[time-nuts] Re: +1/f of transistors (Handel's Quantum 1/f theory)

[Joseph Gwinn]

On Mon, 11 Apr 2022 18:05:15 -0400, time-nuts-request at lists.febo.com 
wrote:

 time-nuts Digest, Vol 216, Issue 19

> Message: 4
> Date: Sat, 9 Apr 2022 06:31:27 -0700
> From: "Richard (Rick) Karlquist" <richard at karlquist.com>
> Subject: [time-nuts] Re: +1/f of transistors
> To: Discussion of precise time and frequency measurement
> 	<time-nuts at lists.febo.com>,        "usenet at teply.info"
> 	<usenet at teply.info>
> 
> I am seeing a lot of unsupported "theories" about what should be done 
> to make devices with low 1/f noise.  ....
> 
> JMG:  Hmm.  What do you make of Handel's quantum theory of flicker noise?  
> Van Der Ziel did support it, saying that while he (Ziel) didn't know 
> if the derivation of the theory was correct, he _did_ know that this 
> theory fit all the data he had collected over the decades, and 
> nothing else fit nearly so well.  Meaning that this kind of fit may 
> be a big clue, even if the present theory isn't airtight.  This was 
> forty years ago.  I'd guess that some people may be using Handel's 
> theory simply because of the agreement with all that data.  If I 
> recall, he did predict that 1/f noise is inversely proportional to 
> active volume, which is certainly as long observed - thus the 
> paralleling of multiple smaller transistors or other devices.
> 
> .<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_1/f_noise>

Sorry for the delay in replying - I did't notice this under all the 
other stuff.

I was aware of the Wiki summary, but wondered if there was anything 
more.  I haven't heard much for 30 years, so it probably didn't go 
anywhere.  If it did, I'd guess that someone here would know.

Thanks,

Joe Gwinn