Talk:N-type semiconductor

This should not be merged with a p-type semiconductor. This could be suggested only by a person who teaches this stuff at a high school and does not have a clue what the terms mean. karolko (talk) 18:52, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Sort out your grammar.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Talk_page
I also agree (although perhaps with not as much disdain as the last post). I am new to this function of Wikipedia; will a search for 'P-Type Semiconductor', or 'N-Type Semiconductor' still redirect to the proposed page? I find significant utility in this search query for highschool/college students. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Justinmreina (talk • contribs) 16:40, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Merger comment
Disagree with the merger, this is a valid subarticle under Semiconductors, as are P-type, I-type and Acceptor. Also see linked discussion at Talk:P-type semiconductor. Chuckiesdad (talk) 05:30, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

No! N and P type materials are distinct. Specifically, the concept of Holes as charge carriers in P-type materials is uniquely difficult to grasp and given special consideration. While, they could all be jammed together, the value of chunking the information for consumption would be lost.

Similarly, the terms Donor (N-type) and Acceptor (P-type) maybe simplified with definition and history and then referenced to N and P types accordingly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jmiche (talk • contribs) 03:33, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

I think p and n type semiconductors should be combined into an expanded extrinsic semiconductor article. They are obviously distinct but that doesn't mean they shouldn't be considered together, they both require very similar background knowledge for explanation and that means there's a large amount of repetition as it stands with two articles. They are even summarised again in the extrinsic semiconductor article. I think the contrast of the two mechanisms of conduction is actually an aid to understanding. An understanding of both is also required for the classic textbook application in p-n junctions. In summary I think the split should be into intrinsic and extrinsic semicondutors with sub-sections in the extrinsic article for p and n type. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.75.36.117 (talk) 14:26, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

I also think it would make the distinction between n and p type clearer if they were discussed in depth in one article.79.75.36.117 (talk) 14:43, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Intro wasn't really true
N-type semiconductors are not exclusivly doped intrinsic semicondutors. I've fixed it so that it doesn't suggest this. Nitrogen doped diamond for example is an N-type semiconductor but without doping is an insulator.79.75.36.117 (talk) 14:40, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Right idea with a poor example - nitrogen-doped diamond is still an insulator, but phosphorus-doped (or boron-doped for p-type) diamond is indeed semiconductor. Materialscientist (talk) 23:41, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Nanocrystalline nitrogen-doped diamond actually conducts, though I take your point. See P. Kulkarni, L. M. Porter, F. A. M. Koeck, Y.-J. Tang, R. J. Nemanich, J. Appl. Phys. 103, 084905 (2008).79.75.37.110 (talk) 15:08, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
 * At high doping, conductivity might occur through formation of the "impurity band". The problem with diamond is that such high doping levels often result in partial graphitization, and graphite conducts too. Materialscientist (talk) 22:47, 5 April 2010 (UTC)