R/E/P Community

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 6   Go Down

Author Topic: Microdiodes in copper conductor  (Read 25129 times)

Sahib

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 429
Re: Microdiodes in copper conductor
« Reply #15 on: December 13, 2007, 10:01:03 AM »


I have just got an interesting conversation with an expert from the Copper Development Association in the UK.

Gentleman's comment was that, the idea of oxygen content around a copper crystal forming a diode action is  a complete nonsense. In fact he also used the phrase "mambo-jambo". He also commented that the oxygen content in an ordinary copper conductor has barely effect on conductivity.

I realise that we all knew that but I just wanted to bring some credible comment on the issue. My next move will be to drop a note to mr. ex vice president.
Logged

John Roberts {JR}

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 266
Re: Microdiodes in copper conductor
« Reply #16 on: December 13, 2007, 10:42:39 AM »

I think the technical term is "mumbo jumbo".  Laughing

JR
Logged

Barish

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 476
Re: Microdiodes in copper conductor
« Reply #17 on: December 14, 2007, 05:11:20 AM »

Well, even a "mumbo jumbo" sounds pretty accurate next to this directional cable bull so he had to coin another term for that Laughing

M.
Logged
M Ozturk

Larrchild

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3972
Re: Microdiodes in copper conductor
« Reply #18 on: December 14, 2007, 03:14:25 PM »

There are actually a bunch of patents for fancy crystal copper wire for use in audio/video transmission.

So, if few elsewhere are convinced, patent-examiners must have really killer systems at home, eh?
Logged
Larry Janus
http://2ubes.net

John Roberts {JR}

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 266
Re: Microdiodes in copper conductor
« Reply #19 on: December 14, 2007, 10:04:11 PM »

Larrchild wrote on Fri, 14 December 2007 14:14

There are actually a bunch of patents for fancy crystal copper wire for use in audio/video transmission.

So, if few elsewhere are convinced, patent-examiners must have really killer systems at home, eh?


Or perhaps patent examiners are not required to spend their own money to buy every invention they deem novel enough to award a patent.

The inspection of novelty is far more rigorous than any test for utility.

JR

Logged

johnR

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 923
Re: Microdiodes in copper conductor
« Reply #20 on: December 15, 2007, 07:27:47 AM »

Larrchild wrote on Fri, 14 December 2007 20:14



So, if few elsewhere are convinced, patent-examiners must have really killer systems at home, eh?

Looking at some of the dubious patents that are granted, I think it is safe to assume that patent examiners do not always have sufficient expertise in the particular field covered by a patent. The fact that the patent office makes money from awarding patents doesn't seem to encourage impartial investigation either.
Logged

John Roberts {JR}

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 266
Re: Microdiodes in copper conductor
« Reply #21 on: December 15, 2007, 10:29:49 AM »

johnR wrote on Sat, 15 December 2007 06:27


Looking at some of the dubious patents that are granted, I think it is safe to assume that patent examiners do not always have sufficient expertise in the particular field covered by a patent. The fact that the patent office makes money from awarding patents doesn't seem to encourage impartial investigation either.


I agree mostly. While I doubt the examiners get compensated for how many they award, it is not likely that they will be skilled in the art for any of the categories they are responsible for. They are more likely to be just out of school and working to get experience so they can move across the street and make the big bucks as a patent lawyer.

I suspect a lot of the silly patents could be easily shot down if the patent office opened up a public review period and investigated criticism from the general public. But somebody would have to vet these critiques and that would cost money, plus there would be some aggressive disputes raised against strategic patents that are probably better reviewed in court.

It's an imperfect system but better than no system.

JR
Logged

bruno putzeys

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1078
Re: Microdiodes in copper conductor
« Reply #22 on: December 15, 2007, 12:57:14 PM »

Go to the Randi website and search for "patent". There are quite a few enlightening discussions of how patents are awarded, and whether or not examiners are required to verify that a device actually performs the claimed function.
Logged
Warp Drive. Tractor Beam. Room Correction. Whatever.

Affiliations: Hypex, Grimm Audio.

John Roberts {JR}

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 266
Re: Microdiodes in copper conductor
« Reply #23 on: December 15, 2007, 01:33:55 PM »

I have several patents myself and from my experience I don't get a strong sense they even understand the principles being discussed let alone confirm that the invention works. They mainly do a search of key words used and throw back several superficial conflicts. The PTO may be evolving to use more sophisticated search capability but I suspect they use the same search engine made available to the general public.

I have seen patents that IMO game potential prior art interference by using obscure terminology to describe common parameters or mechanisms. While different engineering disciplines may use slightly different terminology the example I have in mind seemed intentional to hide citations from a literal search.

I believe, once upon a time patent applicants also submitted working models in proof of concept. I suspect this was dropped due to logistical burden. I'd like to see the models for sundry perpetual motion machine applications, which by definition should still be running.  Laughing

JR

Logged

johnR

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 923
Re: Microdiodes in copper conductor
« Reply #24 on: December 15, 2007, 04:19:28 PM »

John Roberts  {JR} wrote on Sat, 15 December 2007 18:33


I have seen patents that IMO game potential prior art interference by using obscure terminology to describe common parameters or mechanisms. While different engineering disciplines may use slightly different terminology the example I have in mind seemed intentional to hide citations from a literal search.


This was actually one of the things I was referring to. I can think of several cases where patents were granted in spite of prior art existing, or where the subject of the patent was obvious to practitioners in the field. Unfortunately for small businesses or individuals who find that the technology they have been using for years has suddenly been patented by somebody else, the cost of proving the patent invalid is prohibitive.
Logged

Larrchild

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3972
Re: Microdiodes in copper conductor
« Reply #25 on: December 15, 2007, 06:42:24 PM »

A patent for a widely-revered discrete opamp, ignores the mid-60's prior art of an emitter inductor in the 1st stage by Dick Burwen.

Must be one fancy inductor!
Logged
Larry Janus
http://2ubes.net

John Roberts {JR}

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 266
Re: Microdiodes in copper conductor
« Reply #26 on: December 15, 2007, 06:50:57 PM »

I haven't studied the details but I though I read that the recent changes in patent laws have made it cheaper to fight a patent without a formal court trial.

If the prior art is strong and fairly clear cut the patent wouldn't likely end up in court. The holder of such a sham patent would be unwise to overplay his hand. I recall back in the '80s I published a phono preamp kit  (In Popular Electronic magazine) that used a balanced input gain stage. I got confronted by some guy in Texas who had convinced the patent office to give him a patent on differential input phono pre's. Talk about obvious art...    Laughing  I ordered a copy of the patent file wrapper and looked at his arguments with the examiner and it was clear the patent examiner was unfamiliar with the general concept of balanced or differential inputs and thought that was novel.  

I made a copy of phono preamp schematic using a transformer front end from an old tube manual (which was both balanced and differential). I sent it to the inventor. By law when any inventor becomes aware of conflicting art he is supposed to notify the patent office himself. I doubt he did but he stopped bothering me.

JR
Logged

Larrchild

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3972
Re: Microdiodes in copper conductor
« Reply #27 on: December 15, 2007, 06:59:51 PM »

"Method of using Confusing Terminology to Obfuscate Common and Prior Devices"

Might as well just submit this.
Logged
Larry Janus
http://2ubes.net

Phillip Graham

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 280
Re: Microdiodes in copper conductor
« Reply #28 on: December 15, 2007, 09:22:54 PM »

Sahib wrote on Thu, 06 December 2007 17:11



Quote:


.... Microscopy at a moderate x200 magnification reveals the structure of the conductor. Bar-refined copper shows a highly crystalline makeup, of some 150 000 crystalls per metre. An analysis of the structure indicates that the crystals have a pure interior, while the impurities congregate at the crystal boundaries. The oxygen content is present in the reduced form of Cu2O, a semiconductor. Considering te conductive path between crystals, the boundary has the properties of a junction diode, a capacitor and a low shunt resistance, the latter being the dominant feature.



Cemal





There will indeed be some oxide in copper, and on the copper surface.  Copper readily oxidizes at normal pO2!  Its also very easy to measure the relative crystallographic orientations of the rolled copper, by making something called a "pole figure" on an X-ray diffractometer.  None of this is news.

To consider a smattering of anything in a matrix of conductive copper at audio frequencies is laughable.  This is easily shown by doing impedance spectroscopy using a potientiostat, an extremely common and useful technique in the world of electroceramics.  This is not tremendously different than the use of a network analyzer in the ee world.

In recent years people have attempted to extend impedance spectroscopy to the world of metal alloys, with very unimpressive results.  One the professors trying to pioneer that technique is in my department here at Georgia Tech.  Eventually, if you go high enough in frequency, you can measure effects that are not purely resistive, but linking them to characteristics of the microstructure is nearly impossible.

That is not to say that certain materials defects don't play a tremendous role in the electrical performance of certain systems...Just not at audio frequencies!

When I was fabbing microchips there were all kinds of materials limiting factors to electrical behavior.  The speed of waves in the metal back end layers is tremendously influenced by the dielectric constant of the surround substrate.  Notice I say "wave" because we are at transmission line frequencies here.

Another high frequency effect that is common in microchips is the residual parasitic capacitance in two specific places.  The first is at the materials boundary between the gate oxide and the source drain channel.  The apparent capacitance here is tremendously influenced by crystal defects that can trap electrons (or holes).  The triumph of silicon as a materials system for CMOS is in large part a function of silicon's ability to grow a very thin, stable, epitaxial, oxide layer.  Silicon is not a direct bandgap material, nor does its oxide have a particularly high dielectric constant.  Regardless, it has dominated CMOS processing due to silicon dioxide's stable, low defect thermal growth.

The second parasitic capacitance of note is in material forming the gate conductor (above the gate oxide dielectric).  The gate conductor is capacitively coupled to the source drain channel through the gate oxide.  The gate conductor has historically been polycrystalline silicon (polysilicon), which is then heavily doped via ion implantation to make it more conductive.  The material has substantial residual capacitances, in part due to trapping of implanted material at the grain boundaries between the crystals of silicon.

Intel just turned the CMOS world on its head very recently, by introducing the Penryn chip.  Penryn returns to a (shock!  Very Happy ) metallic gate conductor a titanium/nitraded titanium combination.  The gate dielectric is now halfnium oxide.  This is a really big deal in the CMOS world, since even though the "M" in "CMOS" stands for "Metal," polysilicon has ruled the day/gate for many years.

The gate oxides in the computer you are reading this post on are at most 4 atomic planes thick.  This is the size/frequency scale of materials science where these sorts of behaviors matter, and are clearly observable!

Not in the audio band, period, regardless of some physicist's misinformation.
[/Materials Engineering Hat]


Logged
Phillip Graham

Larrchild

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3972
Re: Microdiodes in copper conductor
« Reply #29 on: December 15, 2007, 10:01:34 PM »

A polysilicon gathers no MOS.

Glad you chimed in. Sounds like you know.

Quote:

Eventually, if you go high enough in frequency, you can measure effects that are not purely resistive

What frequency? And did you mean the normal reactance a wire gets at rf? Or some "other" phenomenon?

Logged
Larry Janus
http://2ubes.net
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 6   Go Up
 

Site Hosted By Ashdown Technologies, Inc.

Page created in 0.032 seconds with 21 queries.