Sallen and Key's classic 1955 paper
in [Basics]
|
From: Jon Kirwan on 23 Nov 2009 17:52 On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 11:19:17 -0500, Michael Black <et472(a)ncf.ca> wrote: >On Mon, 23 Nov 2009, Jon Kirwan wrote: > >> On Sun, 22 Nov 2009 19:35:59 -0800 (PST), Wayne >> <wayne.little(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> I am looking for the seminal paper by Sallen and Key entitled, "A >>> Practical Method of Designing RC Active Filters." I am currently >>> compiling a list of resources for an application report I am writing >>> for filter topologies and many resources that I found (application >>> notes, journals, books) all reference this document as a source for >>> the Sallen-Key topology. The problem is I cannot find this paper >>> *anywhere*. I even looked thru the IEEE Xplore Digital Library. >>> Wouldn't you know it, volume 2 issue 1 from 1955 is not in the >>> database: >>> >>> Sallen, R. P.; E. L. Key (1955-03). "A Practical Method of Designing >>> RC Active Filters". IRE Transactions on Circuit Theory 2 (1): 74�85. >>> >>> This has gone beyond the need for my report as I can use other >>> sources, but this has turned into a quest to actually find the paper >>> for the sake of simply having a piece of history that apparently is >>> lost at the moment. I am a stickler for old (50+ years) engineering >>> books and articles. >>> >>> Any greybeards out there that may have a dusty old cabinet in a dimly >>> lit room that has not been searched in a while? >> >> It bothers me to find that paper cited often. If it is hard to find >> (as in, 'not readily available'), then I suspect that many are citing >> it without having actually read it. Almost dishonest. >> >> Jon >> >Yes and no. Yes, because they are basing what they are writing on second >hand sources. I'll make the accusation clearer. I suspect they aren't even reading secondary interpretations by those who have actually read the original paper. I think they simply have heard (or read) that it is a seminal paper on the broader subject at hand and decide to simply include it, without having any idea whatsoever if it applies to anything they said, or not. Frankly, I consider that to be dishonest. If you don't have specific knowledge that a paper is germane to the content of what you are writing... and I mean __specific__ knowledge... then it shouldn't be cited. The biblio becomes "whimsical dumpware," otherwise. >But no, because too often the origins get lost, so nobody bothers to look >for them. If I accepted your argument (and I'm not saying I think you believe it, just that you are offering it as a possible explanation), then I would have to accept a very bad behavior. Dumping references at the end of a paper without having _any_ specific knowledge about them and how they may apply to the topic at hand leaves the reader unsure if any of it is worth a darn. It's the author who is claiming some expertise and it is the author who should know better (or not) if some paper applies to what they are writing about. If they can't even be troubled to find out, themselves, my gosh.... Well, I don't accept the behavior or the argument. >One classic case is the superregenerative receiver. Patented in 1922, the >more it faded from view the less description it got, until there was a >schematic and very vague description, so most people would only treat it >like a mysterious black box. Then about a decade ago, Charles Kitchin >went back and looked at the patent and original articles, wrote about the >originals rather than the descendants far removed, and then with full >understanding did work to improve the concept. > >You can't do that if there are no pointers to the original material. I didn't say that authors shouldn't cite germane material, for gosh sake! If it is appropriate material to cite, cite it. But the author should at least know the difference. I'm going to assume that the paper you are referring to was an important one and was actually read, at the time. Others will, knowing it's value and appropriateness, cite it in their work. Which is as it _should be_. And if it is cited, there is a trail to follow. If a paper isn't cited, perhaps it should disappear from view. In any case, allowing authors to cite without a clue is like playing the game of 'telephone' they used to do in grade school to show just how different a message can get when it is passed in secret from person to person around a classroom. The first person knows exactly what the message is. But by the time the message gets to the other end, listened to by ignorant people without a clue and interpreted as best they can and then passed on, it has no similarity at all anymore to the original. The solution is obvious. Require those passing along the message to do their own "self correction" by reading the paper, itself. Failing that much, they should have specific knowledge of sections of it they have picked up where the text is fully cited in part. Failing that much, they should use only papers such as the one you point out from Charles Kitchin where the context is part of the document's purpose and its provenance is a matter of explicit record. Anything less and the whole process devolves back into a child's game. >In the case of active filters, others have problem better synthesized the >material, yet it's still important to point back to that first source. You made the case that it was important to actually go back and read the material. Which is my point. Those who failed to do that, failed their readers. The citations eventually become hubris piled upon debris and the interlocking nature of science knowledge becomes a mere sham. As a reader of these materials, it is offensive to me that an author would cite a paper without knowing whether or not anything contained in it meaningfully applied to the topic at hand. It wastes my time and that is an inexcusable mark of disrespect for readers. Jon
From: Michael A. Terrell on 23 Nov 2009 22:34 Wayne wrote: > > On Nov 22, 9:56 pm, Tim Wescott <t...(a)seemywebsite.com> wrote: > > > > Are you close to any engineering schools? Way down in the basement of > > Worcester Polytechnic Institute's library there were technical > > publications going back to the late 1800's. > > > > --www.wescottdesign.com > > I may have to go to my local university, but I did receive two replies > from the email I sent to the IEEE Xplore support link: > > First reply: > Thank you for your email. Unfortunately we do not have the legacy > content for this particulal issue. > "IRE Transactions on Circuit Theory " 1955, Issue # 1, Vol # 2. It > is therefore not available to view from > our IEEE Xplore site. You may as a suggestion try contacting the > History Center at Rutgers. > > Second reply: > Thanks you for your email. I just sent a email to the History Center > over at Rutgers. The History Center does not have the old > professional group transactions, only the IRE Proceedings. However, > it is likely that you may contacts Linda Hall Library in Missouri, he > may be able to obtain. Linda Hall is the repository library for > engineering, and it has a document delivery service. > > So I will contact Linda Hall and see what secrets they have. I would like to have a copy, if you ever get it. :) -- The movie 'Deliverance' isn't a documentary!
From: George Herold on 24 Nov 2009 13:31 On Nov 23, 3:23 pm, Wayne <wayne.lit...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Nov 22, 9:56 pm, Tim Wescott <t...(a)seemywebsite.com> wrote: > > > > > Are you close to any engineering schools? Way down in the basement of > > Worcester Polytechnic Institute's library there were technical > > publications going back to the late 1800's. > > > --www.wescottdesign.com > > I may have to go to my local university, but I did receive two replies > from the email I sent to the IEEE Xplore support link: > > First reply: > Thank you for your email. Unfortunately we do not have the legacy > content for this particulal issue. > "IRE Transactions on Circuit Theory " 1955, Issue # 1, Vol # 2. It > is therefore not available to view from > our IEEE Xplore site. You may as a suggestion try contacting the > History Center at Rutgers. > > Second reply: > Thanks you for your email. I just sent a email to the History Center > over at Rutgers. The History Center does not have the old > professional group transactions, only the IRE Proceedings. However, > it is likely that you may contacts Linda Hall Library in Missouri, he > may be able to obtain. Linda Hall is the repository library for > engineering, and it has a document delivery service. > > So I will contact Linda Hall and see what secrets they have. Wayne please keep us posted. I went to the University of Buffalo library website and tried to find the article.. .same story that you are getting. They have the second and all other volumes in the series, but someone lost the first volume! George H.
From: George Herold on 24 Nov 2009 13:44 On Nov 23, 5:52 pm, Jon Kirwan <j...(a)infinitefactors.org> wrote: > On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 11:19:17 -0500, Michael Black <et...(a)ncf.ca> > wrote: > > > > > > >On Mon, 23 Nov 2009, Jon Kirwan wrote: > > >> On Sun, 22 Nov 2009 19:35:59 -0800 (PST), Wayne > >> <wayne.lit...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > >>> I am looking for the seminal paper by Sallen and Key entitled, "A > >>> Practical Method of Designing RC Active Filters." I am currently > >>> compiling a list of resources for an application report I am writing > >>> for filter topologies and many resources that I found (application > >>> notes, journals, books) all reference this document as a source for > >>> the Sallen-Key topology. The problem is I cannot find this paper > >>> *anywhere*. I even looked thru the IEEE Xplore Digital Library. > >>> Wouldn't you know it, volume 2 issue 1 from 1955 is not in the > >>> database: > > >>> Sallen, R. P.; E. L. Key (1955-03). "A Practical Method of Designing > >>> RC Active Filters". IRE Transactions on Circuit Theory 2 (1): 7485.. > > >>> This has gone beyond the need for my report as I can use other > >>> sources, but this has turned into a quest to actually find the paper > >>> for the sake of simply having a piece of history that apparently is > >>> lost at the moment. I am a stickler for old (50+ years) engineering > >>> books and articles. > > >>> Any greybeards out there that may have a dusty old cabinet in a dimly > >>> lit room that has not been searched in a while? > > >> It bothers me to find that paper cited often. If it is hard to find > >> (as in, 'not readily available'), then I suspect that many are citing > >> it without having actually read it. Almost dishonest. > > >> Jon > > >Yes and no. Yes, because they are basing what they are writing on second > >hand sources. > > I'll make the accusation clearer. I suspect they aren't even reading > secondary interpretations by those who have actually read the original > paper. I think they simply have heard (or read) that it is a seminal > paper on the broader subject at hand and decide to simply include it, > without having any idea whatsoever if it applies to anything they > said, or not. Frankly, I consider that to be dishonest. If you don't > have specific knowledge that a paper is germane to the content of what > you are writing... and I mean __specific__ knowledge... then it > shouldn't be cited. > > The biblio becomes "whimsical dumpware," otherwise. > > >But no, because too often the origins get lost, so nobody bothers to look > >for them. > > If I accepted your argument (and I'm not saying I think you believe > it, just that you are offering it as a possible explanation), then I > would have to accept a very bad behavior. Dumping references at the > end of a paper without having _any_ specific knowledge about them and > how they may apply to the topic at hand leaves the reader unsure if > any of it is worth a darn. It's the author who is claiming some > expertise and it is the author who should know better (or not) if some > paper applies to what they are writing about. If they can't even be > troubled to find out, themselves, my gosh.... > > Well, I don't accept the behavior or the argument. > > >One classic case is the superregenerative receiver. Patented in 1922, the > >more it faded from view the less description it got, until there was a > >schematic and very vague description, so most people would only treat it > >like a mysterious black box. Then about a decade ago, Charles Kitchin > >went back and looked at the patent and original articles, wrote about the > >originals rather than the descendants far removed, and then with full > >understanding did work to improve the concept. > > >You can't do that if there are no pointers to the original material. > > I didn't say that authors shouldn't cite germane material, for gosh > sake! If it is appropriate material to cite, cite it. But the author > should at least know the difference. > > I'm going to assume that the paper you are referring to was an > important one and was actually read, at the time. Others will, > knowing it's value and appropriateness, cite it in their work. Which > is as it _should be_. And if it is cited, there is a trail to follow. > > If a paper isn't cited, perhaps it should disappear from view. > > In any case, allowing authors to cite without a clue is like playing > the game of 'telephone' they used to do in grade school to show just > how different a message can get when it is passed in secret from > person to person around a classroom. The first person knows exactly > what the message is. But by the time the message gets to the other > end, listened to by ignorant people without a clue and interpreted as > best they can and then passed on, it has no similarity at all anymore > to the original. > > The solution is obvious. Require those passing along the message to > do their own "self correction" by reading the paper, itself. Failing > that much, they should have specific knowledge of sections of it they > have picked up where the text is fully cited in part. Failing that > much, they should use only papers such as the one you point out from > Charles Kitchin where the context is part of the document's purpose > and its provenance is a matter of explicit record. > > Anything less and the whole process devolves back into a child's game. > > >In the case of active filters, others have problem better synthesized the > >material, yet it's still important to point back to that first source. > > You made the case that it was important to actually go back and read > the material. Which is my point. Those who failed to do that, failed > their readers. The citations eventually become hubris piled upon > debris and the interlocking nature of science knowledge becomes a mere > sham. > > As a reader of these materials, it is offensive to me that an author > would cite a paper without knowing whether or not anything contained > in it meaningfully applied to the topic at hand. It wastes my time > and that is an inexcusable mark of disrespect for readers. > > Jon- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - Hi Jon, You shouldn't let yourself get too upset. This kind of thing happens all the time in academia. (And probably in industry too.) Everyone tends to 'parrot' what has been done before. I'm a physicist and if you look at intro physics texts they all tend to be the same. Im reminded of an instance documented by Stephen J. Gould in one of his books of essays. In all biology books you will find that the first horse. (please dont ask me to quote the scientific name, I think the name means 'dawn horse') is referred to as an animal that was about the size of a fox terrier. Now fox terriers are no longer a breed that is at all common and yet everyone writing about the first horse uses the same copied analogy. Gould follows the comparison back to the first mention of this fossil horse and finds the original reference there. Anyway there are lots more examples of this. Bottom line, we all tend to be a bit lazy. George H.
From: Wayne on 24 Nov 2009 18:24
On Nov 24, 11:31 am, George Herold <ggher...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > Wayne please keep us posted. I went to the University of Buffalo > library website and tried to find the article.. .same story that you > are getting. They have the second and all other volumes in the series, > but someone lost the first volume! > > George H. George et. al., I have successfully contacted the Linda Hall Library in Missouri and they do have Sallen and Key's original paper. There is a fee of $37 that includes the copying of the paper and the IEEE copyright. Their web address is: http://www.lindahall.org. -Wayne |