Milestone-Proposal talk:Czochralski

Advocates and reviewers will post their comments below. In addition, any IEEE member can sign in with their ETHW login (different from IEEE Single Sign On) and comment on the milestone proposal's accuracy or completeness as a form of public review.

Milestone Citation -- Jason.k.hui (talk) 00:33, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

In the last sentence of the citation, should the last word "eletronics" be "electronics"?

Re: Milestone Citation -- Malin (talk) 09:59, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Yes, you are right

-- JaninA (talk) 00:24, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

The Czochralski method of Crystal Growth definitely deserves the IEEE Milestone, and the proposal is well put together and substantiated. It would benefit from adding few extra commas, spaces, checking for typos (Jason found one) and possibly numbering the plagues in the section describing the security of the sites.

Re: -- Malin (talk) 10:05, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

We are planning to install the plaque in the Hall of Main Building, Warsaw University of Technology and it will be monitored by the Academic Guard all the time.

More of the story -- Allisonmarsh (talk) 17:51, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia calls it the Czochralski Process. Is there any consensus on whether it is a process or a method?

As many of you know, I generally don't like naming individuals in plaques because the plaque is supposed to honor the technological achievement, not the person. However, in this case the achievement has become eponymous with the person, so I have no problem with it.

For the average, non-engineer passerby, I really like the story about how he accidentally made the discovery. I think the citation could also benefit from describing more of the applications and why this is so important.

Re: -- Malin (talk) 10:26, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

We agree with you that the process of crystal growth is based on Czochralski's method. So in fact there are consensus between process and method named Czochralski. Unfortunately the text on a plaque must be very limited. To mark only greater scope of application of Czochralski invention we added in a last sentence that it "enabled development of electronic semiconductor devices and modern electronics.”

Re: More of the story -- Jason.k.hui (talk) 19:54, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Doing a search on Google, it looks like 'Czochralski process' is most often used. The process is defined as a method or technique of crystal growth... Why does the last sentence use "The Czochralski process"? It seems that Czochralski Method and Czochralski Process are being interchanged. Also, can the words "with AEG company" be replaced with "at AEG" or "at Allgemeine Elektricitäts-Gesellschaft"?


Re: Re: More of the story -- Malin (talk) 19:27, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

That’s true” : “'Czochralski process' is most often used” in technical and scientific literature. So, in that case it would be better to use the same name which is popular in literature. In fact ”the process” is based on the “method” but from the other hand “the process” reflects mass production of semiconductor crystals with this method and in our opinion much better describes the importance of Czochralski’s invention. The fraze "with AEG company" should be replaced with "at AEG". We suppose the abbreviation of whole name of the company is better recognizable than full name.

Re: More of the story -- Talkingkarthik (talk) 05:30, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

I think it will be useful to include the phrase "creative mistake" as described in this interesting article - http://www.cup.lmu.de/ac/kluefers/homepage/publ_pdf/czochralski_engl.pdf . Dipping the pen's nib accidentally inside the crucible containing molten tin and then rapidly drawing it out led to the creation of a long and thin tail of single crystal structure. This story is both interesting, and inspiring - it encourages the spirit of research and an unwavering dedication to the work that results in technological breakthroughs in rather unimaginable ways - luck favors devotion. I feel a concise version of this anecdote needs to be associated with this milestone.


We afraid that on a plaque is not enough space to put information about “creative mistake” with extended explanation of invention details.

Re: Re: More of the story -- Talkingkarthik (talk) 19:27, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

How about this - too long?

In 1916, Jan Czochralski invented a method of crystal growth used to obtain single crystals of semiconductors, metals, salts and synthetic gemstones during his work with AEG company in Berlin, Germany. He developed the process further at the Warsaw University of Technology, Poland. The Czochralski process enabled development of electronic semiconductor devices and modern electronics. This invention was the result of a "creative mistake" when Czochralski accidentally dipped his pen's nib into a crucible filled with molten tin; on removing the pen rapidly, a long, thin tail of single crystal structure was formed.

Re: Re: More of the story -- Malin (talk) 19:36, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

If I well understand, the idea of IEEE Milestone is to inform people, who are not necessary specialists in the subject, about the invention time, place and importance. They should get chance to learn in comprehensive way what was invented and what is the impact of invention for future technology development. In general the information how something was invented for many of them can be not understandable.

Accompanying Documentation -- CSchlombs (talk) 19:45, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

I understand that three plaques are supposed to be installed, two in Poland and one in Germany.

However, in the accompanying documentation on ETHW, in the section "What obstacles (technical, political, geographic) needed to be overcome?", it says: "This is planned to expose and to install IEEE Milestone plaque in two locations in 2 countries: Poland and Germany."

Shouldn't this be "three locations in 2 countries"?

Re: Accompanying Documentation -- Malin (talk) 20:16, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

yes, there should be "three locations in 2 countries".

Citation -- JaninA (talk) 04:14, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Has the historical evidence for been found for the statement “In 1916, Jan Czochralski unintentionally dipped his pen into molten tin and pulled a thin tail of single crystal structure”? Before we were cited the anecdotal information only....

Re: Citation -- Jason.k.hui (talk) 00:06, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

The answer is no. According to the proposers, there is no historical evidence to support the modified citation. The original citation text should be brought back for action.

Original citation text -- Malin (talk) 09:36, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

IEEE Poland Section and IEEE Germany Section include some comments from blog and after discussion approve final proposal of citation. Therefore, original citation text should be:

„In 1916, Jan Czochralski invented a method of crystal growth used to obtain single crystals of semiconductors, metals, salts and synthetic gemstones during his work at AEG in Berlin, Germany. He developed the process further at the Warsaw University of Technology, Poland. The Czochralski process enabled development of electronic semiconductor devices and modern electronics.”

Re: Original citation text -- Jbart64 (talk) 22:25, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

I support the milestone. The uncertainty surrounding an anecdotal story about an observation (drawn from accidentally dipping a pen) (cited by Paweł E. Tomaszewski in several writings as well as numerous other authors) which may have first inspired Czochralski does not detract from recognizing his development of a new process which he described in his 1918 publication. The milestone, as edited, focuses on the invention and development of the process and does not worry about the source of inspiration, which is appropriate. I recommend acceptance of the milestone. Dave Bart