New technology doesn’t exist; everything was invented in the 60’s - Page 1
Forum section: electronics / general

author: TimNJ
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 30, 2021, 07:11:15 pm
content: Joke title and obviously not true..But, was perusing a local vintage electronics store (Green Brook Electronics) and picked up a copy of “Thin-Film and Semiconductor Integrated Circuitry” (John M. Doyle, 1966).I’ve had this same thought before, but I’m always amazed the amount of “new technology” that was actually invented 50 years ago or more. For example, this new fangled “flip-chip” stuff has been around for ages it seems. To me, it seems like there was such a crazy boom in advancement in such a short period of time.What are some other examples?

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 30, 2021, 07:15:46 pm
content: Just the other day I was explaining to my youngest son that the majority of the math that drives our digital world has been invented before or soon after 1900.

author: TimNJ
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 30, 2021, 07:25:52 pm
content: Indeed. In general, the delay in adoption of new technologies (including mathematics, algorithms, etc.) is probably explained by there being no real need or no practical (see: economical) way to implement, at the time of discovery.

author: daqq
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 30, 2021, 07:34:08 pm
content: QuoteThat's the thing about basic research - the profits may be a long way down the line - they might even not be, but if they are they can bemassive. Just look at scientific novelties and curiosities of their time like electricity and radio waves.

author: TimFox
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 30, 2021, 08:13:02 pm
content: Early in this millennium, I thought that the only useful novelty from the 21st century was the thumb drive, but I quickly found it was also a 20th century invention.

author: T3sl4co1l
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 30, 2021, 11:48:29 pm
content: Y'know, now I wonder what exactly drives wire bonding. So, we have CSPs now of course, and that's probably just because it took a long time for PCB-level density to get high enough to demand it. At the same time, you're paying a premium for the fine pitch PCBs (probably HDI as well) to use them. So it's not used in much quantity, except when there's no choice (i.e., cellphones yes, washing machines no).Which have in turn been available in many forms over the decades, whether as laminated interposers (who makes those anyway? they're basically PCBs, but not...), or fired ceramic-metal bodies (classic IBM). Obviously the latter isn't exactly affordable, but the former is essentially any old PCB, if not a full sized one. Were they just not able to hold tolerances over whole-PCB distances, or something with multiple layers (getting copper, soldermask, vias, etc. to line up) or what?And why not interposers all the time, or at all? Lead frames must suffer some tolerance issues, perhaps? Otherwise, why not flip-chip directly to them? (They sort of do this with some power transistors, with wide top-side connections rather than bondwires.) Or if interposers are superior, then why not use them instead of lead frames? Well, obviously lead frames must be cheaper, at least for that middle space where the number of leads, and density, isn't too crazy, and who cares about flipping.On the other hand, clearly wirebonding isn't a painful process; it's done fast and automated, and adapts the fine pitch of the chip to the coarser pitch (and looser tolerances) of the lead frame. The question of course is, how much can an alternative save, if any? Evidently, not much in the average case, but I just wonder what the quantitative breakdown is.Tim

author: CatalinaWOW
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 31, 2021, 05:15:32 am
content: Flip chips were invented long ago, but think of the many inventions that had to occur to do the same process at the much finer scale it is performed at now.There are many other examples.Bolometers were invented literally centuries ago. But with many other enabling inventions we now make arrays of thousands of very high performance ones and call them thermal imaging systems.People were stacking chips to get very high packaging density several decades ago. But again refinements and inventions in the process have made it practical for some types of mass produced items (memory) while the first users of this technology were making very small quantities at very, very high prices.The electric car was invented around 1900. But that device has little resemblance in range, acceleration, comfort, payload or any other parameter to the recent introductions in that area.

author: coppercone2
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 31, 2021, 05:26:55 am
content: try finding a good explanation of quantum circuit thats not a business talk loaded sales pitch (cough ibm)new technology = we want to help you with everything, for a fee, the only thing you need to know is if it brings value to your companyI want to learn about quantum circuits and I am getting altium style ecosystems being pitched to me. lets skip over the boring obvious details (not obvious or boring, more like danger of competition). most likely its kept at 1% growth for trade secrets to be kept or something silly like that

author: magic
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 31, 2021, 08:00:46 am
content: I wouldn't want to pay for large digital chips fabricated using SOI processes available in the '60s.

author: Alex Eisenhut
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 31, 2021, 12:59:29 pm
content: You can see the automated placement of a flip chip here, I believe. 1964.The '60s were a fun time!

author: tszaboo
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 31, 2021, 02:44:02 pm
content: I have a board on my desk that has a radar IC. the package is 6 by 6 millimeter, and it works at 70 GHz.Q.E.D.

author: Alex Eisenhut
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 31, 2021, 04:28:26 pm
content: Quote from: tszaboo on May 31, 2021, 02:44:02 pmTo be fair, they didn't have gigahertz in the '60s, they only had kilomegacycles ...

author: Rick Law
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 31, 2021, 06:39:23 pm
content: Quote from: TimNJ on May 30, 2021, 07:11:15 pmI assume you mean the Green Brook Electronics on West-Bound Rt22 near Union? Do they still sell electronic parts and things?There was a Green Brook Electronics on East-Bound Rt22. That used to be my go-to place when I needed parts urgently. I was sadden seeing it disappeared.Recently I drove farther East on Rt22 and noticed a store by the same name West-bound Rt22. But due to virus shut-downs, I did not stop there. My solder-sucker is on the fritz, I was planning on giving it a try to see if it was the same store...

author: oPossum
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 31, 2021, 07:10:31 pm
content: https://www.greenbrookelectronics.com/about-usQuote

author: Rick Law
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 31, 2021, 07:41:01 pm
content: Quote from: oPossum on May 31, 2021, 07:10:31 pmThat's good news! I shopped there since the 80's. Knowing the people there when they were in Green Brook (old timer face-to-face kind of guys), I didn't even expect they would have a website!I'm going shopping next week...

author: PartialDischarge
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 31, 2021, 08:04:03 pm
content: I agree that the 60s saw a huge innovation that most people ignore. I posted something along that line last year:

author: TimNJ
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 31, 2021, 08:17:56 pm
content: Quote from: T3sl4co1l on May 30, 2021, 11:48:29 pmThat's an interesting thought and I don't really have an answer, but here are a few quotes on that subject:Quote from: Doyle, 1966, page 179As you seem to suggest, there might have been some concern with the levelness of the bonding plane. Maybe even small imperfection in the lead-frame could lead to to a bad face-bond. On the other hand, this is basically compensated for with bond-wires. But, the author does suggest some remedies to make up for these imperfections.Some other notes:Quote from: Doyle, 1966, page 182I thought that was interesting because I figured thermal resistance of a face-bonded chip "direct" to substrate would have a lower thermal resistance than bond wires, but for some reason that's not the case? Difference in material used for the bond? I'm not sure.As you mentioned, these days we have some fun, bond-wire-less packages that have the aforementioned heatsinking qualities. For example, Nexperia's LFPAK.

author: TimNJ
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 31, 2021, 08:26:25 pm
content: Quote from: Rick Law on May 31, 2021, 06:39:23 pmAs the other's have noted, there is a new store. Quite a variety of stuff in there. Lot's of stuff in the back: oscilloscopes, microscopes, and lots of obscure equipment that I can't imagine anyone really needs these days, but it's there. I like the book section, although it's 0% organized, and there's a somewhat alarming amount of weird conspiracy theory/anti-communism books interspersed in there.

author: TimNJ
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 31, 2021, 08:45:53 pm
content: Quote from: daqq on May 30, 2021, 07:34:08 pmQuote from: coppercone2 on May 31, 2021, 05:26:55 amI guess the question is...what fundamentally changed? For one, I know federal grant money (at least here in the US) for basic scientific research is way down. Plus, we don't have too many crazy federally-funded endeavors like the space race. These days, I think the public would just not allow it, and probably rightfully so, considering the many other problems we have. Although, federal money to basic science research institutions still sounds like a better idea than giving Jeff Bezos a zillion dollars to do god knows what. But I digress.Any other shifts in thought?

author: dietert1
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 31, 2021, 08:49:35 pm
content: Internet in the 1960s? Any DSO in the 1960s? How about metal film resistors, TFT displays, white LED lighting, terabyte hard disks (quantum hall effect, 1980), GPS, Lithium ion battery, gold ultracaps, GaN HEMT, vaccines within a year, mutations every month.. We are living in very interesting times!Regards, DieterConcerning semiconductors: For me modern FPGAs are the most surprising development. We can nowadays implement hundreds of DSPs on one chip and run them at tremendous clock rates. Another one is the availability of video processing AI systems in a credit card size form factor (JETSON).

author: TimNJ
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 31, 2021, 08:55:48 pm
content: Quote from: dietert1 on May 31, 2021, 08:49:35 pmYes yes...I know. See my first line:Quote from: TimNJ on May 30, 2021, 07:11:15 pmI am just commenting on the amount of "new" technologies that are actually "old ideas" which have finally just become practical or mainstream. And, I'm also just amazed by the amount of fundamental knowledge and discovery that happened during that time. I'm basing that off of the number of published books and papers that I've run into with publishing dates between 1950-1970, which seem to form the basis of everything we know about electronics now. And of course, there is much that came before that too!

author: Rick Law
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 01, 2021, 12:02:54 am
content: Quote from: dietert1 on May 31, 2021, 08:49:35 pmInternet precursor came into existence in 1969 as Arpanet, the first network implementation of TCP/IP. The IP in TCP/IP stands for Internet Protocol. So Internet first existed in 1969.Many of the development you referred to were really refinements or evolutionary developments of earlier iterations. Terabyte disks for example, from very fat and large magnetic spots to smaller and smaller spots, then vertical, then..."Technology" really is the implementation of knowledge. So it is justifiable to consider new implementation as new technology. That said, refinement hardly deserve as much credit as the credit due to the first someone who first come up with that idea.

author: Alex Eisenhut
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 01, 2021, 12:26:35 am
content: Quote from: Rick Law on June 01, 2021, 12:02:54 amWell, they did have terabit storage in the 1960s.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_1360Sure, maybe those SD cards are a little bit smaller and use a little less power, but they aren't whacko fun 1960s brilliance.And as for kilomegacycles....https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Backward-wave_oscillatorFun at 600 volts, what more do you need?

author: coppice
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 01, 2021, 12:38:05 am
content: Quote from: nctnico on May 30, 2021, 07:15:46 pmMuch of the maths we rely on was figured out so long ago that it was forgotten and had to be rediscovered multiple times before it was practical to mass deploy it. E.g. the FFT in various forms was worked out by multiple people from Gauss onwards, but didn't stick until Cooley and Tukey figured it out to actually start deploying it in software in the 60s. The basics of the sampling theorem was figured out long ago by people working in statistics, although I think Shannon was the first to fully express it in complex form. Even in more modern times, someone figured out LDPC in the 60s, and it was completely forgotten until someone else figured it out in the 90s with real deployment in view, and some old engineers realised it rang a bell from their youth.

author: Kerlin
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: June 01, 2021, 12:42:55 am
content: The truest thing I have ever read on this subject is -We stand on the shoulders of giants.Meaning when we design an amplifier we haven't actually done anything, its all been done for us and comes from possibly thousands of years of previous endeavor and knowledge.Boole invented the system of Boolean logic that current computers use in 1850 or so.So far in my life time there is nothing new only adaptions. Marketing and sales hype it up as new and the non technical are easily lead to believe this.One of the latest is AI nothing new there just a name and how about "Makers".Generates lots of clicks, comes from the most hyped up, hollowed out society on earth.There is however some thing very interesting on the horizon.Just like when we first had fiber optic and used we used it to only make Christmas trees, we could think of nothing better to do with it.It was a solution without a use.This maybe happening currently. All the findings that are coming out of science from places like CERN and quantum physics and the latest cosmology and the likes are yet to be applied.It appears we now know what gravity is its a particle. Lets be crazy and imagine having a fridge with a switch on the side, when you want to move it you switch the gravity off, move it with one hand and then switch gravity back on.When I was a lad (haha) there was an idea around that was called Supernature.It was headline stuff and documentaries were made on it, saw them on what was then called "T.V."The idea was that so far we have only used the rules of nature to develop technologies.The further idea was that in the future when we have Supernature where we would make the rules and use them as we see fit.Perhaps the using these latest findings such as the Higgs-Bosson, which is not from the 60s or before, would allow us to head in the direction of Supernature - now that would be NEW.

author: Alex Eisenhut
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 01, 2021, 12:47:22 am
content: How about Boolean logic?"Boole's work and that of later logicians initially appeared to have no engineering uses. Claude Shannon attended a philosophy class at the University of Michigan which introduced him to Boole's studies. Shannon recognised that Boole's work could form the basis of mechanisms and processes in the real world and that it was therefore highly relevant. In 1937 Shannon went on to write a master's thesis, at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, in which he showed how Boolean algebra could optimise the design of systems of electromechanical relays then used in telephone routing switches."https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Boole

author: Kerlin
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: June 01, 2021, 01:03:54 am
content: Yer so we can all google that on the net, as I had when Ichecked the wiki page to get the date correct. I have covered it, so what are you adding?Point is it is not new just an adaption.I was there I was trained,installed and repaired relay technology telephone exchanges and finished up using ARM for Avionics applications, so am well aware of what happened.Other useless info anyone can google - the first telephone exchange was made by an undertaker called Strowger, it was followed by Linefinder exchanges. I worked on those too.

author: Cerebus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 01, 2021, 01:08:59 am
content: Quote from: nctnico on May 30, 2021, 07:15:46 pmTry starting earlier, in the 18th century, and then carry on until the early 20th century and you're nearer the whole picture.Leonhard Euler 1707-1783 (Not really a direct electronics connection, but you can't leave old Leonhard out.)Pierre-Simon Laplace 1749-1827Joseph Fourier 1768-1830Carl Friedrich Gauss 1777-1855Friedrich Wilhelm Bessel 1784-1846George Boole 1815-1864Pafnuty Chebyshev 1821-1894James Clerk Maxwell 1831-1879Gustav Kirchhoff 1824-1887To name a very few of the 18th and 19th century Mathematicians whose work underpins electronics. When you look at the dates you realise that a lot of the higher level mathematics we rely on are really quite old.

author: Kerlin
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: June 01, 2021, 01:12:55 am
content: Yep right on there mister, that covers the thread topic of whats new since the 60s.

author: Cerebus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 01, 2021, 01:16:27 am
content: Quote from: Kerlin on June 01, 2021, 01:12:55 amWho pissed in your chips?

author: thermistor-guy
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: June 01, 2021, 01:30:25 am
content: Quote from: TimNJ on May 30, 2021, 07:11:15 pmA counter-example: Polymerase Chain Reaction, invented in 1983 by Kary Mullis, used to quantify DNA. He shared a Nobel Prize in Chemistry for it; the first time it had been awarded for an experimental technique, because PCR was that important. It changed bio-technology profoundly: there is before-PCR and after-PCR.

author: CatalinaWOW
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 01, 2021, 02:59:56 am
content: Quote from: Cerebus on June 01, 2021, 01:08:59 amAnother way of looking at this is that it takes about 100 years for math esoterica to develop real engineering application. There are newer mathematics in use now, and probably stuff that is fresh in the math department now will find uses in the future.

author: Cerebus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 01, 2021, 02:26:18 pm
content: Quote from: CatalinaWOW on June 01, 2021, 02:59:56 amI'm sure that is entirely true but it's more of a perspective thing for me. Until nctnico forced me to think about it, for me it hadn't quite sunk in how old some really quite complex (no pun intended) maths is. A lot of stuff from the likes of Laplace and Gauss is hard going for modern students of it, so think how much of a mountain it was to climb to invent the stuff out of wholecloth in the first place.On how long it takes to get from conception to application, there are some notable exceptions. Alan Turing's "On Computable Numbers, with an Application to theEntscheidungsproblem." was true mathematical esoterica when it was published in 1936, but I think it can be argued that this led to the first modern computer (Eniac 1945) in next to no time at all. (Yes, I know I'm conveniently ignoring the parallel work of Konrad Zuse, but his work was both mired and concealed by WWII).

author: dietert1
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 01, 2021, 03:03:16 pm
content: The OP wanted to discuss semiconductor packaging and wiring/bonding. That's why i mentioned FPGA = "runtime wiring" and AI systems = "self wiring". Those technologies did not exist in the 1960s.Since about 2000 chess computers reliably beat all humans. I guess it requires coherent action of many, many human brains to build something like that. There is no genius and no mathematical solution. The same will be true for autonomous vehicles. Also you may know that digital computers played a decisive role in deriving solutions to old number theory problems. In some sense the modern digital infrastructure is post-mathematics and its time scale of development seems to be shorter.Regards, Dieter

author: magic
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 01, 2021, 10:37:00 pm
content: Quote from: Cerebus on June 01, 2021, 02:26:18 pmEverything can be "argued" but in truth nothing new was invented in the 20th century and the first "Turing complete" computer was of course designed long before his birthTheory of computability is still mathematical esoterica today and has little to do with designing real world machines capable of solving real world problems. Turing completeness easily "emerges" from an ability to follow any arbitrary finite flowchart of operations combined with "infinite" memory and pointers. That stuff has so many obvious uses that it would be built with or without Turing.

author: Cerebus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 02, 2021, 11:29:53 am
content: Quote from: magic on June 01, 2021, 10:37:00 pmI've actually seen in real life someone set out to try and solve a computationally undecidable problem, but they didn't know it was computationally undecidable, so it was giving them problems to say the least. While computability does indeed seem like esoterica it's surprising how often you run into it in real life and i've seen it and the closely related field of computational complexity floor more than a few programmers.it's easy to say that you don't need Turing to get to computers, but in the same vein you don't need Newton to get to gravity, Maxwell to get to electromagnetism, or Watt or Newcomen to get to steam engines, but history is what it is. What is obviousnowoften wasn't obvious to everybody else until someone pointed it out. We managed to build things that didn't fall down for many of thousands of years before Hooke and friends came up with elasticity but until they did we couldn't say with certainty that a given building design was sound. Practical things need sound, proven theoretical underpinnings.It's all well and good to claim that Turing completeness "emerges" from having a Turing machine, but you'd have to recognise that and then prove it if you start from the machine, completely arse about face from what Turing set out to do and did. The important rôle that Turing's work probably took beyond giving theoreticians the warm fuzzies in the creation of computers is likely rather more prosaic and familiar to any of who have had a non-technical boss.Without Turing:Minion: "I want to build this machine I'm calling a computer. It'll cost $XYZ."Boss: "Will it work?"Minion: "I think so."With Turing:Minion: "I want to build this machine I'm calling a computer. It'll cost $XYZ."Boss: "Will it work?"Minion: "Yes, and I can prove it mathematically."My parts just arrived, I'm off to solder something at last.

author: coppice
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 02, 2021, 01:00:16 pm
content: Quote from: magic on June 01, 2021, 10:37:00 pmThe theory of computability is foundational to security, and is widely important in all sorts of heavy compute activities.

author: CatalinaWOW
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 02, 2021, 04:09:25 pm
content: Quote from: magic on June 01, 2021, 10:37:00 pmSince "nothing new was invented in the 20th century" I would really enjoy seeing the 19th and earlier century descriptions or uses of:LASERsLEDsTransistorsFission bombsFission reactorsFor the first two one could argue that light sources such as candles were invented far earlier and these are just improved light sources, and you could argue that transistors are just an improved embodiment of the spinning ball speed governers that came a couple of centuries ago and the last two are really just improvements on fire. Personally I would say they were new inventions.

author: magic
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 03, 2021, 09:14:19 am
content: You may want to carefully read the very first line of the very first postMeanwhile I came across this paragraph in nonsensopedia article on von Neumann:QuoteNo source is given as usual, but if true, the famous ENIAC would be another example of a "Turing complete" system designed without Turing.Quote from: Cerebus on June 02, 2021, 11:29:53 amFTFY. The truth is, nobody cared about theoretical "universality". From hand-cranked calculators, through Babbage's Analytical Engine and electro-mechanical cipher-breaking machines of WW2 up to ENIAC, stuff was designed with applications in mind and people weren't stupid, they knew if the application will be possible and how long it will take to execute. And if a new more complex application arrived, the design was expanded. Apparently both Babbage and ENIAC reached the limit of "computability" without even knowing a limit exists. That's how easy it is. Even the page fault handler of x86 and C++ templates are said to be Turing-complete.At the same time, execution time is a rather important factor that the "foundations of mathemathics" crowd didn't care about at all because building actual machines was not their point, the point was to come up with any non-handwavy definition of "effective method" and that's what they did. Turing may or may not have done some later work on complexity too, I don't know, but that's not what he is famous for and that's not what his "computing machine" paper was about.Quote from: coppice on June 02, 2021, 01:00:16 pmThat's complexity, not computability.Every problem that can be solved by brute force is computable and that's another reason why computabilty is mostly irrelevant in practice.I will tell you who actually cares about that Turing/Church stuff outside of academia. Advanced compiler design, static analysis, solvers to abstract logical problems, tools for abstract verification of digital IC designs, that sort of stuff. And even there, it's a 50:50 mix of undecidable problems and "merely" NP-hard. But of course, as Cerebus says, you won't get far in those fields if you can't recognize the former, so it is important in this context.

author: tpowell1830
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: June 03, 2021, 08:46:45 pm
content: "... standing on the shoulders of giants..." Isaac Newton