Talk:Insulated-gate bipolar transistor

Electronics B‑class Mid‑importance

	Electronics portal This article is part of WikiProject Electronics, an attempt to provide a standard approach to writing articles about electronics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. Leave messages at the project talk pageElectronicsWikipedia:WikiProject ElectronicsTemplate:WikiProject Electronicselectronic articles
B	This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

The cross-section pictures and the equivalent circuits do not fit together. Emitter and Collector have to be exchanged - otherwise the internal devices make no sense since source and collector are connected. Thus the resistor "body region" in the equivalent circuit does not make sense either. It would be the resistance of the ohmic contact shorting FET-Source and BJT-Collector. As a consequence the parasitic transistor will be mainly "off" since the voltage drop is quite low. 130.149.57.205 (talk) 10:51, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is not clear how it works, and what this N+ ares under the insulator are standing for?

A better explanation is required, such as down to level of PN barriers, what opens and what shuts when the device is open and when it is closed.

Otherwise, good work -- Mtodorov 69 13:59, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree this page deserve more. I plan to work on it, but if someone wants to do it before, please help yourself! Meanwhile, I've added the stub label... CyrilB 16:08, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Isnt it somewhat redundant to call this page "IGBT Transistor" when the T stands for Transistor?

Yeah. - mako 08:46, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was move to Insulated gate bipolar transistor.

IGBT transistor → IGBT or Insulated gate bipolar transistor … Rationale: Redundant word: "Insulated Gate Bipolar Transistor transistor". Precedents: MOSFET, JFET.

(Initial) Survey

Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~

Support. - mako 08:46, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support or maybe move to Insulated gate bipolar transistor, with a redirect from IGBT and IGBT transistor ? - CyrilB 11:05, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Insulated gate bipolar transistor with redirects. Blair 05:08, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ambivalent -- Even though it's a blatant case of RAS syndrome, I think the trailing "Transistor" makes it a lot easier to figure out what the article is about. Otherwise, it's alphabet soup. Atlant 11:20, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Approval voting

IGBT

mako 21:00, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Insulated gate bipolar transistor

mako 21:00, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Blair 05:09, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Atlant 22:17, 25 June 2006 (UTC) (If we're going to change the article name, this is what we should change it to.)[reply]

Discussion

Add any additional comments

Moved. - mako 00:23, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Suckage

This picture sucks. Too dark, no detail. Replacement needed. TCallahan (12.25.62.140)

Format Change

The intro section needs to be hacked down and placed into several new sections below. I'm not going to tackle it until I add more content, but it needs to be done Wefoij 21:28, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just put a bunch under device structure. More needs to be done. Feel free to add / edit. I'll be back later Wefoij 22:11, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's an error

There's an error in the last cross section picture. At the symbol of the PNP transistor, you should put the arrow at the emitter. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.114.75.190 (talk) 10:21, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rewriting history per Nakagawa

The raft of recent edits by 60.62.110.241 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Nca01634 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (evidently both the same WP:SPA editor) are all about better representing the contributions of Nakagawa to the IGBT development. I have no idea how accurate these are, but it's pretty clear there's an agenda here, and quite possibly WP:COI, so I ask this editor to please let us know where he's coming from. We previously had Dalok1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) with a strong Baliga slant, so maybe this will even it out some; more likely, it goes too far. Dicklyon (talk) 03:55, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Answer from Nca01634:

We are now trying to write a book about IGBT. Through our internal discussions and surveys about the IGBT history, we found the wikipedia descriptions on IGBT are not correctly reflecting the facts. So I simply tried to correct it. I edited the IGBT article based on the facts. If possible, I'd like to make another modification. We found one Japanese patent (Shouwa47-21739 filed in 1968 by Yamagami) disclosing IGBT structure earlier than the patent by Becke. These are just facts. No one can deny the facts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nca01634 (talk • contribs) 11:33, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. I'm quite beginner here. I do not know how to behave here.... from Nca01634. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nca01634 (talk • contribs) 11:46, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone can easily deny the facts when they are not well referenced. Your improvements are appreciated, but you need to be careful about biasing the history too much one way, or adding your own opinions of relative importance. For example, you interpretation "the patent provided only the concept of IGBT and did not provide any concrete means to realize actual devices" needs a source, or needs to be removed. Similarly "it was found that the products from GE still suffered from the latch-up of the parasitic thyristor." You sound very partisan in these edits, trying to reduce credit to one set of inventors and add volumes on another. Please try to keep a more balanced perspective, supported by sources; facts are great, but your interpretations need to be omitted, or at least moderate and balanced. Also, tell us more about your background, affiliation, and the book you are writing, if you want us to understand where you are coming from. If you work with Nakagawa or his organization, we should know that, so that we can provide the balance against your viewpoint. You can use the "history" button to get back to your most recent version and make improvements from there. Dicklyon (talk) 18:48, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I understand and agree with your opinion. However, as far as I know, at least three independent Japanese companies tested GE's IGBTs around 1984 and found they were easily destroyed by the latch-up of the parasitic thyristor. This is also the facts. Yes, I need good reference for the facts. I have only three testifiers but do not have a good reference. Regarding the Becke's patent, it substantially claims the non-latch-up opearation for the entire device operation condition in the first claim: "no thyristor action occurs under any device operating conditions." It does not provide any concrete device structures to achieve this (probably, this is my opinion.)

I have to add two important references about IGBTs. These are Yamagami's patent filed in 1968(can be found by using the data base http://www4.ipdl.inpit.go.jp/Tokujitu/tjsogodben.ipdl?N0000=115 by inputting "Kind code" B, "Number" S47-21739) and and Prof. Plummer's patent Re33209, which is reissue of US patent 4199774 filed in 1978. These are probably earlier than Baliga's patent filing and Becke's patent, but still controversial. The descriptions regarding Prof. Baliga are the facts and I did not make any changes.

Thank you for your precious comments. I'm working for Toshiba and probably no one could add these comments if I did not.Nca01634 (talk) 00:28, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting us know. I really do appreciate your knowledge, contacts, insights, and contributions to this history. But at the same time, we do need to restrict it to what is verifiable. Wikipedia is not the place for a first publication of personal recollections; of course, if you can get these guys to publish their version of the history, then we can rely on and cite that. Dicklyon (talk) 00:53, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is controversial who the real inventor of IGBT is!!!

It is indeed unknown who the real inventor of IGBTs is. I left the text as it is where I cannot confirm if it is true or not.Nca01634 (talk) 11:27, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Becke and Wheatley proposed the IGBT operation of a four layer device for the entire device opearation range in 1980. Baliga and Plummer found IGBT mode operation in a thyristor(SCR) before 1980. However, the device operated in the IGBT mode only for a lower current level, and in the thyristor mode for a larger current level. Yamagami proposed, in 1968, a monolithic vertical four layer device where the pnp transistor is controlled by the n-channel MOSFET, which is the same structure as IGBT. He did not discuss the latch-up of the parasitic thyristor.Nca01634 (talk) 12:11, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So put all that into the article, with sources. What we want to avoid is including statements like "it is controversial" unless we can find a reliable source that discusses such a controversy. And if inventorship or priority is unclear, we should avoid making any claims about inventorship or priority. Just listing who did what when, with sources, is the way to keep the viewpoint neutral. There's no need to presume a concept such as "real inventor" or to make up a controversy if that's not what's out there. Like most technologies, it has evolved with advances from lots of people. Dicklyon (talk) 16:42, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just wanted to fix the Name of one of the founding inventors.

June 17, 2008 MBanak

I Corrected the Name "Becke", which was listed as "Beck", in several places - I knew the late Hans Becke in the 1980's, then at Bell Labs. We originally called this puppy a COMFET, and I made several myself after learning the technique. The correct spelling of his name is evident on the Patent, which is already linked in the article as reference "10", as of June 17th, 2008.

Mbanak (talk) 16:27, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alternate equivalent circuit?

I think we can all agree that the most popular equivalent circuit for an IGBT is the model that uses just a pnp transistor and a N-channel FET, right? I was reading some stuff online and I found a circuit that, when run in a simulator, appeared to simulate an IGBT far more accurately.

File:IGBT Model.jpg

(I made this image because I could not find the original website where the concept was. If I had found it again, I would have linked to it instead of using this picture.)

Is this worth mentioning? Thanks.Ilikefood (talk) 18:09, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

edit: I found it. It's here: [1]. Ilikefood (talk) 16:54, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]