Fraction of valence electrons free for conduction

Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around the concept of intrinsic semiconductors, specifically focusing on the fraction of valence electrons available for conduction. Participants are examining the relationship between free electrons and holes in the context of semiconductor physics.

Discussion Character

  • Conceptual clarification, Assumption checking, Mixed

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants discuss the calculation of intrinsic carrier concentration and the role of both electrons and holes. There are attempts to clarify the relationship between the number of free electrons and the total number of valence electrons in silicon.

Discussion Status

The discussion is ongoing, with some participants seeking confirmation of their understanding and others questioning the assumptions made regarding the contributions of electrons and holes. There is a recognition of differing interpretations, particularly concerning the intrinsic carrier concentration.

Contextual Notes

Some participants express confusion regarding the treatment of electrons and holes in their calculations, and there are references to the need for clarity on the definitions and relationships involved in intrinsic semiconductors.

jisbon
Messages
475
Reaction score
30
Homework Statement
The intrisinc carrier concentration of single crystal sillcon is ##(1.5*10^{10})## per cubic centimeter.
Bandgap is 1.1eV and density is 2.33g per cubic centimeter.
How many free electron and holes are there per cubic centimeter.
Determine the fraction of valence electrons that are free for conduction at room temperature. Explain where electrons get sufficient energy from in order to be free.
Relevant Equations
-
For the first part, since this is a intrisinc semiconductor, n=p= intrisinc carrier concentration. Hence free electrons and hole = ##(1.5*10^{10})## per cubic centimeter.

As for part 2, here are my steps. But I'm not sure if it's correct.
I first find the number of atoms of one cubic centimeter of sillcon, (using density and atomic mass of sillcon) then multiply it by 4 (since there is 4 valence electrons per sillcon atom?) I then take :
##(1.5*10^{10})## divided by the number of valence electrons as calculated above. Is this thought process correct? Thanks
 
Physics news on Phys.org
The process you describe is correct except, in both parts of the question, you need to consider what it means that there are both electrons AND holes.
 
Cutter Ketch said:
The process you describe is correct except, in both parts of the question, you need to consider what it means that there are both electrons AND holes.
For the first part, isn't the n=p for an intrisinc semi conductor? Hence my answer theoretically should be correct for part 1?

For the second part, since there are only considering fraction of electrons, won't it only be just the concentration of electrons divided by the total number of electrons? Why are holes being mentioned?

Thanks
 
You keep saying half of them are holes and half of them are electrons (true) and then ignoring that fact when someone asks “how many electrons are there”
 
Cutter Ketch said:
You keep saying half of them are holes and half of them are electrons (true) and then ignoring that fact when someone asks “how many electrons are there”

Pardon, but I stated that n = p = ni in an undoped semiconductor, which means three of them have the same values?
 
Cutter Ketch said:
You keep saying half of them are holes and half of them are electrons (true) and then ignoring that fact when someone asks “how many electrons are there”
Are you implying that intrinsic carrier concentration is calculated from the sum of electrons and holes? Not an area I know anything about, but that doesn't seem to match what I read on the web.
 
haruspex said:
Are you implying that intrinsic carrier concentration is calculated from the sum of electrons and holes? Not an area I know anything about, but that doesn't seem to match what I read on the web.

That is EXACTLY what I am implying! (and, as it happens, I am exactly wrong, so I’ll shut up now)
 
Was a bit confused by the replies... Was just wondering if anyone could check my concepts and tell me if the steps I did were proper. Thanks
 
jisbon said:
Was a bit confused by the replies... Was just wondering if anyone could check my concepts and tell me if the steps I did were proper. Thanks
Cutter Ketch only had one objection to your method, and he has withdrawn that. Your method is fine as far as I can tell, but it's not a subject I know.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
5K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K