 |
Search Sci.Electronics.Basics |
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
Sci.Electronics.Basics -> Si-diodes in Second World War radar & Communication equipment
There are 103 messages in this thread.
You are currently looking at messages 40 to 60.
|
Author: John FieldsDate: 19:29 20-04-08
|
|
On Sun, 20 Apr 2008 14:51:24 -0700, John Larkin
<jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
>On Sat, 12 Apr 2008 11:29:18 -0500, John Fields
><jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 12 Apr 2008 11:24:19 -0500, John Fields
>><jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On Sat, 12 Apr 2008 17:51:10 +0200, "ronwer"
>>><neo.dymium.removethisfirst@dontwantspam.yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Hi!
>>>>
>>>>I am doing a study into the early use of silicon diodes in radar and
>>>>communication equipment during the Second World War.
>>>>
>>>>What I would be interested in is as follows:
>>>>
>>>>-type numbers of the diodes
>>>
>>>---
>>>1N23 is a good place to start.
>>
>>---
>>Oops... brain fart.
>>
>>The 1N23 didn't appear until the '50's, I believe.
>>
>>JF
>
>Early 40's, actually. It was widely used as a radar mixer in WWII.
---
Cite?
JF
|
|
|
|
Author: John LarkinDate: 22:38 20-04-08
|
|
On Sun, 20 Apr 2008 18:29:32 -0500, John Fields
<jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:
>On Sun, 20 Apr 2008 14:51:24 -0700, John Larkin
><jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 12 Apr 2008 11:29:18 -0500, John Fields
>><jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On Sat, 12 Apr 2008 11:24:19 -0500, John Fields
>>><jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Sat, 12 Apr 2008 17:51:10 +0200, "ronwer"
>>>><neo.dymium.removethisfirst@dontwantspam.yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>Hi!
>>>>>
>>>>>I am doing a study into the early use of silicon diodes in radar and
>>>>>communication equipment during the Second World War.
>>>>>
>>>>>What I would be interested in is as follows:
>>>>>
>>>>>-type numbers of the diodes
>>>>
>>>>---
>>>>1N23 is a good place to start.
>>>
>>>---
>>>Oops... brain fart.
>>>
>>>The 1N23 didn't appear until the '50's, I believe.
>>>
>>>JF
>>
>>Early 40's, actually. It was widely used as a radar mixer in WWII.
>
>---
>Cite?
>
>JF
MIT RadLab books, volume 15, "Crystal Rectifiers", appendix D,
published in 1948.
What is the citation for your statement that "The 1N23 didn't appear
until the '50's, I believe." ?
John
|
|
|
|
Author: JosephKKDate: 23:03 20-04-08
|
|
On Sun, 20 Apr 2008 13:59:36 -0700, Don Bowey <dbowey@comcast.net>
wrote:
>On 4/20/08 11:26 AM, in article am2n04hciv1c0trs9vmfala4pf78ic80nb@4ax.com,
>"JosephKK" <quiettechblue@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 12 Apr 2008 11:29:18 -0500, John Fields
>> <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Sat, 12 Apr 2008 11:24:19 -0500, John Fields
>>> <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Sat, 12 Apr 2008 17:51:10 +0200, "ronwer"
>>>> <neo.dymium.removethisfirst@dontwantspam.yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Hi!
>>>>>
>>>>> I am doing a study into the early use of silicon diodes in radar
and
>>>>> communication equipment during the Second World War.
>>>>>
>>>>> What I would be interested in is as follows:
>>>>>
>>>>> -type numbers of the diodes
>>>>
>>>> ---
>>>> 1N23 is a good place to start.
>>>
>>> ---
>>> Oops... brain fart.
>>>
>>> The 1N23 didn't appear until the '50's, I believe.
>>>
>>> JF
>>
>> Not only that it was germanium not silicon.
>
>Do you have a solid reference for that? "Credible" references I found
said
>they were silicon.
>
The most conclusive evidence i know of, is someone here who actually
put one to test and the result was germanium. A heck of a lot of
"official" or "authoritative" records are pure fertilizer.
|
|
|
|
Author: Phil AllisonDate: 23:23 20-04-08
|
|
"JosephKK"
>>>
>>> Not only that it was germanium not silicon.
>>
>>Do you have a solid reference for that? "Credible" references I found
>>said
>>they were silicon.
>>
>
> The most conclusive evidence i know of, is someone here who actually
> put one to test and the result was germanium.
** What "test " was that then - was the diode chip was removed, ground
up and fed into an " atomic absorption spectrometer " to see if it was
germanium ???
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_Absorption_Spectrophotometry
Or maybe it was just a simple multimeter test of the forward voltage drop -
eh ?
Which gives an ambiguous result for germanium and silicon point contact
diodes - cos the forward drops are so similar.
> A heck of a lot of "official" or "authoritative" records are
pure
> fertilizer.
** No Mr. KKK -
it is YOUR totally autism fucked, tiny brain that is so full of putrid
horse shit.
.... Phil
|
|
|
|
Author: John LarkinDate: 23:45 20-04-08
|
|
On Mon, 21 Apr 2008 03:03:32 GMT, JosephKK <quiettechblue@yahoo.com>
wrote:
>On Sun, 20 Apr 2008 13:59:36 -0700, Don Bowey <dbowey@comcast.net>
>wrote:
>
>>On 4/20/08 11:26 AM, in article am2n04hciv1c0trs9vmfala4pf78ic80nb@4ax.com,
>>"JosephKK" <quiettechblue@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Sat, 12 Apr 2008 11:29:18 -0500, John Fields
>>> <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Sat, 12 Apr 2008 11:24:19 -0500, John Fields
>>>> <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Sat, 12 Apr 2008 17:51:10 +0200, "ronwer"
>>>>> <neo.dymium.removethisfirst@dontwantspam.yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Hi!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I am doing a study into the early use of silicon diodes in
radar and
>>>>>> communication equipment during the Second World War.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What I would be interested in is as follows:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> -type numbers of the diodes
>>>>>
>>>>> ---
>>>>> 1N23 is a good place to start.
>>>>
>>>> ---
>>>> Oops... brain fart.
>>>>
>>>> The 1N23 didn't appear until the '50's, I believe.
>>>>
>>>> JF
>>>
>>> Not only that it was germanium not silicon.
>>
>>Do you have a solid reference for that? "Credible" references I found
said
>>they were silicon.
>>
>
>The most conclusive evidence i know of, is someone here who actually
>put one to test and the result was germanium. A heck of a lot of
>"official" or "authoritative" records are pure fertilizer.
What test?
John
|
|
|
|
Author: Don BoweyDate: 01:43 21-04-08
|
|
On 4/20/08 8:03 PM, in article fq0o0456in1873ki1d5srtsh611eq1a3nj@4ax.com,
"JosephKK" <quiettechblue@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Sun, 20 Apr 2008 13:59:36 -0700, Don Bowey <dbowey@comcast.net>
> wrote:
>
>> On 4/20/08 11:26 AM, in article am2n04hciv1c0trs9vmfala4pf78ic80nb@4ax.com,
>> "JosephKK" <quiettechblue@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Sat, 12 Apr 2008 11:29:18 -0500, John Fields
>>> <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Sat, 12 Apr 2008 11:24:19 -0500, John Fields
>>>> <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Sat, 12 Apr 2008 17:51:10 +0200, "ronwer"
>>>>> <neo.dymium.removethisfirst@dontwantspam.yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Hi!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I am doing a study into the early use of silicon diodes in
radar and
>>>>>> communication equipment during the Second World War.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What I would be interested in is as follows:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> -type numbers of the diodes
>>>>>
>>>>> ---
>>>>> 1N23 is a good place to start.
>>>>
>>>> ---
>>>> Oops... brain fart.
>>>>
>>>> The 1N23 didn't appear until the '50's, I believe.
>>>>
>>>> JF
>>>
>>> Not only that it was germanium not silicon.
>>
>> Do you have a solid reference for that? "Credible" references I
found said
>> they were silicon.
>>
>
> The most conclusive evidence i know of, is someone here who actually
> put one to test and the result was germanium. A heck of a lot of
> "official" or "authoritative" records are pure fertilizer.
>
I'd chock that one up to undecided.
|
|
|
|
Author: John FieldsDate: 10:25 21-04-08
|
|
On Sun, 20 Apr 2008 19:38:28 -0700, John Larkin
<jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
>On Sun, 20 Apr 2008 18:29:32 -0500, John Fields
><jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:
>>On Sun, 20>
>>Cite?
>>
>>JF
>
>MIT RadLab books, volume 15, "Crystal Rectifiers", appendix D,
>published in 1948.
>
>What is the citation for your statement that "The 1N23 didn't appear
>until the '50's, I believe." ?
>
>John
---
Working with them At Loral Electronics in New York and being told that
they were new, as I recall.
JF
|
|
|
|
Author: John FieldsDate: 10:28 21-04-08
|
|
On Mon, 21 Apr 2008 03:03:32 GMT, JosephKK <quiettechblue@yahoo.com>
wrote:
>On Sun, 20 Apr 2008 13:59:36 -0700, Don Bowey <dbowey@comcast.net>
>wrote:
>>Do you have a solid reference for that? "Credible" references I found
said
>>they were silicon.
>>
>
>The most conclusive evidence i know of, is someone here who actually
>put one to test and the result was germanium. A heck of a lot of
>"official" or "authoritative" records are pure fertilizer.
---
Can you spell "Schottky?"
JF
|
|
|
|
Author: John LarkinDate: 10:58 21-04-08
|
|
On Mon, 21 Apr 2008 09:25:01 -0500, John Fields
<jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:
>On Sun, 20 Apr 2008 19:38:28 -0700, John Larkin
><jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 20 Apr 2008 18:29:32 -0500, John Fields
>><jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:
>>>On Sun, 20>
>
>>>Cite?
>>>
>>>JF
>>
>>MIT RadLab books, volume 15, "Crystal Rectifiers", appendix D,
>>published in 1948.
>>
>>What is the citation for your statement that "The 1N23 didn't appear
>>until the '50's, I believe." ?
>>
>>John
>
>---
>Working with them At Loral Electronics in New York and being told that
>they were new, as I recall.
>
>JF
There were 1N23A's B's, C's, and maybe D's. 1N23, A and B were wartime
parts. Could have been C+ they were talking about. Or maybe they were
just wrong.
John
|
|
|
|
Author: John FieldsDate: 12:24 21-04-08
|
|
On Mon, 21 Apr 2008 07:58:29 -0700, John Larkin
<jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
>On Mon, 21 Apr 2008 09:25:01 -0500, John Fields
><jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 20 Apr 2008 19:38:28 -0700, John Larkin
>><jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On Sun, 20 Apr 2008 18:29:32 -0500, John Fields
>>><jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:
>>>>On Sun, 20>
>>
>>>>Cite?
>>>>
>>>>JF
>>>
>>>MIT RadLab books, volume 15, "Crystal Rectifiers", appendix D,
>>>published in 1948.
>>>
>>>What is the citation for your statement that "The 1N23 didn't appear
>>>until the '50's, I believe." ?
>>>
>>>John
>>
>>---
>>Working with them At Loral Electronics in New York and being told that
>>they were new, as I recall.
>>
>>JF
>
>There were 1N23A's B's, C's, and maybe D's. 1N23, A and B were wartime
>parts. Could have been C+ they were talking about. Or maybe they were
>just wrong.
---
Typical Larkinese...
JF
|
|
|
|
Author: Jim ThompsonDate: 12:41 21-04-08
|
|
On Mon, 21 Apr 2008 11:24:46 -0500, John Fields
<jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:
>On Mon, 21 Apr 2008 07:58:29 -0700, John Larkin
><jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 21 Apr 2008 09:25:01 -0500, John Fields
>><jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On Sun, 20 Apr 2008 19:38:28 -0700, John Larkin
>>><jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Sun, 20 Apr 2008 18:29:32 -0500, John Fields
>>>><jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:
>>>>>On Sun, 20>
>>>
>>>>>Cite?
>>>>>
>>>>>JF
>>>>
>>>>MIT RadLab books, volume 15, "Crystal Rectifiers", appendix D,
>>>>published in 1948.
>>>>
>>>>What is the citation for your statement that "The 1N23 didn't
appear
>>>>until the '50's, I believe." ?
>>>>
>>>>John
>>>
>>>---
>>>Working with them At Loral Electronics in New York and being told that
>>>they were new, as I recall.
>>>
>>>JF
>>
>>There were 1N23A's B's, C's, and maybe D's. 1N23, A and B were wartime
>>parts. Could have been C+ they were talking about. Or maybe they were
>>just wrong.
>
>---
>Typical Larkinese...
>
>JF
Smart-ass ping-pong plonked... no redeeming social value ;-)
...Jim Thompson
--
| James E.Thompson, P.E. | mens |
| Analog Innovations, Inc. | et |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus |
| Phoenix, Arizona Voice:(480)460-2350 | |
| E-mail Address at Website Fax:(480)460-2142 | Brass Rat |
| http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |
America: Land of the Free, Because of the Brave
|
|
|
|
Author: John LarkinDate: 17:04 21-04-08
|
|
On Mon, 21 Apr 2008 11:24:46 -0500, John Fields
<jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:
>On Mon, 21 Apr 2008 07:58:29 -0700, John Larkin
><jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 21 Apr 2008 09:25:01 -0500, John Fields
>><jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On Sun, 20 Apr 2008 19:38:28 -0700, John Larkin
>>><jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Sun, 20 Apr 2008 18:29:32 -0500, John Fields
>>>><jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:
>>>>>On Sun, 20>
>>>
>>>>>Cite?
>>>>>
>>>>>JF
>>>>
>>>>MIT RadLab books, volume 15, "Crystal Rectifiers", appendix D,
>>>>published in 1948.
>>>>
>>>>What is the citation for your statement that "The 1N23 didn't
appear
>>>>until the '50's, I believe." ?
>>>>
>>>>John
>>>
>>>---
>>>Working with them At Loral Electronics in New York and being told that
>>>they were new, as I recall.
>>>
>>>JF
>>
>>There were 1N23A's B's, C's, and maybe D's. 1N23, A and B were wartime
>>parts. Could have been C+ they were talking about. Or maybe they were
>>just wrong.
>
>---
>Typical Larkinese...
>
>JF
You mean facts, as opposed to second-hand rumors you think you
remember? Guilty as charged.
John
|
|
|
|
Author: John FieldsDate: 19:23 21-04-08
|
|
On Mon, 21 Apr 2008 14:04:18 -0700, John Larkin
<jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
>On Mon, 21 Apr 2008 11:24:46 -0500, John Fields
><jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 21 Apr 2008 07:58:29 -0700, John Larkin
>><jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On Mon, 21 Apr 2008 09:25:01 -0500, John Fields
>>><jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Sun, 20 Apr 2008 19:38:28 -0700, John Larkin
>>>><jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Sun, 20 Apr 2008 18:29:32 -0500, John Fields
>>>>><jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:
>>>>>>On Sun, 20>
>>>>
>>>>>>Cite?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>JF
>>>>>
>>>>>MIT RadLab books, volume 15, "Crystal Rectifiers",
appendix D,
>>>>>published in 1948.
>>>>>
>>>>>What is the citation for your statement that "The 1N23 didn't
appear
>>>>>until the '50's, I believe." ?
>>>>>
>>>>>John
>>>>
>>>>---
>>>>Working with them At Loral Electronics in New York and being told that
>>>>they were new, as I recall.
>>>>
>>>>JF
>>>
>>>There were 1N23A's B's, C's, and maybe D's. 1N23, A and B were wartime
>>>parts. Could have been C+ they were talking about. Or maybe they were
>>>just wrong.
>>
>>---
>>Typical Larkinese...
>>
>>JF
>
>
>You mean facts, as opposed to second-hand rumors you think you
>remember? Guilty as charged.
---
"and Maybe"
"Could have been"
"Or maybe"
are facts?
Maybe in your fantasy world, but to me it all sounds like conjecture.
The _fact_ is I originally commented to the OP that his quest might be
made easier by considering the 1N23 as a starting point for silicon
detectors, but then amended my original comment to reflect that the
first time I had contact with them was in the '50's, when I thought it
was new.
I guess, according to you, I was right in the first place.
Oh, well...
I guess your way is to clam up if you think you've made a mistake
unless someone calls you on it.
That's not my way. If I think I've made a mistake I own up to it as
soon as it looks questionable to me without waiting for anyone to prod
me into forced admission.
Your mileage certainly seems to vary.
BTW, for some reason I'm prohibited from accessing the Rad Lab series
via:
http://www.jlab.org/ir/MITSeries.html
so would you be so kind as to post the text referring explicitly to
the 1N23 and relevant deployment dating?
Thank you ever so much...
JF
|
|
|
|
Author: Michael A. TerrellDate: 12:22 22-04-08
|
|
John Fields wrote:
>
> BTW, for some reason I'm prohibited from accessing the Rad Lab series
> via:
>
> http://www.jlab.org/ir/MITSeries.html
>
> so would you be so kind as to post the text referring explicitly to
> the 1N23 and relevant deployment dating?
John, you missed the note at the top of that page:
Note: These volumes are only accessable on site at Jefferson Lab.
--
http://improve-usenet.org/index.html
Use any search engine other than Google till they stop polluting USENET
with porn and junk commercial SPAM
If you have broadband, your ISP may have a NNTP news server included in
your account: http://www.usenettools.net/ISP.htm
|
|
|
|
Author: Rich GriseDate: 16:19 22-04-08
|
|
On Sat, 12 Apr 2008 17:51:10 +0200, ronwer wrote:
>
> I am doing a study into the early use of silicon diodes in radar and
> communication equipment during the Second World War.
Did they even _have_ silicon diodes in WWII? I remember when they
announced the first transistor, some time in the early 1950's.
Thanks,
Rich
|
|
|
|
Author: EeyoreDate: 16:30 22-04-08
|
|
Rich Grise wrote:
> On Sat, 12 Apr 2008 17:51:10 +0200, ronwer wrote:
> >
> > I am doing a study into the early use of silicon diodes in radar and
> > communication equipment during the Second World War.
>
> Did they even _have_ silicon diodes in WWII?
Very much so. Point contact types.
Graham
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Tue, 22 Apr 2008, Rich Grise wrote:
> On Sat, 12 Apr 2008 17:51:10 +0200, ronwer wrote:
>>
>> I am doing a study into the early use of silicon diodes in radar and
>> communication equipment during the Second World War.
>
> Did they even _have_ silicon diodes in WWII? I remember when they
> announced the first transistor, some time in the early 1950's.
>
That's the whole point. The poster hasn't gone to the sources, and
decades later the details are garbled.
I pulled out two ARRL books from the early seventies, and they
had contradictory information on at least the 1N21 and I think the
1N23, a data table in the Handbook listing it/them as germanium,
the VHF manual saying it/them as silicon.
The earliest magazines I have are some QSTs from 1947, and I can't
find them at the moment. I know I saw some early ads for semiconductor
diodes in QST, and if it wasn't 1947 then the next eariest issues I
have are 1953. The fact that the ad I remember seeing just a few
years ago did have the 1N34 sort of blows out the comment in this
thread that the "1N" numbering didn't came till the late fifties.
Indeed, one reason we know of early semiconductor diodes is that
there was surplus after the war and we saw them, or at least read
about them. I always thought the APX-6 was WWII surplus, and it
used diodes in the "1N" series; go back and find the conversion
articles and that might give insight (though of course, if the
information was garbled at the beginning, then such later sources
won't be reliable).
But that sort of source is going to be far more definitive than our
memories, of the time or of what we read years ago.
Even that book about radar development in WWII, which did seem
fairly "sane" technically, it's not a technical book so even if
I could remember what it said about diode development, it might
not necessarily be accurate.
Michael
|
|
|
|
Author: John LarkinDate: 16:42 22-04-08
|
|
On Tue, 22 Apr 2008 20:19:49 GMT, Rich Grise <rich@example.net> wrote:
>On Sat, 12 Apr 2008 17:51:10 +0200, ronwer wrote:
>>
>> I am doing a study into the early use of silicon diodes in radar and
>> communication equipment during the Second World War.
>
>Did they even _have_ silicon diodes in WWII? I remember when they
>announced the first transistor, some time in the early 1950's.
>
>Thanks,
>Rich
Yup. Most of the WWII radar diodes were silicon point-contact types,
Schottky diodes actually. The best 1943-vintage mixer parts were about
as good as any packaged schottky you can buy today... 0.2 Vf, 0.2 pF,
decent noise figures to 30 GHz.
The point-contact transistor was invented at Bell Labs in 1947. Most
of the relevant semiconductor theory - bandgaps, hole/electron
conduction, doping - was well understood by about 1940. The RadLab
guys didn't develop a PN-junction diode or the transistor because
their mandate was to develop radar to win the war.
John
|
|
|
|
Author: Tom BruhnsDate: 17:22 22-04-08
|
|
On Apr 22, 1:42 pm, John Larkin
<jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 22 Apr 2008 20:19:49 GMT, Rich Grise <r...@example.net> wrote:
> >On Sat, 12 Apr 2008 17:51:10 +0200, ronwer wrote:
>
> >> I am doing a study into the early use of silicon diodes in radar and
> >> communication equipment during the Second World War.
>
> >Did they even _have_ silicon diodes in WWII? I remember when they
> >announced the first transistor, some time in the early 1950's.
>
> >Thanks,
> >Rich
>
> Yup. Most of the WWII radar diodes were silicon point-contact types,
> Schottky diodes actually. The best 1943-vintage mixer parts were about
> as good as any packaged schottky you can buy today... 0.2 Vf, 0.2 pF,
> decent noise figures to 30 GHz.
>
> The point-contact transistor was invented at Bell Labs in 1947. Most
> of the relevant semiconductor theory - bandgaps, hole/electron
> conduction, doping - was well understood by about 1940. The RadLab
> guys didn't develop a PN-junction diode or the transistor because
> their mandate was to develop radar to win the war.
>
> John
I'd question that "was well understood" part. The description in the
Buderi book makes it pretty clear that before 1940, people working
with semiconductors (key being at Bell Labs) didn't have a very deep
understanding of what was going on. It was only in late '39 and 40
that they got serious ideas that they could actually control what was
an essentially empirically-understood phenomenon by changing the
amount and type of impurity. The description of things going on then
as "increasingly curious properties" of silicon doesn't seem to fit
very well with "well understood." But maybe Buderi didn't do a very
good job documenting that particular work, and missed the depth to
which the phenomena were understood.
Cheers,
Tom
|
|
|
|
Author: John LarkinDate: 19:03 22-04-08
|
|
On Tue, 22 Apr 2008 14:22:47 -0700 (PDT), Tom Bruhns <k7itm@msn.com>
wrote:
>On Apr 22, 1:42 pm, John Larkin
><jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
>> On Tue, 22 Apr 2008 20:19:49 GMT, Rich Grise <r...@example.net> wrote:
>> >On Sat, 12 Apr 2008 17:51:10 +0200, ronwer wrote:
>>
>> >> I am doing a study into the early use of silicon diodes in radar and
>> >> communication equipment during the Second World War.
>>
>> >Did they even _have_ silicon diodes in WWII? I remember when they
>> >announced the first transistor, some time in the early 1950's.
>>
>> >Thanks,
>> >Rich
>>
>> Yup. Most of the WWII radar diodes were silicon point-contact types,
>> Schottky diodes actually. The best 1943-vintage mixer parts were about
>> as good as any packaged schottky you can buy today... 0.2 Vf, 0.2 pF,
>> decent noise figures to 30 GHz.
>>
>> The point-contact transistor was invented at Bell Labs in 1947. Most
>> of the relevant semiconductor theory - bandgaps, hole/electron
>> conduction, doping - was well understood by about 1940. The RadLab
>> guys didn't develop a PN-junction diode or the transistor because
>> their mandate was to develop radar to win the war.
>>
>> John
>
>I'd question that "was well understood" part. The description in the
>Buderi book makes it pretty clear that before 1940, people working
>with semiconductors (key being at Bell Labs) didn't have a very deep
>understanding of what was going on. It was only in late '39 and 40
>that they got serious ideas that they could actually control what was
>an essentially empirically-understood phenomenon by changing the
>amount and type of impurity. The description of things going on then
>as "increasingly curious properties" of silicon doesn't seem to fit
>very well with "well understood." But maybe Buderi didn't do a very
>good job documenting that particular work, and missed the depth to
>which the phenomena were understood.
>
>Cheers,
>Tom
Just checking the footnotes in the radlab book, it looks like most of
the serious theorizing (ie, stuff that worked) was published between
1939 and 1942, "about 1940" by my standards. Potential barrier
diagrams and Fermi levels and such were in books published in 1940.
Mott and Schottky seem to have published the first non-silly diode
theory stuff (non-backwards!) in 1939 and 1940. This got a lot more
serious between 1940 and 1943 as MIT poured in money and talent.
John
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Contact | Electronic Portal
|
|
|
