Talk:MOSFET

Totally Useful Article

As a board and ASIC level designer engineer for the past three decades, I think this article provides necessary information and is a good reference for new and experienced designers. It is definitely not for semiconductor physicists, because they will be way above this article, however it likely will be above non-technical persons who likely won't visit this page anyway or who won't need to read more than the introductory paragraphs. MOSFETs are complicated devices and if you don't know at least what is given in this article then you very likely won't be able to read the data sheets of the various types of discrete MOSFETs or of ICs whose interface outputs/inputs are made of such MOSFETs in order to design proper circuits. This article is a good and easily accessible resource for new designers or old designers - who may only do one or two designs every year or two. Of course, it's also a similarly useful resource for engineering, technology and technologist students to use in addition to their textbooks, which may provide more or less information. So, please don't dumb this article down. Indeed, it should be improved to present the information needed in the best way possible to allow these types of people to do real work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.107.66.194 (talk) 22:58, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

• While I agree with what you are saying, the argument can (and perhaps should) be made that wikipedia is not for people who are designers, but a general resource. Designers should perhaps consult other sources (textbooks on the matter, for example). Hence, it might make sense to simplify the article at least somewhat.

TheUnnamedNewbie (talk) 19:12, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Totally Useless Article

The perhaps half-a-dosen academics worldwide who research FETs this article wouldn't say anything new. For the other perhaps 250 million who just wants to know how to design a circuit with a FET, the article says NOTHING. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.70.177.64 (talk) 06:46, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

• Agree. OTOH, the pages on Common Source, Common Drain etc. are incredibly useful, but not linked to anywhere in the article. The Applications section needs a subsection on amplifiers, outlining the three main types of MOSFET amplifier, links to their pages and a diagram of at least one type of amplifier. Might also be able to concatenate all the small signal characteristic tables into one. 2A02:C7D:76BC:A500:DFC3:2B:250A:2F91 (talk) 00:05, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

I suspect most articles about things, don't say how to use them, but just what they are. For one, there is WP:NOTHOWTO, but in many cases the use should go somewhere else. AC_power_plugs_and_sockets tells everything you might want to know about them, except how to use one. Gah4 (talk) 19:10, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 external links on MOSFET. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20130610140024/http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/articleDetails.jsp?arnumber=1049902 to http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/articleDetails.jsp?arnumber=1049902
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20130903030232/http://www.powerguru.org/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/SEMIKRON_application_manual_power_semiconductors.pdf to http://www.powerguru.org/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/SEMIKRON_application_manual_power_semiconductors.pdf
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20160101234641/http://www.automotivedesignline.com/showArticle.jhtml;?articleID=191900470 to http://www.automotivedesignline.com/showArticle.jhtml;?articleID=191900470
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20160102202735/http://www.semikron.com/skcompub/en/application_manual-193.htm to http://www.semikron.com/skcompub/en/application_manual-193.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 16:19, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

In typical bot framed idiocy the first link is to a paywall where reading the article will cost me a week's food.

Weatherlawyer (talk) 15:48, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Merge MISFET

I suggest that MISFET is merged here. The article is only a single short paragraph and MOSFET already says nearly all of what is there. As I understand it, the difference is only a question of the materials used, so it is unlikely that MISFET would ever be substantially different from this article even if it were fully expanded. SpinningSpark 18:52, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

strongly object. These are different concepts. Wikipedia is not paper to squeeze everything into one page. That the page is short means semi engineers don't give a dime for wikipedia, but it does not mean there is nothing to write. Staszek Lem (talk) 16:26, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

• Maybe. If the MISFET article can be expanded a bit to talk about the materials that are alternatives to oxide, and if transistors of that sort are not already described in MOSFET, then it can stay separate. Dicklyon (talk) 16:48, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Exactly; there is not a bit but lots. However it is a highly specialized area, and things are experimental, and experts in materials science are too busy to waste their time here. Staszek Lem (talk) 17:01, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

• Agree. (and then redirect). MESFET should stay separate, but I don't see much reason to keep MISFET separate. For many years, silicon (and so not metal) gates have been used, without changing the acronym. Insulators other than SiO₂ are used, but most often still oxides. Even if an oxygen free insulator is used, the physics isn't so different. Gah4 (talk) 11:32, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

dum — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.254.239.203 (talk) 15:13, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

FET as name for MOSFET

I just undid an edit where someone added "FET" as an abbreviation for MOSFET. I feel like this is not valid, as it implies that MOSFET's are the only type of field-effect transistors, which is clearly not the case. On that same note, I realise that most devices we call MOSFET are actually not really MOS, but Poly-oxide-silicon, so it's kinda an iffy situation. Opinions? TheUnnamedNewbie (talk) 10:23, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Along the same line of thought, could someone maybe add the phonetic pronounciation of MOSFET? (so, moss fett) TheUnnamedNewbie (talk) 10:26, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

I suppose my thought would be to allow it. Yes there are others, but MOSFET (or, as you note, SOSFET) are so much more common. It is usual to give the more common form the simpler name, and require the appropriate qualification for the less common form. Any idea what the ratio of JFET to MOSFET production is? Include every transistor in every integrated circuit and discrete device produced? Gah4 (talk) 10:49, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

I don't know any numbers, but I am aware that JFET's are far less common, by many orders of magnitude. However, I don't think that means that FET is a acceptable name for a MOSFET, especially since a FET is more a conceptual thing (steering current flow with an electric field) and a MOSFET is a practical implementation. Perhaps a compromise would be to mention that in industry lingo, "FET" is often used to refer to a MOSFET, but not all field-effect transistors are MOSFETs? Perhaps something like this (feel free to improve the wording, just trying to get the concept):

The metal–oxide–semiconductor field-effect transistor (MOSFET, MOS-FET, or MOS FET) is a type of [field-effect transistor] (FET) used for amplifying or switching electronic signals which has an insulated gate whose voltage determines the conductivity of the device. Although FET is sometimes used when refering to MOSFET devices, other types of field-effect transistors also exist.

TheUnnamedNewbie (talk) 12:36, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Close enough for me. A quick search found http://www.ti.com/lit/ds/symlink/opa655.pdf, which, as I finally found from the simplified internal schematic, is actually a JFET. I suspect FET is used often enough referring to MOSFET, though. One that I find funny is CMOSFET, which doesn't make sense to me. Gah4 (talk) 13:36, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

I changed the introduction. TheUnnamedNewbie (talk) 11:58, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose. The JFET isn't dead yet. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:31, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Naming

It was at that time the Bell Labs version was given the name bipolar junction transistor, or simply junction transistor, and Lilienfeld's design took the name field effect transistor. OK, for one, the name transistor came from the contrast with transconductance, the description for vacuum tubes as voltage controlled current sources. (That is, dI/dV). When (year) and who named the Lilienfeld device, which as I understand it didn't really work, a field effect transistor? That should satisfy the . Gah4 (talk) 15:40, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on MOSFET. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140727084407/http://www-device.eecs.berkeley.edu/bsim/Files/BSIMCMG/BSIMCMG106.0.0/BSIMCMG106.0.0_TechnicalManual_20120313.pdf to http://www-device.eecs.berkeley.edu/bsim/Files/BSIMCMG/BSIMCMG106.0.0/BSIMCMG106.0.0_TechnicalManual_20120313.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151228041321/http://www.itrs.net/ to http://www.itrs.net/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:23, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Can you prove (or cite) a negative?

In the history section appears the words, "Bell Labs was able to work out an agreement with Lilienfeld, who was still alive at that time (it is not known if they paid him money or not).[citation needed]"

Ok. Wait. I change my mind. Maybe nothing is amiss here.

When I first read this (very late/early) my brain thought the part that needed the citation was whether or not he (Lilienfeld) had been paid any money. My issue with this is that if he received no money you will most likely never be able to prove conclusively And cite it because very few people documenting such a history would note that he didn't get paid. But that doesn't mean conclusively that he didn't.

But... now that my brain has re-read this section for theb4-billionth time as I write this I now understand that the issue at hand is citing whether or not Bell Labs was able to work out an agreement with Lilienfeld.

Sorry. But I posted this anyone because maybe someone will read it and realize that all of us can work to be clearer and we make mistakes in interpretation - especially at such late/early hours.

Thank you all. 166.142.172.242 (talk) 07:05, 9 September 2017 (UTC) David

The following was recently removed, though I believe that it belongs:

Twenty five years later, when Bell Telephone attempted to patent the junction transistor, they found Lilienfeld already holding a patent, worded in a way that would include all types of transistors. Bell Labs was able to work out an agreement with Lilienfeld, who was still alive at that time (it is not known if they paid him money or not). It was at that time the Bell Labs version was given the name bipolar junction transistor, or simply junction transistor, and Lilienfeld's design took the name field effect transistor.

I heard something like this when first learning about ohmic contacts. The story was that the Lilienfeld device didn't work because he didn't know about making ohmic contacts. While the Lilienfeld patent would have expired, Bell would have to show that it wasn't prior art for the junction transistor. Having Lilienfeld agree would have helped. I didn't look for any source, though. Gah4 (talk) 17:06, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

OK, some of it is here: Patent Battles. One problem is that what thought they were making, what Shockley thought up, was closer to the Lilienfeld FET. It was only after they had the point contact junction transistor working, that they started to figure out why it worked. Gah4 (talk) 17:16, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on MOSFET. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141110225738/http://equars.com/~marco/poli/phd/node20.html to http://equars.com/~marco/poli/phd/node20.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:55, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Confusing structure in Applications : CMOS : Analog

The Applications section has Analog under CMOS circuits - not clear from the content if that is the intended structure.
Would it be better to have as the top level structure : Digital logic, Signal switching, Power switching, Other analog applications ?
Also seems strange to have NMOS logic and Power MOSFET under Other types as they have been discussed above (eg under Applications). - Rod57 (talk) 09:19, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Proposed talk page edit to delete External links modified sections

Per ongoing discussion at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#RfC:_Delete_IABot_talk_page_posts? and Template_talk:Sourcecheck#Can_we_change_the_standard_message_to_says_its_OK_to_delete_the_entire_talk_page_section I'd like to delete the above External links modified section(s). Any objections ? - Rod57 (talk) 09:27, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Software used to create File:MOSFET Structure.png?

Hi! Anyone know what software Brews ohare used to create File:MOSFET Structure.png? (This is the first diagram shown in this article.) I need to be able to draw my microelectronic substrates in 3D.... Thanks! --Blue.painting (talk) 18:29, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

CMOS logic consumes over 7 times less power than NMOS logic, and about 100,000 times less power than bipolar

The article says: CMOS logic consumes over 7 times less power than NMOS logic,[9] and about 100,000 times less power than bipolar. Because of the way different logic families scale with clock speed, these numbers are not very useful. Fast switching CMOS uses a lot of power, not switching at all, nearly zero. Which one do you use for the comparison? TTL and NMOS have only a small dependence on clock rate. Gah4 (talk) 21:18, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

The sources are comparing them during the 1970s-1980s. Not sure what the difference is now. I've clarified in the article that the comparison is for the 1970s-1980s. Maestro2016 (talk) 01:31, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

OK, completely different. As above, CMOS current is pretty much proportional to clock speed, and speeds have increased from MHz to GHz. Transistors get smaller (less current) but more of them (more current). There are CMOS processor now that run at 100W. Gah4 (talk) 02:23, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

scalng

The article makes some comparisons between BJT and MOSFETs that I am not sure are, in general, true. The scaling laws are different for the two. In the early days of CMOS, it was much slower than TTL. However, CMOS gets much faster when it scales down, while TTL doesn't, so that after not so long, CMOS was faster. (There were complications in CMOS manufacturing that had to be overcome, though.) As for high power, are high power MOSFETs so much more common than high power BJTs? Also, I believe that much of analog IC work is still BJT, or a mix of the two. Gah4 (talk) 21:59, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

I've now added a sentence to the article mentioning that MOSFETs were initially slower than BJTs. As for power MOSFETs, they account for the majority of the power electronic market as of 2010, with a 53% share, followed by IGBTs with 27% share and then BJTs with just 9% share. As for analog ICs, this this 2002 source says that MOSFETs account for at least 50% or more of the analog IC market. Maestro2016 (talk) 15:43, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Sockpuppet investigation opened

Hi, I was asked to review the history of Maestro2016's edits to this page to see if I thought Maestro2016 was a sockpuppet of User:Jagged_85. Jagged_85 did huge damage to the encyclopedia a few years ago by adding thousands of edits of apparently properly referenced text where, if you actually checked the reference, you found it did not in fact support what Jagged_85 had added to the article. Jagged_85 particularly specialised in the promotion of Islamic technology and Islamic 'great men'.
After spending some time reviewing Maestro2016's edits on various articles I think they are indeed a sockpuppet of Jagged_85. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Jagged_85.
Regardless of whether Maestro2016 is a Jagged_85 sockpuppet or not, what my investigation highlighted was that Maestro2016 has made hundreds of dubious edits adding thousands of characters to this article which are not really supported by the references. For example making it sound like the Islamic 'great man' Mohammad Atalla single-handedly invented MOSFET, which in turn created all of the modern electronic world. While Atalla and the invention of MOSFET are clearly important, if you follow the references you invariably find that Maestro2016's claims are exaggerated compared to the source, or slanted to ignore factors other than Atalla, or cherry picked out of context to make it sound like Atalla should have been given a Nobel (when he was mentioned in passing in an article on someone else), etc. etc. I found references which were plagiarised from engineering course pdfs; taken out of context from workshop abstracts; referencing the wrong technology on the wrong calculator.
I would personally consider any edit added by Maestro2016 where the references have not been checked and cleared by another editor as suspect. There may therefore be a case to going back to the state of the article before Maestro2016 got involved, and then adding back in any reasonable material as references are checked. The relevant edit I believe would be this: [1] The diff to the current page is this: [2]. Merlinme (talk) 13:23, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, I missed a few. The edit before Maestro2016 got involved is actually this: [3] The diff to the current page is this: [4] Merlinme (talk) 13:37, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Couldn't you at least wait for the sockpuppet case to actually come to a conclusion before posting these claims here? And are you seriously suggesting we go back to the problematic old version of the article? I've already explained in the sockpuppet case page why the old version is problematic: You're misrepresenting my edits. Before I began editing the article, the History section of MOSFET consisted of just a single sentence on Lilenfield followed by a paragraph on Atalla and Kahng, and that's it. There was no mention of Heil, Shockley, Bardeen, Brattain, Sah, Wanlass, Deal, Grove, Sarace, Klein or Faggin anywhere. Who added their contributions to the article? That's right, me! Your claim that I ignored their contributions is nonsensical when I was the one who added their contributions to the article in the first place. You're making it sound as if I dedicated the History section almost entirely to just Atalla, when he actually only got two paragraphs (one shared with Kahng) out of the eight paragraphs I wrote in the History section. You're focusing on those two paragraphs and ignoring the six other paragraphs where I described the contributions of others. And for the record, I had previously already added the contributions of Sarace, Klein, Faggin and others to the MOS IC section." You're essentially suggesting we erase the contributions of Heil, Shockley, Bardeen, Brattain, Sah, Wanlass, Deal, Grove, Sarace, Klein, Faggin, etc. simply because you want to downplay Atalla, who just so happens to be Middle-Eastern (there's no evidence he was "Islamic"). Your bias is clearly showing. Maestro2016 (talk) 14:06, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

The main reason I'm suggesting going back to the previous version is because of the problematic sourcing. I found significant problems with most of the sources I checked, and I don't have time to check all of them. Are you going to justify plagiarising an engineering course pdf, for example? You've made corrections to some of the problems I've highlighted, but really, given the extent of the problems, I think it would be better to go back to the version before the addition of so many problematic sources. If the material is correctly referenced it can be added back in. Merlinme (talk) 14:41, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

I've withdrawn the sock accusation. I still have big problems with the use of sources. Copying this here from the sock investigation:

"In 2018, the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences which awards the science Nobel Prizes acknowledged that the invention of the MOSFET by Atalla and Kahng was one of the most important inventions in microelectronics and in information and communications technology (ICT)". Saying that the Nobel awarding academy 'acknowledged' something sounds like it won a special prize of some description. In fact the Academy issued a press release about the actual winner, who won for the integrated circuit, which the Academy describes as 'the driving force' of microelectronics. After that, in one sentence at the end of the section, they mention MOSFET and the microprocessor as also important. If this reference is needed at all, (there are surely lots of other references which could say similar things more succinctly), it needs to be put in context: "In its award of half the Nobel prize for Physics to Jack Kilby in 2018 for his part in the invention of the Integrated circuit the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences specifically mentioned MOSFET and the microprocessor as other important inventions in the evolution of microelectronics." That would at least make it clear that it was mentioned in passing as part of an award that was not being given to Atalla and Kahng. And where does it say 'one of the most important'? The sentence starts "Other important inventions include", and they mention a couple, but the implication is surely that there are other important inventions that for whatever reason they're not going to mention. Adding "along with the integrated circuit and the microprocessor", as you have recently done since I made my initial criticisms, is only a marginal improvement, mainly because anything that fails to make it clear that the Academy was giving a prize for the integrated circuit, not MOSFET, is giving a misleading impression of the source.

Or this as a source: [5] Is an engineering course pdf really the best source for the claim "The MOSFET is by far the most widely used transistor in both digital circuits and analog circuits, and it is the backbone of modern electronics"? Is this a WP:Reliable Source for an WP:Exceptional claim? Is this a WP:Reliable Source for any claim at all? Quite apart from the fact the original edit was almost certainly a copyright violation, the PDF has no author; what do we know about the fact checking process that went into making that statement?

The problem I have is that practically every source I checked I found some issues with. The calculator references have now been fixed, but that suggests a worrying lack of care in adding them in the first place. And I've only checked a handful of the references which were added. I still think there would be a case for returning the page to how it was before the addition of so much problematic material. Bad references are a lot worse than no references at all, because it gives an illusion of authority. Alternatively, I guess you could go through the article, and for each reference say: 1) Is this a Reliable Source? 2) Is it reported accurately and used in context? 3) Is it adding something to the article? Merlinme (talk) 22:38, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Fair enough. I think the last option is probably the best option. I'll check each of the sources to see if there's any such errors or discrepancies, and make changes where necessary, and then you can comment on those changes. Though it's going to take quite a bit of time to get through them. Maestro2016 (talk) 00:38, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Consider also how things fit in with the rest of the article. This is the most general article on MOSFETs, so some details are not needed, or could go in another article. Gah4 (talk) 01:24, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

sign and mode

As well as I know, for enhancement mode, PMOS (p-channel) is in n-type Si, and NMOS (n-channel) in p-type Si. That is, in either substrate of that type, or in a well of that type. The other way around for depletion mode. Gah4 (talk) 01:21, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Not necessarily the other way around for depletion mode; just different channel doping. I.e., in depletion-load nMOS process, both the enhancement-mode and depletion-mode devices are made in the same p-type substrate. Dicklyon (talk) 03:44, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

The article says: P-type MOS (PMOS) logic uses p-channel MOSFETs to implement logic gates and other digital circuits. N-type MOS (NMOS) logic uses n-channel MOSFETs to implement logic gates and other digital circuits. But PMOS uses p-channel FETs in n-type Si, and NMOS uses n-channel FETs in p-type Si. Gah4 (talk) 04:37, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

analog

The article says that analog electronics is mostly MOSFET. Not quite sure what analog is mostly now, I wonder about stereo amplifiers. Since mine isn't so new, it might not be representative. Are stereo amplifiers now mostly MOSFET? Gah4 (talk) 12:25, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

In 2020, probably so. I think most are class-D switching amplifiers these days (in every phone, for example), and even high-end class-AB amps use mosfets (see this video). Dicklyon (talk) 17:53, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

bipolar

The article seems to describe how much better MOS is than bipolar. But, other than main memory, computer technology was bipolar for about 10 years (a long time in computer years) after MOS ICs became available. Looking back, we can see the path technology took, but it wasn't so easy to see at that time. Dennard scaling is nice, but the technology to do it took some time, and even then wasn't always used. The operating voltage of a bipolar transistor depends on the energy gap, not on its size. In the early years, MOS, and especially CMOS, was much slower than TTL and ECL. MOS took over main memory, replacing magnetic cores, many years before it took over large system CPUs. Gah4 (talk) 18:09, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I was thinking we needed more about the transition. Initially it was far from obvious MOS would win, there were big problems with stability that needed to be solved, and it was many times slower than bipolar. Bell Labs wasn't very interested. Moore (as in Moore's Law) took time to be convinced. One of the sources I was reading was saying how IBM actually tried to cancel their MOS program on multiple occasions, but the individual engineers and researchers resisted, and the management never quite followed through. It was the advantages of MOS in mass production and integrated circuits which eventually seems to have won the battle, but it took years. At the moment the article rather implies that it took over the world following Atalla and Kahng's report, and it wasn't really like that. It took people by surpise when NASA went with MOS on integrated circuits because it was very new technology. This appears to be the important point: "MOS technology was much slower than the standard transistors found in integrated circuits, but its simplicity of fabrication allowed manufacturers to incorporate more transistors into integrated circuits. The new MOS technology promised to solve one of spacecraft designers’ growing predicaments, the need for greater electronic capability on board for communications and other functions." [6] (p.240) IMP-D is 1966. The Sharp QT-8D seems to have been one of the first really successful commercial applications, the cheapest electronic calculator to date, and its low power usage meant the first battery powered calculator, the QT-8B, could be launched in 1970. And then yes, sure, the applications were endless. But there's quite a long way from 1960 (MOS invented) to 1966 (IMP-D launched) and then 1969 (mass produced calculators). Merlinme (talk) 21:26, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

This is interesting, from Britannica (article co-written by Sze, no less): [7] "The most important device for very-large-scale integrated circuits (those that contain more than 100,000 semiconductor devices such as diodes and transistors) is the metal-oxide-semiconductor field-effect transistor (MOSFET)... The main reasons why the MOSFET has surpassed the bipolar transistor and become the dominant device for very-large-scale integrated circuits are: (1) the MOSFET can be easily scaled down to smaller dimensions, (2) it consumes much less power, and (3) it has relatively simple processing steps, and this results in a high manufacturing yield (i.e., the ratio of good devices to the total)." Merlinme (talk) 21:57, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

It seems to me that the Self-aligned gate is the important invention. Before that, MOS transistors were not easier to make than bipolars. But now, it seems so obvious. I had not thought about that it couldn't be done with aluminum at the processing temperatures. This was also the start of Intel and the 1101 MOS RAM. But by 1970, there was 50MHz or so TTL, much faster ECL, and 1MHz SRAM. The Intel 1101, as well as I know the first MOS RAM, is 256 bits, PMOS, with +5, -7, -10 volt power supplies. Not so much later, the 1103 1K bit PMOS DRAM. These, and similar devices, were computer memory for much of the 1970's, when CPUs were TTL or ECL. The 1970's was also the time of 1MHz microprocessors. As well as I know, it was not unusual to shrink a die, but not change the oxide thickness, so not actual Dennard scaling. Changing the oxide thickness changes the supply voltage, which means not a direct replacement. The 8080 has +12, +5, -5 volt power supplies. (NMOS is slightly more convenient using positive power supplies, instead of negative, and still be TTL compatible.) Scaling of whole ICs isn't so easy to describe. Individual transistors are faster, but still have to drive the wires across the chip. Gah4 (talk) 00:29, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

AFAIK, early MOSFETs were slower than BJTs, but were smaller and consumed less power. So the earliest applications were things that require a high level of integration (like spacecraft) or low power consumption (like calculators). It wasn't until, as you mentioned, the silicon-gate came along that MOSFETs started being used extensively in computers for things like memory (replacing magnetic cores) and CPUs (with microprocessors). One of the inventors of the silicon-gate MOS IC at Fairchild, Federico Faggin, later went on to lead the development of the first single-chip microprocessor, the Intel 4004, which was fabricated on a silicon-gate PMOS IC. Intel's success with their MOS memory and microprocessors may have paved the way for MOSFETs to take over the computer industry. Maestro2016 (talk) 10:20, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Early MOSFETs were discrete devices, so size wasn't obvious. They were mostly used where the high input impedance was needed. JFETs were also used early on, where speed was needed. I am still suspicious about the use in analog circuits, where as well as I know, bipolar are still pretty popular. That is, both discrete and IC circuits. The reference given doesn't seem to say that there are more analog MOSFETs than analog bipolars, which is what the statement seems to say. Gah4 (talk) 12:09, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

The earliest MOSFETs were around 10-20 micrometers in the '60s. Do you know what was the size of BJTs at the time? As noted by Merlinme above, MOS ICs were used in NASA spacecraft in the '60s because they allowed a higher level of integration. As for analog tech, the source says that MOSFETs dominate analog integrated circuits. Are you maybe referring to a different type of analog electronics, like discrete analog transistors or power transistors? I think I'll re-word it so that it says analog integrated circuits more specifically. Maestro2016 (talk) 16:25, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

I don't know about others, but there was much discussion last year, the 50th anniversary of Apollo 11, about the Apollo computer, which uses bipolar based RTL. As for dominate, do you count each type of IC, or each one produced? Some are very popular, produced in large quantities. I am not sure by now about op amps. Bipolars were popular for many years, or bipolar with FET inputs. Gah4 (talk) 21:53, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

I meant other NASA spacecraft, not the Apollo 11. They used MOS for their IMP/Explorers spacecraft. As for analog, the source simply says dominated. The quote: "A recent textbook on the subject of analog integrated circuits (Jorns and Martin, 1997) takes the approach that such circuits are now totally dominated by MOSFETs but includes some BJT applications." I can't exactly quantify it, but that's what it says. Maestro2016 (talk) 23:07, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Integrated injection logic and emitter-coupled logic bipolar technologies were used in some LSI and VLSI high-performance microprocessors, surprisingly as late as 1993. But they were rare compared to all the nMOS and CMOS microprocessors surrounding them. Dicklyon (talk) 18:28, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

They also have faster switching speed

The article says: They also have faster switching speed. It seems to me that this is a side effect of the different scaling laws. For many years, it was TTL and especially ECL that were fast, and MOS was slow. Processors were built with TTL logic and MOS memory. Also, an early problem with CMOS was latch-up where parasitic bipolar transistors would cause devices to fail. Avoiding latch-up, and shrinking to make devices faster, eventually allowed CMOS to pass bipolar in switching speed. Gah4 (talk) 21:18, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

New Reference and Links

New sentence added in MOS sensors section to specifically address some of the applications of MOS and MOSFET sensors for sensing gases. One reference added. Two links added. Nanomaterials21 (talk) 19:41, 3 March 2021 (UTC)Nanomaterials 21

Maestro2016 and Jagged 85 cleanup

Hey. Just to let everybody know @Maestro2016 the main contributor to this article and MOSFET applications, as well as hundreds of others has been banned for being sock puppet of banned user @Jagged 85, a well known vandal [[8]]. You can see Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Jagged 85 and Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment/Jagged_85 for more info about him. This article and MOSFET applications contains most of the errors and exaggerations regarding Atalla/MOSFET, introduced into dozens of other articles all across Wikipedia. For instance it exaggerate Attalla and Kahng contribution suggesting that they single-handedly invented MOSFET and all of it's modern application is due to them. I'll copy what I wrote on Transistor talkpage:

"I am currently reading To the Digital Age: Research Labs, Start-up Companies, and the Rise of MOS Technology by Ross Knox Bassett. Bassett is professional historian of science, so his work is as reliable as it gets. I have huge problems with the way this article and other present history of MOS transistor. First of all as Bassett show there was very little new in Attalah and Kahng invention, as Bassett puts it:

"Atalla appears to have conceived it, but it was an invention in a different sense than the transistors of Bardeen and Brattain and Shockley. The invention of both the pointcontact transistor and the junction transistor involved novel effects. The principles that Atalla’s device used were well known; veterans in the field would have recognized them as ones that had been tried without success by Bardeen, Brattain, and Shockley. Atalla recycled these principles using the advanced fabrication techniques that Bell Labs had developed to make diffused bipolar junction transistors. In some sense Atalla’s biggest breakthrough was an intellectual one, thinking that such a device was worth making at all"(page 24). Attalah and Kahng doe not even give this device a name, again from Bassett:

"Atalla and Kahng’s writings provide evidence that even they had ambivalence about what they had done. A name is obviously one of the first steps in the serious consideration of any kind of invention, and Atalla and Kahng’s failure to name their device implies that they saw it as stillborn. They did not even identify their device as a transistor, suggesting a reluctance to even put their work into the same family line as the work of Bardeen, Brattain, and Shockley. Atalla and Kahng’s paper at the 1960 SSDRC did not establish their device as a promising subject for research or even as something recognized by the semiconductor community at large. The conference chairman made no mention of Atalla and Kahng’s work in his brief report on the technical highlights of the conference, although he did mention Bell’s epitaxial transistor. No further work on a device like Atalla and Kahng’s was presented at either the SSDRC or the Electron Device Conference over the next two years. Two articles reviewing the state of the semiconductor field in 1962 made no mention of Atalla and Kahng’s device. Their work seemed to be a dead end".

The reason MOS transistor even received attention was due two factors:first passivation of silicon surfaces by silicon dioxide gave hope the problems of semiconductor surfaces could be resolved, and second invention of integrated circuit change the way transistor are judged, making MOS simplicity attractive to some(page 13). It will take many years and many people working on it to make MOS practical. Again Basset write that, for example in IBM even in 1967 the future of MOS technology was far from clear(page 106). Contribution from people like Wanlass was just as important as Atalla and Kahng work."

To give other example,in MOSFET applications it is said that "MOSFETs are the basis for modern electric road vehicles". The source for that is an obscure 30 years old abstract, which says that "Recent developments in the technology of permanent magnetic materials, power MOSFETs and microcontrollers have opened the way for significant advances in electric vehicle drive systems". Nowhere does it says MOSFET is the basis of modern electric vehicles.This is one example, but it's just a tip of the iceberg. You can also check my edits, where I did cleanup after Maestro2016/Jagged 85 to find many more examples related to source abuse relating to MOSFET and Atalla. In my opinion this article and MOSFET applications should be stabbed, or at very least massively trimmed, because it would simply take too much time to clean them up.

We can add good and neutral pieces of information later, once we verify them. Also according to Wikipedia:Banning policy:Anyone is free to revert any edits made in violation of a ban, without giving any further reason and without regard to the three-revert rule. I think other articles edited by Maestro2016/Jagged 85 can be cleaned up, as they are smaller. In general if you see exceptional claim that is sourced by hard-to-check source or you simply can't immediately verify it with high quality source, it should be deleted as this was one of Jagged 85 favorite tactics to introduce disinformation.

Thank you.

DMKR2005 (talk) 18:49, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

Yes, please revert much or all of the overstatement of the Atalla and Kahng contributions that were added by Maestro2016/Jagged 85. I'm sure their contribution was valuable and worth mentioning, but the current imbalanced over-emphasis is pretty awful. I could perhaps help, but am pretty busy with work... Dicklyon (talk) 02:27, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

I don't quite recall whether Lilienfeld was able to show how to make a working FET. Shockley also "invented" the MOSFET, I think. But Atalla and Kahng convincingly made one work, iirc. So that's important. But to state simply that they "invented" the MOSFET contributes more bias than understanding. So we should work on that. Not by spamming the names Atalla and Kahng in every possible place, but by discussing the early invention of the FET and MOSFET some place and linking it. Dicklyon (talk) 02:52, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Maestro2016's significant edits to this article were from 27 June 2019 through 12 July 2020. In total, they made nearly 1000 edits. The article grew by 48% during this time. I don't think we need to stub the whole thing. Worst case, we restore the article to its state before this started. Not all of Maestro2016's contributions were problematic but I appreciate that removing them is arguably a safer way to deal with them than reviewing. If we are able to summon the wherewithal to review, we could end up with something better than what we had before Maestro2016 and better than the current revision. ~Kvng (talk) 14:48, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Thanks Dicklyon and Kvng for suggestions. When I said stubbed I mean return to version before Maestro2016/Jagged85 edits. I think that's what we should do. After that we can add more information about Atalla and Kahng contribution. I have Ross Bassett To the Digital Age book with me, which is very good history book about MOSFET. After we return to pre Jagged-85 state, we can add paragraph about Atalla role in MOSFET. There is also MOSFET applications article which is spinoff of this article, and is entirely written by Maestro2016/Jagged 85. What do you think we should do with it? DMKR2005 (talk) 15:17, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

A quick look at MOSFET applications indicates the whole History section should go. I would like to review the rest. I would also like an opportunity to review Maestro2016's changes to this article. I haven't figured out how to do the diff over 1 year and 1000 edits. Any wiki tips would be appreciated. ~Kvng (talk) 15:33, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

If there's anything good in MOSFET applications, it's probably best to merge it into MOSFET and redirect to a section. I have no objection to rolling back MOSFET to a pre-Maestro state, being careful to put back constructive contributions of others if any are there. Dicklyon (talk) 17:43, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. I think returning to pre-Maestro2016 state and adding Atalla and Kahng contributions is the way to go. DMKR2005 (talk) 21:24, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

I struck my comment about merging applications back to the main article. Maestro did the split, and it was probably a good idea. Just need to clean up his revisionist emphasis on Atalla everywhere. Dicklyon (talk) 18:32, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

Thank you. Speaking on MOSFET applications we would also need to check this article for errors and exaggeration. See for instance above about MOSFET being the basis for modern electric road vehicles DMKR2005 (talk) 20:55, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

I thought most power applications had gone to Si MOSFETs by now, but this article suggests that SiC MOSFETs and Si IGBTs are pretty hot in electric cars. Dicklyon (talk) 00:31, 5 July 2022 (UTC)