Slashdot Mirror


The Transistor's 60th Birthday

Apple Acolyte sends in a Forbes piece noting the 60th birthday of the transistor on Dec, 16. For the occasion the AP provides the obligatory Moore's-Law-is-ending, no-it-isn't article. From Forbes: "Sixty years ago, on Dec. 16, 1947, three physicists at Bell Laboratories in Murray Hill, N.J., built the world's first transistor. William Shockley, John Bardeen and William Brattain had been looking for a semiconductor amplifier to take the place of the vacuum tubes that made radios and other electronics so impossibly bulky, hot and power hungry."

185 comments

  1. The hell? by kaos07 · · Score: 4, Funny

    This post is at least 5 minutes old and no comments?

    Either no one cares about the poor transistor, or you've all gotten lives.

    1. Re:The hell? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Must take transistors some time to warm up.

    2. Re:The hell? by jacquesm · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Makes me wonder how many of todays 'geeks' have ever had a single transistor in their hands, much less done anything useful with it.

      Anybody who has held a soldering iron and done something digital with single transistors please raise your hand ? Vacuum tubes ? Relays ?

    3. Re:The hell? by jacquesm · · Score: 1, Offtopic

      That has absolutely no bearing on the invention of the transistor itself and it demeans his co-inventors who had nothing to do with Shockleys beliefs. Also, please consider that racism was much less frowned upon in the 50's of the previous century and that plenty of those oldies just never saw the error of their ways, which is unfortunate but understandable if you look at it from a slightly different perspective. If someone has been behaving in a certain way for a good portion of their lives it becomes a direct onslaught to their identity to ask of them to change. Many religious people have similar issues, they've been living the lie for too long to let go of it, but we don't have as much of a problem with that as we do with racism (even though the number of people afflicted and the damage levels are probably comparable).

    4. Re:The hell? by dhavleak · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Anybody who has held a soldering iron and done something digital with single transistors please raise your hand ? Vacuum tubes ? Relays ? One hand raised way up here.

      Fanciest thing I ever did was a capacitance measuring device. Mostly used op-amps though IIRC there was a single discrete BJT in it as well. It was a really wierd device in the end though. You had to connect the leads of the capacitor and press a start button for the device to start measuring it. The idea was to use a constant current source to charge the capacitor up to a set voltage. So with voltage and charging current being constant, the capacitance value was proportional to time. That's where the transistor came in -- pressing start turned the transistor on, to send a reset pulse to a timer, and also discharged the capacitor. And then getting an accurate reading (relatively speaking) was a question of calibrating the current, voltage, and timer frequency accordingly. A super-fun project, though not very useful in the end :P

    5. Re:The hell? by Bender_ · · Score: 1

      Me me me! Long time ago.

      In between I worked on organic transistors, normal silicon transistors, high-k devices.. you name it.

    6. Re:The hell? by bvimo · · Score: 1

      The unforgetable smell of solder :)

      Has it really been 60 years, it seems like it was only yesterday that I soldered my first transister around the wrong way.

      --
      In either case, here at Microsoft, we feel standards are important. And we have fun, too. Doug Mahugh, Microsoft
    7. Re:The hell? by mangu · · Score: 2, Informative

      Maybe no one wants to honour a notorious racist like William Shockley

      Maybe you didn't read the article you linked to: "In 1981 he filed a libel suit against the Atlanta Constitution after a reporter called him a "Hitlerite" and compared his racial views to the Nazis. Shockley won the suit"
    8. Re:The hell? by QuickFox · · Score: 3, Funny

      Anybody who has held a soldering iron and done something digital with single transistors please raise your hand ? Why digital? I made analog circuits with single transistors — a radio, and intercom, and some other cool gadgets.

      It was all part of an electronics toy set called "Electronic Engineering", where you could build various gadgets by connecting components in predefined ways. Very cool, but unfortunately I was far too young to understand what I was doing. Still it did capture my attention and speed me on the road to geekdom.
      --
      Terrorists can't threaten a country's freedom and democracy. Only lawmakers and voters can do that.
    9. Re:The hell? by jacquesm · · Score: 1

      analog is obvious, I'm thinking more along the lines of a digital 4 bit code lock built out of individual transistors. Maybe we'll give rdl a pass too :)

    10. Re:The hell? by Malevolyn · · Score: 2, Funny

      It really is unforgettable. Ahhh, the nostalgic feel of burning nostrils...

      --
      Your ad here.
    11. Re:The hell? by gringojack · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      Why do some mathamatically challenged individuals insist the the difference between the dates of 1947 and 2007 is 60 years when it is really 59 years.

    12. Re:The hell? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeeees, all that lead vapour has gone to your head, hey?

    13. Re:The hell? by QuickFox · · Score: 1

      It's 60. Please elaborate.

      --
      Terrorists can't threaten a country's freedom and democracy. Only lawmakers and voters can do that.
    14. Re:The hell? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      If you can't figure it out, count it... 16/12/48 = 1 year, 16/12/49 = 2 years, 16/12/50 = 3 years, 16/12/51 = 4 years, 16/12/52 = 5 years, 16/12/53 = 6 years, 16/12/54 = 7 years, 16/12/55 = 8 years, 16/12/56 = 9 years, 16/12/57 = 10 years. Keep going if you still don't think that it was 60 years ago today (though you may need to take your shoes off).

      (ps. date format = dd/MM/yy)
    15. Re:The hell? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This must the 'new arithmetic' I've heard so much about. :)

    16. Re:The hell? by kestasjk · · Score: 0

      Something digital with component transistors? Hmmm

      --
      // MD_Update(&m,buf,j);
    17. Re:The hell? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This post is at least 5 minutes old and no comments?

      Either no one cares about the poor transistor, or you've all gotten lives.


      We can probably safely rule out the latter possibility.
    18. Re:The hell? by cheater512 · · Score: 1

      Two hands up. :)

    19. Re:The hell? by tryptych · · Score: 0

      "Anybody who has held a soldering iron and done something digital with single transistors please raise your hand ?"

      The transistor is an analogue device. It is possible to create logic circuits using multiple transistors, but essentially transistors actuate levels, not states. It shows how little you understand about the fundamental principles of electronics.

      The transistor is the mainstay of virtually all todays technology, and should not be dismissed as some 60's fad. The are now embedded in their millions into integrated circuits and microprocessors, and without them we would still be torch-wielding peasants.

      --
      "I like to skate on the other side of the ice"
    20. Re:The hell? by sentientbeing · · Score: 1

      Im been messing with electronics since a child and now work in the tech industry. In my own humble opinion the transistor is the single most important and influential invention ever devised.

      --

      ------
      beware he who would deny you access to information, for in his mind he dreams himself your master
    21. Re:The hell? by Blkdeath · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Maybe no one wants to honour a notorious racist like William Shockley

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Shockley#Beliefs_about_populations_and_genetics

      It's sad that when someone applies scientific principles to a politically charged situation they're framed as a bigot.

      It is true that unskilled, poor, unintelligent people have more children. They simply have more time on their hands and less grasp of the consequences children will have on their lifestyle and they tend to have less access (voluntarily or financially) to proper modern birth control methods and hey, when you've got a lot of time on your hand sex is a great passtime!

      Shockley did conclude through his research that this happens more with black families than with whites, however he proposed that all people with sub-100 IQs (no further qualification) should be paid for voluntary sterilization.

      His ideas while radical at the time have been tossed around for decades. It is widely held that uneducated, unskilled people who do either no or menial labour greatly increase the chances that their children will do much of the same later in life. It's why ghetto-style atmospheres tend to be cyclical and highly self-supporting. It's also why people who "escape" from that life are notable exceptions.

      The man was a scientist and one who contributed one of the most pivotal pieces of our way of life to date. That's not something that should be undermined by a piece of socio-politically charged research that he did besides.

      Then again there's almost always two sides to every major scientific discovery. Einstein gave us atomic energy but he also gave us atomic weapons (for which I understand he was forever mournful). Shockley gave us something that revolutionized the way we live, work and play but he also inadvertently gave us spam and script kiddies and phishing and 419 scams and and and ... :P

      --
      BD Phone Home!

      Shameless plug. Like you weren't expecting it.

    22. Re:The hell? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      transistor was burning, probably, not the solder. You know, wire it up the backassward way and the insulation layer next to gate gets zapped.

    23. Re:The hell? by Blkdeath · · Score: 1

      If you can't figure it out, count it... 16/12/48 = 1 year, 16/12/49 = 2 years, 16/12/50 = 3 years, 16/12/51 = 4 years, 16/12/52 = 5 years, 16/12/53 = 6 years, 16/12/54 = 7 years, 16/12/55 = 8 years, 16/12/56 = 9 years, 16/12/57 = 10 years. Keep going if you still don't think that it was 60 years ago today (though you may need to take your shoes off).

      Allow me to simplify starting with your premise to satisfy the nay sayers who'll still insist that it's wrong and that we proles just can't do math;

      • 16/12/57 = 10 years.
      • 16/12/67 = 20 years.
      • 16/12/77 = 30 years.
      • 16/12/87 = 40 years.
      • 16/12/97 = 50 years.
      • 16/12/07 = 60 years.
      --
      BD Phone Home!

      Shameless plug. Like you weren't expecting it.

    24. Re:The hell? by jacquesm · · Score: 2, Informative

      Thank you for your amazing display of attitude, your assumption about how little I understand about the fundamental principles of electronics is duly noted and quite possibly totally off base.

      The fact that you can use a transistor in two modes, as a switch where you basically saturate the device to get minimum 'on' resistance and maximum switching speed vs an analogue mode where you aim for the linear part in the curve is of course totally obvious, but you can actually just use transistors in the 'digital' only mode, in other words trying to minimize as much as possible the time spent in the analog domain where resistance and heat are king & queen. You'll never avoid that completely which is why a digital device built up out of transistors will generate some heat.

      To take it one level further, all electronics devices are analog when you look at large quantities of electrons passing through them, they all exhibit capacitance, resistance and inductance but as soon as you take it down to very small quantities of electrons the properties of most components change quite dramatically. These effects are increased when switching faster.

      A true 'digital' domain does not exist, except maybe if we ever get to the holy grails of super conductance and single electron switches, or possibly widespread use of photonic devices for computation.

      Until then the 'analog' byproducts of using transistors as switches (heat and maximum switching speed) will be with us.

      So, as to your 'the transistor actuates levels, not states' you can take it and run with it, if you use a transistor as a switch you ignore the analog portion as much as you can get away with (mostly as a function of switching time) and when you do analog you try to stay in the non-clipping portion of the output curve.

    25. Re:The hell? by Hal_Porter · · Score: 1

      It is true that unskilled, poor, unintelligent people have more children. They simply have more time on their hands and less grasp of the consequences children will have on their lifestyle and they tend to have less access (voluntarily or financially) to proper modern birth control methods and hey, when you've got a lot of time on your hand sex is a great passtime!

      Shockley did conclude through his research that this happens more with black families than with whites, however he proposed that all people with sub-100 IQs (no further qualification) should be paid for voluntary sterilization.

      Oh come on, his views are despicable. It's the standard nerd whine that other people get more sex than nerds. But rather than staying in the lab or learning to talk to people in bars (which is actually not that hard if you really are above average intelligence), he wants to sterilize the competition from the 'dumb' people. Dumb being naturally defined as 'does poorly on IQ tests', which is sort of convenient for people like Shockley who did very well indeed on them.

      But intelligence is a much more intangible thing than that, and he should have known that 'late in life' which is when the wiki article says he started to be interested in eugenics.

      And actually apart from the transistor he did some seriously stupid things -

      from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Shockley

      The ensuing publicity generated by the "invention of the transistor" often thrust Shockley to the fore, much to the chagrin of Bardeen and Brattain. Bell Labs management, however, consistently presented all three inventors as a team. Shockley eventually infuriated and alienated Bardeen and Brattain, and he essentially blocked the two from working on the junction transistor. Bardeen began pursuing a theory for superconductivity and left Bell Labs in 1951. Brattain refused to work with Shockley further and was assigned to another group. Neither Bardeen nor Brattain had much to do with the development of the transistor beyond the first year after its invention.[6]

      Shockley's abrasive management style caused him to be passed over for executive promotion at Bell Labs, which also felt he was a greater asset as a research scientist and theorist. Shockley wanted the power and profit he felt he deserved. He took a leave from Bell Labs in 1953 and moved back to the California Institute of Technology (Caltech) for four months as a visiting professor.

      Shockley Semiconductor

      Eventually he was given a chance to run his own company, as a division of a Caltech friend's successful electronics firm. In 1955, Shockley joined Beckman Instruments, where he was appointed as the Director of Beckman's newly founded Shockley Semiconductor Laboratory division in Mountain View, California. With his prestige and Beckman's capital, Shockley attempted to lure some of his former colleagues from Bell Labs to his new lab, but none of them would join him. Instead, Shockley started scouring universities for the brightest graduates to build a company from scratch, one that would be run "his way".

      "His way" could generally be summed up as "domineering and increasingly paranoid". In one famous incident, he claimed that a secretary's cut thumb was the result of a malicious act and he demanded lie detector tests to find the culprit.[7] It was later demonstrated the cut was due to a broken thumbtack on the office door, and from that point the research staff was increasingly hostile. Meanwhile, his demands to create a new and technically difficult device (originally called a Shockley diode and now known as the Thyristor), meant that the project was moving very slowly.

      Shockley separated from his wife Jean in the Spring of 1954, finally divorcing her in the Summer of 1954. Shortly after forming the company, on November 23, 1955, Shockley married Emmy Lanning, a teacher of psychiatric nursing from upstate New York. They had a very happy

      --
      echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
    26. Re:The hell? by Blkdeath · · Score: 1

      Oh come on, his views are despicable. It's the standard nerd whine that other people get more sex than nerds.

      Funny, I don't recall him mentioning anything to do with sex, and he was married with more than one child so he's obviously copulated with a member of the opposite sex; presumably more than once.

      But rather than staying in the lab or learning to talk to people in bars (which is actually not that hard if you really are above average intelligence),

      Speaking of stupid people, let's introduce alcohol to the situation and instead we get stupid, drunk, inhibitions-diminished desperate people instead! Great fun!

      he wants to sterilize the competition from the 'dumb' people. Dumb being naturally defined as 'does poorly on IQ tests', which is sort of convenient for people like Shockley who did very well indeed on them.

      An IQ test just happens to be a standardized way of measuring intelligence. Sure, lots of these people can plow fields or perform other monotonous tasks but his point was that they're not contributing to the overall expansion of human intellect, which is true.

      Intelligence is inherited and I firmly believe that children need an atmosphere of interest in education in order to become educated and successful later in life. If a given set of parents are happy with their lot in life of minimum wage ("burger flipping") tedious jobs but have their kids, their booze, their pot and their cigarettes chances are their children are going to grow up with the same set of ideals. As I said; tying these characteristics to a person's relative levels of intelligence was controversial work but by no means despicable.

      --
      BD Phone Home!

      Shameless plug. Like you weren't expecting it.

    27. Re:The hell? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What do you mean "maximum" switching speed? You get slow switching speed when it's saturated...

    28. Re:The hell? by hobo+sapiens · · Score: 1

      Gimme a break. I suspect many geeks here like electronics. I don't see how you *can't* like electronics if you're a geek.

      I mod guitar amps, and am working on building my first one, which will be all tube (5y3 rectifier tube, 12at7 and 12ax7 preamp tubes, and 6v6 output tubes.)

      --
      blah blah blah
    29. Re:The hell? by Alioth · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Actually, it's not that uncommon to use the odd single transistor. Look at any commercial PCB (such as your graphics card, or PCB motherboard), and you'll spot quite a number of SOT-23 packaged transistors.

      Almost all of my digital electronics projects include at least one discrete transistor. Quite often, you need an open collector/open drain output from a chip, but it doesn't actually provide one - a single mosfet will do the job (maybe two if you need it to not be inverted). Very often you need to switch some power. A single power mosfet does the job here - very high input impedance, can switch tens of amps. Need to buffer a high impedance output? A single transistor common collector amplifier will often do the job just fine. Need a level shifter for a couple of outputs from 3.3v to 5v? One mosfet and one resistor will usually do the job just fine. Need a single gate inverter, and don't have the space for a 74HC04? One P-channel and one N-channel mosfet, in SOT-23 packages is nice and compact without being too hard to solder. (Although you can get a 74HC1G04 with just one gate, but most people don't have them knocking around in the parts box, but will have a couple of P and N channel mosfets they can use).

      The humble discrete transistor is still used all over the place and isn't going away any time soon.

      It should be a rite of passage for any computer geek to learn how to create a few CMOS gates with discrete mosfets. Even if they don't intend to do a lot with electronics, it does give an appreciation of what's going on in the real world.

    30. Re:The hell? by Hal_Porter · · Score: 1

      Funny, I don't recall him mentioning anything to do with sex.

      The whole point of eugenics is the idea that stupid (and therefore evolutionarily unfit) people breed faster than smart and (therefore evolutionarily fit) ones. Which from a Darwinian point of view is nonsense. Breeding means you're evolutionarily fit, passing IQ tests or learning Klingon or Vi doesn't. The right people are breeding, by definition. Elitist nerds aren't breeding, but that's not a problem with evolution, just for them.

      Speaking of stupid people, let's introduce alcohol to the situation and instead we get stupid, drunk, inhibitions-diminished desperate people instead! Great fun!

      Yeah, it is actually.

      --
      echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
    31. Re:The hell? by Blkdeath · · Score: 1

      The whole point of eugenics is the idea that stupid (and therefore evolutionarily unfit) people breed faster than smart and (therefore evolutionarily fit) ones. Which from a Darwinian point of view is nonsense. Breeding means you're evolutionarily fit, passing IQ tests or learning Klingon or Vi doesn't. The right people are breeding, by definition. Elitist nerds aren't breeding, but that's not a problem with evolution, just for them.

      Wow do you ever have a fixation with nerds. He wasn't talking about nerds, he was talking about successful intelligent people who come in many forms including business men/women, engineers, scientists, and any of a slew of other professional types.

      Your fixation with picking up drunk chicks in a bar seems to tell me that you're on the cusp of the lower class which makes you border on the people he's talking about so I can understand why you'd take his research so personally.

      As for evolutionary fitness to breed and Darwinism I think you're a tad confused. Yes, biologically all you need are one set of male and one set of female genitalia and about ten minutes with one another. Not terribly complicated. Now where Darwinism comes in is the low-income (subsidized) housing, welfare, disability, child support, child tax credits and other forms of subsidy these people get so they can continue to support themselves when otherwise their option is to starve or allow some or all of their offspring to die of starvation, sickness or exposure. Survival of the fittest is cancelled out when the weakest links are offered the highest levels of protection.

      Our society is so concerned with political correctness that we need to ensure that the most poor, uneducated, pathetic and dare I say relatively useless members of our society are not only allowed to breed but that this process is fostered and coddled along so we seem more compassionate. Utter nonsense.

      Now, as to your comments about picking up women in bars; what are you, a college frat kid?!? That's probably the lowest form of socialization and relationship building known to exist. Now, to clarify; are you seeking one night stands or actual long-term relationships from your alcohol spurned conquests? If the former, may you continue in happiness but also protected so as not to breed more bastard spawn. If the latter it's obviously not worked out so well for you since you seem to be so experienced on the matter. (Hint: "long term" in this context does not mean "until next Friday night when I look for some fresh meat")

      --
      BD Phone Home!

      Shameless plug. Like you weren't expecting it.

    32. Re:The hell? by skoaldipper · · Score: 1

      Hal, for what it's worth, I'm in your corner. Eugenics, no mater how one might justify it, is a slippery slope. To equate or apply birth rate or race to any discussion on intelligence is wholesale elitist detachment from reality. Someone above you even "lessened" eugenic justification by saying "well, we would pay them for the sterilization." Oh, my...

      From antiquity to contemporary, mankind has achieved and flourished by his diversity and resilience. That dilution of humanity, in all of our failings, is that catalyst which sets those drops of creativity into motion. Eugenics is a narrow and unidirectional focus on your own achievements, void of unselfish introspection. That wikipedia article on Shockley seems to illustrate his beliefs in relation to his disdain for lack of patent credit to managerial style. I give credit to Mr. Shockley for his accomplishments, and willfully ignore the rest. As we all normally do at eulogies.

      --
      I hope, when they die, cartoon characters have to answer for their sins.
    33. Re:The hell? by ChatHuant · · Score: 1

      Why digital? I made analog circuits with single transistors

      You did, did you? Well, I made analog circuits with single NAND gates :). Take a 4011 CMOS NAND, or even a venerable bipolar 7400, apply a bit of negative feedback, and you get op amp-like behavior; very usable for example as a linear amplifier in the audio band (or anything under maybe 1 MHz). Or suppose you need a bit of analog circuitry, maybe a voltage stabilizer on your board: just use any leftover NAND (or any inverter) gate; the possibilities are endless :)

    34. Re:The hell? by jacquesm · · Score: 1

      In order to drive a transistor 'open' the fastest way is to drive the base into saturation wrt to the emitter, it will cause the 'on' state to be achieved in a time that is only limited by the capacitance of the transistor, the ability of the supply to deliver the current and the output impedance & capacitance of the driving circuit.

      Anything less will cause the transistor to end up below the 'on' state, and will cause the parasitic capacitor that is present in every transistor BE junction to charge up at a lower rate. Too high a voltage is not good (the magic smoke tends to disappear), VBE usually has a very well defined maximum rating, too little and you won't reach the 'on' state so you'll waste time and generate heat.

      You could simplify that (grossly) by saying that switching a transistor on goes the quickest if you connect the base to a voltage that is coming from a source with a very low RI, and that is low enough that the transistor will survive the event.

      Saturation simply means that ICE will not increase if you further increase the VBE, in other words the transistor is as 'on' as it will get. Typical base-emittor saturation voltages are about 650 mV for silicon and about 150 mV for Germanium, but since 99.99% of all transistors are made of silicon you may as well ignore that bit :), digital electronics nowadays commonly drive to 3V for 'on' (sometimes even lower), typical breakdown voltages for the BE junction are about twice that.

      The above applies to junction transistors, not to FETs, the same basic principles still apply (it's all physics after all) but the construction of a FET is radically different from a 'regular' transistor, the main basic difference is that the 'gate' (which is the equivalent of the base in a regular transistor) is not galvanically coupled to the drain (the equivalent of the collector) or the source (the equivalent of the emitter).

      The net effect of that is that no actual current flows between gate and source, you're simply charging the capacitor that sets up the field that will allow current to flow between drain and source.

      In practice, of course transistors (of any type) not only need to be switched 'on' but also off, and this is why the voltage swing is crucial, a lower swing allows faster switching (as well as lower power losses).

      For P-variety transistors please reverse all the voltages above :)

    35. Re:The hell? by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      This post is at least 5 minutes old and no comments? Either no one cares about the poor transistor, or you've all gotten lives.

      We're using vacuum tube-based browsers, and they post slooowwww.

    36. Re:The hell? by DarkOx · · Score: 1

      I agree with you in that I think its a terrible crime against our society that Thought Police and politically correct elitists prevent us largely from having an intelligent debate and discussion of this topics. There may or may not be merit in Shockleys work on the subject we don't have the information and we can't export it because some people have a vested interest in the outcome and are afraid they might not like the actually results if they were ever learned.

      I don't know if Shockley was a racist. I don't think thinking along the lines, when you have the support of facts like census data and the like makes you a racist. Now if you don't bother to look at the facts and or your only interest in the subject is to support prejudiced views you already then you have issues. The truth is who a person is today, their deeds, the abilities they can demonstrait are all that matter. There are after all exceptions to every rule. To make any judments about an individual by any other means is foolish.

      Its one thing to study the matter of eugenics its another to act on your conclusions. Its interesting your user name, after all it would be a sad day for humanity if we found out we acidently sterilized all the people resistant to the next plegue(Dlkdeath). How can we really be sure what genes will be best for future conditions? Its also worth noteing that at nopoint in human history when eugenics has been tried has it not been currpted into something that is dispicable and designed not to better society but to elevate the select few. Maybe humans just can't be that objective, who knows maybe its in the genes.

      --
      Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
    37. Re:The hell? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Total BS. Explain ECL.


      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emitter_coupled_logic
      Maybe they use a spiral base? LOL You're full of fail today!

    38. Re:The hell? by v1 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Radio Shack used to sell 150-in-1 and 200-in-one sets. They were 20"x 12" wood or plastic boxes with groups of parts on the top board, including transistors, resistors, capacitors, and a variety of other parts. The parts were mounted to the colorful top, labeled and grouped. Their connectors ran to numbered springs beside them. You'd use the included wire to run between parts, by bending springs to the side, inserting the stripped end of the wire, and releasing it.

      They came with booklets that had 150 (or 200) different projects to make. They'd start you out slow, showing you a picture of the kit with the wires in place, and a set of number lists like 18-22-85-10 33-28-21 etc to rum the wires. Later in the book they replaced the picture of the kit with a schematic of the project.

      Some of the latter projects were quite complex, and many of them used some nifty components such as a earphone for a microphone, and a CDS sensor to make a light beam tripped noise maker. It's too bad you can't find anything like that nowadays. I've seen kits today that use plastic encased pieces assembled on pegboards, but I can just imagine how difficult it would be to play with the design by adjusting parts. I suppose nowadays people would let their young kids play with sets such as mine alone, and they'd swollow the wires or something and blame+sue radio shack for $20 million. Sad.

      Those sets got me into electroncis when I was 8. The knowlege I had of electronics in gradeschool drarfed teachers I ran into on the subject in high school. Now people have to wait until college to get the education I got before age 10. *sigh*

      --
      I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.
    39. Re:The hell? by ncc74656 · · Score: 1

      Anybody who has held a soldering iron and done something digital with single transistors please raise your hand ? Vacuum tubes ? Relays ?

      Transistors? Yes. Relays? Not soldered, but ISTR there were some digital-logic projects that used the relay in Radio Shack's 150-in-1 kit. Tubes? Not digital, but I've gotten some old radios running again. (One only needed a couple of tubes replaced, but I recapped another one.)

      --
      20 January 2017: the End of an Error.
    40. Re:The hell? by jacquesm · · Score: 1

      which part of 'single transistor' was it that you didn't get ?

      ECL requires quite a bit more than just one transistor iirc... I could be wrong, but I really don't think so.

      Just from memory I think that's at least two transistors in push pull and a symmetrical power supply + a bunch of resistors to get things set up 'just so'.

      Please enlighten me oh anonymous expert...

    41. Re:The hell? by patches · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      Maybe no one wants to honour a notorious racist like William Shockley

      Maybe you didn't read the article you linked to: "In 1981 he filed a libel suit against the Atlanta Constitution after a reporter called him a "Hitlerite" and compared his racial views to the Nazis. Shockley won the suit"


      Maybe you didn't either, because the sentence just prior to the one you quoted is However, Shockley's views about the genetic superiority of whites over blacks brought the Repository for Germinal Choice notable negative publicity and discouraged other Nobel Prize winners from donating sperm.

      Patrick
      --
      The worst part of being athiest.... You don't have anyone to talk to during orgasm!
    42. Re:The hell? by QuickFox · · Score: 1

      Indeed! I tried to find something similar to my childhood kit for my nephew and niece some years ago, when they were the right age. I think I searched very thoroughly everywhere. I couldn't find anything. Very unfortunate indeed.

      --
      Terrorists can't threaten a country's freedom and democracy. Only lawmakers and voters can do that.
    43. Re:The hell? by ncc74656 · · Score: 1

      Breeding means you're evolutionarily fit, passing IQ tests or learning Klingon or Vi doesn't. The right people are breeding, by definition. Elitist nerds aren't breeding, but that's not a problem with evolution, just for them.

      Speaking of stupid people, let's introduce alcohol to the situation and instead we get stupid, drunk, inhibitions-diminished desperate people instead! Great fun!

      Yeah, it is actually.

      Wow...sounds like Idiocracy may have hit a little too close to home for you.

      --
      20 January 2017: the End of an Error.
    44. Re:The hell? by Blkdeath · · Score: 1

      Maybe you didn't either, because the sentence just prior to the one you quoted is However, Shockley's views about the genetic superiority of whites over blacks brought the Repository for Germinal Choice notable negative publicity and discouraged other Nobel Prize winners from donating sperm.

      Yes, speaking statistically based upon the data he uncovered he concluded that target group 'A' was genetically superior as a whole in comparison with target group 'B'.

      If we were talking German Shepards versus Labrador Retrievers would that make his study less reprehensible? Ancient Azteks versus Ancient Egyptians? Holstein versus Guernsey cows?

      The point of the matter is that because it is a politically and emotionally charged topic, and DarkOx pointed it out, it is not possible to have a rational discourse on the matter because anybody who initiates same is immediately targeted as racist and the discussion ends. It's like another Godwin's Law for societal study.

      I only hope I live to see the day where it's acknowledged that physiologically, mentally, emotionally as well as culturally Whites (Canadian, American, European), Blacks (African, islanders), Asians, Indians, Natives, etc. are all different, as a side note women and men differ along the same lines.

      True total equality is truly impossible in a world where all of our skills, abilities and mental faculties differ. Now if we can get over our stigma against talking about the subject maybe we can make some better progress. Until then we have to deal with political correctness, delicate sensitivities and discrimination and harassment lawsuits left right and centre.

      Topically, hopefully the transistor will have some bearing on our increased understanding and tolerance.

      {whew!} Never thought I'd slip past the topic police! :)

      --
      BD Phone Home!

      Shameless plug. Like you weren't expecting it.

    45. Re:The hell? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Look, we weren't discussing whether it takes one or a million transistors, you were claiming saturating is fastest with your admittedly ambiguous use of "maximum". It is not. ECL is the proof that you are wrong. Stop trying to weasel out of arguments. I can certainly set up an experiment where *one* bipolar transistor is configured as a linear amp, and if I define my operating conditions properly and call them "digital", I will certainly operate faster than you. Ga-ran-fucking-teed. That's how ECL/CML works. Higher frequency, faster Tpd. Hands down. Saturation is as undesirable for speed as secondary emission is in a small-signal triode. Then I'll set up a nice tunnel diode to show you what speed really means.


      I don't really know why I keep coming back for this punishment. Part of me wants to make sure your bloated, pompous misinformation is corrected. Another part of me wants you to know you've just been OWNED by a college dropout. And yet another part can't wait to see how you weasel out of yet another blunder. It would actually be entertaining, if I knew no one else took you seriously. That's the problem, you're being modded up. For shame.


      "I could be wrong, but I really don't think so."


      And that's your problem in a nutshell.


      (Coincidentally, the captcha is "basics", something you desperately need to review. Maybe you'd like to borrow my 1962 GE Transistor Manual?)

    46. Re:The hell? by ibbey · · Score: 1

      You can still get them, though possibly not in Radio Shack stores. RatShack still sells them online (http://www.radioshack.com/product/index.jsp?productId=2102913) and Amazon has an even better selection (such as http://www.amazon.com/Vintage-Sports-Cards-Inc-MX-906/dp/B00005K2SY/). They're also considerably more advanced then the ones that we used as kids. Unfortunately, the one big thing that hasn't changed from the older models is that the instructions still don't cover any theory on how your circuit works. Once you've built the example projects, you're pretty much on your own from there, and for most kids that means that these kits will be lost in the closet before too long...

    47. Re:The hell? by ibbey · · Score: 1

      Been so long that I posted here, I almost forgot that I can make real HTML links... Sorry about that.

      Radio Shack
      Amazon

    48. Re:The hell? by moranar · · Score: 1

      "Different" is one thing. "Genetically superior" is another. Plus, superior for what? Maoris seem a bit better suited than caucasians at living in the Australian outback. That they don't score equally on IQ tests seems more of a failing on the test than otherwise.

      --
      "I think it would be a good idea!"
      Gandhi, about Internet Security
    49. Re:The hell? by QuickFox · · Score: 1

      Thanks for the links! That actually looks interesting. Maybe there are some possibilities after all.

      I'm in Sweden, and didn't find anything in Swedish shops, and I didn't think of ordering abroad over the Web. Stupid of me. I'll look into this a bit more next time it's time for gifts. Thanks!

      From the pictures I get the impression that in these kits the components are in fixed places, and you connect them with wires crisscrossing the kit. But I'm not sure because the pictures aren't very big. My childhood kit was a bit better as a teaching tool, in that for every project there was a circuit diagram on thick paper, with holes where you put fixtures for connecting the components. You fixed this paper diagram on a board, attached one fixture in each hole, and then fixed each component over its diagram symbol. Thus the circuitry looked just like the diagram.

      If they had only included explanations about electronics it would have taught me quite a lot.

      From this teaching viewpoint maybe this kit is better. Unfortunately it looks toyish, a silly and unimportant detail, but it can be very important for ticklish youngsters of a certain age. I wish toy manufacturers would design their stuff to look a bit more adult than their intended audience, because children will accept stuff that looks more adult than their age, but youngsters will be offended by stuff that looks more childish than their age.

      --
      Terrorists can't threaten a country's freedom and democracy. Only lawmakers and voters can do that.
    50. Re:The hell? by DamnStupidElf · · Score: 1

      I only hope I live to see the day where it's acknowledged that physiologically, mentally, emotionally as well as culturally Whites (Canadian, American, European), Blacks (African, islanders), Asians, Indians, Natives, etc. are all different, as a side note women and men differ along the same lines.

      So which "race" is the smartest? The kindest? The fastest? The most beautiful?

      If you can't answer even one of those questions with statistical certainty, please shut up.

      On second thought, do you even have a definition of race that doesn't depend on where a person's ancestors lived 200 years ago?

    51. Re:The hell? by Blkdeath · · Score: 1

      I only hope I live to see the day where it's acknowledged that physiologically, mentally, emotionally as well as culturally Whites (Canadian, American, European), Blacks (African, islanders), Asians, Indians, Natives, etc. are all different, as a side note women and men differ along the same lines.

      So which "race" is the smartest? The kindest? The fastest? The most beautiful?

      If you can't answer even one of those questions with statistical certainty, please shut up.

      Did I mention superiority? No, I said races and sexes are different. Since we're going from one ridiculous extreme to the other; are you inferring then that all races and both sexes are identical in every aspect?

      On second thought, do you even have a definition of race that doesn't depend on where a person's ancestors lived 200 years ago?

      No, you're the only one who knows the real truth. Oh, but did you notice where I said "culturally"? Do you suppose there's a slight difference in culture between Caucasians who've been in Canada for the past few decades and those who live in, say, France or Spain?

      Furthermore I was differentiating because the Politically Correct types like to lump people together based on an arbitrary constant, eg. "African American". I know people from Trinidad, Jamaica, Barbados and Guyana who think that's a stupid title.

      But please, continue your politically correct thought policing and make sure nobody out there believes that cultural or physiological differences in people makes any difference. We're aaaaaaall the same. {wink!}

      --
      BD Phone Home!

      Shameless plug. Like you weren't expecting it.

    52. Re:The hell? by hoofie · · Score: 1

      Yesterday - used an NPN transistor as a switch on the common cathode of a seven-segment led from a PIC output. It's still digital, just a way of not passing too much current through the PIC.

    53. Re:The hell? by hoofie · · Score: 1
      I don't think Maori's are any better suited to living in the Oz outback than Caucasians for a number of very important reasons:
      1. Maori's mainly inhabit NEW ZEALAND for one, a country known for its temperate climate, mountains, rain, coastline etc. There may be a Maori population in the Outback but they ain't indigenous. [More likely making some serious money in the mines].
      2. The Outback is mainly known for its VERY HOT climate, lack of rain, lack of coastline etc. - well distinct lack of everything except flies.
      3. The indigenous people of Australia are in fact collectively known as Aborigines.
    54. Re:The hell? by v1 · · Score: 2, Informative

      Here is what you need: http://www.quasarelectronics.com/epl200.htm

      That kit is almost identical to my 200-in-1 kit. They moved the batteries up topside and added binding posts but that's the one. There is NO BETTER way to teach kids about electronics. The link on radio shack's page should be named "15-in-1 kit". Doesn't look like there's enough to make jack with it. I wonder how many projects are in that book they ship with it.

      They must have bought it from Tandy. Nice, they even posted a list of the 200 projects here: http://www.quasarelectronics.com/kit-files/epl/epl200.pdf Many of the projects are to teach you about how digital circuits work, like how AND and NOR gates are actually assembled from smaller parts. Sort of like the difference between learning assembly and C++. Sure C++ will get it done faster but if you know assembly you can kick butt and know more about why things work. Too bad they didn't post one or two pages of the kit like oh, #94. An actual, working, AM radio transmitter. Somewhere in that list is a circiut that makes a working intercom. I had a lot of fun with that one.

      I believe I have a gift idea for someone I know now. But unfortunately I don't think this is a gift for everyone. I was a major self-starter on these sorts of things, and unless you have some committment to it I don't know, it may end up as parent says, in the clothset after a few weeks.

      Some of these projects used almost ALL the components on the kit. There is simply no way to make a kit that allows physical assembly of such complex projects that can match the structure of the schematic. Also, if you wanted to "insert" some circuitry in a fixed position kit, that would be a nightmare. This kit is just a matter of moving a couple wires.

      I can't believe how cheap that thing is. I smoked two or three transistors and both chips and had to replace them, and some of those parts were hard to come by. Try today to find a non CMOS RS232 NAND chip...

      The 150-in-1 kit was similar in size to this one but was in a wooden box instead of a plastic case. Almost as many parts to use, but not as big of a project book.

      Here's another good link: http://www.retrothing.com/2007/01/a_modern_descen.html - looks like a rework of the original 150 in 1 kit.

      And here's one of the ones I don't like: http://www.laserballs.com/teb.htm That was radio shack's upgrade to the 200 in 1 and was as I expected, a miserable flop. Again trying to use a peg board approach to assembly, severely limits flexibility and creativity.

      More kits available here: http://www.laserballs.com/tee.htm

      --
      I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.
    55. Re:The hell? by gordona · · Score: 1

      This attribution to Shockely probably came from his less than diligent interest in inheritance and race, with an insistance that blacks were inferior. This was based on his confusion of the genetic term 'heritance" with inheritance:. See for example, Shockley on Eugenics and Race: The Application of Science to the Solution of Human Problems (Paperback) by William Shockley (Author), Arthur R. Jensen (Foreword), Roger Pearson (Editor).

      On another note, the mathematics he developed for the P-N junction also apply to biological membanes.

      --
      "Gentlemen, you can't fight in here! This is the War Room!" -- Dr. Strangelove
    56. Re:The hell? by OakDragon · · Score: 1

      ...I worked on organic transistors, normal silicon transistors...

      People swear the organic transistors are better, but I say you're just paying more to make yourself feel better.

    57. Re:The hell? by compro01 · · Score: 1

      week before last. we've been doing this sort of thing all semester in my digital logic class. re-creating (in discrete form) and testing/examining systems from various families of digital logic, ranging from RTL, DTL, TTL, ECL, and finally CMOS.

      we've also used transitors a lot just as simple current switches, both last semester with PICs and this semester when we were working with SDK-86's.

      --
      upon the advice of my lawyer, i have no sig at this time
    58. Re: The hell? by Thomas+Shaddack · · Score: 1

      Does using a transistor as a logic circuit output to switch on a relay and indicate that the 230V end of the circuit is switched on by a neon bulb (a rudimentary vacuum tech) count?

    59. Re:The hell? by moranar · · Score: 1

      My bad, and I thought about it after posting... Too late, then.

      --
      "I think it would be a good idea!"
      Gandhi, about Internet Security
    60. Re:The hell? by DamnStupidElf · · Score: 1

      Did I mention superiority? No, I said races and sexes are different. Since we're going from one ridiculous extreme to the other; are you inferring then that all races and both sexes are identical in every aspect?

      And I said prove it. By "different" I assume you mean there are quantifiable measurements that distinguish individuals by race and sex. If the properties are quantifiable, then there is a numerical "best" value for certain criteria such as beauty, speed, intelligence, etc. If you actually mean that there are *not* quantifiable differences between races, what the hell is the point of your post? More importantly, how do you define race and sex? Even physiological sexual development occurs in several stages of fetal growth, making sex a multidimensional range of values dependent on the level of hormones present at different times. My entire point is that you are using words that really have little meaning in genetics. You should be talking about phenotypes linked directly to genetics or hormone levels, not abstractions like races and sexes. It's too easy to either draw incorrect conclusions or pigeonhole individuals into fitting arbitrary predetermined patterns. For instance, how do you create a new race? Once that's done, how would you test this new race to see how they differ from other ones?

      No, you're the only one who knows the real truth. Oh, but did you notice where I said "culturally"? Do you suppose there's a slight difference in culture between Caucasians who've been in Canada for the past few decades and those who live in, say, France or Spain?

      Well, you said races and specifically broke them into whites, blacks, etc., which generally means you're looking at some sort of genetic features and not just locale or culture. It's obvious that cultures have different ways of thinking, working, and doing things. However, cultures don't have a genetic basis that I know of.

      Furthermore I was differentiating because the Politically Correct types like to lump people together based on an arbitrary constant, eg. "African American". I know people from Trinidad, Jamaica, Barbados and Guyana who think that's a stupid title.

      I'm a "European American", or probably more accurately a "Western European American", which I agree is about as meaningful as "African American." As far as paleontology can tell, everyone's ancestors originally came from Africa to begin with. You are differentiating on just as flimsy boundaries as the politically correct types you disparage, because just lumping all blacks into "African Americans" is just as silly as lumping all the people in Africa into one race, as you did. It's picking one phenotype (very dark skin) and assuming that implies a closely related (in a genetic sense) population group.

      But please, continue your politically correct thought policing and make sure nobody out there believes that cultural or physiological differences in people makes any difference. We're aaaaaaall the same. {wink!}

      Political correctness is a misguided attempt to call everyone equal. Racism/sexism is a misguided attempt to claim that differences in emotion, intelligence, athleticism, etc. between people are based significantly on who their genetic ancestors were and how many X chromosomes they have. They're equally foolish ideas. So far you've said a lot about how "races are different" but failed to provide evidence of how race is a predictor for differences, and also how to determine race in the first place.

      Again, I'd love to see some examples of physiological differences by race. The only thing I can think of off-hand is sickle cell anemia, which happens to affect more people with ancestors from countries where malaria was rampant. The genes controlling that disease have nothing to do with race, however, and people of any skin tone or ancestry can have it. If you believe wikipedia, the mutation actually arose independently in distinct population groups several times. Skin pigmentation is another one, but since everyone has genes for pigmentation, I'm not sure how you'd define which levels of pigment determine race, or vice versa.

    61. Re:The hell? by QuickFox · · Score: 1
      Thanks for the tip! That 200-project kit, along with your enthusiastic description, really makes it seem attractive! So much so that I'm starting to feel tempted to buy a kit for myself too! I never did learn electronics, and the knowledge would come in handy. I once had to make a circuit board, and although in the end it did work fine, my lack of knowledge made the work slow and limited my choices. If I can only spare the time, a kit would probably be fun and interesting.

      The price is indeed astonishing. With that price I can't understand why toy shops and electronics retailers aren't filled floor to ceiling with kits.

      Also, if you wanted to "insert" some circuitry in a fixed position kit, that would be a nightmare. This kit is just a matter of moving a couple wires. That was no problem at all, i did it a few times. The thin wooden board was generously sized and had a dense grid of holes, regularly spaced. The diagram paper had much fewer holes, only one hole at each point where components connected, each paper hole fitting over a board hole. To insert additional components you'd just punch a new hole in the paper over a board hole, and insert a fixture in the new hole. You could easily make room by bending the wires on a few components. They were the ordinary type of components used in the electronics industry, little cylinders with long flexible wires sticking out, not mounted on anything.

      The number of components was much greater than in the 200-project kit, but the number of projects was much smaller. Having a larger number of projects is probably better.
      --
      Terrorists can't threaten a country's freedom and democracy. Only lawmakers and voters can do that.
    62. Re:The hell? by Windom+Earle · · Score: 1

      I had a Radio Shack '10 in 1' kit when I was a kid. That was back when the 10 circuit kit was what existed, none of the fancy stuff in it. A few transistors, resistors, capacitors, a loopstick antenna.

      But my first 'from scratch' circuit was the code practice oscillator out of the Boy Scout Electronics Merit Badge Pamphlet. I had this huge center tapped audio transformer from my dad's tube days, and used a big TO-3 transistor out of a Radio Shack 'transistor assortment' and the oscillator circuit with a few other parts to make an oscillator. Which I quickly turned into an electronic organ using bent pieces of sheet metal for keys and a range of resistors to make different tones.

      That schematic is still depicted in the Merit Badge Pamphlet; these days not as one of the projects, but as this highlighted background illustration in the front of the book. I figure I must not have been the first person to mess with that circuit and it's kept as a memory in the new pamphlet for us grown ups, some of whom are probably teaching new kids electronics out of it today.

    63. Re:The hell? by Windom+Earle · · Score: 1

      Try today to find a non CMOS RS232 NAND chip...

      You mean the 1488 and the 1489? They are available anywhere, since there are probably billions of them in the install base, and it's the 'front end' chip that people are prone to burn out.

      Many of the classic old chips are still available. Even vintage oldies like the 555 timer and the 741 op-amp, both of which are STILL available in shopping malls everywhere at the Radio Shack.

      The classic old parts live on. A recent design of mine at work uses 2N3904 and 2N3906 transistors, albeit in the surface mount versions. That stuff is really, really cheap and the old way is the right way to do things sometimes. The design I am referring to started out with a fancy fourty cent PIC controller but when Management wouldn't spring for an expensive part like that I redesigned it using an LM358 op-amp and six transistors. The total BOM cost for the circuit is under twenty-five cents including the circuit board. My joke line for that project is that 'I was afraid the linear design would be too expensive, too, and I would be asked to redesign it using just white glue and popsicle sticks.'

    64. Re:The hell? by gringojack · · Score: 0

      I was born in 1947.
      I was 1 year old in 1948.
      In 2007 I am 59 years old.
      At the month of my birth in 2008 I will be 60 years old.
      Seems straightforward to me.
      The transistor will not be 60 years old until the month of its invention in 2008, not this year.
      How about you?

      --gringojack

    65. Re:The hell? by QuickFox · · Score: 1

      Sorry to disappoint you about your age, but you're 60. On your birthday in 2008 you'll be 61.

      On your birthday, in every year that ends with a 7, your age ends with a 0. On your birthday, in every year that ends with an 8, your age ends with a 1.

      --
      Terrorists can't threaten a country's freedom and democracy. Only lawmakers and voters can do that.
    66. Re:The hell? by QuickFox · · Score: 1

      Oops! I missed your question at the end. Me, I was born in 1955, and I'm now 52 years old.

      I guess we must both be new here, not yet having been transformed into the typical slashdotter youngsters living in our moms' basements...

      Of course if Slashdot has that effect on people, I won't mind becoming a youngster again, not even if it means I have to live in my mom's basement... :-)

      --
      Terrorists can't threaten a country's freedom and democracy. Only lawmakers and voters can do that.
    67. Re:The hell? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      OK in 1955 you had not reached 1 year old. In 1956 you had reached 1 year old. In 1957 you had reached 2 years old. In 2007 you had reached 52 years old.

      We usually find that kind of mistake when people calculate dates also.

  2. As every audiophile knows... by TeknoHog · · Score: 5, Funny

    a nice, warm-sounding amplifier is not something made of transistors. It's a series of tubes.

    --
    Escher was the first MC and Giger invented the HR department.
    1. Re:As every audiophile knows... by ookabooka · · Score: 3, Insightful

      As every electrical engineer knows, the frequency response of a transistor-based amplifier can be modified to mimic virtually anything, including tubes. Especially with new-fangled DSP's of today. . .Seriously though, anyone have a good technical paper about why tubes are better suited for some tasks? The only thing I can come up with is their resilience to voltage spikes, cosmic rays, and ability to dimly illuminate the immediate area, not to mention a way to visually detect dead units :-p

      --
      If you are about to mod me down, keep in mind that this post was most likely sarcastic.
    2. Re:As every audiophile knows... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Audiophiles are dumb uber-rich people who spend millions to buy 95% snake oil products and 5% performance improvements only a machine could measure.
      Tubes are better than bipolar transistors only when you overdrive them and produce a distorted output wave; in that situation tubes have a gentler and better sounding clipping because of the type of harmonics produced. If you want this kind of behaviour from a transistor amp, you go for mosfets.
      Besides guitar amps, that can be perfectly emulated digitally, nowadays tubes have advantages over solid state counterparts only in the power RF amplification niche.

    3. Re:As every audiophile knows... by Cadallin · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The only thing I can come up with is their resilience to voltage spikes, cosmic rays...

      This is actually related to one of the major reasons: Power Handling. Vacuum tubes are still used for High Power transmitter amplifiers, much greater than 1kw.

      Also: The "Virtual Tube" DSP amps do not sound the same, regardless of what a tone-deaf Electrical Engineer says. Musicians are "Audiophiles" in the derogatory sense you intend, although they usually audiophiles in the true sense of being lovers of sound and music. They may not know EE, but that doesn't mean they don't know anything. Skilled musicians DO know music, and there is a reason they prefer tube amps for Guitars, Bass, etc.

    4. Re:As every audiophile knows... by Dr.+Cody · · Score: 2, Funny

      Don't forget space heater. Until my landlord gets their No. 2 boiler going again, I need all the help I can get!

    5. Re:As every audiophile knows... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The "Virtual Tube" DSP amps do not sound the same

      It's pay-to-play round here. You have to pay me if you want me to listen to your unqualified opinions on technical matters.

    6. Re:As every audiophile knows... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Musicians audiophiles? You have to be kidding.

      You mean the way that cram a zillion people into a "live" auditorium and bathe everyone in reverberations and standing waves?

      Or do you mean the way they use ultra nonlinear digital filters to amplify the pleasant parts of their voice and attenutate the harshness?

      Or do you mean the way they use DSP modeling (www.line6.com) in most all music recorded today that features a distorted guitar?

      Sorry, but musicians twist and distort sound like nobody else. Just like a painter, sticking to the primary colors gets boring.

    7. Re:As every audiophile knows... by jacquesm · · Score: 1

      if musicians can't tell tubes from transistors in double blind tests then I'm afraid that just like 'touch' in pianists it's a load of bull. It's a bit like saying you have a favorite kind of distortion that is unique to some component or other. There is no such thing, frequency response is a measurable quantity, and if two devices perform indistinguishable then they may as well be the same thing as far as the consumer is concerned. That 'tubes' sound different than transistors is taken for granted (but even there you can get awfully close with properly tuned FET end stages and god forbid an output transformer just to get the right kind of destruction (sorry, distortion) of the signal).

      There used to be a guy here writing for a so called audiophile magazine that claimed that he could hear the individual stair steps of a CD quality digitized audio stream :)

      I think many of these claims are just made to give the claimant some kind of status that they do not deserve. Anybody older than 35 making those claims in all likelihood no longer has the ears required to make such statements anyway, a baby or a dog, that's a different matter, their ears are much better than the average audiophiles, but of course they can't justify the expense (nor do they have the attitude).

    8. Re:As every audiophile knows... by moosesocks · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Also: The "Virtual Tube" DSP amps do not sound the same, regardless of what a tone-deaf Electrical Engineer says.


      That's more likely because the DSP wasn't programmed properly. A transistor *should* in theory be able to replicate any sound within its frequency range. My guess is that the DSPs aren't correctly accounting for distortions caused by the tubes.

      On the other hand, "pro sound" tends to shy away from tube amps these days, because transistor amps have gotten good enough not to be noticeably different, and (more importantly), their gear is usually subject to extremely rough handling that a rack full of glass tubes simply couldn't withstand.
      --
      -- If you try to fail and succeed, which have you done? - Uli's moose
    9. Re:As every audiophile knows... by TeknoHog · · Score: 1

      I'm shocked that my joke was taken seriously. I'm actually a physicist/musician and I like my Gainclone very much.

      --
      Escher was the first MC and Giger invented the HR department.
    10. Re:As every audiophile knows... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > Also: The "Virtual Tube" DSP amps do not sound the same, regardless of what a tone-deaf Electrical Engineer says

      Except in double blind listening tests, where no audiophile has ever guessed at better than the odds of luck which is a "real" tube amp, and which are programmed-to-sound-degraded-like-tubes digital equipment.

      Of course, when they 'know' which is which, they harp on the amazing superior quality of the tube equipment, even when the tube gear is really a rigged tube cabinet with digital insides, and the digital-looking equipment is the true tube gear.

      Always funny to see, that one.

    11. Re:As every audiophile knows... by GreatBunzinni · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Skilled musicians DO know music, and there is a reason they prefer tube amps for Guitars, Bass, etc.

      Yes, and that reason is marketing. Pure, simple, intensive marketing. Lots and lots of marketing being fed to them throughout their life. Fender and Gibson make the best guitars, Marshal makes the best amps and tubes are better than solid state amps. That's what is constantly being fed to them through implicit and explicit marketing campaigns. Yet, no one can rationally explain why are they better than the others, besides the huge price tag that comes attached to those products and the fact that "OMG my guitar hero uses one of those so it must be excellent.

      On the other hand, Brian May made his career playing a guitar that was made from wood taken from a fireplace and some bike parts and it sounds better than any 2.5k euro guitars out there. Makes you think. Or at least it should.

      --
      Slashdot, fix your code or at least hire someone who is competent at it to do it for you.
    12. Re:As every audiophile knows... by TimSSG · · Score: 1

      I was told the difference is the harmonics inherit in each of them. One is even harmonics the other is odd harmonics; so they sound different because of that. Tim S

    13. Re:As every audiophile knows... by TimSSG · · Score: 1

      Tubes are even; transistor are odd harmonic distortion, per article below. http://www.audioasylum.com/audio/faq/tubeprimer.html

    14. Re:As every audiophile knows... by EdipisReks · · Score: 1

      Soft clipping is a big advantage, for people who drive their speakers hard.

    15. Re:As every audiophile knows... by EdipisReks · · Score: 1

      Also, a properly built tube amplifier gradually increases in THD as the power output leaves the optimum band, where as transistor amplifiers tend to jump from very low distortion to very high distortion, the harder they are driven. Just a generality, but it's one of the reasons people say things like "it's only 50 watts, but it's tube watts."

    16. Re:As every audiophile knows... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Marshall make both valve and transistor amps. They also sound different both to each other and compared to other amps. As a guitarist, I don't have to explain why they sound different, just to listen and see whether I like that sound or not.
      I don't like them myself, and neither do lots of engineers and producers, but you can't deny they have a sound.

      Brian May did not build his own amplifiers, his tone is THE classic overdriven Vox sound. The cost of his guitar would be rather high if you wanted to buy one.. completely hand made original instruments are not cheap!

      There was once an attempt to build a silicon valve by carefully shaping the actual silicon channels in a FET to give the same characteristics. It turns out to be much harder than it looks....

    17. Re:As every audiophile knows... by cheater512 · · Score: 1

      Got a double blind test proving that? :)

    18. Re:As every audiophile knows... by earthforce_1 · · Score: 1

      Was this ever proven with a recent side by side transistoror DSP vs. tube listening test using the same speakers? I doubt it. Sounds like a good mythbusters episode.

      --
      My rights don't need management.
    19. Re:As every audiophile knows... by antiMStroll · · Score: 1

      The conspiracy is much older than that. Look at a Stradivarius violin or a Steinway Grand, play-o-phools continue to spend small fortunes on these musical instruments with no scientific justification. The same sound, guitars and amps included, can be had at any corner music or pawn shop for a fraction of the price. The world's going hell.

    20. Re:As every audiophile knows... by gardyloo · · Score: 1

      Indeed. I won't contribute to the debate of "warmth" in music when everyone in his right mind knows that transistors can do everything tubes can do. :)

            However, there's one place where tubes win out over transistors, as another poster stated: high-voltage amplifiers. Tubes can deal with much more power. More importantly, though (at least sometimes), is that when you use a tube amp, you're almost always stepping down the voltage going to the output. This drastically reduces the chance of oscillations in your amplifying circuitry, and makes things much more stable. When you're dealing with wide bandwidths and high power, this ability to get rid of feedback is very important.

    21. Re:As every audiophile knows... by Blkdeath · · Score: 1

      a nice, warm-sounding amplifier is not something made of transistors. It's a series of tubes.

      This line is getting really old. It's also utter hogwash. The only credence I'll give to it is if you over drive a tube amp its distortion sounds less painful than an over driven solid state amp.

      The argument is akin to the nuts who believe records (vinyl) are superior to CDs. Yes, vinyl has a warmth to it but that's essentially the minute hiss of the needle scraping the record surface. In other words the warmth people like about vinyl is a fundamental flaw that's just been adopted as an inherent greatness! Myself, I hate the scratching sound you get from records. Drives me up the wall.

      n.b. Digital music studios can input that hiss into the background of a CD and it'll sound just so every single time it's played. Vinyl on the other hand is susceptible to a bent or worn needle, imperfections on the turntable, interruptions in the turntable's speed, warping of the disk, etc.

      The problem with audiophiles is they tend to be very old and grew up with tube amps and vinyl records and have so many (tens of) thousands of dollars invested in it they have to justify it to themselves and by extension to everybody around them.

      I see the same phenomenon with a friend who owns a plasma TV (one of the new ones that doesn't burn! {chortle} ) as he left a Halo 2 game paused for some time while we ate dinner and resumed playing I was able to clearly read the contents of the pause menu through the next hour or so of game play. That's "improved"?!?

      I run my computer on my 60" DLP LCD Sony TV - yes, the task bar is always present at the bottom of the screen! If this were plasma I wouldn't be able to watch TV after a few days' worth of computer use! It's denial. He justifies it by telling me about some study that says plasma is more photo realistic and easier on the eyes for long term viewing blah blah. Sure thing skip. ;)

      --
      BD Phone Home!

      Shameless plug. Like you weren't expecting it.

    22. Re:As every audiophile knows... by antiMStroll · · Score: 1

      As an electrical engineer I also know tubes circuits can be designed with flat responses well beyond human audibility (hence, tube radios and transmitters) and that DSP isn't typically used to alter frequency response. Oh, and tube filaments keep glowing long after a tube's gain has collapsed. Some of the advantages you list are correct, supposedly the Soviets until recently used tubes in some critical circuits of their fighter planes. They also continued development in the field long after the Western world went silicon, originating some of the premier examples of the technology. To answer your question, assuming the tube circuit wasn't intentionally designed for audible distortion (by no means necessary), no one knows why, or even agrees on the 'if'.

    23. Re:As every audiophile knows... by ScrewMaster · · Score: 1

      Nah ... Mythbusters are too polite. I'd like to see it on Penn & Teller's Bullshit!. Now that would be entertaining.

      --
      The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
    24. Re:As every audiophile knows... by ScrewMaster · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You want to know what the problem is? The problem is not technology, or instrumentation, or double-blind tests, or anything remotely rational. It's a religion: people hear what they want to hear, and there's absolutely no arguing with them because their minds are closed. Permanently. You can prove, incontrovertibly, that a given audio waveform is reproduced more accurately by a solid-state amplifier ... but that won't matter. The tube amp just "sounds" better. Now, maybe it does ... but not because it's a better amplifier, but because it is a poorer one!

      --
      The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
    25. Re:As every audiophile knows... by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      As every electrical engineer knows, the frequency response of a transistor-based amplifier can be modified to mimic virtually anything, including tubes.

      But you have to know all the characteristics of something to mimic it correctly. It's sort of comparable human characters in CGI: they are difficult to "get right" not because we don't have the ability to control CGI enough, but rather because nobody knows how to program the subtleties needed to fool the viewer that they are looking at actual footage of a human. Emulating vacuum-tube amps may be similar.

    26. Re:As every audiophile knows... by DerPflanz · · Score: 1

      Music lovers listen to music, audiophiles listen to stereos. Whatever you 'audiophiles' say, a lot of it is pure nonsense. I cannot tell about the tube/transistor discussion (I think it is *very* hard to find the difference if you do not know), but there is a lot to be found (this, and this (sorry Dutch, couldn't find an English article). And then, you decide to buy a 20,000 euro set and put it in a room with the acoustics of a cardboard box. Good luck trying to find the 'perfect sound', I'll just play my lossy mp3s over EUR2,95 cables and a second hand stereo. And guess what, I think I enjoyed it even more.

      PS
      I am not tone deaf.

      --
      -- The Internet is a too slow way of doing things, you'd never do without it.
    27. Re:As every audiophile knows... by VVrath · · Score: 1

      Brian May did not build his own amplifiers
      I agree. It was Queen bassist, John Deacon that built Brian's amplifier for him.

      I'm being facetious, of course. When playing live, Brian likes a stack of (9!)Vox AC30s, but the complex, multi-tracked guitar orchestrations that typify his studio sound are all down to the (transistor based) "Deacy" Amp.
    28. Re:As every audiophile knows... by Circlotron · · Score: 1

      I describe to people the difference between solid state and tube musical instrument amps like this: Play an SS amp louder and that is what you get - it simply gets louder until it clips and makes lots of distortion SUDDENLY, kinda like when guitar strings buzz on the frets. With a tube amp, especially one that has little or no negative feedback the distortion =gradually= rises with sound level, giving an additional dimension (axis?) of expression somewhat like a piano that changes it's harmonic structure as the playing changes from gentle to firm. The amp is part of the instrument and it's contribution to the sound (unlike hifi applications) is 100% valid.

    29. Re:As every audiophile knows... by poot_rootbeer · · Score: 1

      The "Virtual Tube" DSP amps do not sound the same

      I would agree with this, but only because highly accurate solid-state modeling of tube characteristics is a very complex problem. The degree of fidelity possible with gear that can be sold to prosumers at a reasonable price point is kind of tube-like, but not quite; an audio version of the 'uncanny valley'.

      However, I'm also convinced that the placebo effect is very strong. It's "common knowledge" that tubes sound better, so many gear heads will reflexively choose the product that has cool glowing tubes to look at over the one that doesn't -- regardless of how the two products actually sound.

    30. Re:As every audiophile knows... by Cadallin · · Score: 1
      I think it's worth noting that I said "do not sound the same" not "can not sound the same." Nobody has, yet, devoted the research and created a truly indistinguishable DSP simulation of Vacuum tube guitar amps. Which isn't to say that it can't be done, be I maintain that it has not. Such an amp would likely be very expensive, and its far cheaper to just continue to make and sell tube amplifiers.

      Most of the replies have been trashing me for asserting that commonly available $200-$300 DSP guitar amps, don't sound the same as $800 to Many thousands of dollar tube amps; despite the difference in woods, cabinet construction, and speakers that (usually, I'm not claiming that there are no shysters selling snake oil) exist between the two classes of products. Even if the mythical perfect DSP simulation of a tube amp existed, the other differences would still cause differences in sound.

      You are right about the placebo affect though, which tends to muddy the waters significantly, but I'd argue that there is also a "reverse placebo" effect going on as well, where people hear so much Bullshit about a class of products they refuse to listen to any reasonable discussion on the topic. There is so much mystical talk about vacuum tubes that when you start talking about how their (very real) different distortion characteristics impact the sound of an instrument, people dismiss you. This attitude is simply ignorant, just as much so as people recommending a generic whitebox PCs over an IBM z-Series mainframe, when the situation calls for the latter.

  3. nah by Exile1 · · Score: 0

    it's all about the nano sized tubes

  4. not entirely by User+956 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    the AP provides the obligatory Moore's-Law-is-ending, no-it-isn't article.

    Not really-- if you're AMD, Moore's Law and Murphy's Law are kind of becoming the same thing.

    --
    The theory of relativity doesn't work right in Arkansas.
  5. Good 'ole days by pkadd · · Score: 0

    Ah, i wish i was around when the transistor was invented. I, like my father, and my fathers father, am an electronics geek. My grandpa used to be a teacher in the field of electronics, and he told me that the invention of the transistor led to all electronics-teacher were called in for a course on the transistor. I doubt that any device to come can change or suplement so much in a field anymore as the transistor did to electronics.

    1. Re:Good 'ole days by bvimo · · Score: 1

      What about the calculator replacing the slide rule? Or sci-fi uber quality holographic pictures.

      --
      In either case, here at Microsoft, we feel standards are important. And we have fun, too. Doug Mahugh, Microsoft
    2. Re:Good 'ole days by jacquesm · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I strongly disagree that the invention of the transistor 'led to all electronics', no offense to your grandad.

      The transistor is part of electronics, and electronics was quite well developed by the time the transistor came along. There were already steps towards miniturization using vacuum tubes as small as 3/8" across and only about 3/4" high, which was not that much larger than the first transistors. There were plenty of tubes that carried more than one circuit within the glass enclosure, so in effect they would already be 'integrated circuits' of sorts.

      The transistors main contribution was the fact that it was 'solid state', no glow current needed (so much less power consumption, which in turn allowed much further miniaturization) and the fact that they could directly switch current at voltages that could drive devices directly instead of through large bulky transformers. All the rest (thin film, the fet and so on) followed from there but are also just 'chapters' in the book of electronics.

      The basics are:

      - electromechanics (wiring, switches, relays)
      - passive components (resistors, capacitors, coils, diodes, etc)
      - active components (transistors, tubes, various variations on the transistor)
      - integrated circuits (which is a subbranch of active components)

      Relays, interestingly are also 'active' components in a sense.

    3. Re:Good 'ole days by blincoln · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The transistors main contribution was the fact that it was 'solid state'

      I would argue that one of the main contributions of the transistor was that they are not expected to wear out during normal usage. Tubes are not reliable enough to build complicated circuits (e.g. computers) for the mass market out of. Think "one tube failing every two days" like ENIAC, except repeated across millions of desktop PCs.

      --
      "...always new atoms but always doing the same dance, remembering what the dance was yesterday." -Richard Feynman
    4. Re:Good 'ole days by DrLudicrous · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I would say this- the transistor led to virtually all modern electronics. In fact, it is the basis of our modern life and economy. Without it, we could not possibly be where we are today. While tubes may indeed have been the size of the original transistor in 1947/1948, there is no way it could have miniaturized at the rate transistors have- in fact, there is most likely a hard limit to the smallest tube size. Finally, the transistors importance over tubes was that it acted as a miniaturized amplifier. Its true value lay in its ability to facilitate digital (Boolean) logic, which led us to develop computers. The transistor is the single-most important invention of the human race in the last 100 years, and perhaps even the last 200 (though good arguments could be made for penicillin/antibiotics).

    5. Re:Good 'ole days by jacquesm · · Score: 1

      the 'wear' that tubes are subject to is twofold, first minute bits of air enter the glass enclosure over time and second (helped by the first) the glowing spiral that produces the electrons that carry the current in a tube wears out just like any other lightbulb (of which the vacuumtube is really just a special purpose cousin).

      And yes, the lack of wear is a significant plus for the transistor, in fact a point could probably be made for the development of redundancy and 'hot swap' (tubes run hot to the touch) at a much earlier stage. Not to mention the power bill you'd receive if your average PC was tube powered. You'd likely have to live right next door to a power plant too :)

    6. Re:Good 'ole days by KenSeymour · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Indeed. I didn't realize until about 5 years ago that relays are still used in safety-rated applications such as train control and power control logic.

      These "vital relays" are made today by Union Switch and Signal
      and Alstom.

      Certain applications, which by law must use safety-rated components, include relays.

      --
      "We can't solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them." -- Albert Einstein
    7. Re:Good 'ole days by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      "the glowing spiral that produces the electrons"


      What??? What are you talking about???? The grid? The grid controls electrons, it doesn't emit them, or get hot.


      "hot swap' (tubes run hot to the touch)"


      What the hell does that mean? Do you even know what "hot swap" means? Hint: it has nothing to do with temperature...

    8. Re:Good 'ole days by jacquesm · · Score: 1

      You're an anonymous coward *and* an idiot, now that's an interesting combination.

      Vacuum tubes contain a tungsten filament that is heated up using a (typically) 6.3 V power source totally independent of the rest of the circuit.

      This current causes the filament to heat up to roughly orange in the visual spectrum and it will have a cloud of electrons boiling around it. This is also known as a 'hot' Cathode, in that it produces the desired effect by heating up a piece of metal. The byproduct of this process is a lot of infrared radiation, a good part of which gets absorbed by the glass enclosure of the tube, which tends to get too hot to handle in most operating conditions.

      The grid controls the flow of the electrons between the cathode and the anode (usually a plate around the assembly or somewhere near the top), you can have multiple grids (like a transistor with multiple bases, but the interaction would be slightly different) if you want but since this article is about the transistor we can pretend that tubes only have one 'grid'. The reason it is a grid (and not a plate) is because the electrons actually need to pass *through* the grid, on their way from the Cathode to the Anode. How many of them will get there depends on the voltage present on the grid input terminal of the tube.

      Hot Swap was an apparently misguided attempt at humour, I apologise for the fact that it went over your head. To insult you no further I will not attempt to explain the joke.

    9. Re:Good 'ole days by jacquesm · · Score: 2, Informative

      In fact, it is a spiral, just like the 'loop' in most lightbulbs that you can see is a spiral. The simple reason for that is that there isn't room enough in a small triode to pack in the wire as a continuous segment at the voltage that the filaments run at the currents are high enough that you need an appreciable length of wire to get to the required resistance.

      Just for you I've dug you up a picture of what an early model heater would have looked like:

      http://www.thevalvepage.com/valvetek/heater/fig4.gif

      and a few more recent types:

      http://www.thevalvepage.com/valvetek/heater/fig5.gif

      The two types of tubes that are still in common use either use the tungsten filament as described above (typically for higher power applications) or an indirect system where the heating filament is 'wrapped' by a small tube coated with some oxide, in this case the electron emission is secondary.

      Slasdot was labelled 'news for nerds', last I checked, and your remark about the 'hot cathode' being
      in contrast to there being no filament at all does not contradict anything I said before.

      Also, it's hard to tell one anoymous coward from another.

      Have a really nice day.

    10. Re:Good 'ole days by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      Tubes are not reliable enough to build complicated circuits (e.g. computers) for the mass market out of. Think "one tube failing every two days" like ENIAC, except repeated across millions of desktop PCs.

      We instead emulate the failure rate in software known as Windows [ducks head]

    11. Re:Good 'ole days by jacquesm · · Score: 1

      > Sweet Jesus your ignorance is astounding. The reason lightbulb filaments are wound in a spiral (actually a spiral of spiral wire) is to trap heat; it has to operate near boiling to emit visible light. It has nothing to do with emitting electrons.

      Trap the heat ??? that must be one of those things that we are not going to agree on, no matter how you produce a given amount of power in a given amount of space you'll not be 'trapping' any of it, the object (vacuum tube cathode, electric blanket, whatever floats your boat) will simply go up in temperature until it is emitting as much heat as you are pumping in to it in the form of electrical power.

      The spiral is simply a way to fit a long piece of wire into a smaller space so that it can reach the required temperature, if it could be done with a short and thick piece of wire then they would have done that instead but they can't because the wire would not have the correct resistance in that shape. That's very simple, elementary 'ohms' law level stuff, I'm sure even you can get it: short & thick: low resistance -> very little power will be transformed into heat (which is the main function of a heater), therefore we use a longer wire and we wind it up into a spiral, same physical size as the thick piece but more resistance.

      As for those being the 'exception', then just about all the tubes I've looked at where the exception... unlucky me...

      What is heat if it is not the primary emission of the *heater* filament in your book then ?

      It's easy: primary emission: infrared radiation, aka heat, secondary emission: electrons...

      The grid, photomultiplier tubes and loads of other things that have nothing to do with the price of tea in China do not come in to it. I don't even care if you even have a grid in there, we could be talking about a diode.

      I agree with you that if the grid starts emitting electrodes that things are out of whack though, it's not supposed to do that :)

      If you are shaking while posting *anonymously* on a forum somewhere I suggest you check your medication levels, maybe you missed a day or two ? Or do you feel threatened in some way ? Or is it that you think lobbing insults anonymously does not afford you enough protection already ?

      Also, there is an excellent article that I've found while trying to corroborate your statement about the filament being wound doubly, unfortunately that wasn't in there but it makes for interesting reading anyway.

      http://www.john-a-harper.com/tubes201/

      and with that I'm off to bed, if you wish to continue the conversation I suggest you log in.

    12. Re:Good 'ole days by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      (I'm not the GP AC.)

      Well played, sir (or ma'am). Well played.

    13. Re:Good 'ole days by jacquesm · · Score: 2, Informative

      hello again, mr. Anonymous.

      > Please I urge you, you seem smart but are mysteriously stuck with many misconceptions.

      So from being an idiot I now 'seem smart' ? I guess that's an improvement. Who knows where it will lead...

      > Perhaps you are self-taught. Commendable, but it's never OK to just assume what you know is gospel truth; investigate and keep learning, always be ready to discard notions proven wrong.

      Let me urge you a bit in return: (and btw thanks for the electron micrographs of the lightbulb, that was really nice and interesting stuff.)

      Lighten up a bit.

      If you really want to teach someone (anyone) then you should try not to come off as a total asshole, snipe attacks, dragging in everything but the kitchen sink to prove yourself, getting yourself worked up into a raging frenzy (by your own admission).

      That's not how I remember any of the people that ever taught me.

      Especially not whilst being anonymous at the same time, that's simply not nice. Most people don't even bother to read at the level where they can see your writings, they didn't call the 'guest' account 'anonymous coward' for nothing here. I'm out here with my name in full public view, 3 seconds of googling and you know who I am and what I do for a living (and after reading this how I got there) and if you're clever where I live and what my home phone # is.

      You're hiding behind a screen of anonymity and sniping at me by poking holes in something that was kept fairly simple on purpose to demonstrate your 'superiority'. But my initial writing was perfectly sufficient given the situation. In other words, you may know more but you are not very tactful, instead of expanding on what I wrote and recognizing that what I wrote was a simplified view of how things work in a tube, if you feel that there is a need for that (but not the be-all-end-all 100% optimized for production situation in a tube) and if you felt so inclined you could have simply expanded on it without making it personal.

      This is not the annual ARRL get together, this is /.

      Making things personal whilst being an AC is not a mode of discussion that will make you my friend any time soon.

      That sort of attitude tends to impede the flow of information. You come across as a *very* frustrated old guy, that thinks he's due some respect because of his age and knowledge that landed here by accident, and the more you refer to your books from 1962 and your vintage TEK (guess what, I have one too, well maybe not that much of a vintage one, a really neat dual trace, it even had a calibration certificate when I got it but it is most certainly out of 'spec' by now, it was moved several times internationally, but I did give one of the not very portable modular ones to my kid to take apart (it was gone beyond salvage, unfortunately, too many bits were missing)) the more you confirm that image.

      By analogy, if I explain to my son how a car engine works, you would come and stand next to me to tell me in a loud and belligerent voice how I know nothing about car engines because I left out the oil pump and am showing my ignorance. /. has lots of people that already know how vacuum tubes work, but there are also plenty of folks that haven't got a clue what a vacuum tube even is. For those that already know I really doubt I could teach them anything worth knowing (yourself ?), for the rest, people that can't remember a time before the CD and the chip a device made of glass and bits of wire that you could build a computer out of must be a pretty weird idea.

      No need to complicate that vision by adding in all the bits and pieces that make it manufacturable at a low price or hyper efficient. We didn't address the silver on the legs either did we ? (I'm sure you will now launch in a tirade of how ignorant I am and that it's not really silver if you still don't get my point).

      When explaining a transistor to someone you also would not right away start with vacuum deposition techniq

  6. rewritten history by Bender_ · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The field effect transistor, the device that is relevant today, was invented and patented in 1926 by
    Julius Edgar Lilienfeld. Due to his patents many claims by Bell Labs were thrown out.

    The device that was invented by Bell Labs in 1947 was a point contact transistor. An inherently fragile device not fit for mass production. The same device was invented in parallel in France by two german Scientists: Welker and Matere see here.

    Schockley himself did however invent the bipolar junction transistor a couple of years later. This invention was truly a streak of genius as it is the most complex of all devices.

    So, thanks to american corporate giants history was rewritten again.

    1. Re:rewritten history by ookabooka · · Score: 1

      So, thanks to american corporate giants history was rewritten again.

      If I recall correctly Lilienfeld never actually constructed the transistor. So I think it is safe to say it is the 60th anniversary of the first physically-existent transistor and not the 60th anniversary of the idea of a transistor.
      --
      If you are about to mod me down, keep in mind that this post was most likely sarcastic.
    2. Re:rewritten history by Bender_ · · Score: 1


      You mean without Teal? But that is for Silicon devices.

      ITT Intermetall did manage to mass produce transistors without any license or technology transfer from Bell labs in the late 40ies...

    3. Re:rewritten history by halftrack · · Score: 1

      Correct, Lilienfeld had the theory down but couldn't build a working device due to poorly understood and unknown surface effects. The transistor he described was a field effect transistor (FET.) This was also the type of transistor that Bardeen, Brattain and Schockley wanted to build. However, as I understand it, the point-contact transistor (which is a bipolar junction transistor, quite different from a FET) they created in 1947 was an "accident" while trying to build a FET.

      --
      Look a monkey!
    4. Re:rewritten history by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Lilienfield did not build any working transistors.

      A point-contact transistor is a bipolar transistor.

      The parent got +5 insightful for slagging off corporations.

      So, thanks to slashdot modermorons, history was written for a third time.

    5. Re:rewritten history by QuantumG · · Score: 1

      So, basically, what your saying is, Lilienfeld was a wanna-be patent troll and probably did nothing but delay the invention of the transistor because no-one wanted to step on his patent. That's something to be proud of.

      --
      How we know is more important than what we know.
    6. Re:rewritten history by Bender_ · · Score: 1


      Mod parent down for being plain stupid.

      Lilienfeld did in fact invent the working principle of the transistor. Whether he built one is not known. However he did all the groundlaying work on electrolytic capacitors as they are still used today. Therefore he knew very well how to create extremely thin insulating Al2O3 film that were a necessity for the type of transitor he described in his patents. It does therefore not appear entirely unlikely that he built some of the devices.

      The stuff about surface states is mainly important for bulk silicon transistors. Even without solving this problem it is possible to demonstrate amplification as numerous publications on II-VI thin film transistors show.

    7. Re:rewritten history by prat393 · · Score: 1

      Well then just wish *me* a happy birthday, I'm 23 today.

    8. Re:rewritten history by xZgf6xHx2uhoAj9D · · Score: 1

      Happy birthday!

  7. The Transisor's Significance by rm999 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    It's a little hard to put the importance of the transistor into perspective. One way of looking at it is about 3 billion transistors are made worldwide - a second. Imagine how different the world would be if these transistors were still made manually with vacuum tubes (or not made at all.)

    While you read this post, about 20 transistors were manufactured for every person in the world.

    1. Re:The Transisor's Significance by ookabooka · · Score: 3, Funny

      While you read this post, about 20 transistors were manufactured for every person in the world.

      Feel free to send me my 20 whenever you get the chance. What sort of transistors are these? MOSFETs? BJTs? N-channel, P-channel? I like them all.
      --
      If you are about to mod me down, keep in mind that this post was most likely sarcastic.
    2. Re:The Transisor's Significance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      Right now I have about 1e15 transistors in the production line for experimental purposes. Where do you want your 20 transistors? We are talking about a spec of dust with a size of a fraction of a cubic micron. You could easily inhale it and sweat it out later on...

    3. Re:The Transisor's Significance by moosesocks · · Score: 1

      Feel free to send me my 20 whenever you get the chance. What sort of transistors are these? MOSFETs? BJTs? N-channel, P-channel? I like them all.


      Although I'm sure you're joking, the number of transistors manufactured as discrete components (ie. something big enough to pick up and solder to a circuit board) is insignificantly small compared to the total number manufactured (most of which are "printed" onto an IC).

      For instance, a quad-core pentium contains 820 million transistors, which makes me think that the 3-billion per second figure might actually be too small.
      --
      -- If you try to fail and succeed, which have you done? - Uli's moose
    4. Re:The Transisor's Significance by canuck57 · · Score: 1

      It's a little hard to put the importance of the transistor into perspective. One way of looking at it is about 3 billion transistors are made worldwide - a second. Imagine how different the world would be if these transistors were still made manually with vacuum tubes (or not made at all.)

      That must be discrete transistors, as a modern day AMD X2 has over 200m per unit. So 3 billion transistors would only be 15 AMD X2 processors.

      Imagine a AMD X2 built out of tubes, 200+ million of them. The power bill....

      The transistor was an unquestioned major break through in electronics.

    5. Re:The Transisor's Significance by ZeroData00 · · Score: 0

      hmm, You got me thinking. What if we hadn't invented the transistor, or rather a transistor, no FETs, BJTs, etc.
      Well, How small could one theoretically make a tube? IE, could we still make ICs. I don't see any reason why the tube couldn't have gotten smaller. It's just a coil and plate in a vacuum. Given today's MEMS technology. I'm guessing that one could with some work fit a few hundred; possible a thousand on a chip of dip 40 form factor. I realize the power consumption would be off the charts and one would need a big heat sink. But not outside the realm of possiblity
       
      Stumbles off to write thesis.

      --
      When I was a boy the goverment stole everything from us.
  8. history of semiconductor engineering by hedley · · Score: 2, Informative

    might I recommend this book by Bo Lojek. Its a great history of how it all happened with a lot of technical detail. English is not Bo's first language but that is not an issue as its the technical detail and the science that carries this book.

    1. Re:history of semiconductor engineering by rapidweather · · Score: 1

      Let's see... Somewhere in this old box of parts there are:

      The Raytheon CK722 and the G E 2N107.

  9. Last post! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    Headline from February 7, 2496:

    Nearly 5 centuries after it was predicted, Moore's Law has finally come to an end. Having nothing to report, Slashdot's servers collapsed in a puff of 2048-qubit floating point reals.

    ... more on that later. But first, President Bush CXXIII was seen picking his nose in public...

  10. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  11. Re:As every camper knows... by mangu · · Score: 2, Interesting
    A nice, warm sleeping bag in a tent that you carried in your backpack is better than any hotel room.


    There's a taste for everything, but there's no denying that transistors make sound that's closer to the original, same as a hotel room is closer to the room where you (OK, most people...) sleep at home.


    Actually, one of the tube amplifiers biggest shortcomings, its high distortion, is one of the reasons why tubes are still used for a niche application: guitar amplifiers. The distortion caused by the tubes has been incorporated in the sound people expect of guitars, I suppose that's what you mean by "warm-sounding".

  12. Moore's-Law-is-ending, no-it-isn't article. by niceone · · Score: 2, Funny

    Bipolar?

  13. Only 60 years? by rastoboy29 · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    From that to this?  Far out, man.

    We rock!

  14. Imagine a ... by MPAB · · Score: 1

    Beowulf cluster of those!

  15. Had the transistor not been invented ... by MPAB · · Score: 1

    ... the Internet would be just an array of tubes.

  16. Obligatory quote from 1947 by ichigo+2.0 · · Score: 4, Funny

    "Imagine a Beowulf Cluster of these!"

  17. Mod parent flamebait... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The "Virtual Tube" DSP amps do not sound the same.

    Of course they don't, because nobody would build something which can amplify sound almost flawlessly, only to degrade the sound with artificial tube amplifier artifacts. The audionuts would still not buy it because it wouldn't glow in the dark and it would have those evil unsmooth bits inside.

  18. Happy Birthday by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Happy Birthday Transistor!

  19. God bless capitalism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    and deaf people..for transistors ^^

  20. Every audiophile knows... by Dr.+Cody · · Score: 1

    You've just professed belief in something verging on a Randi challenge in a Slashdot discussion.

    Would you like an oxygen-free, 99.999% pure woven copper blindfold and gold-plated cigarette?

    1. Re:Every audiophile knows... by Megane · · Score: 1

      Copper? Don't make me laugh. Every audiophool knows that you need silver. And not just any silver, but pure isotope 109 silver (its higher density makes the sound flow better).

      --
      #naabhaprzrag, #sverubfr-000, #agi-fcbafberq, negvpyr[pynff*=' negvpyr-ary-'] { qvfcynl: abar !vzcbegnag; }
  21. Home of the transistor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    First city to utilize transistors successfully

    technocity

  22. Who really "invented" transistors. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The Roswell UFO Incident involved the recovery of materials near Roswell, New Mexico, USA, on July 7, 1947.

    On 16 December 1947, William Shockley, John Bardeen and Walter Brattain succeeded in building the first practical point-contact transistor at Bell Labs.

    Coincidence?

    1. Re:Who really "invented" transistors. by QuickFox · · Score: 2, Funny

      At UTC 13:16 on Sunday 16 December you write about an event on 16 December 1947... Coincidence?

      You write this in 2007 and mention a UFO incident on 7/7 1947... Coincidence?

      2 posts about this subject appear on this page, one enumerating 2 points and the other mentioning 2 dates, and these posts appear 22 minutes apart... Coincidence?

      I think not. Clearly this can't be coincidence. Clearly you're an alien pretending to be a conspiracy theorist.

      --
      Terrorists can't threaten a country's freedom and democracy. Only lawmakers and voters can do that.
    2. Re:Who really "invented" transistors. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There was a 2, a 7 and a 16 in the comment number too, you missed that. :)

    3. Re:Who really "invented" transistors. by QuickFox · · Score: 1

      My goodness! I'll have to upgrade to a better tinfoil hat.

      --
      Terrorists can't threaten a country's freedom and democracy. Only lawmakers and voters can do that.
  23. Re:Oh 1947? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Daaaaamn AC, we can backwards engineer alien technology so quickly - only within a space of 5 months! It's a wonder we haven't applied that expertise to creating our own electronics!

    Oh, wait, it WOULD be easier to make it ourselves than to backwards-engineer a totally foreign idea. Silly me!
  24. Re:Oh 1947? by QuickFox · · Score: 1

    You can't fool me! You're just PRETENDING to be a conspiracy theorist!

    All the conspiracy theorists on the Web are really GOVERNMENT AGENTS! You're all just PRETENDING to be conspiracy theorists, to distract us so we don't notice your GREAT CONSPIRACY!

    --
    Terrorists can't threaten a country's freedom and democracy. Only lawmakers and voters can do that.
  25. Re:As every camper knows... by Fear+the+Clam · · Score: 4, Funny

    A nice, warm sleeping bag in a tent that you carried in your backpack is better than any hotel room.

    Right up until the next morning when you wish you had a hot shower and room service.

  26. Re:As every tube technician knows... by murderlegendre · · Score: 1

    (...)and ability to dimly illuminate the immediate area, not to mention a way to visually detect dead units

    In the world of vacuum tube failure modes, filament burnout isn't very high on the list. One exception is series-string filament setups (most TVs, some radios) where production variances in heaters inevitably cause one or more tubes to experience an excessive voltage drop. Excessive voltage can considerably shorten heater life. Problem is, like series-string Christmas lights - when one heater burns out, the whole string (often every tube in the chassis except for the rectifier) goes dark. Interestingly enough, insufficient heater voltage can also cause a tube to fail, through a process known as cathode stripping

    More commonly, tubes fail for other reasons including depletion of the cathode (loss of emission), contamination of the grid(s) (with material from the cathode), gas contamination (offgassing of internal elements, seal failure), shorts between internal elements or fracture of the envelope.

    So, just because the light is on, doesn't mean anyone is home

    --
    There's a Starman, waiting in the sky / He'd like to come and meet us, but he hasn't got the time.
  27. Re:Obligatory quote from 2007 by Culture20 · · Score: 1

    "Imagine a Beowulf movie made using these!"

  28. Same as for turntable people by aepervius · · Score: 1

    Because they prefer the distortion induced which sound to them more "warm" "sweet" or whatever adjective they want to qualify it, in comparison to digital processing, which has different set of distortion. But in the very end, whether one is better than the other for an everyday use (aka : not 1kw amplification) is a question of what attribute you are looking at. And as far as I know, for convenience/portability and quality of sound reproduction in comparison to the original nothing beat digital (and that is not even counting the new vinyl which are saved from a digitally processed signal to start with...).

    --
    C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
    http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
    visit randi.org
  29. Give me a break by Manchot · · Score: 1

    Lilienfeld never made an actual device. In EE and applied physics you don't get credit for inventing something if you were never actually able to make it. Moreover, the reason Lilienfeld wasn't able to make one was because he didn't know the underlying physics. He couldn't have: quantum mechanics wouldn't even be around for a couple of years. So, here we have someone who never made a device and didn't really even understand what was going on theoretically. Oh yeah, and he filed a patent, but never published otherwise. I'd say that he deserves a footnote, but nothing more.

    And yeah, I feel a little sympathy for Mataré and Welker. However, the sad fact is that they made their transistor a full two months after Bell Labs. Regardless of whether it was done independently of Bardeen, Shockley, and Brittain, they were second. I'd say that history got it right.

    1. Re:Give me a break by Bender_ · · Score: 1


      No quantum mechanic is required to describe field effect transistors in accumulation mode. And that is exactly what Lilienfeld proposed. The only theory that is required is that of space charge limited current, a field Lilienfeld has several publications in.

    2. Re:Give me a break by Manchot · · Score: 1

      You certainly do need quantum mechanics to describe surface states, which is the main problem with his designs.

    3. Re:Give me a break by Bender_ · · Score: 1


      Nope, we are talking about thin film transistors. Main problem is getting the semiconductor off current under control (purity), improve mobility (crystallinity, purity, doping) and getting a good gate insulator that is not attacked by the deposition process. With certain materials it is literally possible to build transistors in your kitchen. (eg. CdS)

      Look at the early work in thin films transistors. Schockleys attempts at building FETs suffered from poor silicon deposition. It took until the 70ies until people found out how to work with a-Si:H.

    4. Re:Give me a break by Manchot · · Score: 1

      Well, I would say that even a basic theory of conductivity requires QM. Sure, you could impose a proportionality ansatz, but this isn't very illuminating, and doesn't answer the question of why some charge carriers are free to move and others aren't.

      Besides, even if I revise my GGGP statement to remove the "he didn't really understand the underlying physics" portion, does it really matter? He didn't ever make anything and didn't publish. These are two major criteria for something to be taken seriously by the EE/applied physics crowd. Just having a basic idea isn't enough: past issues of APL is littered with hundreds, maybe even thousands of basic ideas that never really worked. Had it not been for Bardeen and Brittain, the transistor might have been amongst the legions of also-rans. IMO, they deserve most of the credit for the transistor's invention. Shockley should also get a substantial piece of the pie, thanks to his invention of the BJT.

      By the way, would I be correct in guessing that you are from Germany or Austria? I only ask because I did my undergrad at the University of Illinois, and your initial post touched a nerve in me since Bardeen is one of my intellectual "heroes." I would call him the Einstein of solid state physics and electronics, but Einstein never won two Nobel prizes. :)

  30. Tubes rule! by p51d007 · · Score: 1

    I'm old enough to remember the "glow" of the old tube devices. I worked in a television repair shop in the 70's and remember working on these beasts. Many a finger was singed replacing some of these suckers. Many times I would have a old 6U10 tube fail, causing the 6LQ6 output tube to run away and actually glow cherry red hot! An awesome site to watch, but then the pain of waiting for it to cool down enough to pull out and replace. I miss the days of soldering tube connections back together, removing dead mice or other critters who crawl inside those boxes to keep warm in the winter, then get zapped on the high voltage transformers. Ahhhhh.....the good old days ;)

  31. Re:As every camper knows... by antiMStroll · · Score: 1

    I have a 45 year old amp on a shelf with distortion figures bettering any scientifically proven metric for audibility at normal listening levels. The distortion argument became invalid with the introduction of the Williamson circuit (a very long time ago.)

  32. Tubes CAN be made on a microscopic scale... by Ellis+D.+Tripp · · Score: 1

    Googling the phrase "vacuum microelectronics" is quite informative. Or just look at a plasma screen TV, which is actually an array of tiny gas switching tubes. A good introduction to the field is here:

    http://bwrc.eecs.berkeley.edu/People/Grad_Students/botis/documents/papers/243_botis.pdf

    When tubes get that small, one no longer needs high voltages and heated cathodes to achieve electron emission. The electrostatic field and a tiny emitter point will work just fine. If solid state never came around, who knows what kind of tube-based electronics might have been developed.

    --
    Remember "News for Nerds, Stuff that Matters"? Help make it a reality again! http://soylentnews.org
    1. Re:Tubes CAN be made on a microscopic scale... by jacquesm · · Score: 1

      that's really funny that you should say that, it was one of the things I was wondering about while writing some of the other replies in this thread.

      I'd hate to think of a 1Gb dram based on any kind of tube technology though :)

      But maybe we'd have core memories assembled by nano machines instead, we'll never know...

  33. Thank You! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Gawd, this rewritten history bugs me to no end. It's an absolute insult to the people who did the original research, patents AND products before the Silicon Transistor came along.

    I thought I was going to have to correct the article by pointing out that AT&T didn't invent the transistor. I'm glad to see someone else has beaten me to the punch. Thank you.

  34. Pure Bullshit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sorry, but you have absolutely no idea of what you're talking about.

    Transistors were used in production, in World War II, long before AT&T came up with the Silicon Transistor.

    For one reference, see "A Different Kind of War" by Commodore Miles. There are other books and articles around from that period which also reference the transistor.

    So, while Lilienfeld may not have built one at the time of his patent (and that's questionable as well), others were building, using and selling them long before AT&T decided to take credit for the entire thing.

  35. "bulky, hot and power hungry" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Thats the best description of [insert random microsoft product] i've ever seen.

    Now, where are my mod points?

  36. iPod Nano by tsa · · Score: 2, Funny

    Transistors are really amazing devices. Imagine how big an iPod Nano would be if you had to make it using vacuum tubes! I guess you'd need a whole power plant just to keep it alive! And it wouldn't even work, because the tubes are too slow.

    --

    -- Cheers!

  37. They were in use during WWII by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You do realize that transistors were being made by the early 40's, don't you? They were even sold to the military during WWII, long before AT&T stole the credit.

    See my attribute elsewhere in this thread if you're interested. But there are numerous stories of transistors being used long before 1947.

  38. Way to go Forbes by rrohbeck · · Score: 1

    Quoting Gordon Moore as "Every year we make on the order of 1,017 transistors. That's a one followed by 17 zeros."
    Is anybody proofreading at Forbes.com?

    1. Re:Way to go Forbes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, I am, and I can tell you it's hard work. I'm not sure what your complaint with that sentence is, but you should have seen it before I fixed it!
      Why, some of the digits were in different sizes, and they didn't even line up properly! You can also see I added a thousands separator for increased readability.

  39. Re:As every tube technician knows... by Sanat · · Score: 1

    In the old AA5 All american five radio's there was a #47 6 volt lamp used to illuminate the dial in parallel with 1/2 of the filament of the rectifier... usually a 35Z5. Also the DC voltage (B+)ran through this lamp too If the lamp burns out then that upsets the voltage distribution and will burn out the rectifier tube.

    --
    And in the end, the love you take is equal to the love you make
  40. So You've Won Your Nobel Prize- Now What? by MillionthMonkey · · Score: 1, Offtopic
    Also, please consider that racism was much less frowned upon in the 50's of the previous century and that plenty of those oldies just never saw the error of their ways, which is unfortunate but understandable if you look at it from a slightly different perspective.

    While this may be true, how many other racist Nobel laureates of that era can you name? How many left such a bad aftertaste in the mouth of history? Maybe a lot of them held those beliefs in private, but Shockley became more famous for his racism than for his Nobel. He was almost like the Barry Bonds of Nobel Prizewinners- he didn't just win a Nobel, he proceeded to tack a big fat asterisk on it. At least Barry needed his asterisk injected in his butt to get his baseball in the first place. Shockley didn't even have that excuse.

    Having won a Nobel Prize myself as far as you know, let me tell you how this works.

    You will be amazed at how these things change your life- I highly recommend picking one up. Usually it means you're set for life. You get automatic Respect with a capital "R" wherever you go. You're invited to all the banquets and dinners, people want to be photographed standing next to you, anything associated with you gets lavishly funded, and you can pocket a few grand a night by reading crap speeches at podiums. You get your picture taken at Google headquarters (if you have time), and then Larry and Sergey will brag about meeting YOU- not the other way around. As John Cockcroft put it (Physics, 51), "When I look round this great hall I feel that I have been transported into a magical world by the genie of Alfred Nobel." And it really feels like that. Of course, the euphoria never lasts, but whether the Respect remains is up to you. It turns out that winning a Nobel Prize comes with its own list of DOs and DON'Ts.
    • DO decide on a life path. This is easy. It's perfectly Respectable to score a Nobel and then retire to Boca, languishing in comfortable obscurity and posting to Slashdot (but I repeat myself), with your name held in Respect and high regard for decades, centuries, maybe even millenia if this Nobel thing really catches on. People tend to assume you must be exhausted after winning your Nobel. Most people don't have them; how would they know?
    • DO decide how you would like to be remembered. If there were one sentence that people would use to sum you up, which sounds better? For example, "the guy who invented the transistor" or "the racist who invented the transistor"? Which one commands more Respect? Even in the 50s, you didn't need to be Nostradamus to figure that out- and this guy had a Nobel Prize.
    • DON'T venture too far from your field of expertise. Nobel Prizes are like money- they're denominated differently in different fields. If you win one in Chemistry, don't assume you're a genius in Literature too. Your prize isn't money there. Al Gore clearly knows what carbon dioxide is, so he gets a bit of leeway if he ventures from Peace into Chemistry a bit- a bit. He should stay out of Medicine unless he wants to start from the ground up. Shockley wandered out of Physics into eugenics (which is a lower-case field- it doesn't even get you prizes!) and history bitchslapped him for it.
    • DON'T screw things up for the people with whom you shared your prize. John Bardeen and Walter Brattain had every right to be pissed. Shockley made them lose Respect by association. Can you imagine the conversations? "Yes, I invented the transistor... I won a Nobel Prize for it... heh heh no not that guy."
    1. Re:So You've Won Your Nobel Prize- Now What? by jacquesm · · Score: 0, Offtopic


      >> Also, please consider that racism was much less frowned upon in the 50's of the previous century and that plenty
      >> of those oldies just never saw the error of their ways, which is unfortunate but understandable if you look at
      >> it from a slightly different perspective.

      > While this may be true, how many other racist Nobel laureates of that era can you name?

      Watson comes to mind:

      http://www.cnn.com/2007/TECH/science/10/18/science.race/index.html

  41. Coincidence ??? by dynomitejj · · Score: 0

    Hmmmmm..... Didn't that spaceship crash in Roswell a few months before that in 1947 ? Something to think about ......

  42. Re:As every camper knows... by bogjobber · · Score: 1

    Or when you wake up in two feet of snow.

  43. Re:Oh 1947? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It is always easier to backwards engineer electronic devices, than to invent your own. And it's not like at the 5 month stage it did anything except demonstrate that the principle worked. It took years more work to make a practical product out of the alien technology we found at Roswell. This is why there are 1,000 knock offs of the ipod and new phones inside of 4 months in China every time.

  44. Common misconception by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Actually most dead tubes do not look significantly different to when they were working. Generally the heater does not go open circuit so you still get the cheerful red glow. However if the tube has lost emmission it will not work in the circuit. It may also have internal shorts between any of the elements, which of course will stop it working.

    The most common failure that is visible is not actually the heater going, it is loss of vacuum. This can be seen because the getter (silvery patch on the inside of the glass) will turn white.

    Battery valves which worked with low voltage low current filaments were more prone to going open circuit, but since you could not see any glow normally you could not tell if they had a problem. Add this to the fact that they often ran all the heaters in a set in series like Christmas tree lights, and you had a trap for the new player since you had to figure out which one was gone.

    Gosh, makes me feel old....