Quote:
Originally posted by Uryoces
The author mentioned Bell labs, and the basic research that was performed there. Bell was expecting that some application would come from the researcher's efforts there. The transistor is simply an application of that research to replace the vacuum tube. For all the advances that the transistor brought, and as great as it is, it was simply an evolutionary step.
|
The transistor was not developed because Bell expected some application to result. It was not an attempt to replace the vacuum tube - even though it did so. The transistor was simply basic research to learn if and how semiconductors would works as electronic valves. Bell could not find an early purpose for transistors!
Along comes Akio Morita who signs a licensing agreement for the concept called transistor. During paper signing, Bell executives are so curious. Why was Morita interested in transistors? Morita says he planned to develop transistor radios - application development. Bell executives were amazed. Western Electric had tried and failed to do that. The rest of that history (Sony) is common knowledge.
Bell Labs is fundamental research as defined by the legendary Mervin Kelly in 1950:
Quote:
|
[best industrial researchers] must be given freedoms that are equivalent to those of the research man in the university. It is most important for the scientists to confine their efforts to the area of research. If they extend the area of their efforts even to that of fundamental development [the area of work that immediately follows research], they tend to lose contact with the forefront of their field of scientific interest. In time, a considerable fraction will lose their productivity in research.
|
Bell Labs in its heyday expected no products from basic research performed there. As a result, it got tremendously successful knowledge from the Labs that resulted in so many famous products.
I am only demonstrating again the difference between basic research and application development. Something that MBAs don't understand and therefore destroyed some famous sources of American productivity - ie Sarnoff Labs, Bendix Research Labs, and the post 1995 diffussion of Bell Labs. In IBM, Gerstner was about to do same to IBM Labs when he was convinced otherwise. He later admitted that not having sold off their Labs was one of the most successful decisions he ever made. IBM Labs do basic research such as moving Argon atoms to spell out "IBM". No product. But that basic research is necessary to make application development possible. That is well understood by those who come from science. The separation between basic research and application development is essential in the advancement of science.
Bell did not expect any products to come from the Labs. They only expected basic research to happen as defined by Mervin Kelly starting in 1936. What were some of the early products that were created by basic research in quantum theory? The thermal, electrical, and magnetic properties of crystals. Breakthrough quantum research that later created products found on WWII battlefields. Funny how tools used in quantum research eventually result in amazing new products. But then that is why fundamental research and application development are two separate functions. It is why the super collider would have been so productive for America - instead of Europe.