Undergrad PN Junction Current: Understanding Dependence on Parameters

Click For Summary
The current in a PN junction is influenced by the density of donors (Nd) and acceptors (Na), with a decrease in these densities leading to an increase in current due to an expanded depletion region that allows for more thermal generation of carriers. The saturation current is primarily driven by thermal generation in the depletion region, which is affected by the built-in electric field. In reverse bias, the hole current is proportional to the equilibrium density of holes on the N side, while in forward bias, it depends on the hole density on the P side. The relationship indicates that a lower acceptor density (Na) results in a lower built-in potential, thereby increasing the current. This counterintuitive result highlights the complex interplay between carrier density and junction parameters.
daudaudaudau
Messages
297
Reaction score
0
Hi. I'm trying to understand how the current in a PN junction depends on various parameters. I have found this formula in Ashcroft and Mermin. It looks like the current will increase if we decrease the density of donors and/or acceptors, Na and Nd. Is this correct?

YIQyokv.jpg
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
There is still ##n_i^2##.
 
mfb said:
There is still ##n_i^2##.
##n_i^2## is the intrinsic carrier concentration, which doesn't depend on ##N_a## or ##N_d##, so how could that affect the result?
 
Ah wait, you have the doping in the denominators, not the actual number density of electrons/holes. Hmm, then it looks strange.
 
The saturation current is caused by the thermal generation of carriers in the depletion region, which are then swept out of the depletion region by the built-in field. As the doping concentration(Na and Nd) goes down, the depletion region gets larger, so there is a larger volume of depleted semiconductor where generation takes place. I think the equation is correct.
 
phyzguy said:
The saturation current is caused by the thermal generation of carriers in the depletion region, which are then swept out of the depletion region by the built-in field. As the doping concentration(Na and Nd) goes down, the depletion region gets larger, so there is a larger volume of depleted semiconductor where generation takes place. I think the equation is correct.

Actually this particular derivation in Ashcroft and Mermin doesn't include any generation in the depletion region, but anyway you're right that the formula does make sense when thinking about a reverse biased diode. If we let ##p_{no}## denote the equilibrium density of holes on the N side, and since ##n_i^2/N_d=p_{no}##, we can write for the hole current under reverse bias

<br /> J_p=en_i^2\frac{D_p}{L_pN_d}=e\frac{D_p}{L_d}p_{no}<br />

So the reverse hole current is proportional to the density of holes on the N side, which makes sense.

When the diode is forward biased I would like the hole current to depend on the density of holes on the P side. This is of course possible. If ##V_{bi}## is the built-in potential, ##V_T## the thermal voltage, and ##p_{po}## the density of holes on the P side, we have

<br /> p_{no}=p_{po}e^{-V_{bi}/V_T}<br />

Which leads to a hole current that is proportional to ##p_{po}=N_a## and decreases as the built-in potential increases.

<br /> J_p=e\frac{D_p}{L_d}N_ae^{-V_{bi}/V_T}(e^{V/V_T}-1)<br />

So the answer to my initial question must be that the current increases when you decrease ##N_a## because this decreases the built-in potential

<br /> V_{bi}=V_T\log{\frac{N_aN_d}{n_i^2}}<br />

WELL, still puzzling that a low carrier density gives the highest current...
 
Last edited:
Thread 'Unexpected irregular reflection signal from a high-finesse cavity'
I am observing an irregular, aperiodic noise pattern in the reflection signal of a high-finesse optical cavity (finesse ≈ 20,000). The cavity is normally operated using a standard Pound–Drever–Hall (PDH) locking configuration, where an EOM provides phase modulation. The signals shown in the attached figures were recorded with the modulation turned off. Under these conditions, when scanning the laser frequency across a cavity resonance, I expected to observe a simple reflection dip. Instead...

Similar threads

  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
3K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
10K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
7K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K