Talk:Field-effect transistor

Correction

Most of what I've done here doesn't need any explanation, but there's one correction I think warrants a note. I replaced every instance of "glass" with "oxide". This is because the silicon dioxide layer under a gate is not glass. Glass would not work. A glass is an amorphous solid - irregular arrangement of atoms. The common usage of "glass" happens to be an instance of this. SiO₂ in MOSFETs is crystalline, not glass. -- Tim Starling

Small correction: amorphous oxides can work perfectly well as gate oxides. see link. At least as far as I know, these films are almost entirely amorphous. The best films are done with ECR, but you can also use PECVD and get decent results. On physical grounds, I don't see any reason why a gate dielectric has to be crystalline in "work". --User:Dgrant

You're the man Dave, I'll take your word for it. Before you came along, I didn't know amorphous oxides were used for anything other than window glass :) I notice that the resistivity of the oxide in your reference is many orders of magnitude less than for crystalline silicon. That would degrade performance somewhat, but at least the breakdown voltage is still high. -- Tim Starling

"Oxide" is more correct than "Glass". A glass is not only amorphous but it also contains lots of impurities of highly mobile ions as softener, making it very inadequate as gate oxide. Dgrat is right about amourphous oxides, although they will result in very instable transistors. In organic transistors, even polymers are used as gate dieletric. --Qdr 17:12, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)

---

what does "whereas those to the left abstract from the body contact." mean? It doesn't make any sense to me, or at least is doesn't convey the indended meaning, in my mind. dave

It doesn't mean anything. I changed it to something which makes sense, and is probably right. I seem to remember seeing some FET-like structures with the body insulated from the backside, but I don't think they do that for MOSFETs. -- Tim Starling 00:39 May 14, 2003 (UTC)

You have that in SOI (Silicon on Insulator) FETs, but these work slightly different.--Qdr 17:12, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)

---

I edited the terminals section. I didn't see any discussion about it on this page. All FET's have 4 terminals (except possibly JFETs, but I'm pretty sure they do. I'll check on this and add an exception if they don't). Most of the time they are connected internally because the body effect is only useful in a couple of cases and is detrimental in most others. There are times that it doesn't matter.

The internal connection is made for three reasons. The first is to simplify circuit design. Why have a 4th terminal come out of the package if it's just going to be connected to one of the others. The second is to reduce the cost of the package. A fourth terminal adds to cost and complexity of the package, especially since there are times that you want the body to be at a very different voltage then the source. The third reason is that there is some resistance to the leads and in some cases, such as high tempreature and high current use, that resistance can cause the small current running along the body lead and the large current running along the source lead to create a measurable differential between the body and source voltages. This causes a measurable amount of difference in the threashold voltage due to the body effect, which will cause irregular switching voltages in digital circuits and plays havoc with the gain in analog circuits. By making the connection internally the designer can help to negate those effects and keep the source and body as close in voltage as possible. High frequency switching can also bring the body effect into play because there is a measurable current flowing from the gate to the body due to the capacitance.

I can think of two, possibly three, times that one would want a seperate body connection. The first is in digital designs, where you can better control the switching characteristics by connecting the body of the N-channel to the GND and the body of the P-channel to Vdd because the source may be connected to another FET's drain. The second is in analog FET switches, where one takes an N-channel and connects its drain and source in parallel with a P-channel (Although in this case they are simple FET's, which don't have a drain or source. The parasitic diode of the FET is actually designed in). The body of the P-channel goes to Vdd and the N-channel to GND. The gate of the N-channel gets driven with a signal to Vdd and the P-channel gets driven with the N-channel signal inverted. As the N-channel gate goes high, the P-channel gate goes low. This design allow the passing of analog signals higher than Vdd and lower than GND. The only limit on amplitude is Vds max. The third I am not sure about because I can't remember if biasing the base seperately gave the FET better temp characteristics or worse. It was either to stabalize it or make it into a device capable of reading tempreatue. I'll look it up and maybe find a place for it on the MOSFET page. --Jeffrobins

JFETs indeed only have 3 connections. There are only 3 places to connect a JFET, there is no "body" to it. Also, I have never used the terms listed her body/bulk/etc, I always used "substrate" and it was my understanding that this was a more common term. I think it should at least be added as a name. Incidentally, the MOSFET article, though usually using the term "body" does, at least once, say "substrate." I think it should also be mentioned that it is very common for the substrate (or body, if you will) to be internally connected to the source.Trashmanal 17:50, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

---

I believe the following statement is incorrect:

The drain and source may be doped of opposite type to the body, in the case of enhancement mode FETs, or doped of similar type to the body as in depletion mode FETs. Field-effect transistors are also distinguished by the method of insulation between body and gate. Types of FETs are:

To my understanding the drain and source are ALWAYS doped opposite that of the body/substrate, and it is the channel that connects drain to source that is either the same (enhancement type) or the opposite (depletion type) of the body/substrate.Trashmanal 17:54, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Good catch. The channel at the surface near the gate is what is doped to be similar to the drain and source for depletion mode. It is often adjusted in both enhancement and depletion mode.Snafflekid 23:58, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

mosfet symbols

The schematic for your MOSFET shows a solid line connecting the Source and Drain. Does this not indicate a depletion mode MOSFET?. An enhancement mode MOSFET is symbolically shown with a dashed line between the Source and Drain.

The arrows for the 'metallurgical' contacts point at the bottom of the N diffusions. The metal contact is on the top surface. Shouldn't your arrows point to the upper surface of the N regions?.

All textbooks use different notations. I can't remember right now what is right, and what is depletion, enhancement, etc... However, should use standard IEEE conventional symbols, whatever those are, and we should state that they are the IEEE standard symbols. If there are some common "misuses" of the symbols out there, then we should mention that. So first thing I think is to check IEEE and see if there are standard symbols, and secondly to check something like Art of Electronics and see what it uses. dave 22:06, 16 Oct 2003 (UTC)

IEEE: http://ewh.ieee.org/soc/es/Nov1998/14/education/

You are right about the 'metallurgical' junctions, they are on top of the diffusion region and are not the same! Modern FETs do not only use high doping, but also metal silicides at this place.--Qdr 17:12, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)

MOSFET section

I'm planning on doing a lot of work on the MOSFET section. I hope to discuss how MOSFETs are evolving to smaller and smaller submicron dimensions, and the problems designers are encountering...obviously non-technically. I've created two subcategories I want to expand upon--why MOSFETs are so popular and the problems with scaling. Rmalloy 13:47, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I think some work needs to be done in the introduction to MOSFET...most important part. for later. Rmalloy 18:38, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for your efforts! I assume at some point it would make sense to put all MOSFET stuff in separate article. Agreement? Pjacobi 19:26, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I dunno, I'm new here and don't know what the protocols are. As long as info is easily accessible it makes little difference to me. I'm not going to touch stuff like that. Rmalloy 20:06, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)

It could make sense to have a rather generic introduction to FETS on this page and move all the details (different types, processing, materials) to other pages. --Qdr 17:12, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)

• • • • Splitup plan, please comment under each point if necessary. If no active disagreement is seen, I'll do the splitup around 2004-07-19 21:00 UTC. Pjacobi 18:49, 18 Jul 2004 (UTC)
        • The MOSFET specific parts of Field Effect Transistor will be moved.
        • This applies to section MOSFET (currently 1.1) and DMOS (currently 1.5).
        • It will go to http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=MOSFET&redirect=no which is currently a redirect.
        • The JFET, MESFET, and HEMT sections are not yet substantial enough to be moved to separate articles.

Sounds good, but I think also the other types of FET devices should be moved somewhere as they are way too specialized for a generic introduction. Maybe an article about "special" or "exotic" FETs? --Qdr 19:59, 18 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Lumping together JFETs and MESFETSs into Field effect transistor (exotic) (or [[Field effect transistor (bizarre)]?) will break my heart ;-). I'd vote keeping them (temporarily) in the main article, or as a second choice, make all separate articles, even when HEMT will be a short one. Pjacobi 21:34, 18 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I vote for separate articles, maybe that is also an incentive to extend the individual articles a little. And btw, there should also be a link to TFTs in the main FET article. --Qdr 22:17, 18 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I second this. With some diagrams all of these transistor types would be good separate articles. I think Field effect transistor should be a list of links. Maybe some generic discussion. Rmalloy 00:14, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Rmalloy: There are some inaccuracies in your additions: The reason for using polysilicon as a gate material is the reduction of interface states and the self aligned S/D diffusion. Replacing it with metals (for example TaN, TiN) is subject of current research. Current gate oxide thicknesses are way below the 20nm you stated, I changed it to 2nm. But somebody should look up an accurate number. The problem with thin oxides is not breakdown, but leakage by quantum mechanical tunneling of electrons through the oxide. To remedy this, the industrie works on high-k dielectrics.--Qdr 17:41, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)

QDR: First-off, I must admit that I haven't worked in this area for 2 years. But I think I am right about the polysilicon gate. The self-aligned S/D diffusion process would work equally well with a metal gate. I went back and looked at some stuff I wrote on www.everything2.com when I was a grad student in this area. Look at the article MOSFET that describes and shows diagrams of the fabrication process. The self-alignment process work the same if the gate were aluminum. I'm 99% sure that the reason you can't use aluminum is that there is a high-temperature annealing step after the gate is deposited, and this would melt aluminum. Now the reason the annealing must be done after the gate is deposited relates to the self-alignment process (S/D to be annealed created after gate), so we could be both right in a sense.

I looked up the melting points of the metals you mention, and they have very high melting points. When I was a grad student, I don't recall much effort into using these metals as gates. I don't know why, so I won't argue. But I do remember heavy emphasis on the silicides, like I wrote in this article. I know what surface states are, but I don't see how they relate.

2nm is the accurate number. I meant 20 angstroms. 2nm was considered an absolute cutoff.

Now my memory is that 2nm is still a long way for an electron to tunnel. I seem to recall that, like I said, the oxide broke down, creating states in the oxide that acted like rocks across a river that you can jump across, facilitating tunneling. So I won't argue with you here...we might both be right. And it's not worth arguing. But I'm 99% sure that 2nm was the cutoff, considered absolute by the chief technology officer of TSMC. And I agree about the high-K dielectrics, and mentioned it in the article. Rmalloy 18:54, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I did some quick websearching. An Intel site claims successful operation with 1.2nm of gate oxide, so I guess I'll have to bite my tongue on 2nm. And I'm reminded of another key issue for gate materials--work function. The current setup, where the source, drain, and gate are all doped heavily at the same time gives the gates the proper work function for the transistor type--NMOS or PMOS. Successful metal gate processes would require two kinds of metals--one work function for each transistor-type. It's dawning on me that the choice of gate materials involves several issues, including all the ones we've mentioned and probably several more.

Feel free to clean up, correct, or add to anything I wrote. These issues are complex and there are many issues to discuss...maybe it would be best to avoid difficult issues like this altogether in an encyclopedia. Phew I'm glad I left this field! Rmalloy 16:35, 18 Jul 2004 (UTC)

The oxide thickness is a moving target, IMO around 2nm is a good guess. Intels 1.2 nm oxide was probably already nitrited oxide. There are many candidates for new metal gates, however the ones I quoted have been announced by the IMEC recently. And yes, there are various leakage mechanisms (poole frenkel, schottky emission into insulator valence band, direct tunneling, fowler-Nordheim) and they are enhanced by soft breakdown, however they are usually not regarded as breakdown itself.

I am pretty sure that the main incentive to use polysilicon gates was the self aligning SD process, back in the 70ies. I do not know the exact problem with Al gates and the self aligning process, but for example the spacer oxide would be pretty difficult to apply to an Al-Gate. Anyways, all of this is way too detailed for a Wikipedia article, the best way is to formulate it as generic as possible. --Qdr 19:59, 18 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Good point about the spacer. I have the melting thing stuck in my head...I must have picked it up somewhere. I agree this is all too detailed for Wikipedia, but I guess I thought some explanation for the polysilicon gate would be advisable. At first glance, polysilicon is a very strange choice for gate material. You obviously know what you're talking about, so don't hesitate to delete or change anything I wrote. Rmalloy 00:14, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)

External links

IMHO the external link [1] is somewhat obscure - and I'm a member of that Yahoogroup! It's neither focused on FETs nor well known. I plan to remove the link when I have some better to provide. Pjacobi 19:26, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Yeah, that's a dubious link. Interesting group though.

Please remove it, I think its just a commercial plug - the whole yahoo group is. --Qdr 17:12, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Analog circuits

I've added all I feel comfortable adding about MOSFETs in analog circuits. I wish someone could discuss analog stuff, since everything is so digital digital digital. Rmalloy 23:38, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Added an explanation of how FETs actually work. Pinchoff and all that. --Wjbeaty 08:17, Apr 3, 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, I see that you had quite a bit of work with your recent addition. However, I don't think it belong to this article and thus reverted it.

*You explained the operation of a JFET only. This is a rarely used special type of FET, the explanation does not apply to common MOSFETS. Maybe you could improve the JFET section?

*The operation of the different types of field-effect transistors is already explained in the articles for the respective devices. There is no need for detailed information about the operation in the main article. See also thread above. --Qdr 11:57, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

"You explained the operation of a JFET only" What? Please justify such a statement. As I understand it, you're completely incorrect. Which part of my explanation do you think doesn't apply to all types of FETs? (Ah, I see one issue: the present MOSFET article only describes enhancement-mode devices, not MOSFETs in general. Perhaps I should move this analog/pinchoff explanation to both JFET and MOSFET articles rather than having a general FET explanation here.)

Also, please indicate where on WP the "pinchoff" phenomenon is explained. I don't get any search hits at all. This stuff is common to all FETs: it's the essence of the "analog mode" explanation of FET operation. Could you explain why it doesn't belong in the main article? Should there be a separate article to explain generalized FET operation (including pinchoff mechanism?)

I note that Rmalloy says above, "I wish someone could discuss analog stuff." I attempted to do so. Rather than removing it, shouldn't you post your own version of a general analog-based FET explanation? Or if you object to specific details of my analog explanation, please edit them. --Wjbeaty 02:22, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)

A quesiton: "The MOSFET's strengths as the workhorse transistor in most digital circuits does not translate into supremacy in analog circuits, in which the bipolar junction transistor (BJT) has traditionally been seen as the transistor of choice, due largely to its high gain." This does not seem correct, since FETs have near-infinite gain - essentially no current flows into the gate. Glengarry 21:09, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Bad subject-verb agreement for one thing :(.

Ok, this is not an area I know a lot about, but let me try to explain as best I can. "Gain" invariably means "small signal voltage gain" (output signal voltage / input signal voltage). The fact that a MOSFET gate allows no DC current isn't relevant (though its true). The job of analog circuits is to handle small signals.

Suppose a transistor is being used for amplification in an analog circuit, it is "DC biased" to put it in the high gain regime. A small signal voltage is applied between gate and source (or between base and emitter), creating a small signal current from drain to source (or from collector to emitter). The ratio of this small signal current to the small signal voltage is called "transconductance." My sense is that BJTs have substantially higher transconductance than MOSFETs. For a tiny bit of support, see http://www-inst.eecs.berkeley.edu/~ee130/SP03/homework/hw13soln.pdf. This small signal current may drive a resistive load, giving an small signal output voltage of the current times the resistance of the load. Thus you end up with a higher "gain" (output voltage/input voltage).

I'm really shaky on everything analog, and that's why I made such a vague statement. I just felt like it would be inappropriate to only talk about digital stuff when analog circuits are very important. I think what I wrote is essentially correct, but if someone wants to delete it that's fine. I'd rather someone teach me though! Rmalloy 00:42, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)

The gain issue is easily misinterpreted and is always good to start a flame war at news://sci.electronics.* or http://www.diyaudio.com. I'd write something into article but for the fear of a edit war! In essence there are four quantities which can be seen as geen dV(out)/dV(in), dI(out)/dV(in), dV(out)/dI(in), and dI(out)/dI(in). Of course MOSFET score big on dV(out)/dI(in) and dI(out)/dI(in) in NF, as no input current flows, but the practical significance is more that there is moe leeway in designing the preceeding stage.

What's more the problem with MOSFETs in discrete designs, is the variabiliy of there threshold voltage.

Pjacobi 07:27, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)

It's not true that no *small signal* input current flows into a MOSFET. Current is constantly charging and discharging the MOSFET gate, so dI(in) != 0. In fact, capacitors, like the MOS capacitor, are short-circuits to high-frequency current. I think this topic is probably best left alone in the article unless someone is an expert on the subject, so we avoid misinformation.Rmalloy 13:04, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Agreed that the transconductance of a BJT is favorable compared to a MOSFET. I'll made the change in the article. Thanks, Glengarry 14:56, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)

basic circuits

each basic circuit needs an article. common source, common drain, common gate, source follower amplifiers, etc. i can, of course, draw schematics. but i don't know these well enough to do the articles. i can start them with what i know... same for BJTs. - Omegatron 16:00, Jan 19, 2005 (UTC)

BJTs as voltage controlled resistors

I ve not heard this one before. So we can all now use BJTs instead of FETs to create a voltage controlled resistor. I dont think so! Statement needs modifying/removing cos its wrong. Light current 04:11, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Saying "wrong" loudly doesn't help. You have to say why it's wrong. In fact it's not wrong: the current in any diode is controlled by the width of the depletion layer, and this width is controlled by the voltage across the diode. The same applies to BJT transistors: the BE voltage determines the width of the depletion layer in the BE junction, and this layer controls both the base current and the emitter current. Yes, the collector current is proportional to the base current. But if you believe that the base current can directly control the collector current, then you don't understand how BJT transistors actually work. The simple transistor equation is Ic = hfe * Ib, but this hides the physics behind the BJT operation. The full-blown Eber-Molls transistor equations show what's happening: Both Ib and Ic are mostly determined by Vbe. --Wjbeaty 00:17, August 19, 2005 (UTC)

All Im saying is that a BJT is NOT a voltage controlled resistor (because of the high impedance at the collector) as the article initially implied. Light current 00:23, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

OK, but then the same reasoning says that FETs aren't voltage-controlled resistors either. Both BJTs and FETs are voltage-controlled current sources. --Wjbeaty 00:34, August 19, 2005 (UTC)

No, I dont agree. FETs appear totally resistive near the origin (below pinch off), thats why they can be used as VCRs. In fact Siliconix made aspecial range of FETs for this very purpose (VCR2N, VCR3P, VCR4N, VCR5P,VCR6P,VCR7N). Are you saying that BJTs can give as good a perfomance as FETs in this region??Light current 00:55, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Agree that FETs are not VCRs when pinched off. I've altered staement in article. See if you agree with it.Light current 01:16, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Besides, it says "can be thought of":

"FETs, like all transistors, can be thought of as voltage-controlled resistors."

As a teaching aid for someone completely new to transistors, this is a good analogy, and is used often:

• The Rheostat as a Transistor
• The Field Effect Transistor as a Voltage Controlled Resistor
• [2]

Much better than telling them it's an "amplifier". We can certainly change it to say "as a very rough first approximation" or something. - Omegatron 22:52, August 21, 2005 (UTC)

I think saying 'voltage controlled resistor' can be confusing to the newcomer (and more experienced people) because it gives the impression that the transistor collector looks like a resistor when in fact it looks like a current source/sink. I think we should say 'all transistors act as voltage controlled current sources' (as User:Wjbeaty has suggessted).Light current 17:11, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Are you guys saying that a bipolar transistor is a voltage-controlled device? That’s wrong they are current controlled. Small base current change gives large collector current change. The FET is a voltage-controlled device. Which I like using in my projects because they are the closest things to tubes, which I cut my wisdom teeth on in the late 60's early 70's. Inkdoe 13:22, 20 October 2005

What about MFET ? Magnetic Field effect transistors, and spintronic ?

What about them? If you know about these devices, please feel free to add material on them. :-) Light current 11:53, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

---

moved from page;

" Field Effect Transistor (FET) patented in 1934 by Dr. Oskar Heil. Personally first read about the FET patent year in Analog Science Fiction Science Fact magazine in the late 70s early 80s in an article about hearing aides by Larry Niven or Jerry Pournelle."

Errors ID'd by Nature, to correct

The results of what exactly Nature suggested should be corrected is out... italicize each bullet point once you make the correction. -- user:zanimum

• In the section on USES, CMOS is the acronym for Complementary Metal Oxide Semiconductor.
• The first sentence of the section “FET Operation” mentions a “potential voltage” which is misleading. In electrical terminology “potential” and “voltage” tend to mean the same and hence both are not normally used together. It is best to use the word VOLTAGE alone for the purposes of describing how the FET works.
• There are many types of FET but the section on FET Operation describes a “normally-on” or “depletion mode” type of MOSFET. However, it is usual to employ a “normally-off” MOSFET for CMOS devices which are described in the section on USES.

Behavior of d mode FETs

Near the top, the article says "depletion, in which a voltage applied decreases the current flow from source to drain." This isn't true, is it? I think whoever wrote that sentence was confusing the difference between n-channel and p-channel, with the difference between enhancement mode and depletion mode. It would be more accurate to say "enhancement mode, which is normally off, when zero voltage is applied, and depletion mode, which is normally on, when zero voltage is applied." Objections to this change? --Monguin61 17:55, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

It's true depending on what definitions are used, but it's definitely not clear. It's hard to make things both accurate and accessible. How do you define "when zero voltage is applied" without making things too complicated? - mako 03:30, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

I think "normally off" and "normally on" should suffice. That's more towards the accessible side than accurate, but more accurate than the current phrasing, yes? --66.253.212.165 08:09, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

What's the difference between an NPN transistor and a FET?

I was wondering what the difference between an NPN transistor used in TTL logic for example, and a(n) FET transistor?

Do they not both work by applying a small current to the base to all a current to pass through?

So what are the differences between the construction/operation of an NPN transistor and a(n) FET transistor?

This page didn't really give me much help on the construction of a(n) FET transistor, as from what I see it looks EXACTLY the same as an NPN transistor. And from what I can see it works the same way too, except somehow uses energy mostly when switching states instead of during. How is it that it uses less energy than an NPN transistor?

What are the main differences between a(n) FET transistor and an NPN transistor?

How is it that an NPN transistor uses up more energy than a(n) FET transistor?

How is it that a(n) FET transistor has to be used differently for logic gates than an NPN transistor?

Thanks so much for your help! --TAz69x 23:50, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

basically, a FET is a voltage-controlled device, whereas a bipolar transistor^(NPN or PNP) is current-controlled. A good explanation of the operating principle of one of the FETs is given in the JFET article. A FET is a majority carrier device. There is no need to inject carriers to modify the behaviour of a zone, like with the bipolar transistor (which is a minority carrier device). Instead, in a FET, we use an electric field to attract or repel charges that are already present in the material.

It is difficult to tell what are the difference in construction with a bipolar, because the FET family is quite large. Compare the cross sections in the JFET, MOSFET, bipolar transistor articles. FET use less energy than bipolar because they absorb almost no current when in the on-state. The input of a FET can be seen as a capacitor: you only need to supply current to charge the capacitor. You don't have to supply energy once the capacitor is charged! The input of a bipolar transistor is like a diode: once you reach the threshold voltage of the diode, current starts to flow, so you have to supply energy to bias the diode.

Concerning the use of FET in logic, I think you should have a look at the CMOS article. Hope it helps -- CyrilB 08:46, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Field Effect Transistors as Light Detectors

I have recently been investigating the process by which a PIN diode can modulate a signal as a result of incident radiation. My main point of confusion has been my inability to find any mechanical diagrams of a PIN diode which operates through the presence of 3 terminals. Most of what I have read suggests that this is a strictly 2-terminal device (the PIN in question, a Hamamatsu S5971). I came across a diagram for a FET, and was struck by not only the presence of the proper number of terminals, but the drain signal's dependence on variations in the space charge region. I am mainly curious as to the possibility that my PIN may be closer in design to an FET, through the use of the intrinsic region as the source of the drain terminal. Whether this is may be a step in the proper direction or its equally likely counterpart, I would appreciate any insight that may be offered on the subject. Jmeyers 18:39, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't know of any similarity between a PiN diode and a FET. A PIN diode is a two terminal device, operated in reverse bias. Light on the diode causes carrier generation which effectively looks like a leakage current proportional to the light on the PIN diode. Even a PN junction diode does this, the largish I (intrinsic) portion just increases the area where generation occurs making it more sensitive to light. Maybe the charge coupled device is what you have in mind as a three terminal device, or a phototransistor. Snafflekid 23:34, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Pinch off description... wrong or misleading!!

It costed 2 days of research, but i finally find out that the confusion in my head came from your description of the pinch-off mode. In your description you talk about the "saturation" area, where increasing source voltage you don't have corresponding increase of drain current and you call it pinch-off ... but still there is current and its value depend on the value of the gate voltage. While the pinch-off voltage is the value of the GATE voltage for which there is no drain current at all, for any value of source-to-drain voltage (even in the ohmic region!).

see reference: http://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~jcgl/Scots_Guide/info/comp/active/jfet/jfetchar/jfetchar.htm

152.78.72.52 20:03, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Hm? When the channel pinches off, that doesn't imply zero current flow at all, it merely makes the drain current a much weaker function of drain voltage (until you apply sufficient bias to trigger a breakdown mechanism). This is because the pinched off (spacial) area is a depletion region. Most of the applied bias beyond the saturation (pinch-off) voltage is dropped over this depletion region, thus it contains a large internal electric field that can sweep carriers from one side to the other (so current still has a path to flow). Since bias beyond Vsat is dropped over the depletion region rather than the channel, the S-D current no longer changes very much with the drain voltage, so the drain current stays relatively constant beyond the pinch-off point; the so-called "saturation region". Of course the current still does increase slightly with increasing drain voltage, and this is mostly due to channel length modulation (additional bias expands the depletion region and thereby shortens the channel). Admittedly, the explanation in the article is a little confusing, but it seems accurate.

If you're really interested in learning this stuff, pick up a book on semiconductor devices and physics. You won't get a good intuition for how devices work just from reading a Wikipedia article. The Pierret, Sze, and Neaman books are all pretty good. -- mattb @ 2007-02-03T21:22Z

Ok... looking around for even longer i solved my doubts, i just want to leave the observation for others: the pinch off point is indeed what you describe. In particular, for Vgate=0 is the value of Vsource=Vpo when the saturation start (the channel is "almost close"). But on the other side if Vgate=Vpo, the channel is already almost close by the bias of the gate, so the drain current "saturate" soon, for very small value, and stay almost zero for any value of Vsource. That's why it can be seen in a transconductance graph as the value of Vgate for Idrain=0. Am I right?

This comment was added by ???

Is it possible to make an animation of a saturated FET opening, where the self-consistent potential is shown as the height and some electrons as spheres running over it. Drain and gate held at fixed potential and as the source potential rises, electrons spill over? Arnero 05:15, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

like in static image Arnero 05:33, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

You won't get a good intuition for how devices work just from reading a Wikipedia article.

Well you certainly should...

fixed potential and as the source potential rises, electrons spill over?

Anything with spheres moving over an edge is probably going to be more misleading then helpful. We should always think long and hard about illustrations to make sure they really help understanding and don't lead newcomers down the wrong road. — Omegatron 02:47, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Something like this: http://jas.eng.buffalo.edu/education/semicon/diffusion/diffusion.html ? Anyhow, the "simulation" is to time consuming for me to code, and I did not find any tool in the web. And the animation would be pretty large. Arnero 11:19, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Saturation explanation error?

I'd like seconding by someone more expert than myself before making any changes; The article says (Para 5 of section 'FET Operation'); "The shape of the inversion region becomes "pinched-off" near the drain end of the channel". Unless I am mistaken, when a positive potential difference is applied between D and S the pinch region is at the source end of the channel, as the potential difference pulls the charge carriers in the inversion region (the electrons) closer to the drain (positive potential). This is corroborated by my own knowledge as well as (not explicitly) here. Comments please, Spychotic (talk)

This is not an error actually. Channel starts pinching off near Drain side first due to the voltage drop in the channel itself.--Murat (talk) 19:31, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Moreover, the original poster is only half wrong. The positive potential at the drain is the reason for the pinch off. However, it is not pulling carriers from the inversion region toward the drain. Instead, it is holding carriers already in the drain to limit their entry into the inversion region. Hence, the source contributes more carriers to the inversion region than the drain, and so the channel's shape is asymmetric with a "wide bottom" near the source. (so the confusion seems to be about where the carriers in the inversion region "came from"; in an enhancement-mode FET, their "home" is in the source and drain) —TedPavlic (talk/contrib/@) 19:26, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

FET?

I keep seeing references to "FETs" as an ancient predecessor to MOSFETS et al described herein. What kind of FET is one referring to then? -143.215.155.50 (talk) 03:55, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

How about to a reference to where you're seeing this? Doesn't sound familiar. Dicklyon (talk) 05:06, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

History??

Why is there no FET history section? When and how was the FET created? -143.215.155.50 (talk) 03:55, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I added a brief history section with a main link to the history of the transistor article. Dicklyon (talk) 05:07, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

lack of explanation of the inversion layer formation

There is a lack of information regarding the physics of channel inversion ... that is when the p type semiconductor has an n type channel formed under the gate. The statemant below is wrong.. the phenomenom is not called the threshold voltage, threshold is just the voltage at which this occurs and current begins conducting through the channel... the phenomenom is called inversion.

"..........; this forms a region free of mobile carriers called a depletion region, and the phenomenon is referred to as the threshold voltage of the FET. " —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonnic1 (talk • contribs) 10:02, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. That section needs major copyedits or perhaps a complete rewrite. For exampel, the terms threshold voltage, inversion, and depletion should all be used, but they should not necessarily all be used in the same sentence. The section should more carefully discuss inversion. —TedPavlic (talk) 16:41, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

New "Transistor channel" page

A new Transistor channel page was recently created. After some discussion on its talk page, the original author changed it to a redirect to a FET subsection and moved the original content to Talk:Transistor channel/draft. Please review that page (with emphasis on the discussion in the talk page). The author feels that transistor channels are not adequately handled on the FET page and feels that the subject is rich enough to warrant a separate page.

I'm not quite sure I understand the argument, as a detailed discussion of the operation of unipolar channels seems identical to a detailed discussion of FET operation. So perhaps the FET page needs to be enhanced. Either way, the page was created and a discussion was started, and I think people who read this page would be interested. —TedPavlic (talk) 14:05, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

And I advised the new editor that if he doesn't get consensus here, he may find it merged back when he's done. I'm undecided on which way to go (enhance this page, or deplete it to a split). Dicklyon (talk) 16:28, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

In retrospect, the existence of a page like "threshold voltage" is a precedent for creating more such small pages. I just worry that these small pages are really just trying to fill in information that belongs to the FET page. The MOSFET page is very long and developed (and is a much better page than the FET page), and it probably describes unipolar operation much better than anything here. In a perfect world, I think a completely rewrite of the FET page would not only alleviate the need for pages like "threshold voltage" (and transistor channel) but would allow other FET pages (like MOSFET and JFET and MESFET) to be shorter/clearer. ON THE OTHER HAND, having very generic threshold voltage–type pages might make it easier to make pages like MOSFET more concise because each FET page could share wiki links to things they have in common. So I'm torn... But I think the current transistor channel work looks more like a FET rewrite, and so it maybe should be here... I think... Hm. —TedPavlic (talk) 16:45, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

MOSFET is at about 40 KB, and transistor at 64 KB, large compared to suggested article size. Splits like these can be useful in allowing room to develop the subtopic. The threshold voltage article is not bad, has a half dozen refs. If the transistor channel gets to that point, it might be OK. Dicklyon (talk) 17:31, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Sentence suspected having errors

I think this sentence contains errors. Anybody else?

"The drain and source may be doped of opposite type to the channel, in the case of enhancement mode FETs, or doped of similar type to the channel as in depletion mode FETs."
User:Vanished user 8ij3r8jwefi 15:39, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, there is a problem. "Mode" of a FET as described above is related to the POLARITY of the voltage applied to the gate with respect to source, or more accurately with respect to the gate to channel junction. All FETs have ohmic contacts at both drain and source by definition, any doping that may be there is there to ENHANCE the ohmic nature and process or design specific not a general feature.--Murat (talk) 19:29, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Although the original sentence certainly simplified matters, it was basically correct as written. The supposed "correction" was blatantly wrong and confusing. It contradicts every reference I've checked which describes the structure of enhancement mode and depletion mode FETs, and it also contradicts the article's own description of how these FETs work, as well as the description of enhancement mode and depletion mode MOSFETs in the MOSFET article. I've reverted it; pity no one else caught it over the last five years. :( --Colin Douglas Howell (talk) 12:02, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

NOMFET

Perhaps the brand new NOMFET (nanoparticle organic memory field-effect transistor) should be added.
See: http://www.physorg.com/news183373216.html
Codegrinder (talk) 21:56, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Osiris (talk) 04:00, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Duplication report: [3] Osiris (talk) 04:00, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

BJT mentioned six times without being explained

I don't know enough to make appropriate corrections, but I presume BJT refers to Bipolar Junction Transistors? It would be nice if the abbreviation was introduced and the reason that they are mentioned alongside Field Effect transistors was made clear. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.197.40.40 (talk) 14:32, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Circuit schematic symbol for a FET

Would be useful to have an image showing the common circuit symbols for a FET (at least it would have been for myself who had to do a separate search on google images after finding the wikipedia page) Norlesh (talk) 11:05, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes! It's rather remarkable that we don't have them already. The symbols for JFETs and MOSFETs would be useful to distinguish, also to explain details like the source-body internal tie. There's (surprisingly) nothing on Commons that I can see. Please use SVG if you create one, as the scalability would be useful. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:44, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Field-effect transistor. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080706162027/http://www.ece.cmu.edu/~cssi/research/manufacturing.html to http://www.ece.cmu.edu/~cssi/research/manufacturing.html
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20160105144331/http://www.analog.com/library/analogDialogue/archives/35-05/latchup/ to http://www.analog.com/library/analogDialogue/archives/35-05/latchup/
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20100116183339/http://freespace.virgin.net:80/ljmayes.mal/comp/vcr.htm to http://freespace.virgin.net/ljmayes.mal/comp/vcr.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 16:38, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Request for explanation on role of 'body'

Hi guys, I'm new to the topic, and from this article (and all the others article on Wikipedia related to transistors), there is no clear explanation of the role of the body in FETs. An explanation in the section More about terminals would be greatly appreciated! Piero le fou (talk) 19:03, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

A good way to think of the body's effect on the operation of the transistor (in normal operating regions) is as a "back gate" terminal (e.g. see this book). It works just like the gate, though typically a bit less efficiently, as long as you keep the source–bulk and drain–bulk junctions reverse biased. See Threshold voltage#Body effect. Years ago I tried to say something more sensible in the article, but Brews-ohare wouldn't let me. We compromised, but it's fuzzy. I'll see what I can dig up. Dicklyon (talk) 20:46, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

For example, in this paper, we used the reduced efficiency of the bulk as a gate to make a differential amplifier with lower gain and wider input linear range; the inputs come directly into the body terminals of two transistors, and nowhere else. Dicklyon (talk) 20:54, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

BJT as Voltage or Current controlled device

A recent edit by 50.48.192.249 changed a statement about non-FET's being current controlled to voltage controlled devices. I feel like this should either be explained in more detail. From my knowledge of the matter, a BJT being voltage or current controlled depends on the "depth" one is willing to go and neither is strictly right or wrong. From an external perspective, yes, (in an NPN device) the voltage applied to the base-emmitor junction causes a current to flow in this PN junction. But on a "deeper" level, when you look at the junction physics, it is the electrons flowing from the emitor to the base that can then get "into" the collector before recombining in the base (asumming the base is small enough) causing a current from the collector to the emittor. In other words, a BJT cannot be boxed in as being purely "voltage" or "current" controlled, because unlike most FET's, which have a very high (and often assumed infinite) input impedance at low frequencies, making it clearly a voltage-controlled device, the BJT has a non-zero, and finite imput impeadance. In other words, It's not really a pure voltage or current controlled device.

I bring this up because I feel like this should be discussed in more detail to prevent a constant to and fro in the article. TheUnnamedNewbie (talk) 13:46, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

On a second read through the introduction, I feel like maybe the entire statement should just be removed. I think it's not really valid to speak of "all of the non-FET devices", as it implies that there are only two categories of devices, the FET's and the non-FET's. TheUnnamedNewbie (talk) 13:50, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

I edited the introduction to remove the "voltage" or "current" controlled statements. After thinking about it I felt like they could be misleading as they imply there is a "input" and an "output" terminal, which is not really the case (eg, common gate transistors in cascodes?). I'm open for counter arguments.

I also simplified it somewhat to not go into as much depth in the introduction. TheUnnamedNewbie (talk) 10:39, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Check me

I corrected this in section #Effect of gate voltage on current. Even with the correction, the phrasing is poor and contains true but unnecessary information, given the purpose of the section. I'm not sure I'm qualified to edit it further.

"In a p-channel "depletion-mode" device, a positive voltage from gate to body creates a depletion layer by forcing the positively charged holes to the gate-insulator/semiconductor interface, leaving exposed a carrier-free region of immobile, negatively charged acceptor ions." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.127.144.113 (talk) 07:33, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Distinguishing between source/drain "terminals"

An extremely rusty electronics engineer asks: if the source and drain are both doped in the same "direction" relative to the body, what actually makes them usefully different? Is it the dopant element or concentration, the geometry (e.g. penetration depth), or something completely different? MarkMLl (talk) 20:52, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Apparently it depends on how the transistor is manufactured. I found the answers here pretty informative: https://www.quora.com/Can-the-drain-and-source-of-a-MOSFET-be-interchangable

Cphoenix (talk) 21:19, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

Date of Lilienfeld's FET concept patent

The History section states the FET was "first patented *** in 1925", but the patent was not filed until 8 October 1926 and not issued until 28 January 1930 as shown in the approval document cited. How should the Wikipedia text be changed: to reflect the year the patent was granted or the year of filing (more interesting)... assuming the "1925" is a mistake. Myron (talk) 23:31, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_transistor#Origins_of_transistor_concept 176.52.34.12 (talk) 12:20, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

Are FETs source/drain symmetrical?

https://www.quora.com/Can-the-drain-and-source-of-a-MOSFET-be-interchangable/answer/Jeff-Gruszynski

This answer (which looks detailed and coherent) says that MOSFETs as used in CMOS are not symmetrical.

The "Uses" section of the article currently says "The naming convention of drain terminal and source terminal is somewhat arbitrary, as the devices are typically (but not always) built symmetrical from source to drain."

If the Quora answer is correct, then the "Uses" section should be clarified.

Cphoenix (talk) 21:16, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

I agree with Cphoenix. This statement does not seem to be correct: "The source and drain terminals can thus be interchanged in practical circuits with no change in operating characteristics or function". Aren't the differences between eg common-drain and common-source topologies due to MOSFETs being controlled by their gate-source voltage (Vgs)? In practical circuits, at least DC circuits, flipping source and drain will result in a nonworking circuit because the polarity of Vgs changes. 209.160.150.130 (talk) 21:00, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

India Education Program course assignment

This article was the subject of an educational assignment supported by Wikipedia Ambassadors through the India Education Program.

The above message was substituted from {{IEP assignment}} by PrimeBOT (talk) on 19:54, 1 February 2023 (UTC)