the breakdown voltage is applied and a nano second later the diode becomes conductive. To say otherwise is to put the cart before the horse. Yet you reverted my edit, suggesting that you agree with the original writing. I wonder, do you know anything of how diodes work? Zedshort (talk) 16:06, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: , I think if you added that information back with a reference supporting it, it would be unquestionably fine.  Toddst1 (talk) 14:13, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  it's not really a sourcing issue, more editorial. Of the two proposed sentences, the first is true for all diodes and unnecessary in the lede for an article on this type of diode. Similarly, the 2nd proposed sentence regarding reverse breakdown voltage is true for all diodes. If you think additional general discussion in the lede is warranted, let's discuss how to improve the phrasing into something less conversational before it is re-added. VQuakr (talk) 18:49, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm puzzled by your definition of editorial content. Adding a line of explanation of how such devices works in the form of an analogy is hardly editorializing. A statement that is true for all diodes is true for this diode and hence is of use here.  Adding a single line, does not constitute a "general discussion". If there was a very large body of writing that cluttered the intro I could see your objection. But really, a line? Please stop running interference on my attempt to make these articles, readable, understandable, and relatively self-contained. I suspect that this controversy is more about your pride than an attempt to improve things. You don't like my edits on the battery article and so you follow me to other articles to revert what I have done. Your behavior comes across as vengeful. I suggest you disengage your viscera and re-engage brain. Zedshort (talk) 19:47, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

text: I too am puzzled by 's objection.  The wording seems fine to me.   If the statements are so obvious that it doesn't need sourcing, I see no reason not to have it included/restored.  Toddst1 (talk) 22:03, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

text: I see no problem with using a one-way valve analogy.  It is common.  There are problems with other parts of the edit.  Specifically, there is no sufficient forward voltage to cause current to flow in the forward direction.  Any forward voltage will cause forward current.  Forward current is a smooth continuous, nearly exponential, function of forward current voltage.  The manufacturer’s forward voltage specification is simply the voltage required to cause a certain current, typically 1 mA on small devices but could be larger currents on larger devices.  Constant314 (talk) 23:15, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: This puzzles me beyond expression: "Specifically, there is no sufficient forward voltage to cause current to flow in the forward direction. Any forward voltage will cause forward current." I have hardly a clue what the first sentence was supposed to mean, and the second was pure rot. A diode is non conductive until it a sufficient voltage is applied. First a sufficient voltage is applied, then the conductivity drops, rather like a dam is lowered and water is allowed to spill through. There's another analogy for you to object to. If the voltage is removed/dropped below the breakdown voltage, its resistance shoots up to essentially that of a non conductor, i.e. the dam pops back up and the current stops flowing. There's another analogy for you to object to. The breakdown voltage is a function of the type of diode not the size of the device. Have fun with the article, this a waste of my time. Zedshort (talk) 03:11, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: All diodes leak some current at any nonzero potential, including Schottky diodes below their knee voltage. It's just a relatively small amount of current. I suspect  intended a meaning similar to, "Specifically, there is no minimum forward voltage necessary to cause current to flow in the forward direction." The water analogy works great for teaching Ohm's law but breaks down for A/C and semiconductors, with diodes being a marginal exception. VQuakr (talk) 05:57, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

text: The water analogy can be a useful teaching tool; it's just out of place in the second paragraph of the lede in an article on a particular type of diode. Sort of like if I added "a camel is rather like a lumpy horse" midway through the lede of Camelus bactrianus. We write in summary style; diode should contain the high-level info. This article's lede should focus on the actual topic. Beyond that, though, by juxtaposing statements about diodes in general with information unique to the topic we risk confusing the reader. If we think a paragraph about diodes in general is really necessary for the lede, let's at least make it a coherent paragraph. VQuakr (talk) 01:39, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I see your point.  A succinct lede about a particular type of diode doesn’t need a general discussion about diodes.  Any reader looking up Schottky diode probably already knows what a diode is and if he doesn’t then there is the wiki-link to the diode article.Constant314 (talk) 16:37, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

text: You have quite the ability to obfuscate and cast derision on other's work. Let's see you actually do some decent writing. Zedshort (talk) 03:11, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Beginning para reversions 

message: I've added sample and hold circuits as another application. (with reference) TheUnnamedNewbie (talk) 09:19, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the addition.  Did the source mention any disadvantages? Constant314 (talk) 15:04, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm affraid not, but I'll look into it in more detail once I'm studying the topic again next week. TheUnnamedNewbie (talk) 09:03, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Applications 

message: Someone seems to keep wanting to add mention of polyacetylene diodes.  Certainly that is possible, there has been work on organic semiconductors for many years, and organic LEDs seem also to exist, but I don't believe it is the usual Schottky diode.  Even so, if such devices exist, they might have a section in the article. Gah4 (talk) 18:23, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  polyacetylene 

message: The History section only describes the inventor and another of his discoveries and nothing about the development or discovery of the diode. The article on Walter Schottky also describes nothing about the history of the diode.
Can anyone expand this section?Lkingscott (talk) 10:36, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: History section does not describe anything about the diode