Winfield said:
Kevin Aylward wrote...
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
[email protected]
http://www.anasoft.co.uk
SuperSpice, a very affordable Mixed-Mode
Windows Simulator with Schematic Capture,
Waveform Display, FFT's and Filter Design.
