John Bardeen and transistor physics

Cite as: AIP Conference Proceedings 550, 3 (2001); https://doi.org/10.1063/1.1354371

Published Online: 28 March 2001

Howard R. Huff

ARTICLES YOU MAY BE INTERESTED IN

John Bardeen and the Point-Contact Transistor

Physics Today 45, 36 (1992); https://doi.org/10.1063/1.881336

From The Lab to The Fab: Transistors to Integrated Circuits

AIP Conference Proceedings 683, 3 (2003); https://doi.org/10.1063/1.1622451

Surface States and Barrier Height of Metal-Semiconductor Systems

Journal of Applied Physics 36, 3212 (1965); https://doi.org/10.1063/1.1702952

AIP Conference Proceedings 550, 3 (2001); https://doi.org/10.1063/1.1354371 550, 3

© 2001 American Institute of Physics.

 JOHN BARDEEN and TRANSISTOR PHYSICS*
Howard R. Huff
International SEMATECH, Inc.
Austin, TX 78741
Abstract. John Bardeen and Walter Brattain invented the point-contact semiconductor amplifier (transistor action) in
polycrystalline germanium (also observed in polycrystalline silicon) on Dec. 15, 1947, for which they received a patent
on Oct. 3, 1950. Bill Shockley was not a co-patent holder on Bardeen and Brattain’s point-contact semiconductor
amplifier patent since Julius Lilienfeld had already received a patent in 1930 for what would have been Shockley’s
contribution; namely, the field-effect methodology. Shockley received patents for both his minority-camer injection
concept and junction transistor theory, however, and deservedly shared the Nobel prize with Bardeen and Brattain for his
seminal contributions of injection, p-n junction theory and junction transistor theory. We will review the events leading
up to the invention of Bardeen and Brattain’s point-contact semiconductor amplifier during the magic month of
November 17 - December 16, 1947 and the invention of Shockley’s junction semiconductor amplifier during his magic
month of December 24, 1947 - January 23, 1948. It was during the course of Bardeen and Brattain’s research in
November, 1947 that Bardeen also patented the essence of the MOS transistor, wherein the induced minority camers
were confined to the inversion layer enroute to the collector. C.T. Sah has described this device as a sourceless MOS
transistor. Indeed, John Bardeen, co-inventor of the point-contact semiconductor amplifier and inventor of the MOS
transistor, may rightly be called thefather of modem electronics.

INTRODUCTION The discussion on the point-contact

Mervin Kelly, Bell Telephone Laboratory’s
(BTL) research director, established an
interdisciplinary team in 1945 with the goal of
replacing the vacuum tube amplifier and the electro-
mechanical relay type devices, utilized in the Bell
System, by a solid-state amplifier and switch,
respectively. Contrary to popular opinion, the BTL
team was mission oriented, albeit with a scientific
scaffolding. The resulting point-contact
semiconductor amplifier (transistor action) was
invented by John Bardeen and Walter Brattain on
Dec. 15, 1947, which ushered in the solid-state
electronics age. The scientific background, personnel
involved and the intertwining of these historic events
in the mid -1940’s are described.
The scope of the article is to initially present a
brief resume of majority and minority carriers
followed by the introduction of the field-effect
experiment, Bill Shockley’s original approach to
develop a solid-state amplifier. Bardeen and
Brattain’s magic month of November 17 - December
16, 1947 is then presented during which they
invented their point-contact semiconductor amplifier
and identified transistor action. This is followed by
an examination as to whether the minority carriers
are transported along the surface or exhibit some
non-trivial component through the bulk.
* An initial version was published in ULSI
Process Integration (edited by C.L. Claeys, H. Iwai,
G. Bronner and R. Fair, eds.), PV 99-18, 19-55
(1999), The Electrochemical Society, Inc.
CP550, Characterization and Metrology for ULSI Technology: 2000 International Conference,
edited by D. G. Seiler, A. C. Diebold, T. J. Shaffner, R. McDonald, W. M. Bullis, P. J. Smith, and E. M. Secula
02001 American Institute of Physics 1-56396-967-X/01/$18.00
3
semiconductor amplifier is then completed with a
discussion on contemporaneous events, in particular
the research conducted by Karl Lark-Horovitz and
Ralph Bray of Purdue, followed by the naming of the
transistor and the patent priorities. Shockley’s magic
month of December 24, 1947 - January 23, 1948 is
then discussed, culminating in Shockley’s seminal
contributions of injection, pn junction theory and
junction transistor theory. Finally, the evolving
direction of transistor research is briefly discussed
followed by a summary.
MAJORITY AND MINORITY
CARRIERS A RZSUME -
At OK, silicon and germanium are perfect
insulators inasmuch as the isotopes of each element
exhibit only zero-point (weakly coupled) atomic
vibrations. At any non-zero temperature, however,
thermodynamic requirements introduce a degree of
disorder (entropy) into the crystal structure so as to
minimize the Gibbs free energy at thermal
equilibrium (1). Atoms transfer off the substitutional
sites onto interstitial sites - also referred to as self-
interstitials - creating several classes of point
defects. The absence of atoms on substitutional sites
are referred to as vacancies; near-surface atoms
transferring to the surface also create vacancies.
Various paired interactions between vacancies and
self-interstitials also occur; one such complex is
called the Frenkel defect (2). Distributed within the
vibrating system of atoms and vacancy-interstitial
point defects at finite temperatures are free carriers
generated by collisions between the atoms and
phonons (quantized crystal vibrations). Electrons
excited out of the valence band with energies greater
than the energy gap populate the multiple
conduction-band minima at non-zero values of the
wave vector k (Le., different directions in the crystal
are generally expressed as the reciprocals of these
directions and the ensemble is referred to as
reciprocal (k) space) and are referred to as “intrinsic”
(ni) electrons. Concurrently, an equal number of
(light and heavy mass) holes (the absence of
electrons) are left resident at the valence-band
maximum at the wave vector k = 0 along with holes
resident at the split-off valence band, also at
k = 0 (2). The total sum of these holes is referred to
as “intrinsic” (pi) holes, although the split-off holes
are often ignored. The intrinsic electron-hole
excitation phenomenon is described by the mass-
action relationship ( 2 ) :
n.IP,. -
- n.2I (1)
The offset in k space of the valence-band maximum
and conduction-band minima accounts for the
designation of the group-IVa semiconductors (except
gray tin) as indirect energy-gap semiconductors.
Group-Va donor impurities such as phosphorous,
arsenic or antimony result in free electrons ( n ) in the
conduction band (n-type semiconductor) while the
group-IIIa acceptor impurities such as boron result in
free holes @) in the valence band (p-type
semiconductor). These dopants occupy substitutional
sites in the group-IVa semiconductors and donate
one more or one less electron than the host group-
IVa semiconductor for n- and p-type semiconductors,
respectively (2-4). The donor (acceptor) impurity
becomes positively (negatively) charged when the
free electron (hole) resides in the conduction
(valence) band. Charge neutrality requires:
n + NA-= p + ND+ (2)
One may utilize the charge neutrality condition from
eq. ( 2 ) with the generalized mass-action relationship
(applicable in the case of non-degenerate statistics at
thermal equilibrium) in eq. 3 (2,3) to relate the
electron and hole concentrations:
n p = n i2 (3)
where n is the total number of free electrons per cm3,
p is the total number of free holes per cm3 and ni is
the intrinsic thermal equilibrium concentration of
electrons (equal to holes). For example, an
(essentially) uncompensated p-type silicon wafer at
300K with an acceptor concentration NAof 1.3 x 1015
4
boron atoms per cm3 (10 ohm-cm) and an intrinsic
concentration of 1.07 x 10’’ per cm3 ( 5 ) , has hole and
electron concentrations:
p = Ni = 1.3 x 1015cm-3 (4)
n = ni2/p = 8.81 x lo4 cm-3 (5)
In this case, the holes are referred to as majority
carriers and the electrons are referred to as minority
carriers. Under thermal equilibrium conditions, the
electron (minority carrier) contribution to the
extrinsic conductivity is negligible in comparison to
the hole (majority carrier) contribution. Analogously,
in a host n-type semiconductor, electrons and holes
are referred to as majority carriers and minority
carriers, respectively.
The energy bands near the surface of
semiconductors such as silicon and germanium have
been observed to bend as the result of boundary
layers such as metals or, in the case of a free surface,
the depletion of free carriers due to their capture in
surface states (see section 3) (3,6). The energy band
bending near the surface is due to the fixed, ionized
(negatively-charged) acceptors (p-type) or
(positively-charged) donors (n-type) as described by
Poisson’s equation ( 2 ) . If the energy bandbending
proceeds sufficiently beyond depletion (there are
essentially no free carriers in the depletion layer), an
inversion layer is formed extremely near the surface
(see Figure 1) (7). The depletion layer is typically
about one pm and the inversion layer is several tens
of nm (6). The spatial region of the energy
bandbending is referred to as the Surface Space
Charge Region (SSCR). The free carriers formed
within the inversion layer (opposite in charge type
from the bulk free carriers) are designated as
minority carriers relative to the (bulk) majority
carriers generated from the spatially fixed dopant
impurity uniformly distributed throughout the sample
volume, including the spatial region of the surface
inversion layer. The minority carriers in the inversion
layer, however, are the dominant source of free
carriers and control the surface conductivity. The
inversion layer can be induced by electrical methods,
such as a capacitively applied electric field, chemical
species adsorbed on the surface or intrinsic surface
states (see section on The Field Effect).
BACKGROUND - THE FIELD
EFFECT
The development of a solid-state semiconductor
amplifier was initiated by Bill Shockley utilizing the
concept of the field effect to modulate the surface
conductance (8). A parallel plate capacitor comprised
of a semiconductor and a metal, separated by a
dielectric medium, are placed in the circuit
schematically illustrated in Figure 2a. An electric
field is capacitively applied normal to the
semiconductor surface. By the proper choice of bias
polarity (consider an n-type semiconductor for
concreteness and, therefore, a positive polarity on the
metal electrode), the majority-carrier concentration
in the n-type semiconductor can be increased by
electrostatic induction (see Figure 2b) (9).

>
w
z
w

DISTANCE

FIGURE 1. Barrier layer at the metal-semiconductor contact at equilibrium. The curves Ec, EF and Ev in this energy diagram
are the conduction band edge, the Fermi level and the valence band edge, respectively. Minus signs represent electrons in the
conduction band; plus signs in circles, fixed positive charges; circles, holes. Horizontal lines at the metal-semiconductor interface
represent surface states [after (7) with permission of the American Institute of Physics].

5
 I NS ULAT I NG
SUPPORT
LOAD

/
METAL
CONDENSER
PLATE

THIN LAYER OF
J
SEMICONDUCTOR
FIGURE 2a. Circuit schematic for the modulation of conductance by the "field effect" (8) [after W. Shockley, Electrons and
Holes in Semiconductors, New York, D. Van Nostrand, 19501.

6
 I
fNPUT

+ + t +

I
INPUT

J
OUTPUT

FIGURE 2b. The theory of a field-effect transistor using a thin layer of semiconductor (with no surface states): (a) The
structure of the transistor with no control voltage applied. (b) The situation prevailing when a positive charge is placed on a
control plate to increase the conductance of the semiconductor (by electrostatically inducing electrons in the semiconductor) (c)
The situation when a negative charge is put on the capacitor plate to reduce the conductance of the semiconductor [after (9), 0
1984 IEEE].

This is especially important inasmuch as Shockley's
field-effect device was anticipated to be a majority-
carrier device whereas the point-contact
semiconductor amplifier (transistor action) invented
by Bardeen and Brattain was a (the first) minority-
carrier device (10,ll). Bardeen and Brattain were the
first to increase the minority-carrier concentration in
a semiconductor by a current, whereas previous
methods involved optical or thermal processes
(12,13). The change in conductance (= lo%),
however, was much less than expected on the basis of
classical electrostatics, assuming the induced carriers
possessed a mobility (velocity per unit electric field)
equal to that of the bulk majority carriers (14).
Nevertheless, this proof of principle was important in
establishing that the effect, believed to be the most
direct approach to achieving a solid-state amplifier,

7
was not in violation of the laws of semiconductors
and statistical mechanics (8).
The observed discrepancy was interpreted by
Bardeen (15) as a consequence of surface trapping
levels which immobilized a significant fraction of the
induced charge carriers. That is, the electric field
lines of force, for positive-bias polarity, were mainly
terminated on the electrons trapped in surface states
rather than terminating on free-electrons
electrostatically induced in the semiconductor
conduction band (8,9). The surface states apparently
blocked the external electric field, shielding the
semiconductor interior from being probed. Although
the anticipated modulation of the sample conductivity
was not achieved, the existence of surface states on
the free surface of a semiconductor was thus
demonstrated (14).
Bardeen’s surface state theory (15j clarified the
lack of a significant modulation of the surface
conductance in the field effect experiment (8,14), a
host of additional experimental conundrums dating to
the late 1920’s (16) and substantiated theoretical
expectations which indicated that surface states were
indeed expected, based on quantum-mechanical
considerations (17- 19). Bardeen’s surface states
additionally set the stage for further scientific
research (9,20,21j which led to the invention of the
point-contact semiconductor amplifier (transistor
action) (10,11), junction transistor (22) and, as
discussed in the section on patents, the essence of the
metal-oxide-semiconductor field-effect transistor
(MOSFET). Shockley has described Bardeen’s
surface-state hypothesis “as one of the most
significant research ideas of the semiconductor
program” (9).
POINT-CONTACT SEMICONDUCTOR
AMPLIFIER
Surface-States Control
It was during the course of their research, to
obviate the influence of the surface states in the
development of a solid-state amplifier, that Bardeen
and Brattain invented the point-contact
semiconductor amplifier (transistor action) and
demonstrated the concept of minority-carrier
transport (10,ll). As noted earlier, the point-contact
semiconductor amplifier was the first device to
operate based on minority carriers introduced by a
current. The introduction of minority carriers by a
current is possible because its space charge can be
neutralized by the concurrent introduction of an equal
number of majority carriers. Nevertheless, the change
in minority-carrier concentration can be enormous
while the (equal) change in majority-carrier
concentration is trivial compared to the already
existing majority-carrier concentration, as seen
utilizing the generalized mass-action relationship in
eq. 3.
Bardeen and Brattain successfully negated the
influence of the surface states on Nov. 21, 1947
following a suggestion on Nov. 171h by Robert
Gibney. Gibney noted that Brattain’s electrolytic
photovoltaic experiments might be enhanced by
appropriately biasing the electrolyte (i.e., by varying
the d.c. potential on the vibrating electrode) to
enhance neutralization of the surface states via the
electrolyte’s ions (23-25). Thus began the magic
month between Nov. 17Ih and Dec. 16Ih, which
witnessed the development and birth of the point-
contact semiconductor amplifier (transistor action)
(10,ll). The change in the polarity of the voltage
increased (+) or decreased (-) the change in the
contact potential (difference in surface potential
between two materials, taking into account the
presence of surface dipole moments) induced by the
photovoltaic effect. That is, positive ions (or in the
case of a H20 electrolyte, the positive dipole of the
H 2 0 molecule) migrated (or aligned) to the p-type
silicon surface in the case of a positively applied bias
where they neutralized the (negatively charged)
surface states and, therefore, enhanced the internal
electric field at the semiconductor surface due to the
repulsion of holes near the semiconductor surface.
The electric field lines of force from the positive ions
that are not terminated on the negatively charged
surface states are terminated on the negatively
charged acceptor ions in the SSCR, leading to an
increased energy bandbending. Upon illumination of
the semiconductor, the photogenerated free electrons
and holes are swept by the internal (surface) electric
field to the surface and bulk, respectively, thereby
increasing the contact potential. Analogously, a
negative bias on the electrode in the electrolyte aligns
the negative ions (or the negative dipole of the H20
molecule) to the surface, reducing the internal
electric field at the semiconductor surface, thereby
decreasing the contact potential (9). This research
culminated in the concept of an amplifier, described
by Brattain and Gibney in their “034” patent (26) on
Nov. 24‘h (see entry No. 1 in Table one) (20),
utilizing the electrolyte to obtain a high electric field
at the surface via the field effect.
 a. Originally filed 26 Feb '48; abandoned and refiled to include current gain at collector.
b. Patent numbers: 2,524,034; 2,524,033; 2,560,792; 2,524,035; 2,569,347.

Table 1 . Five Transistor Device Patents Filed Before Public Announcement on June 30, 1948 (after 20)

Concurrently, (Nov. 23"d), Bardeen
comprehended that it was not efficient to modulate
the conductivity of a slab of semiconductor via the
field effect. Bardeen has noted (9): ".... It occurred
to the writer [Bardeen] that the effect [semiconductor
amplijkation] might be observed in the thin n-type
layer on the surface of a block ofp-type Si...".
Figure 3, often used by Bardeen in lectures
describing his early research (27), illustrates his
circuit configuration for the electrolytic control
(neutralization) of surface states (via an appropriately
biased drop of electrolyte [distilled water] contacting
the surface) to manipulate the current flowing into a
point contact using a chemical vapor deposition
(CVD) p-type polycrystalline silicon sample with an
n-type inversion layer (formed by a chemical pre-
treatment). As noted above, with the electrode in the
electrolyte made positive, the positive dipoles of the
electrolyte species aligned itself to the semiconductor
surface, neutralizing the negatively charged surface
states. This "removal" of the surface states influence
permitted holes emitted from an insulated point-
contact electrode making electrical contact with the
p-type polycrystalline silicon to be modulated, in
their passage to the base electrode on the other side
of the p-type silicon, by varying the potential of the
control electrode in the electrolyte relative to the base
electrode. That is, the holes easily transferred from
the n-type inversion layer into the
p-type bulk. Significant modulation of the free
carriers (electrons) was achieved by the control
electrode. Alternatively, one may interpret the
positive potential on the electrode in the electrolyte
inducing electrons in the n-type inversion layer, a
significant number of which flowed to the positively-
biased point contact, in conjunction with the
electrons already present in the inversion layer also
being attracted to the point contact. However slightly,
current amplification (and power) was observed with
this circuit configuration (see 21-November entry in
Table two). This was the first recorded power gain in
a solid-state amplifier. The validity of the field-effect
principle (8,14) was explicitly demonstrated as was
the benefit of the neutralization of surface states.
When the control electrode in the electrolyte was
negative, a decrease in the amplitude of the
modulated current was obtained, although a residual
leakage current was measured (28).

9
 Load

7-
FIGURE 3. Schematic illustration of one of the experimental arrangements employed by Bardeen and Brattain in a room-
temperature test of Bardeen’s proposal that the surface trapping states for electrons (or holes) were responsible for the difficulties
encountered in developing a field-effect transistor. In this example, an insulated, point-contact electrode makes electrical contact
with a specimen of p-type silicon, introducing a current of holes, which spreads into the semiconductor and flows to the base
electrode at the bottom of the specimen. A second, control, electrode which is immersed in an electrolytic fluid making electrical
contact with the silicon is shown. The fluid covers a comparatively large area. Bardeen and Brattain found that the ions in the
fluid interacted with the surface trapping states in such a way as to neutralize them, at least in part. The current from the point
contact electrode to the base could be modulated by varying the potential of the electrolytic fluid relative to that on the base. This
diagram, incidentally, also displays the type of inversion (or depletion) layer at the upper surface of the semiconductor which the
investigators used in the experiment with polycrystalline silicon. This figure was used by Bardeen in lectures describing his early
work. [Courtesy of the Bardeen Archives of the University of Illinois and N. Holonyak, after (27)].

Bardeen developed the concept of utilizing the
inversion layer (which exhibited a better carrier
mobility than a deposited thin film) to confine the
minority-carrier transport, in series with a reverse-
biased n-p junction. Bardeen patented this
phenomenon (“033” patent) (29) as the gated surface
inversion layer (see entry No. 2 in Table one) and
described its importance during his Nobel lecture
(30) and elsewhere (31). Bardeen’s “033” patent (29)
was the progenitor of the MOSFET and has been
described by Sah as a sourceless MOS transistor (32).
Further details are presented in the section on patents.
Concurrently, Gibney was developing his “792”
patent (33) on the methodology for preparing an
inversion layer on a semiconductor by a chemical
pre-treatment procedure (33) (see entry No. 3 in
Table one).
During the week of Nov. 24”, a number of
experimental modifications were made to Bardeen’s
circuit structure. These included replacing Si by Ge
(see section 4b), the tungsten probes by gold and
fabricating the insulation on the probe structure with
Duco lacquer instead of paraffin glue. It was also
recognized that the electrolytic drop covered a larger
area than necessary, therefore requiring larger control
currents than a proper design would need. During this
time, Brattain and Gerald Pearson also applied an
appropriately biased drop of a glycol borate
electrolyte-commonly known as “gu”-(suggested
on Dec. 4‘h by Bert Moore to Bardeen and Brattain
for their continuing experiments, since water tended
to evaporate quickly) (34) across a p-n junction
following Shockley’s suggestion (9). Indeed, the
current flowing through the p-n junction could be
manipulated by this arrangement (23,35).

10
 SEMI- lNVERSION
DATE FREQ.
DIELECTRIC CONDUCTOR LAYER AMPLIFICATION RANGE BIAS
MATERIAL FORMATION
LECTRODE POINT
VOLTAGE CURRENT POWER (cycles)
CONTACT CONTACT

2l-Nov DISTILLED P-TYPE CHEMICAL NO YES YES <10 (+) (+>

H20 SILICON

N-TYPE
38-Dec ELECTRICAL YES NO YES <10
GU (HIGH BACK-
VOLTAGE)

N-TYPE
10-Dec CHEMICAL YES YES YES <10
GU (HIGH BACK-
VOLTAGE)

N-TYPE
15-Dec “Ge02” FGE
!E
: CHEMICAL YES NO NO 1 0 - io4
VOLTAGE)

N-TYPE

(HIGH BACK- CHEMICAL YES YES YES io-io4

VOLTAGE)

Table 2. Bardeen / Brattain’s Magic Month: November 17 - December 16, 1947

The two critical concepts of the inversion layer
and the field-effect principle could now be exploited.
There still remained, however, two obstacles: (a)
voltage amplification was not observed and (b) the
frequency modulation was less than 10 cycles. As
regards the latter issue, Brattain and Gibney had
already anticipated this concern in their “034” patent
(26) noting that “it is of course evident that the liquid
dielectric could be replaced by a solid dielectric if
one can be found having the proper ionic mobility to
form such a dipole layer at the surface of the
semiconductor” (26). Finally, Brattain summarized
three device configurations in his notebook on Dec.
4‘h(37). The first one was consonant with the “034”
and “033” patents for modulating the resistance of a
thin surface layer with a voltage applied to the
electrolyte and the second supported Shockley’s
proposal to modulate the p-n junction resistance by a
voltage applied to a drop of electrolyte over the
junction (9). The third device configuration described
by Brattain was truly prescient in that it anticipated
the “035” point-contact semiconductor amplifier
patent (36) (see entry No. 4 in Table one) in that it
had the two points directly contacting the silicon.
Brattain noted the “two points close together
[facilitated] the potential on one point to modulate
the current flowing from the other point to the
silicon” (37).
Minority-Carrier Modulation
Shockley described his junction field effect
transistor and resulting voltage gain, using a
sufficiently reverse-biased p-n junction (with the
aforementioned electrolyte over the junction) at lunch
with Bardeen and Brattain on Dec. Sth. Bardeen
subsequently suggested to Brattain that they
accordingly utilize high back-voltage Ge (Le., Ge
with good rectification - asymmetric current-voltage
characteristic) (3) to obtain a large reverse-biased
voltage at the p-n junction, perhaps also stimulated
by Pearson’s use of similar material on field-effect
experiments. Bardeen and Brattain accordingly
utilized an n-type sample of Ge with good
rectification characteristics (without a chemically
induced inversion layer) and the “gu” electrolyte in
the experimental arrangement as in Figure 3 (with the
opposite voltage polarities). They found that when

11
the electrode in the electrolyte was made negative,
the current at the negatively biased point-contact
increased. Bardeen surmised that they were inducing
an increase in the hole population by the electrostatic
induction of a p-type inversion layer in the n-type Ge
sample and achieved significant voltage (2x) and
power (330x) gain by the holes flowing to the
negative polarity point contact (see 8-December entry
in Table two). Bardeen and Brattain then repeated the
experiment on Dec. loth with a different
n-type germanium sample and, in this case, a
chemically prepared p-type inversion layer, as in the
original Si experiments (see 10-December entry in
Table two) (35) and obtained an immense power gain
of 6000x and a slight current (10%) as well as
voltage gain (23). The continued use of an electrolyte
FIGURE 4. Ring (gold) - dot structure with germanium covered (presumably) by a germanium oxide film [after (38)].
Accordingly, the electrolyte was replaced by a thin
germanium oxide film on Dec. 12th, fabricated by
electrolytic anodization on a different high back-
voltage sample of n-type germanium (prepared with a
chemically induced p-type inversion layer). Figure 4
schematically illustrates a circular gold metal film in
the form of an annular ring deposited on the
germanium dioxide, with an insulated point-contact
electrode in the center of the ring making electrical
contact directly with the germanium (38). Bardeen
and Brattain anticipated that a negative polarity on
the gold ring would electrostatically induce positive
charges in the p-type inversion layer of the
germanium sample, similar to the case of an
appropriated biased control electrode in the
electrolyte. It was expected that a portion of the
induced holes would flow to the negatively biased
point-contact probe (9); equivalently, electrons
12
as the passivating medium, however, greatly limited
the frequency modulation that could be achieved due
to the ionic mobility in the electrolyte.
Brattain had also observed during the experiments
on Dec. loththat the application of a large negative
voltage on the electrode resulted in a thin film
growing on the germanium surface, which Gibney
suggested was probably the electrochemical anodic
growth of germanium dioxide. Since the oxide was
surmised to be insulating, Bardeen and Brattain
decided to put a metal electrode on top of the oxide
(thereby expecting a higher electric field at the
semiconductor surface due to the replacement of the
electrolyte by a solid dielectric) and anticipated both
a power gain and a higher frequency response.
emitted from the negatively-biased point contact
would flow mainly to the n-type bulk, modulated by
the bias on the gold contact, analogous to Figure 3.
The application of a negative voltage to both the
metal ring and point-contact probe, however, did not
result in any observed effect (23). During the test,
Brattain inadvertently shorted out the probe to the
ring at a very high negative voltage. Testing other
spots on the germanium surface, however, seemed to
indicate that the probe was making direct contact
with the germanium surface, as if the germanium
oxide were not present, as indeed had also appeared
to be the case during preliminary tests on the sample.
It was at this point that Brattain realized he had
probably washed off the germanium oxide due to its
water solubility during a pre-clean (39). Brattain has
subsequently summarized his view as to what
happened (40):
 “We were using gl[y]coborate as the electrolyte and
izoticed an anodic oxide film growing on the surface
of the germanium so we anodized the surface of a
piece of germanium, washed off the glycoborate and
evaporated the gold spots on it. As it turned out the
germanium oxide was soluble in water and we had
also washed it 081So these experiments were done
on a freshly anodized surface of germanium, and the
first transistor was made on one of these samples
anodized in this way! ’’
Nevertheless, Brattain continued experimenting
on Dec. 15‘h with various combinations of voltage
polarities on both the gold electrode and the point-
contact electrode, the latter having been moved
adjacent (just outside) the former electrode. One such
combination had the gold electrode positively biased
and the point-contact negatively biased, resulting in a
voltage amplification of holes emitted from the gold
electrode and collected at the point-contact (see 15-
December entry in Table two); modulation was
achieved by varying the potential of the emitting gold
electrode. Bray has suggested Bardeen and Brattain
might have utilized ac signals on both electrodes,
with appropriate phases, (over and above the
modulation effect at the emitter), thereby
“explaining” their “selection” of the above choice of
voltages and polarities that gave semiconductor
amplification (transistor action) (41). In any case, the
observed effect (with the gold electrode positively
biased and the point contact negatively biased) was
the opposite to what would have been expected if the
oxide were present. In that case, a positive voltage
applied to the gold electrode would have been
expected to electrostatically induce electrons in the p-
type inversion layer with a resultant decrease in the
hole flow to the negatively biased point contact.
Bardeen and Brattain had discovered “that it is
possible to increase the conductivity by current flow
from an appropriate contact on the germanium (31).”
This was the first observation of semiconductor
amplification (i.e., the transistor effect.) Although
there was no power gain, there was a 2x voltage gain,
independent of frequency up to lo4 Hz (23). Bardeen
and Brattain concluded that the observed voltage gain
was due to holes emitted from the positively-biased
gold electrode into the germanium’s p-type inversion
layer and collected at the negatively-biased collector.
A signal applied between the emitter and the base
electrode appeared in amplified form across a high-
resistance load between the collector and the base
(10). This observation resulted in the conception of
the point-contact semiconductor amplifier and
Bardeen and Brattain’s “035” patent disclosure (36)
13
(see entry No. 4 in Table one). Michael Riordan and
Lillian Hoddeson have noted that although Bardeen
and Brattain failed to observe any power
amplification with this configuration, Bardeen
suggested a power gain should occur if two narrow
contacts could be spaced only a few mils apart (23).
Historic Day - December 16,1947
The Dec. 15Ih experiment quickly led to the
experimental configuration utilized by Bardeen and
Brattain on Dec. 16‘h, as shown in Figure 5.
Specifically, Bardeen and Brattain utilized the same
piece of germanium as used for the gold ring studies
(Le., n-type polycrystalline germanium with a
chemically induced p-type inversion layer) (10,ll).
The germanium sample into which the plastic wedge
pressed two stripes of gold foil is about half a
centimeter long (42). The emitter was biased
positively and emitted holes; the collector was biased
negatively and collected the emitted holes. Both
voltage and current amplification of an input signal,
up to lo3 Hz with a power gain of about 2 dB, was
achieved (see 16-December entry in Table two). One
can clearly see the evaporated gold electrode in
Figure 5 (from the Dec. 15Ih experiment) adjacent to
the plastic wedge utilized for the definitive transistor
experiment.
Brattain has described how he achieved the point-
contact separation - two parallel lines spaced about
50 pm apart -by cutting an evaporated strip of gold
foil with a razor blade (43): “I accomplished it by
getting my technical aide to cut me a polystyrene
triangle which had a smart, narrow, flat edge and I
cemented a piece of gold foil on it. After I got the
gold on the triangle, very firmly, and dried, and we
made contact to both ends of the gold, I took a razor
and very carefully cut the gold in two at the apex of
the triangle. 1 could tell when I had separated the
gold. That’s all I did. I cut carefully with the razor
until the circuit opened and put it on a spring and put
it down on the same piece of germanium that had
been anodized but standing around the room now f o r
pretty near a week probably. I found that if1 wiggled
it just right so that I had contact with both ends of the
gold that I could make one contact an emitter and the
other a collector, and that I had an amplifer with the
order of magnitude of 100 amplification, clear up to
the audio range.”
FIGURE 5. Bardeen and Brattain’s point-contact semiconductor amplifier with the n-type polycrystalline germanium (note the
ring electrode from the experiment performed on Dec. 15Ih)and two line-contacts of gold affixed to the plastic wedge [used with
permission of the Estate of John Bardeen].
Bardeen and Brattain utilized the terminology of
an emitter and collector contact as well as the
notation of a base contact to explicitly describe the
physical structure of their invention, based on
Shockley’s utilization of these terms in analogy to a
vacuum tube (9,44). The polarity of the emitter was
positive (forward-bias) which causes a current of
minority-carriers (holes) to be emitted into the n-type
semiconductor’s inversion layer; this may be
regarded as equivalent to valence-band electrons
transferring from the semiconductor into the metal
point contact. Concurrently, the polarity of the
collector was negative (reverse-bias) which further
bent the energy bands at the collector to facilitate the
collection (or attraction) of the holes which had been
introduced by the emitter into the n-type
semiconductor’s inversion layer. It should be noted
that the collector polarity essentially blocks the
majority-carrier (electron) collection at the collector
contact. The input impedance at the emitter is
reduced to about 25 ohms or so while “the collector,
being operated in the reverse direction as a rectifier,
has a high impedance (= lo4 - lo5 ohms) and may be
matched to a high impedance load” (10). Power
amplification of the input signal was thereby obtained
inasmuch as the emitter and collector currents were
rather similar in magnitude, although examples
whereby the current amplification factor could be
14
greater than unity due to “forming” (i..e, the passage
of a large current which changes the “height of the
potential barrier opposite to the change imposed
during forming by the applied voltage” (8) so as to
enhance the collection efficiency of the collector
point contact) was noted (lo). Modulation of the flow
of minority carriers (holes) in the semiconductor
amplifier with a frequency of 15 MHz was
accomplished by varying the potential of the emitter
and collector relative to the base electrode, for this
particular biased configuration. Subsequent
experiments produced power gains of 20 dB with 25
mW output at frequencies up to 10 MHz (43).
Bardeen and Brattain had amplified both power and
currentholtage at audio frequencies - a solid-state
amplifier - about one month after Brattain and
Gibney’s Nov. 17‘h breakthrough. Semiconductor
amplification was also subsequently observed in
adjacent single crystal grains of polycrystalline
silicon (10). The device was exhibited to top
executives of AT&T on Dec. 23rd and shown to
exhibit oscillator behavior, a critical test to prove the
existence of power gain, on Dec. 24‘h.
Minority-CarrierTransport: Surface, thin layer next to the surface of P-type (defect)
Bulk or an Admixture? conductivity [see Figure 1 which schematically
illustrates such a p-type inversion layer on an n-type
It was soon realized that parallel contacts were bulk semiconductor]. As a result, the current in the
not necessary and the experimental configuration of forward direction with respect to the block is
composed in large part of holes, i.e., of carriers of
two point contacts separated by 50 ym is
sign opposite to those normally in excess in the body
schematically illustrated in Figure 6, as utilized by
of the block.
”
Bardeen and Brattain in describing transistor action
(27). Bardeen and Brattain’s point-contact
The words “in large part,” as well as similar language
semiconductor amplifier is, as noted earlier, the first
in (1 I), are extremely important:
solid-state device utilizing minority carriers
introduced by a current rather than by optical or
“A large part of the current in both the forward and
thermal techniques (12,13). That is, for their n-type
reverse directions flows via [italics in original] the
bulk germanium sample, holes were playing an active
P-type conducting layer at the surface. ’’
role in the device operation. Bardeen and Brattain
have said (10): “We believe, for reasons discussed in
detail in the accompanying letter (11) that there is a

I ’

Emitter Collector

Germanium Block

-
T

I Base

FIGURE 6. Schematic representation of the final, demonstrated version of the semiconductor point-contact amplifier with the
emitter and collector separated by about 50 microns. The germanium is n-type and the emitter, which is forward-biased
(positively charged), emits holes, (minority camer for the bulk material). The holes migrate to the reverse-biased (negatively
charged) collector. [Courtesy of the Bardeen archives of the University of Illinois and Nick Holonyak, after ( 2 7 ) ] .

A more insightful view of Bardeen and Brattain’s potential probe measurements on the surface of
I‘...

understanding of the spatial location of the hole flow
is tellingly seen in figure 1A of their “035” patent
(36), included here as Figure 7. The text of their
patent (36) states ( 4 3 , as also noted by Riordan and
Hoddeson (35):
the block, made with the collector disconnected,
indicate that the major part of the emitter current
travels on or close to the surface of the block,
substantially laterally in all directions away from the
emitter 5 before crossing the barrier 4.’’

15
 I
t ‘2
FIGURE 7. Figure 1A from the Bardeen and Brattain point-contact semiconductor amplifier patent [after (36)].
The barrier here refers to the boundary between the
p-type inversion layer and the depleted n-type
material relative to the bulk n-type material.
Interestingly, Bardeen and Brattain later note in their
patent (46): “The potential probe measurements
discussed above indicate that the concentration of
holes, and thus the conductivity, in the vicinity of the
emitter point, increase with increasing forward
current. This hole current spreads out in all
directions from the emitter 5 before crossing the high
resistance barrier 4. With the collector circuit open,
it then makes its way throughout the body of the
block, to the plated lower surface 2. (In the N-type
body of the block, the current may take the form of a
flow of electrons upward to neutralize the downward
flow of holes from the P-type layer.) In the absence of
the collector electrode 6, this current is the only
current. Its path is indicated in Fig. l a by stream
lines 13. ’’
“Now when the collector 6 contact is made, and a
negative bias potential is applied to it, of from -5 to -
50 volts, a strong electrostatic field appears across
the P-type layer 3, and across the high resistance
barrier 4, being maintained by the fixed positive
charges in the N-type body material in the immediate
vicinity of the collector. The barrier and the P-type
layer together are believed to be of the order of
cm in thickness. Thus with 10 volts across a space of
the average strength of this field is of the order
of Id volts per cm, being greatest at the collector
and extending in all directions from the collector,
and is indicated in Fig. l a by the broken line 14,
within which some of the fixed positive charges are
indicated by plus signs.”
“Now when the current of positive holes as indicated
by stream lines 15 comes within the influence of this
field, the holes are attracted to the region of lowest
16
N TYPE %e
potential, namely, to the point at which the collector
electrode 6 makes contact with the layer 3 . . . . ”
So, while Bardeen and Brattain were cognizant of
the transport of holes into the bulk, for the particular
geometrical structure they utilized, the electric field
at the collector was sufficiently strong to ensure
significant collection of the holes emitted just
beneath the emitter via their transport along the
surface p-type inversion layer. The collector’s
electric field could penetrate sufficiently into the n-
type bulk material, however, to collect those emitted
holes traversing the inversion layer-bulk n-type
material interface and transported through the bulk
material and collected by their traversing the bulk n-
type-inversion layer interface en route to the
collector. The reverse-biased collector-base structure
is expected to exhibit a significant portion of its
depletion region within the n-type base material
inasmuch as the germanium resistivity was
10 ohm-cm, which is about 1.3 x 1014 electrons per
cm3 (47). In addition, germanium (and silicon) are in-
direct energy-gap semiconductors which facilitated
the component of holes transported as minority
carriers through the n-type bulk material to survive
and reach the collector, in spite of the expected
recombination processes in n-type germanium (48).
An assessment as to whether the minority-carrier
holes emitted into the large grained polycrystalline,
n-type germanium (or silicon) sample were mainly
transported from the emitter to the collector along the
p-type inversion layer or exhibited some non-trivial
transport as minority carriers through the n-type bulk
sample, may be assessed by a model calculation (49).
Taking the room-temperature minority-carrier (hole)
lifetime and diffusion coefficient in the n-type, large-
grained polycrystalline germanium as = 10 ,us and
49 cm2/s (48,50), respectively, an upper limit of the
hole diffusion length of about 225 pm is obtained,
(see eqs. 6 and 7), almost five times the 50 pm spatial
separation between the emitter and collector gold
contact metal tips (10) (probe separations as much as
250 pm were also utilized).
where k is Boltzmann’s constant, T is the absolute
temperature and q is the absolute value of the
electronic charge.
Even if the two probes were placed in adjacent
polycrystalline grains and the hole lifetime and
diffusion coefficient were reduced, as a result of
intergranular scattering, to = 1 ps and 12 cm2/s (48),
respectively, the resulting diffusion length of about
35 pm would still be comparable to the probe
separation of 50 pm. One might, therefore, anticipate
some fraction of bulk minority-carrier transport,
concurrent with transport in the inversion layer. In
other words, the holes introduced at the emitter could
flow as minority carriers, relative to the reverse-
biased collector contact, either along the inversion
layer or through the n-type bulk material as noted
above. In that regard, there has been speculation that
Bardeen and Brattain’s n-type bulk sample did not
exhibit a p-type surface inversion layer and, in point
of fact, exhibited a component of hole flow through
the bulk of the n-type germanium to a much greater
extent than indicated in their 1948 papers (51).
Further complicating this retrospective analysis is
Shockley’s recollection of a “most trying week
somewhere in late Dec. [1947] or early Jan. [1948]
Emitter A Collector
Signal
FIGURE 8. Schematic illustration of Shive’s double-surface transistor experiment ( 5 2 ) [after (3)J.
17
when for some reason the [surface] treatments failed
and no transistors worked’ (20).
It should be noted that Bardeen and Brattain’s
publications (10,ll) were submitted and their “035”
patent (36) was re-filed (the original patent
submission date was February 26, 1948 and did not
include their observation of current gain, see entry
No. 4 in Table one) after John Shive described his
double-surface transistor (52) experiment at a
meeting of several BTL scientific personnel on
February 18, 1948 (23,35). Shive explicitly illustrated
the influence of the transistor geometry on the
transport path of the minority carriers by illustrating
the importance of the bulk transport in comparison to
the surface transport of the minority carriers (52).
Shive placed the emitter and collector on the opposite
surfaces (approximately 100 pm separation through
the bulk material) of a thin triangular piece of
germanium as schematically illustrated in Figure 8
(3,52). Shive’s results clearly favored the dominance
of the transport of minority carriers through the bulk
material, rather than along the surface, for his
material (which was not prepared with a chemically
induced inversion layer) and experimental
configuration. Bardeen has described his excitement
upon Shive’s explicit experimental proof that
minority carriers could flow “appreciable distances
through the bulk of n-type germanium” as well as
along the inversion layer from the emitter to the
collector (53).
toad
resistor
 It was during this meeting that Shockley
presented his seminal contributions of minority-
carrier injection over a barrier (named subsequent to
the meeting), p-n junction theory and junction
transistor theory (8,22,54), based on research entered
into his notebook during January, 1948 (23). The
injection concept refers to the transfer of majority
carriers across a forward-biased p-n (or n-p) junction
which facilitated their introduction into the adjacent
material where, as minority carriers, they co-existed
with the majority carriers and were transported, with
an efficiency less than loo%, to an external circuit
through the collector. Indeed, Shockley’s “488”
injection patent ( 5 5 ) was filed on September 24, 1948
(later than the transistor patents) and was awarded on
April 4, 1950 (earlier than the transistor patents),
attesting to the importance (and recognition) of the
concept (56). Shive’s experiment clearly illustrated
the importance of the geometrical configuration in
determining the extent of bulk transport (see Figure
8) (332) while Shockley’s p-n junction theory and
junction transistor theory, originally a notebook
account not shared with Bardeen or Brattain,
facilitated the mathematical description of their
previously disclosed semiconductor amplification
(transistor action) (10,11,36) by using a one-
dimensional analysis (8,22,54). Indeed, Shockley
developed an early version of his junction approach
on New Year’s Eve, 1947, subsequently witnessed by
Morgan on Jan. 6, 1948 and Bardeen on Jan. gth,
although there was no indication of minority-carrier
injection in these notes (35). The injection concept
was explicitly entered by Shockley in his notebook
on Jan. 231d and witnessed by Dick Haynes on Jan.
27‘h (35). The injection phenomenon was
experimentally identified by Haynes and Shockley in
July, 1948 by measuring the hole mobility in n-type
polycrystalline germanium (57).
During the next several years, clarification of a
number of issues associated with the point-contact
semiconductor amplifier ensued. These included the
role of forming to ensure sufficient rectifying barriers
(8,105859); the behavior of surface states at low-
temperatures, wherein a larger field-effect was
observed on an evaporated film of silicon since the
release time of the electrons trapped in the surface
states was longer than at room temperature for the
given modulating electric field (59); the implications
of an internal electric field at the surface of a
semiconductor at thermal equilibrium (60-62); and
quantitative expressions for the characterization of
the SSCR and surface potential (63-66).
18
Contemporaneous Events
Contemporaneous with these events, relevant
research on silicon and germanium was also in
progress by Fred Seitz and his associates at the
University of Pennsylvania, Harper North at the
General Electric Company and several other research
institutes (27,48,67,68). Seitz was developing
purification methodologies for Si in the early ‘40s
which facilitated the fabrication of high back-voltage
rectifiers. The research at Purdue University under
the direction of Lark-Horovitz (69-7 1) between 1942-
1945, however, must explicitly be noted inasmuch as
Bray, a member of the Purdue team had, in
retrospect, also observed minority-carrier injection
(24,25,38,72-75), explicitly demonstrated by
Shockley (8,2334-57). Bray suggested that the
decreased resistivity in spreading resistance point-
contact measurements (local resistivity near a point
contact) on n-type germanium was due to electric-
field enhanced effects in high fields; Bray also
observed the bulk resistivity was reduced by high-
voltage pulses. After the Bardeen and Brattain papers
were published (10,11), Bray realized that his studies
could be explained “by the production of holes”
(35,71). The high-electric field effect was
subsequently shown by Robert Ryder and Shockley
to be due to the introduction of holes from the
contacting terminals (76).
The Bell Laboratory personnel were quite
apprehensive as regards the Purdue studies (77), as
has been noted by Riordan and Hoddeson (35): “...
Brattain found himself in an awkward position when
he heard Seymour Benzer, another member of the
Purdue group, mention the spreading resistance in
late January 1948 at the New York American
Physical Society meeting. He [Brattain] understood
by then why the resistivity was decreasing near the
point -that it was the result of hole emission at the
point. Brattain recalled listening quietly to Benzer in
the corridor, until Benzer remarked, “I think if
somebody put another point contact down on the
surface, close to this point, and measured the
distribution of potential around the point, then we
might be able to understand what this [effect] is
about.” To that Brattain replied, “Yes, I think maybe
that would be a very good experiment” and walked
away.”
In that regard, Bray has retrospectively noted
(24,25): “Bell people, knowing about our work, and
how accidental was their own discovery, were fearful
that we too might stumble upon the transistor and
beat them to the priority of publication. ’’
Recapitulation
In summary, it should be noted that instead of the
introduction of electrons into the p-type inversion
layer of the n-type germanium bulk sample by a
positive voltage on the gate electrode (separated from
the germanium by the presumed oxide film) via the
field effect, the positive voltage applied to the gate
electrode (now referred to as the emitter) introduced
holes directly into the surface (inversion layer) of the
n-type germanium. Some component of the emitted
holes flowed to the collector along the p-type
inversion layer with the remaining (non-zero) portion
apparently flowing through the bulk to be collected at
the collector. This admixture is very dependent on the
device configuration as shown by Shive (52). In any
case, the solid-state amplifier invented by Bardeen
and Brattain “was completely different in principle
and function from the field-effect transistor proposed
by Shockley [envisioned as a majority-carrier device]
but served the original desired function as a triode
amplifier” (24). It should be noted, furthermore, that
the field effect would have introduced electrons,
majority carriers, into the semiconductor; the actual
device introduced holes, minority carriers, into the
semiconductor, irrespective of the spatial location of
the emitted carriers. It is indeed fortunate that
germanium and silicon are in-direct semiconductors,
which facilitated a sufficiently long bulk diffusion
length so as to allow the minority carriers to traverse
the base (n-type bulk material) in both the Shive and,
to some extent, the Bardeen and Brattain
experiments. Indeed, as noted above, there has been
speculation that Bardeen and Brattain’s n-type bulk
sample did not exhibit a p-type surface inversion
layer and, in point of fact, exhibited bulk transport to
a much greater extent than indicated in their 1948
papers (51).
This series of research events has been described
(27,67): “Bardeen and Brattain .... had, in effect,
struggled with their point-contact system f o r more
than a year in a kind of technical wilderness valying
the nature of the two probes. The results they found
along the way were obtained by an admixture of
accident, brilliant insight and luck .... The fact that the
results were the reverse of what they had expected
initially in the given case, namely that minority,
rather than majority-carriers, were modulated, is
irrelevant. Accident had favored their prepared
minds! They were amply prepared to understand and
exploit the breakthrough....’’
Bray has concurred, observing that “Bardeen’s
focus on the surface states and the inversion layer
unexpectedly generated the point-contact transistor
configuration,” while noting Bardeen and Brattain’s
attentiveness to pick up the implications of their
invention (38). The switch from Si to Ge, utilization
19
of two point contacts (i.e., whiskers) “close” together
and Brattain’s accidental destruction (in his mind) of
the GeOz film (subsequently realized not present)
were also instrumental. Gorton has summarized the
series of events relating to the invention of the point-
contact semiconductor amplifier in 1949 for the
official BTL records (40); related notes by Fisk (78)
and Brattain (79) are appended to Gorton’s summary.
Naming the Invention
Several versions as to the origin of the name
“transistor” have been described. John Pierce at BTL
suggested transistor since the electric field
modulating the resistance was transverse to the
minority-carrier current (67). A complementary
interpretation attributed to Pierce was that since the
point-contact semiconductor amplifier was the dual
of the vacuum tube from a circuit point of view, the
electrical dual of transconductance, an important
parameter of the vacuum tube, was transresistance,
shortened to transistor (62,80), since “a number of
device names terminated in the sequence ‘or,’ as
conductor, resistor, varistor, thermistor” (80).
Another interpretation, however, noted the prefix
“trans” designates the translational property of the
device, while the root “istor,” similar to the previous
case, classified it as a solid circuit element (81).
Patents
The patent application applied by BTL for the
point-contact transistor initially included Shockley’s
field-efect transistor, albeit the effect was extremely
small as noted above. A patent search by AT&T
attorney’s, however, found previous patents awarded
for rather similar field-effect amplifiers to both
Lillenfeld (82-84) (as early as 1930) and Heil (85,86)
(as early as 1935). Accordingly, Shockley was not
included in the point-contact transistor patent
application, which was a severe disappointment to
Shockley (9,20,21,23,32,35,87). Sah (32) has
extensively analyzed both Lilienfeld and Heil’s
patents, noting that both men had anticipated a
number of modern solid-state devices. Sah explicitly
noted (32) that Lilienfeld understood the conductivity
modulation principle of the metal-oxide-
semiconductor field-effect transistor (MOSFET),
based on electrostatics, at a time when quantum
mechanics was just beginning to be applied to the
properties of solids (and the semiconductor concept
of Wilson (88-91) had yet to be enunciated).
Bill Sweet (92) has summarized the essence of
Lilienfeld’s first patent which was issued on January
18, 1930 (82): “The invention relates to a method of
and apparatus f o r controlling the flow of an electric
current between two terminals of an electrically
conducting solid by establishing a third potential
between said terminals; and is particularly adaptable
to the amplification of oscillating currents such as
prevail, f o r example, in radio communications.
Heretofore, thermionic tubes or valves have been
generally employed f o r this purpose; and the present
invention has f o r its object to dispense entirely with
devices relying upon the transmission of electrons
through an evacuated space and especially to devices
of this character wherein the electrons are given off
from an incandescent filament. The invention has f o r
a further object a simple, substantial and inexpensive
relay or amplifier not involving the use of excessive
voltages, and in which no filament or equivalent
element is present. More particularly, the invention
consists in affecting, as by suitable incoming
oscillations, a current in an electrically conducting
solid of such characteristics that said current will be
affected by and respond to electrostatic changes. ” effect invention because of Lilienfeld’s patents and
Bardeen has also noted the importance of
Lilienfeld’s work, although Bardeen’s reference to
semiconductors was in retrospect (92): “Lilienfeld
deserves great credit f o r his pioneering efforts to
make a semiconductor amplifier. This was not long
after copper oxide and copper sulfide rectifiers were
discovered. He [Lilienfeld] had the basic concept of
controlling the flow of current in a semiconductor to
make an amplibing device. It took many years of
development of theory and materials technology to
make his dream a reality.” Sah has noted, however,
that neither Lilienfeld nor Heil recognized the
necessity of the inversion layer for the operation of
their proposed devices (32): “The inversion channel
idea was first recognized by Bardeen in 1947 (32).”
In point of fact, Shockley’s disappointment
became the major impetus for his subsequent p-n
junction theory and junction transistor theory
(9,20,2 1,23,32,35,87) and seminal minority-carrier
injection concept (55). It should explicitly be noted,
however, that transistor action was discovered by
Bardeen and Brattain (42). The role of minority
carriers and the first two transistors - point-contact
and junction - and the differing approaches of
Bardeen and Brattain vis-&vis Shockley has been
discussed (23,35).
Finally, Bardeen comprehended that it was not
efficient to modulate the conductivity of a slab of
semiconductor via the field effect and, thereby,
patented the first modern transistor device. This was
an insulating gate modulating an n-type inversion
layer via the field effect, utilizing the inversion layer
to confine the minority-carrier transport, in series
with a reverse-biased n-p junction. Bardeen received
the “033” patent (29) for the effect, which resulted in
the first recorded power gain in a solid-state amplifier
(29-31). Sah (32) has described Bardeen’s device as a
sourceless MOS transistor and noted that Bardeen’s
20
patent is “the first modern transistor patent ...” The
device has become the basis of, for example,
subsequent metal-oxide-semiconductor (MOS)
dynamic random access memory (DRAM) and
complementary-metal-oxide-semiconductor (CMOS)
microprocessor applications. Bardeen has confirmed
the importance of his patent (92): ... Nearly all
“
present-day field-effect transistors make use of
controlling the flow in an inversion layer of opposite
conductivity o p e adjacent to the suface (such as an
n-type inversion layer on p-@pe silicon.) I have the
basic patent on use of an inversion layer to confine
the jlow. Present-day bipolar transistors are of the
junction type and are based on a patented structure
Shockley invented while planning experiments to
elucidate the dynamics of the point-contact
transistor. The Bell Laboratories patent department
was unable to obtain a patent on Shockley’s field-
others. ’’
Shockley described Bardeen’s “033” patented
device (29) in 1973 as “an insulated gate field-effect
transistor (IGFET) with an inversion layer channel”
(20) but re-canted this description in 1976 (9), since
he noted that Bardeen’s “033” patent referred to
Gibney’s “792” patent (33) for chemically preparing
the inversion layer on the bulk semiconductor, rather
than dynamically inducing the inversion layer by a
gate voltage. Bardeen, however, had shown that the
inversion layer in the device could be formed by
either method (see the 8-December entry in Table
two where the inversion layer was formed by an
applied gate voltage whereas the other dates utilized
a surface chemical preparation technique).
BIPOLAR JUNCTION TRANSISTOR
Background
Shockley developed the “diffusion theory of
minority current to a reverse biased p-n junction” and
the “behavior of minority electrons in a uniform p-
layer” on April 24, 1947, as described in his review
of the path to the conception of the junction transistor
(9). Shockley’s analysis was an important step
forward in clarifying the concept of minority-carrier
diffusion in steady-state, non-equilibrium conditions
in a medium where majority carriers concurrently
existed. This one-dimensional analysis was
additionally important inasmuch as the point-contact
transistor was a three-dimensional device in which
surface properties were integral to its operation.
Shockley has noted, however, that his analysis of the
large reverse-biased p-n junction, “simplified the
boundary condition at the edge of the space-charge
layer to zero minority-carrier density, but it prevented
his discovering minority-carrier injection and its
exponential increase with forward bias” (9).
It is also relevant that Shockley developed an
n-p-n structure (three layer planar configuration) for a
high-frequency thermistor (device operation
controlled by variation in temperature) on September
16, 1947, in which electrons flowed over the
potential maximum of the p-layer. In this case,
minority-carriers flowed through the intermediate
p-type layer in the n-p-n structure. The electrons,
however, were emitted into the p-type layer by
climbing over the energy barrier maximum of the
p-type material only if their energies were high
enough, thus exhibiting an exponential resistance
variation with temperature, rather than with the
forward voltage across a p-n junction, as was
subsequently discovered. The energy-band diagram
utilized by Shockley in describing the thermistor n-p-
n structure is virtually identical to that subsequently
utilized for the bipolar junction transistor, although
the voltage bias’s required for transistor action were
not applied to all three layers, as discussed in the next
section. The analogous case for a p-n-p planar
transistor configuration is seen in Figure 9a (8), in
which holes flow over the potential maximum of the
n-type layer (the hole energy is obtained by inverting
the energy bands of Figure 9) (8). Shockley’s
analysis also advanced the theoretical framework for
the development of a semiconductor triode amplifier
that operated within the confines of the bulk
semiconductor (Le., the bipolar junction transistor).
Shockley’s Magic Month: Dec. 24, 1947 -
Jan. 23,1948
Shockley began re-focusing his personal research
on the conception of a solid-state amplifier on
December 8, 1947, re-stimulated by the experimental
work of Bardeen and Brattain. In fact, December 24,
1947 to January 23, 1948 may be referred to as
Shockley’s “magic month.” Shockley considered a
variety of device configurations, including a p-n-p
structure, in which he explicitly applied the terms
emitter, base and collector for its operation (9,44), by
analogy with the vacuum tube, on New Years Eve,
December 31, 1947. Here also, the energy-band
diagram is almost indistinguishable from that for a
“true” junction transistor (8). That is, the base was a
“strip” formed by a localized antimony diffusion that
did not, however, sufficiently convert the whole layer
n-type (i.e., a portion of the layer was apparently only
21
weakly n-type) (9). Although voltages of the correct
polarity were applied to all three layers, transistor
action was not achieved since the n-type layer
interposed between the regions of the opposite
conductivity type was not sufficiently n-type
throughout the original p-type material. Thus, “the
modulated current will be very small compared to the
control current” (20). Shockley subsequently noted
(9,35): I‘... [I] failed to recognize the possibility of
minority-carrier injection into a base layer. ... What
is conspicuously lacking [in these pages] is any
suggestion of the possibility that holes might be
injected into the n-type material of the strip itse&
thereby becoming minority carriers in the presence of
electrons. ’’
On Jan. 231d, however, the conception of
Shockley’s “347” bipolar junction transistor patent
(54) (see entry No. 5 in Table one) was devised as a
result of his plan to re-utilize the n-p-n structure to
determine if the inversion layer was critical to the
operation of the point-contact transistor. In this case,
Shockley placed an n-type contact on top of the
assumed p-type inversion layer. Here, for the first
time, electrical contacts were applied to all three
sufficiently doped layers (including the base), thus
allowing better control of the voltage level in all the
layers and differences between them (see Figure 9b
for the analogous p-n-p configuration) (8). In that
regard, the intermediate layer in previous device
structures such as the thermistor (and the previous
research on a lightning arrestor) (9) was allowed to
float at the voltages imposed on them by the
neighboring layers (9). The “strip” structure had
independent voltage sources applied to all three
layers, but the layer interposed between the two
regions of the opposite conductivity type was not
sufficiently n-type throughout the layer (9). Indeed,
Shockley has noted the criticality of ... the “
accessibility of the middle layer to an external control
voltage” (9). Riordan and Hoddeson have noted (35):
“Applying a positive voltage to the p-layer [base
layer] should then cause holes to flow into it and
thereby lower its potential for electrons [from the n-
layer]; this he [Shockley] realized would ‘increase
the flow of electrons over the barrier exponentially.”
Shockley later noted (9,35): “... this n-p-n device
finally contained the key concept of ‘exponentially
increasing minority-carrier injection across the
emitter junction. ’
”
 Jr JP

++’
7

- A

A -
OISTANCE, X ..--) DISTANCE, X r 3

(g 1 ( h)

FIGURE 9. Bipolar p-n-p junction transistor. The left hand side (a,c,e and g) corresponds to the zero-bias case while the right
hand side (b,d,f and h) corresponds to the forward-biasedcase (8) [after W. Shockley, Electrons and Holes in Semiconductors,
New York, D. Van Nostrand, 19501.

The electrons injected from the emitter into the
base, where they were now minority carriers, flowed
in the presence of the majority carrier, holes, en route
to the reverse-biased base-collector junction where
they would be accelerated to the collector. The
possibility of current flow between two outer layers
by minority-carriers diffusing through the middle
layer was “recognized [and] that one of the p-n
junctions could be reverse biased ... and that the
minority carriers could control the reverse current”
(20). The p-n junction semiconductor amplifier was
later called the (bipolar) junction transistor (20).
Even as Shockley was developing his conception of a
bulk junction transistor, Bardeen and Brattain were
planning to extend their research to an analogous
bulk type junction transistor structure, but by then

22
Shockley had apparently covered these approaches in
his research ( 2 3 ) and subsequent patent application
(54).
It was now recognized that the three key concepts
of the bipolar junction transistor involved:
(a) minority-carrier injection over the potential
barrier, which is exponentially reduced during
forward bias at the emitter-base interface, as
described in eq. 8 (8,9,22), (b) the high impedance at
the base-collector interface developed as a result of
the large reverse bias and (c) favorable geometry and
doping levels to obtain good emitter to collector
efficiency.
where I, is the saturation current, V is the applied
bias, k is Boltzmann’s constant, T is the absolute
temperature and q is the absolute value of the
electronic charge. Since the minority carriers flowed
in the presence of the dominant majority carriers in
the base region, it was also recognized that the
minority-carrier survival during transit in the base
was strongly dependent on the properties of the
semiconductor (48).
It should be noted, however, that Boris Davidov
apparently had already suggested the importance of
what we now call minority carriers in 1938 (87).
Davidov had essentially derived eq. 8, obtained by
Shockley a decade later, in his work explaining
rectification (87), a major scientific challenge in the
1930’s. It has been suggested, though, that Davidov
did not explicitly ensure the self-consistency of his
analysis with the field equations (93). The success of
the contemporaneous space-charge theory of
rectification by Schottky (94-97), Mott (98,99),
Davydov (100) and Bethe (101), also referred to as
the “one current” theory of rectifiers, however, made
further scientific discussion of minority carriers at the
time moot (86). Riordan, Hoddeson and Conyers
Herring, who are currently developing a more
extensive analysis of Davydov’s work (102), have
noted (87): “ ... the work of Boris Davydov on
rectifying characteristics of semiconductors seems to
have eluded notice until after the War, even though it
was available in English-language publications
(103,104). Working at the Ioffe Physico-Technical
lnstitute in Leningrad, he [Davydov] came up with a
model of rectification in copper oxide in 1938 that
foreshadowed Shockley ’s work on p-n junctions more
than a decade later. His idea involved the existence
of a p-n junction in the oxide, with adjacent layers of
excess and deficit semiconductor forming
spontaneously due to an excess or deficit of copper
relative to oxygen in the crystal lattice. Non-
equilibrium concentrations of electrons and holes ...
could survive briefly in each other’s presence before
23
recombining. Using this model, Davydov successfully
derived the current-voltage characteristics of copper-
oxide rect$ers; his formula was essentially the same
one that Shockley would derive a decade later f o r p-n
junctions (22). But his cumbersome mathematics and
assumptions may have obscured the importance of
his physical ideas to later workers. Bardeen, f o r
example, was aware of Davydov’s publications by
1947 but does not seem to have recognized their
significance until a f e w years later.”
Finally, as stated above, Bardeen has noted (92):
“. .. Present day bipolar transistors are of the junction
type and are based on a patented structure Shockley
invented while planning experiments to elucidate the
dynamics of the point-contact transistor.. ..”
Nevertheless, the influence of an inversion layer on
the performance of a two-junction structure without a
gate was shown by Brown to be an important
consideration in the junction structure’s performance
(105).
The announcement of transistor action was made
to the press on June 30, 1948 and reported on p.46 in
“The News of Radio” section of the New York Times
on July 1, 1948. Several key concepts, however, were
developed after the invention of the junction theory
transistor. These included the explicit demonstration
of minority-carrier injection by Haynes and Shockley
(57) and the reduction of the bulk resistance of n-type
Ge due to hole injection by Ryder and Shockley (76).
Shockley’s “347” patent (54) was filed on June
26, 1948 and his extended p-n junction theory and
junction transistor theory were published in 1949
(22). In the junction transistor, the emitter and
collector of the point-contact transistor are replaced
by two p-n planar junctions, one on either side of the
n-type (or p-type) base material as in Figures 9a and
9b (8). Morgan Sparks and Robert Mikulyak
presented an experimental “existence proof’ of a Ge
p-n-p (non-colinear) transistor (with a power gain of
16) on April 7, 1949 (9). It was not until April, 1950,
however, that p-n and n-p-n large area, planar
junctions, grown by sequential single- and double-
doping techniques during crystal growth, were
fabricated (10-15 watts audio power I 20 KHz was
achieved for the transistors), as part of Gordon Teal’s
single-crystal research (with Ed Buehler and Morgan
Sparks) (9,48). The microwatt n-p-n junction
transistor was subsequently developed ( 106).
EVOLVING DIRECTIONS
The point-contact transistor was manufactured for
ten years starting in 1951 by the Western Electric
Division of AT&T (107). The apriori tuning of the
point-contact transistor parameters, however, was not
simple inasmuch as the device was very dependent
on the detailed surface structure and, therefore, very
sensitive to humidity and temperature as well as
exhibiting high noise levels. Accordingly, the devices
differed significantly in their characteristics and
electrical instabilities leading to “burnout” were not
uncommon (108). With the implementation of
crystalline materials in the early 1950’s (48,106,109),
however, p-n junction transistors began replacing the
point-contact transistor, silicon began replacing
germanium (108) and the transfer of transistor
technology from the lab to the fab accelerated (1 10-
112).
A major goal in the development of the point-
contact semiconductor amplifier had been to replace
the vacuum tube amplifier and electro-mechanical
relay switch by a solid-state amplifier and switch,
respectively. The achievement of higher power at
higher frequencies was required. In point-of-fact,
however, the small size of the transistor favored
limited power-handling capabilities while the
increased frequency response required small devices.
It was recognized by Bob Wallace that chasing the
vacuum tube led to the wrong emphasis. Rather, the
opportunity was created by focusing on the transistor
in its own right. The application of an invention is a
powerful stimulus for innovation and development
should not be restricted to the originally intended
application as it may not be the most important. As
attributed by Ian Ross to Wallace (107):
“Gentlemen, you’ve got it all wrong! The advantage
of the transistor is that it is inherently a small size
and low-power device. This means that you can pack
a large number of them in a small space without
excessive heat generation and achieve low
propagation delays. And that’s what we need for
logic applications. The significance of the transistor
is not that it can replace the tube but that it can do
things the vacuum tube could never do!
SUMMARY
Semiconductor amplification (transistor action),
with voltage, current and power gain, was
experimentally observed by Bardeen and Brattain in
n-type polycrystalline germanium on December 16,
1947 as a result of the judicious placement of gold-
plated line contacts in nearby single crystal grains of
the polycrystalline material. The date of the
invention, however, has usually been taken as
December 23, 1947 when the point-contact
semiconductor amplifier and transistor action were
demonstrated to top executives of Bell Telephone
Laboratories (BTL). The first public demonstration of
the invention and announcement of the discovery was
not made until June 30, 1948, however, during which
interval BTL rapidly expanded its research effort and
developed its patent position. While Bardeen and
Brattain noted that a large part of the current flowed
24
along the inversion layer as minority carriers from
the emitter to the collector, there may also have been
some non-trivial component of bulk transport from
the emitter to the collector. In any case, Shive’s
experiment clearly illustrated the importance of the
geometrical configuration in determining the extent
of bulk transport while Shockley’s seminal
contribution of injection over a barrier, p-n junction
theory and junction transistor theory facilitated the
mathematical description of Bardeen and Brattain’s
previously disclosed transistor action by using a one-
dimensional analysis.
Bardeen also comprehended that it was not
efficient to modulate the conductivity of a slab of
semiconductor via the field effect and, thereby,
developed his “033” patent (29), the first modern
transistor device. This was an insulating gate
modulating an n-type inversion layer via the field
effect, utilizing the inversion layer to confine the
minority-carrier transport, in series with a reverse-
biased n-p junction, and resulted in the first recorded
power gain in a solid-state amplifier. The device,
described by Sah as a sourceless MOS transistor,
became the basis of, for example, subsequent MOS
memory DRAM and CMOS microprocessor
applications.
Shockley placed great emphasis on the carrier
injection and junction approach (8): “It seems likely
that many inventions unforeseen at present will be
made based on the principles of carrier injection, the
field efsect, the Suhl effect, and the properties of
rectihing junctions. It is quite probable that other
new physical principles will also be utilized to
practical ends as the art develops.”
On the other hand, Bardeen placed great emphasis
on the role of the inversion layer, which as noted
above, became the key ingredient in MOS memory
DRAM and CMOS microprocessor applications.
Shockley, moreover, has noted (1 13): “This book
[Electrons and Holes in Semiconductors] had its
origins in a series of lectures given at Bell Telephone
Laboratories in connection with the growth of the
transistor program. It thus owes its existence
basically to the invention of the transistor by
J. Bardeen and W.H. Brattain.”
Indeed, John Bardeen, the co-inventor of the
point-contact transistor and inventor of the MOS
transistor may rightly be called the father of modern
electronics.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The author appreciates discussions with
Professors Ralph Bray, H. Craig Casey, Jr., James
Harris, Nick Holonyak, Jr., Michael Riordan,
Frederick Seitz and Drs. Jim (James M.) Early and
John L. Moll.
REFERENCES
1. L.S. Darken and R.W. Gurry, Physical
Chemistry of Metals, New York, McGraw-Hill
(1953)
2. R.A. Smith, Semiconductors, Cambridge,
Cambridge University Press (1961)
3. E. Spenke, Electronic Semiconductors, New
York, McGraw-Hill, (1958)
4. H.R. Huff, Semiconductors, Elemental
Material Properties, Encyclopedia of Applied
Physics., (G.L. Trigg, ed.), 17,437-475 (1996)
5. M.A. Green, Intrinsic Concentration, Effective
Densities of States, and Effective Mass in
Silicon, J. Appl. Phys., 67, 2944-2954 (1990)
6. A. Many, Y. Goldstein and N.B. Grover,
Semiconductor Surfaces, New York, North-
Holland ( 1965)
7. N. Holonyak, John Bardeen and The Point-
Contact Transistor, Phys. Today, April, 36-43
(1992)
8. W. Shockley, Electrons and Holes in
Semiconductors, New York, D.Van Nostrand
(1950)
9. W. Shockley, The Path to The Conception of
The Junction Transistor, IEEE Trans. Electron
Devices, ED-23, 597-620 (1976), reprinted in
ED-31, 1523-1546 (1984)
10. J. Bardeen and W. H. Brattain, The Transistor,
A SemiConductor Triode, Phys. Rev., 74,
230-23 1 (1948)
11. W.H. Brattain and J. Bardeen, Nature of The
Forward Current in Germanium Point
Contacts, Phys. Rev., 74,231-232 (1948)
12. B. Davydov, On The Photo-electromotive
Force in Semiconductors, Tech. Phys. of
USSR, 5,79-86 (1938)
13. B. Davydov, The Rectifying Action of
Semiconductors, Tech. Phys. of USSR, 5, 87-
95 (1938)
14. W. Shockley and G.L. Pearson, Modulation of
Conductance of Thin Films of Semi-
25
Conductors by Surface Charges, Phys. Rev.,
74, 232-233 (1948)
15. J. Bardeen, Surface States and Rectification at
a Metal Semi-Conductor Contact, Phys. Rev.,
71, 717-727 (1947)
16. H.C. Torrey and C.A. Whitmer, Crystal
Rectifiers, New York, McGraw-Hill(l948)
17. LE. Tamm, Uber Eine Mogliche Art der
Elektronenbindung an Kristalloberflachen,
Phys. Z. Sowjet, 1, 733-746 (1932)
18. I. E. Tamm, Z. Phys., 76,849 (1932)
19. W. Shockley, On The Surface States
Associated With a Periodic Potential, Phys.
Rev., 56,3 17-323 (1939)
20. W. Shockley, The Invention of The Transistor
- “An Example of Creative-Failure
Methodology,” National Bureau of Standards
Special Publication 388, Proceedings on The
Public Need and The Role of The Inventor,
June 11-14, 1973, Monterey, Calif., 47-89
(1974), reprinted in Semiconductor
Silicon/l998 (edited by H.R. Huff, U. Gosele
and H. Tsuya), 26-68 (1998)
21. W. Shockley, 25 Years of Transistors, Bell
Labs. Record, Dec., 340-341 (1972)
22. W. Shockley, The Theory of P-N Junctions in
Semiconductors and P-N Junction Transistors,
Bell Syst. Tech. J., 28, 435-489 (1949)
23. M. Riordan and L. Hoddeson, Crystal Fire,
W.W. Norton, New York (1997)
24. R. Bray, The Invention of The Point-Contact
Transistor: A Case Study in Serendipity, ULSI
Science and Technology/l997 (edited by H.Z.
Massoud, H. Iwai, C. Claeys and R.B. Fair),
37-50 (1997)
25. R. Bray, A Case Study in Serendipity,
Interface, Spring, 24-3 1 (1997)
26. W.H. Brattain and R.B. Gibney, Three-
Electrode Circuit Element Utilizing
Semiconductor Materials, U.S. Patent No.
2,524,034, filed Feb. 26, 1948, issued Oct. 3,
1950
27. F. Seitz and N.G. Einspruch, The Tangled
History of Silicon in Electronics,
 Semiconductor Silicon / 1998, (edited by H.R. 40. W.S. Gorton, Memorandum For Record, A
Huff, U. Gosele and H. Tsuya), 69-98 (1998) History of Engineering and Science in The
Bell System (1925-1980), (edited by S.
28. M. Riordan, private communication to H.R. Millman), 97-100, Bell Telephone
Huff, (July 15, 1998) Laboratories (1983), (Brattain footnote added
in 1975)
29. J. Bardeen, Three-Electrode Circuit Element
Utilizing Semiconductive Materials, U S . 41. R. Bray, private communication to H.R. Huff,
Patent No. 2,524,033, filed Feb. 26, 1948, (Oct. 31, 1997)
issued Oct. 3, 1950
42. M. Riordan, The Road to Silicon Was Paved
30. J. Bardeen, Semiconductor Research Leading With Germanium, Semiconductor
to The Point Contact Transistor, Nobel Silicodl998 (edited by H.R. Huff, U. Gosele
Lecture, Dec. 11, 1956, Science, 126, 105-1 12 and H. Tsuya), 134- 142 (1998)
(1957)
43. C. Weiner, How The Transistor Emerged,
31. J. Bardeen, Solid State Physics - 1947, Solid IEEE Spectrum, Jan., 24-33 (1973)
State Technology, 30, 68-71, Dec., 1987
44. J. Bardeen, Notebook 20 780 entry, p. 72,
32. C.T. Sah, Evolution of The MOS Transistor 1946
-From Conception to VLSI, Proc. IEEE, 76,
1280-1326 (1988) 45. See (36), column 10, lines 64-70

33. R.B. Gibney, Electrolytic Surface Treatment
of Germanium, U S . Patent No. 2,560,792,
filed Feb. 26, 1948, issued July 17, 1951
34. L. Hodesson, The Discovery of The Point-
Contact Transistor, Historical Studies in the
Physical Sciences, 12,41-76 (1981)
35. M. Riordan and L. Hoddeson, Minority
Carriers and The First Two Transistors,
Facets: New Perspectives on The History of
Semiconductors, (edited by A. Goldstein and
W. Aspray) 1-33 (1997), IEEE Press, New
Brunswick. NJ
36. J. Bardeen and W.H. Brattain, Three-
Electrode Circuit Element Utilizing
Semiconductive Materials, U.S. Patent No.
2,524,035, filed June 17, 1948, issued Oct. 3,
1950
37. W.H. Brattain, Notebook 18 194 entry,
December 4, 1947
38. R. Bray presentation at SEMATECH, Austin,
TX, October 31, 1997
39. W. Brattain, Discovery of The Transistor
Effect: One Researcher’s Personal Account,
Adventures in Experimental Phys., 5, 3-1 3
(1973)
46. See (36), column 11, lines 10-24
47. S.M. Sze and J.C. Irvin, Resistivity, Mobility
and Impurity Levels in GaAs, Ge and Si at
300 K, Solid State Electron., 11, 599-602
(1968)
48. G.K. Teal, W.R. Runyan, K.E. Bean and H.R.
Huff, Semiconductor Materials, (edited by J.F.
Young and R.S. Shane), Materials and
Processes, 3rd ed., 2 19-312, Marcel Dekker,
New York (1985)
49. J. Harris, private communication to H.R. Huff
(July 15,1998)
50. M.B. Prince, Drift Mobility in
Semiconductors 1. Germanium, Phys. Rev.,
92,681-687 (1953)
51. G.L. Pearson, as noted by J. Harris, private
communication to H.R. Huff (July 15, 1998)
52. J.N. Shive, The Double-Surface Transistor,
Phys. Rev., 75,689-690 (1949)
53. J. Bardeen, Three Men Who Changed Our
World -. 25 Years Later, Bell Laboratories
Record, Dec., 335-341 (1972)
54. W. Shockley, Semiconductor Amplifier
Patent, U.S. Patent No. 2,569,347, filed June
26, 1948, issued Sept., 25,1951

26
55. W. Shockley, Semiconductor Amplifier, U.S.
Patent No. 2,502,488, filed Sept. 24,1948,
issued April 4, 1950
56. P.P. Bondyopadhyay, In The Beginning, Proc.
IEEE, 86,63-77 (1998)
57. J.R. Haynes and W. Shockley, Investigation of
Hole Injection in Transistor Action, Phys.
Rev., 75, 691 (1949)
58. J. Bardeen and W.G. Pfann, Effects of
Electrical Forming on The Rectifying Barriers
of n- and p-Germanium Transistors, Phys.
Rev., 75,40 1-402 ( 1949)
59. J. Bardeen and W.H. Brattain, Physical
Principles Involved in Transistor Action,
Phys. Rev., 75, 1208-1225 (1949)
60. G.L. Pearson and W.H. Brattain, History of
Semiconductor Research, Proc. IRE, 43, 1794-
1806 (1955)
61. W.H. Brattain, Surface Properties of
Semiconductors, Science, 126, 15 1-155
( 1957)
62. W.H. Brattain, Genesis of The Transistor, The
Physics Teacher, March 109-114 (1968)
63. R.H. Kingston and S.F. Neustadter,
Calculation of the Space Charge, Electric
Field and Free Carrier Concentration at The
Surface of a Semiconductor, J. Appl. Phys.,
26,718-720 (1955)
64. W.L. Brown, Surface Potential and Surface
Charge Distribution from Semiconductor
Field Effect Measurements, Phys. Rev., 100,
590-591 (1955)
65. C.G.B. Garrett and W.H. Brattain, Physical
Theory of Semiconductor Surfaces, Phys.
Rev., 99,376-387 (1955)
66. H.C. Montgomery and W.L. Brown, Field-
Induced Conductivity Changes in Germanium,
Phys. Rev., 103, 865-870 (1956)
67. F. Seitz and N.G. Einspruch, Electronic
Genie: The Tangled History of Silicon,
Urbana, Il., Univ. of Illinois Press (1998)
68. L. Hoddeson, E. Braun, J. Teichmann and S.
Weart, Out of The Crystal Maze: Chapters
27
From The History of Solid-State Physics, New
York, Oxford University Presss (1992)
69. K. Lark-Horovitz, Preparation of
Semiconductors and Development of Crystal
Rectifiers, NDRC Report 14-585 (1946)
70. K. Lark-Horovitz, AAAS, Washington, D.C.
57 (1954)
71. P.W. Henriksen, Solid State Physics Research
at Purdue, Osiris, 2:3, 237-260 (1987)
72. R. Bray, K. Lark-Horovitz and R.N. Smith,
Spreading Resistance Discrepancies and Field
Effects in Germanium, Phys. Rev., 72, 530
( 1947)
73. R. Bray, Dependence of Resistivity of
Germanium on Electric Field, Phys. Rev., 74,
1218 (1948)
74. R. Bray, Dependence of Resistivity of
Germanium on Electric Field, Phys. Rev., 76,
152-153 (1949)
75. R. Bray, The Barrier Layer on P-Type
Germanium, Phys. Rev., 76,458 (1949)
76. J.R. Ryder and W. Shockley, Interpretation of
Dependence of Resistivity of Germanium on
Electric Field, Phys. Rev., 75, 3 10 (1949)
77. H.A. Zahl, Birth of The Transistor,
The Microwave Journal, July, 94-96
(1966)
78. J.B. Fisk, J.B. Fisk’s Letter to R. Brown, A
History of Engineering and Science in The
Bell System (1925-1980), (edited by
S. Millman), 101, Bell Telephone
Laboratories (1983)
79. W.H. Brattain, W.H. Brattain’s Personal
Reminiscences, Recorded by Brattain in 1975,
A History of Engineering and Science in The
Bell System (1925-1980), (edited by
S. Millman), 101-102, Bell Telephone
Laboratories (1983)
80. J.R. Pierce, The Naming of The Transistor,
Proc. IEEE, 86,37-45 (1998)
81. J.A. Becker and J.N. Shive, The Transistor
-A New Semiconductor Amplifier,
Electrical Engineeering, 68, 215-221 (1949)
82. J.E. Lilienfeld, Method and Apparatus For 96.
Controlling Electric Currents, U S . Patent No.
1,745,175, Filed Oct. 8, 1926, Issued Jan. 18,
1930
97.
83. J.E. Lilienfeld, Device For Controlling
Electric Current, U.S. Patent No. 1,900,018, 98.
Filed Mar. 28, 1928, Issued Mar. 7, 1933
84. J.E. Lilienfeld, Amplifier For Electric Current,
U.S. Patent No. 1,877,140, Filed Dec. 8, 1928,
Issued Sept. 13, 1932 99.
85. 0. Heil, Improvements in or Relating to
Electrical Amplifiers and Other Control 100.
Arrangements and Devices, Brit. Pat. No.
439,457, Filed Mar. 4, 1935, Issued Dec. 6,
1935
101.
86. 0. Heil, Improvement in or Relating to
Electrical Amplifiers and Other Control
Arrangements and Devices, British Patent
439,457, September 26, 1939 102.
87. M. Riordan, L. Hodesson and C. Herring, The
Invention of The Transistor, Rev. Modern
Phys., 71, S336-S345 (1999) 103.
88. A.H. Wilson, The Theory of Electronic Semi-
Conductors, Proc. Roy. SOC.,A133, 458-491
(1931)
104.
89. A.H. Wilson, The Theory of Electronic Semi-
Conductors, Proc. Roy. SOC., A134, 277-287
(1931)
105.
90. A.H. Wilson, Semiconductors and Metals,
Cambridge Univ. Press (1939)
91. A.H. Wilson, The Theory of Metals, 2nd ed., 106. W. Shockley, M. Sparkes and G.K. Teal, P-N
Cambridge Univ. Press (1954)
92. W. Sweet, American Physical Society
Establishes Major Prize in Memory of 107.
Lilienfeld, Physics Today, May, 87-89 (1988)
93. J.L. Moll, private communication to H.R. Huff
(March 2,2000) 108.
94. W. Schottky and E. Spenke, Wiss. Veroff. aus
die Siemens Werken, 18 (3), 1-67 (1939) 109. H.R. Huff, Twentieth Century Silicon
95. W. Schottky, Semiconductor Theory of The
Blocking Layer, Naturwiss, 26, 843 (1938) (in
German)
28
W. Schottky, Zur Halbleitertheorie der
Sperrschict-und Spitzengleichrichter, Z.
Physik, 113, 367-414 (1939)
W. Schottky, Z. Physik, 118, 539-592 (1942)
N.F. Mott, Note on The Contact
Between a Metal and an Insulator or
Semiconductor, Proc. Cambridge Philos. SOC.,
34,568-572 (1938)
N.F. Mott, The Theory of Crystal Rectifiers,
Proc. Roy. SOC.London A171,27-38 (1939)
B. Davidov, On The Contact Resistance of
Semiconductors, J. of Phys. (USSR), 1, 167-
174 (1939)
H. Bethe, Theory of The Boundary Layer of
Crystal Rectifiers, MIT Radiation Laboratory
Report 43 (1942)
C. Herring, M. Riordan and L. Hoddeson,
Boris Davydov's Theoretical Work on
Minority Carriers, manuscript in preparation
B. Davydov, On The Rectification of Current
at The Boundary Between Two Semi-
Conductors, Compt. Rend. (Dokl.) Acad. Sci.
URSS, 20,279-282 (1938)
B. Davydov, On The Theory of Solid
Rectifiers, Compt. Rend. (Dokl.) Acad. Sci.
USSR, 20,283-285 (1938)
W.L. Brown, N-Type Surface Conductivity on
P-Type Germanium, Phys. Rev., 91,518- 527
(1953)
Junction Transistors, Phys. Rev., 83, 151-162
(1951)
I.M. Ross, The Invention of the
Transistor, Proc. IEEE, 86, 7-28
( 1998)
LA. Ross, The Foundation of The Silicon Age,
Physics Today, Dec., 34-39 (1997)
Microelectronics, ULSI Science and
Technology/l997 (edited by H.Z. Massoud,
H. Iwai, C. Claeys and R.B. Fair), 53-117
( 1997)
110. H.R. Huff, manuscript in preparation 112. B.T. Murphy, D.E. Haggan and
W.W. Troutman, From Circuit Miniaturization
11 1. J.L. Moll, Fifty Years of The Transistor: The to the Scalable IC, Proc. IEEE, 88, 691-703
Beginning of Silicon Technology, 1997 (2000)
Symposium on VLSI Circuits, 5-8 (1997)
113. W. Shockley, Electrons and Holes in
Semiconductors, preface, New York, D. Van
Nostrand (1950)

29