- #1
Sandbo
- 18
- 0
Hi,
I have a question regarding the change in charge carrier concentration change.
For a given semiconductor, say Silicon, when it is not doped,
it is easy to understand that [tex]{n_0} \times {p_0} = n_i^2[/tex],
however, on doping with donors to form a n-type semiconductor,
we have
[tex]{n_0} \approx {N_D} > > {p_0}[/tex],
the concentration of free electrons in conduction band increases.
The question is why does the equation
[tex]{n_0} \times {p_0} = n_i^2[/tex]
still hold?
Afaik, n0's increase is due to the donated electrons from donor, there shouldn't much to do with the holes in valence band, i.e. the free holes concentration (p0) in valence band should remain unchanged on the above doping.
While if [tex]{n_0} \times {p_0} = n_i^2[/tex] still holds, it actually implies an decrease in p0).
Probably something I have been missing, would you mind sharing me with your idea?biggrin:
Many thanks.
I have a question regarding the change in charge carrier concentration change.
For a given semiconductor, say Silicon, when it is not doped,
it is easy to understand that [tex]{n_0} \times {p_0} = n_i^2[/tex],
however, on doping with donors to form a n-type semiconductor,
we have
[tex]{n_0} \approx {N_D} > > {p_0}[/tex],
the concentration of free electrons in conduction band increases.
The question is why does the equation
[tex]{n_0} \times {p_0} = n_i^2[/tex]
still hold?
Afaik, n0's increase is due to the donated electrons from donor, there shouldn't much to do with the holes in valence band, i.e. the free holes concentration (p0) in valence band should remain unchanged on the above doping.
While if [tex]{n_0} \times {p_0} = n_i^2[/tex] still holds, it actually implies an decrease in p0).
Probably something I have been missing, would you mind sharing me with your idea?biggrin:
Many thanks.