Talk:Transistor/Archive 4

This is an archive of past discussions about Transistor. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Origin of the name "transistor"

The Bell labs webpage Has a copy of the ballot used to determine the name of the transistor with the description of term 'transistor' given as a portmanteau of the terms 'transconductance,' 'transfer,' and 'varistor.'

The current article claims a portmanteau of the term 'transfer resistor.' I'm new to this so I thought I would ask if anyone has an opinion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.63.86.178 (talk) 16:43, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

The ballot actually says "transconductance or transfer". I have to say that varistor makes more sense to me than resistor, but I note that varistor is itself a portmanteau of variable+resistor and that transistor has entirely lost the var element so transfer+resistor in not entirely wrong. The difficulty here is going to be sourcing. There are literally thousands of RS out there verifying transfer resistor. I could find only three results on gbooks for transfer varistor, only two or which are in English. It would be some task to show that these sources are more authoritative than the thousands of others. I do not think that the appearance of transfer varistor on a ballot paper settles the matter. This is a primary source and furthermore gives no indication of the result of the ballot or whether this interpretation was adopted. A press release from Bell Labs at the time, or the appearance of the term in their jourhanl would be much more convincing. Spinning Spark 19:03, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

History_of_the_transistor#Origin_of_the_term has JRP's own words on how he named it. Dicklyon (talk) 19:28, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Voltage Controlled Bipolar Transistor

I have edited the text where the following statement is:

“By controlling the number of electrons that can leave the base, the number of electrons entering the collector can be controlled.[24]”

It is fundamentally not correct, and perpetuates misunderstandings as to how a bipolar transistor actually works.

Before my edits are considered to be reverted, please refer to the original Gummel–Poon_model paper cited at

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gummel%E2%80%93Poon_model

A direct quote from this Gummel-Pool paper is (P.828):

“…The new charge control relation arises from the treatment of the transport equation for the carriers that pass between emitter and collector. Use is made of the fact that recombination has only a very small effect on the junction-voltage dependence of the current passing from emitter to collector (later called the dominant current component). Hence for this dependence, but of course not for the base current, recombination is neglected. A direct closed-form solution of the transport equation from inside the emitter to inside the collector is possible…”

It is noted, recombination *is* the base current. Since this base current is neglected (initially) in the Gummel–Poon method of calculating the collector current from the base emitter voltage and collector voltage it is simply not reasonable to then claim that “the collector current is *controlled* by the base current”.

The “charge control” model, by design, as shown above, calculates the base charge resulting from the applied *voltages* at the base and collector. It is noted that the base charge is not the charge flowing out of the base, but the charge in the base region, which has no direct relation to the charge flowing out of the base.

So, fundamentally the bipolar transistor is a voltage controlled device. Any base current that flows is simply a nuisance, and not any way key to transistor operation. This is clearly the opinion of some of the most noted experts (Gummel-Pool) on transistor theory.

If any editor has a more academic *reliable* source that contradicts the Gummel-Pool voltage controlled view above, and can present the basics of an actual theory as to why the bipolar transistor would be base current controlled, present it here, or please leave my latest edits alone. Kevin aylward (talk) 13:02, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

' BJT is a current controlled voltage device but JFET is a voltage controlled current device. Explain it.'

One could argue that both devices are non-linear "voltage-controlled resistors", but the usefulness of a model is based on the ease and accuracy of creating or comparing a model with reality.

After reading the comparison http://www.designers-guide.org/VBIC/documents/ted00.pdf of the old (Spice-Gummel-Poon) SGP model with new VBIC ( Vertical Bipolar Inter-Company) model developed by a group from the Semiconductor Industry, I am convinced it is the better way to forward in use of SPICE models. The precise modelling requires sequential non-linear regression and then a tolerance of parameters to std.tolerances, which is not discussed and is non-trivial. However the results are clearly, far more accurately as a result of the regression feedback. ( Praise not to Allah, but the Semi guys who developed the model.)

For example the representation of Beta or current gain, where the mountain shaped curves "almost" have a plateau in only 3 decades out 10 for Ic ( 6,7&8 ). The last two decades are a steep cliff where saturation begins and Beta drops to 10 (on most devices)

So I hope they do replace the GP model with the VBIC model in SPICE for the benefit of future application designers.

But really, both transistors are just non-linear voltage controlled resistors. There's no "active" power source inside. But the sensitivity of this behaviour makes them "active" either have good small signal gain or large signal switch properties or impedance buffers (CC mode) depend on the circuit. This "active" region, I suppose is due to the "negative" resistance behaviour, as it often observed with any plasma tube or Fear mongering god. By Dean A. (Tony) Stewart from Linkedin discussion on this topic - Phillip (talk) 20:56, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Request for Discussion of {{Semiconductor packages}} in electronic articles

Please see the corresponding discussion thread at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Electronics. Thanks! • Sbmeirow • Talk • 23:36, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Package power rating table

I have cleaned up this edit from user:Magnus0re who inserted a table of transistor package power capabilities. However, I have concerns that a good deal of OR went into the construction of this table despite its heavy referencing. The "range" column seems to have been arrived at by examining a number of transistor data sheets and taking the extrema and the "approx." column by taking the average. This would make it a bad case of WP:SYNTH. I don't think packages have a minimum power rating so the range column is meaningless. More useful would be a sourced list of package maximum power ratings which one is not going to find in any transistor data sheet. Spinning Spark 11:28, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

- You are correct in assuming that the range column have been arrived at by taking the extrema. the approx column is just that, approximate, Yes it is a created number by comparing different datasheets.

My opinion is that the approx range may have a bad name, but I think it is true to the WP:SYNTH(no OR), because many reliable sources(hundreds, if not thousands of datasheets) exists that say that their transistor packages are capable of wattages in that range. Also the table is in line with the Neutral point of view and Verifiability, because it represents the approx number that is a more proportionate number than the maximum, (the maximum serves to promote one device while the approx serves to inform about what might be expected of a range of devices)

The reason I included both is because this is much more useful for a person trying to select a package(rather than only maximum values, because then the engineer will be looking for the one device with max. documented power handling, which is not good.), because there is only a few rare and expensive devices that can take the maxima. (in this case only a few mosfets, not bjts.)

On second thought maybe the Approx column should be renamed into something like "assumed median value +/- 300% accuracy, consult individual datasheet". But the purpose of the column was to put a number to what can be expected of devices in that package. Is there a better name or better way to implement such a number? Magnus0re (talk) 12:40, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Since you specified a range for each package, I think the approximate column should be left out as it doesn't really mean anything. A table of power range for a given package is useful information. However, the range you give is just the range you have found by looking at many data sheets. Personally, I would find that to be useful. But, you may not have actually found the extremes which is why a reliable source is needed. Also, I took the liberty of indenting your response.Constant314 (talk) 18:02, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

I doubt that there actually exists a power rating for packages and even if it does, it is likely to be way more than any particular device. The limitation on power is dependent on many things beside the package: how the device is internally mounted and the heatsink used externally for instance. The principle limitation may not be thermal dissipation, it may be current handling capability of the device, or even the gauge of the wires or straps connecting to the top pads of the chip. I think a principle reason driving choice of package is how easily it can be mounted on a suitable size heatsink.

I think a better approach here would be to take a suitable group of common devices and list the actual package and rating for each device. That way OR is avoided and there is no need for a whole herd of references on each line which then have to be synthesised. Spinning Spark 20:00, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Many packages do, in fact, have a power rating. That current rating is often similar to or sometimes *less* (!) than the number printed in the datasheet for some particular part (a number apparently printed for marketing reasons, that can't possibly be reached in any reasonable application). Since many people, even Spinningspark, have doubts on this issue, how can we improve this article to clear up those doubts? Perhaps a few words using using (a), (b)(c), and perhaps (d) as references? (This includes a "sourced list of package maximum power ratings", as originally requested by Spinningspark). --DavidCary (talk) 18:33, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

small-signal transistor

Several Wikipedia articles, including this one, mention "small-signal transistor". Does the transistor article need a definition of that phrase? --DavidCary (talk) 18:47, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 May 2014

This edit request to Transistor has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Please remove the following paragraph (added as part of edit 16:32, 30 Oct, 2006)

"Unlike bipolar transistors, FETs do not inherently amplify a photocurrent.  Nevertheless, there are ways to use them, especially JFETs, as light-sensitive devices, by exploiting the photocurrents in channel–gate or channel–body junctions."

Reason: Bipolar transistors do not inherently amplify a photo current. The term "photocurrent" is not explained or defined (is this The flow of photons or electrons?). Since this paragraph Is describing a special type of FET, removing this paragraph removes a "distraction" from this more general discussion of transistors. Photosensitive FET should be covered in the FET topic.

75.4.23.63 (talk) 22:04, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Portmanteau

@Kbrose: In this edit you wrote that transistor is a portmanteau of transresistance. It clearly isn't since a portmanteau is a blend of two or more words. Could you please provide the exact quote from your source. See History of transistor#Origin of the term for a more detailed discussion of the naming. SpinningSpark 08:13, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

The definition that portmanteau is a combination of two words is actually not accurate in linguists, I believe,where it is defined as two morphemes. In any case, I gave the explicit reference for my change, which is probably the most definitive and authoritative account and history of the Bell System ever written. That reference is also consistent with another WP article, I think it was history of the transistor. Kbrose (talk) 21:36, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi Kbrose, I was not disputing the authority of the source, my request was for an exact quote from the source. On portmanteau, the OED definition is "[a] word formed by blending sounds from two or more distinct words and combining their meanings". I think your definition of "two morphemes" is wrong, but you still need two of something to make it, not one of something. You may have been thinking of the liguistic concept of (again OED) "[a] morph which represents two or more morphemes simultaneously". That is not really relevant here, but in any case transistor is clearly not a morph since it can be broken down into its constituent morphemes. SpinningSpark 02:18, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Besides, a transistor is not a transresistor. Such a device would exhibit an output voltage controlled by an input current.Constant314 (talk) 03:40, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Many sources say that transistor is a portmanteau of "transfer resistor". However, the original transistor naming memo/ballot says, Transistor. This is an abbreviated combination of the words "transconductance" or "transfer", and "varistor". The device logically belongs in the varistor family, and has the transconductance or transfer impedance of a device having gain, so that this combination is descriptive. Dicklyon (talk) 05:20, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Let us look at the history: The transistor effect has been discovered 1943 in Berlin by Herbert Mataré and he used the term "Transistron" while working on the technology in Paris after 1945. It may be that the people at Bell Labs just used a variation of the term Transistron. Schily (talk) 11:07, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Are you sure you have that in the right order? I see various sources saying he used that term in 1948 or 1949 after realizing his device was similar to the Bell Labs "transistor". Dicklyon (talk) 14:44, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

He filed his patent aprox. one week after the people at Bell Labs but at that time, he was already producing a small series of devices in professional cases from Telefunken (metall-ceramic tubes) that he kept from his RADAR development (noise compensating silicon duo-diodes for 3 GHz) from WW-II. Note that he owned > 90% of all pure germanium on the world at that time that was donated by Heinrich Welker. Welker created this pure germanium in the research laboratory of the air force near Munich. There is an interview with Mataré in the net from aprox. 2 years before his death. It contains a lot of information and dates. Schily (talk) 15:46, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

But when did he use the name "transistron"? The earliest publications of that term that I find are 1949. Dicklyon (talk) 01:59, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

It seems that the interview I have in mind vanished from the net (that one contained more about Schottky). there is however a nice interview in the appendix of a Phd work about the history of transistors (Deutsche Nationalbibliothek ref 99061915X). Mataré explains here that the word is from summer 1948 when both patents have been filed and introduced by his boss. Mataré would have used "Halbleiterverstärker". Btw: it is a pitty that WP has images of the baroque Bell labs transistor but no image from the Mataré transistor. Schily (talk) 08:49, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

iron core air core

or semi conductive core> "A transistor is often composes of semi-conductors" Zinc plated Iron = 'semiconductor' rapped around a magnesium core a magnet is applied to the outer semi-conductor and the magnesium core is removed you now have a semi conductive air core transistor EMP + Hazard urName (talk) 10:26, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

please remove portuguese art

The transistor, also VLSI, was discovered and made in U.S.A. not portugal. Anyone knows the "famous electronic circuit in stone" is a large floorspace in the lofty loby of Intel HQ (Texas) which is a full circuit diagram of the 80806 processor in stone; including transistor symbols.

Take your political assertions and stick them in political articles, not in the science articles, PLEASE. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.219.204.96 (talk) 16:34, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

n-p-n versus p-n-p

showing the npn pnp block "doped silicon" diagrams would be allot more instructive than portuguese modern art, ie the ones in the Forest Mims electronic engineer's notebook series.

please remove the portuguese art, there is no time and room for tripe here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.219.204.96 (talk) 16:26, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

I’m rather fond of the Portuguese art. The fact that it is in Portugal isn’t important. The fact that it is laid in stone at a university outside the English speaking world attests to the global recognition of the existence and the importance of transistors and the effect that transistors have had on world culture. There is plenty of room in the article for that picture.Constant314 (talk) 18:06, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

The one thing that Wikipedia does not have a shortage of is space. As for time, it is for readers to decide how much time is spent reading here. What we don't have time for is the kind of intolerance and prejudice you are displaying. Wikipedia is a global encyclopaedia, and that includes Portugal. SpinningSpark 18:28, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

XRAY photo of Transistors

Something like this would be educational for this article, actually XRAY of all electronic parts would be very interesting for all electronic part articles on Wikipedia. If anyone has any XRAY photos with the correct "rights", please upload and add to appropriate Wiki article. Thanks! • Sbmeirow • Talk • 03:34, 18 November 2015 (UTC) : Xray of TO-92 transistor package - https://c2.staticflickr.com/4/3040/3574799585_e8270b0531_z.jpg?zz=1

You could e-mail the Flickr uploader. I have had a good deal of success in the past with Flickr users getting them to change the licence once I explained what I wanted to do with the image. No guarantee of course, it's entirely up to them. SpinningSpark 15:12, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

It might be more useful to get a picture with the package removed. Too bad I don't have a lens that can focus that close. Jc3s5h (talk) 17:25, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

There is already one in the article of a Darlington transistor. I'm pretty sure that there are some more on Commons. SpinningSpark 17:44, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

I am not sure whether an Xray photo is helpful as it just shows the copper contacts. If you like to show internals, you need to open a metal case or use nitric acid to remove the plastic shelf. Schily (talk) 10:46, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Multiple-emitter ROMs

@Jc3s5h: Multiple-emitter transistors can be used in ROMs [1], but I've no idea what the OP meant by "analog". Perhaps he considers any application of BJTs to be analog? SpinningSpark 17:06, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

For those who haven't seen it, this thread is about this revert of an edit by user:Phiarc. SpinningSpark 17:10, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

I've never heard of an analog ROM either. Jc3s5h (talk) 21:50, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

The technology was developed by Barrie Gilbert of Tektronix for the analog readout system of the 7000 series oscilloscopes. You can read about it here. The analog mask ROMs use an array of multi-emitter transistors. Data is stored in these ROMs in the number of emitters connected to the output. Similar technology was duplicated in the USSR to the best of my knowledge. However, since it is pretty niche I'm totally fine with it not being in the article. -- Phiarc (talk) 22:48, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Need better picture of NPN/PNP symbols for infobox

Currently, there aren't very many clean images of electronic symbols available at wikimedia for use in the infobox. (Compare to the nice svg images in Resistor and Capacitor.) If anyone had any, or could produce any, that would be very much appreciated. Tpdwkouaa (talk) 23:13, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

A transistor is an amplifier or switch, not a perpetual motion engine

"John Bardeen and Walter Brattain at AT&T's Bell Labs in the United States performed experiments and observed that when two gold point contacts were applied to a crystal of germanium, a signal was produced with the output power greater than the input.[11]"--That makes it sound like the crystal added power. It could not have. The article cited actually says, "When the point of the triangle was placed onto the germanium, the signal came in through one gold contact and increased as it raced out the other." It doesn't mention that there must have been a second input providing the power for the output signal, but I assume there was. A transistor--and, I presume, that crystal--uses a small signal to modulate a larger signal. However, I don't know how the sentence should be rephrased, since the cited article is unclear on where the input power came from. Philgoetz (talk) 02:59, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Yes, amplifiers work by taking power from a power supply. Energy is conserved. Dicklyon (talk) 04:02, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Introduction misleading on Lilienfeld?

The introduction looks excellent in most respects, but I feel it is a little misleading on the subject of Lilienfeld's contribution. "...conceived...by Julius Lilienfeld, and...practically implemented by...Bardeen...Brattain, and...Shockley" makes it sound like Lilienfeld did all the creative work and BBS were just his laboratory assistants. Were Bardeen, Brattain, and Shockley even aware of Lilienfeld's work? The Nobel was given to BBS, but the intro makes it sound like Lilienfeld also shared in it. L didn't even build a prototype. I think the intro should credit BBS as the inventors, but say Lilienfeld had the idea for the field-effect tran sister before them. --Chetvorno^TALK 20:39, 6 March 2016 (UTC) Chetvorno^TALK 20:39, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes, it's completely misleading and should be taken out. Lilienfeld's idea was a field-effect device, completely unrelated to the point-contact junction device that was actually the first transistor. Lilienfeld deserves a mention in this article, but he really was not part of the thread that led to the first transistor being made. SpinningSpark 22:45, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes, misleadingly stated. Lilienfeld's invention did come up as a big block to broad patent coverage on the transistor; Shockley tried to make a FET, but couldn't make it work at that time, due to surface charge problems; then the other guys came along and made the bipolar work. The relationship here is important, but hard to state correctly in so few words. Dicklyon (talk) 04:10, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

When I was reading the article, I noticed the ambiguity over Lilienfeld and the Nobel Prize. I've gone and changed the wording to remove the ambiguity by making the winners' names explicit. There might be a better way to phrase it than I've done but it's an improvement. Also, don't forget our unofficial motto: "Be bold". Jason Quinn (talk) 21:10, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

As the History of the transistor shows there was also Oskar Heil's 1934 patent on a field-effect transistor but how that figured (if at all) into the 1947 discovery is not touched on.--2606:A000:7D44:100:D884:3657:746F:E0DB (talk) 16:41, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Recent addition regarding static induction transistor (SIT)

The statement that the SIT invented in 1950 was the first high frequency transistor or even that it was a high frequency transistor is in not supported by any of the references. What is supported is that as of the date of one reference’s publication (1996), Silicon Carbide SIT’s were faster than silicon devices. That the SIT was the fastest transistor through he 1980’s is not supported by any of the references. The references do confirm that the SIT was invented in 1950 by Watanabe and Nishizawa. Constant314 (talk) 22:19, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

I've reverted it for now. The McCluskey source says that experimental SITs were fabricated in 1975. High frequency transistors were certainly available in the 1960s, so claiming SITs as the first is dubious at best. Maybe it was the first HF design to be studied or published, but that would need a source saying so explicitly. SpinningSpark 22:35, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on 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.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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) 14:30, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Spule

I just wanted you to know that german Wikipedia has an article for "inductor" and it's not "Induktanz" but "Spule".

Spule means "coil", not inductance. The German article does explain that coils are passive components that possess a definite inductance: Andererseits sind separate Spulen induktive passive Bauelemente, deren wesentliche Eigenschaft eine definierte Induktivität ist. SpinningSpark 12:54, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Julius_Edgar_Lilienfeld

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julius_Edgar_Lilienfeld

"Because of his failure to publish articles in learned journals and because high-purity semiconductor materials were not available yet...."

So he didn't publish anything, and his invention was impossible, why is this person here? He should not even be in this wiki. Why don't you put Leonardo Da Vinci in here? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.137.94.180 (talk) 04:38, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Number (grammar)

This edit changed "transistors" to "transistor". It appears to me the sentence requires the plural.

The edit summary stated "does anyone call bare dice 'discrete transistors' ? Undid revision 842048014 by Tom94022 (talk)) ".

I don't understand how the edit summary justifies the edit. I DO call bare dice, each containing one transistor, discrete transistors. I saw some IBM Solid Logic Technology being tested just after the discrete transistors had been assembled onto the module. (They were thoroughly obsolete when I saw them, but they had been used in some obscure peripheral or power supply, and the department that designed it never got the memo about SLT being depricated.) Jc3s5h (talk) 01:57, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

I agree. It should be plural. Constant314 (talk) 02:17, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Discretes such as 2N2222A are sold as bare dice (a plural I prefer to die), e.g. here. And yes bare dice are referred to as discrete transistors e.g. here. Dicklyon (talk) 01:01, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

That should settle that issue. At least one manufacturer provides discrete transistors as bare die. Constant314 (talk) 01:41, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

I'm still of the opinion that die is used as both singular and plural by at least some large semiconductor companies (Texas Instruments, On Semi and Analog Devices). Infineon uses dies. The distributor SemiDice use die. Micron avoids the issue by using die only as an adjective such as bare die products. Constant314 (talk) 17:27, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Attributed to Lincoln

"If you call a tail a leg, how many legs does a dog have? Four. A tail is not a leg." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wtshymanski (talk • contribs)

I presume that you are talking about discrete transistors on die. I searched several semiconductor websites (not an exhaustive search by any measure) and did not find any. All the discretes were in packages. The only thing I found on die were integrated circuits. When I think of a discrete transistor, I mean a transistor with a collector, base and emitter and nothing else. A single transistor on a die would have, I think, a substrate. I'm leaning to saying that is not discrete. Constant314 (talk) 23:07, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

No he is talking about discrete transistor dies. He is confusing a die diced from a wafer having one transistor with an monolithic integrated circut die diced from a wafer and having many transistors. A die as a single transistor has the exposed discrete three connections you expect (emitter, base & collector for bipolar or source, drain & gate for MOS). Such die are typically connected by solder bumps. Whereas none of the many transistors in a monolithic IC ever exposes the three discrete connectors you expect, they are inconnected as part of the deposition process and are never discrete from a connection perspective. We don't build much these days with such discrete transistors but consider IBM SLT as one example - note the usage of the term "discrete transistors" in Steps in manufacturing Solid Logic Technology hybrid wafers. The reason yr search didn't turn up any references is probably because there are no standards for transistor dies but they were used heavily in the 1960s and are still are available, see e.g. & wafer. When a wafer is diced into individual transistors, they are discrete, it doesn't matter how they are subsequently packaged. Tom94022 (talk) 00:31, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Of course I'm so stupid that I can't tell the difference between a single unpackaged transistor on a die and an integrated circuit with multiple transistors on a die. This is why I come to Wikipedia, to learn. In any case, so long as the System 360 isn't on the list of discrete transistor computers, I'm content. --Wtshymanski (talk) 02:10, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Singular and plural die and dice

Unfortunately, both terms are sometimes used both as singular and plural, though dice as singular is just wrong except when referring to a game; a pair of dice is two, while each one is a die. In books, "cut into die" is not a thing, while "cut into dice" is common. In reference to wafers, see this search, and this search (sometimes it's "wafer into die chips" or "into die sized pieces" just because die is so awkward as a plural).

An anon has been reverting with the claim that dice is singular and die is plural. That's just backwards. A better argument for reverting dice to die would be that die is preferred in this industry; but that's questionable. Dicklyon (talk) 14:02, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

In my experience, "dice" can also be a verb: "dice the wafer". See this patent, within the browser, search on "DICE AND PICK". The phrase refers to the operation where, after the wafer was tested, the wafer is sawn into dice (or diced) while attached to a plastic adhesive-coated sheet. Then a machine consults the wafer map, which shows which chips passed, and picks the good chips off the plastic sheet for further processing. The remaining chips are discarded. Jc3s5h (talk) 14:16, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

IEEE Std. 100 (7th ed), owing to some sloppy proofreading, is not our friend here. The entry for "Die" says in part "...Note: this is the plural form of die. ... See dice". The entry for "dice" syas in part "...Note:this is the plural form of die." Perfectly ambiguous. And authoritative, it says so right on the frontispiece. --Wtshymanski (talk) 02:06, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

As far as the integrated circuit usage is concerned, Googling "Integrated Circuit Dice" turns up only three hits (ignoring Wikipedia) where all three words are present, and they are all links to the company 'Danube Integrated Circuit Engineering' (DICE). However: Googling "Integrated circuit die" turns up pages of hits for the subject of this discussion. On this basis there does not seem to be any on-line evidence supporting the notion that integrated circuits are constructed on dice rather than die. 86.149.136.154 (talk) 15:28, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Counterexample.] Jc3s5h (talk) 15:31, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Well found. I would make the observation that a patent is written by an individual (usually a patent clerk) and is not therefore an authoritative source on correct word usage in any context. In view that the industry generally uses 'die', I would suggest that WP:COMMONNAME suggests that we stick with it. 86.149.136.154 (talk) 17:30, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

I feel judging by the number of Google hits can be very misleading. When a series of words are put in quotes, they must all occur in the order given, which greatly restricts the number of hits. I hypothesize that publications that delve deeply enough into integrated circuits to use the word "die" or "dice" would often not use the phrase "integrated circuit", but instead would use shorter words like wafer, chip, device, IC, etc. If instead you google for the words silicon dice you get lots of hits; several on the first two pages support dice as the plural of die. Jc3s5h (talk) 17:47, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Sorry to have gotten us into this semantics issue but as it turns out the IEEE dictionary definition partially quoted about is actually is quite helpful:

"die (1) A single piece of silicon that contains one or more circuits and is or will be packaged as a unit. ..."
"dice Multiple pieces of silicon, each of which contains one or more circuits and is or will be packaged as a unit. ..."

This supports a die/dice usage. Die as singular is also the SIA definition. Personally I have always used dies as the plural but can live with die/dice. Tom94022 (talk) 18:13, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Evidently, only if it's made of silicon. Jimbo help us describing dies made of GaAs, SiC, germanium, or other materials. It's a very poorly edited dictionary entry. ==Wtshymanski (talk) 19:55, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Transistor aging compared to a vacuum tube

Is it really appropriate to include aging as a limitation in a section comparing them to tubes? In isolation it would be a valid concern but compared against a tube with almost infintiely worse long term reliability it becomes an advantage rather than a limitation. I was tempted to simply snip that on sight but I figure I'll raise it here first, I know people can be hesitant to remove sourced material even if as here the source does not directly support the assertion made - the source does not even mention tubes. 3142 (talk) 13:55, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

I used to work for a semiconductor manufacturer. One of my duties was to waive failures in the accelerated aging tests, provided a reason for the premature failure could be found that would not occur in real products. I agree the bullet about aging of transistors should be removed. Jc3s5h (talk) 15:28, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Wrong link

2N3904 transistor has incorrect datasheet link — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.222.90.140 (talk) 12:28, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Fixed. Jc3s5h (talk) 13:55, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Germans made the first working Transistor

The world's first working device was built in Paris by German scientists Herbert Mataré and Heinrich Welker , who preceded the Bell Labs, Moreover their prototype was more advanced than the prototype of Bell Labs. See: https://spectrum.ieee.org/tech-history/silicon-revolution/how-europe-missed-the-transistor Just because the War Crimes of Germans , it was impossible to receive Global attention for Germans after the war.--Regtraht (talk) 18:01, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

"he French device “turns out...to be superior to its American counterpart,” read a more measured but still favorable account in Toute la Radio, a technical journal [see drawing and photo]. “The latter has a limited lifetime and appears to be fairly unstable, whereas the existing transistrons do not show any sign of fatigue.”

According to Mataré, this superiority could be attributed to the care they employed in fabricating their devices. While observing the process with microscopes, the women working on the small assembly line would measure current-voltage curves for both metal points with oscilloscopes and fix the points rigidly on the germanium with drops of epoxy after the curves matched the desired characteristics. When Brattain and Shockley visited the Paris group in 1950, Mataré showed them telephone amplifiers made with his transistrons—which allowed him to place a call all the way to Algiers. “That’s quite something,” admitted Shockley a bit guardedly, Mataré recalls half a century later." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Regtraht (talk • contribs) 19:28, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

The Spectrum article states, "Mataré reckons he first recognized this effect in early 1948 (perhaps a month or two after Bardeen and Brattain’s breakthrough at Bell Labs)." (empahsis added) Near simultaneous invention is not uncommon but this seems to clearly establish that the Paris invention was second. Tom94022 (talk) 19:50, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

Your reference article also says the following ...

"On a hunch, he asked Welker to fashion larger germanium samples, from which they could cut slivers of higher purity. Using this higher-grade material, Mataré finally got consistent amplification in June 1948, six months after Bardeen and Brattain. Encouraged by this success, they phoned PTT Secretary Eugène Thomas and invited him over for a demonstration. But Thomas was apparently too busy—or perhaps not interested enough—to come by."

Finally, Matare was able to finally get transistor amplification to work on his "Transitron" device (June 1948) and he had applied for a patent on August 13th 1948, well after Bell Labs transistor's discovery and announcement. Historianbuff (talk) 22:40, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Symbology

If it worth mention the old symbology. https://mixedsignal.wordpress.com/2015/12/14/the-transistor-symbol/ --Kitchen Knife (talk) 22:58, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

There were a number of early symbols for transistors. For example, IBM used its own symbols for bipolar transistors from the 1950s through the 1990s. Jc3s5h (talk) 23:14, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Doesn't surprise me. https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/8a/IBM_608_Logic_Gates.jpg/440px-IBM_608_Logic_Gates.jpg --Kitchen Knife (talk) 00:39, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

MOSFET Invention, who invented it and it's importance

I am currently reading To the Digital Age: Research Labs, Start-up Companies, and the Rise of MOS Technology by Ross Knox Bassett. Bassett is professional historian of science, so his work is as reliable as it gets. I have huge problems with the way this article and other present history of MOS transistor. First of all as Bassett show there was very little new in Attalah and Kahng invention, as Bassett puts it:

"Atalla appears to have conceived it, but it was an invention in a different sense than the transistors of Bardeen and Brattain and Shockley. The invention of both the pointcontact transistor and the junction transistor involved novel effects. The principles that Atalla’s device used were well known; veterans in the field would have recognized them as ones that had been tried without success by Bardeen, Brattain, and Shockley. Atalla recycled these principles using the advanced fabrication techniques that Bell Labs had developed to make diffused bipolar junction transistors. In some sense Atalla’s biggest breakthrough was an intellectual one, thinking that such a device was worth making at all"(page 24). Attalah and Kahng doe not even give this device a name, again from Bassett:

"Atalla and Kahng’s writings provide evidence that even they had ambivalence about what they had done. A name is obviously one of the first steps in the serious consideration of any kind of invention, and Atalla and Kahng’s failure to name their device implies that they saw it as stillborn. They did not even identify their device as a transistor, suggesting a reluctance to even put their work into the same family line as the work of Bardeen, Brattain, and Shockley. Atalla and Kahng’s paper at the 1960 SSDRC did not establish their device as a promising subject for research or even as something recognized by the semiconductor community at large. The conference chairman made no mention of Atalla and Kahng’s work in his brief report on the technical highlights of the conference, although he did mention Bell’s epitaxial transistor. No further work on a device like Atalla and Kahng’s was presented at either the SSDRC or the Electron Device Conference over the next two years. Two articles reviewing the state of the semiconductor field in 1962 made no mention of Atalla and Kahng’s device. Their work seemed to be a dead end".

The reason MOS transistor even received attention was due two factors:first passivation of silicon surfaces by silicon dioxide gave hope the problems of semiconductor surfaces could be resolved, and second invention of integrated circuit change the way transistor are judged, making MOS simplicity attractive to some(page 13). It will take many years and many people working on it to make MOS practical. Again Basset write that, for example in IBM even in 1967 the future of MOS technology was far from clear(page 106). Contribution from people like Wanlass was just as important as Atalla and Kahng work. DMKR2005 (talk) 21:33, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

The fact that Attalah and Kahng did not name the invention is not relevant. Nor is the fact that they did not recognize its significance. Conceiving and publishing is notable. Their contribution can be in the article. As to whether they should be anointed as the inventors, it should be left to reliable sources. Right now, it looks like the reliable sources say that they are the inventors. No need to start an edit war over this. Constant314 (talk) 22:32, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 22 January 2020 and 14 May 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Peer reviewers: Wintersfire.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 11:39, 17 January 2022 (UTC)