Hans Camenzind's (free, downloadable) Book

Jim Thompson · May 31, 2004

480)460-2350 | |
| E-mail Address at Website Fax

Jan Panteltje · May 31, 2004

On a sunny day (Mon, 31 May 2004 15:19:19 -0700) it happened Jim Thompson
<thegreatone@example.com> wrote in
<4obnb0tn2idkj0fshohp78tjrd7ouahigp@4ax.com>:

Check out Hans Camenzind's (free, downloadable) book....

http://www.arraydesign.com/designinganalogchips.pdf
Nice, the works!

Thank you.
JP

Peter O. Brackett · Jun 2, 2004

Jim:

I love the way Hans weaves "the history" in with the technology.

We need to remember "the greats".

--
Peter
Indialantic By-the-Sea, FL.

"Jim Thompson" <thegreatone@example.com> wrote in message
news:4obnb0tn2idkj0fshohp78tjrd7ouahigp@4ax.com...

Check out Hans Camenzind's (free, downloadable) book....

http://www.arraydesign.com/designinganalogchips.pdf

...Jim Thompson
--
| James E.Thompson, P.E. | mens |
| Analog Innovations, Inc. | et |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus |
| Phoenix, Arizona Voice480)460-2350 | |
| E-mail Address at Website Fax480)460-2142 | Brass Rat |
| http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |

I love to cook with wine. Sometimes I even put it in the food.

Jim Thompson · Jun 2, 2004

On Wed, 02 Jun 2004 23:26:45 GMT, "Peter O. Brackett"
<none@no-such-domain.nul> wrote:

Jim:

I love the way Hans weaves "the history" in with the technology.

We need to remember "the greats".

Hans is a neat guy, although you have to be cautious... he sent a few
projects my way because he was "too busy"... they were the clients
from hell

480)460-2350 | |
| E-mail Address at Website Fax

Kevin Aylward · Jun 3, 2004

Peter O. Brackett wrote:

Jim:

I love the way Hans weaves "the history" in with the technology.

We need to remember "the greats".

Why?. What do you mean by "greats"

Electronics is simply not on a par with say, physics. There are lots of
truly trivial circuits which are essentially, the *first* things that
would randamly pop into peoples minds, yet have names attached to them
as if such circuits are a measure of that named persons worth. The only
reason that certain names are attached to such trivial, obvious
circuits, is that others were not present at the time. Being first to do
something is not, on its own, a measure of value.

Kevin Aylward
salesEXTRACT@anasoft.co.uk
http://www.anasoft.co.uk
SuperSpice, a very affordable Mixed-Mode
Windows Simulator with Schematic Capture,
Waveform Display, FFT's and Filter Design.

Winfield Hill · Jun 3, 2004

Kevin Aylward wrote...

Peter O. Brackett wrote:
Jim:

I love the way Hans weaves "the history" in with the technology.

We need to remember "the greats".

Why?. What do you mean by "greats"

Electronics is simply not on a par with say, physics. There are lots of
truly trivial circuits which are essentially, the *first* things that
would randamly pop into peoples minds, yet have names attached to them
as if such circuits are a measure of that named persons worth. The only
reason that certain names are attached to such trivial, obvious
circuits, is that others were not present at the time. Being first to do
something is not, on its own, a measure of value.

Some of us, who in the 60s and 70s struggled with ways to improve circuit
concepts like the band-gap reference, and to create low-voltage low-power
circuitry, have considerable respect for "greats" like Robert Widlar, who
features prominently in Camenzind's book. But perhaps you'd have had to
have been there and done that, and read with excitement and pleasure a new
Widlar article in the Journal of Solid-State Circuits, etc.

Thanks,
- Win

(email: use hill_at_rowland-dot-org for now)

Jim Meyer · Jun 3, 2004

Jim Thompson <thegreatone@example.com> wrote in message news:<4obnb0tn2idkj0fshohp78tjrd7ouahigp@4ax.com>...

Check out Hans Camenzind's (free, downloadable) book....

http://www.arraydesign.com/designinganalogchips.pdf

...Jim Thompson
--
| James E.Thompson, P.E. | mens |

Hans needs a proof reader. Page 12 (1-6) "ark-over in insulators".

Jim (the other one) Meyer N.E.

Kevin Aylward · Jun 3, 2004

Winfield Hill wrote:

Kevin Aylward wrote...

Peter O. Brackett wrote:
Jim:

I love the way Hans weaves "the history" in with the technology.

We need to remember "the greats".

Why?. What do you mean by "greats"

Electronics is simply not on a par with say, physics. There are lots
of truly trivial circuits which are essentially, the *first* things
that would randamly pop into peoples minds, yet have names attached
to them as if such circuits are a measure of that named persons
worth. The only reason that certain names are attached to such
trivial, obvious circuits, is that others were not present at the
time. Being first to do something is not, on its own, a measure of
value.

Some of us, who in the 60s and 70s struggled with ways to improve
circuit concepts like the band-gap reference, and to create
low-voltage low-power circuitry,

But by itself, struggling to do something, is not a measure of merit.

A factor is whether or not "typical" individuals, if actually given the
same opportunity would have achieved similar results. *Someone* has to
be
there at the start of a new discipline. There is no reason to presume
that such firsts are special. It requires evidence.

have considerable respect for
"greats" like Robert Widlar, who features prominently in Camenzind's
book. But perhaps you'd have had to have been there and done that,
and read with excitement and pleasure a new Widlar article in the
Journal of Solid-State Circuits, etc.

The "greats" is certainly a subjective evaluation. However, to be
"great" one needs evidence that what such "great" individuals achieved,
was *way* *better* than what a "normal" person would have achieved. I
don't
see any evidence for this for many of the often quoted names in
electronics. This is in contrast to names like Fynmann, Dirac,
Hiesenburg, Einstein etc. where detailed examination of their work
clearly shows immense ability outwith the *norm*. Indeed, to be quite
frank, there is no comparison between the common names mentioned in
physics with those often quoted in electronics. Electronics is simply
not that challenging, despite the need for many of us engaged in such
work wanting our work to have great status. It doesn't. Its usually, the
same shit, different day sort of thing.

Its all too easy to give credit to those we know about, ie ones who get
the press, irrespective of their worth. This is a basic phenomena of
evolution. Popular traits are held in high regard because
probabilistically popular traits are the, ones that are maximised.

With all due respect to Widlar, are you really suggesting that he is on
a par to Fynmann and Einstein?

Being pretty good at ones job, does not make one great. In fact, what is
termed good should be classed as "normal". A competent individual in his
profession should be expected to have a certain standard that is above
the layman in that same profession. For example, I rarely clap when
watching a live band. They are *supposed* to sound "good", i.e not bad.
A quote comes to mind from Mutiny on the Bounty , "sir, if we are to
thrash them for minor infractions, what are we to do with them for more
serious ones".

Kevin Aylward
salesEXTRACT@anasoft.co.uk
http://www.anasoft.co.uk
SuperSpice, a very affordable Mixed-Mode
Windows Simulator with Schematic Capture,
Waveform Display, FFT's and Filter Design.

Winfield Hill · Jun 3, 2004

Kevin Aylward wrote...

With all due respect to Widlar, are you really suggesting
that he is on a par to Fynmann and Einstein?

Widlar was great, yes, but he certainly was not in the superstar
league of Feynman and Einstein. If I were to call them "great,"
that would be to damn with faint praise.

Let's check the Goggle ratings,

Hans Camenzind - 256
Widlar - 856, Robert Widlar + Bob Widlar - 159 + 199 = 358
Winfield Hill - 6,090, Paul Horowitz - 6,480
Bob Pease + Robert Pease - 5,250 + 4,390 = 9640
Kevin Aylward - 13,000
Feynman - 460,000
Einstein - 4,330,000

Hah, I threw the 3rd and 5th lines in there to show just how
silly these "ratings" can be. Kevin Aylward includes this guy,
http://wizbangblog.com/ who proves that those "Kevin Aylward"
types are sure interesting folks.

BTW, Michael Jackson gets 2,400,000 so Einstein is doing OK.

Thanks,
- Win

(email: use hill_at_rowland-dot-org for now)

Mark Fergerson · Jun 3, 2004

Kevin Aylward wrote:

Winfield Hill wrote:

Kevin Aylward wrote...

Peter O. Brackett wrote:

Jim:

I love the way Hans weaves "the history" in with the technology.

We need to remember "the greats".

Why?. What do you mean by "greats"

Electronics is simply not on a par with say, physics. There are lots
of truly trivial circuits which are essentially, the *first* things
that would randamly pop into peoples minds, yet have names attached
to them as if such circuits are a measure of that named persons
worth. The only reason that certain names are attached to such
trivial, obvious circuits, is that others were not present at the
time. Being first to do something is not, on its own, a measure of
value.

Some of us, who in the 60s and 70s struggled with ways to improve
circuit concepts like the band-gap reference, and to create
low-voltage low-power circuitry,

But by itself, struggling to do something, is not a measure of merit.

I tend to agree, unless "passion" can be considerd a
"figure of merit". Passion is what keeps many a nose to the
grindstone when it might be easier to, oh, go have a beer.

A factor is whether or not "typical" individuals, if actually given the
same opportunity would have achieved similar results. *Someone* has to
be
there at the start of a new discipline. There is no reason to presume
that such firsts are special. It requires evidence.

One decent piece of evidence would be the number of peers
who say things like "What a clever solution; I'd never have
thought of that!".

have considerable respect for
"greats" like Robert Widlar, who features prominently in Camenzind's
book. But perhaps you'd have had to have been there and done that,
and read with excitement and pleasure a new Widlar article in the
Journal of Solid-State Circuits, etc.

The "greats" is certainly a subjective evaluation. However, to be
"great" one needs evidence that what such "great" individuals achieved,
was *way* *better* than what a "normal" person would have achieved. I
don't
see any evidence for this for many of the often quoted names in
electronics. This is in contrast to names like Fynmann, Dirac,
Hiesenburg, Einstein etc. where detailed examination of their work
clearly shows immense ability outwith the *norm*. Indeed, to be quite
frank, there is no comparison between the common names mentioned in
physics with those often quoted in electronics. Electronics is simply
not that challenging, despite the need for many of us engaged in such
work wanting our work to have great status. It doesn't. Its usually, the
same shit, different day sort of thing.

And on one day, a given person might hit something
unique, but another day somebody else might. Right, if
they're both of the same level of competence (by definition,
sorta).

Its all too easy to give credit to those we know about, ie ones who get
the press, irrespective of their worth. This is a basic phenomena of
evolution. Popular traits are held in high regard because
probabilistically popular traits are the, ones that are maximised.

With all due respect to Widlar, are you really suggesting that he is on
a par to Fynmann and Einstein?

Being pretty good at ones job, does not make one great. In fact, what is
termed good should be classed as "normal". A competent individual in his
profession should be expected to have a certain standard that is above
the layman in that same profession. For example, I rarely clap when
watching a live band. They are *supposed* to sound "good", i.e not bad.
A quote comes to mind from Mutiny on the Bounty , "sir, if we are to
thrash them for minor infractions, what are we to do with them for more
serious ones".

Interesting line of thought. By those criteria, I'd call
Tesla "great", but not "good", because while he broke so
much new ground, he kept inadequate notes (in the sense that
it's extremely difficult to duplicate much of his work from
them alone). Also, he didn't play well with others, but then
he didn't have many "peers".

Mark L. (good but not great) Fergerson

Jim Thompson · Jun 3, 2004

On 3 Jun 2004 08:15:55 -0700, Winfield Hill
<Winfield_member@newsguy.com> wrote:

Kevin Aylward wrote...

With all due respect to Widlar, are you really suggesting
that he is on a par to Fynmann and Einstein?

Widlar was great, yes, but he certainly was not in the superstar
league of Feynman and Einstein. If I were to call them "great,"
that would be to damn with faint praise.

Let's check the Goggle ratings,

Hans Camenzind - 256
Widlar - 856, Robert Widlar + Bob Widlar - 159 + 199 = 358
Winfield Hill - 6,090, Paul Horowitz - 6,480
Bob Pease + Robert Pease - 5,250 + 4,390 = 9640
Kevin Aylward - 13,000
Feynman - 460,000
Einstein - 4,330,000

Hah, I threw the 3rd and 5th lines in there to show just how
silly these "ratings" can be. Kevin Aylward includes this guy,
http://wizbangblog.com/ who proves that those "Kevin Aylward"
types are sure interesting folks.

BTW, Michael Jackson gets 2,400,000 so Einstein is doing OK.

Thanks,
- Win

(email: use hill_at_rowland-dot-org for now)

Jim Thompson gets 174,000... mostly crooks and thieves

480)460-2350 | |
| E-mail Address at Website Fax

Kevin Aylward · Jun 3, 2004

Jim Thompson wrote:

On 3 Jun 2004 08:15:55 -0700, Winfield Hill
Winfield_member@newsguy.com> wrote:

Kevin Aylward wrote...

With all due respect to Widlar, are you really suggesting
that he is on a par to Fynmann and Einstein?

Widlar was great, yes, but he certainly was not in the superstar
league of Feynman and Einstein. If I were to call them "great,"
that would be to damn with faint praise.

Let's check the Goggle ratings,

Hans Camenzind - 256
Widlar - 856, Robert Widlar + Bob Widlar - 159 + 199 = 358
Winfield Hill - 6,090, Paul Horowitz - 6,480
Bob Pease + Robert Pease - 5,250 + 4,390 = 9640
Kevin Aylward - 13,000
Feynman - 460,000
Einstein - 4,330,000

Hah, I threw the 3rd and 5th lines in there to show just how
silly these "ratings" can be. Kevin Aylward includes this guy,
http://wizbangblog.com/ who proves that those "Kevin Aylward"
types are sure interesting folks.

BTW, Michael Jackson gets 2,400,000 so Einstein is doing OK.

Thanks,
- Win

(email: use hill_at_rowland-dot-org for now)

Jim Thompson gets 174,000... mostly crooks and thieves

I don't know why Kevin has to have such a sour personality...

Oh...

I'm a realist. I see life how it really is. I actually know what a sour
personality actually means. Hint: all emotions are selfish etc...

he must
feel really insufficient and impotent ;-)

Ahmmm...

Kevin Aylward
salesEXTRACT@anasoft.co.uk
http://www.anasoft.co.uk
SuperSpice, a very affordable Mixed-Mode
Windows Simulator with Schematic Capture,
Waveform Display, FFT's and Filter Design.

Watson A.Name \"Watt Sun · Jun 3, 2004

Peter O. Brackett wrote:

Jim:

I love the way Hans weaves "the history" in with the technology.

For us it's great to have the techno side mixed in. But for most of the
public, who have no tech nohow, it's a distraction, and sometimes causes
them to forego reading the tome.

We need to remember "the greats".

Well, if they don't get remembered, then they are no longer great.

--
Peter
Indialantic By-the-Sea, FL.

"Jim Thompson" <thegreatone@example.com> wrote in message
news:4obnb0tn2idkj0fshohp78tjrd7ouahigp@4ax.com...

Check out Hans Camenzind's (free, downloadable) book....

http://www.arraydesign.com/designinganalogchips.pdf

...Jim Thompson
--

Watson A.Name \"Watt Sun · Jun 3, 2004

Jim Thompson wrote:

On Wed, 02 Jun 2004 23:26:45 GMT, "Peter O. Brackett"
none@no-such-domain.nul> wrote:

Jim:

I love the way Hans weaves "the history" in with the technology.

We need to remember "the greats".

Hans is a neat guy, although you have to be cautious... he sent a few
projects my way because he was "too busy"... they were the clients
from hell

Maybe he figured you could handle them because your reputation as
SuperDesigner preceded you....

> ...Jim Thompson

Joel Kolstad · Jun 3, 2004

Kevin Aylward <kevin.aylwardEXTRACT@anasoft.co.uk> wrote:

I'm a realist. I see life how it really is.

That doesn't mean you have to go around being such a black cloud to the rest
of the world. I'd grant you that, yeah, 99.9999% of the people on this
planet couldn't hold a candle to the likes of Bob Widlar much less Feynman
and Einstein, but there's no reason they shouldn't take joy and be proud of
whatever their lot in life is, even if it is something as mundane as picking
cotton in a field... or designing electronics.

Watson A.Name \"Watt Sun · Jun 3, 2004

Kevin Aylward wrote:

[snip]

It doesn't. Its usually, the
same shit, different day sort of thing.

Its all too easy to give credit to those we know about, ie ones who get
the press, irrespective of their worth. This is a basic phenomena of
evolution. Popular traits are held in high regard because
probabilistically popular traits are the, ones that are maximised.

With all due respect to Widlar, are you really suggesting that he is on
a par to Fynmann and Einstein?

Being pretty good at ones job, does not make one great. In fact, what is

Well, in regards to Shockley, Bardeen and Brattain, the Nobel Institute
apparently thought so, as he mentioned. And they were "just doing their
job" for Bell Telephone.

termed good should be classed as "normal". A competent individual in his
profession should be expected to have a certain standard that is above
the layman in that same profession. For example, I rarely clap when
watching a live band. They are *supposed* to sound "good", i.e not bad.
A quote comes to mind from Mutiny on the Bounty , "sir, if we are to
thrash them for minor infractions, what are we to do with them for more
serious ones".

Kevin Aylward
salesEXTRACT@anasoft.co.uk
http://www.anasoft.co.uk
SuperSpice, a very affordable Mixed-Mode
Windows Simulator with Schematic Capture,
Waveform Display, FFT's and Filter Design.

Watson A.Name \"Watt Sun · Jun 3, 2004

Winfield Hill wrote:

Kevin Aylward wrote...

With all due respect to Widlar, are you really suggesting
that he is on a par to Fynmann and Einstein?

Widlar was great, yes, but he certainly was not in the superstar
league of Feynman and Einstein. If I were to call them "great,"
that would be to damn with faint praise.

Let's check the Goggle ratings,

Hans Camenzind - 256
Widlar - 856, Robert Widlar + Bob Widlar - 159 + 199 = 358
Winfield Hill - 6,090, Paul Horowitz - 6,480
Bob Pease + Robert Pease - 5,250 + 4,390 = 9640
Kevin Aylward - 13,000
Feynman - 460,000
Einstein - 4,330,000

Hah, I threw the 3rd and 5th lines in there to show just how
silly these "ratings" can be. Kevin Aylward includes this guy,
http://wizbangblog.com/ who proves that those "Kevin Aylward"
types are sure interesting folks.

BTW, Michael Jackson gets 2,400,000 so Einstein is doing OK.

But then how many of the Jackos are +, and how many are - ????

Thomas Edison & Thomas Alva Edison = 830,000
Nikola Tesla = 106,000
Alexander Graham Bell = 562,000

Thanks,
- Win

Stefan Heinzmann · Jun 3, 2004

Watson A.Name "Watt Sun - the Dark Remover" schrieb:

Jim Thompson wrote:

On Wed, 02 Jun 2004 23:26:45 GMT, "Peter O. Brackett"
none@no-such-domain.nul> wrote:

Jim:

I love the way Hans weaves "the history" in with the technology.

We need to remember "the greats".

Hans is a neat guy, although you have to be cautious... he sent a few
projects my way because he was "too busy"... they were the clients
from hell

Maybe he figured you could handle them because your reputation as
SuperDesigner preceded you....

Or he thought a client from hell deserves a designer from hell ;-)

--
Cheers
Stefan

Scott Stephens · Jun 3, 2004

Joel Kolstad wrote:

Kevin Aylward <kevin.aylwardEXTRACT@anasoft.co.uk> wrote:

I'm a realist. I see life how it really is.

Yes, most of the world figures out good from bad from advice from their
neighbor or newspapers, TV, magazines, et. Oh yes, history books,
professors, et. et.

That doesn't mean you have to go around being such a black cloud to the rest
of the world.

Once one sees the value system of the world for what it is, one sees the
world as the black cloud. Those whom are "successful" are often so by
the efforts of those they have devoured.

I'd grant you that, yeah, 99.9999% of the people on this

planet couldn't hold a candle to the likes of Bob Widlar much less Feynman
and Einstein,

Who's standard of judgment? Aylward's right in regards to the fact that
many men would make the same discoveries, had they had the preparation
of Widlar or Feynman. Genius is rare.

but there's no reason they shouldn't take joy and be proud of

whatever their lot in life is, even if it is something as mundane as picking
cotton in a field... or designing electronics.

Picking cotton or designing electronics for those who are abusing you as
a slave is nothing to be proud of or take joy in. Profiting and enjoying
the fruit of your own labor, so you can be a proud producer rather than
an ashamed peasant is the only way to find peace, and then perhaps pride
and joy.

--
Scott

**********************************

DIY Piezo-Gyro, PCB Drill Bot & More Soon!

http://home.comcast.net/~scottxs/

**********************************

Peter O. Brackett · Jun 3, 2004

Kevin:

[snip]

circuits, is that others were not present at the time. Being first to do
something is not, on its own, a measure of value.

Kevin Aylward
[snip]

Tsk, tsk, it's just too bad you were born too late kid!

--
Peter

Hans Camenzind's (free, downloadable) Book

Jim Thompson

Guest

Jan Panteltje

Guest

Peter O. Brackett

Guest

Jim Thompson

Guest

Kevin Aylward

Guest

Winfield Hill

Guest

Jim Meyer

Guest

Kevin Aylward

Guest

Winfield Hill

Guest

Mark Fergerson

Guest

Jim Thompson

Guest

Kevin Aylward

Guest

Watson A.Name \"Watt Sun

Guest

Watson A.Name \"Watt Sun

Guest

Joel Kolstad

Guest

Watson A.Name \"Watt Sun

Guest

Watson A.Name \"Watt Sun

Guest

Stefan Heinzmann

Guest

Scott Stephens

Guest

Peter O. Brackett

Guest

Log in

Welcome to EDABoard.com

Sponsor