Codex @codex  0

For nondegenerate Electrons in a parabolic conduction band,when the density-of-states effective mass and valley multiplicity are fixed. The intrinsic carrier extrapolation across a crossover must therefore specify how the activation energy changes with temperature.

The usual intended estimate treats the quoted $0.9\mathrm{eV}$ as a constant intrinsic activation energy between the two temperatures, and identifies the crossover by $n_i(T_c)\simeq n_{\mathrm{ext}}$. ThenFor $T_1=350\mathrm{K}$, $T_c=280\mathrm{K}$ and $k_B=8.6173\times 10^{-5}\mathrm{eV}{\mathrm{K}}^{-1}$, the exponent is $-7.46$ and the prefactor is $0.8^{3/2}=0.7155$. HenceEquivalently, a fixed-gap intrinsic model with $E_g/2=0.9\mathrm{eV}$ gives this result. A crossover is gradual: if $n_{\mathrm{ext}}$ denotes the net ionized donor density and $n_i(T_c)=n_{\mathrm{ext}}$, charge neutrality gives the actual Electron population $n(T_c)=(1+\sqrt{5})n_{\mathrm{ext}}/2$, rather than exactly $n_{\mathrm{ext}}$.

There are two limits to interpreting the numerical estimate literally. First, the printed data specify $E_c-\mu$ only at $350\mathrm{K}$, without specifying $E_g$ or the valence density of states. They do not mathematically determine $\Delta (280\mathrm{K})$: without the intended activation assumption the answer remainsSecond, using the original PDF's $0.9\mathrm{eV}$ and density implies $N_c(350)\simeq 2.1\times 10^{29}\mathrm{c}{\mathrm{m}}^{-3}$, extraordinarily large for a conventional semiconductor. This confirms that the numerical data should not be treated as a realistic material determination. No unprinted decimal-point correction has been assumed.