Talk:Solid-state electronics

A heated vacuum?

Can a vacuum be heated? 193.1.172.163 17:08, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Solid State TV even with CRT!?

There seems to be no doubt that in the time of transition from vakuum tubes to semiconductors a TV with exactly one tube (the CRT) was regarded as solid state. Did the meaning of the phrase change to exclude CRTs now? If so, should that not be explained? 217.237.149.206 (talk) 22:48, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Are Relays solid state?

This article gives no clarification, but I think, it should. Especially as the disambguation side explicitly declares that a solid-state device does not contain relays. Which I suspect to be wrong. There exist many devices that are called solid-state an do in fact contain relais.

Another Question arises about the definition "moving parts": There are devices that contain keys and switches and potentiometers, all of them sporting moving (or movable) parts and the devices are regarded solid-state nevertheless. 217.237.149.206 (talk) 23:13, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Relays can be solid-state, or not. The old style of relay has physical contacts inside it that open and close. Many times the cases are clear and you can see the contacts move. They are not solid state. The newer electronic relays are solid state but perform the same function as the "old-style" electro-mechanical relay. A disadvantage of solid-state relays is that they can get hot. Banjodog (talk) 04:49, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

It is hard to find a reference that unequivocally excludes electro-mechanical devices, but everywhere this is simply taken for granted. The terms "solid-state relay" and "solid-state switch" make no sense unless the electro-mechanical versions are excluded. This book clearly opposes the two, which I think I will add to the references. SpinningSpark 17:07, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Electrons and Holes defining the Term Solid-State?

In view of my two preceeding sections I suggest do review the article as a whole.

I feel that the term can't be defined by the nature of the transport of charges. The term can better be understood and explained by showing and explaining the meaning it had at the different times of the evolution of technique. 217.237.149.206 (talk) 23:21, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Solid State

i have been following the topic and i want to make a few contributions.

solid state simply means that: solid state

it means not liquid not gas but solid, thats it. it doesn't really mention moving parts or static parts.

furthermore to make a solid state device you have to look at the mechanical properties of the material such as malleability, hardness, toughness, brittle, thermal resistivity, thermal conductivity etc. in otherwords you have to know a lot of the physical properties of the solid.

regardless the use of electromechanical is wrong. all electric motors are electromechanical devices. then you have the case of batteries in which chemical reactions are taking place, electrolysis. then you have the case of fibre optics which uses light instead of electricity to transfer data at a rate much faster and safer from electromagnetic interference.

also i should mention (although its not related to the topic) that there is no real difference between someone who has studied electromechanical or electronics. the subjects are 75-80% same with the remaining subjects being different. the only advantage for the electromechanical is that they get to do mechanical subjects while the advantage for the electronics is that they get to do more electronic subjects.Jjhij (talk) 07:47, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

So are you arguing that relays and motors are solid state devices? Traditional relays are widely regarded as not being solid state. This is stated explicitly by this author. I suppose that "no moving parts" is solid-state in the same sense as the phrase "jammed solid". You really need to provide references here, the article should follow the sources, that is the only sensible way to decide what is right. SpinningSpark 08:41, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Reliability

The article states the following:

For data storage, solid-state devices are much faster and more reliable but are usually more expensive

I would agree that it is common knowledge that solid-state devices are much faster and more expensive. I would also agree that their lack of moving parts would make them less susceptible to some of the related traditionally associated with spinning-disk drives. However, to outright claim they are more reliable without linking any kind of reference is a little presumptions. Thoughts? 67.68.16.10 (talk) 12:55, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

"contact junction effect"?

What the heck is the "contact junction effect"? The sentence containing the phrase links to a reference which doesn't contain that phrase. Googling that phrase simply produces copies of this wikipedia article.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.68.144.210 (talk • contribs) 20:27, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

See cat's-whisker detector. I agree the ref is useless and will remove it. SpinningSpark 19:33, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Vacuum Tubes

For what arbitrary reason are vacuum tubes, which would be considered solid state by people outside the electronics field as they have no moving parts, not considered solid state to those in the electronics field? I cannot find a reason for this stated anywhere I look. It would be helpful if this article said why this was. Tadfafty (talk) 16:35, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Read the article, it explains the historical reason for the name. --Chetvorno^TALK 16:39, 2 June 2021 (UTC)