Electrons and Holes (ARRL)

[M. Hamed]

This is from the ARRL handbook 2010 p5.12:

"When energy is added to a semiconductor lattice, generally in the form of heat, some electrons are liberated from their bonds and move freely throughout the structure. The bond that loses an electron is then unbalanced and the space that the electron came from is referred to as a hole.

Electrons from adjacent bonds can leave their positions and fill the holes, thus creating new holes in the adjacent bonds. Two opposite movements can be said to occur: negatively charged electrons move from bond to bond in one direction and positively charged holes moves from bond to bond in the opposite direction. Both of these movements represent forms of electrical current."

I personally think this is wrong. The electrons moving from bond to bond and the holes are the same thing. The two currents should be :

1- The hole/bond electron current moving from bond to bond (closer to the lattice structure)
2- The free electron current caused by high energy electrons that are no longer associated with any bond.

I'm saying this because my understanding is that holes are not real. A hole is an absence of an electron, and hole movement is really bond electrons moving.

 

[Phil Hobbs]

On 3/29/2013 3:10 AM, M. Hamed wrote:

This is from the ARRL handbook 2010 p5.12:

"When energy is added to a semiconductor lattice, generally in the form of heat, some electrons are liberated from their bonds and move freely throughout the structure. The bond that loses an electron is then unbalanced and the space that the electron came from is referred to as a hole.

Electrons from adjacent bonds can leave their positions and fill the holes, thus creating new holes in the adjacent bonds. Two opposite movements can be said to occur: negatively charged electrons move from bond to bond in one direction and positively charged holes moves from bond to bond in the opposite direction. Both of these movements represent forms of electrical current."

I personally think this is wrong. The electrons moving from bond to bond and the holes are the same thing. The two currents should be :

1- The hole/bond electron current moving from bond to bond (closer to the lattice structure)
2- The free electron current caused by high energy electrons that are no longer associated with any bond.

I'm saying this because my understanding is that holes are not real. A hole is an absence of an electron, and hole movement is really bond electrons moving.

A hole is real if a clearing in the forest is real. Calling it a hole
makes it easier to visualize and calculate with, just as it's easy to
measure the area of a clearing, say.

The distinction is really that when holes move, it's valence-band
electrons that are changing state, whereas the mobile electrons are in
the conduction band. The two bands' energy vs momentum diagrams have
different curvatures, which gives electrons and holes different
effective masses and hence different mobilities.

In any case, trying to re-invent a theory that you don't understand
thoroughly is likely to lead to a lot of wasted time. The math isn't
particularly difficult, so if you have the background and the interest,
I suggest getting a copy of the second edition of Sze's semiconductor
physics book, read it like a novel, and then go back to the parts that
weren't clear. (There's a third edition of Sze, but it was revised by
somebody else and it isn't anywhere near as good as the second edition.
Besides, the second edition is cheaper.)

Cheers

Phil Hobbs

--
Dr Philip C D Hobbs
Principal Consultant
ElectroOptical Innovations LLC
Optics, Electro-optics, Photonics, Analog Electronics

160 North State Road #203
Briarcliff Manor NY 10510 USA
+1 845 480 2058

hobbs at electrooptical dot net
http://electrooptical.net

 

[tuinkabouter]

On 3/29/2013 8:10 AM, M. Hamed wrote:

This is from the ARRL handbook 2010 p5.12:

"When energy is added to a semiconductor lattice, generally in the form of heat, some electrons are liberated from their bonds and move freely throughout the structure. The bond that loses an electron is then unbalanced and the space that the electron came from is referred to as a hole.

Electrons from adjacent bonds can leave their positions and fill the holes, thus creating new holes in the adjacent bonds. Two opposite movements can be said to occur: negatively charged electrons move from bond to bond in one direction and positively charged holes moves from bond to bond in the opposite direction. Both of these movements represent forms of electrical current."

I personally think this is wrong. The electrons moving from bond to bond and the holes are the same thing. The two currents should be :

1- The hole/bond electron current moving from bond to bond (closer to the lattice structure)
2- The free electron current caused by high energy electrons that are no longer associated with any bond.

I'm saying this because my understanding is that holes are not real. A hole is an absence of an electron, and hole movement is really bond electrons moving.

Take a row of marbles in front of you. Remove one in the middle.
Take the marble right of the empty space and put it in the empty space.
repeat that a number of times.

You see that the hole moves to the right.

 

[George Herold]

On Mar 29, 3:10 am, "M. Hamed" <mhdpub...@gmail.com> wrote:

This is from the ARRL handbook 2010 p5.12:

"When energy is added to a semiconductor lattice, generally in the form of heat, some electrons are liberated from their bonds and move freely throughout the structure. The bond that loses an electron is then unbalanced and the space that the electron came from is referred to as a hole.

Electrons from adjacent bonds can leave their positions and fill the holes, thus creating new holes in the adjacent bonds. Two opposite movements can be said to occur: negatively charged electrons move from bond to bond in one direction and positively charged holes moves from bond to bond in the opposite direction. Both of these movements represent forms of electrical current."

I personally think this is wrong. The electrons moving from bond to bond and the holes are the same thing. The two currents should be :

1- The hole/bond electron current moving from bond to bond (closer to the lattice structure)
2- The free electron current caused by high energy electrons that are no longer associated with any bond.

I'm saying this because my understanding is that holes are not real. A hole is an absence of an electron, and hole movement is really bond electrons moving.

What Phil said....
I just wanted to add that you can use the Hall effect to determine
the sign of the charge carriers in a conductor. If you look at n-
doped Silicon (extra electrons.) you'll find a negative sign. And
with p-doped a positive sign. That makes holes look 'real' from my
perspective.

George H.

 

[Phil Hobbs]

On 03/29/2013 03:01 PM, M. Hamed wrote:

Thanks for the responses. But it appears to me that what what everyone said is more in agreement with what I said, maybe expressed better.

On Friday, March 29, 2013 7:38:46 AM UTC-7, Phil Hobbs wrote:
The distinction is really that when holes move, it's valence-band
electrons that are changing state, whereas the mobile electrons are in
the conduction band. The two bands' energy vs momentum diagrams have
different curvatures, which gives electrons and holes different
effective masses and hence different mobilities.


This is more or less what I tried to express when I said:

1- The hole/bond electron current moving from bond to bond (closer to the lattice structure)
2- The free electron current caused by high energy electrons that are no longer associated with any bond.

So in essence #1 in my description is what you described as valence electrons, while #2 is conduction band electrons.

However the excerpt from the ARRL handbook makes it look like (at least to me) that the two currents appear in the valence band, and that in valence band, hole and electron currents are two separate and distinct currents, which I thought is wrong.

I see. Yes, the Handbook is wrong to talk about "bonds" here, because
the action is happening among delocalized states. Inner shell electrons
are bound to individual nuclei, but valence and conduction band
electrons aren't.

Cheers

Phil Hobbs

--
Dr Philip C D Hobbs
Principal Consultant
ElectroOptical Innovations LLC
Optics, Electro-optics, Photonics, Analog Electronics

160 North State Road #203
Briarcliff Manor NY 10510

hobbs at electrooptical dot net
http://electrooptical.net

 

[Phil Hobbs]

On 03/29/2013 03:41 PM, M. Hamed wrote:

On Friday, March 29, 2013 12:05:10 PM UTC-7, Phil Hobbs wrote:
On 03/29/2013 03:01 PM, M. Hamed wrote:

Thanks for the responses. But it appears to me that what what
everyone said is more in agreement with what I said, maybe
expressed better.



On Friday, March 29, 2013 7:38:46 AM UTC-7, Phil Hobbs wrote:

The distinction is really that when holes move, it's
valence-band electrons that are changing state, whereas the
mobile electrons are in the conduction band. The two bands'
energy vs momentum diagrams have different curvatures, which
gives electrons and holes different effective masses and hence
different mobilities.

This is more or less what I tried to express when I said:

1- The hole/bond electron current moving from bond to bond
(closer to the lattice structure)

2- The free electron current caused by high energy electrons
that are no longer associated with any bond.

So in essence #1 in my description is what you described as
valence electrons, while #2 is conduction band electrons.

However the excerpt from the ARRL handbook makes it look like
(at least to me) that the two currents appear in the valence
band, and that in valence band, hole and electron currents are
two separate and distinct currents, which I thought is wrong.


I see. Yes, the Handbook is wrong to talk about "bonds" here,
because the action is happening among delocalized states. Inner
shell electrons are bound to individual nuclei, but valence and
conduction band electrons aren't.

Cheers

Phil Hobbs

Thanks!

On another note, I have a copy of Grey and Meyer. I'll use it as my
semiconductor physics reference since my budget for "way over my
head" books has run out. I'll certainly add Sze's book to my
wishlist.

Got 8 bucks? http://tinyurl.com/d43sotz

Cheers

Phil Hobbs

--
Dr Philip C D Hobbs
Principal Consultant
ElectroOptical Innovations LLC
Optics, Electro-optics, Photonics, Analog Electronics

160 North State Road #203
Briarcliff Manor NY 10510

hobbs at electrooptical dot net
http://electrooptical.net

 

[M. Hamed]

Thanks for the responses. But it appears to me that what what everyone said is more in agreement with what I said, maybe expressed better.

On Friday, March 29, 2013 7:38:46 AM UTC-7, Phil Hobbs wrote:

The distinction is really that when holes move, it's valence-band
electrons that are changing state, whereas the mobile electrons are in
the conduction band. The two bands' energy vs momentum diagrams have
different curvatures, which gives electrons and holes different
effective masses and hence different mobilities.

This is more or less what I tried to express when I said:

1- The hole/bond electron current moving from bond to bond (closer to the lattice structure)
2- The free electron current caused by high energy electrons that are no longer associated with any bond.

So in essence #1 in my description is what you described as valence electrons, while #2 is conduction band electrons.

However the excerpt from the ARRL handbook makes it look like (at least to me) that the two currents appear in the valence band, and that in valence band, hole and electron currents are two separate and distinct currents, which I thought is wrong.

 

[M. Hamed]

On Friday, March 29, 2013 12:05:10 PM UTC-7, Phil Hobbs wrote:

On 03/29/2013 03:01 PM, M. Hamed wrote:

Thanks for the responses. But it appears to me that what what everyone said is more in agreement with what I said, maybe expressed better.



On Friday, March 29, 2013 7:38:46 AM UTC-7, Phil Hobbs wrote:

The distinction is really that when holes move, it's valence-band

electrons that are changing state, whereas the mobile electrons are in

the conduction band. The two bands' energy vs momentum diagrams have

different curvatures, which gives electrons and holes different

effective masses and hence different mobilities.





This is more or less what I tried to express when I said:



1- The hole/bond electron current moving from bond to bond (closer to the lattice structure)

2- The free electron current caused by high energy electrons that are no longer associated with any bond.



So in essence #1 in my description is what you described as valence electrons, while #2 is conduction band electrons.



However the excerpt from the ARRL handbook makes it look like (at least to me) that the two currents appear in the valence band, and that in valence band, hole and electron currents are two separate and distinct currents, which I thought is wrong.





I see. Yes, the Handbook is wrong to talk about "bonds" here, because

the action is happening among delocalized states. Inner shell electrons

are bound to individual nuclei, but valence and conduction band

electrons aren't.



Cheers



Phil Hobbs



--

Dr Philip C D Hobbs

Principal Consultant

ElectroOptical Innovations LLC

Optics, Electro-optics, Photonics, Analog Electronics



160 North State Road #203

Briarcliff Manor NY 10510



hobbs at electrooptical dot net

http://electrooptical.net

Thanks!

On another note, I have a copy of Grey and Meyer. I'll use it as my semiconductor physics reference since my budget for "way over my head" books has run out. I'll certainly add Sze's book to my wishlist.

 

[P E Schoen]

"tuinkabouter" wrote in message news:kj4gqv$38n$1@dont-email.me...

Take a row of marbles in front of you. Remove one in the middle.
Take the marble right of the empty space and put it in the empty space.
repeat that a number of times.

You see that the hole moves to the right.

Whereas for electron movement you could add an extra marble in one position,
and then move it to adjacent positions. You can move it faster, too, since
you can just keep moving the same marble. For hole movement, you must move
many different marbles.

That seems to be a good way to visualize it, and possibly also to understand
the difference in mobility.

Paul

 

[M. Hamed]

On Friday, March 29, 2013 12:53:49 PM UTC-7, Phil Hobbs wrote:

Got 8 bucks? http://tinyurl.com/d43sotz

You got me.

(Making shelf space)

 

[George Herold]

On Mar 29, 7:27 pm, "M. Hamed" <mhdpub...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Friday, March 29, 2013 12:53:49 PM UTC-7, Phil Hobbs wrote:

Got 8 bucks?  http://tinyurl.com/d43sotz

You got me.

(Making shelf space)

As an undergrad we used a book by Ben Streetman. ("solid state
electronic devices")
I've got the second edition of that which is a bit like Sze but at a
lower level.
I notice it's up to it's 6th edition and you can get earlier ones of ~
$4.00 ($0.01 plus s&h.)

Sze is nice but it is a bit of a tome. (No one but Phil H. is going
to read it like a novel... :^)

George H.

 

[Phil Hobbs]

On 04/02/2013 10:10 AM, George Herold wrote:

On Mar 29, 7:27 pm, "M. Hamed" <mhdpub...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Friday, March 29, 2013 12:53:49 PM UTC-7, Phil Hobbs wrote:

Got 8 bucks? http://tinyurl.com/d43sotz

You got me.

(Making shelf space)

As an undergrad we used a book by Ben Streetman. ("solid state
electronic devices")
I've got the second edition of that which is a bit like Sze but at a
lower level.
I notice it's up to it's 6th edition and you can get earlier ones of ~
$4.00 ($0.01 plus s&h.)

Sze is nice but it is a bit of a tome. (No one but Phil H. is going
to read it like a novel... :^)

George H.

Nah, I didn't say he had to follow all the math in his head, any more
than I would. You just get the overview of where the book is going, and
then go back and dig into the non-obvious parts. It's about the fastest
way to come up to speed in a new field that I know of.

Cheers

Phil Hobbs

--
Dr Philip C D Hobbs
Principal Consultant
ElectroOptical Innovations LLC
Optics, Electro-optics, Photonics, Analog Electronics

160 North State Road #203
Briarcliff Manor NY 10510

hobbs at electrooptical dot net
http://electrooptical.net

 

On Tue, 2 Apr 2013 07:10:28 -0700 (PDT), George Herold
<gherold@teachspin.com> wrote:

On Mar 29, 7:27 pm, "M. Hamed" <mhdpub...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Friday, March 29, 2013 12:53:49 PM UTC-7, Phil Hobbs wrote:

Got 8 bucks?  http://tinyurl.com/d43sotz

You got me.

(Making shelf space)

As an undergrad we used a book by Ben Streetman. ("solid state
electronic devices")

Ben Streetman was my undergrad advisor. Good guy but was none too
happy when I first dropped the (required) course. The prof wasn't
teaching and I wasn't getting. I took it again the next semester, with
him teaching, and had no problems.

I've got the second edition of that which is a bit like Sze but at a
lower level.
I notice it's up to it's 6th edition and you can get earlier ones of ~
$4.00 ($0.01 plus s&h.)

Sze is nice but it is a bit of a tome. (No one but Phil H. is going
to read it like a novel... :^)

George H.

 

[George Herold]

On Apr 2, 2:58 pm, Phil Hobbs <pcdhSpamMeSensel...@electrooptical.net>
wrote:

On 04/02/2013 10:10 AM, George Herold wrote:





On Mar 29, 7:27 pm, "M. Hamed" <mhdpub...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Friday, March 29, 2013 12:53:49 PM UTC-7, Phil Hobbs wrote:

Got 8 bucks?  http://tinyurl.com/d43sotz

You got me.

(Making shelf space)

As an undergrad we used a book by Ben Streetman. ("solid state
electronic devices")
I've got the second edition of that which is a bit like Sze but at a
lower level.
I notice it's up to it's 6th edition and you can get earlier ones of ~
$4.00  ($0.01 plus s&h.)

Sze is nice but it is a bit of a tome.  (No one but Phil H. is going
to read it like a novel... :^)

George H.

Nah, I didn't say he had to follow all the math in his head, any more
than I would.  You just get the overview of where the book is going, and
then go back and dig into the non-obvious parts.  It's about the fastest
way to come up to speed in a new field that I know of.

Grin... I was mostly just poking fun at you.

I do agree with your approach to a new field.
Which for me is to get a good *undergrad* text on the subject and read
through it... ignoring the math (mostly). Then go back and re-read
what you are interested in. My only (minor) observation is that Sze
is not an undergrad text... and I was suggesting something pitched a
bit lower.

George H.

Cheers

Phil Hobbs

--
Dr Philip C D Hobbs
Principal Consultant
ElectroOptical Innovations LLC
Optics, Electro-optics, Photonics, Analog Electronics

160 North State Road #203
Briarcliff Manor NY 10510

hobbs at electrooptical dot nethttp://electrooptical.net- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

 

[Phil Hobbs]

On 4/3/2013 9:06 AM, George Herold wrote:

On Apr 2, 2:58 pm, Phil Hobbs <pcdhSpamMeSensel...@electrooptical.net
wrote:
On 04/02/2013 10:10 AM, George Herold wrote:





On Mar 29, 7:27 pm, "M. Hamed" <mhdpub...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Friday, March 29, 2013 12:53:49 PM UTC-7, Phil Hobbs wrote:

Got 8 bucks? http://tinyurl.com/d43sotz

You got me.

(Making shelf space)

As an undergrad we used a book by Ben Streetman. ("solid state
electronic devices")
I've got the second edition of that which is a bit like Sze but at a
lower level.
I notice it's up to it's 6th edition and you can get earlier ones of ~
$4.00 ($0.01 plus s&h.)

Sze is nice but it is a bit of a tome. (No one but Phil H. is going
to read it like a novel... :^)

George H.

Nah, I didn't say he had to follow all the math in his head, any more
than I would. You just get the overview of where the book is going, and
then go back and dig into the non-obvious parts. It's about the fastest
way to come up to speed in a new field that I know of.

Grin... I was mostly just poking fun at you.

I do agree with your approach to a new field.
Which for me is to get a good *undergrad* text on the subject and read
through it... ignoring the math (mostly). Then go back and re-read
what you are interested in. My only (minor) observation is that Sze
is not an undergrad text... and I was suggesting something pitched a
bit lower.

Maybe that would be better. I found undergraduate solid state books
really unsatisfactory, though, because they try to avoid having you know
about Bloch waves, chemical potential, and aliasing. All that mumbo
jumbo about k vectors crossing one edge of the Brillouin zone and
magically reappearing at the other edge...when actually all that's
happening is aliasing.

Of course the way stat mech is usually taught isn't too helpful
either--calling an open thermodynamic system a "grand canonical
ensemble" is about as stuffy as stuffy gets. (But then I'm just being
bad-tempered.)

The undergrad semiconductor physics I've seen are also typically very
unphysical when it comes to things like photoconductors, where the
carrier lifetime can be much longer than the transit time, but the
carriers don't disappear when they get to the contacts.

Basically I get impatient with technical topics that are just presented
as something to memorize rather than to understand. It gives me
nightmares about organic chem class.

Cheers

Phil Hobbs

--
Dr Philip C D Hobbs
Principal Consultant
ElectroOptical Innovations LLC
Optics, Electro-optics, Photonics, Analog Electronics

160 North State Road #203
Briarcliff Manor NY 10510 USA
+1 845 480 2058

hobbs at electrooptical dot net
http://electrooptical.net

 

[George Herold]

On Apr 2, 3:52 pm, k...@attt.bizz wrote:

On Tue, 2 Apr 2013 07:10:28 -0700 (PDT), George Herold

gher...@teachspin.com> wrote:
On Mar 29, 7:27 pm, "M. Hamed" <mhdpub...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Friday, March 29, 2013 12:53:49 PM UTC-7, Phil Hobbs wrote:

Got 8 bucks?  http://tinyurl.com/d43sotz

You got me.

(Making shelf space)

As an undergrad we used a book by Ben Streetman. ("solid state
electronic devices")

Ben Streetman was my undergrad advisor.  Good guy but was none too
happy when I first dropped the (required) course.  The prof wasn't
teaching and I wasn't getting. I took it again the next semester, with
him teaching, and had no problems.

I always tell undergrads to pick their courses, not by the subject
matter, but by who is teaching them. This means taking courses out of
'sequence' sometimes, but I never found that to be much of a problem.
(And sometimes there is no good teacher and you have to learn it on
your own...)

I have no memory of the class wherein I used Streetman's book. I
rediscovered it on my shelf in grad school.

George H.

I've got the second edition of that which is a bit like Sze but at a
lower level.
I notice it's up to it's 6th edition and you can get earlier ones of ~
$4.00  ($0.01 plus s&h.)

Sze is nice but it is a bit of a tome.  (No one but Phil H. is going
to read it like a novel... :^)

George H.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

 

[Jim Thompson]

On Wed, 03 Apr 2013 11:14:08 -0400, Phil Hobbs
<pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> wrote:

On 4/3/2013 9:06 AM, George Herold wrote:
On Apr 2, 2:58 pm, Phil Hobbs <pcdhSpamMeSensel...@electrooptical.net
wrote:
On 04/02/2013 10:10 AM, George Herold wrote:





On Mar 29, 7:27 pm, "M. Hamed" <mhdpub...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Friday, March 29, 2013 12:53:49 PM UTC-7, Phil Hobbs wrote:

Got 8 bucks? http://tinyurl.com/d43sotz

You got me.

(Making shelf space)

As an undergrad we used a book by Ben Streetman. ("solid state
electronic devices")
I've got the second edition of that which is a bit like Sze but at a
lower level.
I notice it's up to it's 6th edition and you can get earlier ones of ~
$4.00 ($0.01 plus s&h.)

Sze is nice but it is a bit of a tome. (No one but Phil H. is going
to read it like a novel... :^)

George H.

Nah, I didn't say he had to follow all the math in his head, any more
than I would. You just get the overview of where the book is going, and
then go back and dig into the non-obvious parts. It's about the fastest
way to come up to speed in a new field that I know of.

Grin... I was mostly just poking fun at you.

I do agree with your approach to a new field.
Which for me is to get a good *undergrad* text on the subject and read
through it... ignoring the math (mostly). Then go back and re-read
what you are interested in. My only (minor) observation is that Sze
is not an undergrad text... and I was suggesting something pitched a
bit lower.

Maybe that would be better. I found undergraduate solid state books
really unsatisfactory, though, because they try to avoid having you know
about Bloch waves, chemical potential, and aliasing. All that mumbo
jumbo about k vectors crossing one edge of the Brillouin zone and
magically reappearing at the other edge...when actually all that's
happening is aliasing.

Of course the way stat mech is usually taught isn't too helpful
either--calling an open thermodynamic system a "grand canonical
ensemble" is about as stuffy as stuffy gets. (But then I'm just being
bad-tempered.)

The undergrad semiconductor physics I've seen are also typically very
unphysical when it comes to things like photoconductors, where the
carrier lifetime can be much longer than the transit time, but the
carriers don't disappear when they get to the contacts.

Basically I get impatient with technical topics that are just presented
as something to memorize rather than to understand. It gives me
nightmares about organic chem class.

Cheers

Phil Hobbs

You, too, huh? I memorized my way to an "A" in organic chem, then
went out to the Harvard Bridge and threw the books into the Charles
;-)

...Jim Thompson
--
| James E.Thompson | mens |
| Analog Innovations | et |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus |
| Phoenix, Arizona 85048 Skype: Contacts Only | |
| Voice480)460-2350 Fax: Available upon request | Brass Rat |
| E-mail Icon at http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |

I love to cook with wine. Sometimes I even put it in the food.

 

[Jim Thompson]

On Wed, 3 Apr 2013 12:48:32 -0700 (PDT), George Herold
<gherold@teachspin.com> wrote:

On Apr 3, 11:25 am, Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-I...@On-My-
Web-Site.com> wrote:
On Wed, 03 Apr 2013 11:14:08 -0400, Phil Hobbs

[snip]
 I memorized my way to an "A" in organic chem, then
went out to the Harvard Bridge and threw the books into the Charles
;-)

Hmm I think you were supposed to 'cook' the book in a H2SO4 3 molar
solution at 60C for 30 minutes before throwing it in the
Charles. :^)

George H.

I actually regret doing that. I tossed both semesters', inorganic and
organic. Since then I've had occasion to need to deal with some
electrochemical circuits... and had to buy some books to get back up
to speed. (The Charles devoured some very good notes :-(

...Jim Thompson
--
| James E.Thompson | mens |
| Analog Innovations | et |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus |
| Phoenix, Arizona 85048 Skype: Contacts Only | |
| Voice480)460-2350 Fax: Available upon request | Brass Rat |
| E-mail Icon at http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |

I love to cook with wine. Sometimes I even put it in the food.

 

[George Herold]

On Apr 3, 11:14 am, Phil Hobbs
<pcdhSpamMeSensel...@electrooptical.net> wrote:

On 4/3/2013 9:06 AM, George Herold wrote:





On Apr 2, 2:58 pm, Phil Hobbs <pcdhSpamMeSensel...@electrooptical.net
wrote:
On 04/02/2013 10:10 AM, George Herold wrote:

On Mar 29, 7:27 pm, "M. Hamed" <mhdpub...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Friday, March 29, 2013 12:53:49 PM UTC-7, Phil Hobbs wrote:

Got 8 bucks?  http://tinyurl.com/d43sotz

You got me.

(Making shelf space)

As an undergrad we used a book by Ben Streetman. ("solid state
electronic devices")
I've got the second edition of that which is a bit like Sze but at a
lower level.
I notice it's up to it's 6th edition and you can get earlier ones of ~
$4.00  ($0.01 plus s&h.)

Sze is nice but it is a bit of a tome.  (No one but Phil H. is going
to read it like a novel... :^)

George H.

Nah, I didn't say he had to follow all the math in his head, any more
than I would.  You just get the overview of where the book is going, and
then go back and dig into the non-obvious parts.  It's about the fastest
way to come up to speed in a new field that I know of.

Grin... I was mostly just poking fun at you.

I do agree with your approach to a new field.
Which for me is to get a good *undergrad* text on the subject and read
through it... ignoring the math (mostly).   Then go back and re-read
what you are interested in.  My only (minor) observation is that Sze
is not an undergrad text... and I was suggesting something pitched a
bit lower.

Maybe that would be better.  I found undergraduate solid state books
really unsatisfactory, though, because they try to avoid having you know
about Bloch waves, chemical potential, and aliasing.  All that mumbo
jumbo about k vectors crossing one edge of the Brillouin zone and
magically reappearing at the other edge...when actually all that's
happening is aliasing.

Well sure one should always start with the exteneded zone scheme
before doing the folded zone thingie. I'm not sure Streetman does
any of that. (I'm pretty sure he's an EE.) I saw this nice talk at
the last APS meeting about optical lattices, and they use all the
solid state 'language' of Bloch states. It's pretty cool, cause they
can change the lattice parameters with just a tweak of the laser.

Of course the way stat mech is usually taught isn't too helpful
either--calling an open thermodynamic system a "grand canonical
ensemble" is about as stuffy as stuffy gets.  (But then I'm just being
bad-tempered.)

The undergrad semiconductor physics I've seen are also typically very
unphysical when it comes to things like photoconductors, where the
carrier lifetime can be much longer than the transit time, but the
carriers don't disappear when they get to the contacts.

Gotta leave something for grad school :^)

Basically I get impatient with technical topics that are just presented
as something to memorize rather than to understand.  It gives me
nightmares about organic chem class.

Ouch! Organic chem was my only C, I never got it and I'm not smart
enough to memorize it all.

I've always wanted to go back and do it over. There must be some
underlying principles that I just missed. (Maybe too much beer
drinking during the first weeks of the semester?)

George H.

Cheers

Phil Hobbs

--
Dr Philip C D Hobbs
Principal Consultant
ElectroOptical Innovations LLC
Optics, Electro-optics, Photonics, Analog Electronics

160 North State Road #203
Briarcliff Manor NY 10510 USA
+1 845 480 2058

hobbs at electrooptical dot nethttp://electrooptical.net- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

 

[George Herold]

On Apr 3, 11:25 am, Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-I...@On-My-
Web-Site.com> wrote:

On Wed, 03 Apr 2013 11:14:08 -0400, Phil Hobbs





pcdhSpamMeSensel...@electrooptical.net> wrote:
On 4/3/2013 9:06 AM, George Herold wrote:
On Apr 2, 2:58 pm, Phil Hobbs <pcdhSpamMeSensel...@electrooptical.net
wrote:
On 04/02/2013 10:10 AM, George Herold wrote:

On Mar 29, 7:27 pm, "M. Hamed" <mhdpub...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Friday, March 29, 2013 12:53:49 PM UTC-7, Phil Hobbs wrote:

Got 8 bucks?  http://tinyurl.com/d43sotz

You got me.

(Making shelf space)

As an undergrad we used a book by Ben Streetman. ("solid state
electronic devices")
I've got the second edition of that which is a bit like Sze but at a
lower level.
I notice it's up to it's 6th edition and you can get earlier ones of ~
$4.00  ($0.01 plus s&h.)

Sze is nice but it is a bit of a tome.  (No one but Phil H. is going
to read it like a novel... :^)

George H.

Nah, I didn't say he had to follow all the math in his head, any more
than I would.  You just get the overview of where the book is going, and
then go back and dig into the non-obvious parts.  It's about the fastest
way to come up to speed in a new field that I know of.

Grin... I was mostly just poking fun at you.

I do agree with your approach to a new field.
Which for me is to get a good *undergrad* text on the subject and read
through it... ignoring the math (mostly).   Then go back and re-read
what you are interested in.  My only (minor) observation is that Sze
is not an undergrad text... and I was suggesting something pitched a
bit lower.

Maybe that would be better.  I found undergraduate solid state books
really unsatisfactory, though, because they try to avoid having you know
about Bloch waves, chemical potential, and aliasing.  All that mumbo
jumbo about k vectors crossing one edge of the Brillouin zone and
magically reappearing at the other edge...when actually all that's
happening is aliasing.

Of course the way stat mech is usually taught isn't too helpful
either--calling an open thermodynamic system a "grand canonical
ensemble" is about as stuffy as stuffy gets.  (But then I'm just being
bad-tempered.)

The undergrad semiconductor physics I've seen are also typically very
unphysical when it comes to things like photoconductors, where the
carrier lifetime can be much longer than the transit time, but the
carriers don't disappear when they get to the contacts.

Basically I get impatient with technical topics that are just presented
as something to memorize rather than to understand.  It gives me
nightmares about organic chem class.

Cheers

Phil Hobbs

You, too, huh?  I memorized my way to an "A" in organic chem, then
went out to the Harvard Bridge and threw the books into the Charles
;-)

Hmm I think you were supposed to 'cook' the book in a H2SO4 3 molar
solution at 60C for 30 minutes before throwing it in the
Charles. :^)

George H.

                                        ...Jim Thompson
--
| James E.Thompson                                 |    mens     |
| Analog Innovations                               |     et      |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems  |    manus    |
| Phoenix, Arizona  85048    Skype: Contacts Only  |             |
| Voice480)460-2350  Fax: Available upon request |  Brass Rat  |
| E-mail Icon athttp://www.analog-innovations.com|    1962     |

I love to cook with wine.     Sometimes I even put it in the food.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -