14 Nov
2019
14 Nov
'19
2:09 a.m.
g11? for ana log? and g11a? for? digital and pulse
we have a G11A? new in box unused? with cellophane surround available? respond off list
14 Nov
14 Nov
2:38 a.m.
correction my email is couryhouse at aol.com reply to me direct? thanks? Ed#
In a message dated 11/14/2019 3:10:09 AM US Mountain Standard Time, cctalk at
classiccmp.org writes:
g11? transistor for analog? and g11a transistor for? digital and pulsewe have a G11A?
transistor new in box unused? with cellophane surround available? respond off list
3:49 a.m.
At 10:09 AM 14/11/2019 +0000, ED SHARPE wrote:
g11?for analog?and g11a?for?digital and pulse
we have a G11A? new in box unused? with cellophane surround available? respond off list
Pretty cool. Some pics down a way in this page:
https://sites.google.com/site/transistorhistory/Home/us-semiconductor-manuf…
6:22 a.m.
On Nov 14, 2019, at 6:49 AM, Guy Dunphy via cctalk
<cctalk at classiccmp.org> wrote:
At 10:09 AM 14/11/2019 +0000, ED SHARPE wrote:
Neat. Speaking of old semiconductor history, I'd love to see again the description
(data sheet or magazine article, I'm no longer sure) that my father had, about FETs
made from copper oxide. Possibly before the 1940s, I don't remember. I've had no
luck tracking any of this down.
paul
g11 for analog and g11a for digital and pulse
we have a G11A new in box unused with cellophane surround available respond off list
Pretty cool. Some pics down a way in this page:
https://sites.google.com/site/transistorhistory/Home/us-semiconductor-manuf…
7 a.m.
New subject: ge first transistors
On 11/14/19 6:22 AM, Paul Koning via cctalk wrote:
Neat. Speaking of old semiconductor history, I'd
love to see again the description (data sheet or magazine article, I'm no longer sure)
that my father had, about FETs made from copper oxide. Possibly before the 1940s, I
don't remember. I've had no luck tracking any of this down.
Julius Edgar Lilienfeld filed a patent in 1925 (US 1745175)
Also US 1900018 and an interesting derivative US US1877140.
Also, Lilienfeld was the inventor of the electrolytic capacitor.
I'm not sure about the exact copper-oxide FET article, it's not a dead
topic; see: https://aip.scitation.org/doi/10.1063/1.3589374
I'm surprised that Brattain, Shockley et al. are regarded in higher
regard by the history writers, particularly because they were aware of
Lilienfeld's early work and worded their patent to avoid prior art issues.
I'd ask one of today's historians which transistor type occurs in the
greatest numbers today--I suspect it's FET by a long shot over BJT.
--Chuck
7:08 a.m.
New subject: ge first transistors
On Nov 14, 2019, at 10:00 AM, Chuck Guzis via cctalk
<cctalk at classiccmp.org> wrote:
On 11/14/19 6:22 AM, Paul Koning via cctalk wrote:
Nice. Thank you!
Neat. Speaking of old semiconductor history,
I'd love to see again the description (data sheet or magazine article, I'm no
longer sure) that my father had, about FETs made from copper oxide. Possibly before the
1940s, I don't remember. I've had no luck tracking any of this down.
Julius Edgar Lilienfeld filed a patent in 1925 (US 1745175) Also US 1900018 and an interesting derivative US
US1877140.
Also, Lilienfeld was the inventor of the electrolytic capacitor.
I'm not sure about the exact copper-oxide FET article, it's not a dead
topic; see: https://aip.scitation.org/doi/10.1063/1.3589374
I'm surprised that Brattain, Shockley et al. are regarded in higher
regard by the history writers, particularly because they were aware of
Lilienfeld's early work and worded their patent to avoid prior art issues.
I'd ask one of today's historians which transistor type occurs in the
greatest numbers today--I suspect it's FET by a long shot over BJT.
By a mile, for sure, given that LSI integrated circuits are mostly CMOS FET transistors.
Then again, for the first several decades bipolar transistors were pretty much all
you'd see.
There's a familiar pattern here. X does something first, but that discovery
doesn't make a real impact on history. Y does it some time later, and that one does
start a new historic trend. So Y gets most of the credit and X is either a footnote or is
generallly forgotten.
Some examples:
X = Leif Erikson, Y = Columbus (travel to America).
X = Hanso Idzerda, Y = Edwin Armstrong (FM radio).
paul
11:53 a.m.
New subject: ge first transistors
On 11/14/2019 8:08 AM, Paul Koning via cctalk wrote:
But then it takes a third party to take out of the lab make it public
like the transitor radio,or a transtorized computer or even hearing
aids. I like this place for transistor history.
http://www.semiconductormuseum.com/Museum_Index.htm
Ben.
PS X..Y... Z = Beatles (The Britsh invade America) :)
On Nov 14, 2019, at 10:00 AM, Chuck Guzis via
cctalk <cctalk at classiccmp.org> wrote:
On 11/14/19 6:22 AM, Paul Koning via cctalk wrote:
Nice. Thank you!
Neat. Speaking of old semiconductor history,
I'd love to see again the description (data sheet or magazine article, I'm no
longer sure) that my father had, about FETs made from copper oxide. Possibly before the
1940s, I don't remember. I've had no luck tracking any of this down.
Julius Edgar Lilienfeld filed a patent in 1925 (US 1745175) Also US 1900018 and an interesting derivative US
US1877140.
Also, Lilienfeld was the inventor of the electrolytic capacitor.
I'm not sure about the exact copper-oxide FET article, it's not a dead
topic; see: https://aip.scitation.org/doi/10.1063/1.3589374
I'm surprised that Brattain, Shockley et al. are regarded in higher
regard by the history writers, particularly because they were aware of
Lilienfeld's early work and worded their patent to avoid prior art issues.
I'd ask one of today's historians which transistor type occurs in the
greatest numbers today--I suspect it's FET by a long shot over BJT.
By a mile, for sure, given that LSI integrated circuits are mostly CMOS FET transistors.
Then again, for the first several decades bipolar transistors were pretty much all
you'd see.
There's a familiar pattern here. X does something first, but that discovery
doesn't make a real impact on history. Y does it some time later, and that one does
start a new historic trend. So Y gets most of the credit and X is either a footnote or is
generallly forgotten.
Some examples:
X = Leif Erikson, Y = Columbus (travel to America).
X = Hanso Idzerda, Y = Edwin Armstrong (FM radio).
paul
12:30 p.m.
New subject: ge first transistors
On 11/14/19 11:53 AM, ben via cctalk wrote:
But then it takes a third party to take out of the lab
make it public
like the transitor radio,or a transtorized computer or even hearing
aids. I like this place for transistor history.
http://www.semiconductormuseum.com/Museum_Index.htm
Ben.
Neither did Edison invent the carbon-filament incandescent lamp.
What got him his reputation was that he offered the complete package of
generation, distribution and illumination.
But then, as we all know, Steve Jobs invented the microprocessor...
--Chuck
9:06 a.m.
New subject: ge first transistors
On 11/14/2019 09:00 AM, Chuck Guzis via cctalk wrote:
Julius Edgar Lilienfeld filed a patent in 1925 (US
1745175)
My understanding is he got a single transistor to work ONCE
for a few hours. Maybe actually he got a couple to work,
but they were very fragile and degraded quickly. The Bell
Labs guys got their to work for at least weeks and could
make them fairly reliably. Lillienfeld's transistor was a
field effect type, not BJT. I think the ability in 1947 to
manufacture semiconductor materials and understanding of
doping and other processing was why the Bell Labs guys were
so much more successful.
It was only 5 years before commercial transistorized
products started to appear.
Jon
11:23 a.m.
New subject: ge first transistors
bell patent attorneys had to carefully dance around? Lilienfeld's early work i
understand...? ?Ed#
In a message dated 11/14/2019 8:01:00 AM US Mountain Standard Time, cctalk at
classiccmp.org writes:
On 11/14/19 6:22 AM, Paul Koning via cctalk wrote:
Neat.? Speaking of old semiconductor history, I'd
love to see again the description (data sheet or magazine article, I'm no longer sure)
that my father had, about FETs made from copper oxide.? Possibly before the 1940s, I
don't remember.? I've had no luck tracking any of this down.
Julius Edgar Lilienfeld filed a patent in 1925 (US 1745175)
Also US 1900018 and an interesting derivative US US1877140.
Also, Lilienfeld was the inventor of the electrolytic capacitor.
I'm not sure about the exact copper-oxide FET article, it's not a dead
topic; see: https://aip.scitation.org/doi/10.1063/1.3589374
I'm surprised that Brattain, Shockley et al. are regarded in higher
regard by the history writers, particularly because they were aware of
Lilienfeld's early work and worded their patent to avoid prior art issues.
I'd ask one of today's historians which transistor type occurs in the
greatest numbers today--I suspect it's FET by a long shot over BJT.
--Chuck
8:05 a.m.
FETs come in to basic types, junction and MOS. Junction FETs can only be depletion types
but MOS can be both, depletion or enhancement. CMOS uses enhancement types. The CuO was a
depletion type junction FET. MOS is about as different from a junction FET as a junction
FET is from a bipolar transistor. All three use semiconductors but in different ways.
Connecting the three types and saying it was invented in the 1920's is silly. The MOS
FET is only in name related to the CuO FET. They were both field effect. They didn't
have anywhere near the manufacturing abilities to make MOS FETs at that time, nor did they
understand how it worked to make one.
Dwight
________________________________
From: cctalk <cctalk-bounces at classiccmp.org> on behalf of Paul Koning via cctalk
<cctalk at classiccmp.org>
Sent: Thursday, November 14, 2019 6:22 AM
To: Guy Dunphy <guykd at optusnet.com.au>; General Discussion: On-Topic and
Off-Topic Posts <cctalk at classiccmp.org>
Subject: Re: ge first transistors
On Nov 14, 2019, at 6:49 AM, Guy Dunphy via cctalk
<cctalk at classiccmp.org> wrote:
At 10:09 AM 14/11/2019 +0000, ED SHARPE wrote:
Neat. Speaking of old semiconductor history, I'd love to see again the description
(data sheet or magazine article, I'm no longer sure) that my father had, about FETs
made from copper oxide. Possibly before the 1940s, I don't remember. I've had no
luck tracking any of this down.
paul
g11 for analog and g11a for digital and pulse
we have a G11A new in box unused with cellophane surround available respond off list
Pretty cool. Some pics down a way in this page:
https://sites.google.com/site/transistorhistory/Home/us-semiconductor-manuf…
8:22 a.m.
New subject: ge first transistors
On 11/14/19 8:05 AM, dwight via cctalk wrote:
FETs come in to basic types, junction and MOS.
Junction FETs can only be depletion types but MOS can be both, depletion or enhancement.
CMOS uses enhancement types. The CuO was a depletion type junction FET. MOS is about as
different from a junction FET as a junction FET is from a bipolar transistor. All three
use semiconductors but in different ways. Connecting the three types and saying it was
invented in the 1920's is silly. The MOS FET is only in name related to the CuO FET.
They were both field effect. They didn't have anywhere near the manufacturing
abilities to make MOS FETs at that time, nor did they understand how it worked to make
one.
Dwight
So what's your point?
That Shockley et al. invented the MOSFET?
That Lilienfeld didn't invent a type of transistor before Shockley et al.?
That Lilienfeld didn't invent the FET?
I'm trying to follow.
The success of any sort of transistor in my own opinion, owes more
toward materials science (e.g. zone refining) than the notion of the
devices themselves.
Negative-resistance solid-state devices were well known even prior to
Lilienfeld. It's just that material technology hadn't evolved to a
point where they were commercially viable.
One fellow has documented his success building oscillators and
amplifiers using galvanized steel bits.
--Chuck
10:26 a.m.
New subject: ge first transistors
My point was that lumping them all together is like lumping propeller plane, jet planes
and rockets as all the same. They all use the principles of throwing mass in the opposite
direction of desired motion. They are still quite different when you look just a little
closer.
I have a clever way of using two junction FETs, N and P types, to make a nice negative
resistance device. Without much extra things, it can make a nice low power FM jammer. I
never did look to see how high a frequency it would go. No need to buy an expensive tunnel
diode.
Dwight
________________________________
From: cctalk <cctalk-bounces at classiccmp.org> on behalf of Chuck Guzis via cctalk
<cctalk at classiccmp.org>
Sent: Thursday, November 14, 2019 8:22 AM
To: dwight via cctalk <cctalk at classiccmp.org>
Subject: Re: ge first transistors
On 11/14/19 8:05 AM, dwight via cctalk wrote:
FETs come in to basic types, junction and MOS.
Junction FETs can only be depletion types but MOS can be both, depletion or enhancement.
CMOS uses enhancement types. The CuO was a depletion type junction FET. MOS is about as
different from a junction FET as a junction FET is from a bipolar transistor. All three
use semiconductors but in different ways. Connecting the three types and saying it was
invented in the 1920's is silly. The MOS FET is only in name related to the CuO FET.
They were both field effect. They didn't have anywhere near the manufacturing
abilities to make MOS FETs at that time, nor did they understand how it worked to make
one.
Dwight
So what's your point?
That Shockley et al. invented the MOSFET?
That Lilienfeld didn't invent a type of transistor before Shockley et al.?
That Lilienfeld didn't invent the FET?
I'm trying to follow.
The success of any sort of transistor in my own opinion, owes more
toward materials science (e.g. zone refining) than the notion of the
devices themselves.
Negative-resistance solid-state devices were well known even prior to
Lilienfeld. It's just that material technology hadn't evolved to a
point where they were commercially viable.
One fellow has documented his success building oscillators and
amplifiers using galvanized steel bits.
--Chuck
11:08 a.m.
New subject: ge first transistors
On 11/14/19 10:26 AM, dwight via cctalk wrote:
My point was that lumping them all together is like
lumping propeller plane, jet planes and rockets as all the same. They all use the
principles of throwing mass in the opposite direction of desired motion. They are still
quite different when you look just a little closer.
I have a clever way of using two junction FETs, N and P types, to make a nice negative
resistance device. Without much extra things, it can make a nice low power FM jammer. I
never did look to see how high a frequency it would go. No need to buy an expensive tunnel
diode.
Dwight
So, Shockley et al. didn't invent the IGBT either.
JFETs are enormously useful as constant-current devices as well as small
signal switches.
I've got a bunch of tunnel diodes; never found a practical use for them
for me.
--Chuck
11:52 a.m.
New subject: ge first transistors
Just a handful of current day uP use more CMOS transistors than all the junction
transistors produced by any one factory per year.
Dwight
________________________________
From: cctalk <cctalk-bounces at classiccmp.org> on behalf of Chuck Guzis via cctalk
<cctalk at classiccmp.org>
Sent: Thursday, November 14, 2019 11:08 AM
To: dwight via cctalk <cctalk at classiccmp.org>
Subject: Re: ge first transistors
On 11/14/19 10:26 AM, dwight via cctalk wrote:
My point was that lumping them all together is like
lumping propeller plane, jet planes and rockets as all the same. They all use the
principles of throwing mass in the opposite direction of desired motion. They are still
quite different when you look just a little closer.
I have a clever way of using two junction FETs, N and P types, to make a nice negative
resistance device. Without much extra things, it can make a nice low power FM jammer. I
never did look to see how high a frequency it would go. No need to buy an expensive tunnel
diode.
Dwight
So, Shockley et al. didn't invent the IGBT either.
JFETs are enormously useful as constant-current devices as well as small
signal switches.
I've got a bunch of tunnel diodes; never found a practical use for them
for me.
--Chuck
12:27 p.m.
New subject: ge first transistors
On 2019-Nov-14, at 10:26 AM, dwight via cctalk wrote:
______________________________
From: cctalk <cctalk-bounces at classiccmp.org> on behalf of Chuck Guzis via cctalk
<cctalk at classiccmp.org>
Sent: Thursday, November 14, 2019 8:22 AM
To: dwight via cctalk <cctalk at classiccmp.org>
Subject: Re: ge first transistors
On 11/14/19 8:05 AM, dwight via cctalk wrote:
FETs come in to basic types, junction and MOS.
Junction FETs can only be depletion types but MOS can be both, depletion or enhancement.
CMOS uses enhancement types. The CuO was a depletion type junction FET. MOS is about as
different from a junction FET as a junction FET is from a bipolar transistor. All three
use semiconductors but in different ways. Connecting the three types and saying it was
invented in the 1920's is silly. The MOS FET is only in name related to the CuO FET.
They were both field effect. They didn't have anywhere near the manufacturing
abilities to make MOS FETs at that time, nor did they understand how it worked to make
one.
Dwight
So what's your point?
That Shockley et al. invented the MOSFET?
That Lilienfeld didn't invent a type of transistor before Shockley et al.?
That Lilienfeld didn't invent the FET?
I'm trying to follow.
The success of any sort of transistor in my own opinion, owes more
toward materials science (e.g. zone refining) than the notion of the
devices themselves. ...
--Chuck
My point was that lumping them all together is like lumping propeller plane, jet planes
and rockets as all the same. They all use the principles of throwing mass in the opposite
direction of desired motion. They are still quite different when you look just a little
closer.
...
Dwight
MOSFETs and JFETs share the same fundamental operating principle: variable constriction of
a conducting channel by electrostatic forces. Their implementation details differ,
essentially in the manner of achieving gate isolation.
This is significantly different than the fundamental operating principle of BJTs:
current-mediated conduction.
I don't get why you'd want to put them in 3 'equally different'
categories.
I see MOSFETs and JFETs in one category, BJTs in another.
Put another way, without having looked at either patent in detail, I would wonder what it
was in the Lilienfeld patent that Bell had to walk around for the BJT, other than using
semiconductors they don't have much in common. I would think if there was conflict,
the Lilienfeld patent was extremely broad. On the other hand, I could readily see how
somebody trying to patent either the JFET or the MOSFET might run afoul of the Lilienfeld
patent.
Or to use your engines analogy, Id see it more as diesel(1) and gasoline(2) engines vs
turbine(3) engines.
The first two have significant similarity distinct from the third.
1665
days inactive
1665
days old
15 comments
8 participants
participants (8)
-
bfranchuk＠jetnet.ab.ca -
bhilpert＠shaw.ca -
cclist＠sydex.com -
couryhouse＠aol.com -
dkelvey＠hotmail.com -
elson＠pico-systems.com -
guykd＠optusnet.com.au -
paulkoning＠comcast.net