Milestone-Proposal talk:Parametron, 1954

Advocates’ Checklist (Read Only; Do Not Edit)

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:
Advocate approval date:
History Committee approval date:
Board of Directors approval date:

Message from Advocate to Proposers -- Tomohiro Hase (talk) 13:35, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

Dear Proposers

I have been appointed by the History Committee as advocate for your proposal. According to the status report, your proposal stay status C1. Then I will start to review process.

Best regards,

Dr. Tomohiro Hase, Advocate.

Expert Reviewer's Report_1_Ogawa uploaded by Advocate -- -- Tomohiro Hase (talk) 06:05, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

Dear IEEE Milestone Committee,

As an Expert Reviewer for the IEEE Milestone Proposal regarding the Parametron, I have reviewed the provided materials and respectfully submit the answers corresponding to the six evaluation questions as follows.

(1) Is the suggested wording of the Plaque Citation accurate?

Yes, the wording of the Plaque Citation is accurate. It represents the essence of the Parametron's invention and historical importance accurately.

(2) Is evidence presented in the proposal of sufficient substance and accuracy to support the Plaque Citation?

Yes, the evidence provided in the proposal is sufficient and accurate. For instance, the section on "Historical Significance" clearly references foundational papers by Eiichi Goto (e.g., reference [3] detailing the Parametron's principles and development). This supports the historical claims made in the Citation.

(3) The Citation mentions Eiichi Goto as the inventor of the Parametron. Do you agree with this Citation?

Yes, I agree with the Citation. The "Justification of name-in-citation" section outlines Eiichi Goto's pioneering role in inventing the Parametron, supported by contemporaneous academic publications and patents, which clearly establish his contribution.

(4) Does the proposed milestone represent a significant technical achievement?

Yes, the proposed milestone represents a significant technical achievement. The Parametron was the world's first successful parametric computing device, introducing an innovative approach to circuit design that laid the groundwork for later advancements in computing technology.

(5) Were there similar or competing achievements? If so, have the proposers adequately described these and their relationship to the achievement being proposed?

Yes, similar achievements are acknowledged and their relationship to the Parametron is adequately described. The "Features that set this work apart from similar achievements" section effectively differentiates the Parametron from other technologies of its time, emphasizing its reliability and efficiency compared to vacuum tube and transistor-based systems.

(6) Have proposers shown a clear benefit to humanity?

Yes, the proposers have shown clear benefits to humanity. As outlined in the "Historical Impact of Parametron Computer" section, the Parametron enabled the creation of more affordable and durable computing systems compared to vacuum tube-based alternatives, significantly advancing computational capabilities in Japan and beyond.

Conclusion: The invention of the Parametron by Eiichi Goto represents a pivotal milestone in computing history. Its innovative design provided a foundation for the development of practical, efficient computing systems and has had a lasting impact on the field of technology. Given its historical and technical significance, I strongly recommend the recognition of the Parametron as an IEEE Milestone.

Sincerely,

Takahiro Ogawa

---

Takahiro Ogawa, Ph. D Professor Faculty of Information Science and Technology, Hokkaido University

Expert Reviewer's Report_2_Okada uploaded by Advocate -- -- Tomohiro Hase (talk) 06:16, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

Expert Review Report for IEEE Milestone Proposal: “Parametron, 1954”

Dear Dr. Hase

Here is my review report you requested.

1. Is suggested wording of the Plaque Citation accurate?

Yes, the wording of the Plaque Citation is accurate. The description of the Parametron, its significance, and its contribution to the development of computing technology is clear and precise. The proposed wording appropriately reflects the historical and technical importance of the invention.

2. Is evidence presented in the proposal of sufficient substance and accuracy to support the Plaque Citation?

Yes, the evidence presented in the proposal is substantial and accurate. For instance, in the section on Historical Significance, the document references critical literature and primary sources, such as reference [*], confirming the role of the Parametron in advancing computing technologies. The proposed citation is strongly supported by these well- documented sources, confirming the historical impact of the invention.

3. The Citation mentions Eiichi Goto as the inventor of the Parametron. Do you agree with this Citation?

Yes, I agree with the inclusion of Eiichi Goto as the inventor of the Parametron. The section on Justification of Name-in-Citation provides a comprehensive overview of Goto’s pioneering work in the development of the Parametron. His contributions were central to the creation and development of this technology, and his recognition is well-deserved.

4. Does proposed milestone represent a significant technical achievement?

Yes, the proposed milestone represents a significant technical achievement. The Parametron was one of the earliest logic circuits capable of performing reliable, stable operations compared to vacuum tube-based systems and early transistor circuits. It introduced novel principles of computing that greatly influenced subsequent technological developments, marking a major step forward in the field of computing.

5. Were there similar or competing achievements? If so, have the proposers adequately described these and their relationship to the achievement being proposed?

Yes, there were other similar or competing achievements, such as the development of vacuum tube-based computers and relay-based computing systems. However, as highlighted in the section on Features Setting This Work Apart from Similar Achievements, the Parametron’s advantages, such as its stability, efficiency, and longevity due to the lack of mechanical contact, made it a distinct and important contribution. The proposal adequately describes the relationships between these competing technologies and the unique benefits of the Parametron.

6. Have proposers shown a clear benefit to humanity?

Yes, the proposers have clearly demonstrated the benefits of the Parametron to humanity. As described in the Historical Impact of Parametron Computers, the invention made it possible to build computers without relying on expensive vacuum tubes or unstable transistors. Furthermore, the Parametron-based computers offered significant advantages over relay-based systems, such as faster operation and greater durability. These contributions had a profound impact on the development of computing technology, benefiting not only the technical field but society as a whole.

Conclusion: The Parametron is a valuable technological and historical asset. It significantly contributed to the advancement of computing, offering practical and efficient solutions that influenced the future development of computer systems. Given its impact and legacy, I strongly recommend that the IEEE Milestone honor the Parametron as a milestone achievement.

[*] Rojas, Rául; Hashagen, Ulf (2002). The First Computers: History and Architectures. Cambridge, Massachusetts, MIT Press. p. 429. ISBN 0-262-68137-4

Yoshihiro Okada, Professor Emeritus, Digital Archives Research Center, Ryukoku University.

[Advocate’s remarks] Dr. Okada is investigating the KDC-1, a computer developed in the Maeda-Sakai laboratory at Kyoto University in the late 1950s. In this context, he is also familiar with the parametron computer PC-1.