Maker Pro
Maker Pro

I just thought I'd measure a few diodes V vs I

(*steve*)

¡sǝpodᴉʇuɐ ǝɥʇ ɹɐǝɥd
Moderator
Did you ever wonder what V vs I looks like for diodes for very low forward (and reverse) voltages?

Well I decided to run some tests today, partially to see how low I could go before noise got in the way. At present I don't have a shielded enclosure etc, so all of this was done with banana plugs, crocodile clips.

I'm planning to build an enclosure for low voltage/current measurements shortly, and I'll repeat this later with hopefully an order or three of magnitude improvement!

upload_2017-7-22_19-1-50.png

The two diodes are ones I grabbed at random, I'm really not sure what the one marked 8R is.

It interesting to see how closely the forward and reverse characteristics match each other at very low currents.
 

(*steve*)

¡sǝpodᴉʇuɐ ǝɥʇ ɹɐǝɥd
Moderator
This information is very useful if one is protecting the input of an electrometer.

Google "low level measurements handbook Tektronix" for more information.

fA leakage is what you require. With my current setup, that's hard to measure, but it would be interesting to see how close I can get.
 

hevans1944

Hop - AC8NS
The forward and reverse characteristics match each other at very low voltages. After all, the diodes characteristic curves are continuous through the origin (zero volts, zero current), and until the depletion zone width is maximized by reverse voltage biasing, or minimized by forward voltage biasing, the diode characteristic is essentially exponentially resistive with a temperature coefficient attached. Below is a typical diode characteristic curve plotted on linear axes.

Picture_77.png


What is interesting to me is the deviation from linear (resistive) response that appears to begin very early, at less than 10 mV forward OR reverse bias. Maybe this helps explain how solid-state "crystal" diodes can rectify (detect) microvolt RF signals, because, if I understand the diode equation correctly, there never is a linear response in either the forward-biased region or the reverse-biased region. Although It appears that there is from the plot of your data on a log-log graphic scale, I think perhaps this just establishes the nature of the exponential response. Whatever, the reverse saturation current Is is important, and apparently lower is better.

I think I will see if I can duplicate your results with my 24-bit resolution Mooshimeter, after I find and install a micro-SD card to collect sample data on.

Your curves look too smooth to have been influenced much by noise injected externally. There might be a problem with thermal emfs if dissimilar metals are involved in the connections, and those junctions are not all at exactly the same temperature. Lots of gotchas can be involved with simultaneous microvolt and nanoampere measurements. I will try to post Mooshmeter measurements in the next few days.

And to answer your question: Yes, I have often wondered exactly what happens near the origin with diodes. Maybe now that we can both afford some spiffy instrumentation it is time to find out!

Google "low level measurements handbook Tektronix" for more information.
Or download a PDF copy from here. Be careful NOT to sign up at one of the many monthly subscription download sites. The link I provided came from the Tektronix-Keithley website and was provided after a registering on that site.

BTW, best to use Leclanché dry-cells as voltage sources to minimize noise in the source supply, but even then the noise varies depending on the manufacturer... but you already know that. This used to drive me crazy when trying to bias photoconductive infrared sensors, until a more "seasoned" technician informed me that not all dry cells had equally low noise characteristics. Don't remember which brand was "best" or whether it is even manufactured in this Century. Easy enough to check them for noise before using to measure anything important.
 

(*steve*)

¡sǝpodᴉʇuɐ ǝɥʇ ɹɐǝɥd
Moderator
For this first (rough) try, the voltage was calculated rather than measured. The battery was a 12V lead acid battery chosen because, under the load used here (a 10k decavider) the voltage remained fairly constant over the period of the test (it dropped 5mV). There decavider has 0.005% linearity, and I was recording my (current) results to 2 sig digits from an analog meter. I assumed the load did not affect the voltage and that the voltage burden of the electrometer was 0V (just to simplify things).

Also, as mentioned, I didn't concern myself with the quality of my test leads.

I agree that the results look linear, but I can assure you they're not. However the amount they deviates from linear reduces (in my measurements) at lower voltages. There's a whole lot of reasons that might be (assuming it's not the characteristics of the diode), so I'm not putting too much weight on it.

Base-emitter junctions of transistors are apparently interesting at low voltage and currents, so I might look at one or more of those. But what I really want to test is a 1N3595. I believe the Lord leakage in the reverse direction is mirrored in the forward direction at low voltage. This high dynamic resistance is what I really need (and that's also great for measuring leakage in capacitors where a side is used as a series resistance to increase stability.

I guess it's worth noting that the leakier of the two diodes is a Schottky rectifier, the other one may be a zener diode. I'll repeat this on a 1N914 tomorrow as well.

On the 10-7A range, nose is not an issue. On the 10-8A range there readings wander a bit as I move my arms around. Shielding will fix that, and I'm sure I'll hit the noise floor at some point, although I suspect that leakage currents may be an issue before that.

My digital picoammeter gets very touchy on it's lowest range (the 20pA range, from memory) and I think my electrometer out performs it. My other electrometer requires the use of triaxial cable and connectors. I'll shortly have some triaxial bulkhead connectors and high quality Teflon insulated wire for a home-made shielded test box.
 

(*steve*)

¡sǝpodᴉʇuɐ ǝɥʇ ɹɐǝɥd
Moderator
With a little more care, I've managed to get some readings for a 1N4148:

upload_2017-7-23_14-26-9.png

I had to allow some settling time for the readings below 10-9A, but there's no real sign (yet) of leakage (or bias currents) affecting my readings.
 

(*steve*)

¡sǝpodᴉʇuɐ ǝɥʇ ɹɐǝɥd
Moderator
And now the BE junction of a 2N3904 transistor:

upload_2017-7-23_17-19-41.png

I really had to hold my tongue right to make some of those measurements!

Now the leakage and noise were affecting my readings!
 
This information is very useful if one is protecting the input of an electrometer.

Google "low level measurements handbook Tektronix" for more information.

fA leakage is what you require. With my current setup, that's hard to measure, but it would be interesting to see how close I can get.

Steve,
It is a very good handbook !

Here is a "simple minded" practical solution to eliminating the "diode limiter protection" effect on the measurement:

Connect the limiter to the input(one end) with a SPST, normally closed ,momentary push-button.
It will provide protection when "un-touched".

In case the user wants the best possible results,
he may neutralize the "limiter" by pressing the push-button.
At is own risk ,and after he is sure there is no overload condition at the input.
 
Top