Milestone-Proposal talk:Bell Telephone Laboratories, Inc., 1925-1983
|Thread title||Replies||Last modified|
|Bell Lab||2||11:14, 8 March 2014|
|Comment on bell labs milestones||6||21:54, 7 March 2014|
|Comment(s) from History Committee Member(s)||1||00:06, 28 February 2014|
|Possible group label?||0||15:57, 5 March 2013|
I have problem with the claim 'negative feedback principle'. A principal is a very general thing. I'm not a HS Black scholar but I believe that Black was referring to electronic controls. Its unfair to those who may wish to nominate negative feedback in process controls, PID, Foxboro Company, combustion controls, generator voltage regulations, load control, and so on.
My second comment is a general one. Has the proposer looked at all of the previously awarded milestones to see if this proposal is in any way in conflict with previously stated claims?
I also concur with Mischa Schwartz's observation. In this case having a multiple plaque presentation is logical. But I also agree that removing redundant text should be considered. Finally, a check if a similar milestone, (like in the case of the transistor,) exists to remove conflicts, may be in order as suggested by Ggcooke.
Comment on bell labs milestones
I also agree with the group milestone. It avoids the possibility of one for every advancement of technology over the years. We can recognize the progression of solutions and recognize them at one time.
IEEE Milestone Program style is that year, or the range of years, must appear in the title of each milestone. This will allow shortening the citations by removing the introductory phrase "From 1925 thru 1983" from each, so that they fit the word limit.
I have a problem with the first claim in the 4th plaque, namely, "the first facsimile service (1925) There were at least 2 earlier commercial facsimile services in Europe, The first existed between 1865 and 1870 between Paris and Lyon, France, and the second better-known one between 1907 and 1910 connecting Berlin, Paris, and London. Also, RCA began transatlantic fax service between the U.S. and Europe in 1922. Hence, this claim is not true and should be deleted from the citation. Please ask former HC member Jonathan Coopersmith if more details are needed.
I agree with Mischa. There is so much involved in this milestone that we could argue about details forever. I think it is ready for approval
I like the four plaques and the listings which now provide adequate space to recognize all the achievements. This approach should be used for other large corporate milestones that may be granted in the future when appropriate. Further, the use of "A" facsimile in 1925 in the fourth plaque should satisfy Sheldon's correct statements that several other facsimile services already existed, whether or not they were in active use. I vote to approve the Bell milestones. --Dave Bart
Comment(s) from History Committee Member(s)
I concur with Mischa Schwartz's observation that this approach, namely: A suite of milestones, each of which is associated with significant, trend-setting achievements in a thematic area within the IEEE fields of interest, is a sound and meaningful way to memorialize the broad spectrum of contributions of the Bell Telephone Laboratories.
I am glad to see this milestone coming to a close. I would have liked to see edits to avoid redundancy in adjacent plaques. Something along the lines of Allison's comments, but given how many times it has been revised unless there is something wrong with a claim, like the 1st fax that Sheldon points out we should approve it as is.
Possible group label?
I like the approach of the suite of plaques, but I think it begs the question of whether there should be an overall citation for Bell Labs that explains the research environment for contributing to so many IEEE fields. (I'm in favor of one.)
I suggest eliminating the first 11 repetive words from each of the plaques. This frees up 11 words that can be used to explain the impact these discoveries had on the field -- moving the citation from simply a list of achievements to explaining the effect of those achievements.
In addition to eliminating the repetition, I suggest varying the introductory wording "Discoveries in, Contributions to, Advances in, etc."
Why is the proposal for the first 60 years? Is that simply to adhere to the question of whether the achievement is more than 25 years old, implying that 25 years is a marker of being historical? The general public will probably find this dating to be arbitrary, more accustomed to seeing first 50 or 75 years. I would suggest going with the first 50 years and lopping off achievements that fall after this date (giving more room to explain impact of earlier discoveries). If the date range is kept as is, I suggest making it 1925-1985; regarless of how you may count inclusivity, generally people will think 1925 + 60 = 1985.
In response to Ggcooke, the 1st transistor already has its own milestone, so I would remove that from the Solid State list. If other of the discoveries are worthy of individual milestones, I would support a system that would mark those milestones at different locations, such as place of implementation & linking it to a specific impact.