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: 10 March 2025
Advocate approval date: 2 April 2025
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.

Suggested New Citation -- Bberg (talk) 23:03, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

I suggest the following 66-word citation as I feel that the wording "flows" better:

The parametron, a logic element utilizing ferrite cores and parametric oscillation, was invented in 1954 by Eiichi Goto at the University of Tokyo. As Japan’s first university-built stored-program computer, the PC-1 used 4,200 parametrons and became the nation's fastest computer in 1958. The parametron’s low cost and electrical stability significantly shaped post-war Japan’s early computer development and scientific research, and thereby left a lasting technological legacy.

Thank you. Brian Berg, 2024 IEEE Milestones Subcommittee Chair

Re: Suggested New Citation -- Zephyrus00jp (talk) 02:53, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

Dear Mr. Berg,

This is Chiaki Ishikawa, the proposer.

I will adopt your suggestion, and change the citation in the main application page accordingly.

Thank you. Chiaki Ishikawa, the submitter of the proposal.

Expert Reviewer's Report_3_Spicer uploaded by Advocate -- -- Tomohiro Hase (talk) 02:22, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

Here is an Expert Review report from Dr. Dag Spicer:

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

Yes. I also suggest the word "using" instead of "utilizing".

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

Yes. Excellent background and reference materials.

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

Yes.

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

The parametron in and of itself was a dead end technologically, but it served the important function of allowing Japanese science and computing research to proceed within a highly resource-constrained environment with many other competing national priorities.

(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 is discussion of vacuum tubes and transistors, the two main contenders to the parametron. One nit: I wasn’t necessarily sure that vacuum tubes WERE more expensive than the equivalent parametron circuit it replaced, but maybe tubes were also hard to get in post-war Japan. To overcome an existing/displaced technology is very difficult, especially when things are moving fast as competing transistor development did.

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

First I thought not-so-much. Now that I better understand its role in the rebuilding of Japan, I see that it had a clear benefit.

[Advocate's remarks] Dag Spicer oversees the Museum’s permanent historical collection, the most comprehensive repository of computers, software, media, oral histories, and ephemera relating to computing in the world. He also helps shape the Museum’s exhibitions, marketing, and education programs, responds to research inquiries, and has given hundreds of interviews on computer history and related topics to major print and electronic news outlets such as NPR, The New York Times, The Economist, and CBS News. A native Canadian, Dag joined the Museum in 1996, and holds degrees in electrical engineering and the history of technology. (Source: https://computerhistory.org/profile/dag-spicer/)

Re: Expert Reviewer's Report_3_Spicer uploaded by Advocate -- -- Zephyrus00jp (talk) 05:41, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for the review.

This is the application submitter, Chiaki Ishikawa.

Regarding (1), I will modify the citation to use "using" in stead of "utilizing".

Regarding (4), Here is an interesting anecodote. After Dr. Eiichi Goto became familiar with John McCarthy of Lisp fame, when Dr. Goto visited MIT on a sabbatical, McCarthy asked Goto about Parametron, "It is an interesting technology, but so slow. Why did you bother to tinker with it?". This far, it was touched in the application.

Which is not touched in the application is the following. Goto mentioned in a Japanese memoir that he mumbled something about it back to McCarthy then, but he later explained to the interviewer for the memoir, given that the budget he could handle was almost 1/100 (or even 1/1000) of similar US university project in 1950s, parametron was the only recourse he could have to build a computer in Japan then.

Regarding (5), I will try to see if I can find the price list of vacuum tubes and transistors of that time. Given that it was 70 years ago when parametron was invented, please don't hold your breath. Actually, I also wanted to have concrete figures, but the numbers I could find was like 5,000 yen, and other rounded figures (or simply "very expensive"), but in the end, those numbers are better than nothing. I will modify the application accordingly once I can find such data.

Regarding (6), yes, parametron's impact was limited to post-war Japan although the impact there was profound. That is the message. It had a significant regional, read Japanese, impact. Many big names in Japanese computer industry of the 1970s and later, both software and hardware, can be found in the lecturers of the first programming training organized by Japan Physics Society using PC-1. (Maybe I should explain it without listing their later careers. I thought such explanation would add too much distraction.)

Their careers shifted to computer industry after their encounter with PC-1.

As Dr. Takahasi mentioned, parametron might have been used by US companies including NCR (National Cash Register) which licensed parametron patent(s), had the Japanese institute that handled parametron patents and other intellectual property and the research team including Goto and his mentor, Takahasi, decided to open the the technology at earlier date (they DID NOT) for fear of invalidating patent by premature public discussion), there might have been a few years of window when parametron-based calculators, tabulators and even computers might enjoy a limited acceptance outside Japan, most likely, in USA. But that is a big "IF". The stability of computers built by parametron was so good that it was shipped to a European fair, and it worked right away when the crate was opened and the power was turned on. People were impressed at this. Vacuum-tube based computers would not have fared as well. If this robustness and ease of maintenance somehow had been explained to US customers, I am sure there had been willing customers to buy. I may have failed to explain this aspect of maintainability very well.

Thank you again for your taking the time to review the application.

Chiaki Ishikawa, submitter

Re: Expert Reviewer's Report_3_Spicer uploaded by Advocate -- -- Zephyrus00jp (talk) 22:14, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

This is Chiaki Ishikawa, the proposer of the application.

Regarding the price information of vacuum tube, transistor, and ferrite core raised in point (5), "One nit: I wasn’t necessarily sure that vacuum tubes WERE more expensive than the equivalent parametron circuit it replaced, but maybe tubes were also hard to get in post-war Japan.", I found a magazine interview in which Eiichi Goto reflected on the price difference of the devices at the time. I inserted the quote from the interview into Section 4.1.1 of 4.1 Background.

According to Goto, a vacuum tube was 1000 yen, a transistor was whopping 8000 yen, and a ferrite core was mere 5 yen. Whether something is expensive or not is relative. In this case, vacuum tubes may not have been THAT expensive, but ferrite cores were dirt cheap is Goto's perception which was shared by his peers at the University of Tokyo.

I could not find any objective price list, but I think it is important to understand the price environment the developers of PC-1 and inventor of parametron perceived at the time. It may be more important than the real objective price list (I am still looking for it.)

I updated a few other parts of the application based on suggestion from yours and others. ( See https://ieeemilestones.ethw.org/Milestone-Proposal_talk:Parametron,_1954#A_few_additional_changes_by_the_submitter._--_Zephyrus00jp_(talk)_04:04,_18_March_2025_(UTC) )

Thank you again for valuable feedback.

Chiaki Ishikawa, the submitter

Comments and New Wording by way of Alex Magoun -- Bberg (talk) 23:07, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

I conferred with Alex Magoun of the IEEE History Center about this proposal, and he made these comments:

For me, a brief review of the particulars and a couple of short articles on the history of early Japanese computing indicate the value of the parametron in the "Do It Yourself" era of computer building that dominated the world's universities of the 1950s. My reservation would be with the citation, since it's not clear to me that the parametron's technology actually influenced Japanese computer design; other groups in the country did push ahead with vacuum tube-, relay-, and transistor-based machines. Its main contribution seems to have been enabling hundreds (?) of university students to build, program, and otherwise work with electronic computers in the absence of western-style equipment. They contributed to the human foundation for the country's computer industry in the decades to come.

With those considerations, the last sentence might read (along with a few less adjectives and adverbs), "The parametron’s low cost and electrical stability shaped Japan’s early computer development and scientific research, and expanded the number of the country's first generation of computer engineers."

Best, Alexander B. Magoun, Ph.D., Outreach Historian - IEEE History Center

I agree that Alex's proposed new last sentence in the citation enriches the citation by more clearly describing the important impact of the parametron in Japan.

Thank you. Brian Berg, 2024 IEEE Milestones Subcommittee Chair

Re: Comments and New Wording by way of Alex Magoun -- Zephyrus00jp (talk) 02:04, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

This is Chiaki Ishikawa.

Thank you for the comment from Alexaner B. Magoun.

> They contributed to the human foundation for the country's computer industry in the decades to come.

This is exactly the point I wanted to make in my comment to previous reviewer's comment.

   > Regarding (6), yes, parametron's impact was limited to post-war
   Japan although the impact there was profound. That is the
   message. It had a significant regional, read Japanese,
   impact. Many big names in Japanese computer industry of the 1970s
   and later, both software and hardware, can be found in the
   lecturers of the first programming training organized by Japan
   Physics Society using PC-1. (Maybe I should explain it without
   listing their later careers. I thought such explanation would add
   too much distraction.)
   Their careers shifted to computer industry after their encounter
   with PC-1.
 

I could not think of better phrase, but Dr. Magoun's phrasing captures exactly what I wanted to mention. Parametron, as logical element fell to disuse, but the people who got trained on software and hardware using PC-1 lived on to build the next generation of computers and software in Japan.

I will adopt his wording for the last sentence in the citation.

Thank again for the valuable suggestion.

Chiaki Ishikawa, submitter

A few additional changes by the submitter. -- Zephyrus00jp (talk) 04:04, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

This is Chiaki Ishikawa, the submitter of the application.
I would like to thank the reviewers and others who gave me valuable feedbacks.
Based on the input, I made the following changes to the application document.
---
Global changes:
Spelling of people's names were corrected.
Takahashi to Takahasi
Eiichi Wada to Eiiti Wada

Mentioned that vacuum tube is more expensive AND required more maintenance due to relatively short-lived (in comparison to other circuit elements) in a few places.

Other Changes.

Price figures:

Section named "4.1.1 Inexpensive ferrite core" is inserted to explain the price in Goto's time:
I found an interview where Eiichi Goto himself mentioned the price figures. These are the numbers which drove him to the invention of parametron.
vacuum tube  : 1000 yen
transister  : 8000 yen
ferrite core : 5 yen

Vacuum tubes may not have been THAT expensive, but ferrite core was two order of magnitudes less expensive as vacuum tube.

Added a short paragraph explaining the parametric oscillation using a swing as an example.

4.5 Historical Impact of Parametron Computer
Stressed the poplularity of parametron-based computers. One series sold more than 800 units. A remarkable feat in that era. (Section 4 and Appendix II).
Added a paragraph that the PC-1's legacy can be found in nurturing the future computer engineers. This is in line with the change in citation.

5.2.1 Funding and resources
Inserted the excerpt of an interview where Goto mentioned that his budget was 1/1000 of MIT's.

5.2.2 Intellectual Property Right
US Patent number of Goto's patents are listed in the main text. (They were in the appendix previously.)

5.3.3 Market Acceptance
Added an anecdotal story that European companies seem to have monitored parametron in the 1960s.

Appendix II. Mentioned that NEC's NEC-1201 and NEAC 1210 sold more than 800 and 700+ units. A remarkable sales figure of that time.
---

I would like to thank everybody for the input to improve the submission.
Chiaki Ishikawa

Expert Reviewer's Report_4_Roussos uploaded by Advocate -- -- Tomohiro Hase (talk) 19:25, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

Dear Dr. Tomohiro Hase,

Thank you very much again for your kind invitation to review this IEEE Milestone proposal and your subsequent guidance. Please find my responses to your questions below and my positive strong recommendation in favour.

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

Yes, I confirm that the inscription is accurate.

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

Yes. Having reviewed the description of the work and the sources and references cited it is my informed opinion that the proposal represents an innovation of considerable historical significance and is fully deserving of a Plaque Citation.

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

Yes, I agree with the citation of Eiichi Goto as inventor of the Parametron.

> 4) Does proposed milestone represent a significant technical achievement?

The Parametron made a key contribution to Japan’s post-war technological resurgence. A reliable, low-power logic circuit element, it offered a viable alternative to vacuum tubes and predated widespread transistor adoption. This innovation enabled Japan to develop domestically produced computers during limited access to Western semiconductor technology. In particular, the Parametron laid the foundation for Japan’s leadership in precision electronics and computing. Its legacy endures in energy-efficient circuit design and fault tolerance, principles that informed subsequent innovations in robotics and telecommunications. Regionally, it symbolised Japan’s capacity for innovation, bridging wartime recovery and its rise as a global electronics powerhouse.

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

The proposers have adequately described comparable and competing achievements of the Parametron, providing a comprehensive comparison with other computing technologies of the 1950s. Specifically, the proposal compares the Parametron to vacuum tubes, relays, and early transistors, highlighting its advantages such as lower cost, higher stability, and greater physical strength. It also acknowledges its limitations, including higher power consumption compared to transistors and slower operating frequencies.

Moreover, the proposal acknowledges John von Neumann’s concept for a capacitance variable type Parametron around the same time as Goto’s invention, demonstrating awareness of parallel developments. It discusses later innovations inspired by the Parametron, such as the Magnetic Flux Quantum Parametron (MFQP) and the Adiabatic Quantum Flux Parametron (AQFP), showcasing the technology’s enduring influence.

The proposers clearly indicate that transistors ultimately surpassed Parametrons due to their broader applications and higher investment in research and development. This context clarifies why Parametrons were eventually replaced, despite their initial success.

Overall, the proposal presents a balanced perspective on the Parametron’s role in computing history, acknowledging both its innovations and limitations in relation to contemporary technologies and subsequent developments.

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

The proposers clearly demonstrate the Parametron’s benefit to humanity by underscoring its substantial impact on post-war Japan’s technological advancement and the global computing industry. Specifically, they highlight the fact that the Parametron possessed distinct advantages over contemporary technologies of the 1950s, including reduced cost, enhanced stability, and greater physical robustness compared to vacuum tubes and early transistors. These attributes rendered it an ideal foundation for computer design, particularly in Japan’s resource-deprived post-war environment.

The affordability and reliability of the Parametron catalysed its rapid adoption by Japanese industry, leading to the development and marketing of computers and calculators based on Parametron technology. This adoption accelerated Japan’s technological recovery and substantially enhanced its scientific research and industrial capabilities during a pivotal period in its history.

Furthermore, the Parametron played a pivotal role in establishing Japan as a preeminent player in computing during the post-war era, fostering national pride and confidence in Japanese scientists and engineers1. This accomplishment laid the groundwork for Japan’s future success in the computer industry, benefiting humanity through technological innovation and economic growth.

The Parametron’s influence extended beyond Japan, as evidenced by Eiichi Goto’s receipt of the prestigious IRE Browder J. Thompson Memorial Prize in 1961 for his contributions1. This international recognition underscores the technology’s global significance and its contribution to advancing computer science.

Overall, due to its clearly established significance as a technological and historical asset, I am confident in strongly recommending the Parametron as an IEEE Milestone.

Please feel free to include my comments and recommendation above in the discussion area of the proposal as suggested.

Thank you very much again for your kind invitation and I look forward to hearing from you in due course.

All the best

George

[Advocate's remarks] Dr. George Roussos is Professor of Pervasive Computing, School of Computing and Mathematical Sciences, University of London.

Added a mention of Asahi Prize by the proposer -- Zephyrus00jp (talk) 02:09, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

This is Chiaki Ishikawa, the proposer of this milestone.

Based on an input, I added the mention of Asahi prize which Eiichi Goto received in Japan in the justification section. The following is the addition I made. "he" refers to Eiichi Goto.

   In Japan, he was awarded the prestigious Asahi Prize in 1959. This was
   for his contribution to PC-1. [A2] The Asahi Prize (朝日賞, Asahi
   Shō), established in 1929, is an prize presented by the Japanese
   newspaper Asahi Shimbun and Asahi Shimbun Foundation to honor
   individuals and groups that have made outstanding accomplishments in
   the fields of arts and academics and have greatly contributed to the
   development and progress of Japanese culture and society at
   large. (from Wikipedia).

I also fixed a few (actually many) typos.

Thank you again for many feedbacks.

Regards,
Chiaki Ishikawa
The proposer

Expert Reviewer's Report_5_Hashizume uploaded by Advocate -- -- Tomohiro Hase (talk) 12:41, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

I received the following Expert Review Report from Professor Hiromichi Hashizume, National Institute of Informatics.

[Advocate's remarks] Prof. Hashizume gave three lectures on "Our country's relay computers and parametron computers" at conferences such as the Information Processing Society of Japan between 2016 and 2018.

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

Yes, it is.

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

The evidence is described properly and both substance and accuracy are presented enough.

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

Absolutely yes! Prof. Goto is widely recognized as the inventor of parametron device.

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

Yes, it does.

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

The device Goto invented was unique and there were no similar achievements. A related investment was proposed by the patent by von Neumann as described in the article, but such a device did not show up.

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

Goto and his team made a rare development in computer history in which they invented the elemental logic device and eventually completed a whole computer using it. They also involved and encouraged companies to propel the computer industry in Japan. Their attempts are fortunately well preserved. It is a precious set of records that tells the creative atmosphere of computers' adolescence era. I believe parametron as an IEEE milestone brings about some enlightenment to young people.

Advocate’s Recommendation -- Tomohiro Hase (talk) 12:47, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

Advocate's Recommendation for the IEEE Milestone #2025-07 “Parametron, 1954”

April 2nd, 2025

Dear IEEE History Committee,

I am honored to be an advocate for the Milestone Proposal #2025-07, “Parametron, 1954”.

URL to Proposal: https://ieeemilestones.ethw.org/Milestone-Proposal:Parametron,_1954

(1) Review:

I invited five independent experts in the field to conduct a detailed technical review of the proposal. I asked the expert reviewers the following six questions:

Q1: Is the suggested wording of the Plaque Citation accurate?

Q2: Is the evidence presented in the proposal of sufficient substance and accuracy to support the Citation?

Q3: The Citation mentions Eiichi Goto as inventors of the Parametron. Do you agree with this Citation?

Q4: Does the proposed milestone represent a significant technical achievement?

Q5: Were there similar or competing achievements? If so, have the proposers adequately described these and their relationship to the achievement being proposed?

Q6: Have the proposers shown a clear benefit to humanity?

I have uploaded the five expert reviewers’ reports to the ETHW website at the following URL to expert reviewer’s reports: https://ieeemilestones.ethw.org/Milestone-Proposal_talk:Parametron,_1954

Based on my reading of the five expert reviewer reports, I have received positive ratings from all, indicating their agreement with the proposal's appropriateness for the Milestone.

(2) Advocate’s Checklist:

Below is my checklist with responses:

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? <Yes>

2. Was the proposed achievement a significant advance rather than an incremental improvement to existing technology? <Yes>

3. Were there prior or contemporary achievements of a similar nature? If so, have they been properly considered in the background information and the citation? <Yes>

4. Has the achievement truly led to a functioning, useful, or marketable technology? <Yes>

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 reference should be from a peer-reviewed scholarly book or journal article. The full text of the material, not just the references, must 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 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. <Yes>

6. Are the scholarly references sufficiently recent? <Yes>

7. Does the proposed citation explain why the achievement was successful and impactful? <Yes>

8. Does the proposed citation include important technical aspects of the achievement? <Yes>

9. Is the proposed citation readable and understandable by the general public? <Yes>

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 the proposal is written? <Yes>

11. Does the proposed plaque site fulfill the requirements? <Yes>

12. Is the proposal quality comparable to that of IEEE publications? <Yes>

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? <Yes>

14. Are date formats correct as specified in Section 6 of Milestones Program Guidelines? Helpful Hints on Citations, plaque locations. <Yes>

15. Do the year(s) appearing in the citation fall within the range of the year(s) included at the end of the title? <Yes>

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. <Yes>

(3) Advocate’s Comment and Conclusion:

I received satisfactory peer review results from five experts in the field. Their reports and discussions were very useful for my decision as an advocate for Milestone #2025-07.

1. Citation:

The five expert reviewers confirmed the citation’s accuracy and that the contents are supported by evidence, as judged by their responses to questions Q1 and Q2. As an advocate, I share the same judgment as the reviewers.

2. Name-in-Citation:

The five reviewers agreed that including Eiichi Goto, name in the citation is appropriate, based on their responses to question Q3. They acknowledged his sole accomplishment in this feat. As an advocate, I concur with their judgment.

3. Technical Significance and Historical Value:

The five expert reviewers provided detailed reviews of questions Q4 and Q5. They acknowledged the historical significance and great impact of Eiichi Goto, Parametron. As an advocate, I share their judgment.

4. Benefit to Humanity:

All five expert reviewers provided positive comments, as judged by their responses to question Q6. I concur with their judgment.

5. Advocate’s Conclusion:

All five expert reviewers strongly recognized and supported the proposal, deeming it worthy of the IEEE Milestone recognition. After careful consideration of both the proposal and the expert reviewers’ reports, I strongly recommend the proposal, #2025-07 “Parametron, 1954”, for the IEEE Milestone.

Best regards,

Dr. Tomohiro Hase, IEEE Fellow

Advocate for Milestone #2025-07, IEEE History Committee

Recommendation of a Slight Revision of the Citation -- Bberg (talk) 18:49, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

I would like to recommend a slight revision to the last sentence of the citation: change "expanded the number" to "fostered growth". This would reduce the word count from 69 to 68. Most importantly, though, this wording reads more smoothly.

Brian Berg, 2024 Milestone Subcommittee Chair

Re: Recommendation of a Slight Revision of the Citation -- Zephyrus00jp (talk) 01:39, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

This is Chiaki Ishikawa. The proposer of this milestone.

I agree that "fostered growth" is easier to read maybe because "expanded the number" prompted in one's mind to ask "from what number to how many." Unfortunately, no hard number exists although the very clear qualitative observation/record exists (One such example is the list of the names of the lecturers in the training using PC-1 organized by the Physical Society of Japan.)

I modify the citation accordingly. Thank you for the valuable input.

Chiaki Ishikawa, the proposer.

Re: Re: Recommendation of a Slight Revision of the Citation -- Zephyrus00jp (talk) 04:13, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

This is Chiaki Ishikawa, the proposer.

Upon further thought, I cut down the word count by three more. I modified the sentence to read, "... nurtured the country's first generation of computer engineers."

Thank you again for valuable feedback.

Chiaki Ishikawa

Approval to proceed by Milestone Chair, Keith Moore -- Coronath (talk) 16:31, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

Thank you to everyone who has worked on this milestone proposal.

The documentation in this proposal is excellent with great input and improvements along the way from several individuals.

I especially appreciated the detailed background and the great discussion in the section for Obstacles (Technical, Political, Geographic) Needed to Be Overcome.

As the IEEE History Committee Milestones Chair, I approve this proposal to proceed!

Keith Moore keith.moore@ieee.org