Semiconductors - Drift/Mobility & Temperature

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around a homework problem related to semiconductors, specifically focusing on drift, mobility, and temperature effects on carrier density and scattering mechanisms. Participants explore the implications of different parameters in equations governing these phenomena, including the roles of lattice and impurity scattering.

Discussion Character

  • Homework-related
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants express confusion about the parameters Ca and Cb in the equations, particularly regarding their values and whether they relate to lattice or impurity scattering.
  • One participant suggests that the density of electrons and holes increases with temperature, indicating that Ca should be +3/2.
  • There is a debate about the interpretation of Cb, with some arguing it cannot be an equation and questioning its relevance.
  • Participants discuss the differences in mobility and temperature relationships between intrinsic silicon and copper, raising questions about the applicability of semiconductor equations to metals.
  • One participant notes that plugging in specific temperatures into the equations allows for simplifications, but there is uncertainty about the implications of these calculations.
  • There is a mention that effective mass values in the equations may cancel out, and clarification is sought regarding the notation of the Planck constant.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not reach a consensus on several points, including the interpretation of parameters in the equations and the applicability of semiconductor equations to metals. The discussion remains unresolved with multiple competing views on the relationships between mobility, temperature, and scattering mechanisms.

Contextual Notes

Limitations include unclear definitions of parameters, potential misinterpretations of the problem statement, and unresolved mathematical steps regarding the equations involved.

Marcin H
Messages
306
Reaction score
6

Homework Statement


Screen Shot 2018-02-13 at 8.31.37 PM.png


Homework Equations


Screen Shot 2018-02-13 at 8.32.13 PM.png

Screen Shot 2018-02-13 at 8.31.50 PM.png

The Attempt at a Solution


I am having problems with all parts of this problem, but I'll start with part A. Comparing the 2 equations I see that Ca could be 3/2 based off the hint, but I am not sure why or how it would be 3/2 or -3/2. The problem does not specify if this is for lattice scattering or impurity scattering. Either way I am not sure how to compare the 2 equations above. And as for Cb it seems like it can only be 1. I don't see how cb can be an equation unless we have to solve the equation above for Cb assuming Ca is ±3/2.
 

Attachments

  • Screen Shot 2018-02-13 at 8.31.37 PM.png
    Screen Shot 2018-02-13 at 8.31.37 PM.png
    48.9 KB · Views: 2,421
  • Screen Shot 2018-02-13 at 8.32.13 PM.png
    Screen Shot 2018-02-13 at 8.32.13 PM.png
    6.2 KB · Views: 1,018
  • Screen Shot 2018-02-13 at 8.31.50 PM.png
    Screen Shot 2018-02-13 at 8.31.50 PM.png
    5.9 KB · Views: 975
Physics news on Phys.org
Marcin H said:
The problem does not specify if this is for lattice scattering or impurity scattering.
(A) is about the density of electrons and holes, it has nothing to do with scattering.

Does n(T) increase with increasing T according to 3-26?
Which sign does ca need to reproduce this?
How much does n(T) increase if T doubles (for example)? Can you derive which ca reproduces this?
Marcin H said:
And as for Cb it seems like it can only be 1.
Right.
Marcin H said:
I don't see how cb can be an equation unless we have to solve the equation above for Cb assuming Ca is ±3/2.
A parameter cannot be an equation. That's like asking how a color can be a fruit.
You can compare the equations at different temperatures to set up multiple equations that all have to be true and solve for the two unknown parameters that way, but doing it by inspection is quicker.
 
Oh, right. I was confusing concentration with mobility.

Does n(T) increase with increasing T according to 3-26?
Yes, n(T) increases with increasing T, so Ca would have to be +(3/2)

As for Cb is the hint just to trick us? Why do they say it's an equation if Cb just equal to 1?And for parts B and C, I don't know if I am overthinking it, but if we are using the same equation for the electron mobility of intrinsic silicon as we did for copper, then why would the relationship between mobility and temperature change between the 2 materials? Why even ask part c? Does lattice scattering vs impurity scattering have anything to do with this?
 
Oh, I didn't see the "is an equation" hint. Actually, it is not an equation, but it is not 1 either, I misread the problem statement before.

Plug in T=300 K in the first equation: Now the carrier density at 300 K appears both on the left and right side, so you can cancel them. The fraction is 1 by construction, so which value does the exponent at the right side need?
Marcin H said:
Does n(T) increase with increasing T according to 3-26?
Yes, n(T) increases with increasing T, so Ca would have to be +(3/2)
Right.
Marcin H said:
And for parts B and C, I don't know if I am overthinking it, but if we are using the same equation for the electron mobility of intrinsic silicon as we did for copper, then why would the relationship between mobility and temperature change between the 2 materials?
You can't use the semiconductor equations for copper, it is not a semiconductor.

The difference between semiconductor and metal becomes relevant in (c).
 
mfb said:
Oh, I didn't see the "is an equation" hint. Actually, it is not an equation, but it is not 1 either, I misread the problem statement before.

Plug in T=300 K in the first equation: Now the carrier density at 300 K appears both on the left and right side, so you can cancel them. The fraction is 1 by construction, so which value does the exponent at the right side need?Right.You can't use the semiconductor equations for copper, it is not a semiconductor.

The difference between semiconductor and metal becomes relevant in (c).
Plugging in 300K into that equation gives me 1 = e^(-(Eg/2kT)Cb). So solving for Cb would give me 0 taking the natural log of both sides. Not sure if this is correct or what it tells us if it is 0.EDIT*

Also, for part b and c what are we supposed to use to find the mobility then? What are they trying to get at by saying that the mobility follows that of the equation used for copper.
 
c_b is not meant as a factor here, it is written in a misleading way. Just see what you have to modify to make the equation right.

The mobility and concentration are completely different things, you need both to calculate the resistance.
 
I'm lost here. What is the right equation? Am I supposed to plug in T=300k into equation 3-26 and compare those?
 
That will certainly help.
 
What values should I use for the effective mass of electrons/holes in equation 3-26? Also, is the h in that equation h(bar)? Or something else?
 
  • #10
Marcin H said:
What values should I use for the effective mass of electrons/holes in equation 3-26?
You don't need values for them, they cancel anyway.
Marcin H said:
Also, is the h in that equation h(bar)? Or something else?
It is the Planck constant, not divided by 2pi, but this will cancel as well.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
3K
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K