Talk:MOSFET

Edit war

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)

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)

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

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

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)

@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)

I do not agree. Atalla and Khang were not the inventors. They were just confirming the invention by Carl Frosch and Lincoln Derick.Carl Frosch and Lincoln Derick.

They didn't even buid the device, they just assembled the team that confirmed the Frosch and Derick study. 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. Wikain (talk) 17:33, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

I have initiated a separate talk thread to discuss this point below. It’s not a matter of personal opinion, I have cited 6 sources including Bell Labs social media accounts, all of them, and a prominent historian of transistors, all chronicling Attalla and Kwang as inventors. I am requesting that this subject be discussed and settled here, before reverting the heavily sourced edits that were made. 4houka (talk) 07:05, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

Also your comment lacks accuracy. This is not related to the sock puppet account. They did not invent Atalla and Kwang’s contributions, for which they were inducted in the national inventors hall of fame. His editing issues, do not impose themselves on a well established fact. I will be reverting my addition back, and you are welcome to invalidated the 6 sources that have been providing citing the invention, but removing the content in an anecdote, is a deviation from well accepted practices. 4houka (talk) 07:08, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

To confirm, I request that you not continue reverting without consensus. The issue is far from an edit war, it’s a matter of historical accuracy and should be discussed here on the talk page, with careful consideration of reliable sourcing.

Your claim that Atalla and Kwang are not to be acknowledged for the invention of the MOSFET is not supported by broader sources records.

Numerous reliable, and formally related sources on the subject, have attributed the invention to them. This includes Bell Labs itself, National inventors hall of fame, the Stuart Ballantine prize, and numerous technical history research clearly identifying both as the inventors of the MOSFET, without Atalla’s surface passivation, the MOS in MOSFET wouldn’t exist

Specifically, you are to provide, clear, material demonstration of the unusability of these 6 sources.

1. Bell Labs LinkedIn post on the 1959 MOSFET

2. Bell Labs X post on the MOSFET

3. Bell Labs video discussion

4. Bell Labs awards and history page

5. EEJournal, “A Brief History of the MOS Transistor”

6. National Inventors Hall of Fame entry for Martin John M. Atalla

All links here

https://www.linkedin.com/posts/nokiabelllabs_on-this-day-in-1959-the-mosfet-transistor-activity-6746120685271162880-uUuB/

https://x.com/BellLabs/status/1340354467485638659

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q6fBEjf9WPw

https://www.bell-labs.com/about/awards/

https://www.eejournal.com/article/a-brief-history-of-the-mos-transistor-part-1-early-visionaries/

https://www.invent.org/inductees/martin-john-m-atalla

Earlier work by Frosch and Derick is a relevant background and can be discussed in the MOSFET article, but it doesn’t justify removing or downplaying Atalla and Khang’s credited role in the MOSFET’s invention. Any proposed change should reflect the full body of sources rather than relying on one interpretation, and be explicitly settled in the talk page first as per policy. 4houka (talk) 07:21, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

Some of these sources look weak, but To the Digital Age: Research Labs, Start-up Companies, and the Rise of MOS Technology by Bassett writes "Perhaps the best example of this discontinuity is John Atalla, the inventor of the modern MOS transistor" p. 146. I think it's fair to describe him as inventor. Hi! (talk) 20:38, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

Agreed that it’s fair. Also two of the sources are Bell Labs itself. 4houka (talk) 00:24, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

All the aforementioned people worked there, and they explicitly called them out as the inventors. 4houka (talk) 00:25, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

Attribution dispute: Atalla and Kahng

There is an ongoing dispute over whether the article should acknowledge Mohamed Atalla and Dawon Kahng as inventors of the MOSFET. I’ve added Bell Labs’ own official commemorative post explicitly crediting both, along with Bell Labs’ awards page listing Atalla in the National Inventors Hall of Fame for the MOSFET. The same attribution is also widely reflected in encyclopedic and reference literature. Since sourced material is being repeatedly removed, I’m seeking consensus here before any further reverts. 4houka (talk) 07:42, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

KISS please

Despite all the superb explanations and diagrams, one thing is glaringly missing: How would Joe or Joesephene electronics designer draw a *discrete* P or N channel MOSFET, in either mode?

Yes, there's a comprehensive symbol looking diagram, but I wonder if that's for IC-level elements only? And, obviously, many symbols are interspersed throughout this article. However, at first cursory glance, I could not figure out which symbol to use. I had assumed, for routine discrete use, there would be *only* four symbols.

Honestly, I came to this page with a P-MOSFET in hand, looking for its schematic symbol. Although I'm a reasonably intelligent DIYer, I have not yet really used these devices. And I'm likely not the only seeker encountering this confusion. Yes, there is a verbal description just above the large diagram, but it should not be buried and non-visual.

Perhaps someone could add those four with a title like, "Commonly used schematic symbols"?

After skimming this entire article, I'm still not sure I have the correct one. :| ... (Please don't just blow this off like "oh that guy's just dumb." Clearly much of this article was written by EE profs, who, of all people should never forget there's no such thing a stupid question... and above all else, the KISS principle.)

Thanks for your time and attention to this wonderful resource. ~2026-37597-34 (talk) 19:21, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 August 2026

The sentence:

"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.[15]"   

is incorrect and unsupported by the referenced citation. Reference [15] makes no mention at all of "field effect transistors", or the terms "source" and "drain". the ONLY transistor referenced in [15] is a bipolar transistor. The sentence, as it stands, is also in conflict with other MOS transistor references in Wilipedia. These correctly attribute the first successful fabrication of the silicon MOS transistor as having been done by M.Attala and D. Kahng (also at Bell Telephone Laboratories) in 1959. The latters work was indeed influenced by the earlier successful results obtained by Frosch and Derick using silicon dioxide to passivate the silicon surface in bipolor transistors.

The suggested change would read:

"By 1957 Frosch and Derick, using masking and predeposition, were able to manufacture silicon dioxide passivated junction transistors; the first planar transistors, in which base, emitter and collector were adjacent at the same surface [15]."

As it stands, the sentence is a significant historical error (as well as being in conflict with the numerous other entries in Wilipedia referencing the history of the MOS Transistor (MOSFET).) Sroberts12185 (talk) 03:23, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

 Done - Just wrote base, emitter, and collector. MOS:OXFORD. Thanks! pattersonuwu ^njz (talk) 21:05, 16 August 2026 (UTC)