Talk:Transistor channel

Why do we need this page? FET subsection instead?
Why do we need this page? Wouldn't a FET subsection be enough? Linking to subsections (via anchors) is common practice, and I cannot imagine that this page will grow very large. &mdash;TedPavlic (talk) 20:34, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Your imagination is irrelevant (although I would expect better from a "Electrical and Computer Engineering PhD student"). - 7-bubёn >t 23:38, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * "Linking to subsections (via anchors) is common practice" - yes I know that; I created a bunch of them an hour ago: source (transistor), drain (transistor), ‎bulk (transistor), etc. - 7-bubёn >t 00:02, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The recent discussion that has opened in the commit history for this page reflects unnecessary confusion. All of this is covered in the FET and MOSFET pages. Why do we need a separate "Transistor channel" page? And wouldn't it be more appropriate to call it a "Unipolar transistor channel" or something? Or perhaps just a "unipolar channel?" This whole page is contrived. Why does it exist? &mdash;TedPavlic (talk) 23:10, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Why does this exist? - because I started it. "This whole page is contrived." - Please watch your mouth. As for "unipolar transistor cahnnel", if you know other "transistor channels", please list them here. Unfortunatelly I know no other ones, hence the name. - 7-bubёn >t 23:38, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Your statement here that "transistor channel" is something tied solely to FET operation is even more reason why this page should be a small subsection of the FET page (with possibly some MOSFET/JFET/etc.-specific information on those pages). &mdash;TedPavlic (talk) 13:45, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Why do we need a separate "Transistor channel" page? - If you don't need it, please don't read it. I started this page because there is a wealth of information about channels I don't see in wikipedia, and it makes no sense to squeeze these details into the generic FET page. - 7-bubёn >t 00:02, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The amount of information on FET channel operation that is appropriate for an encyclopedia page does not warrant a separate topic. Additionally, you could argue that channel operation is just another name for FET operation. Enhancing the FET pages automatically enhances the "transistor channel" content available on Wikipedia. &mdash;TedPavlic (talk) 13:45, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

What is a channel?
I'm not sure we need it, either, but if we have it, we should work from sources. According to some sources, a transistor has a channel even when it's turned off due to the channel being depleted (like these). Not all sources agree. We should talk about both sourced definitions. Dicklyon (talk) 00:16, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
 * "According to some sources" - exactly for this reason I wrote a reasonably vague definition: "under certain conditions". And exactly for this reason I started this article, because wikipedia FET article describes the "standard" operation of the mosfet (n-)channel, when in fact there are multitudes. We don't have detail them here; sufficient to mention/list them, redirecing to the corresponding specific articles about particular devices. - 7-bubёn >t 05:53, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
 * As for "transistor has a channel even when" - quite often some things are spoken vaguely, and some things must be understood from context. For example, in some cases the term "channel" in fact means "channel region", i.e., the region where the conductive channel would form under appropriate conditions. - 7-bubёn >t 06:56, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Vagueness is no substitute for sourced information. My point is that according to many sources, the channel is the physical place; it doesn't form under certain conditions, it's just there; the voltage  influences the ability of carriers to enter from the source and/or drain; in no case is it a conductor, or conducting, in the usual sense -- it's a semiconductor channel.  Dicklyon (talk) 06:47, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I hear you. I already modified the text. This discussion proves beyond any doubt that this article is necessary. I also agree about sources. I thought to draft the intitial version by sketching the issues to be covered and worry about sources later, since they readily abound, and they require careful selection to be represenative. now that the page attracted some attention, I have a better idea:

to move my text into /draft, while the page may live as a redirect for a while. Please help to shape the draft. Alternatively, please write your own version of the article. - 7-bubёn >t 06:56, 29 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, that might be a better idea, but note that the odd email habit of starting a sentence in the subject line and continuing it in the body doesn't really work with edit summaries. Anyway, the key thing is to write it from sources; if you write it from sources, but don't have all points of view represented (e.g. on differing definitions), then I will be happy to add what I see as missing.  But if you start with asserting definitions with no source at all, it's hard to contribute without doing a lot more work.  Don't keep it as a draft for too long; better to have a stub with sourced info than a long unsourced draft.


 * It would also be good to mention on the talk pages of articles that this is essentially a split of, just what your reasoning is, and see if other editors want to talk you out of it. Go for consensus before you do a lot of work, or you may find a merge proposal later wanting to put the info back into another article and change this one back to a redirect. Dicklyon (talk) 07:11, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The merge would be rather pointless, because any possible targets, including the current one, address a particular type of FET and thus basically misleading, if a person wonders about another one. In particular, in no way I am going to wikilink the current "channel" page from articles dealing with jfets. - 7-bubёn >t 07:29, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
 * In an earlier comment, you stated that the only "transistor channel" important to you is of FET (i.e., unipolar) type. There already is a FET page that should be the target of this redirect. If you feel that the FET page is too JFET-centered, then you should change the FET page (by adding sourced information, as already mentioned). I will agree that the FET page needs a lot of work. It would be nice if the FET page was as detailed as the MOSFET page. I don't think that means the FET page should be recreated here under a new name. Have you contributed to the Talk:Field-effect transistor page? &mdash;TedPavlic (talk) 13:52, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Channel type -- dubious tag
An n channel typically exists in a p-type substrate; the majority carriers are p-type when it's bias hard off (in accumulation state); only when it is inverted are there n carriers in it. By some definitions of channel, it's a channel in all states, depleted, inverted, or accumulation; what makes it an n channel is that it conducts n carriers between the source and drain. Dicklyon (talk) 07:04, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
 * OK. You have already proved my ignorance, and I removed my text. The more the reason to write this article: the page may indeed grow very big, when all nuances are explained. - 7-bubёn >t 07:08, 29 January 2009 (UTC)


 * And please review WP:NPA; it is better to focus on content than on other editors. If you feel his comments were too personal, shrug them off and move forward. Dicklyon (talk) 07:12, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Good idea. - 7-bubёn >t 07:25, 29 January 2009 (UTC)