Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Threshold formation in MOSFET

Threshold formation in MOSFET
Voting period ends on 3 Sep 2010 at 13:36:21 (UTC)
 * Reason:Strong EV and good looped illustration
 * Articles in which this image appears:MOSFET, Nanotechnology, Nanowire, Threshold voltage, Moore's law
 * FP category for this image:Diagrams, drawings, and maps
 * Creator:Saumitra R Mehrotra & Gerhard Klimeck


 * Support as nominator --JovianEye (talk) 13:36, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose. It is a screenshot... with widgets in it. Sorry, but that looks somewhat cheap. --Dschwen 15:53, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Support An animation showing very special software illustrating an invisible phenomenon is a rare treat. Greg L (talk) 17:11, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose Maybe after clean-up per Dschwen. Papa Lima Whiskey  (talk) 17:28, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I see what you mean. If it had been Mac OS X software, the ‘widget’ portion wouldn’t look so Atari-like. Too bad, because as an engineer I’ve wondered about MOSFETs, which work quite differently from regular transistors (I’ve specified them before in fuel cell designs). Greg L (talk) 17:41, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't quite think you see what we mean. What I'm looking for is a clean illustration, with proper labeling, height color coding that is meaningful, maybe an overlay of he structure on the electron density plot, and no clutter around. This is not a question of Windows/Linux/OSX, it is a question of how to best present scientific data. --Dschwen 17:46, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * P.S.: I guess for most voters here this is going to run in the "I have no clue what it means, but it looks sciency enough" department, just like the KH-instability. The image description is lacking to say the least. For starters it should mention that it is a simulation, next it should provide rudimentary information on how it was calculated. Or are we supposed to dig that up on the software website that is embedded as a watermark in the animation? --Dschwen 17:51, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, well… just pardon me all over the place for not seeing that It is a screenshot... with widgets in it. Sorry, but that looks somewhat cheap is somehow magically equivalent to What I'm looking for is a clean illustration, with proper labeling, height color coding that is meaningful, maybe an overlay of he structure on the electron density plot, and no clutter around. Next time around following up behind a vote explanation of yours, I’ll brush up on my mind-reading skills and read up on the dictionary terms for “widgets” and “cheap” since you use the terms far more expansively than I. I won’t argue about it any further since all the information is self-explanatory as to how voltage causes a break-away current (on the left) and the electron density is labeled on the right. I think all this needs is a better caption to explain what the various elements mean; that’s all. To each is own. Bye. Greg L (talk) 18:02, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Uhm no, it does not magically mean this. What I did is called clarifying my point. Do you have a problem with that? Sorry that I did not make myself perfectly clear in my first post, but do you think this sort of condescending sarcasm is helpful? You know where this is heading, right? One of us will get all emotional and storm off again... --Dschwen 18:35, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose for now, I can't even begin to support an image with a watermark like that. J Milburn (talk) 23:04, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * New Version Removed the watermark and computer widgets. - Zephyris Talk 17:00, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * That is a step in the right direction, but still a long way to go. --Dschwen 17:08, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Support “New Verstion”. This is very educational. I can clearly imagine many readers having a “stop, stare & click” reaction. Animations are something no regular print encyclopedia can do; this is a showcase example of the virtues of the educational capabilities of Wikipedia. Important note (in my opinion): This image, right here at FPC, needs a clear-as-glass, plain-speak caption explaining what the left & right panels represent and mean at different times (before & after). As this will end up one day on the Main Page as a Featured Picture, the accompanying caption here will be greatly representative of what will be used then on the Main Page. The caption must be directed to that portion of a general-interest audience that would be intrigued by something like this and would be thirsty to understand it. Greg L (talk) 17:32, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * You might want to remove your second support above. --Dschwen 17:48, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Oops. I thought of striking (apparently for not too long) but failed to carry through. Now fixed. Thanks.
 * Support alt, I don't want to try to judge the accuracy or EV- this is not a subject with which I feel comfortable. I am, however, happy with the technicals, and happy to support an eyecatching image in an underrepresented area (while trusting others who assert the accuracy and EV.) J Milburn (talk) 21:07, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Support struck while issues below are outstanding. J Milburn (talk) 12:56, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose I am vaguely aware of the topic, and it took me quite some time to understand what on earth this image was trying to convey.
 * Firstly, Id, Vg - I assume this means drain current and gate voltage? I know that, (took me a few seconds), but few would just from the image.
 * From a composition perspective, there needs to be better matching between the graph and the image -- I had to sit there for at least 30 seconds to mentally pair up each frame in the animation -- I was unable to "view" both at once -- too much information was happening simultaneously.
 * Why is the colour bar changing scale -- this looks like a floating point error?
 * I don't get the 3D bit -- I assume this indicates that the image is 3D in nature, and we are seeing a particular angle -- I am totally unable to relate it to the transistor structure.
 * Units?? The colour bar is lacking any kind of unit.
 * Scale? Could be a nanoscale transistor or a really low-load busbar.
 * Repeated information, and redundant information (frame #, drain voltage)
 * Intent of image is unclear -- I assume it is trying to show the reader the cause of I-V saturation in mosfets?
 * Finally, the jerky animation (too slow frame-rate) makes the image somewhat disorienting.

Forgive me if I am stupid, but I thought EV meant Exposure value -- which is a measurement of the dynamic range of the image -- or its ability to capture the full range of the flux on the camera sensor (not being noisy and not saturating*). How can software have EV? one would assume you pushed the image out in full RGB and didn't constrain yourself to only the lower part of the bit representation. Assuming I am not barking up the wrong tree, I fail to see how this image can have "EV". Strike that "Encyclopaedic value" '*' - Ironical Transistor saturation recursion?
 * User A1 (talk) 22:09, 26 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment: Wait, are we even sure this is freely licensed? On what grounds is the person who claimed to release the image able to release screenshots of this software? J Milburn (talk) 12:57, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Threshold of originality. Nuff said. Especially without the widgets I don't see any problem here. --Dschwen 14:01, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure I follow? It's hardly sufficiently simple to be considered public domain? J Milburn (talk) 09:38, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Of course it is. What do you think the contribution of the software writer is? Two squares and three scales. That is very common imagery. The rest is plotting of simulated data. No original artwork or design here. --Dschwen 11:49, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
 * This image was posted by Gerhard Klimeck, who is one of the principles behind nanoHUB.org at Purdue. So the individual who posted this animation is the creator of both the application and the simulation. No problem. Besides, even if the software author and the simulator author were two different individuals (which they aren’t), I agree 100% with Dschwen; a software author can’t copyright the concept of graphs, or log-scale annotation of the axis of a graph, nor can a software author copyright Windows-standard interface elements such as sliders and click-buttons. There is no original content whatsoever shown here so far as interface elements of the application go, let alone original content that rises to a level of concern. Double-no-problem. Triple-no-problem if we were voting on the “New Version” (which I am as I find it much more “sanitary” and elegant). Greg L (talk) 20:03, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Help! Can someone please explain what I'm looking at in the images to the top right? -- I'ḏ ♥  One  21:09, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Most transistors amplify a current. So if you put a small current into a gate lead (and out another lead), you get an amplified current out a different set. Usually that amplification ratio is around 100:1, which isn’t much. MOSFETs use a different technology whereby they respond to the voltage on the gate. Although there is a small current associated with that voltage, the current is a really a side-effect and is of such small magnitude, you don’t worry about it. When the gate voltage rises, the MOSFET turns on and can pass huge currents. Their other virtue is they have low voltage losses when turned on, so if you have—say—12.0 volts available, you’ll get 11.8 after the MOSFET (the actual loss depends on the voltage capability of the device). So MOSFETs are good at acting like a mechanical relay or one of those Frankenstein-like knife-blade switches for simply turning on and off power supplies. I specified MOSFETS in fuel cells I designed, where you tend to have gobs of current, low voltage, and can’t afford to be losing much of that voltage. This animation is of a type of MOSFET known as a nanowire MOSFET. I don’t know if such devices are on the market and haven’t read the article. I suspect it might be just a theoretical investigation. But what we are seeing here is how boosting the voltage (in the left-hand side of the screen as the dot moves towards the right), causes the gate current (height of the blue dot) to rise from picoamperes (almost nothing) to less than a milliampere (still not much). Note that the Y-axis is a log scale and covers a billion-fold range current. You can also see that as the voltage exceeds a certain point, the MOSFET starts conducting as electrons breach past the gap. In many ways, this is a bit like lightning where virtually no current whatsoever flows as the tension (voltage) rises to a certain value (millions of volts). At a certain avalanche or breakdown voltage where the air just can’t take any more stress, current suddenly flows; lots and lots of it, and just because voltage was increased to an avalanche point. And just like lightning, a fully-on MOSFET would conduct all the current you throw at it; even up to the point you cook the device. I’m a nerd. I’ve just looked at spec sheets and soldered these things into boards and looked at the outside of them (black plastic and tin-plated copper leads). So it is a treat to see how electron flow is controlled by gate potential. Greg L (talk) 00:40, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok, but you went to 2, 3 and 4 before you stopped at 1: What is this for? I see in the articles it has something to do with nanowire and nanotech? -- I'ḏ ♥  One  02:53, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
 * 1. Greg L (talk) 17:57, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Comparison to a bolt of lightning is misleading. That would be true if the drain voltage caused an avalance. Not the point of a MOSFET. --Dschwen 18:33, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I agree; it’s a bit of a stretch because lightning would really be most analogous to a silicon avalanche diode (a two-lead device). MOSFETs have three leads because of the gate. I was thinking of that “avalanche diode”-bit when I wrote the above and am surprised any of the regulars here would pick up on nuances such as that. I was trying to illustrate the voltage-induced all-or-nothing nature of the switching of states, which is very, very different from the current-controlled nature of a regular transistor. I can certainly see that you are very well versed on this issue. Greg L (talk) 20:52, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

--Makeemlighter (talk) 16:58, 3 September 2010 (UTC)