Talk:Depletion region

Depletion region and depletion zone
See also depletion zone. Both of these articles need more work; they should be merged. There's significantly more Google hits for "depletion region" and "depletion layer" than there are hits for "depletion zone". - mako 06:15, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * I'll merge and revise them over the next week or two. "Depletion region" is what I've seen most commonly as well.--Christopher Thomas 18:57, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Update - never got to this (went on WikiSabbatical first). --Christopher Thomas 07:15, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Electric field
"An electric field results which is positive (+) on the N side and negative on the P side" is not very scientifically accurate: there is no such thing as a negative or positive electric field: electric field is a vector and the text should be fixed accordingly ("Electric field is oriented from the P- to the N- region" for example). &mdash;The preceding unsigned comment was added by Vmeunier (talk &bull; contribs) on 00:37, 16 September 2005.

Worth mentioning that the depletion region occures because electrons flow from high Ef (in the N-Type) to low Ef (in the P-Type) until Efn = Efp at equlibrium? &mdash;The preceding unsigned comment was added by 130.88.252.132 (talk &bull; contribs) on 23:58, 12 January 2006.

i dont know much about depletion region but i think there is much info missing in the text if any one knows good link about this topic i'll be gratfull ...

(maged rawash)

Limitations of article to pn junction
Although the introduction of the article is general, the later discussion is limited to the pn-junction. Moved a sentence from the intro restricted to the pn-junction to the pn-junction paragaph. The reference added by this sentence provides virtually the same discussion as presented in this article. Therefore, retained this reference and deleted the sentence.Brews ohare 20:00, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Picture
Hello I am not sure that the picture of junction with charges is right (this one http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Pn-junction-equilibrium-graphs.png ). I mean the voltage never comme back to zero outside the junction whereas it should slowly, goodbye.Klinfran (talk) 09:46, 28 March 2009 (UTC)


 * It does seem odd; not clear what the "potential" plot is supposed to represent. Usually they show a two such curves in parallel, for the potentials in the conduction band and the valence band, and a line between that is the Fermi level, which is straight in the zero-bias equilibrium.  Like this book.  But it also shows an "electrostatic potential;" it seems to be just the potential of the conduction-band electrons; the bulk "voltage" is the Fermi level.  Dicklyon (talk) 16:43, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

DONE: Depletion width equation
The p-n junction depletion width equation really should be on this page. It is: W = [(2*permittivity(Vo-V)/q*(Na+Nd)/(Na*Nd)]^(1/2). From Streetman, Solid State Electronics, 5th ed.  128.111.164.39 (talk) 22:58, 18 March 2008 (UTC) this page doesn't contains much infm'n.............  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.168.34.211 (talk) 11:41, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

DONE: Merge from depletion width
I've proposed merging depletion width into here because it doesn't make sense to have two small articles on this topic when one would do. Please support or oppose.


 * Support, as the proposer. Dicklyon 20:19, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose on the basis that depeletion width, which refers mainly to a dimension in a one-dimensional situation, and depletion region, which is a general physical phenomenon, aren't exactly the same thing, although closely connected. It seems possible that these two topics may extend in different directions as contributions are added. In addition, references to these two topics from other articles might be clearer if they are kept separate.
 * The bottom line on merger is probably whether the combined article would be clearer, which might be hard to say in advance of the rewrite. Brews ohare 21:56, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Obviously, they are not exactly the same thing, but one is a dimension of the other, and it's hard to imagine how to justify separate articles. Either term can be linked, and depletion width could even redirect to a section if desired. Dicklyon 22:37, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
 * If merging is done, I favor this redirection suggestion. That allows easy reference to either topic. Brews ohare 16:03, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
 * That's standard in a merge, to leave one as a redirect. Dicklyon 19:17, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm game to try a merge; how do you suggest to proceed?Brews ohare 20:48, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Just make a depletion width section in this article, and move all the relevant contents into it. Then change the other to say " #REDIRECT Depletion region ". Dicklyon 21:59, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I've set up a merge of these two articles; please take a look. Brews ohare 23:06, 14 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Looks good to me. Dicklyon 00:02, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't know how to arrange figures better, or how to remove banner about merge proposal. Should that be left for now?. Any help there? Brews ohare 00:26, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Cleaned up some weird destruction
I was trying to read this when I noticed that these two edits http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Depletion_region&diff=528621764&oldid=493778972 had mutilated the article. So I rolled back a couple short repairs and those two edits. JohnPritchard (talk) 23:09, 19 December 2012 (UTC)