วีดีโอ

You will probably need some other method to confirm the bandgap. I suggest reading this paper: pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acs.jpclett.8b02892

its converted into the correct units. The x axis is in um. Please check the video at 3:22.

You are welcome to post your question in the chat or use the email option.

2 probe measurements are good. But I would suggest to gate the device with a 3rd so that floating gate does not cause additional variability.

I am not very familiar working with liquids. I suggest reading this paper : www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6716051/

@@proprocessengineer7231 thank you

Please check if this helps: www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6716051/

Like abc interaction?

@@brindhastalin4709 I think by default when you create the Full Factorial design table, the model by default stops with 2 factor interaction. If for your model, if you are aware of any 3 factor interaction, you can include that in your analysis.

Just select the 3 variables and select "cross" and this should add the 3 factor interaction in your model for consideration.

Great question. I unfortunately don't have time to write a detailed response. This link has answers to your questions: www.jmp.com/support/help/en/17.0/index.shtml#page/jmp/response-surface-designs.shtml# When I get a chance, I will make a better video.

The unit of Bandgap is in electron volt. when doing calculations, you have to either use SI units or CGS. Stick to one unit. it does not matter what you use. Make sure you convert all the variables to same unit.

I am not sure I understand your question. Is your data from experiment? What do you mean by machine-based data?

@@proprocessengineer7231 respected I have calculated data using material studio simulation software and now I want to calculate the optical band gap and don't know how I have to calculate?

@@ShakeelAhmad-tf6lz I would suggest to compare your simulated values with experimental data. If they are similar, you can use the same process to calculate bandgap.

MOst likely suitable for thin films

Hey Tivendren, As far as I know, %T = antilog (2 - absorbance). I don't think you have to divide by 100. There is a table here from Sigma that might help you clear that:www.sigmaaldrich.com/US/en/support/calculators-and-apps/absorbance-transmittance-conversion

Hi Pooja, Which type of DOE method do you need?: Here are some links: 1) Full Factorial: th-cam.com/video/xqVbJvhPFvI/w-d-xo.html 2) Fractional Factorial: th-cam.com/video/KLFjzWxXwRg/w-d-xo.html 3) Central Composite Design: th-cam.com/video/3jWmPaCPbww/w-d-xo.html 4) Custom CCD Design: th-cam.com/video/b6aVp_mijGE/w-d-xo.html I do have a few more in my playlist.

To understand why K (proportionality constant) is popped out, you will have to refer to the derivation of the equation. You can probably start off from here and find older publications from the references: pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acs.jpclett.8b02892. BTW, it does not matter what the value of K is, since the x-intercept will not change. X-intercept is what we need to determine the bandgap. There is a way to determine K (also known as Urbach energy) can be calculated. You can read these papers for more info: 1) www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0749603615302615?via%3Dihub 2) www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0925838815303352?via%3Dihub

@@proprocessengineer7231 thanks for your reply. Nevertheless, this approach is the same that you are applying just the differences is that they are using f(R) instead of alpha. And they are also skipping the B (in our case K) value. I understand that you need the value to measure de band gap but as I said before if you do the algebra you will notice it is necessary that constant because you the constant if you graph the y and x axis as you present (and conventionally is presented) I am not sure if I not getting something else here. What I mean, what are the considerations to pop k out? It approaches to 1 in this circumstance? Also in the first paper they substitute the kubelka-munk function for alpha. But this function is equal to the absorption coefficient over the scattering coefficient. So another way to see this is that this scattering coefficient be equal to the constant K. So that what you and other research do in their research is correct. If that doesn't happen it doesn't makes sense. So if you have any information regarding this I would really appreciate it. I have been trying to understand what happen to this constant but I haven't got into the right answer yet. Thanks in advance!

@@davidyong5928 David, K is not something popped out. It is a proportionality constant added after the proortionality is defined. This is probably in the seminal work by Davis and Mott. Should I happen to find it, I will share it with you. Thank you for bringing this up. I created this channel for having such critical discussions that can provide clarity to everyone.

@@proprocessengineer7231 looking forward to it. Thanks a lot!

I will try to make a video. In case you it very soon, I suggest referring to this link: community.jmp.com/t5/JMP-Add-Ins/Custom-Map-Creator/ta-p/21479

Thanks. While I am not an expert in optics, I can say that if your sample's roughness is small, it shouldn't matter. The reason is the wavelength range of light used will be bigger than roughness and will not be able to resolve it. For instance, in my samples, I have nanowires 50 nm apart and are not continuous and the smallest wavelength of light used during the UV-Vis scan is 250 nm, which can not resolve 50 nm. So, in this case, you can assume your film to be continuous or smooth. BTW, my films were made by spin coating. I have tried similar for samples made by PVD and it works. But keep in mind that ZnO derived by PVD and spin coating will have different quality (crystalinity and orientation), so their bandgap might not be the same. I hope this helps.

Hi Camille, Thank you for pointing out the mistake. You are correct. I will make the change. Here is the correct information: RSemi is channel resistance. Rs (Rho/T) is sheet resistivity. RSemi = Rs*L/W