Re: Channel length in MOS
From: Jim Logajan (JamesL_at_lugoj.com)
Date: 08/17/04
- Next message: Danny at Chrastina dot net: "Re: Channel length in MOS"
- Previous message: Fred Chen: "[Sci.nanotech] Re: Channel length in MOS"
- In reply to: Danny at Chrastina dot net: "Re: Channel length in MOS"
- Next in thread: Danny at Chrastina dot net: "Re: Channel length in MOS"
- Reply: Danny at Chrastina dot net: "Re: Channel length in MOS"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: 17 Aug 2004 04:50:18 GMT
Danny at Chrastina dot net <danny@chrastina.notreally> wrote:
>
> On Sun, 15 Aug 2004, Jim Logajan wrote:
>
>> jokerknowsthetruth@yahoo.com (Nanite) wrote:
>>
>>> I understand that in order to turn on a MOS, say Nmos, we gotta have
>>> a channel of electron form between the source and drain. I don't get
>>> this: why do we need a channel? I always thought that if you want to
>>> attract electron from 1 place to the other, you use positive
>>> voltage. So a channel of electron seems to me that the electron in
>>> the channel will repel one another. Could anybody pls explain on
>>> this?
>>
>> There are always as many protons in the channel as there are
>> electrons.
>
> Until you apply a gate bias, surely?
Well, I was thinking that the gate bias changes the charge distribution in
the substrate, but doesn't actually change the net amount of charge in the
substrate (on its own, anyway). But this wouldn't be the first time I've
posted incorrect (or incomplete) information!
Perhaps you are diplomatically pointing out that the electrons (or holes)
that gather to form the other half of the capacitance with the gate
constitutes the channel, which would have a net charge? If so, I guess I
wasn't paying attention to the difference between channel and substrate.
(Unless you mean something else and I've still overlooked something?)
I'm not sure if any of this helps Nanite - probably adds further confusion.
> When electrons get from the source to the drain despite there not
> being a channel, it's called "punch through". This can be a problem
> because it makes very short transistors difficult to switch off.
>
>> http://www.tf.uni-kiel.de/matwis/amat/elmat_en/kap_4/basics/b4_1_2.htm
>> l
>
> This gives me even me a headache, and I have a PhD in
> semiconductor physics. I think it's the alternation between black and
> red font.
Your PhD trumps my rusty physics BSc. :-) And the links you provided below
are better than the one I quickly grabbed.
> http://ece-www.colorado.edu/~bart/book/book/toc6.htm
> http://ece-www.colorado.edu/~bart/book/book/toc7.htm
- Next message: Danny at Chrastina dot net: "Re: Channel length in MOS"
- Previous message: Fred Chen: "[Sci.nanotech] Re: Channel length in MOS"
- In reply to: Danny at Chrastina dot net: "Re: Channel length in MOS"
- Next in thread: Danny at Chrastina dot net: "Re: Channel length in MOS"
- Reply: Danny at Chrastina dot net: "Re: Channel length in MOS"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
|