"if it wasn't for the invention of X we wouldn't have Y" - Page 1
Forum section: electronics / general

author: Ed.Kloonk
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 20, 2022, 07:42:40 am
content: Just watched Curious Droids' latest vid on the history of Bell Labs. No shade on Paul, but I have often wondered just how true the statement "if it wasn't for the invention of X we wouldn't have Y" really is.In this case the invention of the Mosfet, we wouldn't have computers we have today.I have my suspicions.Would you knowledgable folks like to either confirm or debunk any widely accepted invention that spawned other inventions. Did it really?Would the second batter up, so to speak, eventually accommodate the gap in technology?

author: Zero999
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 20, 2022, 08:15:08 am
content: I think it's often more accurate to say, if X didn't invent Y, then Z would have.

author: ataradov
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 20, 2022, 08:20:59 am
content: There is a flow to things that needs to happen in a certain way, but I do agree that there is no way progress would stop if one thing in a chain did not happen exactly the way it did. But the timing may be extended without certain discoveries or contributions. And for that some people deserve credit.There is a very good series by James Burke called Connections. It explores chains of inventions from ancient times to modern stuff. The first season is pretty good. The chains in the following two seasons are a bit of a stretch, IMO.

author: magic
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 20, 2022, 08:41:37 am
content: Well, computers today are packed with MOSFETs so if those had never been invented, even till now, we would surely be using bipolar machines instead.Perhaps water cooling would be more popular

author: pcprogrammer
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 20, 2022, 08:45:25 am
content: Another thing to consider in this topic: "What inventions or discoveries where made while looking for something completely different?"Can't produce a good sample out of the top of my head, but I am sure there will be, especially in the medical field.

author: jpanhalt
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 20, 2022, 09:09:42 am
content: I think it's far more often the other way around. Instead of, "if it wasn't for the invention of X we wouldn't have Y," it should be "if it wasn't for Y, X wouldn't have been invented."Much as ataradov said, there's almost always a sequence. We had computers long before mosfets, but the drive to improve them led to mosfets.As for accidental discoveries, the invention of Teflon comes to mind. It's inventor was working on better refrigerants.https://www.sciencehistory.org/historical-profile/roy-j-plunkett#:~:text=Teflon%2C%20discovered%20by%20Roy%20J,of%20the%20other%20polymer%20products.3M's Post-it adhesive pads are another example. I don't have a link to it, but having lived in the shadow of 3M, it was common lore. Basically, it was a failure for making a better adhesive that was repurposed.

author: tom66
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 20, 2022, 09:23:29 am
content: A BJT-based CPU would probably require a refrigeration system to keep it sufficiently cool at just 50 MIPS.Are there examples of non-CMOS CPUs that were commercially produced?

author: Cyberdragon
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 20, 2022, 09:32:43 am
content: Quote from: Zero999 on August 20, 2022, 08:15:08 amThis exactly. It's actually easier to ask "What if X was invented sooner if not for Y?". A great example of this is asshats burning the Library of Alexandria, setting back scientific progress for centuries. I mean we still made it through that great loss of human knowledge, but it just took us awhile. Another example is Babbage, if he had actually succeeded in making a clockwork computer, would electromechanical then electonic computers to replace it have been invented sooner?

author: pardo-bsso
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: August 20, 2022, 11:58:20 am
content: Quote from: ataradov on August 20, 2022, 08:20:59 amI also second that. It's an incredible series.

author: pardo-bsso
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: August 20, 2022, 11:59:15 am
content: Quote from: Ed.Kloonk on August 20, 2022, 07:42:40 amProbably bipolar or small triodes.

author: jonpaul
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 20, 2022, 01:02:07 pm
content: Bonjour à tousEvery advance in technology builds on previous knowledge, invention and discoveryEach Pioneering advance built on and was an improvement on all the preceding.Every patent application cites all the prior art.Often the invention is discovered almost simultaneously by different inventors like the telephoneA timeline for semiconductor and computers 1800s..2000 could beBabbage engine, Jacquard loom, Crystal detector, vacuum tube, transistors, FETs, ICs, CPUs, quantum computerFor telecommunicationsSémaphores, Chappe système, Telegraph, multiplexing télégraphe, téléphone, undersea cables, satellites, internet, mobile phones...Bon courageJon

author: jmelson
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 20, 2022, 04:35:13 pm
content: Quote from: Ed.Kloonk on August 20, 2022, 07:42:40 amComputers were made with bipolar junction transistors for at least a decade before MOSFETs were ready. IBM made the 370 line of machines with small ICs using mostly NPN transistors in the ECL logic family, back starting in 1970 or so. Yes, clearly, MOSFETs are now the first choice inlogic circuits, and CMOS has developed into a very successful way to build fast, low-power logic on a huge scale.It does seem that somebody developed a MOSFET back in the 1930's, trying to make a "solid state" tube, but he was not able to get very reproducible (or long-lasting) results.Jon

author: daqq
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 20, 2022, 05:41:17 pm
content: The thing is, progression from one idea/invention/discovery/application is insanely non-linear and difficult to predict. You can trace the origins of a sex lubricant formulation* to the US space program, which was greatly helped by the invention of teflon, which was the side product of commercial research into refrigerators. Odds are that these discoveries would have come eventually, but not necessarily as fast or in the same form. Or something completely different would have come, since the people who wanted a material with the parameters of teflon would have not been satisfied due to the lack of teflon and they'd do a lot of research and got something completely different.* -[NSFW?]https://astroglide.com/blog/our-roots-in-rocket-science-out-of-this-world-pleasure-endless-possibilities

author: jpanhalt
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 20, 2022, 07:36:40 pm
content: Quote from: daqq on August 20, 2022, 05:41:17 pmAlthough K-Y Jelly was first marketed in 1917 long after the Chinese invented rockets, it was not a product of the US space program.https://www.k-y.ca/pages/frequently-asked-questions#faq-1Wikipedia gives an even earlier date (1904). Maybe the Wright brothers used it to lubricate their control cables? I'm satisfied with 1917.

author: SiliconWizard
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 20, 2022, 07:40:36 pm
content: Quote from: Ed.Kloonk on August 20, 2022, 07:42:40 amWhile inventions obviously trigger other inventions in cascade, the problem with the above statement is its absolute nature: as if there was only one possible path for anything that we do. That is clearly bullshit and sounds more like magic thinking than anything else.

author: jmelson
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 20, 2022, 07:52:19 pm
content: Quote from: tom66 on August 20, 2022, 09:23:29 amCPUs on an IC? Yes, HP made a series of machines with Silicon on sapphire substrates, for lower parasitic capacitance.Under a microscope, you can see thriugh the chip like glass. I don't know what the circuit topolgy was.IBM made the 370 series with the bipolar junction transistor technology they called MST4, which was essentially similar to Motorola's ECL.The original Z-80 was implemented in XMOS, I think.Jon

author: mikeselectricstuff
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 20, 2022, 07:54:29 pm
content: Often statements like that are predicated on an assumption or suggestion that something might never have been invented, but in practice it's more often just a matter of time (when rather than if) and available materials/processes, as well as commercial incentive.Something like a MOSFET would almost certainly have been invented eventually.It's often said that Clive Sinclair invented the pocket calculator, but all he did in reality was figure out how to make it cheap enough before the competition did, it would have happened anyway. I think this is true for a very large number of "inventions"Another interesting thing to consider is the opposite - what progress has been hindered by the invention of a non-optimal solution. For example if valves (vacuum tubes) hadn't been invented, would we have got semiconductors sooner ?

author: daqq
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 20, 2022, 08:52:45 pm
content: Quote from: jpanhalt on August 20, 2022, 07:36:40 pmDidn't say it was the first and only oneThe question is, would we have Astroglide without Teflon?

author: langwadt
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 20, 2022, 09:01:23 pm
content: Quote from: daqq on August 20, 2022, 08:52:45 pmand Telfon (PTFE) was an accidental discovery while working on a new refrigerant

author: Circlotron
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 21, 2022, 12:03:31 am
content: And what if someone had invented really really good batteries in the late 1800s? So good that no one would have bothered with internal combustion engines? So much of the 20th century would have been different. Oil rich nations would have remained a backwater. Probably fewer wars. Less environmental damage of the type we see today. But I expect people collectively would have found another way to do the horrible things they do.

author: free_electron
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 21, 2022, 12:37:17 am
content: The FET is older than the BJT. The concept of field effect was postulated 20 years BEFORE Shockley/Bardeen/Brattain discovered the BJT. They were actually trying to make a FET but ran into all kinds of problems and discovered the junction transistor instead.The first BJT did not really have a collector and emitter (it was actually not a BJT, not in the sense Bipolar junction transistor). It was symmetrical . That famous first bipolar transistor was not a NPN or PNP but what came later to be known as a Schottky junction ( metal/semiconductor junction , not a semiconductor-semiconductor junction ). The Base was a slab of doped germanium (hence the name "base") the rest were two gold-germanium junctions. one collected electrons, the other emitted electrons. The base could modulate the conductivity.Mosfets came later. But, what is used today is no longer a MOSFET. MOS means Metal - oxide - Semiconductor. The gate was metal. That is no longer the case. Not for digital ics. The gate is doped polysilicon. Why ? Because you can make smaller structures in polysilicon than in metal. It is much more resilient to mechanical damage. And stacking metal was problematic : you need an insulation layer inbetween. So the first ic's actually used a layer of polysilicon to create the gates AND do part of the routing. There was 1 metal layer. When I started in semiconductors in 1990 we had one metal layer.

author: langwadt
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 21, 2022, 01:50:19 am
content: Quote from: Circlotron on August 21, 2022, 12:03:31 amwhat do you think would have been used to charge those batteries?

author: KE5FX
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 21, 2022, 02:54:39 am
content: Quote from: mikeselectricstuff on August 20, 2022, 07:54:29 pmIt's been argued that any well-equipped neon sign shop could have built lasers in the 1930s if they'd known how. You have to wonder how that might have altered the course of the next few decades' worth of scientific as well as technological history.

author: SiliconWizard
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 21, 2022, 03:30:15 am
content: Quote from: langwadt on August 21, 2022, 01:50:19 amWhich is pretty much the same problem we have today... (at least on a large scale.)

author: pcprogrammer
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 21, 2022, 05:45:11 am
content: Quote from: Circlotron on August 21, 2022, 12:03:31 amHow different would things be if oil was not discovered? Modern society would probably not exist as it is today. So many products depend(ed) on crude oil. Think of the petrochemical industry.Having it reduce on wars, probably not, because something in human nature drives us to them constantly. "Hey this is mine, you can't have it. What the hell you took it, this means war." Just take a good look at history way back before the combustion engine came into play. It is filled with war. Nations are build on it.It is not just humans to be fair. Take a good look at nature and there is "war" all over the place. Plants competing over sun light, animals competing over food, etc. We just took it to the next level.You can't blame the environmental damage just on fossil fuels. With or without, there would be a lot of problems just because of human existence. So much nature had to make way for our living needs, but also, and probably much worse for the environment, all the space we fill with the rubbish we produce. Sure it has exploded in the last 150 years or so, but it basically started with the first man walking.

author: Brumby
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: August 21, 2022, 01:07:57 pm
content: Quote from: Circlotron on August 21, 2022, 12:03:31 amI would expect a change in the focus for resources. For example, instead of securing sources of oil there might have been similar efforts in securing sources of lithium or rare earth materials.

author: Kleinstein
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 21, 2022, 01:38:19 pm
content: Quote from: jmelson on August 20, 2022, 07:52:19 pmQuite a few of the early 8 bit CPUs (8080, 6502, Z80) were either NMOS or PMOS. There was also a mix with MOSFETs and BJTs. They later switched to CMOS for lower power and better performance, though it needs a more complicated process.Somewhat later there was even some ECL type CPU on a chip, to get a high clock speed. At least in the early days, when running at high clock speed the power consumption for CMOS was not that much better than ECL. It only improved with reduced feature size. WIth BJTs it gets increasingly more difficult to make them very small. The main advantage in power consumption with CMOS comes in the idle state or logic in a static state, like much of memory.Silicon on saphire is just a different substrate, but the process on top could still be CMOS, but also others.Some of the inventions / discoveries just have there time to come. If it does not happen in one lab, it will come somehere else. Some parts even got invented multiple times - so reinventing the wheel is nothing new.

author: Zero999
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 21, 2022, 06:05:24 pm
content: Quote from: pcprogrammer on August 21, 2022, 05:45:11 amBefore oil, coal was used to make many chemicals used in industry. It can also be used to make synthetic oil.

author: pcprogrammer
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 21, 2022, 06:35:54 pm
content: Quote from: Zero999 on August 21, 2022, 06:05:24 pmCoal just as oil is a finite resource, so if they run out, it leaves us with a problem other than the transportation and energy sector falling on its ass, but I'm not very knowledgeable in the field of chemistry and wonder how big a problem it would actually be for production of goods when oil or coal would no longer be available?

author: jpanhalt
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 21, 2022, 08:14:25 pm
content: Coal according to Wikipedia is mostly carbon. The "valence" of carbon is zero. Oil is a mixture mostly of hydrocarbons. The "valence" of carbon in a hydrocarbon is something negative, such as -4. Oxidation of carbon (i.e., increasing its valence) produces energy. Reduction (decreasing its valence) requires energy. Most of what we consider consumer plastics/petrochemicals require reduced carbon. Synthesis could be done (grad students used to exercise their brains with organic syntheses beginning with carbon), but requires at lot more resources to do compared to starting with oil.

author: magic
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 22, 2022, 05:59:33 am
content: Wikipedia is usually wrong about everything and always misleading.Coal is mostly heavy and complex hydrocarbons, and pure carbon is graphite or sometimes diamond.Coal can be used to synthesize simpler hydrocarbons, such as gasoline, without putting all the energy into it that will later be extracted by burning.

author: Kleinstein
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 22, 2022, 06:12:18 am
content: For the chemistry oil and coal can be replaced with biological sources of carbon / hydrocarbons. This tends to be more expensive and may need some additional effort, but it is possible. The main problem getting away without oil and coal is the higher price in the cases were they are used to burn as energy source. With limited supplies we will have to reduce the consumption and a high price is thus natural and good.

author: jpanhalt
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 22, 2022, 07:15:22 am
content: Quote from: magic on August 22, 2022, 05:59:33 amI disagree. Can you provide a citation for converting coal to gasoline without adding any energy, chemical or otherwise.There are different types of coal. Some are more carbon rich than others.https://education.nationalgeographic.org/resource/coalMoreover, given coal's low ratio of hydrogen to carbon, one must reduce it to form hydrocarbon fuels.Source:https://www.britannica.com/science/coal-fossil-fuelQuoteAs for biodiesel and related, the most common method I have seen uses methanolysis of organic fats to give methyl esters of long-chain fatty acids. They are not hydrocarbons and have slightly less energy due to the RCOOR' group, but they are still mostly hydrocarbon and can often be substituted for hydrocarbon fuel.

author: pcprogrammer
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 22, 2022, 08:24:07 am
content: Just a thought, no idea if it is possible, but what if we extract CO2 from the atmosphere and recombine it with what ever is needed to make some sort of synthetic gasoline and keep running internal combustion engines on it and call it CO2 neutral. This instead of massively producing batteries for electric vehicles.Does not solve the excessive amount of CO2 there is now, but just switching to "renewable" energy does not solve this either. Only active extraction of CO2 and safely storing it could do it in a short time frame.Still leaves a lot of other problems with other forms of pollution, but something to think about.

author: magic
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 22, 2022, 08:41:59 am
content: Quote from: jpanhalt on August 22, 2022, 07:15:22 amI don't think you do, the point was simply that coal is far from being pure carbon, 10:8 C:H proportion per the source you found.Quote from: jpanhalt on August 22, 2022, 07:15:22 amI suppose a whole spectrum of tradeoff is available between adding hydrogen or removing carbon. I don't know those processes. I'm pretty sure than in an act of desperation you could simply burn a fraction of the coal to obtain energy to upgrade the rest, resulting in a "no energy input" process with appropriately lower yield, but arguably that's an exercise in accounting rather than chemical engineering.

author: Zero999
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 22, 2022, 08:44:18 am
content: Quote from: pcprogrammer on August 22, 2022, 08:24:07 amWhere do you get the energy from to extract the CO2and convert it back to gasoline? I'm sure you're aware it will take much more energy to do that, then was produced from burning the gasoline.

author: pcprogrammer
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 22, 2022, 09:05:39 am
content: Quote from: Zero999 on August 22, 2022, 08:44:18 amVery good point. Did not really think that through, but the same argument applies to the whole transition to "renewables". It still takes a lot of energy to mine the resources and produce the batteries, solar panels and windmills. Not to mention the energy and effort required to change the whole infrastructure.But as stated before I'm no chemist and have no clue as to what would be needed in a process to convert CO2 into gasoline. Just spitting out thoughts.

author: tszaboo
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 22, 2022, 09:06:38 am
content: Quote from: Zero999 on August 22, 2022, 08:44:18 amFrom the sun and wind. There are already days when the power generation by renewables is more than needed, and the price of electricity goes negative. The more renewables, the more of these days will happen.BTW, carbon capture directly from air, would still be non-profitable for a long time, when you still can place it to the chimney of a coal fired plant.

author: EPAIII
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 22, 2022, 09:13:11 am
content: Sooner or later, probably later, the entire universe will fall into a black hole. That is, if it isn't there already. And when that black hole goes bang, everything will start over again.And an entirely different race of intelligent beings will argue about energy again.And then, even later still, it will happen all over again.And again!And again!And .............

author: pcprogrammer
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 22, 2022, 09:26:17 am
content: Yes that is something that might happen, and who knows how often it has already happened. But it will probably be long after our civilization went extinct all on its own.Estimates for the sun are about 4 billion years before it runs out and fries all the planets in its vicinity. Human race, who knows, but definitely much sooner than the sun.

author: jpanhalt
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 22, 2022, 10:32:30 am
content: Quote from: magic on August 22, 2022, 08:41:59 amI was about to write an edit earlier but decided to get some sleep. My graduate work dealt mostly with hydrocarbons and one in particular, tetraphenylanthracene (C30H18), which has a H:C ratio of 0.6. That type of structure can theoretically be extended to tile a surface with even lower ratios. The ratio of 0.8 is certainly not a sharp dividing point between coal and common hydrocarbons. One example is naphthylene (C10H8), which is quite common and low melting. Acetylene (C2H2) is also common. I was focused on liquid fuels like gasoline and kerosine, which is my second citation.In any event,efficientliquefaction of coal has been a dream of petrochemists for ages. Google search shows some progress has been made, particularly in deriving petrochemicals from it..My apologies. John

author: jpanhalt
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 22, 2022, 10:40:35 am
content: As for beginning with CO2 and making fuels, isn't that how biodiesel and ethanol are made? With the help of plants, of course.

author: pcprogrammer
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 22, 2022, 10:57:33 am
content: Plants are definitely capable of converting CO2 into something else, but you need a lot of them to reduce the amount of CO2 currently in the atmosphere, and the big problem with that is where to grow them. We got rid of so many of them just to make space for where we live

author: pcprogrammer
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 22, 2022, 11:01:01 am
content: Quote from: jpanhalt on August 22, 2022, 10:32:30 amJust like turning lead into gold(Not an exact match to the point made above, but it shows the intent.)

author: Zero999
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 22, 2022, 02:06:27 pm
content: Quote from: tszaboo on August 22, 2022, 09:06:38 amIs that really true? Most countries heavily subsidize renewables.Wind turbines aren't perfect. There's the problem of disposing of them when they've reached the end of life. The blades are made of resin bonded fibreglass which can't be recycled. I suppose it's possible to thermally depolymersise the resin, to produce oil and char and the glass will melt and reused, most probably as a building material. The problem is this won't be cheap. I can see most of it going to landfill.The Sabatier reaction can be used to convert CO2to methane, synthetic natural gas, but a source of hydrogen is needed.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sabatier_reaction

author: pcprogrammer
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 22, 2022, 02:19:19 pm
content: Quote from: Zero999 on August 22, 2022, 02:06:27 pmSolar panels have similar problems at end of live, or can even be a problem when they get damaged by hail. 25 years, or less, from now it is seen as nowadays asbestos.

author: Cyberdragon
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 25, 2022, 03:31:51 am
content: Quote from: Circlotron on August 21, 2022, 12:03:31 amThey did have electric cars in the Edwardian era. But they faded into obscurity because of lack of support infrastructure, cost, exc. AFAIK they were mainly marketed towards women.

author: NiHaoMike
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 25, 2022, 03:54:10 am
content: Quote from: pcprogrammer on August 22, 2022, 10:57:33 amUse ocean algae, 3x as much ocean area as land area. And rapidly phase out factory farming to replace it with sustainable farming which uses much less land.

author: pcprogrammer
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 25, 2022, 05:49:48 am
content: Quote from: NiHaoMike on August 25, 2022, 03:54:10 amTopping of the oceans with algae to an extend that the surface is closed of by algae will cause other kind of problems. That is one of the things the human race constantly gets wrong. We often think up a solution without considering long term effects and when it goes sour it is repeated all over again. There never seems to be a balance in things.As an example, we bring an animal species to the brink of extinction, and then flip to such an extend that things get out of hand to save the last couple from dying.You mention sustainable farming, and that might be a good thing, but what are the costs?A sustainable society is what is needed, but the question is what is a sustainable society. At least one where there is no population growth. And the consumption rate also has to drop to a level that is sustainable. This includes food as well as other things that we use and throw out when we are done with it.At the moment we just produce more and more to fight something we created by a growing population and a growing rate of production.