Talk:Silicon/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Silicon-32

I have changed the isotope data on this article to conform to the data provided by the National Nuclear Data Center. This is the government provided data that the wikiproject elements uses. If you contest this data, you better have ample references to why we this reference has a 109% difference in half-life. The data available on this particualar element is available here. --metta, The Sunborn 22:49, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Most Bronze is NOT Copper plus Silicon!!

This is just wrong. Bronze is an alloy mainly composed of Copper (60% plus) and Tin (Sn), aluminium (Al) or lead (Pb), or in some special cases, beryllium (Be). However, Silicon can appear as an additional alloying element. I study metallurgy, source are my profs. Carlottac 10:21, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Removed that. For next time, just be bold yourself and fix it! Femto 11:57, 13 October 2005 (UTC)


Etymology

Silicium is a late latin word that comes from silex (stone) Tonyjeff 01:00, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

the history section contradicts what i found in many other sources

"Discovered by: Jöns Jacob Berzelius Discovered at: Sweden Discovered when: 1824" (http://www.webelements.com/webelements/scholar/elements/silicon/history.html)

"Berzelius was the first person to isolate silicon in 1823, and thus he is credited with its discovery." (http://web1.caryacademy.org/chemistry/rushin/StudentProjects/ElementWebSites/silicon/history.htm)

"Jöns Jakob Berzelius was one of the founders of modern chemistry. He discovered Ce, Se, Si,...." (http://chem.ch.huji.ac.il/~eugeniik/history/berzelius.htm)

Sources that pin a discovery on a single name are necessarily superficial. There are usually many people involved from the deduced existence of a new element to its successful isolation. The article outlines it correctly as far as I see. Femto 16:19, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

the name!!!!!!!!!

somebody please tell me!!!!!! what is the signifigance of the name silicon?!?!?!??! i have no idea and i need the answer. even if this is really old putit on the site anyway of you know. much appreciated --chill

You mean the short etymology in the History section isn't enough? !!??!?!??!!? Femto 13:13, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

what about the other isotopes

it says there are a load of isotopes with a huge range in atomic mass but then only gives any detail on 4 of them. Anyone got any info on the others? Plugwash 00:40, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

See isotopes of silicon (available through the infobox) for some data. Other than the three stable and one or two cosmogenic or radiogenic isotopes, there's just not much else notable to say in the article, far as I know, unless you have something specific in mind. Femto 11:44, 19 March 2006 (UTC)


silicon allergy

It would be nice to see a bit of a writeup on the allergic or toxic effects of silicon. It's rare, but some people have an allergy to it. Also, silicon (Dimethylpolysiloxy) was used in breast implants, prostheses and such, until the health issues were understood.[1] -- Sy / (talk) 02:47, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

silicon in everyday life

how on earth do we use silicon in everyday life???

Follow the link above...you may also want to try the "search" box to the left of the screen.
Perhaps the "Applications" section could have a new sub-section added, which talks about things like silicon spatulas, silicon in paint and bedding.. etc. -- Sy / (talk) 02:51, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Remove the Silicon-based life part

This section really does not add much to the page and it is fiction. No sources are cited either —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.181.10.249 (talk) 03:39, 23 February 2007 (UTC).


Remove the Silicon-based life part

This section really does not add much to the page and it is fiction. No sources are cited either--72.181.10.249 03:44, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Silicon-based life is, as far as I am aware, a viable theory, at least in sci-fi, and would be of interest to many readers. It should probably not be a part of the main article on silicon though, but moved to an article of its own, or merged into Extraterrestial life. If this is done, then the sources need to be referenced properly. Dr bab 10:17, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Optical Properties of Silicon

Theres nothing on the refractive index or permitivity of silicon on this page. This should definately be added since silicon is used for its high refractive index in the IR spectrum. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jshido (talk • contribs) 04:55, 6 May 2007 (UTC).

It could also benefit from a discussion of porous silicon. The optical properties of por-Si make it useful as both a biological and a chemical sensor. Pillars 07:03, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Shortage?

I often hear about shortages of silicon, for semiconductors (computer chips and solar cells). When silicon the element is so abundant, how can there be a shortage? --Chriswaterguy talk 14:02, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

It's the shortage of ultrahigh-purity (i.e., semiconductor grade) silicon. Warut 14:33, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
An in-depth explanation of the current shortage can be found at this page (there, PV = photovoltaic). Warut (talk) 21:31, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

STM images of silicon surfaces

Does anyone have some STM images of Si(100) and Si(111) surfaces available? If this is not possible licencewise, does anyone know where to find them? Erwin (talk) 17:52, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Abundance

If SI is 2nd most abundant, what is the most? Maybe that should be in the article. (It's the first question that popped into my mind, so maybe others reading the article will want to know as well...)

the first common is oxygen.

The Iron aricle says it's iron: Iron is also the most abundant (by mass, 34.6%) element making up the Earth;. Please feel free to be bold and edit this into the article as you see fit!
Atlant 17:04, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
Just a side note : they are the most abundant elements on earth by mass. By moles count, hydrogen and oxygen must be way ahead.

I would sugest adding: oxigen being the most abundant element on earth crust. this would clear a bit more, once iron is more abundant once you count on the earth nucleus (as said in the iron article) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.132.180.24 (talk) 20:23, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Compounds section

I have made a first stab at adding content to this section - there is a lot of silicon chemistry and a lot could be added and some of these areas are noted in comments in the section. I have not added "chemistry" words comparing Si to C and Ge - and I think we should add something about catenation, multiple bonding, coordination number and stability of Si(II). --Axiosaurus (talk) 17:05, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Images

These redundant images are moved from the main page: (there were two powders, two crystals chirps, and two ingots - this one is misleading by its colored bands due to surface oxide or contamination) The ingot size in the main page is realistic. Materialscientist (talk) 10:10, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

silicon not really analogous to carbon

Yes they both have 4 valence electrons, but silicon is highly unlikely to for Si-Si double bonds or even triple bonds, which are essential for organic life.

It can, yes, but the bond strength is very low. Also, hydrosilicon chains are unstable around oxygen, so it's pretty hard to imagine how life could come about, yes. --116.14.27.179 (talk) 04:43, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Biological role

I've removed this sentence from the applications section: In addition, it has been theorized that it could be possible that there could be lifeforms based on this element just as lifeforms on Earth are based on carbon. Has this been seriously suggested outside of science fiction? (Not that science fiction speculations should be excluded if they are significant to the topic). A recent Scientific American note says that silicon-based life is not thought to be feasible (ref). Do you think this topic should be addressed in a separate section (not applications)?

There should be a ==Biological role== section. It could go in there once that section is created. --mav 19:45, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)
That would be a good idea – something like the long, encyclopedic "Biological role" section in the article on iron. At the moment, the silicon article does not have a comparable section. There is just a "Silicon-based life" section that mentions the speculations about the possibility of silicon, rather than carbon, being the basis of life forms on other planets, before going on to describe some aspects of the actual role of silicon (in the form of silica and silicate) in life on Earth. I think it ought to be the other way round – fact before fiction – and the whole section ought to be expanded upon and re-titled "Biological role". However, I don't know anything about biochemistry so I will leave the task to someone else. --Bwiki 01:49, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

What do you think about this (the facts are – I'm positive – correct):

Life as we know it could not have developed based on a silicon biochemistry. The main reason for this fact is that life on Earth depends on the cycle of the carbon: autotrophic entities use carbon dioxide to synthesize organic compounds with carbon, which is then used as food by heterotrophic entities, which produce energy and carbon dioxide from these compounds. If carbon was to be replaced with silicon, there would be a silicon cycle. However, silicon dioxide precipitate in aquous systems, and cannot be transported among living beings through regular ways. --Jotomicron | talk 22:35, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

I've added some very commonly-cited scientific objections to silicon-based life based on analogies to carbon. Silicon is lousy at forming pi-bonds, doesn't like to form rings, and hydrocarbon-like silicon compounds (silanes) have this nasty habit of decomposing explosively. Kajerm 05:56, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

It has been suggested, it was in New Scientist a while back Larklight 18:39, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Shouldn't Silicon also be in Category:Biology and pharmacology of chemical elements ? Eldin raigmore (talk) 18:32, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Biological role

There should be a ==Biological role== section.Eldin raigmore (talk) 23:40, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Silicon as an energy carrier

on 10 October 2009 I added this brief one-liner

It has been proposed that silicon, if refined by solar power could replace coal<ref>Professor Earl Bardsley, University of Waikato, New Zealand. "Australian Science Media: Could Australia be powered by sand and sunshine?".{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)</ref> Sand is mostly silicon dioxide or silica, which is silicon which has already burned.

(Add Silicon as fuel proposed by Prof Earl Bardsley) to provide an embedded potential stub for a future article (since I am interested in energy engineering, not a materials science, per se).

Materialscientist (talk | contribs) (29,099 bytes) (Undid revision 319038126 by Timpo (talk) too early to add this proposal into the lead of encynclopedia article

A further reference may be found at http://www.aussmc.org/Australian_renewable_energy_Mar09.php. A better consideration of this topic might be an earlier 2007 Deutsche Bank research paper http://www.dbresearch.com/PROD/DBR.../PROD0000000000079095.pdf

Question: at which point in the article, and at which stage of research into viability should such information be included? (As an aside, I personally use and recommend my students to use Firefox with several different language spell-check add-ons, one of which highlighted the word encynclopedia and suggested encyclopedia might be better. Might this tip be useful to other editors, too?) Timpo (talk) 07:47, 12 October 2009 (UTC)


Information Sources

Some of the text in this entry was rewritten from Los Alamos National Laboratory - Silicon. Additional text was taken directly from USGS Periodic Table - Silicon, from the Elements database 20001107 (via dict.org), Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary (1913) (via dict.org) and WordNet (r) 1.7 (via dict.org). Data for the table was obtained from the sources listed on the main page and Wikipedia:WikiProject Elements but was reformatted and converted into SI units.

In Popular Culture

Should we add a list of fictional silicon places to the list? Eg, many works of fiction mention or depict silicon nouns, for instance 21st Century Fox mentions Silicon Atoll in Hawaii.

I would keep that list to a minimal listing of real places or it may instantly become a full page article - silicon is quite popular in fiction. Materialscientist (talk) 01:24, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Crystal structure

Regarding the crystal structure: as I understand it, the crystal structure is the Bravais lattice plus the unit cell. The diamond structure (as it is called in my field, solid state physics) has the fcc Bravais lattice, and two atoms in the unit cell. I think we ought to display the crystal structure, not the Bravais lattice, in the table because it's the complete description of where the atoms are, and if we're going to do that, it should say "Diamond structure," or if that's not considered correct, whatever term people want to use. But not "Cubic face centered," because that means (to me) an fcc Bravais lattice with a monatomic unit cell. Some artist-type should also change the little diagram at the top of the table... User:Tantalate

Many more articles like this one. Please add your ideas to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Elements. I think we are using different definitions for things. "Diamond strucutre" is not mentioned at crystal structure and those basic forms are what the WikiProject has standardized on. Of course there are more forms - but this is a top-level article with a general (read not-specialized) primary readership. --mav 05:10, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Does anyone think a description of the surface structure should be added? The most common is known as Si(111)-(7x7) and has been resolved fairly recently with the use of STM. It's a common structure to encounter in solid state physics or surface physics/chemistry, but it might be too specialistic for this article? Levitz 10:14, 11 May 2006 (GMT)

The first commentor is correct. FCC is just not right. Believe me, I just gave a presentation where I referenced silicon as having a FCC structure and my proffessor stopped my presentation... very embarrassing. This is just wrong. Good info is here and here. Don't trust everything you read on wikipedia. I made that mistake. --Dan 18:58, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I went ahead and corrected this, but I didn't see any good wiki articles about diamond structure... maybe it'd be good to have one? --Dan 14:31, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

In materials science, and crystallography, we usually use Angstroms right? I went ahead and change this from nm. Wikipedia convention says not necessarily SI units - but whatever is convention in the field. --ItaniuMatrix (talk) 17:55, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Using Angstroms must be a strategic error. The proliferation of units is a constant nuisance. There are fields where strange and frankly - perverse units are used, and where the SI equivalent would not be recognised. There is no advantage in continuing to use non-si units. People working in other disciplines have to look them up, while 'materials science, and crystallography' people who regularly use Angstroms already know the conversion. CPU & memory manufacturers use nm. Where we can, let's do it right. The engineering companies which built the failed Mars probe "usually used" imperial - right? Fentlehan (talk) 13:12, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Allotropy

I see Allotropy of Silicon has not been discussed here at all. While, there exist separate pages on Amorphous Silicon and Crystalline Silicon. The articles being large, cannot be merged into this page directly, but a mention is sure required. I would do it myself, but want someone more knowledgeable than a 12th Grader to decide what is more important and put it in this article Darshit 00:15, 30 March 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Darnir redhat (talk • contribs)

Questions about Sources

"the FFC Cambridge Process, has the potential to directly produce solar grade silicon" I'd like to see a direct citation of where that information was taken from. It isn't in [11] or [12] it may be in [13] but I can't get access to it. The claim itself seems rather boastful. Surely the FFC process seems to be able to produce at least 99% Silicon but the 99.999 to 99.99999 that is generally considered solar grade? It seems unlikely to me. 131.202.212.105 (talk) 15:29, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I have updated this and FFC process article and conclude for myself (until proven wrong) that the electrochemical reduction of salts (whatever the name) is known for ages and it produced Si with purity above 99.99% at least 40 years ago. Materialscientist (talk) 06:39, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Materialscientist: You are completely wrong by considering (1) electro-deposition of solid silicon from dissolved silicon ions or silicon containing ions in the liquid electrolyte (molten salts) to be the same as (2) electro-reduction of solid silica to solid silicon (The FFC Cambridge Process). These are two completely different processes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.6.8.207 (talk) 00:39, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Silicon in Biology

This list is only a starting point for the Biological role section.--Stone (talk) 20:24, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Semiprotected again

The last six-month period of semiprotection expired on May 20. For some time after that, this article was reasonably quiet, but the IP vandalism seems to have picked up a lot since mid-August. The page history now seems to be dominated by vandalism and reverts thereof. If anyone feels the semiprotection should be modified, please let me know. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 02:26, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

On the contrary, I hope sprotection should be the default on all chemical element articles, just as it is for solar system planets. The school vandalism is horrible, if not. SBHarris 02:30, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Igar10, 7 November 2010

{{edit semi-protected}} Please add a link to Georgian wikipedia: ka:სილიციუმი Igar10 (talk) 19:59, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Done. Materialscientist (talk) 22:34, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 67.170.35.87, 28 February 2011

{{edit semi-protected}} Under "Crystallization", the article currently states: "Silicon, like carbon and other group IV elements form face-centered diamond cubic crystal structure. Silicon, in particular, forms a face-centered cubic structure with a lattice spacing of 0.5430710 nm (5.430710 Å).[16]"

The face-centered cubic structure and the diamond cubic structure are distinct structures. Silicon does *not* form a face-centered cubic structure--atoms in an FCC structure have 12 nearest neighbors, and Si only makes 4 bonds/atom. This would better read: "Silicon, like carbon and other group IV elements, crystallizes in a diamond cubic crystal structure. The lattice spacing for silicon is 0.5430710 nm (5.430710 Å).[16]"

For more details on crystal structure, Callister and Rethwisch's "Materials Science and Engineering: An Introduction", 8th Edition William D. Callister (Univ. of Utah), David G. Rethwisch (Univ. of Iowa), January 2010, Ch. 2-3 is a good start. 67.170.35.87 (talk) 06:52, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Fixed. Thank you. Materialscientist (talk) 07:06, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

temperature discrepancy

In the sidebar, under boiling point it says 2628 K, 2355[1] °C, 5909 °F The Kelvin and Celsius numbers are consistent with each other, but neither is consistent with the Fahrenheit number. Which one is it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jbridge21 (talk • contribs) 14:32, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Fixed. Thanks. Materialscientist (talk) 14:41, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

These numbers don't seem right either. I've found some pretty reliable looking sources for the lower number (2355C). If anyone thinks the higher number is correct, make sure the source didn't just take it from this page. I'm updating the sidebar and adding citations to some of these sources:

Nmesisgeek (talk) 18:47, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

EDIT: not changing sidebar, found an older textbook that lists the higher number. Would still like to see a definitive answer on the subject. Nmesisgeek (talk) 00:35, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

The value in the article is from Lide, D. R., ed. (2005). CRC Handbook of Chemistry and Physics (86th ed.). Boca Raton (FL): CRC Press. ISBN 0-8493-0486-5. (the misprint mentioned above is by wikipedia editors); none of the mentioned above sources is nearly as reliable as this handbook. Materialscientist (talk) 00:56, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Silicon-based life

This needs to be cleaned-up before going back in the article. --mav (talk) 02:06, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
See also: Alternative biochemistry

Since silicon is similar to carbon, particularly in its valency, some people have proposed the possibility of silicon-based life. One main detraction for silicon-based life is that unlike carbon, silicon does not have the tendency to form double and triple bonds.

Although there are no known forms of life that rely entirely on silicon-based chemistry, some use silica for specific functions. The polycystine radiolaria and diatoms have skeletons of opaline silicon dioxide, and the Hexactinellid sponges secrete spicules made of silicon dioxide. These forms of silicon dioxide are known as biogenic silica. Silicate bacteria use silicates in their metabolism[citation needed].

Life as we know it could not have developed based on a silicon biochemistry. The main reason for this fact is that life on Earth depends on the carbon cycle: autotrophic entities use carbon dioxide to synthesize organic compounds with carbon, which is then used as food by heterotrophic entities, which produce energy and carbon dioxide from these compounds. If carbon was to be replaced with silicon, there would be a need for a silicon cycle. However, silicon dioxide precipitates in aqueous systems, and cannot be transported among living beings by common biological means.

As such, another solvent would be necessary to sustain silicon-based life forms; it would be difficult (if not impossible) to find another common compound with the unusual properties of water which make it an ideal solvent for carbon-based life. Larger silicon compounds analogous to common hydrocarbon chains (silanes) are also generally unstable owing to the larger atomic radius of silicon and the correspondingly weaker silicon-silicon bond; silanes decompose readily and often violently in the presence of oxygen making them unsuitable for an oxidizing atmosphere such as our own. Silicon also does not readily participate in pi-bonding (the second and third bonds in triple bonds and double bonds are pi-bonds) as its p-orbital electrons experience greater shielding and are less able to take on the necessary geometry. Furthermore, although some silicon rings (cyclosilanes) analogous to common the cycloalkanes formed by carbon have been synthesized, these are largely unknown. Their synthesis suffers from the difficulties inherent in producing any silane compound, whereas carbon will readily form five-, six-, and seven-membered rings by a variety of pathways (the Diels-Alder reaction is one naturally-occurring example), even in the presence of oxygen. Silicon's inability to readily form long silane chains, multiple bonds, and rings severely limits the diversity of compounds that can be synthesized from it. Under known conditions, silicon chemistry simply cannot begin to approach the diversity of organic chemistry, a crucial factor in carbon's role in biology.

However, silicon-based life could be construed as being life which exists under a computational substrate. This concept is yet to be explored in mainstream technology but receives ample coverage by sci-fi authors.

A. G. Cairns-Smith has proposed that the first living organisms to exist were forms of clay minerals—which were probably based around the silicon atom.

I added a new sentence about it.–Jérôme (talk) 21:40, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Oxygen non-gaseous??

"oxygen and silicon were the most common non-gaseus [...] elements". Apart from the typo, is this based on some special definition of "gaseous" used by nuclear physicists, or is it simply bunk? If the former please annotate, if the latter please correct. Thank you! -- 92.231.116.227 (talk) 01:15, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Why is it so common?

Please mention or explain in the article why silicon is so common. Is the nucleus especially stable, or more easily formed than others during supernova explosions, or what else causes it to be so common? Thanks. -- 92.231.116.227 (talk) 01:18, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

There's a discussion of part of that in the occurence section, but that only answers the question of why Si's more common on Earth than in the universe. It's 8th in the universe because supernovas make things sequentially from heliums, and silicon is just 7 heliums. So in a supernova you start with a sequence from hydrogen to helium, then fuse to carbon (3 alphas, since 2 are unstable), oxygen (4 alphas), neon (5 alphas, but it boils off inner planets due to heat), magnesium (6 alphas) and then silicon. I'll see what I can do, referencing silicon burning and some supernova nucleosynthesis stuff. SBHarris 05:21, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Reactivity of Si

The beginning of the article states: "A tetravalent metalloid, it is less reactive than its chemical analog carbon, the nonmetal directly above it in the periodic table, . . " What is the basis for this? Reactive towards what? Si reacts vigorously towards halogens, while carbon much less so. Si reacts with N to form a stable compound, while C almost not at all. The concept of "reactivity" is too complex to be reduced to just one sentence. There is no single criteria that defines the term the way it is used in the article. 71.136.229.126 (talk) 17:57, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps we should change that to "oxidize" on the basis that you can hardly burn lumps of silicon in the fireplace. However, that may be due to a non-volatile oxide coating that passivates silicon, a luxury carbon doesn't have. So you may have a point even there. Anybody want to defend silicon's lack of reactivity as opposed to carbon? Germanium is certainly more reactive than silicon, so you'd think silicon would be more reactive than carbon. SBHarris 20:52, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Silicon volume of melting

There is no information about the changes during melting of the crystal, for example, volume of melting. I suggest this reference for useful numbers: [2] (10% volume shrinkage). 141.51.221.21 (talk) 11:02, 28 October 2013 (UTC)Vladimir [3] - 8-10% volume shrinkage 141.51.221.21 (talk) 11:28, 28 October 2013 (UTC)Vladimir

Boiling point

What is the real boiling point of silicon? The article says it's 2,800 °C, the infobox says it's 3,265 °C, and Google says it's 2,357°C. Th4n3r (talk) 23:09, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Rubber Bible 84th ed. and Lange's Handbook of Chemistry 15th ed. both give 3265°C. Double sharp (talk) 14:51, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
Changed to infobox values. I wonder where the other values are coming from? Double sharp (talk) 15:10, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Some other sources give even lower boiling point than 2800 C:

Boiling Point: 2355.0 °C (2628.15 K, 4271.0 °F)

http://www.chemicalelements.com/elements/si.html

http://www.creative-chemistry.org.uk/alevel/module1/trends8.htm (2628 K)

178.42.158.85 (talk) 19:38, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Entropy

I have removed |Entropy=18.7 J mol−1 K−1 from infobox silicon. The parameter is not used in infobox element (does not show). -DePiep (talk) 15:07, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

electrical conductivity

The value in the table cannot be found in the given reference, and even it´s unit is wrong. --Maxus96 (talk) 22:57, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, quickfixed, will find a proper reference for that. Materialscientist (talk) 23:15, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
That old reference was quite interesting: [4], i´ve made it a weblink in the article.
Judging from this graph [5], you can first pick an arbitrary value and then search a reference for it. ;-) --Maxus96 (talk) 07:12, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Hideous "siliKON" pronunciation

I propose to remove the alternate pronunciation, "SIL-ə-kon" from the infobox. This alternative, while not explicitly suggesting emphasis on the final syllable, does so implicitly by substituting the IPA "o" (like the "o" in "box") for the schwa.

This pronunciation (like "Comic-Con" or "octagon"), though sometimes heard, is inconsistent with the English pronunciation of any of the other three-syllable element names including those with irregular final syllables (i.e., not "ium") such as platinum, nitrogen, oxygen, phosphorous etc. I understand that there is some variety of pronunciation of the names of the elements in English between British English and American English, but in general the syllabic emphasis is very regular among these names: two and three syllable element names take first syllable emphasis and names with more than three syllables take emphasis on the third-from-last syllable ("niobium", "tellurium").

I am a native and resident of the Santa Clara valley and am old enough to have learned this word before the popularization of the moniker "Silicon Valley". I suspect that the noxious "siliKON" pronunciation derives from the confusion in the minds of (primarily) broadcast journalists, less than two or three percent of whom have as much as high school chemistry, when confronted with copy containing a strange word that they convolve with the organo-silicon substance "silicone". I've been a working engineer in the computing machinery industry for over thirty years and I don't believe I've *ever* heard a co-worker with a technical background pronounce "silicon" this way- not a single time.

As I write this, I'm listening to the local NPR radio station, KQED-FM. Announcers there have the opportunity to pronounce "silicon" many times every day, as a number of the station's sponsors are called "Silicon <this>" or "Silicon Valley <that>". The present announcer’s pronunciation, just now, varied wildly *within the same sentence*.

In English, vocabulary and usage are often what the English-speaking people make them. But there should be a lot less deference for pronunciation of proper nouns. No one should imagine that saying "oreGON" or "nevAHHda" is acceptable no matter how often eastern-U.S. people do. Neither should we tolerate "siliKON". Can someone convince me that I shouldn't make this change? Rt3368 (talk) 20:13, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Damn me if I can figure out exactly what you want. In English (to the everylasting confusion of the Spanish), the vowels in all unstressed syllables are made into "schwa" and pronouced "uh". Putting the stress on a syllable therefore tends to force the pure vowel, and that is the only way the thing is forced to reveal itself in pronunciation.

Thus, if you only stress the first syllable, there are really two schwas in SIL-uh-kun (rhymes with gillikan and millikan, which also end in schwas), and if you move some or all of the stress to the last syllable, it forces the "o" to be stressed and pronounced, and you get SIL-uh-KON, or sil-uh-KON. For Silicon Valley I have heard all three syllables nearly equally stressed, which gives every last vowel: SIL-I-KON VAL-EE. I have heard all these pronunciations of the element. Live with it.

I don't think you can really claim that English words with three syllables always stress the first one excusively. Do you pronounce lexicon to rhyme with Mexican or Pentagon? And in English (as opposed to Italian) do we not cross the Rubicon = ROO-BI-KON when we commit to something irreversibly? Dunno how Caeser said it. SBHarris 00:29, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry for being unclear. You write

"In English (to the everlasting confusion of the Spanish)..."

English can be a very frustrating language. I understand that the idea of a spelling bee puzzles Italians. I speak some German and I'm sure it would puzzle them as well.

"Thus, if you only stress the first syllable, there are really two schwas in SIL-uh-kun (rhymes with gillikan and millikan, which also end in schwas)..."

I agree. I use the word "Pelican", the way we pronounce it in English, as an illustration.

"and if you move some or all of the stress to the last syllable, it forces the "o" to be stressed and pronounced, and you get SIL-uh-KON, or sil-uh-KON."

I agree. In fact, it's what I wrote above. That's why it's wrong to add stress to the final syllable.

"For Silicon Valley I have heard all three syllables nearly equally stressed, which gives every last vowel: SIL-I-KON VAL-EE..."

I'm surprised. I've lived in the place all my life and I've never heard that middle syllable receive stress.

"Live with it."

Why? In the sense that the infobox is prescriptive, why shouldn't it be correct?
"I don't think you can really claim that English words with three syllables always stress the first one exclusively."

I didn't make any such claim. I wrote

"...the syllabic emphasis is very regular among these names: two and three syllable element names take first syllable emphasis and [element] names with more than three syllables take emphasis on the third-from-last syllable." (emphasis added)

Though the IUPAC classifies the names of the elements as common nouns rather than proper nouns (for the sake of capitalization), that’s no reason for silicon to not be afforded the same respect as Nevada or Oregon, i.e., that it deserves proper pronunciation. In the sense that "Silicon Valley" has become a place name, it qualifies as a proper name, which "lexicon" does not. Rubicon is an Italian proper noun and I'm happy to have the Italians advise me how to pronounce it.

As I wrote, the names of the elements in English are pronounced with pretty regular syllabic emphasis. The irregularly-ending three syllable element names are pronounced this way with the exceptions of iodine and astatine, which are both spelled explicitly with long final syllables (mercury and manganese also have long final vowels but follow the rule):

hydrogen HY-dro-gen

nitrogen NI-tro-gen

oxygen OX-y-gen

silicon SIL-i-con ["con" is certainly short]

phosphorus PHOS-phor-us

manganese MANG-a-nese

arsenic AR-sen-ic

iodine I-o-dine [I-O-DINE but also I-O-din; UK: I-O-deen]

tantalum TANT-al-um

platinum PLAT-i-num

mercury MER-cu-ry

astatine AS-ta-tine [AS-ta-teen]

while the more regularly-ending three syllable element names are uniform in following the rule (though I once heard molybdynum ("mo-LIB-dy-num") pronounced "MOlibDEEnum" which is just wacky):

helium HEL-i-um

lithium LITH-i-um

sodium SOD-i-um

calcium CALC-i-um

scandium SCAND-i-um

chromium CHROM-i-um

gallium GAL-i-um

strontium STRONT-i-um

yttrium YTTR-i-um

rhodium RHOD-i-um

etc.

The longer element name invariably follow the thrd-from-final rule for emphasis:

niobium ni-O-bi-um

samarium sam-AR-i-um

etc. One other special case is the ancient element antimony (Gr: "not-alone") which is pronounced AN-ti-MO-ny. In this case, the prefix "anti" is pronounced something like a separate word and "mony" is pronounced like a two syllable element name, with emphasis on the first syllable. Rt3368 (talk) 20:40, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
"Antimony" is sometimes just stressed on the first syllable: the infobox for that element suggests that to be the UK pronunciation. Double sharp (talk) 07:23, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

But the point is lack of rules. There surely are no "rules" for two-syllable element names either, or else boron would be pronounced like carbon. It isn't. Carbon (unless you're Spanish, again) gets a schwa-- CAR-bun. But boron has enough emphasis on the second syllable (though usually not quite as much as the first) to be clearly BOR-on or even BOR-ON. Never, ever BOR-un. The deliberately-emphasized "on" at the end of boron is there to show that it's a non-metal, and that is historically how it was named-- by analogy to carbon. And silicon was named by Thomson (as he says in an 1817 quote you can see in the notes) by analogy to both carbon and boron. For that, it deserves enough emphasis in the last syllable not to get carbon's schwa (we all know about carbon's character), but instead to get boron's short o. It's reasonable. It's done. Surely it's reasonable enough to be an alternate.

Good show! I didn't think I'd get any genuine response to my assertion; you've provided one. However, I don't buy your boron argument. As I wrote, all of the two syllable names distinctly take emphasis on the first syllable, whether the final vowel is schwa or not. I'm not at all convinced I shouldn't still remove the alternate pronunciation from the infobox, but I won't do it yet.

Of course I agree completely that English pronunciation is irregular and don't even deny that these element names have varying pronunciation. What I wrote, was
"I understand that there is some variety of pronunciation of the names of the elements in English between [for instance] British English and American English, but in general the syllabic emphasis is very regular among these names..."

I'm not a believer that dictionary pronunciation should be prescriptive rather than descriptive, though I know that's a debate. People talk the way they talk, and arguing about regional variations in English is nearly as pointless as arguing national variations. If I say "New Or-LEENS," all that tells you is that I didn't grow up there or near there, not that I'm wrong in how I say it. Anymore than if I put the end "s" in the capital of France. I'm not from there, so I don't have to say it the way Parisians do. You can't make me say i-o-DEEN and you can't make me say SIL-uh-cun either.

I have no chance of making you say it in any way other than as you please, obviously. I certainly have no chance of making Brits (or others) say "aluminum" rather than IUPAC's preferred "aluminium" (though in this case, even the Brits follow the emphasis rule: accent on the third-from-last syllable).

In fact I think we SIL-uh-CON people outnumber you SIL-uh-cun people.

No doubt. There are fewer people every day who learned any natural science before the advent of "silicon" in the every-day feeble-minded broadcast journalist vernacular. I recently read that fewer than twenty percent of high school graduates have attempted a chemistry course (though up from fewer than sixteen percent, twenty years ago). Around the world, still vastly more think that cholera and typhus come from demons haunting trees and shrubs and rocks and that they can be warded off with vigorous hand gestures.

Neener, neener. SBHarris 23:24, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

I have no come-back for this. Rt3368 (talk) 20:25, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not a place for promoting one particular pronunciation over any other, and it certainly isn't its charter to embrace one particular analysis of English pronunciation over any other. Thus any claims of (in)consistency, unless backed up by a reputable source, are moot. The fact is that English pronunciation varies by country, region, and even person, and as long as both pronunciations are attested, verifiable, and notable, both belong in the article.—Tetracube (talk) 22:54, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Breakdown & avalanche

There is a passage: "Silicon has become the most popular material to build both high power semiconductors and integrated circuits. The reason is that silicon is the semiconductor that can withstand the highest temperatures and electrical powers without becoming dysfunctional due to avalanche breakdown (a process in which an electron avalanche is created by a chain reaction process whereby heat produces free electrons and holes, which in turn produce more current which produces more heat)." I don't think this is true. What about GaN, SiC and diamond-based high power rectifiers? They are substituting Si exactly because they can support higher breakdown fields. Check the book "Fundamentals of Power Semiconductor Devices" by Baliga. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Afsartori (talk • contribs) 22:32, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Silicon. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 14:20, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Silicon/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Needed for B-class:
  • ==Precautions== section with 3 or more paragraphs
  • Destub ==History== section ; several paras needed

Last edited at 11:38, 14 May 2011 (UTC). Substituted at 06:11, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Since oxygen and silicon were the most common non-gaseous and non-metallic elements in the debris from supernova dust ...

Can't say I agree with the premise, so the conclusion is difficult. Can someone please help out with this odd statement? Grammar's Li'l Helper Discourse 01:40, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

I would naturally have wanted to write "Since oxygen and silicon were the most common metals in the debris from supernova dust", using the astronomical definition of a metal (anything with Z ≥ 3), but it would inevitably be "corrected". If we look at the abundances of elements in the Milky Way, excluding H and He, the list starts O, C, Ne, Fe, N, Si, Mg, S. Therefore, while silicon is indeed very common, it's not the most common besides H, He, and O. Double sharp (talk) 11:59, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Early move

Article changed over to new Wikipedia:WikiProject Elements format by maveric149. Elementbox converted 10:21, 23 Jun 2005 by Femto (previous revision was that of 12:51, 21 Jun 2005).

Band gap?

Shouldn't this article mention the value of the band gap somewhere?

-bab


Reactivity?

Hey -- according to http://www.webelements.com/webelements/elements/text/Si/chem.html and http://www.tf.uni-kiel.de/matwis/amat/elmat_en/index.html, pure silicon is highly reactive. The compounds it creates such as SiO2 are not so reactive at all. If this is correct, the article is rather misleading by calling it a "relatively inert element"

Usenet sightings/citings

Usenet comments about this article see here
<quote>
> On 19 Oct, Dave Plowman <dave.sound@argonet.co.uk> wrote: > > [snip] > > Hmm. Wonder what the half life of silicon is? > > > Around 276 years, according to > <URL:http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silicon >. > Why do you ask? ;-)

I realise the smilery, but your answer is totally misleading. The halflife of Si-32 is 276 years, but Si-28, Si-29 and Si-30 which, according to the site make up 100% of natural silicon, are not radio active.

Or course the site negletes Si-27 with a halflife of 4s, and Si-31 with a halflife of 157minutes (circa 1971 data).

Martin </quote>


More sightings

I've noticed this webpage has ripped this page off: http://encyclopedia.learnthis.info/s/si/silicon.html.

Wiki content is free for public use as long as the user refers back to Wikipedia. Nowadays, you'll find many different sites that contain the exact same article as Wikipedia; try Googling and see!
Atlant 10:58, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Silicon nanoparticles

Can silicon be used similarly to gold in nanoelectronics, using lasers to fuse silicon particles?


Merging Silicon's ranking into this article

See Talk:Silicon's ranking

Contents of Silicon's ranking

Silicon is ranked 7 in 10 most abundant elements. It is the 2nd most common found element in the Earth's Crust. But also, it is found by a reaction.


Parts

  1. Silicon Dioxide
  2. Silicon tetrafluoride
  3. Silicone
  4. Silicate


It is also a water glass.

Silicon Dioxide

Further information: Silicon dioxide

Silicon Dioxide is most commonly found in beach sand. Chemical Symbol: Si

Atomic Number: 14

Atomic Mass: 28.0855

Named from Latin word Silex

Found in: Sweden

Found in: Clay, granite, quartz, sand

Discovered by: Jons Berzolius in 1824

Attributes: solid, hard, dark-gray nonmetallic substance; metalloid


Sources

Info from: [webelements.com] [education.jlab.com] [chemicalelements.com] And various other uncited locations.

{{Science-stub}}

Atomic Mass

Is there a reason that the atomic mass of silicon is listed as "{{{atomic mass}}} g·mol−1"?

quality scale assessment

  1. Characteristics
    1. Physical This section contains three numbers of which only one is sourced. Three of four paragraphs lack references.
    2. Chemical The strong afinity of silicon towards oxygen and fluorine should be mentioned,
    3. Isotopes OK
  2. Occurrence Ametyst agate and quartz should be ordered quartz agate ametyst. Should we mention why earth crust is dominated by silicates?
  3. Production molten salt electrolysis does not need four refs, the patents can go. silicon powder in an acid looks funny in the way that the chemistry section says that it is not solable in acid.
  4. Compounds
  5. History The history ends with 1850s and this looks a little bit strange and an omission of facts which should be mentioned.
  6. Applications
    1. Alloys
    2. Electronics
    3. Silicones
    4. Other applications
  7. Biological role
  8. See also
  9. References
  10. Bibliography
  11. External links

Reference Broken

Reference number 5's link is broken: Magnetic susceptibility of the elements and inorganic compounds, in Lide, D. R., ed. (2005). CRC Handbook of Chemistry and Physics (86th ed.). Boca Raton (FL): CRC Press. ISBN 0-8493-0486-5. This version

Missing things

History section is missing the whole story of clay, concrete, quartz. This is still the dominat forms of its use. There is a lot of history in the other sections, but the history section stops in the mid 19th century. Not mentioning the semiconductor and the solar inventions leading to its rise in elemental form. --Stone (talk) 22:04, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

I confess, I always had a bit of a problem regarding what to include in history beyond isolation. If we talk about the history of applications, I naturally want to put that in applications, with only a brief summary in history. But I'm not doing a GA review here, I'm considering whether or not to give it a B-class rating. The reason I gave this a B-class is because it is well-structured and organised (compare it with the rest of period 3 to see what I mean), even if some things are not talked about enough. (If it were talked about to that extent – with what you mention about history, as well as the way the compounds section is just a laundry list without adequately explaining it in terms of the chemistry – I would consider it A-class.) Double sharp (talk) 08:18, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Incorrect spectrum

The spectrum that is showing in the Silicon article (and in other places such as Spectral line) is not the spectrum for Silicon, but is instead the spectrum for Aluminium. -- B.D.Mills  (T, C) 11:24, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Fixed; thank you! Double sharp (talk) 12:42, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Silicon. 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: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:37, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Mohs Hardness?

The link here says that the mineral (Mohs) hardness of Silicon is 6.5, not 7. Any clarifications? Thanks Checks Facts will happily talk 18:20, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

References are in Hardnesses of the elements (data page). For Si, it says "6.5", for Mohr (Samsonov, 1968) (use the doi link).
In your link, webelements.com, I find no "Mohr" (at all), but its "mineral hardness" link has a "Moh" scale, saying "6.5" too for Si. (Source: Samsonov, 1968!).
So you are right, and I do not see any reason to round it to "7". Infobox changed. -DePiep (talk) 21:27, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
"Moh" it is, not Mohr. -DePiep (talk) 22:57, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Comments

  • This sentence confused me initially: "At standard temperature and pressure, silicon is a shiny semiconductor with a bluish-grey metallic lustre; as typical for semiconductors, its resistivity drops with temperature." I thought temperature rise reduces resistivity. On closer examination this doesn't disagree with the sentence in question, if we assume the temperature rises and corresponding resistivity drops; dropping with temperature leaves ambiguous the question of whether temperature is dropping or rising. Convention has us plotting a graph over temperature rise. Both aren't dropping together. Newcomers might not know the convention, so clarification might be nice. Or I have this backwards too. Disregard as appropriate.Jeffreagan (talk) 11:43, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
     Done Thank you! Double sharp (talk) 03:54, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
  • history should mention first use of Si in semiconductor devices, and perhaps when was this characteristics discovered
  • characteristics section should mention metastable forms like silicyne and silicene*chemistry
  • "considered to be 40 pm" maybe put this in perspective that it is smaller than a free H atom
  • "a giant covalent structure" you mean infinite?
  • some forms of silicon in Category:Silicon forms can be linked in some sections
  • I remember somewhere that the purest element ever prepared is silicon; put it somewhere
  • and related to this^ mention: https://www.nist.gov/physical-measurement-laboratory/silicon-spheres-and-international-avogadro-project
  • " atmospheric nitrogen also reacts to give the nitrides SiN and Si3N4" => unclear you mean it reacts with N2 when no O2 is present like lithium? or it requires heating like with O2?
  • "the most common being α-quartz," citation needed (afaik quartz it is just the crystalline form)
  • the silica gallery should have a cation saying these are the rocks containing lots of Si (and give approx chem formula for them?)
  • "Twelve different crystal modifications of silica" you mean from alpha to [insert 12th letter of Greek alphabet]? it is unclear
  • "{SiO4} tetrahedra connected at their corners" to non-chemists it is unclear that Si is in the middle; the following paragraph is far too technical
  • " disputed between Japan and Russia" just say in the Kuril Islands; no need for politics
  • "neso-silicates" what does neso stand for/mean
  • "is rather exceptional " use a more neutral term (unusual?)
  • chemistry and coumpounds seems rather dense even for chemists
  • "In the universe, silicon is the seventh most abundant element" => no, just in the solar system; Si-28 is one of the most aboundant ones in the Solar System (more than Fe)
  • aboundance in the core and mantle might be easier to read if you would just say the estimate % of Si
  • lots of image captions lack context (you ahve to dig into the actual text to get what is the image supposed to say)
  • how much pure silicon is used in semiconductor industry?
  • when I think of sand I think of silica; maybe mention generic sand as a use of Si?
  • mechanical watches should definitely not be a separate section reads like an ad
  • in safety mention fine quartz/silica as being dangerous (i.e. asbestos)

Nergaal (talk) 13:26, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for the comments! I'll get to them in a few days when I get the time. Double sharp (talk) 14:14, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Reminder to myself to use the Peterson olefination as an exhibit on organosilicon chemistry. In hindsight, this is perhaps the most ambitious element rewrite I've ever tried to do, perhaps even more so than nitrogen. At least N is so common that you can't cover it all in one place and no one expects you to; I feel a slightly different expectation for Si. Double sharp (talk) 05:16, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Silicon. 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: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:04, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Band structure

Could we add somewhere that Si has an indirect band gap and add this image of the band structure from German Wikipedia: --MaoGo (talk) 10:07, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Band structure

Could we add somewhere that Si has an indirect band gap and add this image of the band structure from German Wikipedia: --MaoGo (talk) 10:07, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 February 2019

Please add "Silicon Alley in New York, New York and Silicon Beach in Los Angeles, California" to the list of "Silicon"-dubbed regions at the end of the History section. TingKB (talk) 06:46, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

 Done. Rob3512 chat? what I did 01:22, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

[The last 1/3 of] the explanation of what "MOS" stands for

There are several places in this article -- (I found 4 of them in the [latest / "current"] "06:16, 2 October 2019" version of the article) -- where it uses the phrase << "Metal-oxide-silicon" >> as an explanation of the meaning of the acronym "MOS". (Actually, 2 of those 4 places it is talking about the "MOS" portion of the acronym "MOSFET".)

Most standard sources of information -- (both within Wikipedia [except for this article] and on other web sites on the internet, and most ink-on-paper books and magazines) -- say that "MOS" stands for "Metal-oxide-semiconductor".

IMHO that is more correct than << "Metal-oxide-silicon" >>. The word "semiconductor" is more general (less specific) than the word "silicon".

This -- [the use of the word "silicon", instead of "semiconductor"] -- might be regarded by some as an instance of one or more of the "examples" given in the Synecdoche#Examples section of the article about Synecdoche; -- especially the sub-sections "Specific class name referring to general set of associated things" and "Referring to material actually or supposedly used to make something".

Even if that is true, it does not make the use of the word "silicon" a better choice here. (...and neither does the title of this article.) IMHO it should be changed (all 4 places in this article) to "Metal-oxide-semiconductor".

Any comments? --Mike Schwartz (talk) 16:54, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

"Metal-oxide-semiconductor" is more commonly used, but "metal-oxide-silicon" is also commonly used. The former refers to all MOSFETs, whereas the latter refers more specifically to silicon MOSFETs. Since this article is about silicon, I think "metal-oxide-silicon" would be the most appropriate term for this article. The vast majority of MOSFETs are silicon-based, and this article is specifically talking about silicon MOSFETs. Maestro2016 (talk) 21:58, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

lattice constant

Why does the info box not have the lattice constant? It is known to about 10 decimal digits, though lattice constant only has about four. Gah4 (talk) 03:06, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

sphere

Should discussion of this silicon sphere be mentioned here, or somewhere else related to units? Gah4 (talk) 03:11, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

passivation

Passivation doesn't reduce the number of electronic states, just the number where you don't want them to be. States that are always empty, or always full, don't cause any problems. Gah4 (talk) 08:35, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Band structure

Could we add somewhere that Si has an indirect band gap and add this image of the band structure from German Wikipedia: --MaoGo (talk) 10:07, 13 December 2018 (UTC) What is the best way to add this to the article?--MaoGo (talk) 06:51, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Germanium

In addition to the reasons given, Ge transistors were more temperature sensitive due to the smaller gap. That allows for thermal runaway, where thermal generated carriers increase the current, increasing the temperature ... Gah4 (talk) 06:35, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

´Human nutrition´: more in the german article

The german article Kieselerde ´Gesundheitsbezogene Verwendung´ (health relating use), translation to english: http://translate.google.com/translate?sl=de&tl=en&u=https%3A%2F%2Fde.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FKieselerde%23Gesundheitsbezogene_Verwendung
--Visionhelp (talk) 01:32, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

To ´See also´ or/and Human nutrition: Silica and Diatom

Suggestion: To ´See also´ or/and ´Human nutrition´ (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silicon#Human_nutrition),
´See also´ (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silicon#See_also)

--Visionhelp (talk) 04:02, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Possible reverse copyvio

A webpage in the Marketing Psycho website seems to be copying off of the article's lead without attributing to Wikipedia. If you made substantial edits to the lead, you might want to contact that website as one of the copyright holders. pandakekok9 (talk) 06:54, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

This BioMindmap entry, while it acknowledges that it reuses content from Wikipedia, doesn't show an obvious link to the article it took from, as well as a mention of the CC-BY-SA-3.0. pandakekok9 (talk) 07:02, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Mass of Si-28

It seems that the atomic mass of Si-28 is 27.9769265. It was part of the proposed redefinition of the kilogram, including making what is supposed to be the most round (manmade) object. The sphere is made from enriched Si-28. Otherwise, natural Si will be a mix of isotopes, and so have uncertainty in its isotopic mixture. Maybe the article doesn't need to say this, but just in case... Gah4 (talk) 23:21, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Acidic or amphoteric oxide

What reactions are responsible for rendering silicon dioxidecas amphoteric rather than acidic? If the referencecis to HF, it would also render boric oxide amphoteric under "Boron". Olthe3rd1 (talk) 15:44, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

an interessting link to many infos and as source removed from External links sadnessly

In this revision (history)

It now is overwritten with this link http://www.ioffe.ru/SVA/NSM/Semicond/Si/.
Because of this now overwritten link is in german here a translating to english link (with http://free-website-translation.com/?de)

This site includes interessting informations.
As just as External link it does not need really a deletion.
For example Silicon deficiency, but more.
But one point, one statement, I have to present a bit more exactly:
It is about, in Silicon deposits, (translated to english) "The silica offered as a dietary supplement are deposits from the silica chains.". (I have to manually put in ´silica acid chains´.
From products in Germany I know there is Silicon (Silica (?)) ACID (german: Kieselsäure) in and not just the million years old algae pure. (Sources will be able to find. But is just not in my interesst, sorry. Ah, the quote itself does say it entire correctly, with my manually put in. So, here the source with.)
The EU (my info from about spring 2021) is working it out, to prohibit perhaps these supplements because of, I do not remind exact, an add or because of this acid. But as far as I understand, in this now deleted link it is not about promoting these supplements. For example I think of the list of where Silicon in food everywhere is within. Alone this list is worth to be linked to.
And the other many infos are very worthable to stay, at least as External link, please. Thanks the interesst.
Visionhelp (talk) 09:26, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

bc8

Are there secondary sources for bc8? Gah4 (talk) 20:01, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Silicon age, Atalla and MOSFET

I have big problem with this section POV.I adressed lots of this mistakes in IC. I am gonna copy what I wrote in Integrated circuit talk page:

"I am going significantly rewrite this section as there is several mistakes and exaggerations. The claim that "The monolithic integrated circuit chip was enabled by Mohamed M. Atalla's surface passivation process, which electrically stabilized silicon surfaces via thermal oxidation, making it possible to fabricate monolithic integrated circuit chips using silicon. This was the basis for the planar process, developed by Jean Hoerni at Fairchild Semiconductor in early 1959, which was critical to the invention of the monolithic integrated circuit chip", is exaggeration. Arjun Saxena in his book Invention on Integrated circuit, say that surface passivation was one of several factors that contributed to Hoerni's invention of planar process(page 95-102), but he did not consider it critical at all. Same with Bo Lojek's History of Semiconductor engineering, Atalla is briefly mentioned in his book, most of the information is on Hoerni. The claim appers to be based on one sentence remark by Sah. I am going to rewrite it according to Saxena.

The claim " Atalla's surface passivation process isolated individual diodes and transistors,[11] which was extended to independent transistors on a single piece of silicon by Kurt Lehovec at Sprague Electric in 1959" appeared be OR. I cant find anything about influence of passivation process on Lehovec.

"Atalla first proposed the concept of the MOS integrated circuit (MOS IC) chip in 1960, noting that the MOSFET's ease of fabrication made it useful for integrated circuits"- again this is wrong. Moskowitz says that Atallah, after proposing MOS transistor noted that it will be useful in IC as it is easier to manufacture, that's not the same as proposing "concept" of MOS IC. Ross Basset in his Book To The Digital Age,eplain this in details(page 28). Here is the quaote : "Except for a few special applications, Atalla and Kahng’s device would be useable only within a subset of the design space covered by the silicon bipolar device. Its main advantage, ease of fabrication, had little relevance to the industry at the time. To call Atalla and Kahng’s device an invention was almost a contradiction in terms, for it was inferior by every relevant standard.39 The one area in which Kahng and Atalla recognized their device might be advantageous was of no interest to Bell Labs. Kahng mentioned that the device would be suitable for integrated circuits". DMKR2005 (talk) 22:43, 3 May 2021 (UTC)"

In addition the cliam that "The MOSFET was the first mass-produced silicon transistor, and is credited with starting the silicon revolution" is reference by brief remark in the book about silicon oxidation by Feldman, and the second source in fact doesn't even mention silicon revolution. Moreover Feldman doesn not say that MOSFET started silicon revolution, just that it evolved into key component of silicon revolution.

MOSFET in general and especially Atalla role are severely overemphasized here. If you read Arjun Saxena, Bo Lojek's history of semiconductors or John Orton's Semiconductors and Information revolution, Atalla is actually relatively minor figure. His work was important sure, but nowhere near as much as this article make it out to be. I am gonna remove a lot of this material. If somebody wants to write about Silicon technologies development, including MOSFET, IC and so on you are more then welcome, but in present state it simple full mistakes, inaccuracies and POV pushing. DMKR2005 (talk) 01:58, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Also I can't verify in ether Dabrowski or Siffert that Attalla work on passivation led to silicon replacing germanium. Bo Lojek in his book in fact credit William Shockley with using silicon. Also the idea that Atalla work is key step to silicon IC is based on one sentence throwaway remark in Sah review. If you read Arjen Saxena Invention of IC, IC was based on much more then this, and Atalla is minor figure in history of IC. I'll remove this section, as it was added by Maestro2016 who is sock puppet of Jagged 85 a well known vandal who was banned for systematic abuse of sources.WE can add more on history of silicon IC in the future DMKR2005 (talk) 20:35, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Silicon/Archive_1&oldid=1193407190"