 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> Chambers <ben### [at] pacificwebguy com> wrote:
>> Anyway, Silicon is a semiconductor, not a nonconductor. Normally, it's
>> a very poor conductor, but when doped becomes the equivalent of a
>> superconductor.
>
> Uh? Maybe you should check your physics again?
>
Which part - my description of semiconductors, or my classification of
Silicon as one?
I'll admit that I could be wrong about Silicon being a semiconductor; I
just assumed it was one because it's commonly used in semiconductors.
However, the rest of the description is fairly accurate, if a bit
simplified.
--
...Ben Chambers
www.pacificwebguy.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Sat, 19 Apr 2008 11:32:31 +0200, Orchid XP v8 <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> By that definition, Carbon would be a semiconductor. :-P
http://www.eetimes.com/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=206905544
--
FE
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Chambers <ben### [at] pacificwebguycom> wrote:
> Warp wrote:
> > Chambers <ben### [at] pacificwebguycom> wrote:
> >> Anyway, Silicon is a semiconductor, not a nonconductor. Normally, it's
> >> a very poor conductor, but when doped becomes the equivalent of a
> >> superconductor.
> >
> > Uh? Maybe you should check your physics again?
> >
> Which part - my description of semiconductors, or my classification of
> Silicon as one?
Your comparison of doped silicon to a superconductor.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> By that definition, Carbon would be a semiconductor. :-P
>
> http://www.eetimes.com/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=206905544
Right. So unusual configurations of Carbon form a semiconductor, diamond
is a good insulator, and graphite is an excellent conductor. Looks like
the electronic properties of a substance are *totally* determined by
their position on the periodic table to me. Oh, wait...
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v8 <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> Right. So unusual configurations of Carbon form a semiconductor, diamond
> is a good insulator, and graphite is an excellent conductor. Looks like
> the electronic properties of a substance are *totally* determined by
> their position on the periodic table to me. Oh, wait...
Atomic and molecular chemistry is one of the wackiest phenomena of
nature I can think of.
Take an innocent harmless molecule, remove one atom from it, and it might
be converted into a deadly poison.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Sat, 19 Apr 2008 11:52:23 +0200, Orchid XP v8 <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> Right. So unusual configurations of Carbon form a semiconductor, diamond
> is a good insulator, and graphite is an excellent conductor. Looks like
> the electronic properties of a substance are *totally* determined by
> their position on the periodic table to me. Oh, wait...
Nobody said that valence electrons were the *only* factor determining the
electrochemical properties of matter, just that it is an important one.
Besides, diamonds make really good semiconductors too:
http://www.geek.com/81ghz-diamond-semiconductor-created/
--
FE
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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?
--
...Ben Chambers
www.pacificwebguy.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Chambers 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?
Like, craaaaaaazy, man!
--
Tim Cook
http://empyrean.digitalartsuk.com
-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.12
GFA dpu- s: a?-- C++(++++) U P? L E--- W++(+++)>$
N++ o? K- w(+) O? M-(--) V? PS+(+++) PE(--) Y(--)
PGP-(--) t* 5++>+++++ X+ R* tv+ b++(+++) DI
D++(---) G(++) e*>++ h+ !r--- !y--
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
From: Orchid XP v8
Subject: Re: Now what am I going to store on this?
Date: 19 Apr 2008 12:01:23
Message: <480a1753@news.povray.org>
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>>> 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?
I think you'll find that pure silicon is an *insulator* [which is why
the substrate of a silicon chip is made of pure silicon], and it only
becomes partially or fully conductive once you dope it...
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> I think you'll find that pure silicon is an *insulator* [which is why
> the substrate of a silicon chip is made of pure silicon], and it only
> becomes partially or fully conductive once you dope it...
I don't think so. Otherwise you wouldn't need the "O" in CMOS.
It certainly becomes *more* conductive after you dope it, but the point
of doping it is to put N-doped and P-doped silicon bits next to each other.
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
"That's pretty. Where's that?"
"It's the Age of Channelwood."
"We should go there on vacation some time."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
