Gordon Moore on explosives, and semiconductors

Sep 30, 2005 42 Replies

Fascinating talk tonight by Gordon Moore of Intel, at the Computer History Museum in Mountain View, Carver Mead acting as interviewer. (For those who don't know them, Moore was a co-founder of Fairchild Semiconductor and later Intel, and a seminal figure in that industry; Carver Mead a professor in related specialties, in contact with Moore since 1959.) Audience included Intel alumni and journalists. Occasion was 40th anniversary of "Moore's law" which predicted in 1965 the doubling of semiconductor density periodically, "for at least the next 10 years" (it continues today).



Moore spent some of his time on explosives, and their popularity as a motivator for technical careers, a popularity that proves to be surprisingly wide. That will presumably be the main interest in this note, but first a little more about semiconductors. (First the broccoli, then dessert!)



Moore's original 1965 article in _Electronics_ (I picked up a copy) projected integrated circuits (ICs) becoming commonplace in products like car control systems, home computers, portable telephones. "The electronic wristwatch needs only a display to be feasible today." He included projections such as the curve that became Moore's Law (Carver Mead, I understand, coined that name later), based at the time only on 1959-1965 density data. He explained to us that the whole motivation of the article was to "sell" the idea of ICs to the electronics industry which regarded them, at the time, as expensive and exotic, of interest only for high-priced apps in military or aerospace. Moore provided data suggesting otherwise, that ICs would become mainstream technology, which is obvious now, after-the-fact. Later he mentioned some of the magnitudes of integrated component manufacture now; 10 to the 18th power of transistors produced annually, comparable to the number of letters in printed documents -- and a transistor on an IC is now cheaper, on average, than a readable text character printed on paper.



Moore was a chemist by training, and explained that he got into chemistry originally as a child because a neighbor got a chemistry set -- "they had good stuff in them in those days!" -- and quickly became skilled at blowing things up. He made nitroglycerin, which he would detonate by putting a drop on a piece of filter paper and striking it with a hammer on an iron anvil. This made a very sharp crack, and would leave his ears ringing for an hour or two. Moore explained that this damaged his hearing, and led to his later relying on a hearing aid. This was around Redwood City, California, where his father was a deputy sheriff. At one point, officials found a collection of tools somewhere that looked like they were for cracking open safes, and a little bottle of yellowish liquid, which had them concerned. As Moore told it, his father called him in on the case (he was still an adolescent) and he tested a drop of the liquid with his filter-paper technique, and it blew. The deputies were then worried about how to dispose of the nitro, but Moore stepped forward eagerly -- "I'll take care of that." (He held up both hands to us, in the proud sign of the successful explosives hobbyist: All digits present.) They also made rockets, he said, but good rockets were difficult -- "it was much easier to blow things up."



Later at Cal Tech when he was a grad student in chemistry, someone did a survey and found that 80% of the Chem grad students got into it via fireworks and explosives. Amazing!


Sounds like my own childhood. I made nitroglycerin, mercury fulminate, nitrogen triiodide, and a bevy of rocket fuels.

Fulminate was one of my favorite explosives. I used to place mercury fulminate on a spoon and cup my hand over it and detonate it, leaving a hole in the spoon and no injury to my hand. Let's see:

  • mercury, tech grade, dissolve in: * nitric acid, 70% (or RFNA), until fully dissolved, then add: * ethyl alcohol, allow the exothermic reaction to boil; * leaving crystals settling out at the bottom; * dissolve, filter, and recrystalize using glacial acetic acid.

When using sugar and potassium nitrate to make rocket fuel, I noticed that the flash point was only about 100 C above the melting point, so I created a boiling sulfuric acid back in which to immerse a Florence flask for melting the stuff. All this behind many tens of sand bags to protect me during manufacture.

I designed and built rocket nozzles, based on information from Captain Bertrand Brinley's Rocket Manual for Amateurs. These were made out of steel on a small metal lathe. The tubes were SAE 1020 steel, 1/4" thick, about 1.5" diameter. Flame temps are in the 2600 F range, as I recall, for zinc/sulfur fuels. Design tube pressures were in the

1000-1400 psi area, if memory serves.

I experimented with Ammonium and Potassium Perchlorates, Potassium Chlorate, Zinc, Sulfer, Ethylene Oxide, Picric Acid, white and yellow phosphorus, and pretty much anything interesting I could lay my hands on. And at the time, I could get Boulevard Labs in Chicago to ship me pretty much anything, including RFNA, WFNA, 70% H2O2, and Picric Acid (on trains, only, though.)

Never lost a body part, always launched rockets safely behind sand bag barricades and in large areas, but I did suffer a bad burn or two. Still have many pounds of some of the chemicals in my garage that I sometimes use to make fireworks and so on.

Wonderful experience, almost entirely done solo and without adult supervision or help, and it is what really got me reading and studying science in earnest.

Jon

"Jonathan Kirwan" in news: snipped-for-privacy@4ax.com...

With that set of chemicals it sounds like you were lucky, as well as careful. (Picric acid! Jeez.)

RFNA and WFNA figured incessantly in the liquid binary fuel-oxidant systems of US (and, I'd assume, other) rockets around the 1950s-60s, in the quest for high specific impulse. (The highest-performance of the high-thrust fuel systems tended to rely on liquid pairs that were either cryogenic or very reactive or both, according anyway to technical sources like Holzmann.)

Below, something I posted here in 1989. Original also acknowledged Norm Strong, well established by then as Pyro Rex on the electronics newsgroups.

Cheers -- Max

-- "As a ... dramatic illustration of the effect of larger specific-impulse variations, consider four identical, single-stage rockets each having a mass ratio of ten (initial to final weight) loaded with hypothetical propellants having specific impulses of 200, 300, 400 and 500 lb-sec/lb, respectively. The first can attain a maximum horizontal range of about 1300 nautical miles (theoretical, drag-free), the second about 4100 miles, the third can become an earth satellite, and the fourth can escape from the earth entirely."

-- Holzmann, _Chemical Rockets and Flame and Explosives Technology_, Marcel Dekker 1969.

Picric acid was definitely one of my very favorite materials to use. For fire-cracker applications, rather than the excellent rocket fuel it also made, I'd grind it up with Potassium Chlorate (it seemed to work a little better than the perchlorate form) using great deal of care, of course, and then pack the mixture into spent, large caliber rifle shells. I used damp cotton to carefully tamp down any lagging crystals of material before crimping the shell with the fuse inserted. Then I'd use a powerful sling-shot, hold the shell in it, as someone else lit the fuse and I'd then launch it over a high hill. The extreme _report_ that echoed back was fun.

Never had a single accident of any kind with Picric acid despite extensive use. I was very, very careful and very observant of every small detail I could think of. And _scared spitless_ at every moment, to be honest. But that made me go read many books on the subject of explosives and safety precautions before doing anything, too. I would spend hours and hours in the research library examining every facet I could find information about.

Well, it's kind of hard to use hydrogen or oxygen in gas form in a practical rocket and, of course, they need to be _reactive_!

I had considered the idea of trying liquid fuels, but never had the money to even give it a small chance. Perhaps it was for the better, though. I can just imagine what this additional complexity would have posed, in terms of risk, for me back then as a teenager. On the other hand, who knows? But I really didn't care about or need the ability to turn the motor on and off, under control. So that advantage for liquid fuels wasn't really of much value to me, anyway. And I didn't need to strive for the absolute pinnacle of ISP, either.

In hindsight, I can see that price, safety, purpose, availability, complexity, time, and other factors either clearly indicated solid fuels or else didn't suggest liquid. But I'm sure that if I'd had a chance to try it, I probably would have.

Thanks. I'd already worked out similar details for myself. There are a few very wonderful books on rocketry put out decades ago. One I recall is called "Mathematics of Space Exploration" by Myrl Ahrendt. Sadly, these attempts to bring serious rocketry down to popular consumable reading seem to be missing, now. Or, perhaps, I've just missed finding them.

Jon

"Jonathan Kirwan" in news: snipped-for-privacy@4ax.com...

I believe that you were dealing with a compound high explosive (the Picric acid or trinitrophenol was so in its own right, and shock-sensitive, but the Chlorate could also participate in the detonation -- Chlorate combined with reducing agents makes a famous binary HE, resembling a binary blasting agent, without needing any other HE).

What was so notorious about Picric Acid in historical writing was its use in munitions circa World War I. It formed "touchy" complexes over time when in contact with heavy metals (as in artillery shells) and the assembly could become, unpredictably, touch-sensitive; or even detonate spontaneously. Just like impure nitroglycerin. Ascanio Sobrero himself was badly maimed for instance; of course some of the Nobel family were killed (and they were experts: there are harrowing accounts of random people experimenting with the stuff in the 1800s -- in hotel rooms and so on). ...

Yes. I meant aggressively reactive, corrosive, etc. Ingredients like Fluorine, FLOX, and the binary system of "nitric anhydride" and mixed Hydrazines (as in the Titan-III engine system; famous accidental explosion in 1979 when a dropped tool punctured a fuel tank). Such components are reactive enough to kill you on exposure, from other properties. (Maybe I should have written very, very reactive.)

...

Yes, exactly. (In its heyday, _Scientific American's_ "Amateur Scientist" section published details of custom stratospheric amateur rockets -- among many topics, high-powered X-ray sources to transmute atoms; lasers of all kinds; etc. This faded away in a gradual cultural de-fanging, which may or may not have done more good than harm.)

Take heart. In the 1990s I noticed a hobby magazine (prominent in silicon valley, for some reason) called High-Powered Model Rocketry, or maybe it was ... Amateur Rocketry. I don't know its current status, but recent Google on first phrase gets many hits. Contents were real stuff, all kinds of commercial _serious_ rocket engines, including a liquid-solid hybrid with a hollow cylinder of carbon fuel and a solenoid-valved compressed liquid oxidant gas module -- shown in production quantities. Looks like this art is very much alive in the US.

Yes.

I didn't know any of this until you wrote it here. No idea. But it sounds like I should have been even more scared than I was! :)

I think I understood, but just took it in another direction.

For me, I'm very glad I had access. For some of us, as kids, what it took to drive us to read the mathematics and try to work through the details of it, to drive us through the science discussions in detail, to drive us to ferret out and learn how to make things with our hands... was fire, smoke, sound, and action. Otherwise, perhaps, I'd have given up long before, without that motivation in play, and done something else that was easier at the time.

I lament, a little, that we are so very focused on safety to such an extreme that children are driven away from science in droves. Over time, one learns a more mature reason for continuing to learn. But as a child, the motivation to overcome learning obstacles must come first well before this maturity can begin to develop. And for many, this motivation comes from interesting and fun _action_. And that usually has danger associated with it.

Now, what I could have used as a child was more mentoring for safety and guidance -- but to be honest I would NOT have let anyone stop me from doing dangerous things and I don't think it _should_ be a teacher's business to make things so safe that no real learning or the love of learning can develop.

When safety rises above all other concerns, all that does is stop some very good people from deciding to develop those skills. What I think should happen is that adults should help make these experiences as safe and educational as possible -- not to interpose and just become a barrier. Because all that does is cause children to go in other directions.

I'd like to see MORE programs available, more options to choose from, for children. With knowing adults using their knowledge and experience to help make fun and interesting motivating events become safer and more educational ones and more accessible ones.

For example, a child's interest in science or electronics might be peaked by the idea of radioactivity. Building a Geiger counter is lots of fun (I did it), but then the child needs access to radioactive materials, too. In my case, I went out and bought some autunite from a rock show. And I had a lot of fun with it. (Still have some laying around here.) But what if adult supervision told the kid that they could build the Geiger counter but that they weren't allowed to play around with various materials to "see what happens" unless there was some adult around to supervise them? It might kill the interest, because when a child becomes momentarily interested in such things it is indeed a fleeting moment of interest and it must be capitalized on, then. If there are "gate keepers" barring the path at every turn or telling kids they can't be interested in something when _they_ are ready to be interested, then the whole thing just falls flat. It would have, for me, anyway.

I don't know the solution. But somehow, children need to have access to learn on _their_ schedules and with _their_ interests. And adults should do what they can to help children capitalize on their curiosities and to do so in safer ways (but not necessarily in ways that are so safe that there is no risk at all and motivation then disappears.)

I don't think my own childhood was all that great, though. I really could have used the advice and support of expert adults and I'm sure I would have had an even safer and more educational experience in the process. With __proper__ (but not limiting) support, I might have been safer (far less risk) and learned much more, too.

The point I'm making isn't that kids should be able to do anything they want to, but that adults who do little other than say NO without offering another similar path are just causing kids to stop or look elsewhere. The idea should be, "yes, and we could do it even better this way ..." Not, "No, that's not safe. Try again."

Taking the "yes, and ..." mode of supporting an interest doesn't mean agreeing to do it the way a child wants to, though. It means going with their motivations and adding to their thoughts and guiding and channeling. But not throwing cold water on it, without offering something else just as much fun.

I don't think children have much real access or support for things like that. Yeah, I'd love it! And I'm sure there are lots of serious adults involved in this. But they are already past their motivation hurdles. I'd like to see these kinds of interesting learning opportunities made available at the levels and abilities of children in high school and maybe even before that.

Very much enjoyed thinking about these things, again, Max. Thanks for stimulating them. :)

Jon

I read in sci.electronics.design that Jonathan Kirwan wrote (in ) about 'Gordon Moore on explosives, and semiconductors', on Sat, 1 Oct 2005:

Even messing with potassium chlorate can get you a Darwin Award. As you said, the perchlorate is more stable, but has more oxygen on board.

Picric acid and KClO3 has more oxygen than it needs for full combustion. You might have increased power by adding, say, carbon, to get more gas generation.

Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only. If everything has been designed, a god designed evolution by natural selection. http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk Also see http://www.isce.org.uk

I agree that this discussion touches on deeper, long-term questions about science and learning and motivation. (Like many serious questions, it raises dilemmas, or trade-offs.) I got separate email on the same topic from an old friend (who became a career physicist). I think it's well expressed, so without meaning to steal his thunder, I'll presume to quote.

"While we can all applaud a more sensible control over dangerous substances, it saddens me that the generations following my own may never experience the thrill of meaningful experimentation that comes not from homemade fireworks, per se, but from carrying out and observing reactions now made unavailable by a liability-fearing society. Making a hydrogen balloon, creating synthetic rubber, watching oozing carbon monoliths grow from sugar and sulfuric acid, smelling sweet menthol made from aspirin, identifying barium from its scarlet flame color, extracting pungent chlorine from table salt, or growing crystals of silver from solution, were all delights during my junior high and high school years. Let's face it, there has to be some level of drama in any learning process for it to be compelling. We are robbing the Sputnik potential from our kids."

The US movie "October sky" also dealt with some of this, implicitly. (Speaking of Sputnik.) The teenager doing all those test firings in the movie would surely be arrested for a domestic terrorist today, never mind the point of what he was doing. I learned about that movie from another old friend, who followed a related career path to the movie's protagonist, and had obstacles when young. (E.g., scheme to set up a then-rare low-power laser to communicate with high-school friend on adjacent hill; mom didn't know lasers, opposed the idea. I won't have a laser in the house; you'll burn holes in the wall; etc.)

I remember as a child (aged 8?) being shown around a high school with my brother. What did the chem teacher display, to rivet our attention? A soft bottle that he took out gingerly, and described as nitroglycerin. (We were bug-eyed.) Not the first or last chemistry teacher to understand the drama content of unstable chemicals.

Though I skipped nitro, I did experiment later with fireworks (especially colored smokes and flames -- I think my friend quoted earlier meant pale green, for barium, by the way) and related things, and now appreciate luck in parents who not only took a long view, but were equipped to (my mother having studied chemistry, my father with jack-of-all-trades background that included destroying UXBs during 2nd world war, not that it directly applied, of course). But after picking up stories of victims of mindless fireworks hobby, I got the point of reading well ahead, to understand what I was doing. My parents supported this, commenting on Literature I unearthed from ancient and modern sources. "Yes, these look like good recipes. Steer clear of Chlorates, that's what often nails people, and you don't always need them anyway. Use that concrete blockhouse in the back yard that your father built as an architectural project. If a fire should start, it'll be safely contained." (Of course, I didn't follow every advice, but I'm grateful for its quality. We all owe our parents plenty.)

-- Max

I believe I did the simple calculations back then and weighed out additional charcoal to also use.

Jon

Thanks, and yes. I have taught at Portland State University for a few years as an adjunct professor and sporadically taught grade school and high school science, both during and after school hours, as an unpaid volunteer while my own children were growing up and going to school. I'm no high-class expert on any science subject, to be sure, but I am broadly educated in science and I do try and still read some, despite other pressures.

I had _no_ parenting, at all. Dad died when I was 7. My mom had little interest in raising kids, had only occasional jobs, and dated more for the support, I think, than the relationship. We were beyond poor, so I would work the berry and vegetable fields during the day to make a little money for our family. We lived in places without walls, just a roof. No medical care of any kind (it is the US, you know, where we were _free_ to be starving and poor and dying), as at that time there was no real access to gov't supports for her. I begged food from stores, went door to door selling my time or else berries I'd picked, etc.

So I was pretty much left to my own devices. As such, it was nature that taught me. And although nature cannot be cajoled or pleaded with, it is a consistent and predictable teacher. Anyway, no one really cared one way or another how I spent my time; or pestered me about having a huge beaker of boiling sulfuric acid on a bench behind some sand bags I'd cobbled up. When a tornado came through our area and destroyed a bowling alley, I called up the owner and begged to be allowed to rummage through the rubble and he said, "Yes." So that's one example of how I got some of the materials I wanted for my interests, back then.

I owe my parents very little, even looking back. And I cannot recall a single teacher who stood out in my life, relying instead on the excellent libraries we had here to make up for the differences.

I can't say enough about how much having access to free books on science meant to me, back then. We can debate all day long on the politics of social supports, but I will NEVER give an inch on the subject of good libraries. There cannot ever be enough of them and they cannot ever be adequately stocked.

A child in poor circumstances, as I found myself, may have everything else fail them -- their parents, teachers, access to health care, or whatever -- but if they have access to a good library system, then at least they have a sporting chance to better themselves in life within their grasp.

Jon

[snip]

I'm presently serving on the Phoenix Library Bond Subcommittee.

Three new libraries are going into the poorest sections of town, and all will be accessible by mass transit as well.

...Jim Thompson

| James E.Thompson, P.E. | mens | | Analog Innovations, Inc. | et | | Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC\'s and Discrete Systems | manus | | Phoenix, Arizona Voice:(480)460-2350 | | | E-mail Address at Website Fax:(480)460-2142 | Brass Rat | | http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 | I love to cook with wine. Sometimes I even put it in the food.

Such a terrible waste of money to grind up trees, sprinkle them with pigment, then ship them around the globe. Much better to spend the political energy making sure that books can be made available online and then spend the money on making sure everyone has Internet access.

Ah yes, but all the servers are running anyway - and not appreciably consuming more resources if the online book is being accessed. Whereas manufacturing and distributing books permanently uses resources.

EACH of these libraries typically will get 40 PC stations.

I'm talking neighborhoods where >25% of the population is below the poverty level. I have 6 PC's in my house... in these low income neighborhoods they typically have none.

...Jim Thompson

| James E.Thompson, P.E. | mens | | Analog Innovations, Inc. | et | | Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC\'s and Discrete Systems | manus | | Phoenix, Arizona Voice:(480)460-2350 | | | E-mail Address at Website Fax:(480)460-2142 | Brass Rat | | http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 | I love to cook with wine. Sometimes I even put it in the food.

No you can burn books as fuel to generate electricity. Pat

I think that trees and soybeans (for the ink) are significantly more "renewable" than the components of a PC, no?

That being said, for a kid born today having (free) Internet access probably is about as important as free book access was to a kid some 30 years ago; happily most libraries and schools recognize this and have plenty of PCs available.

I wonder how many megawatts all the internet servers in the world use? A book doesn't need generated power to be read

martin

BUT! What about the extra pollution from generating the extra power, making the extra computers, etc??

"Max Hauser" skrev i en meddelelse news: snipped-for-privacy@corp.supernews.com...

Did a lunchtime survey:

Most of my engineering-background colleagues are competent bomb makers that got into electronics and software due to the need for telematics, guidance systems, remote control, initiation mechanisms and timers ;-}. Impressing girls with disco lighting of room is *the* other favorite, actually (although that strategy never worked).

Myself *still* got a nostalgic pile of papers on "Exploding Bridge Wires" - my generation could not just pick up detonators as our fathers did so other means had to be aquired.

PS :

The "pure" software guys are generally math-weenies, that never did anything practical or indeed fun before becoming decadent (i.e. software developers) ;-))

Join the Discussion

Have something to add? Share your thoughts — no account required.

Didn't find your answer?

Ask the community — no account required