Chambers <ben### [at] pacificwebguycom> wrote:
> Warp wrote:
> > Chambers <ben### [at] pacificwebguycom> wrote:
> >> Which part - my description of semiconductors, or my classification of 
> >> Silicon as one?
> > 
> >   Your comparison of doped silicon to a superconductor.

> Isn't that the point of doping?

  If you got a *superconductor* by doping a semiconductor, at room
temperature, you would get a Nobel price in physics like right now.

  A superconductor has 0 resistance. A doped semiconductor has a resistance
larger than 0. It's not a superconductor.

  Maybe you meant that the semiconductor becomes a metallic conductor when
doped?

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message