This  level-5 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Electronics High‑importance This article is part of WikiProject Electronics, an attempt to provide a standard approach to writing articles about electronics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. Leave messages at the project talk pageElectronicsWikipedia:WikiProject ElectronicsTemplate:WikiProject Electronicselectronic High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4

This page has archives. Topics are automatically archived 1 or more at a time by Lowercase sigmabot III if there are more than 6.

There are appeared to be an edit war in this article regarding Atalla contribution. Please refer to the section above where I explained in details the problem with Jagged85/Maestro2016 edits. This is from the books written by Ross Knox Bassett, who is professional historian of science.The reason I edited so many article on Atalla is because his contribution were wildly exaggerated by Jagged85/Meastro2016. I think we can add Atalla contribution into the lead, namely that his work demonstrated that semiconductor surfaces problem could be solved and thats very important. Also note articles written by journalists are often themselves influenced by Wikipedia and are not as reliable as academic literature. DMKR2005 (talk) 01:40, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that a rewrite of this and other articles, focusing on higher quality sources such as Bassett, and toning down or removing much of the content spammed around by Maestro2016, would be a good improvement. When you revert an IP that's pushing the Atalla narrative, put a link to this discussion section in the edit summary to make sure they've seen notified, and let's see what they have to say. Dicklyon (talk) 05:01, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. The edit war continue. Maybe we should move this page to semi protected status? DMKR2005 (talk) 01:40, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I asked for semi-protection. See Wikipedia:Requests for page protection/Increase#MOSFET. Dicklyon (talk) 03:11, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you ! And I will probably add some information on Atalla in the lead since his work is very important DMKR2005 (talk) 06:39, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@User:DMKR2005, @User:Dicklyon—Would you please lift or have lifted the semprotection on this article? Asked because there are many small issues, and reliable editors cannot make incremental changes, completely unrelated to this 4-month old edit war matter. More generally, why are individual editors not being blocked for edit warring, rather than the article as a whole being protected? Bottom line, restrictions need to be fully warranted as a response to a presenting editorial problem, and, regardless, need to be as short-lived as possible, for the sake of the encyclopedia. (Please don't ask for our registration as an alternative; such is not allowed by our current responsibilities.) Signed, a former prof, and former longterm registered editor. 76.136.83.142 (talk) 17:42, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The ecee.colorado.edu link is dead. Here's an archived version of it: https://web.archive.org/web/20210723151950/http://ecee.colorado.edu:80/~bart/book/book/chapter7/ch7_7.htm

Since I'm not (yet) `autoconfirmed`, I couldn't edit the page. Friendfx (talk) 01:12, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I added circuit symbols in "Circuit symbols" section for enhancement mode MOSFETs which show the intrinsic body diode. I just searched the article but don't see any other mention of the intrinsic body diode...we should at least say something about it, such as why it is there and why need to be aware of it, etc. Em3rgent0rdr (talk) 22:06, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've resolved this with an edit adding cross-section image with the body diodes and a caption discussing them. Em3rgent0rdr (talk) 17:41, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Some things just grow during incremental edits and sometimes get out of hand. The "External links" section, one of the optional appendices, was expanded to 17 entries. Three seems to be an acceptable number, and of course, everyone has their favorite to try to add for a fourth. Consensus needs to determine this. A tag indicates concerns.

However, none is needed for article promotion.

Some links may be included in WP:ELNO, or What Wikipedia is not (policy) such as WP:NOTREPOSITORY or WP:NOTGUIDE.

• WP:ELDEAD may apply.
• ELCITE applies: Do not use {{cite web}} or other citation templates in the External links section. Citation templates are permitted in the Further reading section. Others, listed below:
• ELpoints #3) states: Links in the "External links" section should be kept to a minimum. A lack of external links or a small number of external links is not a reason to add external links.
• LINKFARM states: There is nothing wrong with adding one or more useful content-relevant links to the external links section of an article; however, excessive lists can dwarf articles and detract from the purpose of Wikipedia. On articles about topics with many fansites, for example, including a link to one major fansite may be appropriate.
• ELMIN: Minimize the number of links.

The External links guideline This page in a nutshell: External links in an article can be helpful to the reader, but they should be kept minimal, meritable, and directly relevant to the article. With rare exceptions, external links should not be used in the body of an article.

Second paragraph, acceptable external links include those that contain further research that is accurate and on-topic, information that could not be added to the article for reasons such as copyright or amount of detail, or other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article for reasons unrelated to its accuracy.

• • Please also note:
• WP:ELBURDEN: Disputed links should be excluded by default unless and until there is a consensus to include them. Please do not add back more links without consensus. Simple solution to facilitate career maintenance tag. Move links here for discussion.

Moved links:

• "Understanding power MOSFET data sheet parameters – Nexperia PDF Application Note AN11158" (PDF). Archived (PDF) from the original on 2022-10-09.
• "An introduction to depletion-mode MOSFETs". Archived from the original on 28 September 2008.
• "Power MOSFETs". Archived from the original on 2012-07-06. Retrieved 2010-03-04.
• "Criteria for Successful Selection of IGBT and MOSFET Modules". Archived from the original on 2012-11-12. Retrieved 2018-12-16.
• "MOSFET Process Step by Step". Archived from the original on 2009-08-22. Retrieved 2016-02-06. A Flash slide showing the fabricating process of a MOSFET in detail
• "MOSFET Calculator". Archived from the original on 2008-05-27. Retrieved 2008-06-03.
• "Advanced MOSFET issues". ecee.colorado.edu. 27 November 2010.
• "MOSFET applet".
• Nicolai, Ulrich; Reimann, Tobias; Petzoldt, Jürgen; Lutz, Josef (1998). Application Manual IGBT and MOSFET Power Modules (1st ed.). ISLE Verlag. ISBN 978-3-932633-24-9. Archived from the original on 2 March 2012.
• Wintrich, Arendt; Nicolai, Ulrich; Tursky, Werner; Reimann, Tobias (2011). PDF-Version (PDF) (2nd ed.). Nuremberg: Semikron. ISBN 978-3-938843-66-6. Archived from the original (PDF) on 3 September 2013.
• "MIT Open Courseware 6.002 – Spring 2007".
• "MIT Open Courseware 6.012 – Fall 2009".
• "Georgia Tech BJT and FET Slides".
• "CircuitDesign: MOS Diffusion Parasitics". 14 December 2008.
• Lundstrom, Mark (2008). "Course on Physics of Nanoscale Transistors". nanoHUB Papers.
• Lundstrom, Mark (2005). "Notes on Ballistic MOSFETs". nanoHUB Papers. -- Otr500 (talk) 07:49, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This South Asian living in Birmingham is responsible for tens of thousands of edits deleting certain groups of people from history. Appears to be obsessed with erasing the invention of MOSFET by Carl Frosch and Lincoln Derick. To delete them, Maestro2016 starts by removing this picture from their paper and follows with small edits from different IPs:

Followed by the removal of this paragraph:

By 1957 Frosch and Derick, using masking and predeposition, were able to manufacture silicon dioxide field effect transistors; the first planar transistors, in which drain and source were adjacent at the same surface.^[1]

And this:

Following this research, Mohamed Atalla and Dawon Kahng proposed a silicon MOS transistor in 1959^[2] and successfully demonstrated a working MOS device with their Bell Labs team in 1960.^[3][4] Their team included E. E. LaBate and E. I. Povilonis who fabricated the device; M. O. Thurston, L. A. D’Asaro, and J. R. Ligenza who developed the diffusion processes, and H. K. Gummel and R. Lindner who characterized the device.^[5][6] Wikain (talk) 08:36, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the statement:

"In 1955, Carl Frosch and Lincoln Derick accidentally grew a layer of silicon dioxide over the silicon wafer, for which they observed surface passivation effects."

To begin, the proper prepositional construction is arguably is "from which": as it is written, the suggestion is that the measurements leading them to conclude passivation effects were made on the modified silicon wafer, and so their conclusion proceeded from that measurement and sample (not for it). But this is a grammatical issue, and not the primary problem.

The primary problem stems from the two citations that follow the statement, and how they were used.

First, the "for which they [Frosch and Derick] observed" element directly contradicts the first stated source. Second, Neither appearing source appears to support tha suggestion that any aspect of the discovery was "accidenta[l]".

Background. Two citations appear. Current citation [4] is to a Foreward, of a series of journal articles, in an edition devoted to the Frosch-Derick discovery. Current citation [5] is to the Frosch-Derick patent. [This is a fine pattern of sourcing—a secondary source, followed by a primary source that underpins the the secondary. (A further secondary source or two would be of benefit, see following.)]

In re: the First issue: The secondary source cited does not state that Frosch and Derick made the passivation discovery, rather, authors Huff and Riordan (journal issue editors) state in citation [4] that after the initial discovery, "[o]ther researchers soon showed that such a dielectric layer could also passivate the silicon beneath it...". Hence, the statement fails verification, insofar as the source contradicts the WP article statement.

In re: the Second issue: The editorial adverb "accidentally" is at issue, because (i) while perhaps common knowledge to subject matter experts, it is not sky-is-blue common knowledge for the general reader, and (ii) it is not supported by either of the two sources following. Hence, the statement also fails verification in this regard.

Discussion. Either Forsch and Derick made the initial passivation measurement (as the WP sentence suggests), or they did not (as the cited Huff and Riordan secondary source suggests). If the sentence is correct as it currently stands, a further couple of secondary sources, overriding the statement from the Foreward, must be used to justify the passivation discovery assignment to Frosch and Derick. (We did not seek evidence for this conclusion in the patent, [5], for that would be WP:OR; a secondary source needs to state this.) This aspect of the statement is hereby challenged.

And then, if the silicon dioxide wafer construction was indeed serendipitous, as suggested, a source (not a WP editor) needs to say this, to avoid WP:OR. Once again, the patent cannot be used to support this (for WP:OR reasons), and it is unlikely to in any case. And current secondary source citation is only to the Foreward of the journal edition, and not to any particular journal article—and the Foreward does not state anything regarding the construction being "accidental". Hence, "accidentally" is flavor added editorially, unsupported by existing citations. This aspect of the statement is hereby also challenged.

By challenged, we mean that we believe that this statement cannot be allowed to remain as is, and so we ask that the editors controlling the article make an appropriate edit to rectify these WP:VERIFY violations.

Note, it might be argued that some article that follows the citation of the Foreward, citation [4], in that same journal edition, does indeed state something relevant regarding the passivation statement, or something regarding "accidentally". Then, it is those source(s) that need to be cited—author, date, title, work, URL, etc. Follow-on editors cannot be expected to seek out uncited articles, on a speculation that verifiability might accomplished nearby. That speculative time-wasting is not what WP:VERIFY expects. So,

Requests: (i) Correct the matter of the first observation of the passivation effect, to new secondary sources (whether it was Frosch and Derick, or another). (ii) Cite the actual source of the editorial perspective, or remove the adverb, "accidentally". (iii) Support the corrections with quotes, or specific page numbers, for the new citations, to make follow-up verification efficient. (iv) Once the sourcing-citation matters are resolved, check the entirety of the statement to see that it accurately reflects the clear, general conclusion of the articles cited (and not sidebars or speculations therein).

Finally, this edit request should serve as a further argument that protections to this article are to the detriment of the encyclopedia. The time taken for this edit request entry was about 20-fold what it would have been to WP:JUSTFIXIT.

Cheers, a former STEM prof, and former registered editor here. 76.136.83.142 (talk) 18:45, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This article, apart from nuanced analysis of individual sentences, top to bottom, makes short shrift of compliance with WP policy WP:VERIFY—there are entire sections and subsections that have long been lacking any citations, and the same is seen paragraph after paragraph in others.

The article needs a {{refimprove}} tag, and should have had it even before the 15 January 2019 {{unreferenced section}} tag added by User:Rutilant. Signed, the same former STEM prof, and former registered editor here. 76.136.83.142 (talk) 19:15, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

...the following primary source to the statement regarding the Frosch and Derick discovery, addressed at length above. This is the esteemed 1957 J. Electrochem. Soc. article that described their discovery, and thus is a better primary source to cite following whatever secondary sources are found to resolve the current problems with that sentence. (If the pattent is retained, this source should appear after the secondary sources, but before the patent citation, currently citation [5].)

^[1]

Note, this is again further argument for not restricting editing on such an article. Signed, as above, 76.136.83.142 (talk) 19:41, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note, this journal article is already cited, not once, but three separate times, in current citations [6], [7], and [14], and so these three redundant citations should be consolidated, using the above, more fully complete form of Frosch & Derick (1957). Again, perhaps lift editing proscriptions, so we can WP:JUSTFIXIT. 76.136.83.142 (talk) 19:49, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

...the following, with a copy of the Huff & Riordan (2007) Foreward citation, discussed above, to a Further reading section, and then lift the restrictions to the MOSFET article that others might then use these further, featured articles (from the same journal as the Foreward).

Given the rich and poorly sourced History section, there is no sound reason to exclude these sources, and then to edit the current content, when unsourced—so either WP:OR or plagiarism—to reflect these actual sources.

• Holonyak Jr, Nick (2007). "The Origins of Diffused-Silicon Technology at Bell Labs, 1954-55". Electrochem. Soc. Interface. 16 (3). Bristol, England: IOP Publishing: 30–34. doi:10.1149/2.F03073IF. Retrieved 14 October 2025.
• Riordan, Michael (2007). "From Bell Labs to Silicon Valley: A Saga of Semiconductor Technology Transfer, 1955-61". Electrochem. Soc. Interface. 16 (3). Bristol, England: IOP Publishing: 36–41. doi:10.1149/2.F04073IF. Retrieved 14 October 2025.
• Deal, Bruce E. (2007). "A Scientist's Perspective on the Early Days of MOS Technology". Electrochem. Soc. Interface. 16 (3). Bristol, England: IOP Publishing: 42–45. doi:10.1149/2.F05073IF. Retrieved 14 October 2025.
• Bassett, Ross Knox (2007). "MOS Technology, 1963-1974: A Dozen Crucial Years". Electrochem. Soc. Interface. 16 (3). Bristol, England: IOP Publishing: 46–50. doi:10.1149/2.F06073IF. Retrieved 14 October 2025.
• Colombo, Luigi; Chambers, Jim & and Niimi, Hiroaki (2007). "Gate Dielectric Process Technology for the Sub-1 nm Equivalent Oxide Thickness (EOT) Era". Electrochem. Soc. Interface. 16 (3). Bristol, England: IOP Publishing: 53–55. doi:10.1149/2.F07073IF. Retrieved 14 October 2025.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)

Signed, as above. 76.136.83.142 (talk) 20:21, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]