Transistor - an important concept of invention?

[Monkey Face]

Greetings,

I had an argument with my substitute Physics teacher about the use of the transistor and how important it is/was. Basically, we were debating whether or not it is important because of the invention or whether it was purely the concept that made it so important.

His argument was that if it was the invention itself that was important then it wasn't so important because the invention lead to the microprocessor which is basically the foundation of modern electronics (though I've heard the transistor referred to as this many times).

He also said that if it was the concept behind the transistor that made it so important then surely whatever came before it (the tubes? I can't remember their name) was just as important if not more important/

Thoughts/opinions/explanations on this?

 

[Fish4Fun]

I would think the argument that the "concept" of a transistor was more important than the transistor itself is a stretch. Alan Truing envisioned binary switches (not necessarily electrical) as a universal input output machine. Modern electronics did not evolve because of the idea of a switch, it evolved with the development and refinement of semiconductor switches, particularly the transistor.

In a similar argument, what would be more important, the concept of FTL travel, or an engine that would make it possible? Yes, the concept of FTL travel has fascinated science fiction writers, physicists and mathematicians, but the invention itself would be far more important than all of the speculation that led up to it. Similarly, the development of semiconductors has removed limitations that mechanical switches and vacuum tubes placed on the development of electronics. Conceptually there is very little that sets a transistor apart from a relay or a potentiometer, the transistor just does it better, faster, cheaper, and most importantly, "in the real world".

So, I would certainly argue that the transistor itself is more important than the "concept" of a transistor.

Fish

 

[mdjensen22]

Not trying to threadjack this, but EDN recently published this and I thought it was interesting (and somewhat related)...

http://www.edn.com/blog/Anablog/405..._depends_on_your_definition_of_something_.php

Intent relative to the invention gets weird. Especially when you get marketing involved (in some cases) the actual intent of an invention doesn't get recognized for various reasons (cost, sales, etc.).

 

[Feldoh]

Computers didn't come about because of the theory of the transistor. The theory of a finite state machine was conceived way before the advent of the transistor. In fact, you can build a computer at of anything really (Someone did it in minecraft by creating logic gates with fire: ) A computer doesn't need transistors to function it just needs someway to simulate logic really. A mechanical computer was conceived and later created years before the transistor: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analytical_engine.

So in computing use of transistors the theory of them was really not vital to the invention of the computer. However that said I would say that the theory of the transistor is the reason for the raise of computers in our society. A good majority of the development of a new intel processor for instance goes into research of fabrication of transistors. How can you shrink them to increase speed? What about induced fields from super high switching speeds? Etc, etc... All of this really requires a good understanding of the fundamental semiconductor physics behind transistors.

 

[sophiecentaur]

All this is so much chicken and egg. You just can't say which was responsible for which. Without the modern devices, modern computers wouldn't have the capacity. Without computer Science, there would be nothing to make with the new devices.

 

[Monkey Face]

Thanks to everyone for replying :) I appreciate the insights you've all given. I'm going to do a little more research and then bring it up with him when I next see him.

 

[Monkey Face]

I have another couple of quick questions I can't seem to find the answer to. On the Wiki page, it says:

"Silicon transistors are much more vulnerable than vacuum tubes to an electromagnetic pulse generated by a high-altitude nuclear explosion."

Why is this such a problem? Were high-altitude nuclear explosion more common during 1900s when the transistors were invented?

And why is it such a problem if only silicon transistors were affect? Couldnt they use other types?

Thanks!

EDIT: I know that silicon transistors were invented after germanium transistors - did silicon transistors replace germanium transistors, or were they both used for different things?

 

[Fish4Fun]

You can read about germanium here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germanium

For information on the evolution of the transistor you can read through this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transistor

Were high-altitude nuclear explosion more common during 1900s when the transistors were invented?

You should really pay a little more attention in History class.

Silicon transistors are much more vulnerable than vacuum tubes to an electromagnetic pulse generated by a high-altitude nuclear explosion.

To gain some insight into why an EMP might destroy semiconductor devices you can read through this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiation_hardening

Fish

 

[Monkey Face]

Thanks for replying.

You can read about germanium here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germanium

For information on the evolution of the transistor you can read through this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transistor

I've read them both but neither are particularly specific... they imply but don't state and I don't think you can take an implication as fact.

You should really pay a little more attention in History class.

...exploding nuclear weapons in the atmosphere? Test Ban Treaty 1963?

To gain some insight into why an EMP might destroy semiconductor devices you can read through this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiation_hardening

Fish

Thanks, that was really interesting!