Full text loading...
No data available.
Please log in to see this content.
You have no subscription access to this content.
No metrics data to plot.
The attempt to load metrics for this article has failed.
The attempt to plot a graph for these metrics has failed.
Electron‐electron effects in the writing and erasing of dual‐dielectric charge‐storage cells
1.D. Kahng, W. J. Sundburg, D. M. Boulin, and J. R. Ligenza, Bell Syst. Tech. J. 53, 1723 (1974).
2.K. K. Thornber, D. Kahng, D. M. Boulin, C. T. Neppell, and W. J. Sundburg (unpublished).
3.D. Frohman‐Bentchkowsky and M. Lenzlinger, J. Appl. Phys. 40, 3307 (1969). The assumption here is that during writing all electrons enter traps at the interface and that the resulting concentration is determined by the bulk oxide and nitride currents controlled in turn by the oxide and nitride fields. While perhaps realistic for the MNOS structure where electrons tunnel directly into these traps, its extention to DDC’s where conduction electrons must be captured should raise serious question.
4.J. R. Ligenza, D. Kahng, M. P. Lepselter, and E. Labate, IEEE Trans. Electron Devices ED‐24, 581 (1977).
5.D. R. Young, D. J. DiMaria, and N. A. Bojarczuk, J. Appl. Phys. 48, 3425 (1977). We believe the results these authors interpret in terms of “clustering” can be interpreted in terms of our mutual interaction model as well. In fact, the enhancement of for and the σ dependence of the back‐tunneling barrier in erase favor an interaction model. Our use of (Ref. 4) rather than W (Ref. 1) would seem to prevent clustering. Finally, even with a “cluster” model, it is electron‐electron repulsion which limits the occupancy of a “cluster” to one electron.
Article metrics loading...