|WikiProject Chemicals||(Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)|
I'm not sure who originally wrote that high quality epitaxial GaN is "impossible to grow", but I changed it to "difficult". Mainly I did this because I know for a fact that it is possible, since I have read about 10 journal articles describing how to do it, and I watched someone do it in a lab last week, but I think maybe I should have just deleted the entire paragraph. It's outdated at best. Any objections? Jermor 17:11, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
- If you know it is possible, and you have the references at hand, then why delete it. Maybe rewrite it into a section about 'growing high quality epitaxial GaN'? --Dirk Beetstra T C 17:18, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
I guess by "difficult" one means comparing it with other semiconductor material systems grown by comparative techniques. One measure of quality is the defect density which is certainly higher for GaN (still best in III-nitrides) than GaAs or Si. Moreover, morphology for gaN is still poor for these semiconductors. One of the reasons for such a quality is the absence of native substrates to grow nitrides on. I must say, however, that there is a tremendous amount of work going on in this respect with growth of bulk-like GaN by HVPE and high pressure techniques. Pranobmisra 20:14, 15 August 2007 (UTC)Pranob Misra
- I appreciate the explanation and the comparison to Si and GaAs. GaN can also be grown by MOCVD and MBE, and despite the lack of a convenient substrate, buffer layers and other techniques are making the process a lot better. By the way, someone has made significant improvements to this article, and it looks a lot better now. Jermor (talk) 01:03, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Sensitivity to radiation
I suspect the author of the intro section meant to say "its susceptibility to ionising radiation damage is low", rather than "sensitivity", since the latter could be interpreted as a statement about its photo-sensitivity (stated as current per unit particle energy), when used as a photo-diode/detector.
Suggest a rewording along these lines.
GaN on Si
This is a major breakthrough and tons of material is published, and it is an industrial and commercial process. I take offense at the removal of the related single sentence especially with the rather flimsy excuse of "inaccesibility" of the references. EDN is a mainstream publication for the electronic industry. Is it possible that the editor who reverted has an ultirior motive? One can not help but feel that way. It would have been far more constructive to fix the reference or find a better references since GaN on Si is a rather significant milestone in technology and its absence from the whole article is an oddity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.127.116.11 (talk) 23:13, 9 February 2010 (UTC)