Hot-carrier degradation phenomena in field-plate assisted reduced surface field (RESURF) devices caused by high voltage off-and on-state stressing have been investigated. The device I-V characteristics are analyzed and modeled in detail. It is shown that via noninvasive low-voltage leakage characterization the surface generation velocity profiles after (high-voltage) stress can be extracted, enabling I-V degradation predictions across wide temperature ranges.13.4.2 IEDM12-312
The operating limits of a transistor are conventionally determined by characterization of the curves that form the boundary of the safe operating area (SOA) in the twodimensional drain current-voltage plane [1, 2]. The shape of these SOA curves depends on parameters such as pulse time tpulse, ambient temperature Tamb and area of the transistor A [3,4]. Consequently, this way of characterizing the safe operating limits does not result in a single safe operating range for the transistor, but in many different curves that depend on operating conditions and transistor geometry.
In order to maximize the OFF-state breakdown voltage (BV) of semiconductor devices, the slope of the electric field in the drift extension along the current flow direction (E x field) should be zero. This is achieved using the reduced surface field (RESURF) effect. This paper demonstrates a method to construct devices that obey Poisson's equation and satisfy the ideal RESURF condition giving zero slope in E x throughout the 2-D device region. The designs are obtained by shaping the device geometry and the boundaries and by applying the proper potentials at the boundaries. Using this method, ideal designs of the drift extension have been derived for devices based on graded doping, graded thickness, and graded fieldplate potential. In addition, 2-D solutions have been derived for periodic superjunction device geometries. A solution for devices that combine several types of field shaping is demonstrated. Finally, the effect of nonideal geometries on the BV in more realistic geometries is discussed.
A response to Larmore and HonnethOne of the basic rules of argumentation is that one is responsible for what one has actually said, not for what one intended to say. And it is usually from others that one finds out what one has actually said. I have had the privilege of receiving attention from perceptive readers who have raised challenging objections to the argument developed in Reflective Authenticity. To some of these objections I will try to respond in the following remarks. Before I do so, I wish to thank Pieter Duvenage for his impeccable reconstruction of my argument -published as a review in this issue -which will help the reader to make better sense of what is being said in these pages.Charles Larmore articulates three criticisms that touch on central aspects of the authenticity thesis. The first two points are interrelated, in that they both question from different perspectives the singular quality of the authenticity view of universalism. First, from the indisputable observation that there exist 'rules of logic, the transitivity of preferences, and basic universal precepts such as "good is to be pursued and evil avoided" ' (p. 30), Larmore encourages us to take one step beyond and understand also our 'more substantial principles' (for example, the principles of justice embedded in the constitutional essentials of a liberal society) as 'universally valid', as 'correct principles of belief and action'. The limitation of our historical situation need no more prevent us from gaining insight into the truth, than our obviously finite calculating ability prevents us from accessing the truth that 2 plus 2 equals 4. To think otherwise means to indulge in the dubious belief that the 'realization that our thinking is always mediated by contingent forms of understanding PSC
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.