Author Topic: New technology doesn’t exist; everything was invented in the 60’s  (Read 5062 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline TimNJTopic starter

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1720
  • Country: us
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?


« Last Edit: June 01, 2021, 01:56:45 am by TimNJ »
 
The following users thanked this post: daqq

Online nctnico

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 28429
  • Country: nl
    • NCT Developments
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.
There are small lies, big lies and then there is what is on the screen of your oscilloscope.
 

Offline TimNJTopic starter

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1720
  • Country: us
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.
 

Offline daqq

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 2321
  • Country: sk
    • My site
Quote
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.
That'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 be massive. Just look at scientific novelties and curiosities of their time like electricity and radio waves.
Believe it or not, pointy haired people do exist!
+++Divide By Cucumber Error. Please Reinstall Universe And Reboot +++
 

Offline TimFox

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 8998
  • Country: us
  • Retired, now restoring antique test equipment
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.
 

Offline T3sl4co1l

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 22436
  • Country: us
  • Expert, Analog Electronics, PCB Layout, EMC
    • Seven Transistor Labs
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
Seven Transistor Labs, LLC
Electronic design, from concept to prototype.
Bringing a project to life?  Send me a message!
 

Offline CatalinaWOW

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 5569
  • Country: us
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.



 

Online coppercone2

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 11336
  • Country: us
  • $
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 company

I 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
« Last Edit: May 31, 2021, 05:28:56 am by coppercone2 »
 

Offline magic

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 7453
  • Country: pl
I wouldn't want to pay for large digital chips fabricated using SOI processes available in the '60s.
:-DD
 

Offline Alex Eisenhut

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 3549
  • Country: ca
  • Place text here.


You can see the automated placement of a flip chip here, I believe. 1964.

The '60s were a fun time!
Hoarder of 8-bit Commodore relics and 1960s Tektronix 500-series stuff. Unconventional interior decorator.
 

Online tszaboo

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 8217
  • Country: nl
  • Current job: ATEX product design
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.
 

Offline Alex Eisenhut

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 3549
  • Country: ca
  • Place text here.
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.

To be fair, they didn't have gigahertz in the '60s, they only had kilomegacycles ...
Hoarder of 8-bit Commodore relics and 1960s Tektronix 500-series stuff. Unconventional interior decorator.
 
The following users thanked this post: TimNJ, dzseki, JohnnyMalaria

Offline Rick Law

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 3490
  • Country: us
...
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 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...
 

Offline oPossum

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1472
  • Country: us
  • Very dangerous - may attack at any time
https://www.greenbrookelectronics.com/about-us

Quote
In 2018, we moved from our original store in Green Brook, NJ to our new home in North Plainfield, NJ.  The new store is over 7 times the size of the original store allowing for a wider range of products and services.
 

Offline Rick Law

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 3490
  • Country: us
https://www.greenbrookelectronics.com/about-us

Quote
In 2018, we moved from our original store in Green Brook, NJ to our new home in North Plainfield, NJ.  The new store is over 7 times the size of the original store allowing for a wider range of products and services.

That'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...
 

Online PartialDischarge

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1625
  • Country: 00
I agree that the 60s saw a huge innovation that most people ignore. I posted something along that line last year:

 
The following users thanked this post: TimNJ

Offline TimNJTopic starter

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1720
  • Country: us
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

That'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 179

The flip-chip method has not been used to any appreciable extent, since the bonds cannot be seen, and it is difficult to assure that they have been made, or that individual bonds are strong. To overcome this difficulty, a reverse process has been used in which the conductors are placed on to of the chips so that individuals bonds can be inspected. This is accomplished by bonding etched-foil patterns to the terminals on the chip, or by fastening the chip face up to substrate and depositing the interconnection film simultaneously on both the chip and substrate.

In another face-bonding method, the chip is raised slightly above the substrate with a thick bonding pad of some sort. This gives more leeway in aligning the planes of the chip and the substrate. Three pads on the chip are sufficient to define the plane. Mating is easier if the material is soft, like solder. Raising the chip makes it possible to inspect the bonds visually.


As 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 182

Face bonding is not a panacea. Packaging engineers point out that die-bonding cools the chip better. The thermal contact between the silicon mass of the chip and the substrate is far larger than the thermal contact provided by the face-bonding pads. Die bonding will still be preferred for devices that must dissipate large amounts of power until simple, effective methods of heat-sinking, face-bonded chips are developed.

I 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.
 
The following users thanked this post: T3sl4co1l

Offline TimNJTopic starter

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1720
  • Country: us
...
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 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...

As 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.
 

Offline TimNJTopic starter

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1720
  • Country: us
Quote
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.
That'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 be massive. Just look at scientific novelties and curiosities of their time like electricity and radio waves.

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 company

I 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

I 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?
 

Offline dietert1

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 2473
  • Country: br
    • CADT Homepage
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, Dieter

Concerning 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).
« Last Edit: May 31, 2021, 08:59:02 pm by dietert1 »
 

Offline TimNJTopic starter

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1720
  • Country: us
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, Dieter

Yes yes...I know. See my first line:

Joke title and obviously not true..

I 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!
 

Offline Rick Law

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 3490
  • Country: us
Re: New technology doesn’t exist; everything was invented in the 60’s
« Reply #21 on: June 01, 2021, 12:02:54 am »
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, Dieter

Concerning 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).

Internet 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.
 

Offline Alex Eisenhut

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 3549
  • Country: ca
  • Place text here.
Re: New technology doesn’t exist; everything was invented in the 60’s
« Reply #22 on: June 01, 2021, 12:26:35 am »
Terabyte disks for example, from very fat and large magnetic spots to smaller and smaller spots, then vertical, then...

Well, they did have terabit storage in the 1960s.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_1360

Sure, 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_oscillator

Fun at 600 volts, what more do you need?
Hoarder of 8-bit Commodore relics and 1960s Tektronix 500-series stuff. Unconventional interior decorator.
 

Offline coppice

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 10031
  • Country: gb
Re: New technology doesn’t exist; everything was invented in the 60’s
« Reply #23 on: June 01, 2021, 12:38:05 am »
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.
Much 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.
 

Offline Kerlin

  • Regular Contributor
  • *
  • Posts: 181
  • Country: au
Re: New technology doesn’t exist; everything was invented in the 60’s
« Reply #24 on: June 01, 2021, 12:42:55 am »
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.




« Last Edit: June 01, 2021, 01:40:16 am by Kerlin »
Do you know what the thread is about and are Comprehending what has been said ?
 


Share me

Digg  Facebook  SlashDot  Delicious  Technorati  Twitter  Google  Yahoo
Smf