![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I'm interested in the source of any evidence that Lilienfeld DIDN'T build his devices. If we speculate that pure materials were needed and therefore his devices could not have worked, well, that's SPECULATION. (I vaguely remember a SciAm AMATEUR SCIENTIST project where thin-film transistors were made using fairly impure materials!) It was my impression that nobody knows whether Lilienfeld's devices worked or not. -- Wjbeaty 19:55, Mar 20, 2005 (UTC)
Removed from the article
The nobel price was obviously given for the first experimental and theoretical demonstration of the transistor. There are numerous other people who contributed and demonstrated related work, not limited to Lilienfeld. (O. Heil, H. Matare and H. Welker come to mind.) -- Qdr 22:48, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
The semiconductor physicist H. E. Stockman says "Lilienfeld demonstrated his remarkable tubeless radio receiver on many occasions, but God help a fellow who at that time threatened the reign of the tube." See Bell Labs Memorial: Who really invented the transistor?, starting at "Oscillating Crystals".
Here's a paper which details some history of the laboratory testing of Lilienfeld's patent claims by others: The Other Transistor: early history of the MOSFET See pp235-236
Briefly: In 1964 a physicist V. Bottom asked in Physics Today magazine whether these transistors worked, and J. B. Johnson of Bell Labs responded saying that he'd tested them and they didn't work. This probably is the origin of the story that Lilienfeld never had any working hardware. Then in 1995 R. G. Arns found a 1948 legal deposition by Johnson which said the opposite: that Bell Labs back then had a project to test Lilienfeld's transistors, and before Johnson took over the project, Shockely and Pearson had built Lilienfeld's aluminum oxide MOSFET from his patent and found only an 11% modulation index, but that "useful power output is substantial"! To me this sounds like Johnson, being with Bell Labs, perhaps had an agenda to promote his own company's discovery while misleading the physics community about Lilienfeld's. After Shockley/Pearson's success, Johnson had tested the other two Lilienfeld patents and was unable to replicate them ...so Johnson was only dishonest in his covering up the fact that Bell Labs well knew that Lilienfeld had something real. Between these times B. Crawford in 1991 built successful but unstable Lilienfeld MOSFETs and saw evidence that Lilienfeld had done the same. In 1995 J. Ross built stable Lilienfeld MOSFETs. The author makes a very telling statement about the honesty of these scientists: "Published scientific, technical, and hstorical papers by these Bell scientists never mention either Lilienfeld’s or Heil’s prior work." -- Wjbeaty 03:13, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
Just in case somebody is interested in how Julius Lilienfelds results can be replicated using 1920ies technologies. I found a paper JVST A Volume 20, Issue 4, pp. 1365-1368 describing transistors made with anodized aluminum gate insulator and a chemical bath deposited semiconductor (CdS/CdSe). Both are techniques that do not require complicated equipment (beaker, current source, heater) and should have been accessible in the 1920ies.
Bizarrely enough the same authors managed to file patent on their technique (US6225149), despite of all the prior art. (Using chemical bath deposition for transistors is not exactly a novel idea..) -- Qdr 20:36, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
In this Canadian patent from 1927 he referred to himself as "a citizen of Poland" and on page 20 of this presentation a letter from Lilienfeld to Maria Skłodowka-Curie can be seen, where he asks about "a possibility of presenting relevant phenomena to the French" and explains how "a Pole in Germany" cannot go back to Poland, as it would mean stopping his work for a few years. This letter is quoted to be from the archive of the Maria Skłodowkska-Curie Museum, bearing the number M/320. I do not have the means to verify that with the Museum, but I feel like this is sufficient evidence of him being Polish. 188.146.75.74 ( talk) 18:41, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
Any evidence of this wheat allergy being an undiagnosed gluten intolerance MagistrateAustin ( talk) 13:51, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I'm interested in the source of any evidence that Lilienfeld DIDN'T build his devices. If we speculate that pure materials were needed and therefore his devices could not have worked, well, that's SPECULATION. (I vaguely remember a SciAm AMATEUR SCIENTIST project where thin-film transistors were made using fairly impure materials!) It was my impression that nobody knows whether Lilienfeld's devices worked or not. -- Wjbeaty 19:55, Mar 20, 2005 (UTC)
Removed from the article
The nobel price was obviously given for the first experimental and theoretical demonstration of the transistor. There are numerous other people who contributed and demonstrated related work, not limited to Lilienfeld. (O. Heil, H. Matare and H. Welker come to mind.) -- Qdr 22:48, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
The semiconductor physicist H. E. Stockman says "Lilienfeld demonstrated his remarkable tubeless radio receiver on many occasions, but God help a fellow who at that time threatened the reign of the tube." See Bell Labs Memorial: Who really invented the transistor?, starting at "Oscillating Crystals".
Here's a paper which details some history of the laboratory testing of Lilienfeld's patent claims by others: The Other Transistor: early history of the MOSFET See pp235-236
Briefly: In 1964 a physicist V. Bottom asked in Physics Today magazine whether these transistors worked, and J. B. Johnson of Bell Labs responded saying that he'd tested them and they didn't work. This probably is the origin of the story that Lilienfeld never had any working hardware. Then in 1995 R. G. Arns found a 1948 legal deposition by Johnson which said the opposite: that Bell Labs back then had a project to test Lilienfeld's transistors, and before Johnson took over the project, Shockely and Pearson had built Lilienfeld's aluminum oxide MOSFET from his patent and found only an 11% modulation index, but that "useful power output is substantial"! To me this sounds like Johnson, being with Bell Labs, perhaps had an agenda to promote his own company's discovery while misleading the physics community about Lilienfeld's. After Shockley/Pearson's success, Johnson had tested the other two Lilienfeld patents and was unable to replicate them ...so Johnson was only dishonest in his covering up the fact that Bell Labs well knew that Lilienfeld had something real. Between these times B. Crawford in 1991 built successful but unstable Lilienfeld MOSFETs and saw evidence that Lilienfeld had done the same. In 1995 J. Ross built stable Lilienfeld MOSFETs. The author makes a very telling statement about the honesty of these scientists: "Published scientific, technical, and hstorical papers by these Bell scientists never mention either Lilienfeld’s or Heil’s prior work." -- Wjbeaty 03:13, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
Just in case somebody is interested in how Julius Lilienfelds results can be replicated using 1920ies technologies. I found a paper JVST A Volume 20, Issue 4, pp. 1365-1368 describing transistors made with anodized aluminum gate insulator and a chemical bath deposited semiconductor (CdS/CdSe). Both are techniques that do not require complicated equipment (beaker, current source, heater) and should have been accessible in the 1920ies.
Bizarrely enough the same authors managed to file patent on their technique (US6225149), despite of all the prior art. (Using chemical bath deposition for transistors is not exactly a novel idea..) -- Qdr 20:36, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
In this Canadian patent from 1927 he referred to himself as "a citizen of Poland" and on page 20 of this presentation a letter from Lilienfeld to Maria Skłodowka-Curie can be seen, where he asks about "a possibility of presenting relevant phenomena to the French" and explains how "a Pole in Germany" cannot go back to Poland, as it would mean stopping his work for a few years. This letter is quoted to be from the archive of the Maria Skłodowkska-Curie Museum, bearing the number M/320. I do not have the means to verify that with the Museum, but I feel like this is sufficient evidence of him being Polish. 188.146.75.74 ( talk) 18:41, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
Any evidence of this wheat allergy being an undiagnosed gluten intolerance MagistrateAustin ( talk) 13:51, 7 February 2023 (UTC)