Talk:Shockley diode equation

Restored

2017-10-07 00:36 (utc-4) Hi this page was vendalized by Alain Ratomahenina, He is a man who suffer great mental problem.

I restore the article to the previous version before his edit. Please Block his IP adresse to avoid futur problem

How do you know it was done by Alain Ratomahenina? Wasn't it "just" regular vandalism? --Mortense (talk) 18:02, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Example

Shouldn't there be an example of an actual diode (and how much it deviates) and an actual (characteristic) value of a voltage at some sensible current (for illustration and understanding)? It seems too theoretical at the moment.

Say a germanium and/or silicon diode?

Or at least a "See also" section?

--Mortense (talk) 17:32, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Suggestion

I think that it would be beneficial to note whether "e" in the formula refers to Euler's number or the elementary charge.

Slavhole (talk) 18:23, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

The plots for diode law are too cluttered and confusing for noobs

Diode Law Graph

I am looking carefully at the File:Diode_Law_Graph.jpg and I tried to make this caption for it:

Diode law current–voltage curves at 25 °C, 50 °C, and two ideality factors. The logarithmic scale used for the bottom plot is useful for expressing the equation's exponential relationship.

However while the picture are good start, I don't like how they are:

1. Too cluttered. The linear plot is trying to show too much information by trying to write "Slope = 0.026v/I 13 Ohms @2 ma". It is hard to see which point exactly that slope is being defined at anyway. And can't see the small blue striagth line when in thumbnail view.
2. Incorrect. The green text of 0.1ma is in the wrong place...the horizontal line it is on is 10 ma.
3. Why not show negative voltages too, so can see the behavior there too?
4. The black grid lines are too heavy.
5. the font size for the top plot's axis is a little to small and too bold simultaneously.
6. axis can be better labeled, and in a color that isn't blue because *blue* refers to 25 degrees C n=1.

The presence of both linear and log plots are good. I think simpler is better for an thumbnail. I might say maybe plot 50 degrees C at n=2 too so have 4 lines instead of 3 to better see relationship. I'm wondering if I should go ahead and give a shot at generating a graph, but I will first see if other people have better idea. Em3rgent0rdr (talk) 22:41, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

I'm noticing Wikipedia:How_to_create_charts_for_Wikipedia_articles#Guidelines gives a few suggestions, many of which the current plot fails. For instance

1. Use the SVG format

2. Plots should be as language-free as possible

4. descriptive text should be confined to the caption

6. It is best if color coding is not the only thing that differentiates parts of the graph

7. Include the commands by which you created the plot

So whoever recreates this graph should keep those guidelines in mind... Em3rgent0rdr (talk) 00:55, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

I'm investigating using wxMaxima to create a svg output plot. I'm thinking of using a value of I_S=1pA for silicon and maybe I_S=1uA for germanium, and show both curves for comparison purposes...though don't know how complicated it will be in the end. Em3rgent0rdr (talk) 07:11, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

This graphic isn't "too confusing", it's bad

I'm not a newb, but an electrical engineer. There's simple mechanical things that are bad: Ampere is written with a capital A, volt with a capital V. It makes a difference whether one uses indices to describe the diode current, or whether one writes "Id", which means "the product of I and d".

But much worse, there's totally nonsensical elements: the red line bifurcates in the lower graph; theres's at totally spurious "2ma" in blue in the upper graph, and a totally unmotivated Is there's a clearly exponential curve that is labeled to have constant slope (hint: it doesn't) but that slope has incorrect units.

All in all, I'd be for removing it if we don't find a replacement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MüllerMarcus (talk • contribs) 21:15, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

If A is just n, then can we just write "n"?

In the following sentence, since it says A is the "ideality factor" called n above, can't we just instead use "n" instead of "A" in that equation $e^{V_{\text{J}}/AV_{\text{T}}}$ so it reads $e^{V_{\text{J}}/nV_{\text{T}}}$ to be consistent?

> In 1954, Bill Pfann and W. van Roosbroek (who were also of Bell Telephone Laboratories) reported that while Shockley's equation was applicable to certain germanium junctions, for many silicon junctions the current (under appreciable forward bias) was proportional to $e^{V_{\text{J}}/AV_{\text{T}}},$ with A having a value as high as 2 or 3. This is the "ideality factor" called $n$ above. Em3rgent0rdr (talk) 01:52, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

References

Photovoltaic Energy Conversion

The last few paragraphs depart from the “Derivation” for the p-n junction. I’ve simply added a subtitle. But that section feels rather unnatural in this article. Scharleb (talk) 11:18, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

Confusing deduction from temperature dependence

"The reverse saturation current I_S is not constant for a given device, but varies with temperature; usually more significantly than V_T, so that V_D typically decreases as T increases."

In the form given at the top of the page, Shockley's equation yields diode current for a given junction voltage and temperature. Therefore, from the above statement about the temperature dependence of I_S, it would be clearer to state that "I_D typically increases as T increases" instead of "V_D typically decreases as T increases." 2401:7000:D885:BE00:CAD3:5705:8611:44BB (talk) 08:41, 28 March 2024 (UTC)