This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Insulated-gate bipolar transistor article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
|
The cross-section pictures and the equivalent circuits do not fit together. Emitter and Collector have to be exchanged - otherwise the internal devices make no sense since source and collector are connected. Thus the resistor "body region" in the equivalent circuit does not make sense either. It would be the resistance of the ohmic contact shorting FET-Source and BJT-Collector. As a consequence the parasitic transistor will be mainly "off" since the voltage drop is quite low. 130.149.57.205 ( talk) 10:51, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
It is not clear how it works, and what this N+ ares under the insulator are standing for?
A better explanation is required, such as down to level of PN barriers, what opens and what shuts when the device is open and when it is closed.
Otherwise, good work -- Mtodorov 69 13:59, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Isnt it somewhat redundant to call this page "IGBT Transistor" when the T stands for Transistor?
The result of the debate was move to Insulated gate bipolar transistor.
Moved. - mak o 00:23, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
This picture sucks. Too dark, no detail. Replacement needed. TCallahan ( 12.25.62.140)
The intro section needs to be hacked down and placed into several new sections below. I'm not going to tackle it until I add more content, but it needs to be done Wefoij 21:28, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
There's an error in the last cross section picture. At the symbol of the PNP transistor, you should put the arrow at the emitter. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.114.75.190 ( talk) 10:21, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
...anyone? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:3:3382:A130:CCDB:DD0D:4797:9B0F ( talk) 06:32, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
i think those both paragraphs are contradictory one to other, u should use only one, i know some igbts require an external diode, but that should be said in the same paragraph
"The additional PN junction blocks reverse current flow. This means that unlike a MOSFET, IGBTs cannot conduct in the reverse direction. In bridge circuits where reverse current flow is needed an additional diode (called a freewheeling diode) is placed in parallel with the IGBT to conduct current in the opposite direction. The penalty isn't as severe as first assumed though, because at the higher voltages where IGBT usage dominates, discrete diodes are of significantly higher performance than the body diode of a MOSFET." "The reverse bias rating of the N- drift region to collector P+ diode is usually only of tens of volts, so if the circuit application applies a reverse voltage to the IGBT, an additional series diode must be used." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.171.178.253 ( talk) 00:52, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
The raft of recent edits by 60.62.110.241 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Nca01634 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (evidently both the same WP:SPA editor) are all about better representing the contributions of Nakagawa to the IGBT development. I have no idea how accurate these are, but it's pretty clear there's an agenda here, and quite possibly WP:COI, so I ask this editor to please let us know where he's coming from. We previously had Dalok1 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) with a strong Baliga slant, so maybe this will even it out some; more likely, it goes too far. Dicklyon ( talk) 03:55, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Regardless of how much credit each inventor deserves, the current History section is extremely redundantly written, with some points restated at least three times. Chronology and structure are direly lacking. Ossilator ( talk) 17:02, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
It is indeed unknown who the real inventor of IGBTs is. I left the text as it is where I cannot confirm if it is true or not. Nca01634 ( talk) 11:27, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
Becke and Wheatley proposed the IGBT operation of a four layer device for the entire device operation range in 1980. Baliga and Plummer found IGBT mode operation in a thyristor(SCR) before 1980. However, the device operated in the IGBT mode only for a lower current level, and in the thyristor mode for a larger current level. Yamagami proposed, in 1968, a monolithic vertical four layer device where the pnp transistor is controlled by the n-channel MOSFET, which is the same structure as IGBT. He did not discuss the latch-up of the parasitic thyristor. Nca01634 ( talk) 12:11, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
June 17, 2008 MBanak
I Corrected the Name "Becke", which was listed as "Beck", in several places - I knew the late Hans Becke in the 1980's, then at Bell Labs. We originally called this puppy a COMFET, and I made several myself after learning the technique. The correct spelling of his name is evident on the Patent, which is already linked in the article as reference "10", as of June 17th, 2008.
Mbanak ( talk) 16:27, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
I think we can all agree that the most popular equivalent circuit for an IGBT is the model that uses just a pnp transistor and a N-channel FET, right? I was reading some stuff online and I found a circuit that, when run in a simulator, appeared to simulate an IGBT far more accurately.
Is this worth mentioning? Thanks. Ilikefood ( talk) 18:09, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
Doesn't 4 transistors make a FULL H-bridge?
Why does the caption say only a half-bridge?
Mikiemike (
talk) 03:24, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
correct — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
IXYSGREEN (
talk •
contribs)
13:17, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
The article needs an explanation of the different flavours of IGBT available and the manufacturers' terminology (sometimes different terms for the same thing?): enhancement-mode, depletion-mode, punch-through, non-punch-through, field stop, shorted anode, trench, depletion stop trench, etc. The symbol for a depletion-mode device should be replaced by one for an enhancement-mode device, because this is what most if not all commercial products are. EEye ( talk) 18:04, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
Please discuss here if you find links relevant which I personally do Bmwtroll ( talk) 10:17, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
I added Non-Punch-Through-IGBT to NPT#Technology.
Unfortunately until now the NPT-Variant ist not yet mentioned in the article.
In the German counterpart it is said: "Im Gegensatz zu Leistungs-MOSFETs können Punch-Through-IGBTs (PT-IGBT) zur Erhöhung der Stromtragfähigkeit nicht ohne weiteres parallel geschaltet werden. Non-Punch-Through-IGBTs (NPT-IGBT) hingegen besitzen wie die Leistungs-MOSFETs einen positiven Temperaturkoeffizienten und können parallel geschaltet werden. In den meisten IGBT-Hochleistungsmodulen wird das auch getan."
This roghtly translates to: "Unlike power MOSFETs, Punch-Through-IGBTs (PT-IGBT) can not be connected in parallel easily to increase the current carrying capacity. Non-Punch-Through IGBT (NPT-IGBT), however, have a positive temperature coefficient like power MOSFETs and therefore can be connected in parallel. In most IGBT high power modules this is done."
Maybe someone with knowledge about the technical terms can fit this into the article.
And I suggest to use the first picture of the German article as well. Manorainjan ( talk) 20:59, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
Please add the IGBT symbol Arghman ( talk) 21:17, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
The article could discuss if there is anything visible or theorized to come up, beyond IGBT? Many people now think the most modern IGBT generation is the end of the journey, the sorcerers' stone found as far as semicondutor based power electronics goes and nothing futher revolutionary but only very gradual progress can be expected. (Just like how silicon-based ICs stayed with us for over almost 50 years and Intel's latest 14nm is essentially the end of the journey started by the 4004/8088, a further revolution never happened.) 87.97.103.13 ( talk) 21:56, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Insulated-gate bipolar transistor. 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:
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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 10:25, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
There is an interesting new application for IGBT's: The EMALS system on US Aircraft Carriers. See these articles: [1] [2] This is a suggestion. I have not changed the wiki article. Scott Bowden ( talk) 13:26, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
The article is very much focussed on history but there is rather little information describing the electrical behaviour of IGBTs in normal operation. At least a blackbox description is needed but additional information is welcome. Some example of typical switch cirquits including drive signals, and anlogue applications (if relevant) is also very welcome. 150.227.15.253 ( talk) 15:52, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
85.240.217.166 ( talk) 16:12, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
Can't really imagine how "insulated gate" part helps bipolar transistors 81.89.66.133 ( talk) 15:26, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
The figure [2] included from this page has the "arrow" of the circuit symbol connected to the collector region of semiconductor. I assume this is an error. What is the best way to report that? LachlanA ( talk) 04:38, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Insulated-gate bipolar transistor article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
|
The cross-section pictures and the equivalent circuits do not fit together. Emitter and Collector have to be exchanged - otherwise the internal devices make no sense since source and collector are connected. Thus the resistor "body region" in the equivalent circuit does not make sense either. It would be the resistance of the ohmic contact shorting FET-Source and BJT-Collector. As a consequence the parasitic transistor will be mainly "off" since the voltage drop is quite low. 130.149.57.205 ( talk) 10:51, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
It is not clear how it works, and what this N+ ares under the insulator are standing for?
A better explanation is required, such as down to level of PN barriers, what opens and what shuts when the device is open and when it is closed.
Otherwise, good work -- Mtodorov 69 13:59, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Isnt it somewhat redundant to call this page "IGBT Transistor" when the T stands for Transistor?
The result of the debate was move to Insulated gate bipolar transistor.
Moved. - mak o 00:23, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
This picture sucks. Too dark, no detail. Replacement needed. TCallahan ( 12.25.62.140)
The intro section needs to be hacked down and placed into several new sections below. I'm not going to tackle it until I add more content, but it needs to be done Wefoij 21:28, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
There's an error in the last cross section picture. At the symbol of the PNP transistor, you should put the arrow at the emitter. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.114.75.190 ( talk) 10:21, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
...anyone? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:3:3382:A130:CCDB:DD0D:4797:9B0F ( talk) 06:32, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
i think those both paragraphs are contradictory one to other, u should use only one, i know some igbts require an external diode, but that should be said in the same paragraph
"The additional PN junction blocks reverse current flow. This means that unlike a MOSFET, IGBTs cannot conduct in the reverse direction. In bridge circuits where reverse current flow is needed an additional diode (called a freewheeling diode) is placed in parallel with the IGBT to conduct current in the opposite direction. The penalty isn't as severe as first assumed though, because at the higher voltages where IGBT usage dominates, discrete diodes are of significantly higher performance than the body diode of a MOSFET." "The reverse bias rating of the N- drift region to collector P+ diode is usually only of tens of volts, so if the circuit application applies a reverse voltage to the IGBT, an additional series diode must be used." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.171.178.253 ( talk) 00:52, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
The raft of recent edits by 60.62.110.241 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Nca01634 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (evidently both the same WP:SPA editor) are all about better representing the contributions of Nakagawa to the IGBT development. I have no idea how accurate these are, but it's pretty clear there's an agenda here, and quite possibly WP:COI, so I ask this editor to please let us know where he's coming from. We previously had Dalok1 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) with a strong Baliga slant, so maybe this will even it out some; more likely, it goes too far. Dicklyon ( talk) 03:55, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Regardless of how much credit each inventor deserves, the current History section is extremely redundantly written, with some points restated at least three times. Chronology and structure are direly lacking. Ossilator ( talk) 17:02, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
It is indeed unknown who the real inventor of IGBTs is. I left the text as it is where I cannot confirm if it is true or not. Nca01634 ( talk) 11:27, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
Becke and Wheatley proposed the IGBT operation of a four layer device for the entire device operation range in 1980. Baliga and Plummer found IGBT mode operation in a thyristor(SCR) before 1980. However, the device operated in the IGBT mode only for a lower current level, and in the thyristor mode for a larger current level. Yamagami proposed, in 1968, a monolithic vertical four layer device where the pnp transistor is controlled by the n-channel MOSFET, which is the same structure as IGBT. He did not discuss the latch-up of the parasitic thyristor. Nca01634 ( talk) 12:11, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
June 17, 2008 MBanak
I Corrected the Name "Becke", which was listed as "Beck", in several places - I knew the late Hans Becke in the 1980's, then at Bell Labs. We originally called this puppy a COMFET, and I made several myself after learning the technique. The correct spelling of his name is evident on the Patent, which is already linked in the article as reference "10", as of June 17th, 2008.
Mbanak ( talk) 16:27, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
I think we can all agree that the most popular equivalent circuit for an IGBT is the model that uses just a pnp transistor and a N-channel FET, right? I was reading some stuff online and I found a circuit that, when run in a simulator, appeared to simulate an IGBT far more accurately.
Is this worth mentioning? Thanks. Ilikefood ( talk) 18:09, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
Doesn't 4 transistors make a FULL H-bridge?
Why does the caption say only a half-bridge?
Mikiemike (
talk) 03:24, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
correct — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
IXYSGREEN (
talk •
contribs)
13:17, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
The article needs an explanation of the different flavours of IGBT available and the manufacturers' terminology (sometimes different terms for the same thing?): enhancement-mode, depletion-mode, punch-through, non-punch-through, field stop, shorted anode, trench, depletion stop trench, etc. The symbol for a depletion-mode device should be replaced by one for an enhancement-mode device, because this is what most if not all commercial products are. EEye ( talk) 18:04, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
Please discuss here if you find links relevant which I personally do Bmwtroll ( talk) 10:17, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
I added Non-Punch-Through-IGBT to NPT#Technology.
Unfortunately until now the NPT-Variant ist not yet mentioned in the article.
In the German counterpart it is said: "Im Gegensatz zu Leistungs-MOSFETs können Punch-Through-IGBTs (PT-IGBT) zur Erhöhung der Stromtragfähigkeit nicht ohne weiteres parallel geschaltet werden. Non-Punch-Through-IGBTs (NPT-IGBT) hingegen besitzen wie die Leistungs-MOSFETs einen positiven Temperaturkoeffizienten und können parallel geschaltet werden. In den meisten IGBT-Hochleistungsmodulen wird das auch getan."
This roghtly translates to: "Unlike power MOSFETs, Punch-Through-IGBTs (PT-IGBT) can not be connected in parallel easily to increase the current carrying capacity. Non-Punch-Through IGBT (NPT-IGBT), however, have a positive temperature coefficient like power MOSFETs and therefore can be connected in parallel. In most IGBT high power modules this is done."
Maybe someone with knowledge about the technical terms can fit this into the article.
And I suggest to use the first picture of the German article as well. Manorainjan ( talk) 20:59, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
Please add the IGBT symbol Arghman ( talk) 21:17, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
The article could discuss if there is anything visible or theorized to come up, beyond IGBT? Many people now think the most modern IGBT generation is the end of the journey, the sorcerers' stone found as far as semicondutor based power electronics goes and nothing futher revolutionary but only very gradual progress can be expected. (Just like how silicon-based ICs stayed with us for over almost 50 years and Intel's latest 14nm is essentially the end of the journey started by the 4004/8088, a further revolution never happened.) 87.97.103.13 ( talk) 21:56, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Insulated-gate bipolar transistor. 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:
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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 10:25, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
There is an interesting new application for IGBT's: The EMALS system on US Aircraft Carriers. See these articles: [1] [2] This is a suggestion. I have not changed the wiki article. Scott Bowden ( talk) 13:26, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
The article is very much focussed on history but there is rather little information describing the electrical behaviour of IGBTs in normal operation. At least a blackbox description is needed but additional information is welcome. Some example of typical switch cirquits including drive signals, and anlogue applications (if relevant) is also very welcome. 150.227.15.253 ( talk) 15:52, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
85.240.217.166 ( talk) 16:12, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
Can't really imagine how "insulated gate" part helps bipolar transistors 81.89.66.133 ( talk) 15:26, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
The figure [2] included from this page has the "arrow" of the circuit symbol connected to the collector region of semiconductor. I assume this is an error. What is the best way to report that? LachlanA ( talk) 04:38, 30 December 2022 (UTC)