Talk:Gunn diode

Gunn diode

In a Gunn effect diode (eg:GaAs diode)the main principle used is that a differential resistance region is formed when a very high DC voltage is applied to a multi-valley compound.when the applied voltage reaches the threshhold value there is the formation of a high field domain which causes current to drop considerably.gunn diode has four oscillation modes 1)Gunn oscillation mode 2)staable amplification mode 3)LSA oscillation mode 4)Bias circuit oscillation mode --61.1.225.137 17:58, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Who's "Gunn"?

Who is the Gunn diode named after? Or why is it a proper noun?? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 213.48.15.234 (talk • contribs).

Our article Scientific phenomena named after people#G says it's named after John Battiscombe Gunn; please feel free to be bold and add that to the article!

Atlant 12:10, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

---

Bibliography of 1968 Herbert Kroemer paper

This paper appears in: Spectrum, IEEE Issue Date: Jan. 1968 Volume: 5 Issue:1 On page(s): 47 - 56 ISSN: 0018-9235 Digital Object Identifier: 10.1109/MSPEC.1968.5215632 Date of Current Version: 25 August 2009 Sponsored by: IEEE Abstract

Until recently, investigators have been frustrated in their attempts at applying microwave and millimeter-wave frequencies to semiconductor devices. During the last few years, the discovery of avalanche transit-time and Gunn effects in bulk semiconductors has been met with overwhelming enthusiasm. The successful fabrication of models presently utilizing these negative-conductance phenomena has given these high-frequency devices an optimistic outlook for the future. References

  1. "Special Issue on Semiconductor Bulk-Effect and Transit-Time Devices",  IEEE Trans. Electron Devices,  vol. ED-13,  pp. 1966. 
  2. R. L. Johnston , B. C. DeLoach and B. G. Cohen   "A silicon diode microwave oscillator",  Bell System Tech. J.,  vol. 44,  pp. 369 1965. 
  3. W. T. Read   "A proposed high-frequency negative-resistance diode",  Bell System Tech. J.,  vol. 37,  pp. 401 1958. 
  4. J. B. Gunn   "Microwave oscillations of current in III-V semiconductors",  Solid-State Commun.,  vol. 1,  pp. 88 1963. 
  5. J. B. Gunn   "Instabilities of current in III-V semiconductors",  IBM J. Res. Develop.,  vol. 8,  pp. 141 1964. 
  6. J. B. Gunn   "Instabilities of current and of potential distribution in GaAs and InP",  Symp. Plasma Effects Solids,  pp. 1964. 
  7. M. E. Hines   "Noise theory for the Read type avalanche diode",  IEEE Trans. Electron Devices,  vol. ED-13,  pp. 158 1966. 
  8. J. Josenhans   "Noise spectra of Read diode and Gunn oscillators",  Proc. IEEE,  vol. 54,  pp. 1478 1966. 
  9. L. S. Bowman and C. A. Burrus Jr.  "Pulse-driven silicon p-n junction avalanche oscillators for the 0.9- to 20-mm band",  IEEE Trans. Electron Devices,  vol. ED-14,  pp. 1967. 
 10. B. K. Ridley and T. B. Watkins   "The possibility of negative resistance effects in semiconductors",  Proc. Phys. Soc. (London),  vol. 78,  pp. 293 1961. 
 11. C. Hilsum   "Transferred electron amplifiers and oscillators",  Proc. IRE,  vol. 50,  pp. 185 1962. 
 12. H. Kroemer   "Theory of the Gunn effect",  Proc. IEEE,  vol. 52,  pp. 1736 1964. 
 13. J. B. Gunn and B. J. Elliott   "Measurement of the negative differential mobility of electrons in GaAs",  Phys. Letters,  vol. 22,  pp. 369 1966. 
 14. D. M. Chang and J.L. Moll   "Direct observation of the drift velocity as a function of the electric field in gallium arsenide",  Appl. Phys. Letters,  vol. 9,  pp. 283 1966. 
 15. H. W. Thim   "Potential distribution and field dependence of electron velocity in bulk GaAs measured with a point contact probe",  Electron. Letters,  vol. 2,  pp. 403 1966. 
 16. J. G. Ruch and G. S. Kino   "Measurements of the velocity-field characteristic of gallium arsenide",  Appl. Phys. Letters,  vol. 10,  pp. 40 1967. 
 17. G. A. Acket   "Determination of the negative differential mobility of n-type gallium arsenide using 8 mm microwaves",  Phys. Letters,  vol. 24A,  pp. 200 1967. 
 18. J. S. Heeks   "Some properties of the moving high-field domain in Gunn effect devices",  IEEE Trans. Electron Devices,  vol. ED-13,  pp. 68 1966. 
 19. P. N. Butcher and W. Fawcett   "Calculation of the velocity-field characteristic for gallium arsenide",  Phys. Letters,  vol. 21,  pp. 489 1966. 
 20. H. Ehrenreich   "Band structure and electron transport of GaAs",  Phys. Rev.,  vol. 120,  pp. 1951 1960. 
 21. J. W. Allen , M. Shyam and G. L. Pearson   "Gunn oscillations in indium arsenide",  Appl. Phys. Letters,  vol. 9,  pp. 39 1966. 
 22. A. G. Foyt and A. L. McWhorter   "The Gunn effect in polar semiconductors",  IEEE Trans. Electron Devices,  vol. ED-13,  pp. 79 1966. 
 23. G. W. Ludwig , R. E. Halsted and M. S. Aven   "Current saturation and instability CdTe and ZnSe",  IEEE Trans. Electron Devices,  vol. ED-13,  pp. 671 1966. 
 24. J. A. Copeland   "A new mode of operation for bulk negative-resistance oscillators",  Proc. IEEE,  vol. 54,  pp. 1479 1966. 
 25. J. A. Copeland   "LSA oscillator diode theory",  J. Appl. Phys.,  vol. 38,  pp. 3096 1967. 
 26. A. J. Shuskus and M. P. Shaw   "Current instabilities in gallium arsenide",  Proc. IEEE,  vol. 53,  pp. 1804 1965. 
 27. M. P. Shaw and A. J. Shuskus   "Current instability above the Gunn threshold",  Proc. IEEE,  vol. 54,  pp. 1580 1966. 
 28. J. A. Copeland   "CW operation of LSA oscillator diodes 44 to 88 GHz",  Bell Syst. Tech. J.,  vol. 46,  pp. 284 1967. 
 29. J. A. Copeland and R. R. Spiwak   "LSA operation of bulk n-GaAs diodes",  1967 Internat'l Solid-State Circuit Conf.,  pp.
 30. K. Kennedy   Negative conductance in bulk gallium arsenide of high frequencies,  pp. 1966. 
 31. B. K. Ridley   "Specific negative resistance in solids",  Proc. Phys. Soc. (London),  vol. 82,  pp. 954 1963. 
 32. H. Kroemer   "Nonlinear space-charge domain dynamics in a semiconductor with negative differential mobility",  IEEE Trans. Electron Devices,  vol. ED-13,  pp. 27 1966. 
 33. D. E. McCumber and A. G. Chynoweth   "Theory of negative-conductance amplification and of Gunn instabilities in `two valley' semiconductors",  IEEE Trans. Electron Devices,  vol. ED-13,  pp. 4 1966. 
 34. W. Shockley   "Negative resistance arising from transit time in semiconductor diodes",  Bell System Tech. J.,  vol. 33,  pp. 799 1954. 
 35. H. W. Thim , M. R. Barber , B. W. Hakki , S. Knight and M. Uenohara   "Microwave amplification in a dc-biased bulk semiconductor",  Appl. Phys. Letters,  vol. 7,  pp. 167 1965. 
 36. B. W. Hakki and S. Knight   "Microwave phenomena in bulk GaAs",  IEEE Trans. Electron Devices,  vol. ED-13,  pp. 94 1966. 
 37. H. W. Thim and M. R. Barber   "Microwave amplification in a GaAs bulk semiconductor",  IEEE Trans. Electron Devices,  vol. ED-13,  pp. 110 1966. 
 38. A. G. Foyt and T. M. Quist   "Bulk GaAs microwave amplifiers",  IEEE Trans. Electron Devices,  vol. ED-13,  pp. 199 1966. 
 39. B. W. Hakki and J. P. Beccone   "Microwave negative conductance of bulk GaAs",  Proc. IEEE,  vol. 54,  pp. 916 1966. 
 40. A. L. McWhorter and A. G. Foyt   "Bulk GaAs negative conductance amplifiers",  Appl. Phys. Letters,  vol. 9,  pp. 300 1966. 
 41. H. W. Thim   "Temperature effects in bulk GaAs amplifiers",  IEEE Trans. Electron Devices,  vol. ED-14,  pp. 59 1967. 
 42. H. Kroemer   Detailed theory of the negative conductance of bulk negative mobility amplifiers, in the limit of zero ion density,  pp.
 43. J. B. Gunn   "Properties of a free, steadily traveling electrical domain in GaAs",  IBM J. Res. Develop.,  vol. 10,  pp. 300 1966. 
 44. J. E. Carroll   "Oscillations coveting 4 Gc/s to 31 Gc/s from a single Gunn Diode",  Electron Letters,  vol. 2,  pp. 141 1966. 
 45. J. E. Carroll   "Resonant-circuit operation of Gunn diodes: a self-pumped parametric oscillator",  Electron. Letters,  vol. 2,  pp. 215 1966. 
 46. "Second Special Issue on Semiconductor Bulk-Effect and Transit-Time Devices",  IEEE Trans. Electron Devices,  vol. ED-14,  pp. 1967.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Michael P. Barnett (talk • contribs) 16:45, 18 December 2010 (UTC) 

transferred from J. B. Gunn as per suggestion of GyroMagician

I lost it. How do I get it back. I assume it is in history somewhere, and can be got back by undo, and then undoing again, but looks as if you made a change after I did. Michael P. Barnett (talk) 23:05, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

If you are talking about the book reference, it is still there in the J. B. Gunn article. Jpg1954 (talk) 23:51, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks -- "The simple accounts<ref>[http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9038528/Gunn-effect Encyclopedia Britannica: the Gunn Effect]</ref><ref>[http://www.members.nae.edu/nae/naepub.nsf/Members+By+UNID/923BDB7128F78AB386257552006229B1?opendocument National Academy of Engineering entry]</ref> of the Gunn effect are from standard on-line sources. The account<ref>Holgate, S.A. Understanding Solid State Physics, Taylor and Francis, London, 2009.</ref> provides text-book coverage." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Michael P. Barnett (talk • contribs) 00:06, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Should we also copy the Patent and Gunn's 1963 paper reference her?

Jpg1954 (talk) 05:22, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

cite journal

 | author=J. B. Gunn
 | year=1963
 | title=Microwave Oscillation of Current in III-V Semiconductors
 | journal=Solid State Communications
 | volume=1 
 | pages=88
 | doi=10.1016/0038-1098(63)90041-3

Citation

| inventor-last = Gunn
| inventor-first = J. B. 
| publication-date = 12 June 1964
| issue-date = 23 January 1968
| title = Electric field responsive solid state devices
| country-code = US
| description =
| patent-number = 3365583 Jpg1954 (talk) 16:18, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Should probably also refer to te Linz paper. URL is http://www.nhn.ou.edu/~johnson/Education/Juniorlab/Microwave/Gunn%20Effect.pdf

but I can't figure out how to reference it. The heading at the top makes it look as if it is Gunn's 1963 paper, but it is clearly much later, and written by someone else. The list of applications leaves out his favorite- Urinal sensors in Paris. I don't know why, but he always got a big kick out of that. Jpg1954 (talk) 19:02, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Some books on Gunn effect

1. Title: The Gunn effect / G. S. Hobson. Published/Created: Oxford : Clarendon Press, 1974. Physical Description: ix, 130 p. : ill. ; 24 cm. Series: Monographs in electrical and electronic engineering

2. Title: Gunn-effect logic devices [by] Hans L. Hartnagel. Published/Created: New York, American Elsevier Pub. Co. [1973] Physical Description: xiv, 138 p. illus. 25 cm.

3. Title: The Gunn-Hilsum effect / Melvin P. Shaw, Harold L. Grubin, and Peter R. Solomon. Published/Created: New York : Academic Press, 1979. Physical Description: xviii, 250 p. : ill. ; 24 cm.

4. Title: Noise in IMPATT-diode oscillators. Published/Created: Eindhoven : Philips Research Laboratories, 1973. Physical Description: 115 p. : ill. ; 24 cm. Series: Philips research reports : Supplements ; 1973, no. 7

5. Title: Transferred electron devices, by P. J. Bulman, G. S. Hobson and B. C. Taylor. Published/Created: London, New York, Academic Press, 1972.

Did not have time to look at these today. May be unable to do so before next week. Interesting that item 3 has title Gunn-Hilsum effect. Might this mean we can combine the two articles?

The key words associated with each of these books in the catalog of a major library include "Gunn effect". My mistake earlier was searching for books on Solid State Physics as such. The Holgate book is not in the library. The most recent hard copy textbook with title retrieved by search on "solid state physics" is Solid state physics: essential concepts by David W. Snoke, Addison-Wesley, 2009. There is no mention of transistor, let alone Gunn effect, in its index. An online text, translated from Hungarian, published by Springer, returned 0 hits from an entire free text search for Gunn. Michael P. Barnett (talk) 22:42, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

I went to Amazon, and searched on Gunn effect to see if I could find soemthing more recent, and found this: http://www.amazon.com/Nonlinear-Wave-Methods-Charge-Transport/dp/3527406956/ref=sr_1_12?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1292897900&sr=1-12 Title: Nonlinear Wave Methods for Charge Transport by Luis L. Bonilla and Stephen W. Teitsworth Published Wiley-VCH (March 16, 2010) Partial table of contents includes a chapter titled "Electric Field Domains in Bulk Semiconductors I: the Gunn Effect". It appears to have 45 pages in that section so that is another candidate. You can actually search in the book, and it does refer to Hilsum, Kroemer, and, in passing, Chynoweth. Jpg1954 (talk) 02:55, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Great. Maybe somewhere in article something along the lines

"The Gunn effect, and its relation to the Watkins-Ridley-Hilsum effect entered the monograph literature in the early 1970s, e.g. in books on transferred electron devices

<ref>P. J. Bulman, G. S. Hobson and B. C. Taylor. ''Transferred electron devices'', Academic Press, New York, 1972</ref>

and, more recently on nonlinear wave methods for charge transport

<ref> Luis L. Bonilla and Stephen W. Teitsworth, ''Nonlinear Wave Methods for Charge Transport'', Wiley-VCH, 2010.</ref>.

Several other books that provided the same coverage were published in the intervening years, and can be found by searching library and bookseller catalogues on Gunn effect".

Maybe get Bonilla to vet the article or better still contribute http://scala.uc3m.es/bonilla/bonilla.html

Re earlier question about including references to patent and to relevant Gunn paper absolutely yes Michael P. Barnett (talk) 03:29, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Another possible ref http://www.wsjx.zjwu.net/D/class/1081009-2090303/web/ziliao/Milestonesofmicrowaves.pdf

IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON MICROWAVE THEORY AND TECHNIQUES, VOL. 50, NO. 3, MARCH 2002

Milestones of Microwaves Harold Sobol, Life Fellow, IEEE, and Kiyo Tomiyasu, Life Fellow, IEEE

And within that, refs [70] to [77] Jpg1954 (talk) 16:54, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

---

Copy editing

I rearranged the article and brought in material from Discussion page and Linz (or Oklahoma) paper to make article look coherent, continuous, structured, without terminological loose ends, and without red herrings. BUT I did not check that hyperlinks work (several could not have worked before -- they started in lower case). Also, I may have achieved the result that worries me most about WP articles -- looking ok to the uninitiated but wildly misleading as regards fact and perspective. The applications in the Oklahoma paper seems disjoint from the amateur radio and these seem disjoint from the injector (but I do not know about oscillator) applications. And they may be totally subsumed by applications in the monographs. So some checking needs to be done. Would be nice to link here from WP articles on applications. Michael P. Barnett (talk) 20:26, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Bonilla

Is it time to consult a recognized authority. As the only one of us using actual name, should I email him? Michael P. Barnett (talk) 01:48, 7 January 2011 (UTC) yes, better if it comes from you. Jpg1954 (talk) 02:31, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

hyperlink

On my home office PC, the [[Gunn]] at the very beginning is not displayed in the colour that indicates a hyperlink, because it is bold face. I went to Edit mode to "fix" it and saw that it is there, in double brackets. Might the link [[Gunn]] be worked in again, a bit later in the lead (lede?) to make sure no-one loses out on the link. Michael P. Barnett (talk) 03:39, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

There are a few sentences later in the lede that talk about the general effect and history/discovery, where the name is linked. I think the lede does need an overhaul...talks so much right away about the design of the device rather than about its notable effect, which seems likely to scare away readers who don't already know something about this field. DMacks (talk) 05:47, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

reference 1 and expert opinion

I filled out reference 1 to make bibliographic information visible before clicking on link to website. However, I do not know how to code diacritical marks and would be grateful if someone who does could alter the names of the authors to put these in by reference to the paper reached by clicking on link to website. I emailed one of the authors for referral to expert. Bonilla seems more mathematical. Michael P. Barnett (talk) 01:59, 15 January 2011 (UTC)Michael P. Barnett (talk) 04:13, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Diacritic added to name Gružinskis (just needed to copy and paste the character or entire name from the website) --catslash (talk) 16:24, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Comments Feb 23 2011

The technical content of this article is outside my field of expertize. For precisely that reason, I am uneasy about it. I got through the first ten words

"A Gunn diode, also known as a transferred electron device (TED) ..."

and ground to a halt. I think this is because I thought I had heard people talking about transferred electron devices a long time ago, in a way that was not synonymous with Gunn diode. Now I have learned from Wikipedia articles within my field of expertize that many, perhaps a majority, are wildly incorrect. I do not take WK articles on trust and I ran A Google search on "transferred electron device".

This gives as the 5th hit, "TRANSFERRED ELECTRON DEVICES United States Patent 3673469: A transferred electron device, such as an oscillator, [that may contain] a Schottky barrier diode... " In my ignorance, I think one use of a Gunn diode is as PART of an oscillator. And I think of a diode as a device that lets current pass in one direction, and an oscillator as a device that emits a signal which oscillates back and forth.

The 7th hit is "Recent developments in transferred electron devices" REVIEW ARTICLE, G S Hobson 1974 J. Phys. E: Sci. Instrum. 7 229. The conclusion begins "This brief review of transferred electron devices [note plural] ... such as self-oscillating mixers, direct frequency demodulation without discrimination, ..." Now, might someone like me who does not know what these terms mean, think that there are many kinds of "transferred electon devices" and also wonder why the author of this article refers in most of the paper to transferred electron devices, and only occasionally to "Gunn diode".

Maybe the terms are interchangeable, maybe they are not. But if the sentence can stop me, might it stop other people raising the question of whether the opening sentence of a lede should be free of content that can set some readers on a Google search that can confuse them. But who can be the arbiter of such an issue?

As regards the Gunn diode being unusual. How many Gunn diodes are in equipment that I pass every day, in contrast to diodes of other kinds? Does numerical majority make something unusual (besides being most common)? Might it be better to write something like "the Gunn diode allows current to pass in one direction because of a phenomenon that Gunn discovered that uses a principle which was unexpected [surprising, quite different from those used previsoulsy].

On to np and pn junctions. Might there be readers who would appreciate something more like "it consists of a sandwich [or an open sandwich], of something-one and something-two [and something-three] that are, respectively, rich and poor [and rich] [or the other way round] when in contact, because they come from group something and group something else of the periodic table. [Or whatever adaptation needed for accuracy] This would enfrachise a lot of people, including many with graduate degrees in science and engineering who did not take course on electronics or sold state physics to continuing to read the article.

The rest of the lede digs deeper and deeper to the point that I wonder if anyone can understand it who does not know it already. But maybe I am just unusually ignorant relative to typical WK reader seeking information from articles like this. I dug back to see how long the mention of transfer electron device has been in. The change was made on 31 July 2005 on the strength of an article in the newsletter of an electronics company [1] -- I defer to the experts on whether this is a masterpiece of clarity and accuracy. Sorry to bob up with it now.Michael P. Barnett (talk) 01:24, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

I THINK "All Gunn Diodes are TEDs, but not all TEDs are Gunn Diodes"

It MAY be that the Gunn diode was the first actual instance of a TED. But I am not sure.

We need an expert. Jpg1954 (talk) 03:33, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes; I think so, too, but am not sure, too; I received authoritative opinion a short while ago that begins "It depends on whether you want to avoid controversy!" It will take me a while to figure out what, if anything, I should write here. I cannot think of anything I want less at the moment than controversy. Michael P. Barnett (talk) 21:22, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

More clearly: I also think Gunn diodes are a subset of TEDs, and that the Gunn diode may have been the first TED, and that we need an expert, two have responded and I do not know how to proceed on strength of their comments. Michael P. Barnett (talk) 02:44, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

I have re-read carefully article about the Gunn diode and the Watkins-Ridley-Hilsum effect and the email I received pertaining to these. The correspondent offered to help further and has pointed out problems with Gunn diode article, and with possible destinations for moving the WRH article. It is possible that the Gunn diode article could be restructured and patched, by someone who has detailed understanding of the nuances of terminology and a willingness to puzzle out how to retain existing passages. But for whom is it intended? I think it should be much shorter (and so does the authority who answered my email -- is WK the place for material as specialized as the articles contain at present -- how many people who could understand them would turn to WK instead of a text. Sorting out these questions will be very time consuming, and potentially contentious, given the number of people who have obviously put a lot of work into building it to the present level. Improving these articles is worth while. But there are several articles on scientific matters to which I should give much higher priority, because I have recollection of topics that should be mentioned and how to obtain verifiability for these, and which link to trees of articles that are disastrously inaccurate, presenting further problems of how to avoid leading readers to misleading material. The best I can suggest for Gunn diode is for another author concerned with it to find a way to establish email contact with the expert who answered mine. But that blows the anonymity which I have not sought. And I have qualms about getting anyone else involved in the wiki legalisms that beset good faith efforts to contribute to WK. For early history, see Solid State Electronics 21, 5-8 1978. There was a festschrift for Brian Ridley at U Essex recently -- should be possible to get details. Michael P. Barnett (talk) 14:50, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

I have posted a request for expert help on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Physics. Not sure exactly how that works, but we will find out. Jpg1954 (talk) 23:44, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

WikiProjects

Physics and Electronics make sense. But why Chemistry? Jpg1954 (talk) 15:03, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Who mentioned Chemistry, and where? I have asked the physicist whose email I mentioned if he would be willing to participate directly, or by fielding questions that are posted by emailing answers to me to post. I think it would be very sad if WK cannot respond to offer we have had for help with this article. Michael P. Barnett (talk) 00:31, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Sorry -- just saw the article is categorized within Chemistry. I cannot think of any rationale for doing that. I ran a WebOfScience search on Gunn diode. None of the first 101 hits is in a journal that deals with chemistry. A couple described experiments that used Gunn diodes in an electronics set up. The 102nd is in Analytica Chimica Acta -- but the diode is deep in the electronics of the equipment. I think the categorization under Chemistry needs to be removed for credibility in the outside world. Michael P. Barnett (talk) 00:50, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

OK. I removed chemistry Jpg1954 (talk) 03:12, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

The Solid State Electronics paper cited above "Historical background of hot electron physics (a look over the shoulder) by Cyril Hilsum gives all that is needed for the history of Gunn diode. If no other editor interested in the Gunn diode has access to this, I will provide a precis that does not violate copyright. The paper begins "A field is mature when workers in it are either too young or too old to remember how it all started." It was written from RRE. I started process yesterday to get the proceedings of the conference on Band Structures that I put together at RRE digitized and on a durable website. Will take elapsed time of several weeks and there may be glitches, but hopeful. Michael P. Barnett (talk) 11:40, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

I can't find where it is "cited above", but it sounds like a useful source. Does the history differ significantly from what we already have? Or does it flesh it out? Does it answer the question about "Gunn diodes" and TEDs? Jpg1954 (talk) 13:38, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Earlier you said "In my ignorance, I think one use of a Gunn diode is as PART of an oscillator. And I think of a diode as a device that lets current pass in one direction, and an oscillator as a device that emits a signal which oscillates back and forth."

Given my understanding of a Gunn diode as "low voltage DC in -> high frequency AC out", I think the diode IS the oscillator. Jpg1954 (talk) 13:41, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

I am not disagreeing, just reinforcing the fact that I do not have enough understanding to do more than relay messages and to express concern when I do not understand what has been written. A web search on "Gunn oscillator" picks up web sites such as [2]. In this, Figure 5.6 has a boxed caption "Typical Gunn oscillator ..." and a label "Gunn diode" with a line associating this with a piece of the overall device. However, [3] is a blog in which several points of view are stated. Minimally, this suggests that the uninitiated can get the impression that terminology is not consistent. Which happens to more than Gunn devices. Michael P. Barnett (talk) 18:24, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Historical background ... by Cyril Hilsum (1978)

The article begins

HISTORICAL BACKGROUND OF HOT ELECTRON PHYSICS (A LOOK OVER THE SHOULDER), C. HILSUM, Royal Signals and Radar Establishment, Malvern, WORCS, England, Solid-State Electronics 1978 Vol. 21. pp. 5-8

"A field is mature when workers in it are either too young or too old to remember how it all started. ... two phases in this history ... prior to 1960 ... where the scene was set ... the next 5 years". "earliest work on high field effects in solids ... stimulated by ... dielectric breakdown ... theoretical papers ... in the 1930s ... most ... in Russian ... coherent attack ... started in 1947 ... Frohlich ... dielectric breakdown ... introduced ... concept of a hot electron ... supplemented ... by ... Franz, Kawamura, and Lehovec ... in 1951 Shockley ... high fields on homogeneous semiconductors ... limitation ... Yamashita and Inone, and Conwell ... 1958, Stratton ... approximate theories explaining electron and hole transport in high electric fields in both covalent and partly ionic semiconductors ... negative differential resistance at high electric fields, that is a decrease of drift velocity with an increase in voltage, came from Kroemer in 1953"

The article continues through the focus of experimentalists and theoreticians who worked on the problem. The article provides reminder of what technical terms mean, when the terms are introduced.

If this condensation does not approach copyright violation, it could be replaced by a slightly less terse version, that maintains fair use, or a paraphrase otherwise, and could be continued in this vein (I am willing to, over the next few days, and I could get authoritative opinion on what I drafted). How about a structure that consists of a lede along lines

"The Gunn diode is an inexpensive electronic device that is used in many kinds of equipment, that affect our daily lives, which is based on a physical principle discovered by Ian Gunn, and known as the Gunn effect. The experiments that led to this discovery and the interpretation of the results evolved through discussions by several theoretical and experimental scientists with different and, at times, conflicting viewpoints. The development of the present understanding became, in itself, a matter of interest." (then a sentence or two for each of the further sections appropriate to the lede indicating overall content of article).

Then maybe a simple explanation, that starts with one- or two-sentence free standing explanations of the terms "dielectric breakdown", "hot electron", "negative differential resistance" at the level of simplicity that just requires a general science background, continuing through the controversy, explaining each term that is used, when it is introduced (and I think there need be no more than five or six". Would this violate forking, NOR, NPOV guidelines?

Then avoid offending the editors who provided the explanations I do not understand, by retaining those as "A more technical explanation". Then a summary of applications? Michael P. Barnett (talk) 15:28, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Preservation of pseudonymity

I am willing (and have been authorized) to forward, by email, questions that other Editors wish to ask the authority with whom I am in dialogue and to post the replies. Maybe this is a solution to a more general problem.Michael P. Barnett (talk) 15:40, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

I am not overly concerned with preserving anonymity- I assume that anyone who has been following my contributions has deduced that I am one of Ian Gunn's daughters. But as such, I am not comfortable directly asking other people for their feedback on the Gunn dide, as they may either feel a need to "be polite", or the opposite. It is better if someone who is, and appears to be, more disinterested is the one asking the questions. Jpg1954 (talk) 19:51, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Herewith the substance of the earlier message that I have now edited into impersonality.

The history is well documented. Brian Ridley and Tom Watkins at the Mullard Research Labs calculated that if you strained Ge, you could get a negative differential resistance. At the same time, Cyril Hilsum was writing a book on III-V semiconductors, and independently did a calculation for GaAs which showed an NDR. His paper appeared a few months after theirs. He also gave the calculation at the Device Research Conference at Stanford, and during questions invited Brian on to the stage to present his calculation. He cannot swear that Ian was in the audience but he always came, and certainly IBM was there in strength.

Ian observed oscillations in GaAs over a year later. In a later apologia he said that he had considered electron transfer as the cause, but dismissed it because the field was lower than Hilsum's prediction of 3000v/cm. This was difficult to understand, since many of his samples oscillated at 3kV/cm. He also said that the noise temperature at 1000v/cm was only 400K and to get transfer you needed 4000K. In Hilsum's paper there was a figure which gave a temperature of 400K at 1000 v'cm, and less than 1000K at 3000 v/cm. Ian also said transfer would not give his observed domains moving through the sample, but Brian had shown in a second paper that an NDR would automatically cause domains to move from anode to cathode.

Everybody outside IBM, and quite few inside, said the Gunn Effect was electron transfer. Relationships between IBM and Bell Labs were not good, and they set out to show Ian was wrong. This they did by a pressure experiment. Kroemer, later to get a Nobel Prize, wrote a careful paper in which point by point he demolished Ian's objections. Actually, the scientists in the UK with an interest in the problem were not too bothered, because they knew it had to be electron transfer. They set about making oscillators, and rapidly got a world lead, with Mullard, Plessey, and STL all marketing the same device for miniradar.

After all this time, the respondent doubts if Wikipedia should include any of the above. Some of it has been published. There was a hot-electron conference in Denton, Texas, in 1977, and Hilsum was asked to open it. See Solid State Electronics 21, 5-8 1978. The respondent was surprised at the passions shown by the audience, who attacked Peter Price, the only IBM speaker, during question time, even after he protested that he had not been involved.

The respondent does not think you could subsume an entry on NDR into the existing one on negative resistance, because that is so general. Neither could it be included in the entry for Cyril Hilsum (for reasons MPB thinks are very valid, but does not include here).

The respondent thinks a very short article explaining that the lowest conduction levels in direct gap compounds give a high conductivity, because of the low effective mass, but there are many more states at higher energy, and in some semiconductors, notable GaAs and InP, such states are only a few tenths of an ev higher. Because the lattice-carrier interaction in these compounds is dominated by optical mode scattering, which breaks down at a few kV/cm, application of such a field will not cause electrical breakdown, but transfer, and then the sample has a much lower conductivity. The transition from high to low conductivity occurs over a small range in field, and an NDR is seen.

It would then be sensible to refer back to Shockley, who first wrote that a sample with an NDR was unstable, and would divide into a high field region and a low field region, and Brian showed that the high field region would move, giving domains.

The respondent hopes this helps, but if more detail is needed please say.

Brian Ridley celebrated 50 years in semiconductors two years ago, and there was a festschrift at Essex. He asked the respondent to talk about those days at length, so it is still fresh in the respondent's mind.

Hope this helps. My offer to edit Hilsum's paper mentioned earlier stands, but I do not think Jpg1954 editing it could be regarded as COI or inappropriate in any other respect. Michael P. Barnett (talk) 21:43, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Further clarification

from email message just received:

"Diode- this just means that there are two contacts. Some forms of diode are rectifiers, including junction diodes. The Gunn diode, and most TEDs, do not rectify, and either contact can be used as the anode.

TEDs- all TEDs involve electron transfer giving a negative differential resistance. That means that throughout some voltage range, the current decreases at the voltage increases. That situation is unstable, and there are a number of ways in which the instability is exploited. If the distance between anode and cathode is long, the actual critical length dpending on the electron concentration, the voltage along the device divides into two regions, with much of the full voltage appearing across a narrow domain. This domain will move cyclically from anode to cathode. This effect was first predicted by Brian Ridley and observed by Ian Gunn. That form of TED is called a Gunn Diode. The domain has a minimum width, and short samples cannot demonstrate the effect well. In those the mode of oscillation will be determined by the sample environment, and if this includes a resonant cavity, the sample will oscillate at that frequency without domains forming. This is still a Negative Resistance Device or a Transferred Electron Device, though not a Gunn Diode. Hence all Gunn Diodes are TEDs, but not all TEDs are Gunn Diodes. Of course, that does not stop some manufacturers from referring to their microwave oscillators as Gunn Diodes, even though no domains are passing."

this method of communication seems to be working! Michael P. Barnett (talk) 18:57, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

now see opening sentence of diode -- not our problem (at least, not mine! Michael P. Barnett (talk) 19:28, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

My question remains - how does Chenowyth fit in? As the IEEE Spectrum article makes clear, Ian considers that Chenowyth was the one who conclusively showed that it was a Transfered/Hot Electron efffect. Jpg1954 (talk) 06:43, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

The Kroemer bibliography includes the reference: D. E. McCumber and A. G. Chynoweth "Theory of negative-conductance amplification and of Gunn instabilities in `two valley' semiconductors", IEEE Trans. Electron Devices, vol. ED-13, pp. 4 1966. When I looked for the journal in an electronic journals database the name was not found. When I did a Web of Science search on D. E. McCumber and A. G. Chynoweth the reference was found. However, it is so far back getting to it can take a week of elapsed time. Let me know if you can get to it faster. I emailed Alan weeks ago but got no reply (I sent a message on the form on http://ebiz.netopia.com/fusfeldgroup/alanchynoweth/ You may do better Michael P. Barnett (talk) 18:00, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

This one John Voelcker (1989). "The Gunn effect: puzzling over noise". IEEE Spectrum. Jpg1954 (talk) 20:28, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/stamp/stamp.jsp?tp=&arnumber=29344&userType=mem

"The full explanation of the Gunn effect was delivered by Alan Chynoweth, of Bell Telephone Laboratories, at a crowded June 1965 conference in New York City. The Bell Labs data showed that only a transferred-electron mechanism could explain why hydrostatic pressure first decreased the threshold field and then suppressed the current oscillations. Electrons heated to transfer to states at higher energies in the conduction band behave like particles of greater mass, decreasing the average velocity of all electrons and producing a negative- conductivity effect."

Apologies for mis-spelling the name. Jpg1954 (talk) 20:44, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

The Voelcker paper states Alan gave the explanation. It does not state explicitly whether Alan was reporting his own results or speaking on behalf of other people at Bell. I ran a citation search on the McComber and Chynoweth paper and found GUNN EFFECT BIBLIOGRAPHY Source: I.E.E.E. transactions on electron devices [0018-9383] yr: 1968 vol: ED15 iss: 10 pg: 777 Will ask authority on topic tomorrow Michael P. Barnett (talk) 03:09, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Exactly! Jpg1954 (talk) 05:10, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Confusing Micorscopic Description

Most un-intuitive. There are (used to be more correct maybe) very simple and much more intuitive explanations, at least for the electrically inclined in freshman text books. In fact, label TED explains half of what is going on. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.229.112.98 (talk) 21:52, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree. That is why we are trying to find someone with the knowledge to revise it. Jpg1954 (talk) 13:59, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Interestingly enough, in spite of the extensive discussion here I just found out that much of the material is a copy and paste job from an educational site. I also found out that same is true for the RWH stub also. It does not even have the original RWH references included. Maybe I will start there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.229.112.98 (talk) 19:31, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Jpg1954 (talk) 20:18, 16 March 2011 (UTC) thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.18.177.106 (talk) 04:21, 2 December 2014 (UTC)