New development
Thanks to the wonderful cooperation from Dimitri D. and the curator of a online site, I have more information on Dr. Frank S. Boxall, and now understand why the reference did not have the first Boxall paper: the full description of the reference should have included "Wescon" 😡 More at 11!
Thanks to the wonderful cooperation from Dimitri D. and the curator of a online site, I have more information on Dr. Frank S. Boxall, and now understand why the reference did not have the first Boxall paper: the full description of the reference should have included "Wescon" 😡 More at 11!
Well, no bookfinder results for the 1957 IRE Wescon Convention Record Part II, but someone out there may have it. However, we have the application date for a Frank Stuart Boxall US patent, 2960660, as 7 June 1957 (thanks DD and Walt J.). Dr. Boxall left us earlier this year, at the age of 84, which makes this unearthing rather eerie.
There are some drafting anomalies in the patent, which may have been intentional misdirection. The Webster article also omits biasing, but mentions that it's missing.
R.I.P. F.S.B.
There are some drafting anomalies in the patent, which may have been intentional misdirection. The Webster article also omits biasing, but mentions that it's missing.
R.I.P. F.S.B.
Boxall Semiconductor Products article at last!
Thanks to Samuel G. I finally have been able to read all of the Sep./Oct. 1958 article, "Base Current Feedback and the Feedback Compound Transistor", and it vindicates what I had deduced from seeing the first and last pages of the article (courtesy of curator Jack Ward), namely that Dr. Frank S. Boxall's work did indeed predate Larson and Baxandall, and that he fully understood and appreciated the circuit.
Following the custom seen in many "simplified" schematics, transistors are shown initially as same-polarity devices, in this case PNPs. But it's made quite clear that these depictions are not per se working circuits. Besides the omission of bias networks, they are not meant to represent literal topologies --- they couldn't in most cases work as shown. But finally some practical topologies are presented, including the one with complementary polarity devices that has been associated with (and even in the case of Larson, patented!) by Larson and Baxandall.
A nice belated holiday present! Also, Boxall first disclosed at least some of this in an IRE Convention Record as mentioned above, pushing things back to at least 1957. I have yet to get that reference.
Thanks to Samuel G. I finally have been able to read all of the Sep./Oct. 1958 article, "Base Current Feedback and the Feedback Compound Transistor", and it vindicates what I had deduced from seeing the first and last pages of the article (courtesy of curator Jack Ward), namely that Dr. Frank S. Boxall's work did indeed predate Larson and Baxandall, and that he fully understood and appreciated the circuit.
Following the custom seen in many "simplified" schematics, transistors are shown initially as same-polarity devices, in this case PNPs. But it's made quite clear that these depictions are not per se working circuits. Besides the omission of bias networks, they are not meant to represent literal topologies --- they couldn't in most cases work as shown. But finally some practical topologies are presented, including the one with complementary polarity devices that has been associated with (and even in the case of Larson, patented!) by Larson and Baxandall.
A nice belated holiday present! Also, Boxall first disclosed at least some of this in an IRE Convention Record as mentioned above, pushing things back to at least 1957. I have yet to get that reference.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.