Talk:Metalorganic vapour-phase epitaxy

Chemistry Stub‑class Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chemistry, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of chemistry on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChemistryWikipedia:WikiProject ChemistryTemplate:WikiProject ChemistryChemistry articles
Stub	This article has been rated as Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Technology Stub‑class

	Technology portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Technology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TechnologyWikipedia:WikiProject TechnologyTemplate:WikiProject TechnologyTechnology articles
Stub	This article has been rated as Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Nomenclature

This entry has bothered me for some time now. The correct nomenclature for this method of crystal growth is Organometallic Vapor Phase Epitaxy (OMVPE). There is a clear difference between organometallic and metalorganic compounds (or at least there used to be). If you consult a definition (including the one here on wikipedia) organometallic compounds have a bond between the carbon atom in an organic molecule and a metal atom. For example tri-methyl gallium. These are the typical precursors for this method of crystal growth. Thus, it should be organometallic following this well established field in chemistry. I believe the true meaning of the word metalorganic refers to compounds where an oxygen atom separates the organic group and the metal atom. Regardless, the correct nomenclature is organometallic. I would love to see this entry changed back to an OMVPE entry, but the incorrect nomenclature proliferated by non-chemists in the semiconductor field is pretty ubiquitous. Fixing this entry might help.

Wikipedia isn't here to change common usage of terms. MOCVD is the preferred term by far in the fields it is used, so the Wikipedia article should reflect this. -- mattb @ 2006-12-05T04:18Z

I have no reason to doubt your distinction between MO and OM, but do you have a reference for it? Mwistey (talk) 04:11, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

4 + 4 cannot equal 9 just because of "common usage." That is a horrible argument - wrong is wrong. The correct nomenclature is indeed Organometallic vapor phase epitaxy.

Then make that statement that at the beginning of the entry, but please do leave MOCVD alone. How are you going to correct all these misguided people if they can't find it? :-) Mwistey (talk) 04:11, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The pressure

Is it really 2 - 100 kPa? 100 kPa ís one atmosphere's pressure, that's normal air pressure! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kri (talk • contribs) 11:52, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's right. Mwistey (talk) 04:11, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Solar cells?

A dominant process in the production of solar cells? Not even. Si cells use lots of ion implantation and diffusion, but MOCVD? Thin films use mostly closed space sublimation, as MOCVD is too slow (~1 nm/sec compared to 1 micron/sec) Source??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.183.160.172 (talk) 18:57, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

MOCVD isn't used for silicon solar cells but it is the dominant process for manufacturing As/P triple-junction cells. But triple-junction cells are not very common in terrestrial applications, so if we're talking overall then no, it's not dominant. GoldenEagleMC (talk) 03:48, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsenses

Dear colleagues, this is a stub indeed, not a word said about Hydrogen, mass transporation, Arhenius graphs of Mass Tsp vs 1/Temperature, the process of depositing, the chemical processes therein, nucleation, gas phase interaction, gas phase - base interaction, modes of growth, surface diffusion. Not a word is said about hydride metaloids vs metal-organic decomposition, the minimum/maximum temperatures, the temperature range, Mass flow controllers and pressure controllers, plus nomenclature nonsense-its as if the author did not understand the difference between epitaxy and chemical vapour deposition. I am preparing a proper article regarding this topic Piotroxp (talk) 05:55, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Change to MOCVD?

Perhaps we should consider rewording everything to MOCVD, including the title. Doing a search on scholarly articles shows that it's the most common term by a very large margin compared to MOVPE (about 4x more frequent).128.12.226.59 (talk) 07:23, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. --Smokefoot (talk) 13:03, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

MOCVD is the preferred nomenclature to a lot of older American practitioners in homage to Hal Manasevit, who holds THE patent for this process (well, his employer does or did). Hal always used the term MOCVD whenever taking or writing about this process. OMVPE was pushed in the early days by Stringfellow who most practitioners consider a weenie although he's actually a great guy once you get past the ego. In all honesty, it's splitting hairs and over the years MOCVD seemed to be used mainly by US practitioners. This article appears to have been greatly reduced in size and scope since I last visited a few years ago. Time to check out the revision history![USer: Crystalgrower 11/20/2014]Crystalgrower (talk) 21:29, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Seconded