ELECTROSTATICS OF NANOWIRES AND NANOTUBES: APPLICATION FOR FIELD–EFFECT DEVICES
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We present a quantum and classical theory of electronic devices with one–dimensional (1D) channels made of a single carbon nanotube or a semiconductor nanowire. An essential component of the device theory is a self–consistent model for electrostatics of 1D systems. It is demonstrated that specific screening properties of 1D wires result in a charge distribution in the channel different from that in bulk devices. The drift–diffusion model has been applied for studying transport in a long channel 1D field–effect transistor. A unified self–consistent description is given for both a semiconductor nanowire and a single–wall nanotube. Within this basic model we analytically calculate equilibrium (at zero current) and quasi–equilibrium (at small current) charge distributions in the channel. Numerical results are presented for arbitrary values of the driving current. General analytic expressions, found for basic device characteristic, differ from equations for a standard bulk three–dimensional field–effect device. The device characteristics are shown to be sensitive to the gate and leads geometry and are analyzed separately for bulk, planar and quasi–1D contacts. The basic model is generalized to take into account external charges which can be polarized and/or moving near the channel. These charges change the self–consistent potential profile in the channel and may show up in device properties, for instance, a hysteresis may develop which can have a memory application.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".