Slashdot Mirror


LED Forty Years Older Than Thought

LED lover writes "The discovery of the LED is usually credited to four US groups in 1962, but an unrecognized Russian genius got there forty years before. Oleg Losev even filed a patent on using his device for long range communications, and wrote to Einstein to ask for help with the theory — but got no reply."

22 of 305 comments (clear)

  1. How often does this happen? by Reverse+Gear · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I wonder how many very useful ideas like this one there is lying around right now? Probably quite a few.
    According to the conspiracy people things similar to this happen all the time, with the big cooperations making sure that for example things to replace the fossil fuels does never get publicly known, I doubt there is very much truth in this, but this little story might make me think just a little more of the conspiracy theories.
    If Einstein didn't react to this, I wonder how many other great discoveries that just perish because no one reacts to them?

    I don't blame Einstein, I bet there was a lot of more or less intelligent nut cases who contacted him with all kinds of "great ideas" and "energy machines" all the time, had he been reacting to it all he would probably have had far less time to work on his own theories.

    1. Re:How often does this happen? by Marxist+Hacker+42 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I'm as anti-corporation as anybody- but I don't think inventions are supressed on purpose. I actually think it's one of the more inefficient consequences of a free market- where money and brains are very rarely matched together enough to bring products to market fast enough. In fact, as time goes on and the standard of living becomes more expensive, brains and money will become MORE mismatched, not less, as many brilliant inventors are only brilliant for a 30 year window between the ages of 10 and 40 (peaking at 21) and then spend several decades struggling to get their brilliant ideas to market. With the cost of living going up, this will only get worse- as people at the begining of their career earn a lot less than people at the end of their career. The Venture Capital (or Vulture Capital) game can short circuit this somewhat, of course, but the problem is still matching up the old money people with the young inventors when they don't even move in the same social circles.

      --
      SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
    2. Re:How often does this happen? by Marxist+Hacker+42 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Oh, and before anybody points out that this SPECIFIC invention was under Leninist/Stalinist Russia, I don't consider their form of communism to be very different than a free market. In fact, thier version of communism might be considered to be even worse when it comes to this particular property of the free market- a free market with a single Venture Capitalist (the state party chairman) through whom ALL requests for money to develop an invention must go through. The exact opposite would be the form of communism The Oregon Project (see my JE, I don't want to bother to link to it here) envisions- where anybody can request resources from the central AI, and if The Project can afford it, the inventor will get those resources to develop their product and free publicity on The Project's intranet so that others can "buy" their product immediately from the central AI.

      --
      SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
    3. Re:How often does this happen? by Harmonious+Botch · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I'm as pro-corporation as anybody- but I don't think inventions are supressed on purpose, either. One of the beauties of a free market is that brains and money can get matched together so readily. ( Imagine an inventor trying to get a job in some othe part of Stalinist Russia where you had to have the government's permision to move )

      It costs more to supress an invention than to market it. Suppose corporation A and corp B are bidding for the proverbial great-invention-by-a-lonely-genius. Corp A wants to develop it, and corp B wants to supress it. Corp A can bid more because they intend to make a profit on it even after development expenses. So their net cost to buy is lower. Also, they get to use the patents on the technology to cut B out of the market.

    4. Re:How often does this happen? by Brandybuck · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I actually think it's one of the more inefficient consequences of a free market- where money and brains are very rarely matched together enough to bring products to market fast enough.

      Do you really think government control can match money and brains any better? We can barely get politicians smart enough to wipe their own asses, but you want to turn over the economy to them? Hah! The free market may not be an inefficient allocator of goods, but it runs rings around any other system that's been tried.

      --
      Don't blame me, I didn't vote for either of them!
    5. Re:How often does this happen? by polar+red · · Score: 4, Insightful

      And when corp B has an interest in selling its more expensive, more lucrative invention that predates this invention ? Or what if ALL relevant companies have an interest to use the older technology - like say the oil and car companies have in petrol ?

      --
      Yes, I'm left. You have a problem with that?
    6. Re:How often does this happen? by Brandybuck · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Let me clarify a bit. The problem most people have with the free market is that they think it is a system. It is not a system, it is the lack (or relative lack) of a system. The free market is merely an economy with a relative lack of government interventions and controls. Every other "system" requires the hand of government. Planning committees, bureaucratic trade agreement agencies, and various sorts of economic czars and their police enforcement arms.

      Every non free-market solution requires the hand of government. Are you that trustworthy of government to hand them the reins of the economy? Some of you think George Bush is the stupidest person ever to be born, yet you want his government to control livelihood. Others of you think Nancy Pelosi is an utter idiot, yet you want her government to be in charge of your money. What gives Kerry or Thompson or Edwards or Obama or Romney or Clinton any special insight into your lives that you feel they are capable of running it better than you can yourself.

      Any "system" other than the free market is a system that gives control of your life to vain and muddleheaded politicians.

      --
      Don't blame me, I didn't vote for either of them!
    7. Re:How often does this happen? by zippthorne · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It is also commonly misunderstood. You cannot have a command economy. It is impossible. The free market and its invisible hand are always present, no matter what you do, except on very small scales. The best you can ever hope to do is influence the costs somewhat, and drive the free market in the direction you'd like, but even here, the free market is better than the internet at routing around damage, and you might just end up driving the free market in a direction precisely contrary to your intentions. For instance, Prohibition.

      --
      Can you be Even More Awesome?!
    8. Re:How often does this happen? by mc6809e · · Score: 1, Insightful

      I don't consider their form of communism to be very different than a free market.

      That's because you're a complete and utter moron.

      In a free market, people don't have to go to some venture capitalist or some state party chairman. They are free to go to family, friends, a private bank, or take a mortgage out on their house for funding.

      Under communism they have no option but to go through the state for funding. If the state says "no", then tough shit. Private enterprise is illegal.

      And your idea for a central AI is terrible. There is no way a central anything can effectivly allocate resources since there is no way for it to measure the subject value judgements of a society's participants. It has no way to objectively compute the utility of any allocation decision.

  2. At least he got his name in the story by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Unlike "some Indian guy"

  3. Henry Round the real inventor? by whoever57 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Zheludev also points out notes that Henry Round, an assitant to radio pioneer Marconi, was the first to discover that semiconductors could produce light, some hundred years ago. He published only a very short note on the matter and made no further investigations. The piece was never seen by Losev, who must be retrospectively declared the inventor of the LED.
    Why should not Henry Round be declared the inventor? Also, how on earth can we know that Losev did not see Round's note?
    --
    The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
    1. Re:Henry Round the real inventor? by iabervon · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Presumably, he didn't actually make a semiconductor device whose stated purpose was to emit light, but just considered it a side effect of certain configurations. Vacuum tubes emit light as a side effect when overloaded, but this is undesirable most of the time. He probably didn't realize that the light emission from semiconductors could be useful.

  4. Big difference between theory and building by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    LEDs are not older than we thought. LEDs were built when theory was turned into reality by those that get proper credit for those accomplishments. Sounds like the concept behind LEDs may be 40 years older, and props to Losev, but he didn't make any.

    1. Re:Big difference between theory and building by SydShamino · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You got it backwards. He made the devices and came up with applications, but he couldn't do the theory. That's why he tried to get Einstein's help.

      That sort of thing happens frequently. An experimental physicist or engineer notices a phenomena in the lab, can reproduce it, and can think of uses for it. He or she can't however, mathematically prove why it happens. Then, a theoretical physicist (probably working at the same company or university) comes up with a mathematical model to explain the phenomena. Together, they file for and receive a patent.

      However, the patent process doesn't require mathematical proof to patent something, so Losev seems to have met all the requirements to patent a new invention.

      --
      It doesn't hurt to be nice.
  5. University academics by Toffins · · Score: 3, Insightful

    University academics, especially prominent scientists, often tend to discard letters and emails discussing or querying scientific concepts and experimental results if the communication comes from a stranger who does not have an affiliation to any recognized research organization. This is often due to lack of time or a desire not to get involved in "crackpot" theories. It can also unfortunately be due to academic snobbery.

  6. Re:Patents by pushing-robot · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Even if he had created working prototypes, LEDs vary widely from each other. It's taken decades and millions (billions?) of dollars to produce the current spectrum of LEDs out of a wide range of chemicals and substrates. All that research didn't "invent" anything?

    It's like saying that you shouldn't be able to patent a jet engine because somebody figured out how to turn fuel into mechanical energy before.

    --
    How can I believe you when you tell me what I don't want to hear?
  7. Re:In Soviet Russia... by alienmole · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I know, I only visited this thread to see the sheer mass of In Soviet Russia jokes and the people complaining about them. Imagine my disappointment.

    Apparently, when the article is actually set in Soviet Russia, it takes all the sport out of it.

  8. Re:Patents by ResidntGeek · · Score: 3, Insightful

    If the inventor of MP3 had worked away from the audio encoding community and had not been published nor contributed to audio encoding technologies in any way, and you had reproduced the essentials of the work independently, you would and should have been granted a patent, yes. You'd have made a very important contribution to the world through your own work, a contribution which did not and would not have happened from the work of the earlier inventor, and your invention would have been protecte for a time. That's the way it's supposed to work.

    --
    ResidntGeek
  9. Dreaming in technicolor by rumblin'rabbit · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I work for an R&D department in a corporation. When we see a good idea that might cut into the profits of our existing products, do we say "Okay, how can we suppress this?" Never. Such a suggestion would be the height of absurdity. A corporation that tries to fight the tide of innovation is doomed. Whatsmore, no one would want to work for it.

    Rather the response is, "how can we exploit this idea to the max" and "how can improve on this idea". If we aren't allowed to exploit the idea, then we ask "how can we come up with an even better idea".

    The idea of a company trying to keep a good idea down is pure fiction. I have never seen it in practise in my company. It's just not workable in practice.

    1. Re:Dreaming in technicolor by DAtkins · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Ummm, actually I don't believe that you would buy one immediately. Why would I question your statement? Because there are already companies that make electric cars and yet you complain that there aren't any.

      I could also go into the economics of why one person saying they would buy an electric car doesn't help a society that works off of the principles of mass production, but I would just bore myself to sleep. Rather, I suggest that you (and all of these other people who would like, totally get an electric car, fer sure! could - and I'm just putting it out there - buy an electric car.

      Or maybe you want to buy one in a different store, like Wal Mart? In which case, I can highly recommend this high-tech model.

    2. Re:Dreaming in technicolor by rumblin'rabbit · · Score: 2, Insightful
      You're proposing that the car makers all got together and said "Okay, let's not make electric cars in any volume so it doesn't cut into our other products"? You've been watching too many Hollywood movies.

      Do you really think that a bunch of companies that are normally at each others throats would cooperate in this way? Even one company failing to cooperate would screw it up for everyone. If a company sees a big, juicy market the other companies are ignoring, believe me they'll go for it.

      Far more likely is that electric cars have too many technical deficiencies to create a large market. Read what Wikipedia has to say:

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_cars#Chemica l-electric_power
      I don't really expect you to believe this. The paranoid are persistent, I'll give 'em that.
  10. Off-topic by aztektum · · Score: 2, Insightful

    This thread has made me wonder how "free" our market really is when you consider the following:

    Lobbyists buying laws that help their clients reduce outside innovation and competition while weakening an individuals (DMCA).

    Or how the courts can be used to hamstring competitors because the government approves vague, bullshit patents (Verizon v. Vonage is the obvious one right now, how many others have been posted here over the years?).

    Oh the irony for what has become of a country born of its desire to cast off the shackles of oppressive rulers and a stifling social order. Today we the huddled masses, allow our "rulers" and social elite to conspire in ways that strip away ideals we have been indoctrinated to stand up for, but simply take for granted.

    The United States has lost touch with its soul.

    --
    :: aztek ::
    No sig for you!!