So, we start our third session on the carrier transport in nano MOSFET devices and MOSFET non-classical MOSFETs. So, we continue on some effects of short channel lengths on carrier velocity. We just began on this last time. The three aspects we will be discussing will be one is the velocity saturation effect on the drain current and then the a quick look at what is the implication of ballistic transport and velocity overshoot effect, whether we should worry about that that also we will discuss. For silicon, we will see how good is important is the velocity overshoot is there. Then we will also discuss injection velocity, which is ultimately which is the one which controls the drain current in short channel devices. Now, before we go into that velocity saturation, we take a quick look at the velocity versus electric field characteristics of the carriers. I use the word carriers because this sort of curves hold good both for electrons and holes. What I am showing is mainly for electrons right now. Similar argument can be extended to the holes also. Now, in thermal equilibrium when you do not apply an electric field, you know the free electrons are moving in random directions because they have the thermal energy. They move with the thermal velocity which is about 10 to power 7 centimeter per second. Now, even though they are moving there is no current flow because they are in random motion and each of them cancel in all the directions. So, there is no net current flow. Now, when you apply an electric field at the electrons have an additional component in the direction of the electric field. That is, it moves towards the plus thermal opposite to the electric field direction. So, it has a component of velocity. So, the carriers move in that particular direction directed by the electric field. If it is holes, it will move in the direction of the electric field plus to minus. If it is electrons, they move from minus to the plus. So, now this component is superimposed on the thermal velocity. So, you get the current due to the velocity of these electrons which can be expressed in terms of electric field and collision time. What is collision time? When the electrons move in the particular direction, they get scattered by the lattice atoms. They get scattered by various effects. So, in a time tau m, there will be collision. So, the velocity or I am sorry the electrons get accelerated by this force q into e. q into e is the force on the electrons. e is the electric field divided by m star. m star is effective mass of electrons because you talk of moment of electrons in the crystal not in the free space. So, this is the acceleration. Acceleration into time of collision gives you the velocity. Acceleration into time gives you the velocity of the carriers at the time of collision. So, that is the maximum velocity that it gets. We can say there are different electrons which will suffer different accelerations or different collision lengths and collision times. So, what we talk of this velocity will be an average value for all the electrons put together which gives rise to current. Now, this thing whatever we write here, we usually express as mu into electric field where mu is actually q tau q tau m divided by m from here.  That is the mobility. Now, you can see here there was an assumption that when you change the electric field, the collision time was not changing. So, that is why this mobility is constant. So, v is proportional to electric field and velocity field characteristic will be linear when the electric field is low. At higher electric fields, when the acceleration is more, the time of collision will reduce because the distance between collisions is same, the time of collision or collision time will get reduced. So, that means the mobility actually gets reduced, but electric field is increasing. So, the velocity field characteristic does not increase linearly, but it becomes nonlinear. This is because of a collision time reduction. So, even though electric field is increased, it does not increase, velocity does not increase as much as you think it should. When you go still to high electric fields, you can see that the velocity will become higher and higher and it will become comparable to the thermal velocity which is there even due to thermal energy. So, total energy of the electrons now becomes thermal energy plus this additional energy which is absorbed from the electric field. Now, the kinetic energy which you call it as half m v squared is related to the temperature or k T. So, once you say that the kinetic energy has gone up because of the thermal energy and the energy absorbed by the electric field. In fact, finally, the kinetic energy, net energy is this one due to the energy absorbed from the electric field. So, you can say that it looks as if the temperature of the crystal has gone up or temperature of the electrons has gone up. Even though crystal temperature is room temperature, the electron energy is higher by this amount. So, you say that they are hot electrons. Electrons are not really hot. It looks as if they are hot because their energy is much more than that of thermal electrons. So, when they collide. So, you can see now these hot electrons have addition and energy over and above the regular thermal energy. So, when they collide with the lattice atoms, they excite the lattice into a new vibrational mode which has large cross section for intercepting the more electrons. In other words, what I am trying to point out is these electrons when they collide with these lattice atoms because they have a large energy. They create extra vibrational energy in the lattice. So, if there is extra vibrational energy, the chance of collision of these electrons becomes more. For example, if the atom is moving like that, you know the cross section of that movement is much larger. So, it what happens is almost all the electrons collide and lose the energy. So, the maximum energy that is acquired by that is equal to is decided by that velocity that is achieved by that. That velocity is equal to the thermal velocity or close to that. See, when the velocity has become equal to thermal velocity or close to that, the energy is almost much large compared to thermal energy. So, at that point what is the velocity acquired that is close to thermal velocity. It is not exactly equal to thermal velocity, but very close to that slightly less than that. Still we can say V is actually that velocity at which the maximum velocity is reached is the saturation velocity. So, what happens is if I keep on increasing the electric field initially linear, non-linear because of the collision time decreases. Finally, velocity saturates because all the energy that is acquired within that collision time is lost to the lattice. So, within that time it is whatever velocity is acquired is very close to the thermal velocity, which is the limiting velocity of the electrons. It cannot go beyond that because the entire thing is absorbed by the lattice. So, this is the principle of velocity saturation is basic semiconductor devices. This discussion comes for completeness sake. I just brought this into. So, what happens in the case of MOSFET? So, remember that linear, non-linear saturation is the field and that saturation velocity is about 10 to the power of 7 centimeter per second for electrons or whose it is about 6 times 10 to the power of 6 centimeter per second. Now, if you take a look at the velocity saturation effects on the short channel MOSFET, what will be the electric field? The electric field along the y direction that is from the source to the drain in that region there is a voltage drop equal to gate voltage minus threshold voltage that is the channel potential, which we have discussed earlier. So, voltage drops across the channel from between the drain end and the source end once saturation current has reached is this VGS minus V threshold. So, you can you can call or you can think of how much will be the electric field that is whatever voltage drop is there divided by channel length that is average electric field. So, now you will see as the short channel length becomes shorter and shorter electric field becomes larger and larger. That means, if the electric field is larger than about 30 kilo volts per centimeter for electrons the velocity saturates to 10 to the power of 7. So, what you are telling is this 30 kV per centimeter can be reached very easily. See for example, even if you take a number like 1 micron channel length if the volt VGS minus V threshold is 3 volts 3 volts divided by 10 to the power of minus 4 that is 30 kV per centimeter. So, even there you can have velocity saturation you can see if the channel length is smaller even if the threshold VG minus V threshold is 2 volts 1 volt you will have velocity saturation. So, when you go down to 0.1 to 0.2 micron channel length definitely there will be velocity saturation and that value will be 10 to the power of 7 per centimeter for electrons and whole velocity saturates at slightly smaller value because of its higher effective mass. Now, let us see how this will change the drain current. If we are operating in this region where the velocity is proposed to the electric field the Ohm's law holds good and there we said it is a square law. IDS is equal to VGS minus V threshold whole square into some constant which depends upon mu C oxide W by L. Here let us see that. So, due to high electric field I just take a look at the drain current in the scaled down MOSFETs that is short channel length everything reduced in size due to the high value of electric field in the y direction that is along the channel length the velocity of carriers will be saturation velocity. Now, we have assumed that electric field is very high everywhere that means velocity saturation will be there everywhere. So, if you take the current the source end itself whatever current enters here will flow through the thing. So, we have written this formula the drain current is width into charge into velocity W Q into V W is the width of the channel Q is the electron charge here 0 is implying that x or y equal to 0 here. So, Q n so W Q into V sat is actually the drain current this is the velocity saturation model very simple. Now, if you write substitute for the inversion charge inversion charge is C oxide into V G minus V threshold that we have put here. So, the drain current now you becomes W C oxide into V G minus V threshold into V sat. Now, T is at this point the drain current does not depend upon the channel length. In the in the low field case you remember that the drain current is W C oxide mu divided by L into V G minus V threshold whole square. Now, here it is not square law it is I D increase a linearly with V G minus V threshold and it is independent of the channel length. Because the current is the because the velocity is saturated velocity no longer depends upon the channel length. So, it is independent trans conductance defined as delta ideas divided by delta V G s. When you differentiate that this term goes off and you will W C oxide into V sat. So, you can see couple of things here to be noted your drain current depends on the channel width of course, but you do not want to make this large the maximum that you can get will be decided by the saturation velocity. And of course, larger the C oxide larger will be the current that means thinner the oxide more will be the current. So, it will be the trans conductance with all the integrated circuits you would like to have best trans conductance. That means, the velocity should be highest and you get why do you need best trans conductance because the driving capability for a given change in gate voltage is maximum if trans conductance is maximum. So, I D and G m are independent of the channel length that is one thing to be noted out noted. The transit time that is the time required for the electrons to move from the source to the drain that is length divided by velocity. And the transit time will control how much will be the cutoff frequency that is 1 by tau t will be the omega t f t is 1 by 2 pi tau t. So, high frequency transistors will have of course, the shorter channel length and because of shorter channel length you will get faster field of operation not because of improved velocity. Now, let us see whether you get the drain current independent of channel length when you go to smaller channel length. There is some experimental result which is available as I reported in one of the thesis in the transferred university PHD thesis. I think that this results are given by Intel very interesting. You see you keep on reducing the channel length, excessive use of the channel length, y axis gives you the saturated drain current that is after the drain current is large enough. So, as you keep on reducing the channel length this is for different MOSFETs shorter channel, shorter channel, shorter channel. You can see the drain current keeps on increasing because you are not in the velocity saturation region. The drain current is in this region is controlled by mu C oxide W by L into VGS minus with threshold whole square. So, because it is inversely proportional to channel length the drain current keeps on increasing where you reduce the channel length. This is for the P channel and channel device the bottom curve is for the P channel devices. But, once you go down to channel length which are something like 0.2 microns and below these are all experimental points they are all scattered, but on an average you can see that it is reaching constant. It is independent of the drain channel length which almost shows that this is correct. Drain current is independent of the channel length. You can see that it is independent of channel length. Both N channel MOSFET and P channel MOSFETs show the same characteristics. There is a difference in these two numbers because of the difference in the mobility and the difference in the saturation velocity you can see. But, if you calculate this I think you have to watch very carefully. These devices have an oxide which is about 1.75 nanometers around that for these channel lengths or 1.5 and I have taken this number 1.75 and corresponding oxide capacitance per centimeter square is 2000 nanofirons per centimeter square. I am trying to find out if I substitute this oxide and if I substitute with this V velocity saturation do I get this number for electrons. See what we are telling is if there is velocity saturation I can substitute let me take VGS minus V threshold is 1 volt. C oxide is 2000 nanofirons per centimeter square which is 2 into 10 to the power of minus 6 farads per centimeter square and V sat is 10 to the power of 7. So, 10 to the power of minus 6 into 10 to the power of 7 that is 10. 10 the 2 is there. So, this is this product on this side is 20. Usually they define the current as drain current per micrometer width of the channel. I have taken what they have given there in the experiment is per micrometer W is per micrometer. So, when you substitute this as 2000 nanofirons this is 10 to the power of 7 product is 20, 20 into 10 to the power of minus 4, 1 micrometer is 10 to the power of minus 4 centimeter. So, that 20 into 10 to the power of minus 4 is actually 2000 micro ampere per micrometer 20 into 10 to the power of minus 4 is 2000 into 10 to the power of minus 6 that is 2000 micro amperes or 2 milli amperes per micrometer. So, what we are telling is if there were velocity saturation you would have got this current as 2000 micro amperes per micrometer what you get here is less than that which would mean that there are 2 things one is what you say is correct that channel the drain current is independent of the channel length, but the velocity is not velocity saturation. There is a different velocity which is smaller than the velocity saturation. So, that is what we get from here. Now, let us see what the model that we have taken here what we have done is you have taken the charge at the source end and taken the velocity is velocity saturation. Now, that would mean the current here is whatever charge is present in the velocity saturation. If you go down along the channel the velocity cannot increase beyond that point velocity is maximum is 10 to the power of 7. So, if you say this is velocity saturation here also there is velocity saturation here also is velocity saturation. What happens to charge in that would imply that charge also is constant because I d if it is 1000 micro amperes per centimeter square it is the same thing everywhere because current continuity. So, what we are trying to point out is if you assume this model which you have written based on velocity saturation here that would mean that throughout there is velocity saturation that would mean the charge is throughout same which implies there is no field in this region. If there is field in this region plus here minus here the charge will be keeping on decreasing. If charge is keeping on decreasing velocity will be keeping on increasing. If the charge is not decreasing if charge is constant there is no voltage drop. So, the argument that we have put forward is not quite correct. So, what we are telling is velocity saturation may not take place here because charge is maximum. So, velocity is less than velocity saturation. As you move towards the train end charge keeps on decreasing because there is a voltage drop here because charge keeps on decreasing velocity keeps on increasing you may have velocity saturation towards the train end not at the source end. So, what we are trying to point out is at the source end the velocity is less than the velocity saturation. So, I should calculate the current taking this same formula, but V is less than that velocity saturation. What is that velocity we do not know right now we will find out that. So, whatever I have mentioned I have summed up and put it here. The train current formula in the velocity saturation model assumes that the electron velocity is V s throughout the channel. This assumes that charge does not vary throughout the channel which is not correct. So, from what we have discussed we you know the charge does not vary means this is possible there is no voltage drop, but voltage drop across the channel if there is current flow. So, this will lead to the conclusion that velocity saturation is absent near the source end of the channel where the electric field is low. Lower than the such lower than saturation that we give you or so and velocity saturation can exist only near the train end. Now, let us examine that quickly go through some of these things. So, this is the basic thing that is involved. So, experimental results ideas is indeed independent of L. We are very happy, but this formula also holds good except the charge when you take at the source end the velocity is not value saturation, but some effective velocity which is lower than saturation velocity, but it is a function of saturation velocity and some other factor comes into picture. So, W c oxide into V s Q and I am substituting here. So, all that we replace is this by V f A t. Now, in V silicon from the result that you have seen this V f A t is less than the saturation velocity. I will not go through this at this stage, but I will just point out that if you take gallium arsenide devices that effective velocity will be even more than the saturation velocity because of what is known as the velocity overshoot effect. If the electrons are injected to the channel suddenly to a high field it goes through a transient phase where velocity gets much more than the saturation velocity then comes back to the saturation velocity. So, that effect is dominating in gallium arsenide whereas in silicon that is very marginal. So, it is always less than this. Now, let us examine this. There is one more term that I bring in here that is a ballistic transport. Can there be ballistic transport of carriers in silicon? In gallium arsenide question mark I will not discuss that now in silicon. What is ballistic transport? Normally, when the electrons get accelerated they get scattered. Due to collisions with lattice atom or impurity ions everything whatever will be the scattering centers. Now, the ballistic transport is referred to the motion of electrons through the semiconductor material when collisions are completely absent. When will the collisions be absent? If the collision centers are far away. So, ballistic motion is in the uniform electric field will be governed by the equation. The velocity there is acceleration into time. So, what we are implying is if there is no collision, if the electron moves without collision the acceleration will be forced by the mass. There are Q into electric field divided by mass. So, for example, if the electron is moving in vacuum there is no collision that is ballistic transport. The velocity will keep on increasing. That is why vacuum tubes the velocity of electrons is much more than that in semiconductors. That is why people are thinking of bringing back the vacuum tube for high power high frequency operations. There is one activity going on when to bring in vacuum tubes into very high frequencies. There are frequencies. So, but if the time is T if you take the velocity at that time is acceleration into time T. Now, ballistic transport will take this so long as the time is less than the collision time. That is the collision. Now, let us see what it is in silicon. This is something people have simulated from Monte Carlo simulation etcetera. They have seen that for silicon the average collision time is about 3 into 10 to power of minus 13 seconds. That is 0.3 picosecond very small within that time the collision takes place. So, you will have ballistic transport in a time less than that collision time. There is no collision. You can use this equation to compute the that is what we actually do. So, what is that length let us see. Let us say the electron is moving with the velocity of 10 to power of 7 due to ballistic action. Average velocity 10 to power of 7 and the time T 3 into 10 to power minus 13 what is the length travelled? That is between 10 to power minus 13 into 10 to power of 7 that is 30 nanometer. That means, if you assume that maximum velocity is 10 to power of 7 is present for the electrons and within that collision time it would have travelled the distance equal to 30 nanometer. That means, there will be ballistic transport if the channel length is less than 30 nanometers. It is very much less than 30 nanometer. If the channel length is 30 nanometers and above it will be governed by the scattering. That is the mobility and the saturation velocity. So, what we are saying is there will not be any ballistic transport that is in silicon till it is about much less than 30 nanometers say 10 nanometers, 50 nanometers. If you go you can say there is ballistic transport will be there. So, you may not have velocity is much greater than the velocity saturation at the force end. There is a meaning of that. So, in silicon MOSFETS pure ballistic transport will not take place until the channel length is well below 30 nanometers. We examine that phi if there is a chance of velocity higher than the saturation velocity. That is not possible. If you take gallium arsenide again the simulation results have shown that the collision time there is 5 picoseconds much larger. So, if the velocity is 10 to power of 7 I am taking the maximum velocity it will not be that much. Then the length travelled by the electrons before the collision has taken place is velocity into this time that is 500 nanometers. What we are telling is in gallium arsenide the collision will be absent or scattering will be absent till it has moved 500 nanometers 0.5 micrometers which that would imply that there will be ballistic transport in channel length which are 0.5 microns. So, if the carriers are injected into that gallium arsenide channel in that short period of time before it gets scattered if it is suddenly injected into the channel where there high field is present it will get accelerated to have velocities higher than that of 10 to power of 7. That means in gallium arsenide you will have velocity over shoot effects like a transient effects in the L C circuits etcetera. There will be over shoot effects will be there because before it comes to studied it the velocity goes over and above the saturation velocity and that may give rise to your injection velocity much more than the saturation velocity. So, that is why in the case of gallium arsenides you may encounter drain currents which indicate that the injection velocity of electron is much more than the saturation velocity that is because of the velocity over shoot effect. I have put it very briefly without going into details of that. The meaning is sudden transient effects in gallium arsenide leads to that over shoot effect because that has at least few picoseconds of time whereas in silicon you do not see that because it is less than much more than the picosecond that is about 0.3 picoseconds. So, you do not really see the over shoot effects. So, we just do not go into the discussion on the gallium arsenide at this moment when I discuss gallium arsenide devices I may bring this back that is focused on silicon because we are happy with silicon devices and we are happy with the use of small devices in silicon. So, the conclusion from this discussion is in gallium arsenide if it is the carrier velocity in the channel may exceed saturation velocity because the collision takes place after few picoseconds due to the one set of ballistic transport and velocity over shoot effects for small even up to 0.5 up to 0.5 micron channel lengths. In silicon if it is ballistic transport cannot take this even when channel length is 30 nanometers or 50 nanometers because that is estimated by taking such velocity 10 over 7 it will be lower than that. So, much smaller channel lengths are required to see ballistic transport or velocity over shoot effects in silicon. So, the drain current is limited by not by the saturation velocity, not by ballistic transport, not by velocity over shoot effect, but the velocity with which it is injected that is something else is controlling the injection velocity. So, at what velocity the carriers are injected? We will see what it is I will not get down into the detailed discussion on that. So, drain current if it is controlled by injection velocity which is smaller than that velocity saturation I can say that I can still write I d s c is w q n at 0 into injection velocity and that is lower than that. Then I will get the drain current which is actually smaller than what you would get with the velocity saturation, but this injection velocity does not depend upon channel length it would depend upon the conditions at this over shoot. Let us see what it is I will not derive it, but I will just show that where the deriving is bit of involved thing there is a detailed paper written by Lundstrom and Ren on the physics of carrier transport in nanoscale MOSFETs published in January 2002 in which what they have said is whether carriers are injected from the source to the channel. They are able to inject from the source to the channel by gaining an energy to raise above that barrier. So, they have got the sub thermal energy in fact they would be injected at a velocity close to 10 to power of 7 there. So, you would think that earlier analysis what we said is injection velocity is the thermal velocity that is what you would get there at the point of injection at the point when the electrons have just landed in the channel, but the moment they land in the channel they start moving within a very short length they suffer collisions. They suffer collisions at scattered backward. So, the average velocity of that beyond that point within that short distance is controlled by the scattering mechanism. I am not showing the derivation. So, that is controlled. So, if you go through the analysis what happens is if there is no scattering at all you would have got the thermal energy. Because of scattering the velocity of the electrons is controlled at that point by combination of this injection velocity or thermal velocity and the velocity with which it moves that is mobility into the electric field. Velocity is mobility in the electric field that is the low field. The electric field is not high at the source end. Electric field high only at the drain end. If it is high of course, saturation velocity will get. It is not high. So, whatever electric field at E plus 0 plus means just at the source end that is the velocity that you would get. So, combined effect of that with skipping all the derivation I would suggest that you go through this paper for that because that itself would have taken me about half an hour to discuss that. So, injection velocity is controlled by these equations that is thermal velocity which is 10 to power 7 centimeter per second. If there is no collision at all after injection that would have been 10 to power 7 centimeter per second. But because of the combined effect of the scattering you get injection velocity less than the thermal velocity. You can see that if the mobility is very very large, if the mobility is very very large it could be that in that electric field you will have it is like putting two resistors in parallel. The resistance is governed by the resistance which is lower. So, here if this is larger than this one if the mu into E is larger than the thermal velocity we injection with thermal velocity. If thermal velocity is larger than the second term here denominator injection velocity governed by this mobility it will actually combined effect it will neither this nor that. So, what turns out from that is this is for the conclusion for this our discussion is not ending here. Considering these both these effects together what you would say that you can still write the drain current is equal to W Q into injection velocity. Injection velocity is the combined effect of these two terms. If I have high mobility in the channel you may get thermal velocity itself very close to saturation velocity, but it will only be less than that. But if the mobility is low then it will be far below the thermal velocity saturation velocity. So, you can see that this particular term drain current that you get saturation drain current will be in the very short channel devices are limited by the injection velocity which is controlled by both saturation velocity or thermal velocity and the mobility. And you can see that both the terms which determine the injection velocity are independent of the channel length. So, injection velocity does not depend upon channel length. Therefore, if you are computing this current using the injection velocity the drain current will be independent of the channel length. So, what we say here holds good. So, you get the drain current which is independent of channel length when you go to channel length which are 0.2, 0.1 microns length or below, but the current is lower than what you would get with the saturation velocity because injection velocity is smaller than the saturation velocity. And this is actually you can see the reference is this is a recess caller modeling of nano scale MOSFETs P H T C soft transfer density 2002. There is a time when that model also was given by non-storm etcetera in the particular city. So, what is our aim this from this discussion what we see is you need to have very high mobility for electrons because after all thermal velocity is fixed by temperature 10 to power 7. You need to get higher and higher mobility. What is the way you can get higher mobility? What are the factors which affect the mobility that we will see now. So, low mobility field mobility should be high. The mu is actually the mobility in the low electric field. You go back to this you see mobility is actually and just the slope here low field region at the source and the field is low as you go towards the drain and the field becomes high. So, velocity naturally go up there. So, now going back to this I am skipping all these things which you have discussed now. So, you are looking at either materials which can give high mobility or if you want to stick with silicon what is the way you can increase the mobility. What are the factors which increase the mobility or limit the mobility. If you can plot mobility mu n or this is actually mu it does not show here this is actually the arrow is mu I think because of change in the program. This is the mobility is the y axis and the doping concentration. If you recall to reduce the short channel effects you always increase the mobility in the conventional MOSFET. So, increase the mobility the I am sorry if you increase the doping I am sorry let me restate in the conventional MOSFETs you increase the doping to reduce the short channel effects and also reduce the oxide thickness to compensate for that. So, if you increase the doping the mobility is almost flat. I have plotted the this is actually approximated straight line it will not be that straight it will be smoothening here smoothening here. So, when the doping is up to about 10 to power 16 mobility of electron is written 1500 centimeter square per volt second. But once you reach about 10 to power 16 doping the mobility starts falling mobility starts falling because in the low doping concentration regions this scattering centers are only lattice and atoms. But when you go to higher doping the dopants they in they are in the ionized state the ionized dopants give rise to additional scattering centers. The low doping mobility they are not the there is scattering, but it is not high compared to the lattice scattering. But when you go to higher doping concentrations additional electrostatic scattering due to the ionized dopants takes place mobility falls. You can see the extent of falling mobility what was 1500 centimeter square per volt second can become even as low as 200. So, you can see if you take a look at the doping concentrations this term this is this is not 1500 this will be 200 when you go to 10 to power 18 in 10 to power 17 it may be about 600 or 700. So, moral of the story is you cannot go to such to high doping concentrations in the classical MOSFET you have to have high doping concentrations to reduce that short channel effects. What are the other factors coming into picture the other factor which leads to reduction in the low field and they say that field that field is actually along the y direction. But in the case of MOSFET there is electric field in the vertical direction there is normal direction that is what we stocked here was the I am sorry electric field in that direction that is what we talked of here. Now, what we talk of here is there is also electric field in the particle direction that is normal direction to the channel. So, electric field in the normal direction normal to the channel must be kept also low. But you know when you make the oxide thickness small and the channel doping high the when you deplete the channel there will be very high electric field. Oxide thickness is small the depletion layer charge is high. So, Q D by C oxide is the electric field or whatever charge is there that gives sides electric field Q D by epsilon oxide that is the electric field Q D by C oxide the voltage drop across the thing. So, if the C oxide is large and Q D is large or if Q D is large electric field also becomes large. So, what we are trying to point out is you will have because of the high doping here and thin oxide field will be large in the vertical direction. So, an electric field is large in the vertical direction the mobility of this channels along the y direction gets affected. Why? You can imagine when the electric field is in the direction vertical direction like this normal direction to the channel if the electrons are moving in the direction if the field is like that it tries to keep it hold it for a while in that region. So, there is a restraining force which keeps it back in that position there is a qualitative way of understanding that means actually the mobility of the electrons moving in that direction gets affected if the field is large in that direction. So, you must avoid the field in that large in the x direction normal direction. Now, an empirical formula is given by these people Pecoroni and Wardeman in the year very way back in 1983 by the conventional MOSFETs mobility keeps on decreasing mobility in that direction keeps on decreasing if the E x we call it A effective due to including all other effects if that increases that keeps on decreasing. So, what is the way you can do that you cannot help reducing the oxide thickness you want to keep the capacitance large what you can do will be reduce the doping concentration here. So, if you reduce the doping concentration in the channel two things happen one the ionized impurities scattering gets reduced. So, mobility reduction does not happen you can go to mobility which are as high as 10,500 in silicon if you some other material you can have mobility is decided by the mobility of that electrons that material. And also if you reduce the doping concentration here the depletion layer charge gets reduced. Therefore, the charges in the depletion layer gets reduced mean electric field again is lower in this vertical direction normal direction. So, if you reduce the doping concentration naturally you get improved low field mobility low field in that direction you will get improved mobility and you will get improved velocity you can get very close to the saturation velocity thermal velocity. So, the entire drive in the present day devices is to choose. So, these are the references I am telling. So, to get high performance what should you do just the last slide which I am discussing here today which which has got lot of juice in that. So, high performance nano scale devices therefore, should ensure that doping is low. So, that mobility is high they should also ensure that the vertical normal electric field is low. So, that again the mobility is low field mobility is high. So, ultra short channel mobility devices with improved low field mobility is required for high performance nano scale MOSFETs. You cannot help producing the channel length why should you reduce the channel length you saw channel length divide by velocity use is a transit time higher frequency. To go to higher frequency even the velocity gets saturated because of reduced channel length the time required for transport occurrences reduced the frequency is high. So, to take care of this aspect ultimately to improve the mobility new approaches are used the new approaches are non classical MOSFETs. Finally, we are getting down to what we wanted to discuss. So, they have emerged these meet some of these things meet this goal of low mobility those devices are silicon on insulation MOSFET insulation MOSFET. If you recall MOSFET that you have got is whole thing is on a bulk region and out of that we discussed right at the beginning only the top layer is the one which is being used below that it is actually mechanical support. So, you can have silicon on an insulating substrate a thin layer of silicon used we will see how that works out Saroo's to improve the low field mobility. So, because of that you have got double gate MOSFET ultra thin SOI MOSFET silicon on insulator MOSFET and fin FET these are the things which we discussed in the coming next few lectures. So, that is actually using silicon itself and this trick that you are using these devices is only the controlling the electric fields controlling the dopants which is enabled by the SOI device. But now you can make use of the SOI device in addition you introduce strain along the channel what do you mean by strain if I have the channel let me go back to one of those slides here this is a channel. Now along this channel if I introduce a compressive strain in that direction if I introduce compress the channel in that direction what happens is the lattice atoms are little bit brought close to closer together. So, if the lattice atoms are bit closer together the collision distance becomes reduced if the collision distance becomes reduced collision time is reduced mobility will be reduced. If I bring in compression the mobility is reduced, but if I stretch it if I introduce tensile stress along the channel then the lattice atoms are slightly pulled it may be delta it may be fraction of an angstrom like that after all distance is about 5 angstroms may be it is fraction of that if you increase the length the spacing between the lattice atoms is increased collision time is increased mobility is increased. So, in n channel MOSFETs if I have tensile stress strain if I can introduce then electron mobility will increase. So, whatever is good for electron is bad for holes. Later on we will again discuss those details in the holes if I stretch it even though electron mobility increases when you talk of this plus charges exactly offset things takes place I will not discuss that at this time frame in fact the hole movement takes place because of the jumping movement of electrons from bond to bond. So, the bond has to break and jump to the neighboring point. So, hole movement takes place by jumping movement of electrons from one bond to the other bond. So, if I stretch it the electron has to jump on a longer path that means the hole movement will be more difficult if I stretch it. So, what we said is the electron mobility increases if I use tensile stress, but because of that the hole movement becomes difficult hole mobility becomes less if I stretch it. How to introduce the tensile stress I can deposit nitride on the top of the gate that nitride has deposited as for tensile stress it will stretch it elongated. So, Intel has made some of the devices where they deposited low pressure nitride on to the on the gate over the gate to stretch the channel. So, that electron mobility can be increased and the hole mobility can be increased by compressing the channel. How do you compress the channel take a look at this by introducing nitride on the top of the gate I can stretch it I can compress it if I introduce germanium into the source and drain region. Source is silicon during diffusion you can add little bit of germanium also. So, this will be silicon germanium small amount of germanium concentration germanium lattice or the atom atomic size is bigger than that of silicon. So, in these regions you have silicon and germanium atom at source end and the drain end if you introduce that volume increases because radius of germanium atom is bigger. So, it is in the given volume you are trying to introduce movements which are bigger.  So, that is what is happening you have germanium atoms added on to the source then compressing the atom. So, if you do it for n channel devices it is mobility will decrease or p channel devices the mobility will increase. So, in the p channel devices they add germanium to the source stream to increase the mobility. So, that is the strain layer. So, other thing is of course, totally use different materials like germanium leave silicon and go to germanium germanium has electron mobility which is about 4000 centimeter square per volt second which is about 3 times source 2 to 3 times than that of electron mobility in silicon. Whole mobility of whole mobility germanium also is about 3000 centimeter square per volt second both electron mobility and whole mobility are high. So, today people are talking of making devices on the germanium MOSFETs and also in addition you can use gallium arsenide as the material for hetero junction devices to sum up what is being done is either go to silicon non-insulator type of materials that is non-classical MOSFET and use strain layers or go to totally new materials like germanium or gallium arsenide to realize conventional type of MOSFET but new materials. So, with that I conclude and next session we will start with the non-classical MOSFET on silicon on insulator. Thank you.


So this was something that worried me a lot pre-Bitcoin because I felt very much attached to that financial system. And part of why I advocate Bitcoin and crypto to people is to help them escape that system as well, to get away from what is going to be a train wreck and probably a monumental human catastrophe of suffering and darkness. I pretty much think all government regulation is horrible and unethical and counterproductive. What's up, everyone? My name is Jackson. I am your host and journalist at Cointelegraph. Today, I have the pleasure of talking to Eric Voorhees, who is the CEO and founder of one of the most well-known cryptocurrency exchanges out there, Shapeshift. Today, we are going to be talking about why he believes there could be a global debt crisis in the next five years, why the Bitcoin maximalist mindset is a poor one, and why New York regulation is, and I quote, absurd. So without further ado, how are you doing today, Eric? I'm great. How are you doing? I'm lovely. Thank you for asking. So I saw on Twitter recently that you've been weighing into this ever-present Bitcoin maximalism versus part of my friend's shitcoin argument. And why do you feel that Bitcoin maximalism is a poor mindset to have? Yeah, well, so I used to be a maximalist. That was an easy position to take getting into it in 2011 because that was really the only coin back then, almost. And so that was kind of my default position. And for a while, I saw all these other coins and chains as distractions at best and felt like it was really pulling people's time and attention away from the core project, which was the most important. And I changed my view as I started seeing the experimentation that was happening and as I realized that one of the most important elements of Bitcoin is this decentralization aspect. That's kind of the whole point. And to hold a position where decentralization is important, to value that, and to simultaneously hold the view that there should only be this one blockchain and that all use cases and all developments should orient around this one monolithic chain, to me seemed completely hypocritical and counterproductive to the ethos of what Bitcoin was about. So with time, I changed my view on that. And especially as some of the privacy coins came out, Monero and Zcash, and as Ethereum came out that did things that Bitcoin could not do, it was just an entirely different way of thinking about blockchains. I started realizing that these things were mutually beneficial, that they were complex and you could not design a chain that had all the features that would be ideal for every use case. That was just impossible. And you shouldn't try to design one chain to do all things for everyone. So without understanding, I just very naturally came to the opinion that there's going to be a number of chains that are very useful and valuable and they'll do different things, and in some ways they'll compete with each other, in other ways they'll complement each other, but that's all part of the process. I think the fallacy that the Maximus fallen to is that they rightly see that many of these other chains and coins are absolute garbage, and they're right. Like most of these are absolute garbage, but that doesn't mean that there aren't a number of them that are very valuable and useful and interesting. And so their inability to have nuance in their understanding of these different chains I think is a, it's kind of lazy from an intellectual perspective, but it's also not helping Bitcoin to pretend that there is not value being created elsewhere. And I think we've seen Bitcoin and Ethereum rise together as both highly valuable systems that are designed to build differently. They each have some pros and cons. And I think the world is better to have both of them instead of just one. Yeah. Personally, I do agree a lot with that mindset. Do you have a name for this ideology you've just prescribed or do you abstain from giving labels like that? The best label I've ever come up with for it is just to be a crypto pluralist, right? To realize that there are more than one cool cryptos out there and that that's okay, instead of being essentially like a monotheist about one chain from the heavens that must be worshipped above all else. A crypto pluralist. I like that. That's good. You suggested that there will be some kind of financial meltdown in the next five years or so and that people will actually end up falling back on crypto. What kind of shape would this crisis and response take in real life? Yeah. So first I have to acknowledge that I've been under the belief that there would be a huge financial catastrophe in the next few years for the last 12 years since the last financial crisis. So things have been humming along for longer than I thought and I have to admit that I've been wrong in that timing. And yet I still hold the same position that it is going to happen. And my basis for this is simply a matter of looking at the debt of sovereign governments and seeing the tremendous amount of debt that they have, the rate at which it's growing, and the understanding of how compound interest works. So I tweeted about this like a week or two ago, but it took the U.S. like its first, you know, until the year, I forget what it was, 1990 or whatever, to get its like first trillion dollars of debt. And then at this point, we've increased that to a rate of adding trillions of dollars of debt like every every few months. And it's just become a stratospheric exponential equation. And that can't continue forever. So not only can it not continue forever, it can't continue for long because of the way exponents work. So the debt will crush the financial system when the bond market falls apart.  When that ends, then all of it falls apart. So this was something that worried me a lot pre-Bitcoin because I felt very much attached to that financial system, you know, my whole future, my family's future was very much dependent on the global financial system being healthy. Post-Bitcoin, it's kind of like watching a train wreck from afar where I feel much more detached, like I'm okay because I have untethered myself from that disaster. And part of why I advocate Bitcoin and crypto to people is to help them escape that system as well, to get away from what is going to be a train wreck and probably a monumental human catastrophe of suffering and darkness. And it's going to be awful. Thankfully, I think there are systems now that will help people emerge from that faster and in a healthier way. And society on the other side will be a much healthier one. But yeah, it's going to be pretty miserable and awful. And I don't know what to do to help people avoid that other than to just keep promoting Bitcoin and these alternatives. Yeah, it's kind of strange because I feel like people have been kind of predicting this looming debt crisis for a long time now, you know, ever since we had a trillion, yeah, decades, right? And it's just, it has never come to a head yet. And I feel like because of that, a lot of people think that it's just never going to happen. I mean, but you really do this is how all bubbles form, right? They, they start and some people start predicting that it's a bubble, but the bubble doesn't pop, it keeps growing and growing and people keep predicting it's a bubble and it keeps growing and growing. And at some point, a lot of people just become completely complacent. And they think like, well, it won't happen because it hasn't. And on the scale of national governments and that debt, those are huge, huge institutions and these things play out over decades. It's very easy for people to become complacent because anyone that's, you know, 50 years old or younger has only lived in a fiat world. The dollar became fiat currency in 1971, right? Yeah. So like on a, on a global timeframe, it's a really new form of money. But for anyone, almost everyone alive today, it's all they've ever known and that can be a really hard thing to see outside of. Yeah. It's, I find it very hard to believe that like the government or the people who are in control of this debt who can actually influence it policy-wise or just totally like hands off the wheel, you know, like not, not even trying to hinder it. They can't, they're stuck. They can't do anything because to do anything would mean proposing that the government gets smaller by even a little bit. And none of them ever do that. They never advocate that the government shrinks. They might advocate a certain department has a lower budget or cut this thing over here, but always, always with the understanding that the government as a whole will be bigger next year than it was this year. And none of them will be elected if they ever tried to do the opposite, right? Any politician that basically said, I actually want to shrink the government by 5%, even 1%, they would not be elected. So, so what do they do? You know, the, the game theory of all this is that those politicians that are willing to promise more get elected, they're elected to put into power, and then they end up promising more. And, and they, they simply borrow from the future, which is what debt is, they borrow more from the future, where the people in the future can't vote right now, right? So the people paying this debt in the future can't vote in today's election. And so you just get into the situation where it perpetuates. And I don't know that there's a way, a way out of that because most people want more and more and more from the government. So they're taking it from tomorrow. And buying crypto is using the best way potentially to set yourself up to endure this kind of catastrophe? No, the best way to endure a catastrophe like this is to work on oneself and develop one's own skills as a human. And this is everything from the skills you have to earn money to your, your personal skills and relationship skills, and your just ability to interact well with other people. That's always the best way to start is to, to change oneself and to make oneself a better person. If you are doing that, could you explain that connection a little bit just because like, you know, if you, if you say the best way to set yourself up for a debt crisis is like to just to be a better person, you know? Yeah, so it's, it's because in any kind of situation, prosperity in life usually comes down to one's ability to get along with other people and to cooperate. This is everything from your personal life or your romantic life or your professional life. If you are a good person and interact well with others, it does not matter how bad things get you will always have a decent chance of building from there. And so investing in yourself in that way has to be, has to be the main, main theme here. But if you're doing that, then what else can you do? Well, financially speaking, avoiding any kind of assumption that, that annuities or social security or anything with a fixed income in the future is going to be there for you is really important.  That social security will either be going away or will be inflated into irrelevancy and will not be useful. So realizing that that stuff won't be there for you in 10 or 20 or 30 years is key. And then making sure that you, that you own assets that are real and, and valuable. So real estate, precious metals, income generating businesses, cryptocurrency, these are all real things that are valuable because they're, they're useful in and of themselves. And avoiding things like government bonds, which is essentially a promise from a bankrupt organization that they will pay you back. That's probably not a good idea. So just kind of thinking of it in those, in those frames is, is useful. I'd like to bring it back towards crypto a bit more specifically. You've had some run-ins with New York regulation in the past. Well, you haven't thought highly of New York regulation in the past. And I think in 2015, you said that shapeshift was cutting off service to New York over some scuffle with bit license. Yeah. And you recently called New York's regulation on crypto and absurdity. So could you just go like a level of two deeper? Why, why is New York's regulation just so absolutely absurd, especially given that it's like the financial center of the world, you know, on Wall Street? Yeah. So first I'll acknowledge my own bias, which is that I pretty much think all government regulation is horrible and unethical and counterproductive. In that frame of reference, what New York did to the crypto industry there is particularly egregious. Basically, what the New York Department of Financial Services did was create this new license, which is basically a permission slip that one needs in order to run a crypto company in New York state or to serve New York customers. And there's this myth that crypto is unregulated, which has never been true. All regulators around the world think that it is regulated in one way or another and often in multiple ways. So crypto has never been unregulated. Now as a sidebar, because it's self-sovereign, you can get around those regulations if you so choose, but the regulations still exist. And so basically New York said, okay, all these financial regulations that currently exist, and which obviously apply to Bitcoin already, we're just going to add to that and create this 35-page application form for a license to operate in New York. And if you ever look at this application form, it just, it like will drain your soul and make you feel like the future of humanity is totally screwed. Which according to your prediction, it might well be the case. Yeah. So basically they want to treat crypto startups as banking institutions, and they don't seem to think that there's anything wrong with that. So basically to actually get a bit licensed in New York is several hundred thousand dollars of legal fees to kind of just apply, to just do the groundwork to fill out this kind of application appropriately. Several hundred thousand dollars. And then there's all sorts of these requirements and restrictions that are put on you if you succeed in getting the license. Things like, if you want to change your business model at all or implement a new feature, you need the permission, the explicit permission of the New York Department of Financial Services. So imagine being a startup, three people in a garage to use the stereotype, you have fifteen thousand dollars in startup money from your grandmother. And you want to, you're in New York and you want to build this business because you have this great idea. Nope, not going to happen. You're not going to be able to get the bit license. And so you're either just going to not start your business or you're going to be running it illegally. And even if you have the hundreds of thousands of dollars to do it, it will take you one to three years at least to actually get this thing. And to date, I think only twenty companies have actually gotten a bit license. So it's something like three or four companies a year. So in one of the most populous states in the U.S., with the center of the global financial industry there, only a few companies per year have been permitted by that government to innovate and build anything in crypto. So this is, when I say the word absurd, this is what I'm talking about. They crushed the ability for startups in crypto to be in New York. Why? Why do they do this? So a couple reasons. One is that regulators regulate and New York regulators believe that they are the reason, New York regulators believe that they are the reason that New York is the center of finance in the world. They think that it is through their wisdom and their care, they have nurtured the industry and allowed these companies to form and these markets to build because of their benevolence. So they just have sort of like a God complex and they don't realize that the market has been created there despite them and that they are actually parasitic life forms that live on the success of other people who actually build things of value. So it's part God complex and then it's part, if I'm being more charitable to them, it's part good intentions. I think most regulators have good intentions. They want to make people safer. They want to help people. They have a horribly misconstrued idea of how markets actually self-regulate and handle things better than politicians can. But their hearts are often in the right place. And so they think like, okay, this new technology came along, we need to set the rules of the road and we need to tell people how they can interact with it. And then you end up getting all these committees that start talking about it, consisting of people that have no idea what the technology is. Probably most of the people that wrote the bit license had never sent a Bitcoin transaction, had never used a block explorer before. We're not running their own nodes. You know, much less have they, any conception of where the industry was going, which is hard enough to predict even for those of us who are in it. And then they get together and write all these rules and then put them out there and they're applauded by the press for coming out and protecting the public and, you know, the main architect of the bit license, Benjamin Lasky. Months after he created the bit license, he then leaves the government, goes into private practice to help companies navigate the license that he created.  And then he ends up going to work for Ripple and is one of their board members now. And meanwhile, all the companies and people that wanted to build and innovate in New York have just been like stuck under this nonsense. So New York has been the absolute worst state in the US from a financial regulation perspective. Wyoming has been the best and most states are kind of just somewhere in between those. Great. Well, thanks to that really impassioned look into regulation in the US. I really appreciate that. And thanks for coming on the show today, Eric. It was a pleasure talking to you. Yeah, really, really good to chat. This is always fun. Thank you, everyone, for watching. That was Eric Voorhees, who is the CEO and founder of Cryptocurrency Exchange Shapeshift. My name is Jackson. I'm your host and journalist at Cointelegraph. If you enjoyed this interview, please hit that like button and subscribe to our channel so you can stay up to date on the most recent crypto content.


In this presentation, we will enter adjusting entries into our not-for-profit organization. Let's get into it with Intuitz. QuickBooks Online. Here we are in our not-for-profit company or organization dashboard. We're going to go on down to Excel first to consider what our objective will be. We're going to be entering, in essence, adjusting entries or period end entries. This is going to be in tab nine, so we're currently in the tab nine down below. I'm going to scroll back down and I'm looking at the information on the left-hand side. Before we get into the adjusting entries, do want to just touch on number seven here, which is volunteer time contributed for general activities estimated at $15,900. So just note when this is a common kind of question for not-for-profit organizations, what if there's volunteer activities? Because we've seen other types of areas where we have said, someone donated, say, a building and we recorded that as a contribution or donated something such as equipment that we used in the organization and we counted that as basically kind of like income to the organization. What about volunteer time? You would think that would be income to the organization as well. But really, we're not recording the volunteer time if it's just for general type of work, work that you could think is non-skilled or work that pretty much anybody could kind of do and you could see why that would be a kind of a problem if you were to have just general time and you're trying to track that information because it's really difficult to know the quality of time for services that may not be professional type of services. So if the services were for something like professional legal services where there's a market and there's a flat rate for it and it's going to be something that's going to be a specialized type of area where someone with some type of professional skills needed, then most likely you'd put it on the books as income and value it and rate it as the time. But if it's just volunteer time for normal kind of labor or unskilled labor as they might call it, then it will not typically result in a journal entry. So no journal entry for number seven. Number eight, so amount of pledges estimated to be uncollectible and then we have the depreciation. So the estimates declared to be uncollectible. Let's take a look at that first. If we scroll back on over, this is a similar concept to a for profit type of organization. We have these receivables. Now the receivables are even less likely to be collectible in some ways than a for profit organization. If you have a receivable in a for profit organization, then you've done work. You've either done services most likely or you've done given goods and therefore a transaction has been made. There's been there's been an exchange that has happened. And so you kind of have a right to believe that, you know, there's kind of a contract in essence or an agreement has been made in some way, shape, or form with regards to the receivables here. There's kind of still an agreement, but it's more like just a promise. There's not a mutual exchange that really happened typically because the receivables are often a result of simply promising to pay for something that we haven't given as the organization. We haven't given anything. So depending on the type of organization that the receivables, the amount of receivables that are going to be uncollectable, and our ability to follow up on collections of receivable based on an exchange having taken place, maybe, you know, there might be a greater amount that are going to be uncollectable, or we might have less power to collect on on a promise that doesn't isn't backed up by some kind of exchange that has happened. So therefore we need to basically say, hey, how much of these receivables do we think are going to be uncollectable just like we would with a for profit. Now we're not going to get into the details of how you would estimate that we do have a course on allowance for doubtful accounts and estimating receivables if you want to get into that in more detail. But in but in essence, you might look at something like an aging account and see and then percentage look at past the past and and project into the future, how much of the receivables we think are uncollectable. Once we do that, we're not going to write down the receivable count account directly, because we don't know which accounts are not going to be receivable. And if we were to write down the receivable account, we would have to assign a customer and it would mess up our collection ability where our sub ledger wouldn't line up because it would be difficult to line up the sub ledger. And also we want to tell our reader, hey, this is just an estimate. In other words, if we make another account, a contra revenue account like allowance for uncollectable pledges, this tells the reader, hey, look, this is an amount that we think is going to be uncollectable. It's just an estimate. This is the amount that is actually on the books that we're trying to collect on the difference between the two is our as is our estimated collectible amount. So therefore, we're going to be decreasing the allow or we're going to increase the contra allowance, decreasing the net receivables. And then if you scroll down the other side, then if you think about it, what happened here, the contributions generally without restrictions is generally overstated. If you're saying, hey, look, the accounts receivable, we're not going to collect on them. What's the transaction to get the accounts receivable on the books? You debit the accounts receivable and your credit revenue. So you're saying, so we got to think here, well, if you're saying that revenue is overstated, then you would think that the contributions of revenue or if you're saying the accounts receivable is overstated, then you would think that the income is also overstated. And so you'd think that the other side would decrease the income account. So either you increase decrease the income account to fix this, or oftentimes we don't do that because we often just have the income account go up and the other side then goes to an expense account. So in other words, either you should decrease the income, or we'll do the other, which is to increase an expense, which is what we will do here, we're going to increase an expense, which is provision for uncollectable pledges. So there's the provision for uncollectable pledges. This is basically equivalent to bad debt expense for a for-profit organization. So there's the transaction that we need. It's going to be looking like this in terms of a journal entry. So I'm going to go ahead and highlight this. I'm going to make this green. We're just going to do this with an adjusting entry. This is a month end adjusting entry. We typically do this at a cutoff date at the point in time that we need to make the financial statements as of this is typically something that an accountant would help out with possibly a CPA firm to help out with on the valuation. In other words, you might separate to some degree the data input type of activities, the bookkeeping more kind of data input activities versus the month end activities where you're going to make the financial statements as accurate as possible on an accrual basis or whatever basis necessary for whatever reporting needs that you need for those reports. Okay, so now we're going to go back to QuickBooks. We're going to hit the plus button. We're going to go into the other section on the right. We're going to go down to the journal entry. We're going to be entering the journal entry. We're going to be using the old debits and the old credits. This is going to happen as of the end of the month. So I'm going to say January 31st and picking up our debit and credit over here. We're going to be saying that this is going to be for the provision for uncollectible pledges. Now we almost certainly do not have that account in QuickBooks yet in our default account. So I'm going to copy this and I'm going to add the account. So I'm going to go back on over here, see if they let me put that full long name in there and they do it looks like. So I'm going to say that it's going to be not a bank account, but an expense type of account. So this is going to be an expense type of account. And then on the detail item, I just want really other because I don't have a whole lot of purpose on other business expense. And then the name is what's important. There we have it, the name and the type expense type. Let's save and close that. Then tabbing through, I want to put on the adjust on the description just that it's an adjusting. I'll just put a DJ entry and that tells, you know, the reader, whoever's using it, as well as the normal accounting department that, Hey, look, this is the adjusting process. So which might be separate from the normal bookkeeping process. I forgot the amount, which is 21 six. So here's the amount 21 six. And we don't need a name and the class, we're going to keep it as unclassified right now. And again, we'll go in and break out those classes, as we said, with the light with the other with the other expenses as well. Then the other side is going to go to the kind of like the allowance type of account, which we're going to call up here. And once again, they almost certainly do not have it in QuickBooks, I'm not even going to look for it in our default chart of accounts, I'm just going to add it here and add it tab. And this one's going to be now you might think, Hey, we should put this in account and accounts receivable type of account. But the accounts receivable account is a little bit tricky because they require you to add a customer to it. And that the whole point or part of the point is we don't know which customers to apply it to. So what we need to do then is put it into an other current asset type of account. So we'll put it into other current assets. And then allowance for bad debt is actually that it's actually a good account for it there. Although again, it doesn't do much. I'm not sure what that field does, but here's the name. That's what we want allowance for uncollectible pledges. And then we're going to say save and close on that one. So that looks good. There's the credit adjusting entry that looks good. So let's go ahead and save this. I'm going to say save and close and QuickBooks says, Hey, you're missing the class field. So we're like, thanks for letting us know. But that's okay. We've thought about that. We're going to record it. We're going to then go to the reports. Let's go to the reports on the left hand side. Let's open up the balance sheet and the income statement starting with the old balance sheet. Opening up the balance sheet, we're going to change the dates up top. We're going from January. Let's bring on out to December 123120. 123120. Then we will run that report. Then I'm going to copy this report. I'm going to go to the tab up top, right click on it and duplicate the tab back to the tab to the left of them. And let's do the same thing for the P and L, the profit and loss, the income statement. So we're going to open up the standard P and L report. Here it is, the P and L want that's the one we want. And then I'll change the date range once again from January. Let's bring it out to December just for the fun of it. As long as it's including January, we should be okay. Run that report. Then let's close up the hamburger and hold down control, scroll up just a bit to get it up to that 125 that we like to be. That's too far. That's 150. I like it at the 125. All right. So what did we do then? If we go to the balance sheet, let's go back to the balance sheet, close the hamburger. And we have this uncollectible account now. So the allowance for uncollectible pledges has now been increased. Notice it's a negative amount because it's a contra asset account. In other words, we've got the receivable on the books at that 217.1. This is kind of connected to the receivable. So the net amount is going to be that minus this amount here. Now also note that this was also that this discounted amount we saw in a prior presentation is basically also a contra account of this receivable. So these two things are basically decreasing what we think the net value is of the receivable telling our reader once again, that here's the amount that we actually hope to collect. Here's the amount that we think is uncollectible. This amount is a discount for an amount that we don't expect to collect for some time due to the time value of money. All right. And then the other side is going to go on to the P&L, the profit and loss, where we should have an expense item down below for the provision for uncollectible pledges. If we go into this account, note that it will then say that it's an adjusting entry and be in a journal entry format, which will help people to understand and see that, you know, this is part of the adjusting process. So in other words, if you're in the normal data entry bookkeeping and not in the adjusting department is separate, you can see, oh, that's something funny that the adjusting people did, hopefully doesn't mess us up too bad, right, to make the financial statements correct for reporting purposes as of the end of the period. Okay, so I'm not going to report it by class now because it would go into unclassified as we have seen before. We will deal with the allocation of classes in a future presentation. So I'm going to go back up top. I'm going to right click on this tab and duplicate this tab. So we now have the balance sheet. We've got the income statement or P and L profit and loss and then the tab to the left where we will do new stuff. So let's go back on over to the expense form here and see the next item, the next one we're going to do, I think deals with depreciation, the next adjustment. So in thinking about depreciation, I'm going to go back up to number five where we put the depreciable assets on the books. Now we're not going to get into a lot of detail on the calculations for depreciations because there's a lot of variance within the calculation of the depreciation. But just note the idea and the principle of this is that we're going to be putting this on the books. So we're going to put this equipment on the books as we have done in a prior presentation, not as an expense, but as an asset that we put them on the books up top as an asset. Why? Why didn't we expense them? Because they're going to be long live. They're going to be used for a long time into the future. And if we expense them, it'll distort our matching principle. We won't be able to match one period to another period as well. Therefore we're going to put it on the books as an asset and then allocate the expense out over the time that these are going to be used. Then of course the question is, well, how are you going to allocate that out? How are you going to figure out how much to allocate? And that's where the confusion comes in because there's different methods to use and there's different useful lives to use. And if you think about a tax depreciation method, if there's reporting purposes for the not-for-profit organization for taxes, it may differ for taxes than for the normal bookkeeping as well. But generally the rule is that you're going to take all the depreciation methods, kind of start or stem from a straight line method, which is the first thing you would probably think of if you were faced with this problem. You're going to say, oh, well, I don't know. If it's 24,500 and I think it's going to last for like 10 years, I'll divide it by 10 maybe. And then I'd have 2,400 a year or something like that. That's how you start to kind of think this out. And then you can think about other methods that would go into it. So again, I'm not going to get into the methods right now. You also might think about the depreciation being helped to be done by your tax professional because all the equipment purchases typically need to be put into the tax return and they will typically help to generate the depreciation schedules, tax and books possibly, which can help you to then they can give that information to the bookkeeper that can then record the depreciation. And in that case, we would basically know the depreciation amount from the tax professional and simply need to record the journal entry. So what's going to happen then we're going to say, okay, this equipment needs to go down, but I'm not going to write it down directly because it's just an estimate. So we're going to do a similar thing here. We're going to tell our reader, hey, look, this is just an estimate. We're not going to write down depreciation directly. We're going to put it into accumulated depreciation. Therefore, you know, this is what we bought it for all the equipment more than one piece. And this is the depreciation or accumulated depreciation for its life. Then the other side going to depreciation expense down below increasing the expense of assuming it's increasing as it is used as opposed to as a point it was purchased. Therefore, the entry is going to be looking like this. I'll make it green because that's the one we're working on at this point. And then we'll enter it in the system in a similar fashion as we did for the prior journal entry. So I'm going to go back on over. We're back on the first tab. I'm going to open up the old hamburger going to hold down control and scroll down. So we get to the 100. So it doesn't do anything funny. Then we're going to go to the new tab. We're going to go to the other on the right side. We're going to go down to the journal entry back to the journal entry. We're going to add these as of the 31st. These are always at the end of the month at the end. And we're going to say, all right, did they have a depreciation expense account? I don't think so because I don't think they had a fixed asset type of account, but we'll look. So I'll look it out. I'll look it over. I'll look it out. Look it over this way. And then I'll try to type in a depreciation. No, they don't have it. So depreciation going to add it. It's going to be an expense type of account. So we're going to say, Hey, this is an expense type of account. And right here. And then the other side, I'll just put like other expense. And then it's going to go into depreciation. So that looks good. Save and close amounts. What's the amounts going to be given to us by the tax professional possibly 4,400 4,400. We'll just take that number and run with it. No class that we're going to be put in here. The description we do want to put that it's an adjusting entry at the minimum. Just to say, just tell our readers or whoever's working with the books. Hey, look, this is what those funny adjusting department people did. The other side is going to go to accumulated depreciation. So I'm going to say accumulated depreciation. So it's spelled like this or this is how I'm spelling it. I think that's right. It's going to be accumulated depreciation. And then I'm going to say tab and then add the account. Now the account is going to be a fixed asset type of account. We're going to say it's a fixed asset type of account. It's going to be accumulated amortization. Now accumulated depreciation. Again, this doesn't matter much, but I'll put accumulated depreciation. That's what it is. And there we have it here. So that looks good. Let's go ahead and save and close that. And then that looks good. We don't need a class. We're not going to do the classes at this point. So let's save that and see what happens. We're going to go ahead and save. Say yes. Thank you for the reminder QuickBooks. Then go back to the balance sheets and then we're going to scroll back up top. I'm going to run that report again. So we have a fresh report. We can work with the fresh report. Hold down control. I'm going to scroll up just a bit to get us back up to that 125% because that's where I like to be. And then I'm going to scroll down and we got in the fixed assets, the accumulated depreciation. Now note that the equipment's on the bottom, the accumulated depreciation's on top. That's kind of backwards. Why does it do that? Because it's under the fixed asset category as it should be. And then by default, it then goes to alphabetical order. So that's a little funny. You can fix that by using account numbers, but we're not going to get into that now. And the point is that we have the 4,400. It's another contra asset account because you're going to basically say, Hey, this is on the books for 24,400 cost minus the 4,400 accumulated depreciation. Therefore, the net or book value is the 20,100. And then if we go to the other side, that's going to be on the P and L profit and loss, let's go on over to the profit loss, close up the hamburger. Let's update the report or run that report. So we make sure we're using fresh reports. And then we're going to scroll back down. And there we have the depreciation the 4,400. If we go into the 4,400, we then see the journal entry. So it's a journal entry type of form journal entry here that will help us to see that it's an adjusting entry into the period adjusting entry and not part of the normal kind of day to day type of transactions. Scrolling back up, let's go back to the P and L. I won't go into the profit and loss by class because these will be unclassified at this point in time. And we'll talk about allocating the expenses out to the proper classes in a future presentation. That's going to be it for now. Let's get out of here.


It feels like the governors of Texas and Florida are trying to compete to see who can be the most destructive force to democracy in modern American history. And whenever you think that one of them has a leg up on the other, the other person says, hold my beer and they outdo themselves. So when it comes to voter suppression, we already know what Texas did last year. But now Ron DeSantis drew up his own congressional map, which I mean, the governor is not supposed to be doing this. But regardless, he did this and expectedly he decided to disenfranchise black voters in Florida in a way that's so shameless, it's almost cartoonishly evil. But nonetheless, here we are. And this was approved by Florida's legislature. So as Sam Levine of the Guardian explains, Florida Republicans approved a new congressional map that severely curtail black voting power in the state on Thursday, taking a final vote as black lawmakers staged a sit-in on the floor of the legislature. The new plan, which was drawn by Governor Ron DeSantis, gives Republicans a significant boost in the state and is one of the most aggressively gerrymandered maps passed in recent months. Republicans would be expected to win 20 of the state's 28 congressional districts, a four seat increase from the 16 they hold now. It also eliminates two of the four districts where black voters have been able to elect the candidate of their choice. A focal point of the new maps has been the way it eliminates the fifth congressional district which stretches from Jacksonville to Tallahassee. 46% of that district is currently black and it is represented by Al Lawson, a black Democrat. DeSantis is openly called for getting rid of that district, saying it is unusually shaped and was unlawfully drawn based on race. After vetoing a proposal that would have allowed black voters in Jacksonville to continue to elect the candidate of their choice, DeSantis' map breaks up the district into four pieces in which black voters comprise a much smaller share of the population. DeSantis and lawyers from his office have said the law allows them to dismantle the district. Voting rights experts have said the plan brazenly disregards laws designed to protect the interests of minority voters. Republicans would be favored to win all of those districts. So this is one of the most shameless power grabs in the country. And he's doing it right out in the open, right in front of everyone's faces. And obviously this is going to be challenged because of how shameless it is.  And we know why they do this. It's an electoral strategy because they have no policies to offer to black and brown people. The problem is that they can't get them to vote for them. So what do you do if you can't win over this crowd because you're unwilling to offer them policies? Well, you just try to dilute their voting power and stop them from voting. Could they potentially win over these voters by offering them something? Sure, it's possible, but they don't want to try and see if they try to win over black people.  So this is the easiest electoral strategy for them to pursue. And they've done this time and again, and they deny it while still doing it in the open, which is almost impressive with how bold they are. They'll enact these voter ID laws that disproportionately affect black and brown communities. They will reduce the number of polling stations in particular locations that are predominantly black and brown. And then they'll claim voter suppression. What voter suppression? We're concerned with voter integrity, Lamau. It's a joke at this point. It's a joke at this point. Meanwhile, this is taking place and Democrats in Congress are, I guess, sitting around twirling their thumbs. Is there a single Democrat that's even mentioned voting rights within the last month? I mean, Biden said that he was going to fight. And when was the last time we've heard him mention voting rights publicly? I mean, maybe he said it in a tweet, but they're allowing this to happen. Like you are in control of the White House, the Senate and the House. There's no reason why you are not fighting tooth and nail to pass something, anything. This is democracy that we're talking about. And we're basically reaching the point of no return to where the Democratic Party is letting Republicans do so much damage that the harm that they're causing now is almost irreparable. I mean, it's certainly irreparable the damage that they're allowing to happen to the planet, just broadly speaking, not just run to sentence, but generally speaking. But now if they allow Republicans to basically seize power like this and we're not even talking voting rights seriously, I just, there's no hope. Now, I want to be clear that state Democrats in Florida, they tried to fight this. They did everything that they could. NBC News reporter Mark Caputo writes, Florida House Democrats opposed to the GOP led Legislature's rubber stamping of Governor DeSantis's congressional map that diminishes a Democratic minority heavy seat, stopped the session with a sit-in and a prayer in. So they tried, they fought, they protested, but at the end of the day, they didn't have the votes. So it's incumbent on Democrats to do everything in their power. And I know the excuses. Kirsten Sonoma, Joe Manchin. Okay, you've tried the carrot approach, tried the stick approach. Try anything. Try to offer them pork with some, like literally you can take pork specifically for Arizona and West Virginia and put that in the voting rights legislation just to goad Sonoma and Manchin into voting for it. And even though that's like a problem, it's preferable to just not letting voting rights pass federally because this is going on. It's astonishing to me that nothing is being done about this federally. It's shocking. Well, it's not, I shouldn't say it's shocking, right? But it's shocking how they're not even trying to address this performatively, right? I mean, it needs to be addressed substantively with legislation, but they're not even paying lip service to the idea that they're fighting for voting rights. Now, when it comes to constitutional rights, that's not the only thing under attack in Florida because Ron DeSantis is also targeting freedom of expression. And he's not just targeting anyone's freedom of expression. He is specifically going out the freedom of expression in a way that's so nefarious that it makes Texas's law where they try to punish parents with trans children somehow seem less cruel. And that's because it is. So Brian Tyler Cohen writes the Florida Department of Health just issued guidelines telling doctors to medically detransition all transgender youth and ban them from social transition treatment, including name, pronoun and clothing changes. Here is the memo from the Florida Department of Health saying that social gender transition should not be an option for youth, including name, pronoun and clothing changes. So they are literally restricting every conceivable element of gender expression. And they're quite literally dictating what types of clothing your child is allowed to wear. Talk about nanny state and what are Democrats doing? It's not just Florida to be clear. We're using them as an example. But there has been almost 250 bills introduced in state legislatures across the country that are anti LGBTQ and they disproportionately are anti trans bills. And what are Democrats doing nationally?  That's what they're doing. They're doing nothing in Missouri. They're debating a bill to ban transitions up to the age of 25. So we're actually talking about adults. They're saying no, you can't transition. Gender expression falls under the First Amendment. It is freedom of speech, but these free speech warriors are going after one of the most basic ways that we express ourselves.   Sorry, that's not okay. What do you even say to that? We are devolving so quickly as a country. This is tyrannical. This is not what should happen in a democratic society. In a democratic society, civil rights and civil liberties should be protected and each generation should contribute to that project of expanding civil rights and civil liberties. But just within the past couple of years, we've gone backwards at such an alarming rate that I don't know how long it's going to take to undo this damage. And we're going backwards at a time when Democrats should be setting the agenda when they're in power, when they can write federal legislation and they have enough members of their own party in Congress to where they can pass that. It's just that they don't want to fight. They're letting this happen and they're sitting idly by doing nothing. They didn't even pass the Equality Act, which simply says you can't discriminate against people based on sexual orientation or gender identity.  Didn't even pass that. I mean the bare minimum expectation and they fumbled. Couldn't even get voting rights done.  See, I expect this type of repulsive authoritarian behavior from Republicans. And as Ron DeSantis does this, the more ghoulish and cruel that he gets, the more popular he becomes in the state of Florida, because Republicans love this.  They love or diluting their power to be specific. But I mean like, they love that he's doing this and this is to be expected. Republicans, they behave in a very predictable manner. But Democrats, now that they have power, it is incumbent on them to use this limited window of time to enact federal legislation that stops all of this. I mean, we might actually see Roe v. Wade undone by the Supreme Court in a matter of weeks at this point and there's zero legislation codifying Roe v. Wade. It's maddening. It is maddening. We have this party, the Republican Party, which is essentially an organized death cult and you have the only opposition in the country just sitting back and doing nothing. It's, what do you even say? The situation feels hopeless. Our country is being ripped apart at the seams by Republicans. They are destroying this country and Democrats aren't even trying to fight. They're not even pretending as if they're fighting. They're barely even paying us lip service. Perhaps you could find a few nice tweets talking about why voter suppression is bad. But the question is what are they going to do about it? And by now it's evident Democrats aren't going to do a goddamn thing about that. So the country will continue to be destroyed by Republicans and there's no electorally viable party that's actually going to fight against them because Democrats have made it very clear. No, we're not going to fight. Not even going to push back rhetorically against this whole grooming thing that Republicans have been doing. Not going to even do the bare minimum. Sorry. Should have voted harder. You should have given us a 60 Senate majority. Should have given us 70 just to make sure that we have some wiggle room. It's just it's never going to be enough. They're not going to take responsibility and they will always blame voters for not coming out to do, you know, the bare minimum.  Do you understand what he's doing?   Are you okay with women in Texas possibly dying due to complications from an unsafe illegal abortion after you voted to ban this? I mean, at this point, you also, I'm sorry, you have to put the burden on the people who keep electing these ghouls. You elect monsters. Don't be surprised when you get monstrous policies.   They love the racism. They love the transphobia. They love it because they're monsters. And this is their only political identity. That's the totality of it. They don't have any core economic beliefs. They don't have a political philosophy that they abide by. It's just reactionary hate.  And that's what gets them going.  Seeing, you know, Republican governors like Ron DeSantis and Greg Abbott pass these bans on gender for men care for trans youth. It's just, it's all about punching down and it's sick.  It's just, God, like what are we doing? Is this really who we want to be folks?  Do we really want to spend all of that time making people's lives miserable? Is that really what we want to do?  Get it together, America. Goddamn.