Plastic semiconductors

[GeorgeS]

I tried to write some article but I am not sure with my grammar. Can you help me and correct my mistakes in text
I would be very pleasure if someone had read it and had written me where I have some mistakes. Thanks

Plastic semiconductors

I have read the article about plastic semiconductors. When I was choosing the theme that I would write about I was decided it had to be something from science, especially from physics. I am interested in physics so I started to search on the internet and found the article that isn’t so fresh but I was captured by it. On the other hand the article isn’t as shock as it seems. Nowadays in the science there are many fascinating researches so why not plastic semiconductors? There are many developed technologies in chemistry, molecular physics or solid state physics and they are extremely studied. Especially in the world these researches are financed a lot.
What is the problem? The problem is that common plastics aren’t conductive. They belong to nonconductors. Solid state conductors are metals but also semiconductors can be conductive under some conditions. Changing external or internal conditions can easily modify the conduction of the semiconductor. The change of the external condition can be caused by some kind of energy, for example by light or by thermal energy. The change of the internal condition is caused by adding impurities of other elements. To summarize the main advantage of semiconductors before metals is the possibility to change easily their conductive condition. That’s why the semiconductors are used in microchips.
The most useful element in electronics especially in microchips is silicon that everything is known about. It is the second plentiful element on the Earth after oxygen. This is its advantage but its bonds aren’t so strong. Perhaps that’s why a life on the earth is made by carbon and not by silicon.
The technologist Paulette Princ from the Netherlands changed the structure of plastics and received features like in silicon. She made a semiconductor from a plastic. The way to the plastic semiconductors wasn’t easy. The discovery of a polymer was important to start thinking about plastic semiconductors. Polymer has a crystalline structure that is fundamental for rising velocity of carriers but the common semiconductors have a better conductivity. The better mobility of carriers was reached by extending of a distance between carbons in the polymer.
We can find various advantages of plastic semiconductors in comparison with silicon semiconductors. A lot of common electronic devices use semiconductors from silicon. We know that silicon is a little bit brittle. Silicon is in mobile phones and notebooks that are portable and so there is a strong probability that they drop down and can be destroyed. We can say that plastic semiconductors aren’t sensitive to dropping down and so they have better features than silicon. If we were ecologists we would be scared because in the world there are huge amount of things from plastics and it isn’t beneficial for nature. I think that plastic semiconductors find a place on the market of goods because they will be much cheaper than silicon semiconductors. Accountants of large companies assess that plastic chips decrease prices of electronic circuits of 90 per cent.
We can summarize that the branch of semiconductors is studied intensively in science but branch of computers (exactly processors) solve big problem. The frequency of processors doesn’t increase as fast as in past. It is simple to understand: a transmission of information is fast when the information travels a small distance. If we want to have fast frequency of a processor in computers a distance of transistors in the processor has to be very small but we can’t decrease the distance infinitely. We find some problems by decreasing the distance, for example the devices get warm enormously. Silicon semiconductors have to be replaced by something else. I think that plastic semiconductors don’t solve it because they have same problem. I believe that nanotechnologies or spintronics can find a right way to solve the problem. We will see in future.

[RonBee]

Originally Posted by GeorgeS

I tried to write some article but I am not sure with my grammar. Can you help me and correct my mistakes in text
I would be very pleasure if someone had read it and had written me where I have some mistakes.

I tried to write an article, but I am not sure about my grammar. Could you help me and correct my mistakes for me? I would much appreciate it if someone would read it and point out the errors.

[RonBee]

Plastic semiconductors

I have read the article about plastic semiconductors. When I was choosing the theme that I would write about I was decided it had to be something from science, especially from physics. I am interested in physics so I started to search on the internet and found the article that isn’t so fresh but I was captured by it. On the other hand the article isn’t as shock as it seems. Nowadays in the science there are many fascinating researches so why not plastic semiconductors? There are many developed technologies in chemistry, molecular physics or solid state physics and they are extremely studied. Especially in the world these researches are financed a lot.

What is the problem? The problem is that common plastics aren’t conductive. They belong to nonconductors. Solid state conductors are metals but also semiconductors can be conductive under some conditions. Changing external or internal conditions can easily modify the conduction of the semiconductor. The change of the external condition can be caused by some kind of energy, for example by light or by thermal energy. The change of the internal condition is caused by adding impurities of other elements. To summarize the main advantage of semiconductors before metals is the possibility to change easily their conductive condition. That’s why the semiconductors are used in microchips.

The most useful element in electronics especially in microchips is silicon that everything is known about. It is the second plentiful element on the Earth after oxygen. This is its advantage but its bonds aren’t so strong. Perhaps that’s why a life on the earth is made by carbon and not by silicon.

The technologist Paulette Princ from the Netherlands changed the structure of plastics and received features like in silicon. She made a semiconductor from a plastic. The way to the plastic semiconductors wasn’t easy. The discovery of a polymer was important to start thinking about plastic semiconductors. Polymer has a crystalline structure that is fundamental for rising velocity of carriers but the common semiconductors have a better conductivity. The better mobility of carriers was reached by extending of a distance between carbons in the polymer.

We can find various advantages of plastic semiconductors in comparison with silicon semiconductors. A lot of common electronic devices use semiconductors from silicon. We know that silicon is a little bit brittle. Silicon is in mobile phones and notebooks that are portable and so there is a strong probability that they drop down and can be destroyed. We can say that plastic semiconductors aren’t sensitive to dropping down and so they have better features than silicon. If we were ecologists we would be scared because in the world there are huge amount of things from plastics and it isn’t beneficial for nature. I think that plastic semiconductors find a place on the market of goods because they will be much cheaper than silicon semiconductors. Accountants of large companies assess that plastic chips decrease prices of electronic circuits of 90 per cent.


We can summarize that the branch of semiconductors is studied intensively in science but branch of computers (exactly processors) solve big problem. The frequency of processors doesn’t increase as fast as in past. It is simple to understand: a transmission of information is fast when the information travels a small distance. If we want to have fast frequency of a processor in computers a distance of transistors in the processor has to be very small but we can’t decrease the distance infinitely. We find some problems by decreasing the distance, for example the devices get warm enormously. Silicon semiconductors have to be replaced by something else. I think that plastic semiconductors don’t solve it because they have same problem. I believe that nanotechnologies or spintronics can find a right way to solve the problem. We will see in future.

[RonBee]

Space between paragraphs.

~R

[namthao]

Dear (Mr./Ms) RonBee,

I am an English student, and I learn to correct the first paragraph. I wonder would you please criticize my work. I appreaciate and thank you.

"When I was choosing the theme that I would write about I was decided it had to be something from science, especially from physics. I am interested in physics so I started to search on the internet and found the article that isn’t so fresh but I was captured by it. On the other hand the article isn’t as shock as it seems. Nowadays in the science there are many fascinating researches so why not plastic semiconductors? There are many developed technologies in chemistry, molecular physics or solid state physics and they are extremely studied. Especially in the world these researches are financed a lot."


When choosing the theme that I would write about, I was decided it was something bout science, especially from physics. I am interested in physics, so I started searching on the internet and finding it out. This article wasn’t so fresh nor was it as shock as it seemed, but I was interested in it. Nowadays, the world costs a lot of money for many fascinating researches study about science, why they study about molecular physics or solid state physics, but they don't study and research about plastic semiconductors?

Again, many thanks for your time

NamThao

[RonBee]

Let's have fun!

Originally Posted by namthao

Dear (Mr./Ms) RonBee,

I am an English student, and I learn to correct the first paragraph. I wonder would you please criticize my work. I appreaciate and thank you.

"When I was choosing the theme that I would write about I was decided it had to be something from science, especially from physics. I am interested in physics so I started to search on the internet and found the article that isn’t so fresh but I was captured by it. On the other hand the article isn’t as shock as it seems. Nowadays in the science there are many fascinating researches so why not plastic semiconductors? There are many developed technologies in chemistry, molecular physics or solid state physics and they are extremely studied. Especially in the world these researches are financed a lot."


When choosing the theme that I would write about, I was decided it was something bout science, especially from physics. I am interested in physics, so I started searching on the internet and finding it out. This article wasn’t so fresh nor was it as shock as it seemed, but I was interested in it. Nowadays, the world costs a lot of money for many fascinating researches study about science, why they study about molecular physics or solid state physics, but they don't study and research about plastic semiconductors?

Again, many thanks for your time

NamThao

Let's look at the first sentence.

When I was choosing the theme that I would write about I was decided it had to be something from science, especially from physics.

There are two words that need to be taken out of that sentence. We will improve it by removing those words, thus:

When I was choosing the theme that I would write about I decided it had to be something from science, especially physics.

The writer decided that he wanted to write about science, especially physics.

The second sentence:

I am interested in physics so I started to search on the internet and found the article that isn’t so fresh but I was captured by it.

Was he captured by the article? No, more likely he was captivated by it. Let's try:

I am interested in physics, so I searched the Internet and found an article that isn't very fresh, but I was captivated by it.

The writer found an article that isn't very new, but he is very interested in it.

(So far, so good, huh?)


The third sentence:

On the other hand the article isn’t as shock as it seems.

We have been given no reason to expect the article to be shocking. That sentence contributes nothing. I say we take it out.

The fourth sentence:

Nowadays in the science there are many fascinating researches so why not plastic semiconductors?

Now we know that research isn't normally pluralized. We could say "There is much fascinating research going on in many fields" but we don't want to go astray. Simpler is probably better. Let's try:

The article was about something you might not have heard of: plastic semiconductors.

The next sentence:

There are many developed technologies in chemistry, molecular physics or solid state physics and they are extremely studied.

I don't have a problem with "developed technologies", but or needs to be replaced by and and extremely needs to be replaced. (The phrase "extremely studied" doesn't make sense to me.) Let's try:

There are many developed technologies in chemistry, molecular physics and solid state physics and they are extensively studied.

The next sentence is practically an extension of the previous one.

Especially in the world these researches are financed a lot.

That sentence doesn't make sense as is, but I can figure out what the writer intended to say. Let's try:

A great deal of money is invested in research in those fields.

Now, when we put all the sentences together into one paragraph we get:

When I was choosing the theme that I would write about I decided it had to be something from science, especially physics. I am interested in physics, so I searched the Internet and found an article that isn't very fresh, but I was captivated by it. The article was about something you might not have heard of: plastic semiconductors. There are many developed technologies in chemistry, molecular physics and solid state physics and they are extensively studied. A great deal of money is invested in research in those fields.

There!

[RonBee]

Originally Posted by RonBee

What is the problem? The problem is that common plastics aren’t conductive. They belong to nonconductors. Solid state conductors are metals but also semiconductors can be conductive under some conditions. Changing external or internal conditions can easily modify the conduction of the semiconductor. The change of the external condition can be caused by some kind of energy, for example by light or by thermal energy. The change of the internal condition is caused by adding impurities of other elements. To summarize the main advantage of semiconductors before metals is the possibility to change easily their conductive condition. That’s why the semiconductors are used in microchips.

The problem is that common plastics aren’t conductive. They are nonconductors. Solid state conductors are metals but also semiconductors can be conductive under some conditions. Changing external or internal conditions can easily modify the conduction of the semiconductor. The change of the external condition can be caused by some kind of energy, for example by light or by thermal energy. The change of the internal condition is caused by adding impurities of other elements. To summarize, the main advantage of semiconductors over metals is the capability of easily changing their conductive condition. That’s why semiconductors are used in microchips.

As you can see, not many changes were necessary there.

~R

[RonBee]

Originally Posted by RonBee

The most useful element in electronics especially in microchips is silicon that everything is known about. It is the second plentiful element on the Earth after oxygen. This is its advantage but its bonds aren’t so strong. Perhaps that’s why a life on the earth is made by carbon and not by silicon.

The most useful element in electronics (especially in microchips) is silicon. It is the second plentiful element on the Earth after oxygen. That is its advantage, but its bonds aren't strong. Perhaps that is why a life on earth is made of carbon and not silicon.

[namthao]

Dear Mr. RonBee,

I think we have a fun, but one thing I am still not sure.

"When I was choosing the theme that I would write about I decided it had to be something from science, especially physics."

In adverb clauses, subordinating conjunctions of time, is a complex sentence.
It has one independent clause and one or more dependent clauses.
If the adverb clause (depepndent clause) stands before indepepndent clause, a comma should have to connect two clauses; and if the adverb clause (depepndent clause) stands after indepepndent clause, a comma should be omitted.
For Example:

When I finish my work, I feel hungry= when finishing my work, I feel hungry.
I feel hungry when I finish my work = I feel hungry when finishing my work.

The first sentence, I thought it may be "run on". I know I may be wrong because English may have some of exception, but anyway, would you explain, please.

See you,


Nam Thao

[RonBee]

Originally Posted by namthao

Dear Mr. RonBee,

I think we have a fun, but there is one thing I am still not sure about.

"When I was choosing the theme that I would write about I decided it had to be something from science, especially physics."

In adverb clauses, subordinating conjunctions of time, is a complex sentence.
It has one independent clause and one or more dependent clauses.
If the adverb clause (dependent clause) stands before independent clause, a comma should have to connect two clauses; and if the adverb clause (dependent clause) stands after independent clause, a comma should be omitted.
For Example:

When I finish my work, I feel hungry= when finishing my work, I feel hungry.
I feel hungry when I finish my work = I feel hungry when finishing my work.

The first sentence, I thought it may be "run on". I know I may be wrong because English may have some of exception, but anyway, would you explain, please.

See you,


Nam Thao

In the sentence in question, I think the comma is optional. (You can include it or not without changing the meaning.)

"When I was choosing the theme that I would write about I decided it had to be something from science, especially physics."

"When I was choosing the theme that I would write about, I decided it had to be something from science, especially physics."

Perhaps we should use the second sentence (with the comma). Then everybody will be happy.