Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science
From: Albert (albertwagner_at_cox.net)
Date: 02/17/05
- Next message: tadchem: "Re: Peak oil is an balloon, let's break it."
- Previous message: Neil W Rickert: "Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science"
- In reply to: Richard Herring: "Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science"
- Next in thread: Richard Herring: "Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science"
- Reply: Richard Herring: "Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2005 17:30:58 -0600
Richard Herring wrote:
> In message <1F4Rd.6885$zs.221@okepread04>, Albert <albertwagner@cox.net>
> writes
>
>> Richard Herring wrote:
>>
>>> In message <he2Rd.6875$zs.3239@okepread04>, Albert
>>> <albertwagner@cox.net> writes
>>>
>>>> Richard Herring wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> In message <M%LQd.6829$zs.700@okepread04>, Albert
>>>>> <albertwagner@cox.net> writes
>>>>>
>>>>>> Richard Herring wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> In message <WIJQd.6816$zs.1418@okepread04>, Albert
>>>>>>> <albertwagner@cox.net> writes
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Richard Herring wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> In message <j3JQd.6815$zs.4869@okepread04>, Albert
>>>>>>>>> <albertwagner@cox.net> writes
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>> [...]
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I have, in fact, read everything I could find about the
>>>>>>>>>> semiconductors and the invention of the transistor. I found
>>>>>>>>>> lots experiments, fortuitous accidents and even evidence that
>>>>>>>>>> the Bell was not the first to discover the effects of
>>>>>>>>>> semiconductors. I found no indication that 1940's QM had
>>>>>>>>>> anything to do with the actual invention.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Perhaps you didn't recognise it?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Perhaps it isn't there.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I rest my case, as I believe they say.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Which is a mistake, in that you haven't proven it.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> That was "I rest my case" as in "<fx:whooosh>". I've established
>>>>> that you can't see QM when it's under your nose, either in the
>>>>> cited notebook page or the patent I referred you to in an earlier
>>>>> posting.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I don't know what you think you have proven by your cites.
>>>
>>> I have proven that the Bell Labs people were well aware of the
>>> relevant quantum theory at the time when they produced a transistor.
>>
>>
>> You have something to learn of logic. You have proven nothing.
>
>
>
>
>>>> You will note that prior to your posting of cites I had already
>>>> posted cites from the same site.
>>>
>>> The PBS site. FWIW my posting referring to the site containing the
>>> patent preceded yours.
>>
>>
>> How peculiar, then, that your post citing PBS was in reply to my post
>> citing PBS, and my post even shows up in your post as quoted.
>
>
> Yes, that's right. And neither of those posts refers to the patent. That
> reference was in my *earlier* posting:
>
> I cited http://www.bellsystemmemorial.com/pdf/02569347.pdf
> (the patent)
> in message <yuwyyOMmoyECFw3u@baesystems.com>
> dated Wed, 16 Feb 2005 11:10:30 +0000.
>
> http://groups-beta.google.com/group/sci.cognitive/msg/6127cb24b657c397
>
> You cited
> http://www.pbs.org/transistor/science/events/pnjunc.html
> http://www.pbs.org/transistor/background1/events/miraclemo.html
> http://www.bellsystemmemorial.com/belllabs_transistor1.html
>
> in message <j3JQd.6815$zs.4869@okepread04>
> dated Wed, 16 Feb 2005 09:47:13 -0600
>
> To which I replied in <+74h3oKHN2ECFwXQ@baesystems.com>
> dated Wed, 16 Feb 2005 15:14:15 +0000
> quoting your post and adding my own reference to
> http://www.pbs.org/transistor/science/labpages/labpg9.html
>
> Is that quite clear now?
>
>> Your problem with ordering events in time might explain why you think
>> you have refuted my statement.
>
>
> I can't be held responsible for your failure to read everything in the
> thread.
>
>>>> So I had already been there and read what you posted.
>>>
>>> Yes. Unfortunately you didn't recognise the content for what it was.
>>>
>>>> Patents are typically revisionist history. It is arguable that Bell
>>>> actually had a basis for a patent considering what lawyers call
>>>> 'prior use.'
>>>
>>> If so, it's a little surprising that nobody contested it.
>>
>>
>> You don't get out much, do you. Any casual observer of the legal
>> system in the country knows what happens to little people when
>> confronted with a battery of expensive and well funded patent lawyers.
>
>
> Sure. They hire another expensive shark^Hlawyer on a contingency-fee basis.
>
>>
>>> But that's irrelevant to my point. Prior art or not, the patent
>>> proves that Shockley knew about the relevant quantum theory at the
>>> time he submitted it.
>>
>>
>> Just what 'relevant' aspects of QM do you believe are specified in the
>> patent application?
>
>
> See http://www.bellsystemmemorial.com/pdf/02569347.pdf, particularly
> columns 10-11.
>
> Fermi-Dirac distribution, Fermi level, conduction band, electrons and
> holes, ...
LOL. And you consider these topics Quantum Mechanics? Just as I
thought you are defining QM as all unfalsified physics since Plato.
>> At any rate, it irrelevant.
>>
>> He also knew of the prior art, which was conveniently omitted from the
>> patent application.
>
> That's an odd use of "omitted". The application cites patents by
> Lilienfeld and Ohl, among others.
You know damned well what I am referring to. It's right
here...Oops, You snipped it.
>
>
> <snip>
--
"Don't you see that the whole aim of Newspeak is to narrow the
range of thought? In the end we shall make thoughtcrime literally
impossible, because there will be no words in which to express it."
-- George Orwell as Syme in "1984"
- Next message: tadchem: "Re: Peak oil is an balloon, let's break it."
- Previous message: Neil W Rickert: "Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science"
- In reply to: Richard Herring: "Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science"
- Next in thread: Richard Herring: "Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science"
- Reply: Richard Herring: "Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
