 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
Rename to 2N697 edit
2N697 would be a better name for the article. Glrx (talk) 20:58, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
- I picked 2N696 based on the commemorative public art that brought it to my attention. Both part numbers are listed in the original August 1958 introductory ads. Why do you prefer the higher-beta part number as the article name? Dicklyon (talk) 21:14, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
- It is the better part, and the one most commonly referred to. Computer History Museum refers to the 2N697. The Semiconductor Museum has a photo of the 2N697 rather than the 2N696. Glrx (talk) 01:10, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
- The CHM seems to have info roughly like this ref, that says "After successful delivery to IBM, the first commercial double-diffused transistor, the 2N696/697 NPN device, was introduced to great acclaim at the Wescon electronics component trade show in August 1958", but chose to drop one of the numbers. The photo seems to me has less significance of choice than the sculpture. And "2N696 series" occurs more often (in old books and mags) than "2N697 series". And "2N696-7 series" and other uses of "2N696-7" and "2N696/7" are not uncommon, too. Dicklyon (talk) 01:32, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
- Apparently the 696 was more common, if you believe Sporck; at least in the beginning. Dicklyon (talk) 21:59, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
- I'm not dead set. The Sporck comment finishes with "and we chose Gordon's [Moore's] product," so it sounds like the paragraph was about choosing to go with Moore's NPN design rather than Hoerni's PNP design. Somewhere there was a description of Noyce spending the first six months finding a good product, and the answer was a silicon core driver (high current) transistor, and it did not matter whether it was NPN or PNP. A min β of 20 or 30 probably does not make much difference. Glrx (talk) 23:17, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
- True; sure, not a huge difference. But the 696 is the series prototype, and the number commemorated, which I why I chose it as title. I've ordered copies of a couple of books that talk about it, and will let you know if I find more. Dicklyon (talk) 02:53, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
- The Malone book, The Big Score implies that what IBM bought in Jan. 1958 was the 2N696: "Within a year the firm had expanded the 2N696 to include a follow-up 2N697...". Dicklyon (talk) 04:59, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
- True; sure, not a huge difference. But the 696 is the series prototype, and the number commemorated, which I why I chose it as title. I've ordered copies of a couple of books that talk about it, and will let you know if I find more. Dicklyon (talk) 02:53, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
- I'm not dead set. The Sporck comment finishes with "and we chose Gordon's [Moore's] product," so it sounds like the paragraph was about choosing to go with Moore's NPN design rather than Hoerni's PNP design. Somewhere there was a description of Noyce spending the first six months finding a good product, and the answer was a silicon core driver (high current) transistor, and it did not matter whether it was NPN or PNP. A min β of 20 or 30 probably does not make much difference. Glrx (talk) 23:17, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
- It is the better part, and the one most commonly referred to. Computer History Museum refers to the 2N697. The Semiconductor Museum has a photo of the 2N697 rather than the 2N696. Glrx (talk) 01:10, 23 September 2018 (UTC)