Talk:Carrier generation and recombination

Carrier generation and recombination

LC, can you explain what you think needs cleanup on that page? I deliberately didn't use headings for the various processes, to prevent generating a TOC. When the article gets long enough to need a TOC, it will be easy to change to using headings. I normally associate a cleanup tag with nonsense text, poor grammar, dubious facts, etc. Something like 1.33% of articles have cleanup tags. Do you really think this article is in the bottom 5% of ariticles?

The stub tag already calls attention to the lack of depth, no need for a cleanup tag to point it out a second time. Expanding this article is on my to do list, but I'll need to do some refresher reading before digging in.-- The Photon 04:26, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

I personally find it very hard reading especially without any headings or diagrams to tell you what the main subject being discussed is. Its not the lack of depth that the problem to me -its more like being thrown in at the deep end! Sorry if this tag offends, but what tag should I use to point out these shortcomings? Feel free to remove the tag if you intend to work on it soon.:-)--Light current 04:43, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Does the new tag ({{context}}) capture your concerns? -- The Photon 05:01, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Well its better but its still not right. Is ther a list anywher of all the tags that I could look at? THe tag I need would say "Could you make the page more inviting to read?" --Light current 05:08, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

See the sidebar at Wikipedia:Cleanup. -- The Photon 05:50, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Found tag: technical put on this page

Shockley-Read-Hall process

"The electron in transition between bands passes through a state created in the middle of the band gap by an impurity in the lattice." This is not entirely accurate. The state isn't necessarily in the middle of the band gap. It's deep within the band gap, but the 'middle' suggests you're referring to the intrinsic level. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.36.14.211 (talk) 10:34, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

This section uses the terms 'indirect' and 'direct' bandgap but does not explain what they mean or why they are relevant, which limits the usefulness article to those who already know the content (a widespread approach among scientific literature, but not reflective of a genuine desire to reach a wide audience). AgentGG (talk) 15:52, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

There is a link to Direct_and_indirect_band_gaps, which hopefully readers will follow, and which explains it in detail. We shouldn't need to duplicate that here, but maybe more of a hint for readers to follow the link? Gah4 (talk) 14:07, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Nearly

The first section properly mentions that the valence and conduction bands are nearly full and empty, due to thermal excitation. It then attributes no current to these carriers. Specifically, when one electron is moved from the valence band to the conduction band, it does contribute to current. Yes, for good semiconductors the thermal carrier density is low. (That is why germanium isn't so good.) But you then need more than one electron for a measurable current. Gah4 (talk) 20:15, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

crystal momentum

Should the article mention crystal momentum more than it does? It does mention conservation of momentum, but it really should be conservation of crystal momentum. Gah4 (talk) 14:08, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Non-radiative recombination is a process in phosphors and semiconductors

I am wondering about the distinction in: Non-radiative recombination is a process in phosphors and semiconductors. I am suspecting that all phosphors are semiconductors, or at least would be considered to be if one had a large enough crystal of one. That they have similar band structure and such. What is the important distinction, and is this the best way to describe it? Gah4 (talk) 22:08, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

image makes no sense

The second image, light generated carriers, makes no sense. Light generates carriers in pairs. The total number of photogenerated electrons must exactly equal the numbe of photogenerated holes. This is not what is shown in the image. Geoffrey.landis (talk) 19:31, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

I do not think that the lifetime is defined via all

"all of the excess holes will have disappeared" This is not the case I think. 134.58.253.20 (talk) 16:29, 16 November 2023 (UTC)