Hans Camenzind's (free, downloadable) Book

[Kevin Aylward]

Thomas Philips wrote:

As one hardly ever sees the context in which a problem was originally
solved, and the difficulties encountered while trying to solve it,

I agree.

it's surprisingly easy to mistake the simplicity of a truly elegant
solution for simple-mindedness,

And you point would be? Like, I don't know this? Like I haven't been
doing analogue design for around 30 years?

particularly when the passage of time
has dulled the context. Quite often, the only clue to the brilliance
of a solution is its later ubiquity. By this standard, Widlar was a
truly remarkable person.

Look, as I have said. This is preaching to the converted. This still
don't change the facts that the far majority of electronics is same
shit, different day.

I just happen to have a good appreciation of what the background is for
most/many electronic designs. I know what the bloody issues are. I also
have a good background to many physics "designs (new equations)". I can
tell you this, its a no contest. The stuff that physics dudes came up
with is way above people pissing about with a few transistors that seem
to think that they're great by doing so.

I can list loads of stuff that is, with hiinsight, is trivially simple.

Special Relativity
Dirac equation
Compton scattering
de Broglie wavelength
Black body radiation law

But shows truly shows "great" minds at work such that only a relative
few would have came up such insights.

A "great electronics designer" is an oxymoron. There is no circuit that
wouldn't have been designed by 1000's of other dudes if they were given
that task at that point in time.

People need to face the real facts that electronics is essentially
*EASY*, *despite* the fact that it might well take a few months to come
up with a solution. Been there. Done it, just never got around to
writing the book. EE's measurements of difficulty means nothing. As I
have already stated, a "difficult" electronics task is usually trivial
compared to "difficult" tasks in physics.

Those EE's that think that what they, or others do is "great" are
fooling themselves. Try coming up with a theory of quantum gravity then
you'll understand what real greatness and difficulty is all about.

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.

 

[Jim Thompson]

On Fri, 4 Jun 2004 16:40:42 +0100, "Kevin Aylward"
<kevin.aylwardEXTRACT@anasoft.co.uk> wrote:

[snip]

People need to face the real facts that electronics is essentially
*EASY*, *despite* the fact that it might well take a few months to come
up with a solution. Been there. Done it, just never got around to
writing the book. EE's measurements of difficulty means nothing. As I
have already stated, a "difficult" electronics task is usually trivial
compared to "difficult" tasks in physics.

[snip]
Kevin Aylward
[snip]

OK, Kev. Please delight us all by providing an ACCURATE analysis of
the MC4024 schematic I posted.

If you don't comply I think everyone should simply plonk you as a
useless noise source ;-)

...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.

 

[Winfield Hill]

Kevin Aylward wrote...

Once one really sees what life is *really* about (i.e. maximising
the numbers of Replicators, one can never look at life in that daft,
naive way again. Like, duty, helping, love, hate, etc...

That's what biology might be all about, but it's not what our
human lives are about. Unless perhaps one is _very_ horny.

Its all a mechanical, explainable process.

Unhuh.

Thanks,
- Win

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

 

[Joel Kolstad]

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

You obviously don't know the story. They indeed assumed it was the bird
droppings when the inspected the horn. They cleaned it up because of
that assumption.

Interesting... You're correct that I haven't read a direct account of the
story, I was going off of the mention in John Krauss's book, "Big Ear II."
I'll have to take a look at it again to see exactly what he says. Thanks
for the clarification.

---Joel

 

[Joel Kolstad]

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

Companies spend significant resources
on trying to give the impression that whatever they do is state of the
art, superior stuff. Lets not all be taken in by this and think that we,
as EE's do much of merit.

I tend to agree with you here, Kevin. I've worked at companies where they
thought that anything and everything we did was highly unique and original
and needed to be immediately 'protected' by patented and then being as vague
about the workings as possible to the outside world, even to customers who
had arguably legitimate reasons to want to know. (Questions like, "Can your
system reliably detect a Wonka Bar at ten feet?" were answered either with,
"Well, yes, of course I _think_ we can do that!" -- giving the presenter
plausible deniability, despite what they actually knew as to the system's
capabilities -- or else re-direction, towards, "Well, maybe, but isn't the
real problem detecting key lime pie at twelve paces?")

I decided it was a matter of perspective. To you, Widlar doesn't merit much
praise yet Einstein does. To all those business school guys running the
company, the engineers are God-like and anything they do is magical.

I don't suppose you're picked up any of Ayn Rand's books to read???

---Joel Kolstad

 

[Kevin Aylward]

Jim Thompson wrote:

On Fri, 4 Jun 2004 16:40:42 +0100, "Kevin Aylward"
kevin.aylwardEXTRACT@anasoft.co.uk> wrote:

[snip]
People need to face the real facts that electronics is essentially
*EASY*, *despite* the fact that it might well take a few months to
come up with a solution. Been there. Done it, just never got around
to writing the book. EE's measurements of difficulty means nothing.
As I have already stated, a "difficult" electronics task is usually
trivial compared to "difficult" tasks in physics.

[snip]
Kevin Aylward
[snip]

OK, Kev. Please delight us all by providing an ACCURATE analysis of
the MC4024 schematic I posted.

I'm not even subscribed to .schematics, on my NG list as its always same
shit, different day.

Like, you really think i'd fall flat on my face.

Tell you what though, if your so f*%^$ing clever, how about explaining
to as all how I do this: http://www.anasoft.co.uk/DeviceDesigner.html

in only one spice run. Hint: its truly piss easy and trivial.

If you don't comply I think everyone should simply plonk you as a
useless noise source ;-)

Get real.

Look dude, I think your objectivity is being lost because no one likes
to think that what they do, don't qualify as outstanding in the big
scheme of things. I'm in the same boat you know.

There's no chance in hell that you are goanna convince me that pissing
about with a few transistors has a look in with regards to merit in
comparison with corresponding attributes in physics. Its just the way it
is. Many here should get off their high horse and accept that the only
reasonable response to the notion of "a great circuit designer" is:

ROTFLMAO

We're simply not that important.

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.

 

[Jim Thompson]

On Fri, 4 Jun 2004 19:16:42 +0100, "Kevin Aylward"
<kevin.aylwardEXTRACT@anasoft.co.uk> wrote:

Jim Thompson wrote:
[snip]
OK, Kev. Please delight us all by providing an ACCURATE analysis of
the MC4024 schematic I posted.

I'm not even subscribed to .schematics, on my NG list as its always same
shit, different day.

Like, you really think i'd fall flat on my face.

Tell you what though, if your so f*%^$ing clever, how about explaining
to as all how I do this: http://www.anasoft.co.uk/DeviceDesigner.html

in only one spice run. Hint: its truly piss easy and trivial.

Of course it is... nothing you can't do in PSpice (as if it's needed
anyway).

If you don't comply I think everyone should simply plonk you as a
useless noise source ;-)

Get real.



Look dude, I think your objectivity is being lost because no one likes
to think that what they do, don't qualify as outstanding in the big
scheme of things. I'm in the same boat you know.

There's no chance in hell that you are goanna convince me that pissing
about with a few transistors has a look in with regards to merit in
comparison with corresponding attributes in physics. Its just the way it
is. Many here should get off their high horse and accept that the only
reasonable response to the notion of "a great circuit designer" is:

ROTFLMAO

We're simply not that important.

Kevin Aylward
[PLONK]

...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.

 

[Kevin Aylward]

Jim Thompson wrote:

On Fri, 4 Jun 2004 19:16:42 +0100, "Kevin Aylward"
kevin.aylwardEXTRACT@anasoft.co.uk> wrote:

Jim Thompson wrote:
[snip]
OK, Kev. Please delight us all by providing an ACCURATE analysis of
the MC4024 schematic I posted.

I'm not even subscribed to .schematics, on my NG list as its always
same shit, different day.

Like, you really think i'd fall flat on my face.

Tell you what though, if your so f*%^$ing clever, how about
explaining to as all how I do this:
http://www.anasoft.co.uk/DeviceDesigner.html

in only one spice run. Hint: its truly piss easy and trivial.

Of course it is...

So, provide the solution then if its so easy.

nothing you can't do in PSpice (as if it's needed
anyway).

You obviously miss the point and don't understand the significance of
the method. Its unique. All other methods that do this, to my knowledge
are *optimisers*. i.e. require multiple runs to iterate out the result.
My method actually designs the values in one go.

So, cut the crap. As I said, if your so clever, how did I do it?
Avoiding the issue by pointing out that PSpice has some other method
says nothing about *your* ability to solve the problem.

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.

 

[Kevin Aylward]

Joel Kolstad wrote:

Kevin Aylward <kevin.aylwardEXTRACT@anasoft.co.uk> wrote:
Companies spend significant resources
on trying to give the impression that whatever they do is state of
the art, superior stuff. Lets not all be taken in by this and think
that we, as EE's do much of merit.

I tend to agree with you here, Kevin. I've worked at companies where
they thought that anything and everything we did was highly unique
and original and needed to be immediately 'protected' by patented and
then being as vague about the workings as possible to the outside
world, even to customers who had arguably legitimate reasons to want
to know. (Questions like, "Can your system reliably detect a Wonka
Bar at ten feet?" were answered either with, "Well, yes, of course I
_think_ we can do that!" -- giving the presenter plausible
deniability, despite what they actually knew as to the system's
capabilities -- or else re-direction, towards, "Well, maybe, but
isn't the real problem detecting key lime pie at twelve paces?")

I decided it was a matter of perspective. To you, Widlar doesn't
merit much praise

I just haven't seen much evidence for praising Widlar. Sure, he was
probably a very good designer, but "great" is a word I don't use
lightly. If I got to shag Heather Locklear, now that *would* be great.

yet Einstein does.

Yep. I know a fair bit about the mans work. For example, his derivation
of Brownian motion was amazingly significant. He done so much *really*
*original* stuff.

To all those business school
guys running the company, the engineers are God-like and anything
they do is magical.

I don't suppose you're picked up any of Ayn Rand's books to read???

Not really. I am a little acquainted with her work though. On her site
http://www.aynrand.org/objectivism/essentials.html, it sums up things
quite well. There is a technical point that I have to disagree with, on
the free will bit. I see where she is coming from with the phrase ”Thus
Objectivism rejects any form of determinism, the belief that man is a
victim of forces beyond his control (such as God, fate, upbringing,
genes, or economic conditions), the feeling behind it is correct, but
the details are a little different. Its pretty much provable that we
have no *real* control over what we do, although she is correct in that
here is no god or supernaturally forces involved. As I note in my
evolution papers, the laws of physics absolutely dictate a universe
*only* governed by classical determinism and quantum indeterminism. For
the classical mechanics components, we clearly have no control after the
initial conditions are set-up. For QM components, it is truly random. If
it is random, by definition, there is no "I" that can have any control
over it, otherwise it wouldn't be random would it.

So, setting the variation of the integral of happinness(t) wrt time to
zero is my equation for life.

http://www.anasoft.co.uk/life.gif

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.

 

[Mike Page]

Kevin Aylward wrote:

Winfield Hill wrote:

Kevin Aylward wrote...

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

Depends on your reference. And therein lays the great US-EU divide.

--
Mike Page BEng(Hons) MIEE www.eclectic-web.co.uk

 

[Kevin Aylward]

Mike Page wrote:

Kevin Aylward wrote:
Winfield Hill wrote:

Kevin Aylward wrote...

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


Depends on your reference.

In principle, yes, everything is based on an arbitrary reference.
However, in a practice many references are what most can all agree on. I
cant see that any reasonable person would consider someone struggling to
knock down a brick wall by bashing his head against it, as a particular
good measure of that dudes merit.

And therein lays the great US-EU divide.

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.

 

[Fred Bloggs]

Kevin Aylward wrote:

Those EE's that think that what they, or others do is "great" are
fooling themselves. Try coming up with a theory of quantum gravity then
you'll understand what real greatness and difficulty is all about.

That is non-sense, and your main problem is that you lack the intellect
to recognize great intellect in others. You are oblivious to the fact
that one of the main goals of any engineering science and practice is
simplification- the speed of production and the quality of the finished
product are directly tied to the simplicity and accuracy of the
component tasks. Generally, complexity is equated with things going
wrong, products being less reliable, products costing more, long
development times, and a host of other problems. Simpler is better- and
the best practitioners are those who can work within established
constraints and eliminate the need for invention. You seem to be working
with the assumption that engineers are people who were cut from a
theoretical physics program and had to settle for their lowly jobs. THIS
MAY BE YOUR STORY, but it's not the story of most engineers- for the
majority of them, engineering was their first choice- and they're damned
good at it.

 

[Art]

Zer Gud1 Dunka
"Jim Thompson" <thegreatone@example.com> wrote in message
news:l831c01d0h5jvb2hmegcu8m3kf1nfkbala@4ax.com...

On 3 Jun 2004 07:01:53 -0700, jmeyer@nektonresearch.com (Jim Meyer)
wrote:

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.

I like the Freudian slip "...ferment mind of Bob Widlar ".

ROTFLMAO!

...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.

 

[Winfield Hill]

Kevin Aylward wrote...

It would be nice to do the finishing touches to an almost
complete theory to actually produce an anti-gravity machine,
thereby raising myself way above the crowd

Yes, this would be an ordinary commonplace accomplishment,
merely the first one to do it, and certainly not great. :&gt

Thanks,
- Win

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

 

[Jim Thompson]

On 5 Jun 2004 07:25:14 -0700, Winfield Hill
<Winfield_member@newsguy.com> wrote:

Kevin Aylward wrote...

It would be nice to do the finishing touches to an almost
complete theory to actually produce an anti-gravity machine,
thereby raising myself way above the crowd

Yes, this would be an ordinary commonplace accomplishment,
merely the first one to do it, and certainly not great. :&gt

Thanks,
- Win

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

Maybe if he smokes enough weed ?

...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.

 

[Mike]

On Fri, 4 Jun 2004 11:48:17 +0100, Kevin Aylward wrote:

I am well aware that, after the fact, many
simple things took extensive work and inventiveness to get there.

Perhaps you'd care to share one or two of those with us? Or are they
limited to Einstein?

-- Mike --

 

[Watson A.Name - \"Watt Su]

"Mike" <mike@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:taxycaiab1oc.fpuile1kgycm$.dlg@40tude.net...

On Fri, 4 Jun 2004 11:48:17 +0100, Kevin Aylward wrote:

I am well aware that, after the fact, many
simple things took extensive work and inventiveness to get there.

Perhaps you'd care to share one or two of those with us? Or are they
limited to Einstein?

Well, Edison did a lot of work to get a working light bulb. There were
many before him that were not unsuccessful (heh), but just couldn't get
a light to keep working long enough to be practical. Edison's first
attempts were like that, just not quite practical. But persistence paid
off.

> -- Mike --

 

[Kevin Aylward]

Mike wrote:

On Fri, 4 Jun 2004 11:48:17 +0100, Kevin Aylward wrote:

I am well aware that, after the fact, many
simple things took extensive work and inventiveness to get there.

Perhaps you'd care to share one or two of those with us? Or are they
limited to Einstein?

I gave a small list in another post

Dirac equation
Compton scattering
de Broglie wavelength
Black body radiation law

Obviously, this is only opinion and open to debate, but somewhere along
the line one has to be face facts. Some simple things have more merit
than others, in the sense that some simple things might only be
"invented" potentially by only a few, while millions might have invented
say, a pet rock. We cant give weight to an "invention" that any tom dick
and harry would have done if the background to that invention had only
just become available. i.e. delayed windscreen wipers. Before cars
existed, of course no one could invent them.

One of my points of my initial post is that there seems ro be this hero
worship for some when the only real basis is that they were first, or
maybe just respect for the dead

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.

 

[Kevin Aylward]

Fred Bloggs wrote:

Kevin Aylward wrote:

Those EE's that think that what they, or others do is "great" are
fooling themselves. Try coming up with a theory of quantum gravity
then you'll understand what real greatness and difficulty is all
about.


That is non-sense, and your main problem is that you lack the
intellect to recognize great intellect in others.

Ho hum..

You are oblivious
to the fact that one of the main goals of any engineering science and
practice is simplification-

Oh dear...

the speed of production and the quality
of the finished product are directly tied to the simplicity and
accuracy of the component tasks.

Oh dear...

I suppose you learned this one this last week. Good for you.

Generally, complexity is equated
with things going wrong, products being less reliable, products
costing more, long development times, and a host of other problems.

ROTFLMAO.

Those that feel the need to state trivially obvious bits of information,
are often those that have just learnt said information and now feel so
"great" about repeating what we all know, in order to impress us that
the now know such trivialities. It dont work. Trust me.

You are simply clueless on how, I, myself design circuits. If it aint
simply, something is usually wrong, so I scrap it. Your simply way out
on this one dude.

Don't you F*&^%ing understand I have been doing this for some while now.
You think I'm gonna come up with a horrendously, redundant complicated
circuit. Jesus wept dude. If I have a fault of irritation, its because I
typically point out to how to effect such simplifications to others.

Simpler is better-
{snip rest of preaching to the converted}

Look mate..Read my lips... are you total incapable of understanding
plain English.

First. Einstein. "Things should be as simple as possible...but no
simpler"

I have already explained that *yes*, "simple" can indeed be a mark of
merit. This is not at issue in the slightest. What is only at issue is
what *particular* simple objects actually have reasonable intellectual
merit. Most do not. e.g. pet rocks, skipping ropes..., current mirrors
with one resister in one leg etc...

You are completely out to lunch. You are claiming and keep insisting,
that *all* simply things have merit. You are wrong. This is not
debatable.

constraints and eliminate the need for invention. You seem to be
working
with the assumption that engineers are people who were cut from a
theoretical physics program and had to settle for their lowly jobs.

There is no such assumption. The fact that you can make such a daft
claim says much. I am not that stupid. Some of us have actually really
researched these sorts of issues.

THIS
MAY BE YOUR STORY,

No chance. Ho humm...I never even considered doing physics in the
slightest until I was about 25. I have been "designing" and building
electronics stuff since I was 11. I started becoming more interested in
physics *after* doing engineering and realising that it was same, shit
different day.

Concerning the merits of physics, its a no contest that doing original
work in physics is way above the league of doing original work in
electronics. Those engineers that don't know this, are probably lying to
themselves. No one likes to think that some other discipline is
intrinsically harder then their own. This is the real world dude, not
all disciplines are equal. Its that simple. The only debatable bit is
what discipline in actuality, is harder to do than anaother.

Not I am not discussing merit in a human moralistic sense, as in are
nurses worthier then engineers. I am discussing the technical ability
one needs to excel at a particular discipline.

but it's not the story of most engineers- for the
majority of them, engineering was their first choice

Get real... Only by default. Look, mate, you talking to someone who has
actually been through the system. Most who do an EE degree, essentially
picked it out of a hat. I *know*. Been there. For example, in my class
of 30, there was litterally only 3 that had picked up a soldering iron
prior to string the course, one was me.


- and they're damned

good at it.

Complete and utter crap. Its nonsense. Its a statistically impossible
situation. Its like all drivers honestly believe that they are better
than average. Like did you even sit through 101 statistics?

We have a gaussian distribution. *Most* are around the mean. This is
*not* debatable, so you are wrong. That is, most are neither good or
bad. They are *normal*. The "good" ones are say, at least 2 or 3 sigmas
away from the mean. Ok, the actual sigma ratio is a bit arbitrary, but
you should be getting my point, however, you show such a basic lack of
understanding on this subject matter, that somehow I doubt it.

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.

 

[Mike]

On Sat, 5 Jun 2004 19:18:53 +0100, Kevin Aylward wrote:

Mike wrote:
On Fri, 4 Jun 2004 11:48:17 +0100, Kevin Aylward wrote:

I am well aware that, after the fact, many
simple things took extensive work and inventiveness to get there.

Perhaps you'd care to share one or two of those with us? Or are they
limited to Einstein?

Dirac equation
Compton scattering
de Broglie wavelength
Black body radiation law

Oh. I thought you were talking about simple results in engineering, not
physics.

-- Mike --