Talk:Insulated-gate bipolar transistor

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
WikiProject Electronics (Rated B-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon 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 page
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality 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. (talk) 10:51, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

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)

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)

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

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

Requested move[edit]

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.

(Initial) Survey[edit]

Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~
  • Support. - mako 08:46, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Support or maybe move to Insulated gate bipolar transistor, with a redirect from IGBT and IGBT transistor ? - CyrilB 11:05, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Support Insulated gate bipolar transistor with redirects. Blair 05:08, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
  • 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)

Approval voting[edit]


  1. mako 21:00, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Insulated gate bipolar transistor[edit]

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


Add any additional comments

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

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.


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

Format Change[edit]

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)

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)

There's an error[edit]

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 (talk) 10:21, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

...anyone? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:3:3382:A130:CCDB:DD0D:4797:9B0F (talk) 06:32, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Comparison to mosfets[edit]

i think those both paragraphs are contradictory one to other, u should use only one, i know some igbts require an external diode, but that should be said in the same paragraph

"The additional PN junction blocks reverse current flow. This means that unlike a MOSFET, IGBTs cannot conduct in the reverse direction. In bridge circuits where reverse current flow is needed an additional diode (called a freewheeling diode) is placed in parallel with the IGBT to conduct current in the opposite direction. The penalty isn't as severe as first assumed though, because at the higher voltages where IGBT usage dominates, discrete diodes are of significantly higher performance than the body diode of a MOSFET." "The reverse bias rating of the N- drift region to collector P+ diode is usually only of tens of volts, so if the circuit application applies a reverse voltage to the IGBT, an additional series diode must be used." — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:52, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Rewriting history per Nakagawa[edit]

The raft of recent edits by (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) and Nca01634 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit 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 · edit 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)

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 (talkcontribs) 11:33, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Sorry. I'm quite beginner here. I do not know how to behave here.... from Nca01634. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nca01634 (talkcontribs) 11:46, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
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)
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 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)
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)

It is controversial who the real inventor of IGBT is!!![edit]

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)

Becke and Wheatley proposed the IGBT operation of a four layer device for the entire device operation 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)

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)

Just wanted to fix the Name of one of the founding inventors.[edit]

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)

Alternate equivalent circuit?[edit]

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)

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

Question about middle-image caption in "Usage" section[edit]

Doesn't 4 transistors make a FULL H-bridge?
Why does the caption say only a half-bridge?
Mikiemike (talk) 03:24, 17 December 2010 (UTC) correct — Preceding unsigned comment added by IXYSGREEN (talkcontribs) 13:17, 5 January 2012 (UTC)


The article needs an explanation of the different flavours of IGBT available and the manufacturers' terminology (sometimes different terms for the same thing?): enhancement-mode, depletion-mode, punch-through, non-punch-through, field stop, shorted anode, trench, depletion stop trench, etc. The symbol for a depletion-mode device should be replaced by one for an enhancement-mode device, because this is what most if not all commercial products are. EEye (talk) 18:04, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Relevant Links[edit]

Please discuss here if you find links relevant which I personally do Bmwtroll (talk) 10:17, 25 July 2012 (UTC)


I added Non-Punch-Through-IGBT to NPT#Technology.

Unfortunately until now the NPT-Variant ist not yet mentioned in the article.

In the German counterpart it is said: "Im Gegensatz zu Leistungs-MOSFETs können Punch-Through-IGBTs (PT-IGBT) zur Erhöhung der Stromtragfähigkeit nicht ohne weiteres parallel geschaltet werden. Non-Punch-Through-IGBTs (NPT-IGBT) hingegen besitzen wie die Leistungs-MOSFETs einen positiven Temperaturkoeffizienten und können parallel geschaltet werden. In den meisten IGBT-Hochleistungsmodulen wird das auch getan."

This roghtly translates to: "Unlike power MOSFETs, Punch-Through-IGBTs (PT-IGBT) can not be connected in parallel easily to increase the current carrying capacity. Non-Punch-Through IGBT (NPT-IGBT), however, have a positive temperature coefficient like power MOSFETs and therefore can be connected in parallel. In most IGBT high power modules this is done."

Maybe someone with knowledge about the technical terms can fit this into the article.

And I suggest to use the first picture of the German article as well. Manorainjan (talk) 20:59, 22 December 2014 (UTC)


Please add the IGBT symbol Arghman (talk) 21:17, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Beyond IGBT?[edit]

The article could discuss if there is anything visible or theorized to come up, beyond IGBT? Many people now think the most modern IGBT generation is the end of the journey, the sorcerers' stone found as far as semicondutor based power electronics goes and nothing futher revolutionary but only very gradual progress can be expected. (Just like how silicon-based ICs stayed with us for over almost 50 years and Intel's latest 14nm is essentially the end of the journey started by the 4004/8088, a further revolution never happened.) (talk) 21:56, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Indeed, it would seem that IGBT is the end of the journey, at least for our generation. The int'l railway federation (UIC) states:
--> At present, no innovations in power electronic replacing IGBTs are close to market stage, not even in the low-power segment (which is usually an early monitor for later developments in the power segments relevant for railway applications). <--
- IGBTs have reached maturity and only peripheral R&D remains to be done in this field, like: raise blocking voltages, increase switching frequency,reduce losses,reduce weight, optimize circuits and cooling.
- JR Hokkaido railway company claims IGBT controlled 3-phase AC motors reduce environmental train noise by 10% compared to their GTO counterpart. [Important issue in small and crowded Japan, e.g. the FASTECH360 shinkansen experiment failed due to noise pollution!]
- JR Hokkaido also claim IGBT controlled 3-phase AC motors save 15% energy compared to their GTO predecessors.
- IGBTs can now operate at >1000A at 3-4x higher switching frequency than GTO and such high switching frequencies smoothen the trains' acceleration process.
- IGBT modules are generally lighter than GTO modules by some 30%. This offers constructive advantages for vehicles.
- Compared to GTO less cooling is required for IGBT and no organic coolants are required)
- Due to IGBT advances, GTO is now out of picture up to 7MW for newly built railway prime movers and MU.
( Extra points: nowadays even 300USD household washing machines are run by 3-phase AC motor with DSP-controlled IGBT supply. The low-end market thus has been conquered just as the superexpress field. Maybe the carbide-hardened silicon MOSFET can be a worthy opponent in some marginal areas?) (talk) 22:38, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Insulated-gate bipolar transistor. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required on behalf of editors regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification, as with any edit, using the archive tools per instructions below. This message updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 1 May 2018).

  • 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:25, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

IGBT Applications[edit]

There is an interesting new application for IGBT's: The EMALS system on US Aircraft Carriers. See these articles: [1] [2]

This is a suggestion. I have not changed the wiki article. Scott Bowden (talk) 13:26, 28 March 2018 (UTC)