Timeline for Computers without semi-conductor technology
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
13 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Nov 26, 2017 at 21:35 | comment | added | JBH | Let us continue this discussion in chat. | |
| Nov 26, 2017 at 21:34 | comment | added | Chris Stratton | You seem to have fallen into the fallacy all questions can have sound answers... As for the tube issue, this is basic physics, well explored, and not a direct response to the question, but rather a fatal flaw in one proposed answer. Answers on SE sites are strictly required to be responses to the question - those that merely respond to other answers are prohibited. | |
| Nov 26, 2017 at 20:52 | comment | added | JBH | @ChrisStratton, did I miss your answer, Chris? I'm sure it's around here somewhere. It'll be the one that proves tubes couldn't be miniturized further than they were and that heat can't be localized more than it was (despite tubes undergoing both miniturization and heat localization during their history). I'm sure your answer also posits a "suspension of disbelief" quality description of a non-semiconductor basis for computers that's better than semiconductors themselves. If I could just find that answer.... | |
| Nov 26, 2017 at 20:27 | comment | added | Chris Stratton | Alas, you are mired in factual errors and misunderstandings. Transistors were exorbitantly expensive - the initial markets that drove their development were not consumer, that was more of a byproduct. You also seem to confuse the role of heat in thermionic tubes, where it is requried, to that in semiconductors, where it is a waste product. The simple reality is that without changing physics (and invalidating the hard science premise), the only way you don't end up developing semiconductor computers is to develop something better first. And that is most definitely not tubes! | |
| Nov 26, 2017 at 20:15 | comment | added | JBH | @ChrisStratton, The OP wanted to consider removing semiconductors, but I felt it was more realistic to keep semiconductors around. There's no fatal flaw in my answer in that regard. Also, note that I did not say integrated circuits were the game changer. I said transistor radios were. And transistors ended up in radios long before they ended up in aerospace. I don't doubt at all that history progressed in a much more complicated manner than I presented, but my propose was to give the OP a way to build his world. He/she believes I succeeded. | |
| Nov 26, 2017 at 20:05 | comment | added | Chris Stratton | There are two fatal errors in this answer. First, the only way you don't end up with semiconductors is for physics to be different - and that invalidates the hard sci-fi premise. Second, it was not consumer electronics that drove miniaturization, but rather (unfortunately) aerospace applications. Look at where the first ICs actually ended up - in places like missile guidance, long before they made it into consumer radios. | |
| Nov 26, 2017 at 14:50 | comment | added | JBH | @MiguelBartelsman, I've been an electrical engineer for 30 years. In that time I've seen technology shrink from LSI to VLSI to ULSI to the point where we no longer apply "...LSI" anymore because it just keeps getting smaller. Note that I doubt radiotronics could shrink anywhere near to where semiconductors have (there are physical limits to how close an anode/cathode can be and still have the radiothermic effect), but I do believe they could easily shrink to the millis and possibly to micros. Note that the efficiency of analog computing would delay the need to shift to semiconductors. | |
| Nov 26, 2017 at 14:34 | comment | added | Miguel Bartelsman | How small do you reckon these could be made? | |
| Nov 26, 2017 at 14:24 | comment | added | JBH | @nzaman, it was the smallest they could get with the materials that they had under the conditions and technologies available to them. The same could be said for early transistors which required more power and generated more heat. Early engineers felt they couldn't make smaller ICs due to heat ... until they did. Make the "tubes" smaller, using better materials and more precise manufacturing, and you can reduce the power and thereby the heat. Besides, we're not looking for a perfect solution, we're looking for a believable solution for a story. | |
| Nov 26, 2017 at 14:15 | comment | added | nzaman | Problem with this approach: vacuum tubes work on thermionic emission. That means they generate a lot of heat. It wasn't that they didn't want to make them smaller, it was simply that that was the smallest they could get without spontaneously combusting. Even compact fluorescent lams came to be through the use of high frequency switching generated by an electronic circuit to minimise heating effects | |
| Nov 26, 2017 at 13:29 | comment | added | moran | Perfect answer for my purposes, since I wanted to be able to have a faction with much more advanced computers than everyone else, which your idea of 'glics' lines up with perfectly. Thanks:) | |
| Nov 26, 2017 at 13:24 | vote | accept | moran | ||
| Nov 26, 2017 at 13:00 | history | answered | JBH | CC BY-SA 3.0 |