Milestone-Proposal talk:Charge Coupled Display Device

Advocates’ Checklist

1. Is the proposal for an achievement rather than for a person? If the citation includes a person's name, have the proposers provided the required justification for inclusion of the person's name?
2. Was the proposed achievement a significant advance rather than an incremental improvement to an existing technology?
3. Were there prior or contemporary achievements of a similar nature? If so, have they been properly considered in the background information and in the citation?
4. Has the achievement truly led to a functioning, useful, or marketable technology?
5. Is the proposal adequately supported by significant references (minimum of five) such as patents, contemporary newspaper articles, journal articles, or citations to pages in scholarly books? At least one of the references should be from a peer-reviewed scholarly book or journal article. The full text of the material, not just the references, shall be present. If the supporting texts are copyright-encumbered and cannot be posted on the ETHW for intellectual property reasons, the proposers shall email a copy to the History Center so that it can be forwarded to the Advocate. If the Advocate does not consider the supporting references sufficient, the Advocate may ask the proposer(s) for additional ones.
6. Are the scholarly references sufficiently recent?
7. Does the proposed citation explain why the achievement was successful and impactful?
8. Does the proposed citation include important technical aspects of the achievement?
9. Is the proposed citation readable and understandable by the general public?
10. Will the citation be read correctly in the future by only using past tense? Does the citation wording avoid statements that read accurately only at the time that the proposal is written?
11. Does the proposed plaque site fulfill the requirements?
12. Is the proposal quality comparable to that of IEEE publications?
13. Are any scientific and technical units correct (e.g., km, mm, hertz, etc.)? Are acronyms correct and properly upper-cased or lower-cased? Are the letters in any acronym explained in the title or the citation?
14. Are date formats correct as specified in Section 6 of Milestones Program Guidelines? Helpful Hints on Citations, plaque locations
15. Do the year(s) appearing in the citation fall within the range of the year(s) included at the end of the title?
16. Note that it is the Advocate's responsibility to confirm that the independent reviewers have no conflict of interest (e.g., that they do not work for a company or a team involved in the achievement being proposed, that they have not published with the proposer(s), and have not worked on a project related to the funding of the achievement). An example of a way to check for this would be to search reviewers' publications on IEEE Xplore.

Independent Expert Reviewers’ Checklist

1. Is suggested wording of the Plaque Citation accurate?
2. Is evidence presented in the proposal of sufficient substance and accuracy to support the Plaque Citation?
3. Does proposed milestone represent a significant technical achievement?
4. Were there similar or competing achievements? If so, have the proposers adequately described these and their relationship to the achievement being proposed?
5. Have proposers shown a clear benefit to humanity?

In answering the questions above, the History Committee asks that independent expert reviewers apply a similar level of rigor to that used to peer-review an article, or evaluate a research proposal. Some elaboration is desirable. Of course the Committee would welcome any additional observations that you may have regarding this proposal.

Submission and Approval Log (For staff use only)

Submitted date: 25 November 2024
Advocate approval date: 18 February 2025
History Committee approval date:
Board of Directors approval date:

Initial Review -- Jbart64 (talk) 23:28, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

This milestone proposal needs additional work. Historical background tied to sources should be expanded. Short responses to questions intended to address historical claims need to be expanded. Supporting materials should be identified and linked. The context of the achievement and its challenges need further explanation. Finally, the discovery is 1969, publication is 1970, so the date is 1969.

I suggest the following approach to the milestone text that explains to the reader the nature of the achievement (70 words):

Charge Coupled Display Device, 1969

The invention of the Charge-Coupled Device (CCD) in 1969 transformed imaging technology. CCDs are an integrated circuit that captures, stores light and displays it by turning it into an electrical charge that can be transferred along the surface of a semiconductor from one storage capacitor to the next. Widespread applications include uses in digital memory, delay lines, imaging devices, and shift registers employed in astronomy, digital cameras, and mobile phones.

Dave Bart Milestone Advocate

Re: Initial Review -- Jbart64 (talk) 18:36, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

I reviewed the updated proposal. It is progressing, but needs to finish addressing earlier comments. Dave Bart

Support of Milestone Proposal -- Jbart64 (talk) 21:57, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

I have worked closely with the proposers, and they have addressed all my concerns. I fully support this milestone proposal, and in my opinion the requirements have been met, subject to the expert reviews. The responses of the experts will be posted as they come in. This milestone will require a name inclusion review by the milestone subcommittee. David Bart - Milestone Advocate

Expert Review #1 -- Jbart64 (talk) 22:06, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

Christopher Stubbs is an experimental physicist working at the interface between particle physics, cosmology, and gravitation. His interests include experimental tests of the foundations of gravitational physics, searches for dark matter, characterizing the dark energy, and observational cosmology. He was a member of one of the two teams that first discovered the dark energy by using supernovae to map out the history of cosmic expansion. Stubbs is currently heavily engaged in the construction of the Large Synoptic Survey Telescope (LSST), for which he was the inaugural project scientist. He founded the APOLLO collaboration that is using lunar laser ranging and the Earth-Moon-Sun system to probe for novel gravitational effects that may result from physics beyond the standard model.

Dr. Stubs provided the following expert review of this milestone proposal (Sat, Feb 15, 9:44 PM):

Hi. This is a no-brainer. I have read the proposal and I vigorously endorse this well-deserved historical recognition. The Nobel Prizes awarded for this work are more than adequate recognition of its significance. CCDs have revolutionized commercial, consumer, and scientific imaging.

The work was done at Bell Labs and that's where the plaque should go.

My answer to your questions are 1. yes 2. yes 3. yes 4. yes 5. yes.

I really don't think I should need to elaborate on this.

Cordially, Chris Stubbs Harvard University Department of Physics

Samuel C. Moncher Professor of Physics and of Astronomy

Expert Comment (with a conflict) #1 -- Jbart64 (talk) 22:11, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

Professor Tony Tyson joined the faculty at UCDavis in 2004. His research is in experimental physics and cosmology and includes the development of new astronomical surveys, new detectors, astronomical instrumentation, and analysis algorithms aimed at unraveling the nature of dark energy and dark matter. He has developed cameras and analysis techniques for imaging of the distant, younger universe.

While at Bell Labs, he applied CCDs to astronomy, discovering the "faint blue galaxies." Leveraging this backdrop of billions of galaxies, he pioneered a technique for imaging foreground dark matter concentrations via their gravitational lens distortions of the distant galaxies -- "weak gravitational lensing." Today is an exciting time in cosmology: we are assembling the tools needed to understand the physics of the mysterious 96% of the dark universe. Some of the data are already in. Tyson is PI of the Deep Lens Survey, a glimpse into the dark universe. Using weak lens tomography, the dark structures and their relationship to galaxies are being studied. But the mystery of dark energy can only be addressed by mapping the whole sky.

Tyson is the Chief Scientist for the Rubin Observatory and its Legacy Survey of Space and Time (LSST), the next major survey facility. In 2010 the LSST was ranked as the top new ground-based facility in astrophysics. Some of the R&D is being carried out here at UC Davis. New frontiers will be enabled by LSST, http://www.lsst.org. Its thirty trillion photometric measurements of twenty billion objects will enable exploration of exciting new questions in a variety of areas of astronomy and fundamental physics.

Dr. Tyson has a conflict to review this milestone but provided the following comment (Sat, Feb 15, 2025 at 10:04 AM):

I strongly support this. However, I may not qualify as a reviewer, as I worked at Bell Labs from Jan 1969 to Aug 2004. Otherwise I would be pleased to review. Our LSSTCam is the world's largest CCD camera.

Sincerely, Tony Tyson Professor of Physics & Astronomy University of California, Davis Rubin Observatory chief scientist

Expert Review #2 -- Jbart64 (talk) 18:00, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

Andrew Wolfe is an Assistant Teaching Professor in the Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering at Santa Clara University. Dr. Wolfe is an IEEE Fellow "for contributions in hardware code compression of embedded software power consumption analysis and optimization," and is an IEEE Computer Society Distinguished Contributor. His expertise is in Computer Architecture, Embedded Systems, and Consumer Electronics. He previously served on the faculty at Princeton University and has taught classes at Stanford University. In addition to his academic roles, Dr. Wolfe served as Senior VP and CTO at S3/SonicBlue, where he led several chip design teams and helped launch more than 30 digital audio and video products. He has over 50 peer-reviewed publications and is the named inventor on over 50 U.S. patents, including in the areas of digital photography and sensors.

Dr. Wolfe sent this afirmative expert review by email on 02/17/2025 at 10:51 AM:

1. Is the suggested wording of the Plaque Citation accurate? Yes 2. Is evidence presented in the proposal of sufficient substance and accuracy to support the Plaque Citation? Yes 3. Does the proposed milestone represent a significant technical achievement? Yes 4. Were there similar or competing achievements? If so, have the proposers adequately described these and their relationship to the achievement being proposed? The descriptions provide proper context. CMOS sensors arrived about 15 years later but were not competitive with CCDs until the early/mid 2000s. 5. Have proposers shown a clear benefit to humanity? Yes

Final approval -- Jbart64 (talk) 16:32, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

I have worked closely with the proposers and Brian Berg. The proposers have addressed all suggestions and concerns and this proposal is ready for milestone committee review. It will need a name inclusion review. David Bart, Milestone Advocate

Expert Comment (with a conflict) #2 -- Jbart64 (talk) 23:18, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

Paul Wilford received the B.S. and M.S. degrees in electrical engineering from Cornell University, Ithaca, NY, USA, in 1978 and 1979, respectively. He is a Bell Labs Fellow and led the Robotics, Sensing, and Video Analytics Research Department at Nokia Bell Laboratories. He was a key team leader in creating the coding and broadcast standard for HDTV and received an Emmy for this work. Paul’s current research includes video analytics, precision drone navigation, and new sensor modalities. His team has a special emphasis on cloud control of robotic machines, along with the creation and actuation of Digital Twins. Currently, Paul is one of the leaders of a new “Incubation” (internal venture) project called AIMS (Autonomous Industrial Monitoring Service)—creating an edge-cloud solution for drone control and monitoring.

Dr. Wilford has made extensive contributions in the development of digital video processing and multimedia transport technology. He was a key leader in the development of Lucent's first HDTV broadcast encoder and decoder. Under his leadership, Bell Laboratories then developed the world's first MPEG2 encoder. He has made fundamental contributions in the high-speed optical transmission area. Currently, he is leading a department working on next-generation video transport systems, hybrid satellite-terrestrial networks, and high-speed mobility networks. His research interest was communication theory and predictive coding.

Dr. Wilford has a conflict to review this milestone (employed by Bell Labs) but he provided the following comment (Tue, Feb 18, 2025 at 04:59 PM):

My assessment is extremely favorable, and I support this proposal as an IEEE Milestone.

1. Is the suggested wording of the Plaque Citation accurate? Yes, the wording accurately captures the essence of his marvelous and game-changing invention. Marvelous.

2. Is the evidence presented in the proposal of sufficient substance and accuracy to support the Citation? Yes, the evidence supports the significance and widespread application of this invention (imaging, photography, light capture and measurement, digital storage). It also points to the continuing expansion of new technologies, inspired by the CCD invention.

3. Does the proposed Citation represent a significant historical site? Yes, there are a host of IEEE plaques in this historical (Nokia Bell Labs, Murray Hill, NJ).

4. Were there similar or competing achievements? If so, have the proposers adequately described these and their relationship to the achievement being proposed? There was research in solid-state memory devices (eg, Josephson Junctions), but nothing nearly as effective as the CCD.

5. Have proposers shown a clear benefit to humanity? The impact of the CCD on our daily lives cannot be overstated—cameras in our phones and instant photo and video messaging—these have changed how we can communicate and made interactions much richer.

David Bart Milestone Advocate

rewording of last sentence in citation? -- Amy Bix (talk) 21:02, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

The third sentence: "Their invention and development by Bell Labs scientists Willard Boyle and George Smith found widespread applications in astronomy, medical imaging, and consumer electronics." is a bit awkward. Could I recommend: "Invented and developed by Bell Labs scientists Willard Boyle and George Smith, CCDs improved the performance of astronomical instruments, medical imaging, and consumer electronics."

Re: rewording of last sentence in citation? -- Bberg (talk) 23:15, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

I agree with Amy, but note that "CCD" would then appear in all 3 sentences. Here I accept Amy's suggestion, and change "CCD" in the second senntence to "they" with a word count change from 68 to 69:

The charge coupled device (CCD), originally conceived for digital memory applications, transformed the capture and processing of light by storing light-generated charges in a series of tiny capacitors. When read electronically, they offered a compact, sensitive, and efficient way to convert light into digital signals. Invented and developed by Bell Labs scientists Willard Boyle and George Smith, CCDs improved the performance of astronomical instruments, medical imaging, and consumer electronics.

Brian Berg

Re: rewording of last sentence in citation? -- Tsizer (talk) 10:29, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

I agree with the proposed rewording of the citation and have made the change in the Proposal.

Tod Sizer

On Citation Regarding the Time of Invention and the Impact of CCD. -- Dae-Gwon Jeong (talk) 12:53, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

1. The time of invention is missing. 2. The phrase ‘CCDs improved the performance of astronomical instruments, medical imaging, and consumer electronics.’ seems vague in detail to show the impact of the CCD. 3. Are the names of the inventors and Nobel Prize winners, Willard Boyle and George Smith appropriate? Nobel Prize-winning in Justification for Inclusion of Names(s) is not persuasive. My suggestion for the third sentence would be as follows:

Invented and developed in 1969, due to the exceptional image quality, CCD has had a profound impact on astronomical instruments, medical imaging, and consumer electronics.

Dae-Gwon

Either remove Smith and Boyle's names or include Michael F. Tompsett as the developer of CCD imagers/cameras at Bell Labs. Jeff Hecht, perhaps the most even-handed if not best historian/journalist of modern optical technologies, cites the three men as the researchers and developers of CCDs: https://spie.org/news/photonics-focus/janfeb-2023/focusing-on-the-inventors-of-ccd-imaging. As the IEEE Spectrum article on the Nobel committee's inexplicable decision notes, Smith and Boyle were researching digital memory; Tompsett's name is the only one on the "Charge Transfer Imaging Device" patent: https://spectrum.ieee.org/nobel-controversy-former-bell-labs-employee-says-he-invented-the-ccd-imager. Even Nokia Bell Labs recognized Dr. Tompsett (https://www.nokia.com/bell-labs/about/history/innovation-stories/charge-coupled-device/) after he won the Queen Elizabeth Prize for Engineering (https://qeprize.org/winners/michael-tompsett). Of course, ideally names should not be highlighted in the citation in order to bring attention to the accomplishment--the original intent of the Milestones program--rather than select individuals involved. This would also reduce the invariable highlighting of white men on IEEE plaques, which are not, it should be added, awards.

Re: On Citation Regarding the Time of Invention and the Impact of CCD. -- Bberg (talk) 13:56, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

Please note that including date(s) is important if there are multiple events to document. Only one year is needed here, and that is included in the Milestone's title. I suggest that the last sentence be modified to incorporate much of the suggested rewording, and this changes the total word count from 69 to 68:

Invented and developed by Bell Labs scientists Willard Boyle and George Smith, CCDs have profoundly impacted astronomical instruments, medical imaging, and consumer electronics.

The word count could go to 70 by adding "image quality" from the suggested wording:

Invented and developed by Bell Labs scientists Willard Boyle and George Smith, CCD's image qaulity has profoundly impacted astronomical instruments, medical imaging, and consumer electronics.

Brian Berg

Re: Re: On Citation Regarding the Time of Invention and the Impact of CCD. -- Jbart64 (talk) 14:10, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

:: I agree with the edits and updates and approve this recommended version of the proposal. Dave Bart

Re: Re: On Citation Regarding the Time of Invention and the Impact of CCD. -- Amy Bix (talk) 04:25, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

I would vote for "CCD's image quality improved astronomical instruments" - to me, "impacted" is way more vague than "improved" - and the words "has" and "profoundly" are both unnecessary. [The word "has," present tense, is also awkward for a plaque meant to be around for decades and reflect the past, not the present]. This would make the final sentence "Invented and developed by Bell Labs scientists Willard Boyle and George Smith, CCD's image quality improved astronomical instruments, medical imaging, and consumer electronics."

However, that is flawed grammatically - it makes it sound as if Boyle and Smith invented the "image quality," not CCDs themselves. I still vote for my original last sentence: "Invented and developed by Bell Labs scientists Willard Boyle and George Smith, CCDs improved the performance of astronomical instruments, medical imaging, and consumer electronics

Re: Re: On Citation Regarding the Time of Invention and the Impact of CCD. -- Administrator7 (talk) 14:56, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

Replace this text with your reply

Names in Citations -- Dmichelson (talk) 09:54, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

As I pointed out during the Milestones Subcommittee conference call on Mon, 24 Feb, there is no doubt that Smith and Boyle invented the CCD but as a memory device. At the time the Nobel Prize was announced, some expressed concern that Tompsett's role in demonstrating the unexpected potential for CCDs to be used in imaging, which is where CCDs have ultimately had impact, had gone unrecognized. In its current form, the citation gives the impression that CCD imagers had been obvious from the start.

From IEEE Spectrum, 8 October 2009,

The CCD that Boyle and Smith invented was not for imaging, it was intended as a memory circuit. According to both Tompsett and the United States Patent Office, it was Tompsett who invented the imager that first demonstrated the electronic photography and video in use today. Tompsett is the sole inventor listed on United States Patent Number 4,085,456 “Charge transfer imaging devices.” The patent covers two, subtly different, types of imagers one of which is the CCD imager.

Title of the proposed milestone:

Charge Coupled Device (CCD), 1969

Plaque citation:

The charge-coupled device (CCD), originally conceived for digital memory applications, were later shown to offer a compact, sensitive, and efficient way to convert light into digital signals by storing light-generated charges in a series of tiny capacitors. Invented and developed by Bell Labs scientists Willard Boyle, George Smith and Michael Tompsett, CCDs found wide use in astronomical instruments, medical imaging, and consumer electronics.

[63 words]

Re: Names in Citations -- John Vardalas (talk) 17:57, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

I support this proposal subject to David Michelson’s recommended changes. This newer citation now mirrors correctly the 2nd sentence in the abstract.

Re: Re: Names in Citations -- Jbart64 (talk) 18:52, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

I approve the most recent edits and updates. Thanks everyone for your input. Dave Bart

Re: Names in Citations -- Coronath (talk) 00:45, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

I concur with the recommended changes.

Re: Re: Names in Citations -- Tsizer (talk) 14:39, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

I accept the proposed change in the citation and have made this change in the Proposal. In addition, I augmented the Justification of Names section to provide for the inclusion of Michael Tompsett's name in the citation as well.

Tod Sizer