Contents

Talk:Bridgman–Stockbarger method

This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Physics Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PhysicsWikipedia:WikiProject PhysicsTemplate:WikiProject Physicsphysics articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Some questions: Why is the Czochralski process more difficult for gallium arsenide? Is in other cases the Czochralski process better? Why? Is this process mostly done in a long container? That seems to me the easiest way to cool down starting from one side. Any photographic material?

It is more difficult as the Gallium and Arsenic evaporate at different rates. This means that one needs to encapuslate the melt as you pull the crystal. The density of defects in the crystal boule also tend to be higher.Nashikawa (talk) 22:52, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

is the technique the same as the Bridgman-Stockbarger? Is it Bridgeman or Bridgman? (Googlefight says Bridgman-Stockbarger and not Bridgeman-Stockbarger).

cdang|write me 14:32, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it is the same as Bridgman-Stockbarger, and I think you may be correct here on the spelling too although articles do not exist in wikipedia with this name yet I think....Nashikawa (talk) 22:52, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have added references to Bridgeman's and Stockbarger's original papers concerning each technique. I have edited the description about the differences between the techniques to make it clear how they differ. I have added a note at the beginning of the article about the spelling of Bridgman's name (it's not spelled Bridgeman, it's spelled Bridgman) Patrick (talk) 17:39, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]