It is well known that the voltage $V$ across, say, a p-n junction can be related to the electro-chemical potentials (usually and improperly called Fermi levels) at the borders of the junction $$ qV = \mu_{n}-\mu_{p}$$

I'm trying to find a way to understand this in thermodynamic terms. This formula means that the work provided by one electron going from one end of the junction to the other is the difference of electro-chemical potentials. But I'm struggling to recover that from a pure thermodynamical perspective.

When removing dN carriers from the n side of the junction, the energy of the system changes by $$dU_n = -p_n dV_n +T_n dS_n -\mu_n dN $$ when adding dN carriers to the p side of the junction, the energy of the system changes by $$dU_p = -p_p dV_p +T_p dS_p +\mu_p dN $$

The total energy change of the system equals the work and heat provided by the system, ie $$ dU_n + dU_p = \delta W + \delta Q = qV dN + \delta Q $$

Now, how do I get from there to $ qV = \mu_{n}-\mu_{p}$ ?

  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Considering that the variation of free energy $F$ gives the maximal available work, we consider two processes on the carrier population Removing dN carriers, resulting in $dF_n = -p_n dV_n -S_n dT_n -\mu_n dN - q \phi_n dN$, where $\phi_n$ is the electrostatic potential. Considering that this process does not change the temperature or pressure in the system, $dF_n = - (\mu_n + q\phi_n)dN$. In the same way, when adding $dN$ particles on the p side, $dF_p = (\mu_p + q\phi_p)dN$. The work provided by the system is $$\delta W = qVdN = -dF_n - dF_p =((\mu_n - \mu_p) + q (\phi_n - \phi_p))dN$$ $\endgroup$ – Pen Oct 5 '17 at 6:12
  • $\begingroup$ Is this derivation correct ? $\endgroup$ – Pen Oct 5 '17 at 9:26

I would suggest going through Howard Reiss' Chemical Effects Due to the Ionization of Impurities in Semiconductors paper in J. Chemical Physics 21(7) 1209-1217 (1953). In particular, look through section V which is titled 'The Relation of the Fermi Level to the Total Free Energy of an Electron Assembly'. There, Reiss makes the point that 'although the Fermi level always represents the chemical potential of a weakly coupled electron assembly, it is hardly ever the Gibbs free energy per electron' (in italics in the original).

| cite | improve this answer | |
  • $\begingroup$ I'm quite puzzled by the argument... Sure, $\mu\neq F/N$ in the general case, but why would you need such a relation ? As long as you consider small variations, $\mu= \partial F/ \partial N$ should be enough ? $\endgroup$ – Pen Oct 5 '17 at 6:04
  • $\begingroup$ @Penangol - the paper goes in to great detail, which is way too long to detail. Good reading. $\endgroup$ – Jon Custer Oct 6 '17 at 2:36

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.