Talk:Solid Logic Technology

How much was on one of these?

Reading this I get no idea about what one of these modules would accomplish. Does one of these modules compare to one 7400_series Dual_in-line_package? --87.181.228.130 (talk) 09:18, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe slightly less than a 74xx package. It might be one or two gates, or one flip-flop. Gah4 (talk) 22:17, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ASLT

ASLT is the current-switched (ECL-like) logic family used in the IBM 360/91 and related machines. Gah4 (talk) 22:18, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The logic diagram source has more info

eg on switching times, transition speeds and voltage levels of different families within each technology. - Rod57 (talk) 11:21, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

SLT was NOT a revolutionary technology for 1964

"SLT was a revolutionary technology for 1964" No it was not. Research "projekt tinkertoy" from 10 years earlier. The PCB was just as "revolutionary" but not new either. --Moritzgedig (talk) 11:26, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Maximum number of modules on an SLT card

There is a statement that up to 36 modules could be mounted on an SLT card. I was a CE and never came across more than 24 on a double card. There were many more on later packaging based on SLT, but only up to 24 on 'basic' SLT to my knowledge. Can someone produce a source for 36 modules, or I will correct the number to 24.Mark Triggers (talk) 14:54, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 24 February 2022

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Moved (non-admin closure) Iffy★Chat -- 12:34, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

IBM Solid Logic Technology → Solid Logic Technology – No disambiguator needed. This term (which is not a trademark, I was mistaken in a previous requested technical move) as a proper noun was only ever used by IBM to describe this packaging method. Nearly all secondary sources refer to Solid Logic Technology without prefixing it with "IBM" (Google Books, Google Scholar). IBM themselves don't prefix the name with "IBM" either. Pinging @Tom94022:. DigitalIceAge (talk) 20:08, 24 February 2022 (UTC) — Relisting. Steel1943 (talk) 19:38, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose It is an IBM term and many secondary sources either explicitly or indirectly identify it as such, so this article's title should remain unchanged. Note that the SLT article currently disambiguates to Solid Logic Technology which redirects here so everything is consistent and coverred. Tom94022 (talk) 20:38, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- The vast majority of sources both independent and affiliated with IBM don't combine their name and the term, not sure where you're seeing an abundance of sources that do. It's a natural qualifier that isn't needed; Solid Logic Technology was only ever used by IBM, so the term by itself is already precise enough. DigitalIceAge (talk) 20:53, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: the same issue exists with Standard Modular System. I think they should be consistent. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 21:51, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure consistency is necessary, but if it is we should note there are many many examples of IBM as a prefix to an article title where the IBM is clearly redundant as for example in IBM System/360, IBM 7090, IBM 4300, etc. So perhaps we should move Standard Modular System to IBM Standard Modular System. On the whole, I am content with if it ain't broke don't fix it so I wouldn't change either but if change we must then I vote for changing Standard Modular System. Tom94022 (talk) 00:59, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I would never suggest moving something like IBM 4300 to 4300 (computer) not only because that would be clumsy and unintuitive unlike IBM 4300 but also because almost every secondary source takes the time to spell out "IBM 4300". System/360 is an edge case, but generally products should be treated differently from methods of production. If articles on IBM's mainframes/micros/printers/etc. all have "IBM" in the title, so be it, but SLT was not an end product, it was a means to produce them. DigitalIceAge (talk) 01:20, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Consistency isn't necessary. And definitely it should be IBM 1401, etc. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 02:19, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure why there would be a distinction between an IBM product and a proprietary IBM technology but, I'm pretty sure SLT and SMS products were offered and sold by IBM if nothing else as spares. Tom94022 (talk) 20:23, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Be that as it may, my main point that both IBM and third parties separate the "IBM" and the "Solid Logic Technology" in the vast majority of cases. Maybe because a manufacturing method is more abstract, maybe because IBM had the expectation that it would be the industry standard everyone would use, idk. But since we seem to be at an impasse, I implore anyone lurking to look up the term for themselves and see what collocation is more frequently used to introduce the subject and decide what the common name is that should dictate the title of the article. DigitalIceAge (talk) 22:33, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The reason that we disambiguate IBM 4300 is that 4300 has other meanings. It is our policy to use the natural disambiguation in preference to 4300 (computer). Andrewa (talk) 22:21, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support per nom, WP:COMMONNAME and WP:CONCISE. Seems a fairly open-and-shut case to me. — Amakuru (talk) 12:39, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Agree with Amakuru. The opposition above all seems to miss the point completely. Andrewa (talk) 22:21, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Ball chip assembly

Is "ball chip assembly" in the article the same thing as Ball grid array? Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 03:36, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

One difference is that each silicon device in SLT only has one transistor, while ball grid array is used on devices that have hundreds to millions of devices. Another difference is that in SLT, each ball is a solid metal sphere that is coated with solder. In ball grid array each ball is made entirely of solder. Jc3s5h (talk) 21:47, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. "Ball chip assembly" should be explained more in the article. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 00:52, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

new photo

I've added a close-up photo of a module without the cover. Are there three transistors there? Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 00:49, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Looks to me like a three device SLT module, each device has one transistor, one resistor and one diode pack, but that is just my guess Tom94022 (talk) 05:49, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I see nine basic components. The three rectangular components look like resistors. The other six components have three traces coming out of them, so I guess they are transistors. Jc3s5h (talk) 07:59, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]