4 ms·
> Transistors, the electronic amplifiers and switches found at the heart of everything from pocket radios to warehouse-size supercomputers, were invented in 194
by Rochus 5y ago
> Transistors, the electronic amplifiers and switches found at the heart of everything from pocket radios to warehouse-size supercomputers, were invented in 1947.
Is this true? Recently this article https://people.idsia.ch/~juergen/turing-oversold.html https://people.idsia.ch/~juergen/turing-oversold.html pointed to the following invention of the field-effect transistor from 1925: https://patents.google.com/patent/US1745175 https://patents.google.com/patent/US1745175
- causi 5y agoThere's a difference between patenting an idea and actually building a working device.
- Rochus 5y agoThe claim in the article was "invented in 1947"; a patent is by definition granted for an invention, regardless whether a working device was built or not.
- analog31 5y agoAs I understand it the patent is only valid if it shows that the idea can be reduced to practice.
- Rochus 5y agoNo. It must be novel, non-obvious and "useful", which obviously was considered to be fulfilled by the patent office. The patent describes how the invention can be used instead of tubes.
- pacificmint 5y agoSomeone got a patent for a warp drive [1], so I don't think being actually possible is a requirement for patents. [1] https://patents.google.com/patent/WO2001057881A1/en https://patents.google.com/patent/WO2001057881A1/en
- causi 5y agoI believe the you have a different definition of "invented" than the author and myself.
- Rochus 5y agohttps://definitions.uslegal.com/i/invention/ https://definitions.uslegal.com/i/invention/ https://www.ige.ch/en/protecting-your-ip/patents/patent-basics/what-is-an-invention https://www.ige.ch/en/protecting-your-ip/patents/patent-basi... https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/invention https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/invention
- causi 5y agoThose sources appear to exclude Lilienfeld. He didn't create a good or tool. He didn't create a material. He didn't create a manufacturing process or a control procedure or a method of measurement. Lilienfeld was a brilliant man but he didn't invent transistors any more than Albert Einstein invented gravitational wave detectors.
- Rochus 5y agoThe patent doesn't mention the term "transistor"; but obviously the patent office came to the conclusion that it is a patentable invention, and the cited by list confirms that it is considered a relevant invention by Bell Labs and other notable institutions. Prior art by Lilienfeld did even stop some applications of Bell Labs from going forward. The transistor invented in 1947 was a point-contact transistor, which is not the concept applied in micro processors as the article confirms.
- cxr 5y ago> Although both patents were granted, no records exist to prove that Heil or Lilienfeld actually constructed functioning devices. <https://www.computerhistory.org/siliconengine/field-effect-semiconductor-device-concepts-patented/ https://www.computerhistory.org/siliconengine/field-effect-s...>
- Rochus 5y agoIt's still an invention by definition (patent law). Thanks for the article; notably the article makes no doubt that the invention by Lilienfeld would have worked; apparently he just didn't build it himself.
- xyzzy21 5y agoBut it means nothing. People patented perpetual motion machines throughout the 19th and 20th centuries. So does that make the patent meaningful? NO!
- Rochus 5y agoApparently this is an emotional topic; personally I have no stakes in it (besides that I'm a trained electrical engineer and had lectures in patent law), I'm just curious; Colby sent me this link which describes an experiment where they built Lilienfelds device in the nineties: http://public.gettysburg.edu/~bcrawfor/BECrawford-MS-UVM.pdf http://public.gettysburg.edu/~bcrawfor/BECrawford-MS-UVM.pdf
- xyzzy21 5y agoThe patent exists but NOTHING was done with it and nothing was brought to market or practical use. Ideas are cheap and worthless - it's the execution that matters. That execution in the context of a patent is a viable product or use. MOSFETs were NOT viable until the 1960s. RCA made the first practical metal-gate CMOS that is known as the "4000 series" of logic parts. And even then, that technology didn't take off until all the other problems of mobile ions, threshold tuning, etc. were finally solved to give us CMOS as we know it today. There are always wankers who point to this patent, but it really doesn't matter because it took another 50 years to achieve anything that mattered.
- Rochus 5y ago> There are always wankers ... Gutter language does not make the argument more convincing.
- approxim8ion 5y agoI'd argue that tone policing doesn't refute the argument either.
- Rochus 5y agoAmong civilized people, calling someone (the author of the referenced article in this case) a wanker is considered an insult; and it is definitely not compliant with HN rules.
- AussieWog93 5y agoMy God you sound like such a fucking wanker.
- approxim8ion 5y ago> is definitely not compliant with HN rules This I agree with. Similarly, elitist virtue-signaling like "gutter language" and "among civilized people" aren't compliant with the rules either. You're free to check.
- dragontamer 5y agohttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crystal_detector https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crystal_detector The cat-whisker detector is commonly described as the first solid-state device, discovered in 1874, patented in the early 1900s, and used in various experimental radios through the development of radio technology at that time. Its not a "modern transistor design", but its solid state, its through a semiconductor... and its one step away from reliably amplifying. Its kinda funny that the physics to understand this thing were developed after its invention...
- seiferteric 5y agoThat's a diode though, not a transistor.