Winfield said:
Kevin Aylward wrote ...
With that kind of "due respect," I'd take a critic instead. It
occurs to me you haven't read much of Widlar's best work,
Probably not. Thats why I explicily used one of my "Yes Minister" save
ones arse phrases.
"I just don't see any significant evidence of exceptionality".
This, of course, doesn't say there is no evidence, only that I am not
aware of any, if there were some
perhaps
never subscribed to the Journal of Solid-State Circuits or went
to an ISSCC meeting? One suggestion, read Hans' book for explicit
stories of breakthroughs made by Widlar after many others had spent
several years working on the very same thing, and felt perfection
had been achieved. For example, Widlar's 200mV band-gap reference.
The silicon extrapolated band gap voltage after all is 1220mV.
The basic equations on band gaps are trivial. The ability to manipulate
them to obtain a sub 1.2V reference voltage is again, truly trivial.
Pretty much anyone with the required math background can do it in their
head. I knocked up a BG (see SS example) that could output 0V to Vsupply
and runs down to 0.7V, in about 15 minutes of noting that one simply has
to subtract off a current from the BG diodes. Sure, I had some
hindsight, but this does not negate the fact that this sort of stuff is
a theoretical no-brainier.
I still think you are confusing issues related to the first person that
does something, with an issues something's intrinsic difficulty.
That accomplishment by itself does not make Widlar great, but he
had about 25 of the quality or better that I'm aware of,
Such as?
and we
know from those who worked near him or who attended sessions at
the local bar that his influence on them was considerable.
I know many that say Clapton has a big influence on them, yet compared
to dudes like Pat Matheny, Stanley Jordan, John McLaughlin, Joe Pass
etc, he's a rank amateur.
Look, I'm not trying to get at Widlar. I admit that I don't know much of
what he has done, but what I have *seen* to date, only seem to justify
the notion of "good". Noting that people who might be called good, are
actually "normal", i.e. one should absolutly *expect* someone with a 4
year bachelors degree to have a certain standard. That is, I consider
those with bachelors EE degrees that can't even do a small signal
equivalent circuit, of which I would say even as high as 90% can't, are
*bad*, even though they might be "good" at EE compared to a plumber.
It was Peter who said he loved the way Hans weaved "the history"
in with the technology in his book, and that we need to remember
"the greats". Surely he meant, "we need to remember the greats of
electronics." You cannot argue Widlar was not one of our greats.
Yes I can, untill I have evidence that indicate oherwise.
And again I'll assert your use of the word great is conservative,
I would have to disagree, but this is now done to definitions.
and even a bit insulting to those for whom you reserve its use.
By calling Feynman and Einstein merely "great," you are indeed
damning with faint praise. They were much more than just great.
Well, this is a matter of definitions. I don't consider "great" to mean
someone who is "better" than the norm. For that I use err.. "better".
So, no it is not demeaning to call Einstein "only" great.
Arguable, I would say Shannon was probably "great" as he made
fundamental contributions. he actually defined information. Again,
coming up with some novel transistor circuit is simple not on the same
par. Simple rearrangements of existing, simple knowledge is enough for
them.
For example, even Tony the Tiger recognized that "Frosted Flakes ®
Are more than good, They're Gr-r-reat! ®" I'm sure you don't
want to restrict Feynman and Einstein to that class of accolade.
I don't consider any words used in advertising to mean anything but
fluff when used in advertising contexts.
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.
