
Evolution of the Transistor: Shockley, Bardeen and Brattain - rbanffy
http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2017/04/03/transistor-shockley-bardeen-brattain-modern-electronics/id=79427/#.WPFXhgK9L0c.linkedin
======
ajross
The article somewhat misrepresents the Lilienfeld transistor, IMHO. He was
awarded a patent for a device that would operate essentially like a MOSFET.
But he did not have a handle on the theory behind how such a device would work
(no one did yet), and critically he never actually managed to build one (as
far as anyone can tell).

FETs are very simple devices to explain, they're very complicated devices to
model from first principles, and even harder to manufacture. Simply drawing
some pictures of one and filing a patent doesn't really count for much in my
book. Though maybe that's not surprising given that the source is a rag called
"ipwatchdog"...

~~~
Nomentatus
If the idea is novel and not something an ordinary mechanic can come up with,
that's eminently patentable; Watt didn't have to build a working two-chamber
steam engine to get his patent, I don't believe. All the rest of what it takes
to actually build it is patentable too, if it isn't obvious. That opportunity
isn't lost.

~~~
ajross
I was quibbling more with the idea that the patent represents an "invention"
of the transistor than whether it was valid.

I mean, da Vinci drew something like a glider once. Did he invent air travel?

~~~
Nomentatus
He invented the glider, IF he was first (but this is unlikey, the paper
airplane may extend nearly as far back as paper, as toy hot air ballons do -
in China.) Nobody invented all transistors, nor all aircraft, but it's
reasonable to give the Wrights special attention.

------
itchyjunk
Do we have contenders to challenge integrated circuits? 3D transistor[0] or
graphine transistors[1]?

I just hope the next revolutionary step happens in my lifetime. Not
complaining about all the stuff already happening, just want more!

Edit: [3]

\------------------------

[0]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multigate_device](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multigate_device)

[1] [https://phys.org/news/2016-05-graphene-based-transistor-
cloc...](https://phys.org/news/2016-05-graphene-based-transistor-clock-
processors.html)

[3] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tunnel_field-
effect_transistor](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tunnel_field-
effect_transistor)

~~~
deepnotderp
The problem is that everything useful has either showed or stopped scaling.
For example, at 10nm (7nm for TSMC) we're getting an ungodly number of logic
gates, but sram cell size scaling and Dennard scaling, two things we actually
care about have slowed. Similarly, the cost of data movement hasn't come down
much.

So 3d transistors and graphene transistors won't help all too much. And
besides, FinFET s are basically a form of 3d transistors.

~~~
smaddox
Logic cell density is still increasing approximately exponentially [1].

[1] [https://newsroom.intel.com/newsroom/wp-
content/uploads/sites...](https://newsroom.intel.com/newsroom/wp-
content/uploads/sites/11/2017/03/Kaizad-Mistry-2017-Manufacturing.pdf)

~~~
deepnotderp
Exactly! And that's what we _don 't_ care about.

~~~
smaddox
Okay, fine, logic and SRAM cell density are still shrinking (at Intel). Now
are you happy? Just read the report.

------
Lotus123
The book
[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Innovators_(book)](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Innovators_\(book\))
is worth reading for all the drama and boudoir and history of the invention

------
aftbit
Is this bit nonsense or am I just sorely misinformed?

> [...] theory of superconductivity, an important technological aspect
> underpinning supercomputers.

What does superconductivity have to do with supercomputers?

