Why is the terminology for n-p type semi-conductors different from convention?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Dranzer
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Convention
AI Thread Summary
The terminology for n-p type semiconductors differs from conventional battery terminology due to the behavior of charge carriers. P-type materials have an excess of holes, while n-type materials have an excess of electrons. When a junction is formed, holes and electrons diffuse, resulting in the P-type side becoming negatively charged and the N-type side positively charged. This creates a scenario where the n-side has a higher potential than the p-side, contrary to typical battery conventions. Understanding this distinction is crucial for grasping semiconductor behavior.
Dranzer
Messages
10
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement


I am reading a chapter on semi-conductors in a text.It talks about n-p type semi-conductors and states that "the potential of the n-side is higher than that of the p-side"

However, by convention, in case of batteries for example,we designate the negative terminal as lower potential and the positive terminal as higher potential.

So, what can be the reason behind the author's terminology?

Thanks.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
P-type material has an excess of holes. N-type material has an excess of electrons. This is the reason they are called P and N type.

It just happens that when a junction is formed the holes and electrons diffuse across the junction making the P-type side negative and the N-type side positive.
 
I multiplied the values first without the error limit. Got 19.38. rounded it off to 2 significant figures since the given data has 2 significant figures. So = 19. For error I used the above formula. It comes out about 1.48. Now my question is. Should I write the answer as 19±1.5 (rounding 1.48 to 2 significant figures) OR should I write it as 19±1. So in short, should the error have same number of significant figures as the mean value or should it have the same number of decimal places as...
Thread 'Collision of a bullet on a rod-string system: query'
In this question, I have a question. I am NOT trying to solve it, but it is just a conceptual question. Consider the point on the rod, which connects the string and the rod. My question: just before and after the collision, is ANGULAR momentum CONSERVED about this point? Lets call the point which connects the string and rod as P. Why am I asking this? : it is clear from the scenario that the point of concern, which connects the string and the rod, moves in a circular path due to the string...
Thread 'A cylinder connected to a hanging mass'
Let's declare that for the cylinder, mass = M = 10 kg Radius = R = 4 m For the wall and the floor, Friction coeff = ##\mu## = 0.5 For the hanging mass, mass = m = 11 kg First, we divide the force according to their respective plane (x and y thing, correct me if I'm wrong) and according to which, cylinder or the hanging mass, they're working on. Force on the hanging mass $$mg - T = ma$$ Force(Cylinder) on y $$N_f + f_w - Mg = 0$$ Force(Cylinder) on x $$T + f_f - N_w = Ma$$ There's also...
Back
Top