Talk:Epitaxy

Centifugually formed film growth was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 24 October 2017 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into Epitaxy. The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here.

‹See TfM›

Physics Low‑importance

	Physics portal 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.

Chemistry Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chemistry, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of chemistry 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.ChemistryWikipedia:WikiProject ChemistryTemplate:WikiProject ChemistryChemistry articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Rocks and minerals Low‑importance

	Earth sciences portal Epitaxy is part of WikiProject Rocks and minerals, an attempt at creating a standardized, informative, comprehensive and easy-to-use rocks and minerals resource. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the project page for more information.Rocks and mineralsWikipedia:WikiProject Rocks and mineralsTemplate:WikiProject Rocks and mineralsRocks and minerals articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article was reviewed by Nature (journal) on December 14, 2005.
Comments: It was found to have 2 errors.
For more information about external reviews of Wikipedia articles and about this review in particular, see this page.

Remove additional citation template?

The article seems to be adequately cited. Should this template be removed? Sabih omar 19:03, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Combine

Suggest combining this article with the distinct articles on homoepitaxy and heteroepitaxy, neither of which have more than a sentence to add to the topic, and all of which contain substantially the same information. 144.213.253.14 04:36, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, agree. I've worked in epitaxy for some years and the terms home and hetero seem rarely used in this context. Its just "epitaxy"

Errors ID'd by Nature, to correct

The results of what exactly Nature suggested should be corrected is out... italicize each bullet point once you make the correction. -- user:zanimum

Reviewer: Max G. Lagally, Erwin W. Mueller Professor and Bascom Professor of Surface Science, University of Wisconsin, Madison, USA.

Third paragraph: I’m not sure that “outgassing” is the proper word. I think “diffusion” is meant. 2. The big problem with this one is that it really hardly says anything about epitaxy, but more about manufacturing the starting point for Si device manufacture. It fails to mention epitaxy in GaAs and other III-V compounds, where it is much more important, and it fails to mention why epitaxy occurs at all and in what systems it is possible.

First stab at the problem

I moved most of the silicon stuff to the CVD page and added a ton of "See also" links. My background is chemical engineering, so I have a skew. Does anyone else want to try to help? -- Pinktulip 09:18, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

epi

greek; "epi" "equal"

epi doesn't mean equal but above. There is a confusion with equi which does mean equal.

Yes, or 'upon'

Liquid phase epitaxy

The text in Liquid phase epitaxy seemed to have been copied from Epitaxy#method. The epitaxy article has slightly more info than Liquid phase epitaxy had, so it seems like this is the one which gets attention from editors.

For this reason I have changed Liquid phase epitaxy to a redirect to epitaxy.

Let me know if you think this is wrong. Pre1mjr 11:55, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hybrid vapour phase epitaxy

A new article was created recently Hybrid vapour phase epitaxy. I have done some tidying up, but wonder if it should be merged with this article. Could someone who understands this topic take a look and take care of it please? -- Derek Andrews (talk) 12:15, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Electron Beam Epitaxy

I was looking for info on EBE. Is there such a process? If so, Wiki needs an article or link. LorenzoB (talk) 16:19, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Recording tape

For many years, Maxell used the term 'epitaxial' to describe their tape formulations for audio and recording tape. Indeed, most of the general public will only recognise the word from that context. It would improve the article if a section was added discussing this usage. --Ef80 (talk) 11:09, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Excessive disambiguation

Propose we remove link to epistaxis. Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 20:43, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed it, since there have been no objections. Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 04:34, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Simplifying the text.

Frankly, the first sentence is horrible!

"Epitaxy refers to the deposition of a crystalline overlayer on a crystalline substrate, where the overlayer is in registry with the substrate"

For a layman who just stumble across the word "epitaxy" this sentence does not answer the question what it is instead it raises additional questions.

What is meant by "crystalline overlayer"? What is a "substrate"? What does it mean that "the overlayer is in registry with the substrate"?

The first defining sentence should be possible to understand by almost anyone. Also, the words mentioned above such as "substrate" should be linked to their corresponding Wikipedia articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.48.87.196 (talk) 00:22, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unclear

What does 'registry' mean?--عبد المؤمن (talk) 16:13, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]