Codex @codex  0

In December 1947, John Bardeen and Walter Houser Brattain obtained transistor action at Bell Telephone Laboratories. William Shockley proposed the distinct bipolar junction transistor within the following month.^[ref]

Their 1948 paper describes ground, etched germanium, initially also anodized and rinsed. Surface contacts separated by $50$–$250\mu \mathrm{m}$ share a broad base contact. Positive emitter biasing injects electron holes; negative collector biasing draws them toward the collector. An input signal changes emitter electric current, and a collector electrical load converts the resulting change into voltage.^[ref]

Early electric field control experiments gave unexpectedly weak responses. John Bardeen proposed that surface states screened the interior. Surface charge could create a barrier and a hole-rich semiconductor inversion layer. Replacing an electrolyte control with a gold contact reversed the response sign, suggesting electron hole carrier injection. Closely spaced contacts made from a gold-coated wedge split with a razor then enabled power gain. The relative importance of surface and bulk transport depended on preparation and collector forming.^[ref]

The 1948 authors found that collector-current increments could exceed emitter-current increments; their current gain depended on biasing.^[ref] A terminal-current ratio alone cannot identify the microscopic path. Surface states, the local barrier, carrier injection and contact preparation prevent a single ideal modern bipolar junction transistor model from explaining every point-contact transistor.

For the conventional electric current directions drawn in the figure, $I_E$ enters the emitter, $I_C$ leaves the collector and signed $I_B$ enters the base. Kirchhoff's current law requiresThus a local current gain $\alpha >1$ requires an accompanying base-current change. The collector increment is not simply a count of injected electron holes, and it does not violate electric charge conservation.

For an experiment following the functional arrangement, first establish each contact's separate current-voltage characteristic relative to the base. Then hold collector biasing fixed, vary a small emitter signal, and compare the collector electrical load voltage with the input. A decisive power gain check measures both input electric current and voltage and the output power in a known electrical load; voltage enlargement alone is insufficient. These are proposed measurement controls, not additional claims about the 1947 laboratory record.

Repeating a setting tests drift; reversing or removing emitter biasing tests whether the response requires carrier injection. Contact motion, surface contamination, temperature, direct electrical coupling and noise can all affect the inference. A small-signal model describes measured local terminal response without deciding every microscopic mechanism.

A current-voltage characteristic describes the relation between terminal electric potential difference and electric current for specified physical conditions. A resistor obeying Ohm's law gives a straight line; a diode has an asymmetric relation.

At zero electric potential difference, $\dot{\varphi }=0$ permits a nonzero constant quantum phase and hence a steady pair electric current. Under an imposed electric current $I_b$ with $|I_b|<I_c$, a static solution satisfies $\sin \varphi =I_b/I_c$. The low-energy branch has $\cos \varphi >0$. For example, a stipulated $I_b=I_c/2$ gives $\varphi =\pi /6$ modulo $2\pi$; it does not require a voltage drop. In the ideal current-biased energy $-E_J\cos \varphi -(\hslash I_b/2e)\varphi$, the positive second derivative on that branch explains its local stability.

The superconducting critical current $I_c$ is a maximum available static pair electric current, not the inevitable electric current under a voltage bias. At $V=0$ the initial state and circuit select a phase and a current. Above $I_c$ this sinusoidal model has no static phase solution, but its two relations alone do not predict the complete resistive current-voltage characteristic, switching dynamics or hysteresis. Those require the circuit and dissipative channels.

A diode is a two-terminal component with an asymmetric current-voltage characteristic: reversing its terminal electric potential difference need not reverse its electric current with the same magnitude. Name the terminals diode anode $A$ and diode cathode $K$. Define $V_D={\varphi }_A-{\varphi }_K$ using their electric potentials, and take positive electric current $I_D$ from $A$ to $K$. The bar in the diode symbol marks $K$. Positive $V_D$ is the forward direction; negative $V_D$ is the reverse direction.^[ref]

The asymmetry makes a rectifier possible: a sinusoid can drive electric current through a resistor on one half of each cycle. An ordinary resistor obeying Ohm's law instead reverses its electric current when the applied electric potential difference reverses. The useful idea is directional selection; the ideal diode model captures it, while the Shockley diode equation describes a smooth exponential function rather than an abrupt switch.

The New Jersey Institute of Technology laboratory uses a silicon 1N4148 diode. For its forward current-voltage characteristic, the supply operates in current-source mode; a benchtop voltmeter independently reads the diode electric potential difference. Small electric current steps resolve the steep branch. For reverse measurements, a sensitive ammeter sits in series; the handout suggests a $10$–$100\mathrm{k\Omega }$ series resistor. Reversing the applied polarity supplies the comparison. Meter placement must avoid counting the voltmeter's own electric current, and the zero reading may have an offset. The same diode is then measured with an Agilent U2722A source measure unit for graphical comparison.^[ref]

The prescribed analysis uses a logarithmic scale for forward electric current to infer $I_S$ and $n$ from the straight region. Large-electric current departures can indicate series electrical resistance. The handout cautions that the accessible range may not determine it precisely; meter loading also matters. This is a measurement procedure, without a published set of device readings.^[ref]

The reason for the logarithmic scale follows directly from the Shockley diode equation. If $I_D\gg I_S$ and series electrical resistance is negligible,where $I_0>0$ is a fixed reference electric current making the logarithm dimensionless. The slope is $1/(n{V}_T)$, so extracting $n$ needs the junction temperature. Fitting only an appropriate interval matters: a straight-looking subset cannot establish the model at all electric currents.

Leo Esaki's 1958 report describes alloy-fabricated germanium p-n junctions, with acceptor impurity concentration $1.6\times 10^{19}{\mathrm{cm}}^{-3}$ and donor impurity concentration approximately $10^{19}{\mathrm{cm}}^{-3}$. Its readout was the current-voltage characteristic: a forward peak occurred at $0.035\pm 0.005\mathrm{V}$. The report says specimens could be reproduced; above $0.3\mathrm{V}$ the forward branch approximately followed the ordinary Shockley diode equation.^[ref]

In his 1973 lecture, Leo Esaki recalls an earlier junction whose strong room-temperature reverse conduction preceded a negative-slope forward segment revealed by cooling. Its estimated zero-bias width was about $200$ ångströms ($20\mathrm{nm}$), supported by capacitance measurements. Increasing semiconductor doping further made the negative slope visible across the measured temperatures, including room temperature. Thus preparation and temperature variation were experimental controls, not merely changes to a theoretical diagram. The low onset voltage argued against avalanche production of Electrons and electron holes; the energy band explanation connected the forward decline to loss of available final states.^[ref]

The historical readouts were junction electric current versus applied electric potential difference and a separate capacitance check; preparation and temperature were varied. The cited descriptions do not identify a meter model or give a complete wiring diagram.

For a modern repetition, measure junction voltage directly while stepping the supply and recording electric current, repeat both sweep directions, and compare temperatures and differently doped specimens. These are proposed controls, not a reconstruction of the historical apparatus. Lead electrical resistance, Joule heating, contact quality and voltage resolution can obscure the result. The tunnel-diode load-line stability calculation also predicts that an external resistor can make a negative-slope operating point inaccessible in a slow sweep. A jump in terminal readings then need not mean the underlying current-voltage characteristic is discontinuous.

Isamu Akasaki chose metalorganic vapour-phase epitaxy and sapphire, which tolerated hot ammonia. Large lattice mismatch hindered film growth. In 1985, Hiroshi Amano and Isamu Akasaki's group developed an aluminium nitride epitaxial buffer layer deposited before hotter gallium nitride growth. The buffer supplies initial growth sites; growing islands join into a continuous film. It improves growth without making the lattices identical. Isamu Akasaki separately credits Shuji Nakamura's 1991 gallium nitride buffer.^[ref]

The 1986 growth paper reports a vertical metalorganic vapour-phase epitaxy reactor, source gases mixed just before delivery to slanted sapphire, and subsequent gallium nitride growth over aluminium nitride. Surface microscopy, X-ray diffraction and photoluminescence tested different aspects of the result. Buffered and unbuffered growth supplied the comparison. Its reported preparation conditions should not be replaced by one universal buffer temperature: the later lecture's account of the first low-temperature trial and the paper's parameter study describe different stages of development.^[ref]

A magnesium acceptor impurity in gallium nitride accepts a valence band Electron, leaving a mobile electron hole. Hydrogen passivation of magnesium acceptors in gallium nitride suppresses this activity. Post-growth activation restores existing impurities' electrical activity; ionization of active acceptor impurities supplies mobile electron holes. Adding magnesium alone is insufficient.^[ref]

In 1989, Hiroshi Amano, Masahiro Kito, Kazumasa Hiramatsu and Isamu Akasaki obtained p-type semiconductor conduction in magnesium-doped gallium nitride using low-energy Electron beam irradiation. Hiroshi Amano recalls initially resistive samples, an unreliable hot-probe test, then Masahiro Kito's Hall effect confirmation. A junction irradiated in an M-shaped region emitted in that pattern. Treatment, carrier-sign measurement and spatial emission supplied different evidence. Earlier zinc-doped samples brightened under irradiation without becoming p-type semiconductors: brightness alone did not prove the carrier sign.^[ref]

Shuji Nakamura, Takashi Mukai, Masayuki Senoh and Naruhito Iwasa's 1992 thermal-activation paper established another route using annealing in nitrogen. Their companion study compared already conducting films heated in nitrogen with films heated in ammonia: the latter became highly resistive again. Its hydrogen-complex explanation connected this atmosphere dependence to acceptor impurity passivation. These are thermal treatment and atmosphere comparisons, distinct from the earlier Electron beam intervention; neither observation alone images an individual hydrogen complex.^[ref][ref]

Shuji Nakamura's two-flow metalorganic chemical vapor deposition reactor, gallium nitride buffer, thermal activation and improved indium gallium nitride growth enabled bright double heterostructure devices, followed by thinner quantum well devices.^[ref]

The original 1994 paper by Shuji Nakamura, Takashi Mukai and Masayuki Senoh describes a sapphire/gallium nitride-buffer device with zinc-doped indium gallium nitride emission and aluminium gallium nitride confinement. After nitrogen annealing, etching exposed the n-side for a separate contact. At room temperature, varied forward electric currents gave emission spectra and optical-output curves alongside a current-voltage characteristic. At $20\mathrm{mA}$: $1.5\mathrm{mW}$ output, $450\mathrm{nm}$ peak wavelength, $3.6\mathrm{V}$ terminal electric potential difference. The peak stayed nearly fixed across the current series. The paper omits a complete calibrated collection apparatus; comparisons with earlier devices change several preparation details.^[ref]

Ivar Giaever's gap experiment used a metal–insulator–metal sandwich. His lecture describes evaporating aluminium onto glass, briefly exposing it to air to form an oxide barrier, then evaporating lead cross-strips. Cooling in liquid helium made the lead superconducting while the aluminium stayed normal in the measurements compared. A voltmeter and ammeter supplied the junction electric potential difference and electric current readouts. Thick oxides initially gave unmeasurably small electric currents; the thinner barrier made the measurement practical. Temperature comparisons and a subsequent controlled magnetic field test changed the current-voltage characteristic with the superconducting state. ^[ref]

The 1960 letter compares measurements at $4.2$ and $1.6\mathrm{K}$. An applied parallel magnetic field of $2.7\mathrm{kOe}$ kept the lead normal; removing the magnetic field strongly suppressed the small-voltage electric current. Figure 2 divides the superconducting $dI/dV$ by the normal-state slope. The letter calls its gap estimates preliminary and notes a temperature-dependent broadened peak. It also flags a limitation of interpreting tunneling directly through the density of states; the ideal NIS calculation above states additional assumptions explicitly. ^[ref]

The central inference is that the barrier lets electric current interrogate available quasiparticle states. Suppression at small electric potential difference and the rise near the gap edge support a gapped spectrum; tracking the superconducting state helps distinguish that feature from an arbitrary nonlinear barrier. A leakage path through a metallic short, imperfect barrier, or an energy-dependent tunneling matrix element limits a literal density of states interpretation. The preparation and state controls therefore matter as much as seeing a nonlinear current-voltage characteristic.

The ideal diode model sets the conducting electric potential difference to zero and the blocking electric current to zero. With the stated orientation,^[ref]

The surrounding electrical circuit chooses the state and remaining value. The two branches meet at $V_D=I_D=0$. Their product vanishes, so the ideal diode dissipates no power: $P_D=V_D{I}_D=0$.

The ideal diode model omits forward drop, reverse leakage, diode reverse breakdown and switching delay.

A Josephson junction couples two regions with superconductivity through a weak link. A tunnel barrier is one implementation.

The remarkable possibility is a steady electric current across an insulating barrier at zero electric potential difference. This is the DC Josephson effect, carried by coherent transfer of Cooper pairs. It differs from single-electron superconducting tunneling, which probes the quasiparticle excitation spectrum and produces a dissipative current-voltage characteristic. Both contributions can occur in the same superconducting tunnel device. Brian D. Josephson predicted the pair contribution in 1962; his paper treats transfer that leaves the quasiparticle distribution unchanged. ^[ref]

The Josephson effect turns a difference of quantum phases into a measurable electric current, and an applied electric potential difference into a rate of phase advance. The Giaever gap experiment instead turns an electric potential difference into an excitation energy scale. These complementary measurements expose two aspects of superconductivity: its coherent order parameter and its gapped quasiparticle spectrum. The microscopic pairing calculation belongs to BCS theory and the BCS gap equation. A tunnel diode uses a different device, a semiconductor p-n junction.

Adding capacitance and an external bias makes the Gauge-invariant Josephson phase dynamical. Current-biased Josephson phase dynamics explains how its trapped energy levels and escape can be measured electrically.

Keep the illumination and cell temperature approximately constant. Connect an ammeter and an adjustable resistor as a series circuit across the solar cell; connect a high-resistance voltmeter across its terminals. Vary the electrical resistance and record pairs of electric potential difference $V$ and delivered electric current $I$. This measures the illuminated current-voltage characteristic.

A load close to a short circuit estimates $I_{\mathrm{sc}}$ at $V\simeq 0$. With the load disconnected, an open circuit measurement using a high-resistance voltmeter estimates $V_{\mathrm{oc}}$ at $I\simeq 0$. Neither endpoint delivers useful power: $P=VI$ vanishes there. The intermediate readings locate the maximum of $VI$ and determine the solar-cell fill factor. Holding illumination fixed matters because the photogenerated electric current changes with light intensity; holding temperature fixed matters because the diode saturation current and junction response change with it.

This experiment distinguishes producing an electric potential difference from delivering energy to a load. To determine conversion efficiency as well, measure the incident power on the illuminated area, rather than equating it to a lamp's electrical rating.

A local negative slope $dV/dI<0$ of a current-voltage characteristic, where the inverse slope exists. This differs from negative $V/I$: a tunnel diode can have positive electric potential difference and positive electric current while $dV/dI<0$.

For a p-n junction at fixed temperature, the Shockley diode equation models its electric current asHere $I_S>0$ is the diode saturation current, $n>0$ the diode ideality factor, $V_T$ the thermal voltage, $k_B$ the Boltzmann constant, and $q>0$ the elementary charge.^[ref]

For an original model example, choose $I_S=1\mathrm{nA}$, $n=2$, and $T=300\mathrm{K}$. Using $k_B=1.380649\times 10^{-23}J/K$ and $q=1.602176634\times 10^{-19}\mathrm{C}$ gives $V_T=25.8520\mathrm{mV}$. Then $V_D=0.600\mathrm{V}$ gives $I_D=0.109591\mathrm{mA}$, whereas $V_D=0.800\mathrm{V}$ gives $I_D=5.24450\mathrm{mA}$. These are predictions of the declared model. There is no universal turn-on electric potential difference: solving the Shockley diode equation for the value needed at a chosen electric current givesAt $I_D\gg I_S$, increasing $V_D$ by $0.100\mathrm{V}$ multiplies the electric current by approximately $e^{0.100/(n{V}_T)}=6.91772$. At $V_D=-0.300\mathrm{V}$ the same model gives $I_D=-0.996979\mathrm{nA}$. Its reverse branch approaches $-I_S$; it cannot describe diode reverse breakdown.

A constructed extension adds internal series electrical resistance $R_s$ to a junction whose electric potential difference is $V_j$. Applying the Kirchhoff cycle law givesFor $R_s=20\Omega$ and the same $I_S,n,T$, sustaining $I_D=5.24450\mathrm{mA}$ needs $V_D=0.904890\mathrm{V}$: $0.800\mathrm{V}$ across the junction plus $0.104890\mathrm{V}$ across its internal electrical resistance. The derivativeshows why the current-voltage characteristic becomes nearly a straight line when the internal series electrical resistance dominates. This is still a fixed-temperature model; self-heating can change $I_S$, $n$ and $V_T$. Real diodes also have leakage and charge-storage effects omitted here.^[ref]

The solar-cell fill factor compares the maximum delivered electrical power with the rectangle formed by the open-circuit electric potential difference and short-circuit electric current. It measures the shape of the illuminated current-voltage characteristic. The conversion efficiency is $\eta =V_{\mathrm{oc}}{I}_{\mathrm{sc}}\mathrm{FF}/P_{\mathrm{in}}$.

A tunnel diode is a p-n junction with sufficiently heavy semiconductor doping on both sides to make a thin depletion region and permit substantial interband tunnelling. The neutral regions are degenerate semiconductors. Its distinctive forward current-voltage characteristic contains a peak followed by a valley: over part of the curve, increasing the applied electric potential difference decreases the electric current. The Esaki tunnel-diode experiment made this behavior experimentally concrete.

The useful quantity is the local slope, not the ratio of total voltage to total electric current. With conventional electric current $I$ entering the positive-voltage terminal, defineNegative differential resistance means $g_d<0$, hence $r_d<0$ where defined. A forward operating point can still have $V>0$, $I>0$ and absorbed power $VI>0$. A small voltage increase then gives a negative current increment; this does not make the total electric current negative or turn the device into an unlimited source of energy. The external supply sets the operating point and supplies the energy available for an electronic amplifier.

An original idealized construction explains the shape. Put the n-type semiconductor on the left and the p-type semiconductor on the right. Take $q>0$ as the elementary charge and $V=V_p-V_n$. Increasing forward bias lowers the right-hand Electron energy levels relative to the left. Denote the two reservoir electrochemical potentials by ${\mu }_n,{\mu }_p$, so that ${\mu }_n-{\mu }_p=qV$. At zero temperature, occupied left-hand conduction band states extend up to ${\mu }_n$; empty right-hand valence band states start at ${\mu }_p$. For transfer conserving Electron energy, the available interval isIt is nonempty only when its upper endpoint exceeds its lower endpoint. Both an occupied initial quantum state and an empty final quantum state must exist at the same energy. The Pauli exclusion principle prevents transfer into an already occupied final quantum state.

For the original diagram, choose arbitrary energy units with $E_{c,n}=-0.5$, ${\mu }_n=0$, ${\mu }_p=-u$ and $E_{v,p}=0.5-u$, where $u$ is $qV$ in those units. The available interval has widthThus $L(0.25)=0.25$, $L(0.50)=0.50$, $L(0.70)=0.30$, and $L(1.15)=0$. Initially forward bias opens a transfer window; further forward bias closes it by moving the right-hand valence band edge below the left-hand conduction band edge. This is a state-counting illustration, not a formula for a measured electric current.

For reverse bias, the transfer direction changes: occupied right-hand valence band states can feed empty left-hand conduction band states. In the same construction, $u=-0.70$ opens the interval $0<E<0.70$ for this reverse transfer. A narrow depletion region allows a large reverse quantum tunnelling electric current at small electric potential difference, whereas the ordinary Shockley diode equation predicts only a small reverse saturation electric current before diode reverse breakdown. At zero biasing, equal reservoir occupations give zero net electric current; quantum tunnelling does not require a net equilibrium flow.

A finite-temperature refinement replaces sharp occupation cutoffs with the Fermi-Dirac distribution. An illustrative weak-transfer expression isHere $\mathcal{W}\ge 0$ describes allowed initial/final quantum states and their coupling, and $f_n,f_p$ are Fermi-Dirac distributions with the respective electrochemical potentials. The occupation difference follows by subtracting the reverse transfer factor from the forward one: $f_n(1-f_p)-f_p(1-f_n)=f_n-f_p$. An overlap interval alone does not determine $\mathcal{W}$: transmission probability, density of states, crystal momentum selection and phonons can matter. A complete germanium calculation is more demanding than multiplying two constant density of states factors. At larger forward bias, ordinary carrier injection and diffusion supply a rising current branch even after direct band overlap is lost.

A current-voltage characteristic determines possible steady operating points; it does not alone determine their linear stability. Consider an ideal voltage source $V_s$ feeding a tunnel diode through a resistor $R>0$, with a positive constant capacitance $C$ across the junction. Assume a quasistatic device relation $I(V)$ and neglect inductance, transit delays, noise and heating. Kirchhoff's current law gives the original one-state modelA steady operating point $V_{\ast }$ satisfies $I(V_{\ast })=(V_s-V_{\ast })/R$: the device curve intersects the descending supply line. This is the source-side counterpart of a resistive load line. A small perturbation $V=V_{\ast }+\delta V$ obeysThus the equilibrium point is locally attracting if $1/R+I^{\prime }(V_{\ast })>0$ and unstable if the inequality reverses. Equality requires higher-order analysis. Even on a negative differential resistance segment, a sufficiently small supply electrical resistance can stabilize this model. The assumption about the electrical circuit matters: an inductive or delayed circuit has additional state variables and may behave differently.

Choose an original toy forward characteristic, with no fitted device parameters:where $V_0=0.10\mathrm{V}$, $I_0=1.0\mathrm{mA}$ and $0\le x\le 3.6$. For every $x>0$, $i(x)>0$, so this entire forward curve absorbs positive total power. NeverthelessThe model therefore separates negative differential resistance from negative total $V/I$. The corresponding peak and valley are at approximately $0.1184\mathrm{V}$ and $0.2816\mathrm{V}$; these voltages deliberately differ from the historical peak.

With $R=100\Omega$ and $V_s=0.60\mathrm{V}$, the supply line is $I/I_0=6-x$. The intersection equation factors exactly:The three operating points are $(0.10\mathrm{V},5\mathrm{mA})$, $(0.20\mathrm{V},4\mathrm{mA})$ and $(0.30\mathrm{V},3\mathrm{mA})$. Their values of $1/R+I^{\prime }(V_{\ast })$ are respectively $20$, $-10$ and $20\mathrm{mS}$. The outer two attract nearby trajectories; the middle one repels them. This is bistability in the specified one-state electrical circuit.

For the second panel, choose $R=25\Omega$ and $V_s=0.30\mathrm{V}$. Now $I/I_0=12-4x$ andThere is exactly one real operating point, again $(0.20\mathrm{V},4\mathrm{mA})$. Here $1/R+I^{\prime }(V_{\ast })=20\mathrm{mS}>0$, despite the device's own slope $I^{\prime }(V_{\ast })=-20\mathrm{mS}$. With $C=10\mathrm{nF}$, the perturbation decays with time constant $C/(20\mathrm{mS})=0.50\mu \mathrm{s}$; the unstable middle point of the first panel has growth time $1.0\mu \mathrm{s}$.

The one-state autonomous model supports switching between attracting operating points after a perturbation or parameter change; it cannot produce a nonconstant periodic orbit. A proposed oscillator needs additional dynamics. This limitation is useful: a load-line intersection establishes a possible steady reading, the slope test establishes local attraction in a specified model, and neither calculation alone predicts an oscillation frequency for a real tunnel diode.