Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

News for nerds, stuff that matters

IBM to Unveil Major Tech Advances

Posted by Hemos on Thu Dec 02, 1999 01:55 PM
from the all-sorts-of-new-toys dept.
mr wrote to us to point out an article on IBM in today's SF Chronicle. IBM, starting on Monday at the Internation Electron Device Meeting, will be disclosing eighteen new inventions coming out of their labs. IBM goes to so far to say that it will keep Moore's Law [?] around for at least another decade. The article also talks about some of IBM's recent advancements as well as describing some of the new stuff to be unveiled.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
IBM to Unveil Major Tech Advances | Log In/Create an Account | Top | 165 comments (Spill at 50!) | Index Only | Search Discussion
Display Options Threshold:
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
(1) | 2
  • Broken link (Score:4)

    by Anomie-ous Cow-ard (18944) on Thursday December 02 1999, @09:06AM (#1485793)
    The link in the story is broken. The story is here [sfgate.com]

    -----

  • Extra 'an ' in middle of url by Anonymous Coward (Score:1) Thursday December 02 1999, @09:07AM
  • The future is a strange trip indeed.... by PureFiction (Score:2) Thursday December 02 1999, @09:09AM
  • Never count Big Blue out by Bill the Cat (Score:1) Thursday December 02 1999, @09:09AM
  • Broken link yet again by joshv (Score:2) Thursday December 02 1999, @09:11AM
  • For those who haven't read the article by DoomHaven (Score:2) Thursday December 02 1999, @09:12AM
  • Advances Today (Score:4)

    by hattig (47930) on Thursday December 02 1999, @09:12AM (#1485799) Journal

    Motorola today said that they had found a way to make transistors 4 times smaller and be implementable in a short time-span. It reduces power consuption and allows for speed increases. This was on your favourite site [theregister.co.uk].

    The trench technology looks cool, burying the DRAM under the processor so it doesn't have to be next to it. That should increase yield whilst not compromising on capabilities of the processor. How much DRAM can you fit in 100mm^2? 400mm^2? That would be the amount of 2nd or 1st level cache your Athlon/Alpha processor could have built in, running at full speed!

  • ... by Signal 11 (Score:2) Thursday December 02 1999, @09:12AM
  • by meckardt (113120) on Thursday December 02 1999, @09:14AM (#1485803) Homepage
    This is great that IBM will keep the speed increase for CPUs going for another decade. But will it really make the computers speed up that much? As the article points out, memory on the chip is faster than memory not on the chip. Part of the new technology involves putting more memory on the chip. But what is not mentioned is that the computer bus (used in moving data from memory to the chip) is not the biggest bottleneck today. Even slower is the network connection between computers. Sure, there is progress here, but the rate of increase is no where near as steep as the speed increase for CPU cycles. The problem is that the amount if information being transfered over the networks is increasing too.

    Mike Eckardt [geocities.com] meckardt@yahoo.spam.com
  • 50% only? by gargle (Score:1) Thursday December 02 1999, @09:16AM
  • Re:achem...buy stock? by mwittenstein (Score:1) Thursday December 02 1999, @09:21AM
  • by superid (46543) on Thursday December 02 1999, @09:21AM (#1485806) Homepage
    adhereing to Moore's law for another decade? I think that translates into about 6 doublings ( doubles every 18 months ) So if you assume that "typical" current capacities are 128MB SDRAMs, 500MHz CPUs, and 20GB drives then we can look forward to 8GB SDRAMS, 32 GHz CPUs (and probably massively parallel SMP ones too :)) and 1.2 TB hard drives (and I'll wager that is on the low end too)
    "I'm not a member of an organized political party...I'm a Democrat" - My Brother, and Will Rogers
  • Re:IBM made money from NAZI efforts by Wyatt Earp (Score:1) Thursday December 02 1999, @09:22AM
  • Go Big Blue! (Score:4)

    by JackCat (110909) on Thursday December 02 1999, @09:30AM (#1485812)

    Looks like all the money IBM has historically put into general R&D is paying off once again. That's one thing Big Blue has usually gotten right....and something other large tech firms can learn from. Fund your scientists, and don't necessarily expect products immediately from them. Let them do basic research, and the products will follow.

    -- JackCat

  • Re:50% only? by Keelor (Score:2) Thursday December 02 1999, @09:34AM
  • by El Volio (40489) on Thursday December 02 1999, @09:35AM (#1485814) Homepage
    Moderate me down if you wish, but it seems like a lot of folks (read: Slashdot readers who moderate) don't understand what the various moderation descriptors (especially "Flamebait" and "Troll") mean. The above post does not appear to be a troll -- constructive criticism of /. is just that.

    This is similar to calling the "first post" messages "Flamebait" (well, maybe hot grits and petrified are flamebait). They're not. Trolls at best.

    The above is NOT a ulterior plea to be moderated up by folks who want to prove how "fair" they are. I moderate every week or two, just like a lot of you, and I am NOT looking for extra karma points -- each of my posts stands on its own merits (good, bad, or otherwise :)
  • Re:Never count Big Blue out by belgin (Score:2) Thursday December 02 1999, @09:37AM
  • Re:... by seaportcasino (Score:2) Thursday December 02 1999, @09:38AM
  • Re:Moore's Law Predictions by cpt kangarooski (Score:2) Thursday December 02 1999, @09:40AM
  • Re:For those who haven't read the article by belgin (Score:1) Thursday December 02 1999, @09:45AM
  • Re:Never count Big Blue out by 01000101 (Score:1) Thursday December 02 1999, @09:47AM
  • Re:... by KilobyteKnight (Score:1) Thursday December 02 1999, @09:54AM
  • by El Volio (40489) on Thursday December 02 1999, @09:55AM (#1485826) Homepage
    Extra thought: If Rob would post the latest SLASH code (even in an unorganized state) and thus bring home the benefits of Open Source (yay!), then we'd have two good results:

    All the standard benefits of Open Source (bug cleaning, extra features like URL checking, &c.)

    The warm fuzzy of knowing that /. is putting its money where its mouth is. IOW, as perhaps the discussion site for Open Source, /. would do well to directly and concretely support the ideals we all support as a community.


    So how about it, CmdrTaco? How about letting us take a crack at it?

  • Re:Moore's Law Predictions by goldmeer (Score:2) Thursday December 02 1999, @09:55AM
  • Re:The future is a strange trip indeed.... by Head Louse (Score:1) Thursday December 02 1999, @09:56AM
  • Re:... by Steve B (Score:1) Thursday December 02 1999, @09:56AM
  • candy coated marketing happy feely stuff by MillMan (Score:1) Thursday December 02 1999, @09:56AM
  • I love the way IBM has turned itself around. People look at the 80's now and say "Big Blue's previous life ended when the government basically sat on them for 10 years and let their competition keep up." Now look at some of the stuff IBM is up to:
    • Wonderful commercials with a real sense of humor. ("Can I get realtime access to my inventory and legacy systems?" "I...don't know how to do that. Look! Your logo has flames.")
    • Adopting Apache.
    • Alphaworks [ibm.com], probably the definitive resource for almost all things Java/XML.
    • Invention announcements like these.
    • Wearables.
    • Adoption of Linux.

    Now what I'm really wondering is this : at least one theory suggests that the government is in the process of doing to MS what it did to IBM back in the 80's. If that's true, and the DOJ keeps MS so tangled up over the next decade that competitors emerge, does anybody think that Microsoft will reinvent itself in a similar way? Sure, we can all hate MS as the big bad corporate enemy now, but we all did that 20 years ago, too, when it was IBM. Now we love them.

  • Re:Moore's Law Predictions by El Volio (Score:2) Thursday December 02 1999, @10:00AM
  • Re:The future is a strange trip indeed.... by Head Louse (Score:1) Thursday December 02 1999, @10:00AM
  • Re:Advances Today by Stonehand (Score:2) Thursday December 02 1999, @10:05AM
  • Re:For those who haven't read the article by Pennywise (Score:1) Thursday December 02 1999, @10:06AM
  • Faster CPUs are just what I need by Masker (Score:1) Thursday December 02 1999, @10:06AM
  • IBM and ..... (Score:3)

    by pvente (89848) on Thursday December 02 1999, @10:10AM (#1485842)
    Transmeta ? This was my first gut reaction to this story. I've heard whispers they have been working together (not to mention that IBM were lined up to fab the transmeta chips). I wonder about any connection between them (even though one is more hardware than the other), especially with the third advance mentioned in the article about mobile communications....hmmmm.

    Probably wrong, but fun to speculate nonetheless.

  • by arodrig6 (22052) on Thursday December 02 1999, @10:10AM (#1485843) Homepage
    Very true, the primary bottle neck in computers these days is memory and network latency. I think that the advances IBM is showcasing here will really pay off though in decreased power requirements which are becoming increasingly important as embedded devices appear. and the combination of Processor and Memory is an extremely attactive option as it relieves requirements on the bus.

    intersting work is being done in this direction under the Processor-in-Memory (PIM) project. [nd.edu]

    Another mechanism to decrease the effect of this memory latency is to use large numbers of low-level threads (often automatically generated by the compiler) to mask latency. By decreasing the context switch penalty to a single cycle (or less with interwoven threads) and then switching on every cache miss substantial benifits can be made. One example of this is Tera computing MTA [tera.com] architechture. For certain common simulation tasks the 4-processor TERA machine blew away a multi-node Origin and Cray computer according to This NASA report [esgeroth.org].

    Also, Sun's new MAJC [arstechnica.com] architechture uses threads to mask latency.

    Interwoven threads (where the processor switches thread every clock cycle) has the benifits of removing branch and data dependancies from a processor pipleine, thus removing the need for processor complexity like data forwarding, speculative execution, and the like. An example of this technique can be found a the TIPSI Project [nd.edu].
  • Re:Advances Today by hattig (Score:1) Thursday December 02 1999, @10:11AM
  • Mixed feelings on this one by Control Group (Score:1) Thursday December 02 1999, @10:11AM
  • Re:Ya think in 20 years Microsoft will do the same by Zan Thrax (Score:1) Thursday December 02 1999, @10:12AM
  • Way to go IBM (Score:4)

    by Z0nk3r (121624) on Thursday December 02 1999, @10:14AM (#1485848)

    These are all nice new technologies, but let' s hope IBM knows how to use them. Historically IBM has created quite a few technologies; unfortunately the management has, in the past, simply thrown the innovations away. Here are a couple examples:

    • Non-impact printing, i.e. electrostatic. IBM invented this in the 1950s, but the chief innovator got disgusted and left, forming a tiny company called Xerox.
    • Magnetic stripe recording. IBM engineers invented this in the 1960s for the BART train ticketing system. It was stolen from them by a French company.
    • IBM also created the first multisession WORM discs. Management killed the project, complaining that you couldn't erase old data.
    • Video cassettes as tape backups. IBM engineers figured out how to pack about 10GB onto one VHS cassette. Management didn't like it because it wasn't random access, like a floppy disk.

    On the other hand, many IBM innovations did make it, such as the magnetic hard drive. IBM still makes great hard drives.

    The article didn't say it, but allowing RAM transistors to exist below other circuitry effectively doubles the data density of existing DRAM chips. How does tens of gigabytes of RAM sound? The problem: how do you cool double the amount of heat coming from those RAM chips?

    I am looking forward to the faster and better computers and devices that will come from these innovations.


    --------------------------------------

  • Re:Moore's Law Predictions by goldmeer (Score:1) Thursday December 02 1999, @10:15AM
  • Re:Faster CPUs aren't what we need by sirwired (Score:1) Thursday December 02 1999, @10:15AM
  • Only if we let it. by slashdot-terminal (Score:2) Thursday December 02 1999, @10:15AM
  • Re:For those who haven't read the article by DoomHaven (Score:1) Thursday December 02 1999, @10:16AM
  • by Otto (17870) on Thursday December 02 1999, @10:18AM (#1485854) Homepage
    it seems like a lot of folks don't understand what the various moderation descriptors (especially "Flamebait" and "Troll") mean. The above post does not appear to be a troll -- constructive criticism of /. is just that.

    I agree. I think that the "overrated" and "underrated" should be used to simply mark a post up or down. The others should be used only if they're descriptive. Also, I wish that the term "Troll" was not a negative score. I'm not saying it should be positive, but not all Trolls are bad.

    This is similar to calling the "first post" messages "Flamebait" (well, maybe hot grits and petrified are flamebait). They're not. Trolls at best.

    Maybe there should be a "First Post Moron" descriptor. :-)


    ---
  • Re:Moore's Law Predictions by Artie FM (Score:1) Thursday December 02 1999, @10:19AM
  • Re:Only if we let it. by Just Some Guy (Score:2) Thursday December 02 1999, @10:28AM
  • Re:Way to go IBM by DanaL (Score:2) Thursday December 02 1999, @10:29AM
  • Re:For those who haven't read the article by dillon_rinker (Score:1) Thursday December 02 1999, @10:30AM
  • Re:Ya think in 20 years Microsoft will do the same by dmorin (Score:1) Thursday December 02 1999, @10:44AM
  • Re:Wonderful IBM Commercials by cowboy junkie (Score:1) Thursday December 02 1999, @10:45AM
  • Re:Moore's Law Predictions by TheDullBlade (Score:2) Thursday December 02 1999, @10:52AM
  • Hey, I saw that X-files....it wasn't an alien :) by Evil Poot Cat (Score:1) Thursday December 02 1999, @10:56AM
  • by dmorin (25609) <dmorin@Nospam.gmail.com> on Thursday December 02 1999, @10:59AM (#1485865) Homepage Journal
    "Wow. Look at the markup on miniature vegetables."

    :) True. I'd probably be more worried about it if I wasn't surrounded by people who are very interested in that sort of thing. It's a fact of life that industry wants profiling information.

    At least IBM is taking the right approach -- "We want profiling information so that we can help streamline the information we're providing to you." If I know you play tennis, there's two ways you can look at it. One is, "Oooo good, now I can sell him more tennis balls." Everybody hates this, of course, because nobody likes to feel like a target. But the second is, "Hey, you know what? Maybe I really am interested in knowing whose got a deal on tennis balls." Sometimes targeted messaging does actually work. It's really the same thing that the demographics have always been, only with better profiling they really know. They're not assuming "Oh, because you're in group X, there's a Y% likelihood that you play tennis."

    There's a new movement in this area. That's to get away from the use of the word "targeting" and to start making use of expressions like "1:1" and "relationship". People are happier having a relationship with the businesses they use. The whole point of the IBM focusgroup commercial is a bunch of people being pissed off because the ad people don't know them.

    And just in case anybody is prepared to argue that "1:1 relationship" is just new marketing hype for the same old spam, let me put it this way. When my grandfather walked into the local hardware store, the shopkeeper could say "Hello, Dan! Getting ready to send the kids off to college pretty soon, aren't ya? Got a good sale on bookcases down in aisle 3." And he would never, ever say "Have ya seen our sale on house paint?" if he knew that my dad had aluminum siding. And service like that was *appreciated*. People go on to the internet today and they ask where all the service went. The optimist in me says that all this 1:1 relationship stuff is actually a way to try and bring that *back*. If I really thought that I was just coming up with a better mousetrap (or in this case, spamtrap), I don't think I'd be working where I work.

    d

  • Re:Broken link yet again by Pont (Score:1) Thursday December 02 1999, @11:03AM
  • 18 to 24 months by jesser (Score:1) Thursday December 02 1999, @11:06AM
  • Re:Wonderful IBM Commercials by JohnG (Score:1) Thursday December 02 1999, @11:10AM
  • Re:Mixed feelings on this one by David Ishee (Score:1) Thursday December 02 1999, @11:10AM
  • Re:Commercials by Nodatadj (Score:1) Thursday December 02 1999, @11:11AM
  • Re:Ya think in 20 years Microsoft will do the same by Bill the Cat (Score:1) Thursday December 02 1999, @11:17AM
  • by Chalst (57653) on Thursday December 02 1999, @11:19AM (#1485873) Homepage Journal
    It occurs to me that if a post really deserves the rating `troll',
    then everyone who replies to it should automatically be moderated
    down...
  • Re:Wonderful IBM Commercials by dmorin (Score:2) Thursday December 02 1999, @11:20AM
  • Moore's Law by netwiz (Score:1) Thursday December 02 1999, @11:20AM
  • How many other companies can do... by Bill the Cat (Score:1) Thursday December 02 1999, @11:22AM
  • Re:Broken link yet again by jd (Score:2) Thursday December 02 1999, @11:24AM
  • food for thought: by crayz (Score:1) Thursday December 02 1999, @11:24AM
  • It would have to outweight die-yield by Nathaniel (Score:1) Thursday December 02 1999, @11:26AM
  • Re:Go Big Blue! by H-Monk (Score:1) Thursday December 02 1999, @11:27AM
  • Re:Ya think in 20 years Microsoft will do the same by crackpot (Score:1) Thursday December 02 1999, @11:29AM
  • Re:...cereal by QueenFrag (Score:1) Thursday December 02 1999, @11:29AM
  • Re:Commercials by shaum (Score:1) Thursday December 02 1999, @11:33AM
  • Re:Actually, it is your fault. by dmorin (Score:1) Thursday December 02 1999, @11:38AM
  • by jd (1658) <[imipak] [at] [yahoo.com]> on Thursday December 02 1999, @11:40AM (#1485888) Homepage Journal
    A penguin, disguised as a Furby, managed to sneak into IBM's Managerial Bunker. With their super-secret hi-tech recording devices, they captured the following snippet of conversation:

    "I'm worried. We have those press announcements on Monday, and you -know- Slashdot'll cover them. Our servers will never cope!"

    "It's ok. I've just put up some web pages, pre-announcing the announcements. If the servers melt down this week, we'll still have the weekend to replace them, and Slashdot readers don't care about repeat announcements."

    "That's cunning! Do you think they'll fall for it?"

    "I think so. The system load was showing 490% CPU usage, and rising fast, the last time I looked."

    * In the distance, the sound of a hard disk spinning out of the drive bay and colliding with a UPS unit. An IL&M techie is on-hand to supply the effects *

    * Outside the building, the T1 link is glowing red, then blue, before finally exploding as the energy from the packets causes the fibre to undergo nuclear fusion. *

  • Re:...cereal by Captain Nitpick (Score:1) Thursday December 02 1999, @11:44AM
  • Re:OS /. by PondScum (Score:1) Thursday December 02 1999, @11:48AM
  • by taniwha (70410) on Thursday December 02 1999, @11:54AM (#1485891) Homepage Journal
    Heat disipation in rams has normally been in the sense circuitry and pads - and while hopefully accesses are spread randomly across a die dram manufacturers have to be carefull about hotspots (like when you loop reading the same location for ever).

    In fact reducing the number of off-die memory accesses may reduce the power (no need to source/sink to those external bus signal's caps)

    The more complex anything gets - the lower the yield (basic rule of nature - I suspect it applies to life too :-)

  • Re:OT: Use of moderation descriptors by El Volio (Score:1) Thursday December 02 1999, @11:57AM
  • OT: I agree, Open Source /. by roystgnr (Score:2) Thursday December 02 1999, @11:59AM
  • Re:Only if we let it. by Industrial Disease (Score:2) Thursday December 02 1999, @12:02PM
  • Re:OT: Use of moderation descriptors by cheese63 (Score:1) Thursday December 02 1999, @12:06PM
  • Re:Ya think in 20 years Microsoft will do the same by mr (Score:1) Thursday December 02 1999, @12:10PM
  • Re:Ya think in 20 years Microsoft will do the same by seaportcasino (Score:1) Thursday December 02 1999, @12:19PM
  • Allocation of Resources by Industrial Disease (Score:2) Thursday December 02 1999, @12:20PM
  • Re:50% only? by Buaku (Score:1) Thursday December 02 1999, @12:21PM
  • Re:IBM and ..... by seaportcasino (Score:1) Thursday December 02 1999, @12:22PM
  • Re:Moore's Law Predictions by Anonymous Coward (Score:1) Thursday December 02 1999, @12:24PM
  • Re:Way to go IBM - but not SQL by john@iastate.edu (Score:1) Thursday December 02 1999, @12:35PM
  • Re:Ya think in 20 years Microsoft will do the same by cyoon (Score:1) Thursday December 02 1999, @12:36PM
  • Re:OT: I agree, Open Source /. by Anonymous Coward (Score:1) Thursday December 02 1999, @12:40PM
  • Re:food for thought: by Mawbid (Score:1) Thursday December 02 1999, @12:58PM
  • Re:50% only? by gargle (Score:1) Thursday December 02 1999, @01:22PM
  • IBM *did* develop SQL by DanaL (Score:1) Thursday December 02 1999, @01:39PM
  • Re:Moore's Law Predictions by jhines (Score:1) Thursday December 02 1999, @01:47PM
  • Re:Moore's Law Predictions by Issue9mm (Score:2) Thursday December 02 1999, @01:54PM
  • by the eric conspiracy (20178) on Thursday December 02 1999, @02:17PM (#1485926)
    AT&T: Perhaps, but I am not aware of what basic science things they have invented aside from some applied computer science stuff (C, Unix, etc).

    How about the transistor? Or the laser? Or Information Theory? The solar cell, and perhaps the communications satellite? Cellular phones? How about the first photonic computer? How about Radio Astronomy including the Big Bang remnant radiation? The application of statistics to the social sciences? Or waveguide optical fibre (making transoceaninc optical cables possible).

    AT&T had the best industrial labs in the world before they spun them off as Lucent. No other lab in the world has come close to contributing as much. Eleven workers at Bell Labs have been awarded Nobel Prizes.

    Schawlow and Townes Invent the Laser

    The invention of the laser, which stands for light amplification by stimulated emission of radiation, can be dated to 1958 with the publication of the scientific paper, Infrared and Optical Masers, by Arthur L. Schawlow, then a Bell Labs researcher, and Charles H. Townes, a consultant to Bell Labs. That paper, published in Physical Review, the journal of the American Physical Society, launched a new scientific field and opened the door to a multibillion-dollar industry.

    The work of Schawlow and Townes, however, can be traced back to the 1940s and early 50s and their interest in the field of microwave spectroscopy, which had emerged as a powerful tool for puzzling out the characteristics of a wide variety of molecules. Neither man was planning on inventing a device that would revolutionize a number of industries, from communications to medicine. They had something more straightforward in mind, developing a device to help them study molecular structures.

    The beginnings at Bell Labs Townes, armed with a Ph.D. degree in physics from the California Institute of Technology, joined Bell Labs in 1939, where he worked on a variety of problems, including microwave generation, vacuum tubes, and magnetics. He then moved on to solid-state physics, studying electron emissions from surfaces. One day, about a year after Townes arrived at Bell Labs, Mervin Kelley, then director of Townes' laboratory, informed the group, "On Monday, I want you to start a radar bombing system." Townes wasn't enthusiastic about the assignment, but realized that World War II had invaded the quiet hallways of Bell Labs. "We worked at it pretty hard, and after about a year we had a system which we put in an airplane, and actually used. It worked.

    For those who are interested in the history of the first transistor, here is
    an excerpt from "The TRANSISTOR - A Crystal Triode" by Fink and Rockett in
    ELECTRONICS 21, 68-71 (Sep 1948), describing the work at the Bell Telephone
    Laboratories:

    "Although investigation of semiconductors at BTL dates back a number of years,
    with the end of the war a concentrated basic research progrm was undertaken."



    "The group on semiconductors, led by William Shockley, one of this country's
    leading solid-state physicists, was seeking answers to three basic questions:
    (1) physically, what is a semiconductor, (2) how doers its physical nature
    produce its observed properties, and (3) how does the fabrication and
    processing of the material affect its physical nature? Among the
    semiconductors studied were silicon, copper oxide, and germanium."

    "A great deal of empirical information had been amassed on these substances
    during their use, particularly as detectors in microwave equipment ("Crystal
    Rectifiers", H.C. Torrey and C.A. Whitmer, Mcgraw-Hill, 1948). In particular
    it was known that their resistivities were determined chiefly by impurities,
    and furthermore that their resistivities could be varied over wide ranges by
    applying various external influences (light in the case of photocells,
    electric potential in the case of rectifiers and detectors, or temperature
    in the case of Thermistors)."



    "Likewise, a high potential applied externally (without making contact) to
    a semiconductor should change its resistivity. Using a sheet of germanium
    as one plate of a capacitor, Shockley and his colleagues measured the change
    in resistance produced by changing the voltage across the capacitor. The
    change in resistance was much smaller than anticipated in the light of
    prevailing theory. Conclusion: something wrong with theory. So John Bardeen,
    a theoretical physicist in the group, devised a theory of surface states that
    would account for the measured change as well for older known effects
    unexplained by previous theories."



    "The new theory suggested new experiments, which, when performed, called for
    refinements in the theory. While W.H. Brattain and John Bardeen were following
    up the consequences of the refined theory of surface states they invented the
    Transistor."

    The discovery was made in December 1947, but not announced to the world at
    large until July, 1948, after additional devices has been fabricated and
    tested.

    ------------------------------------------------ ------------------------
    Further details are given by J. Bardeen and W.H. Brattain themselves in
    their introduction to "Physical Principles Involved in Transistor Action",
    published simultaneously in BELL SYSTEM TECHNICAL JOURNAL 28, 239-277
    (Apr 1949) and PHYSICAL REVIEW 75, 1208-1225 (1949) as follows:

    "The properties of germanium as a semi-conductor and as a rectifier have
    been investigated by a group working under the direction of K. Lark-Horovitz
    at Purdue University. Work at the Bell Telephone Laboratories
    was initiated by R.S. Ohl before the war in connection with the development
    of silicon rectifiers for use as detectors at microwave frequencies. Research
    and development on both germanium and silicon rectifiers during and since the
    war has been done in large part by a group under J.H. Scaff. The background
    of information obtained in these various investigations hs been invaluable."

    [A summary of the wartime weapons research can be found in "Development of
    Silicon Crystal Rectifiers for Microwavve Radar Receivers" by Scaff and Ohl,
    BELL SYSTEM TECHNICAL JOURNAL 26, 1-30 (Jan 1947)]

    "The general research program leading to the transistor was initiated and
    directed by W. Shockley. Work on germanium and silicon was emphasized because
    they are simpler to understand than most other semi-conductors. One of the
    investigations undertaken was the study of the modulation of conductance of a
    thin film of semi-conductor by an electric field applied by an electrode
    insulated from the film. [described in "Modulation of Conductance by Surface
    Charges" by Shockley and Pearson, PHYSICAL REVIEW 74, 232 (July 15, 1948)]
    If, for example, the film is made one plate of a parallel plate condenser,
    a charge is induced on the surface. If the individual charges which make up
    the induced charge are mobile, the conductance of the film will depend on
    the voltage applied to the condenser. The first experiments performed to
    measure this effect indicated that most of the induced charge was not mobile.
    This result, taken along with other unexplained phenomena such as the small
    contact potential difference between n- and p- type silicon and the
    independence of the rectifying properties of the point contact rectifier on
    the work function of the metal point, led one of the authors [Bardeen,
    "Surface States and rectification at metal semiconductor contact", PHYSICAL
    REVIEW 71, 717-727 (1947)] to an explanation in terms of surface states.
    This work led to the concept that space charge barrier layers may be present
    at the free surfaces of semi-conductors such as germanium and silicon,
    independent of a metal contact. Two experiments immediately suggested were
    to measure the dependence of contact potential on impurity concentration
    and to measure the change of contact potential on illuminating the surface
    with light. Both of these experiments were successful and confirmed the
    theory. [Brattain & Shockley, PHYSICAL REVIEW 72, 345L (1947)] It was while
    studying the latter effect with a silicon surface immersed in a liquid that
    it was found that the density of surface charges and the field in the space
    charge region could be varied by applying a potential across an electrolyte
    in contact with the silicon surface. While studying the effect of field
    applied applied by an electrolyte on the current voltage characeristic of
    a high-back-voltage germanium rectifier, the authors were led to the concept
    that a portion of the current was being carried by holes flowing near the
    surface. Upon replacing the electrolyte with a metal contact transistor
    action was discovered."

    "The germanium used in the transistor is an n-type or excess semi-conductor
    with a resistivity of the order of 10 ohm-cm, and is the same as the material
    used in high-back-voltage germanium rectifiers." ["Preparation of High Back
    Voltage Germanium Rectifiers" by J.H. Scaff and H.C. Theuerer, NATIONAL
    DEFENSE RESEARCH COMMITTEE 14-555 (Oct 24, 1945)]



    "Our discussion has been confined to the transistor in which two point
    contacts are placed in close proximity on one face of a germanium block.
    It is apparent that the principles can be applied to other geometrical
    designs and to other semi-conductors. Some preliminary work has shown
    that transistor action can be obtained with silicon and undoubtedly other
    semi-conductors can be used."

    ------------------------------------------------ ------------------------

    Later that year, William Shockley extended the theory from simple metal-
    semiconductor junctions to full semiconductor-semiconductor junctions,
    and suggested that the behavior of a transistor made from such junctions
    would be easier to predict than that of the point-contact transistors
    made so far. From the introduction to "The Theory of p-n Junctions in
    Semiconductors and p-n Junction Transistors", BELL SYSTEM TECHNICAL JOURNAL
    28, 435-489 (July 1949):

    "As is well known, silicon and germanium may be either n-type or p-type
    semiconductors, dependig on which of the concentrations Nd of donors or
    Na of acceptors, is the larger. If, in a single sample, there is a
    transition from one type to the other, a rectifying photosensitive p-n
    junction is formed. The theory of such junctions is in contrast to those
    of ordinary rectifying junctions because, on both sides of the junction,
    both electron flow and hole flow must be considered. In fact, a major
    portion of the hole current may persist into the n-type region and vice-
    versa. In later sections we show how this feature has a number of
    interesting consequences" ...

    "A p-n junction may act as an emitter in the transistor sense, since it
    can inject hole current into n-type material."



    "The p-n-p transistor has the interesting feature of being calculable
    to a high degree. One can consider such questions as the relative ratios
    of width to length of the n-region and the effect of altering impurity
    contents and scaling the structure to operate in different frequency
    ranges."

    ------------------------------------------------ ------------------------

    With the assistance of several others (Morgan, Sparks, & Teal), Shockley
    went on to produce a working p-n junction transistor in 1951, and in 1952
    he went on to develop the theory behind the field-effect transistor, which
    is the type most commonly used today in computer chips. ["A Unipolar
    Field-Effect Transistor", PROCEEDINGS OF THE I.R.E. 40, 1365+ (Nov 1952)]

    -George Fergus


  • Re:... by Cvandal (Score:1) Thursday December 02 1999, @02:58PM
  • Re:Actually, it is your fault. by cabbey (Score:1) Thursday December 02 1999, @04:38PM
  • Datapoint: by Chris Johnson (Score:2) Thursday December 02 1999, @04:45PM
  • That's for sure. by Chris Johnson (Score:2) Thursday December 02 1999, @05:01PM
  • Re:food for thought: by Hacksworth (Score:1) Thursday December 02 1999, @05:39PM
  • no, it's road agregat by cabbey (Score:1) Thursday December 02 1999, @06:16PM
  • missed point by cabbey (Score:1) Thursday December 02 1999, @06:46PM
  • Re:food for thought: by cabbey (Score:1) Thursday December 02 1999, @07:14PM
  • Re:Moore's Law Predictions by gordzilla (Score:1) Thursday December 02 1999, @09:06PM
  • First they have to change by Steeltoe (Score:1) Thursday December 02 1999, @09:55PM
  • Re:Faster CPUs aren't what we need by The Variable Man (Score:1) Friday December 03 1999, @12:30AM
  • Re:Never count Big Blue out by phurley (Score:1) Friday December 03 1999, @02:43AM
  • Re:... by phurley (Score:1) Friday December 03 1999, @02:54AM
  • Re:OT: Use of moderation descriptors by Otto (Score:2) Friday December 03 1999, @05:28AM
  • Re:IBM *did* develop SQL by john@iastate.edu (Score:1) Friday December 03 1999, @07:23AM
  • Re:IBM and ..... by dublin (Score:2) Friday December 03 1999, @12:40PM
  • Re:Moore's Law Predictions by cabbey (Score:1) Friday December 03 1999, @01:15PM
  • 54 replies beneath your current threshold.
(1) | 2