From: James Easton <pulsar@compuserve.com>
Date: Wed, 24 Sep 1997 22:01:32 -0400
Fwd Date: Thu, 25 Sep 1997 08:57:46 -0400
Subject: Re: Transistor from Roswell: Claims and Reality

Regarding...

>Date: Mon, 22 Sep 1997 11:56:09 +0100
>From: Neil Morris <Neil@adm1.ph.man.ac.uk>
>Subject: Re: Transistor from Roswell: Claims and Reality

Neil wrote:

>I find it odd that the germainium point contact diode had been about
>for some time yet this technique hadn't seemed to have been used,
>they were still playing about with point contact "cats whiskers"...


Neil,

With obvious expertise, George Fergus, has addressed the points you
raised and I there's little I could add.


>This is all gut feeling but looking back over the years and even to
>my fathers interest in the same subject in the 50's I always got the
>impression that the transistor was a solution ahead of it's time, it
>felt that the rest of electronics technology needed the remains of
>the 40's and most if not all of the 50's to catch up, thats 12 years.

There are a number of aspects which affected the history of the
transistor from 1948 onwards. It wasn't universally accepted as a
breakthrough and, comparatively, vacuum tube technology was
significantly more advanced as a proven switching mechanism. I've read
some of the considerable material which discusses this topic and
highlights the factors involved. One of those factors was apparently
a gradual recognition that the vacuum tube would eventually reach its
limits, as demands for more complex systems increased. This was a
particular concern in the telephone industry, where a technology with
a long term future, and low maintenance overheads, was seen as an
absolute necessity.

It took some time for the "transistor revolution" to become a proven
alternative, but as the advantages came to be recognised, that
revolution gained considerable momentum.

On a web site, I noticed that someone had transcribed an article from
"Scientific American", September 1977 Volume 23, Number 3, pp. 63-9.

I've seen the original article, entitled, "Microelectronics", by
Robert N. Noyce, founder of the Intel Corp. and an extract might be
relevant:

The evolution of electronic technology over the past decade has been
so rapid that it is sometimes called a revolution. Is this large claim
justified? I believe the answer is yes. It is true that what we have
seen has been to some extent a steady quantitative evolution: smaller
and smaller electronic components performing increasingly complex
electronic functions at ever higher speeds and at ever lower cost. And
yet there has also been a true revolution: a qualitative change in
technology, the integrated microelectronic circuit, has given rise to
a qualitative change in human capabilities.

It is not an exaggeration to say that most of the technological
achievements of the past decade have depended on microelectronics.
Small and reliable sensing and control devices are the essential
elements in the complex systems that have landed men on the moon and
explored Mars, not to speak of their similar role in the
intercontinental weapons that dominate world politics. Microelectronic
devices are also the essence of new products ranging from
communications satellites to hand-held calculators and digital
watches. Somewhat subtler, but perhaps eventually more significant,
is the effect of microelectronics on the computer. The capacity of the
computer for storing, processing and displaying information has been
greatly enhanced.

[...]

The microelectronics revolution is far from having run its course. We
are still learning how to exploit the potential of the integrated
circuit by developing new theories and designing new circuits whose
performance may yet be improved by another order of magnitude.

[...]

It all began with the development 30 years ago of the transistor: a
small, low-power amplifier that replaced the large, power-hungry
vacuum tube. The advent almost simultaneously of the stored-program
digital computer provided a large potential market for the transistor.
The synergy between a new component and a new application generated
an explosive growth of both. The computer was the ideal market for the
transistor and for the solid-state integrated circuits the transistor
spawned, a much larger market than could have been provided by the
traditional applications of electronics in communications.

[...]

In spite of the inherent compatibility of microelectronics and the
computer, the historical fact is that early efforts to miniaturize
electronic components were not motivated by computer engineers.
Indeed, the tremendous potential of the digital computer was not
quickly appreciated; even the developers of the first computer felt
that four computers, more or less, would satisfy the world's
computation needs! Various missile and satellite programs,
however,called for complex electronic systems to be installed in
equipment in which size, weight and power requirements were severely
constrained. and so the effort to miniaturize was promoted by military
and space agencies.

The initial approach was an attempt to miniaturize conventional
components. One program was "Project Tinkertoy" of the National Bureau
of standards, whose object was to package the various electronic
components in a standard shape: a rectangular form that could be
closely packed rather than the traditional cylindrical form. Another
approach was "molecular engineering." The example of the transistor
as a substitute for the vacuum tube suggested that similar substitutes
could be devised: that new materials could be discovered or developed
that would by their solid-state nature allow electronic functions
other than amplification to be performed within a monolithic solid.
These attempts were largely unsuccessful, but they publicized the
demand for miniaturization and the potential rewards for the
successful development of some form of microelectronics. A large
segment of the technical community was on the lookout for a solution
of the problem because it was clear that a ready market awaited the
successful inventor.

What ultimately provided the solution was the semiconductor integrated
circuit, the concept of which had begun to take shape only a few years
after the invention of the transistor. Several investigators saw that
one might further exploit the characteristics of semiconductors such
as germanium and silicon that had been exploited to make the
transistor. The body resistance of the semiconductor itself and the
capacitance of the junctions between the positive (p) and negative (n)
regions that could be created in it could be combined with transistors
in the same material to realize a complete circuit of resistors,
capacitors and amplifiers [see "Microelectronic circuit Elements." by
James D. Meindl, page 70]. In 1953 Harwick Johnson of the Radio
Corporation of America applied for a patent on a phase-shift
oscillator fashioned in a single piece of germanium by such a
technique. The concept was extended by G. W. A. Dummer of the Royal
Radar Establishment in England, Jack S. Kilby of Texas Instruments
Incorporated and Jay W. Lathrop of the Diamond Ordnance Fuze
Laboratories.

Several key developments were required, however, before the exciting
potential of integrated circuits could be realized. In the mid-1950's
engineers learned how to define the surface configuration of
transistors by means of photolithography and developed the method of
solid-state diffusion for introducing the impurities that create p and
n regions. Batch processing of many transistors on a thin "wafer"
sliced from a large crystal of germanium or silicon began to displace
the earlier technique of processing individual transistors. The
hundreds or thousands of precisely registered transistors that could
be fabricated on a single wafer still had to be separated physically,
assembled individually with tiny wires inside a protective housing and
subsequently assembled into electronic circuits.

The integrated circuit, as we conceived and developed it at Fairchild
Semiconductor in 1959, accomplishes the separation and interconnection
of transistors and other circuit elements electrically rather than
physically. The separation is accomplished by introducing pn diodes,
or rectifiers, which allow current to flow in only one direction. The
technique was patented by Kurt Lehovec at the Sprague Electric
Company. The circuit elements are interconnected by a conducting film
of evaporated metal that is photoengraved to leave the appropriate
pattern of connections. An insulating layer is required to separate
the underlying semiconductor from the metal film except where contact
is desired. The process that accomplishes this insulation had been
developed by Jean Hoerni at Fairchild in 1958, when he invented the
planar transistor: a thin layer of silicon dioxide, one of the best
insulators known, is formed on the surface of the wafer after the
wafer has been processed and before. The conducting metal is
evaporated onto it.

Since then additional techniques have been devised that give the
designer of integrated circuits more flexibility, but the basic
methods were available by 1960, and the era of the integrated circuit
was inaugurated. Progress since then has been astonishing. even to
those of us who have been intimately engaged in the evolving
technology.

[...]

[End]


At the risk of losing sight of this list's focus, I'll cut it short
there.


>A thought to conclude with, the guys at Bell labs might have had a
>good idea as to how to build a "mouse trap" and physics being physics
>they most likly did, but if you you get your hands on someone else's
>working mouse trap, it sure helps your design time.


The documented history of the research and development which led to
the transistor, and the integrated circuit, has become an issue and
looking at the perspective in later years is perhaps also appropriate.

The "mouse trap" analogy assumes that, in the first instance, the
"Roswell" case has some proven merit as a basis for that analogy.

It doesn't and all we have recently seen are "alien transistor" claims
which offer no substantive evidence, are factually flawed and
seemingly fail to understand that the origins of the transistor have
never been a mystery.

That substantive, factual evidence of the transistor's history,
results in "conspiracy" allegations, was perhaps sadly inevitable.



James.
E-mail: pulsar@compuserve.com