Talk:Diode
|
|
Does anyone know which type of symbol (DIN 6779 / ISO / IEC / ...) the displayed symbol in the article is? it would be nice to add the comment there...
_i_ ^ / \ --- |
Does anyone know how a diode prevents current from flowing in one direction but permits it in the other?
- For the case of a semiconductor-based diode see the discussion of a p-n junction on the semiconductor page. Someone might want to adapt this for the Diode main page. -- Matt Stoker
Does the use of galena as a detector (referred to in semiconductor devices) predate the vacuum tube rectifier? - David M
- The crystal in a crystal radio is a naturally occurring mineral, used as a detector before practical vacuum-tube electronics. (I believe it has a point contact that is at least analogous to the point-contact diode of about 1950 that is the start of the Bell Labs drive toward commercial semiconductor electronics.) If the crystal of the crystal radio is galena, then the answer to your question is yes. --Jerzy 15:34, 2003 Nov 19 (UTC)
I thought I'd just explain why I changed "current" to "charge". Current doesn't really flow from A to B, but charge does. Just like "water flow rate" doesn't flow anywhere, but the water itself does. --User:Dgrant
- Arguable. The current revision "they allow an electric current in one direction" doesn't make sense to me. It seems to be missing a verb. "...current to occur..." sounds better to my ear, but can we just call "current flows" common usage? -- Tim Starling
- Yes, you are right. "to occur" or "to exist" would be the purest form in my opinion, but we can leave it the way it is. It's quite interesting I was able to find a fair share of both usages on Google. No doubt "current flowing" is probably more common. --Dave
It was I who changed "charge" back to "current", but in the light of the comments above, I decided that my version was no more or less correct than the previous one. Now, in an effort to please everybody, I have expanded the definition to mention both charge and current.
I think that the question of whether current "flows" or just "is" is merely a question of style. At worst, I think that "current flows" is harmlessly redundant. -- Heron
- True. I think I can agree with "harmlessly redundant". I like the first paragraph now, how it uses singular form "diode" and "it" instead of "diodes" and "they".
- The phrase "current flows" is harmless only if you already understand electrical physics. For newbies the phrase creates a serious misconception: the wrong idea that "current" is a substance, a substance which can "flow." This error grows to full-blown proportions in textbooks aimed at kids in grade school. Authors of these textbooks don't discuss the flow of charges within wires, instead they explain that "current electricity" flows in wires. An easy way to pop these bubbles of misconceptions is to ruthlessly remove all apparently harmless miswording such as "current flows." Instead say "charges flow" or "electrons flow" or "electric currents appear," etc.
--Wjbeaty 21:07, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)
- I agree. Unfortunately, there are many examples of the 'sloppy' use of terminology that, IMHO, hinder the learning process. I recently began teaching an introductory class in electrical engineering. In preparing for this class, I came to realize how careless I had become with the terminology of my field. In the end, my own understanding of the material improved once I began to critically evaluate how I used terms such as current. Alfred Centauri 14:17, 27 May 2005 (UTC)