Sallen and Key's classic 1955 paper
Wayne
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?
Tim Wescott
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.
Jon Kirwan
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
Michael Black
Yes and no. Yes, because they are basing what they are writing on second
hand sources.
But no, because too often the origins get lost, so nobody bothers to look
for them.
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.
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.
Michael
Wayne
>
> 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.
Jon Kirwan
wrote:
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
Michael A. Terrell
I would like to have a copy, if you ever get it. :)
--
The movie 'Deliverance' isn't a documentary!
George Herold
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 Herold
>
> - 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.
I’m 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 don’t 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.
Wayne
>
> 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
The Phantom
Have you already ordered it? If not, I discovered I have a copy which I can
email to you.
>
>-Wayne
Wayne
>
> Have you already ordered it? If not, I discovered I have a copy which I can
> email to you.
Not yet, so if you have a copy it would be nice to obtain one for
free. Several others would like a copy as well. :-)
Thanks in advance.
-Wayne
Don Klipstein
George Herold wrote:
>On Nov 23, 5:52=A0pm, Jon Kirwan <j...@infinitefactors.org> wrote:
<And I snip everything otherwise getting 2-plus quot. symbols / line>
>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.
>I'm 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 don=92t 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.
The "dawn horse" is eohippus.
My impression is that eohippus was about the size of a usual domestic
cat, or a bit smaller - about the size of a smalish domestic cat.
My impression is that eohippus was an early stage branching of evolution
of mammals from something more like a rat to something first stage of
towards horse from more-like-a-rat. This could be close to where hooved
herbivores evolved from common ancestor of hooved herbivores and modern
rodents.
"Eo" means dawn, and is used elsewhere - notably in a
traditional-in-science dye, eosine. That organic dye is "dawn-pink" in
color in a common form/concentration, though usually fluoresces a
yellowish shade of green like fluorescein, which eosine is a derivative
of.
Another fluorescein-derivative is erythrosine, named for being blood-red
in a common form/concentration, and that also often fluoresces
yellow-green.
===============
The Wikipedia article that I get from "eohippus" shows that to be a
genus rather than a species, and appearing to me to me to be early stage
evolution of ungulates, related to then-present ancestry of rhinos and
tapirs. This Wikipedia article takes on the title "Hyracotherium", and
"therium" makes me think prehistoric rhinos.
That article mentions that this was earliest "equidae" before being
reclassified as a "paleothere" related to both horses and "brontotheres"
("brontotheres" are literally "thunder beasts", an extinct family of
"somewhere-between-horse-and-rhino likely-closer-to-horse" "My Words").
(Brontotherium included the Baluchitherium, a "hornless rhino" larger
than any elephant in history and probably larger than every prehistoric
one probably including all "mammoths".)
This "greater family" ("My Words") of mammals here is "Perissodactyl" or
"odd-toed ungulates", a classification great enough to be at least often
referred to as being of status of an "order" (Perissodactyla).
Eohippus now looks to me so far as I see roughly 60 cm in length
typically, sounds to me roughly slightly larger than a usual domestic cat,
likely more than double linear dimensions of a usual rat and likely
10-plus times the mass of a usual rat but still very small for anything
most-related to horses let alone rhinos.
- Don Klipstein (d...@misty.com)
George Herold
> In <f6d7b34f-99a0-4f4e-bbd4-20653f1f2...@o13g2000vbl.googlegroups.com>,
>
> - Show quoted text -
Thanks Don, The bottom of this wiki article has the Stephen Jay Gould
reference.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyracotherium
But you have to read Gould's essay.
George H.
Baron
Yes please.
--
Best Regards:
Baron.
The Phantom
I will have to scan it tonight. In the meantime, everyone who wants a copy
should post a valid email address. I would suggest protecting it in some
manner, such as posting with spaces between characters or spelling out "at" for
the @ symbol, etc.
>
>>
>>-Wayne
Fred Bartoli
Hi Phantom,
I sure would be interested to have a copy.
freddotbartoliatfreedotfr
--
Thanks,
Fred.
Shaun
"The Phantom" <pha...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:ofbrg59kd8qdoc9ml...@4ax.com...
I'm interested in a copy too,
please email to: scepp at shaw dot com
thank you for your effort.
Shaun
Baron
Its much appreciated. Baron at linuxmaniac . net
--
Best Regards:
Baron.
Wayne
> I will have to scan it tonight. In the meantime, everyone who wants a copy
> should post a valid email address. I would suggest protecting it in some
> manner, such as posting with spaces between characters or spelling out "at" for
> the @ symbol, etc.
>
Please email it to:
wayne -dot- little -at- gmail -dot- com
Bob Pownall
<snip>
>
> I will have to scan it tonight. In the meantime, everyone who wants a copy
> should post a valid email address. I would suggest protecting it in some
> manner, such as posting with spaces between characters or spelling out "at" for
> the @ symbol, etc.
>
>>> -Wayne
>
Thanks!
repownall at netscape.net
Yeah, my net news email address. It's the one I use for things which
are likely to get me spammed. I only check it when I'm expecting something.
Bob Pownall
John Larkin
Cool.
jjlarkin
(at)
highlandtechnology
(dot)
com
Thanks.
John
ehsjr
Thanks!
ehsjr at verizon dot net
David Eather
have you thought about sending it to a hosting site ? maybe
www.filedropper.com
stan
Michael A. Terrell
The Phantom wrote:
>
> I will have to scan it tonight. In the meantime, everyone who wants a copy
> should post a valid email address. I would suggest protecting it in some
> manner, such as posting with spaces between characters or spelling out "at" for
> the @ symbol, etc.
In case you missed it where I asked above: mike.t...@earthlink.net
Baron
A least my ISP isn't blocking that one. Well for the moment anyway.
--
Best Regards:
Baron.
George Herold
> On 24 Nov 2009 19:43:02 -0600, The Phantom <phan...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Tue, 24 Nov 2009 15:24:58 -0800 (PST), Wayne <wayne.lit...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>On Nov 24, 11:31 am, George Herold <ggher...@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.
>
> >Have you already ordered it? If not, I discovered I have a copy which I can
> >email to you.
>
> I will have to scan it tonight. In the meantime, everyone who wants a copy
> should post a valid email address. I would suggest protecting it in some
> manner, such as posting with spaces between characters or spelling out "at" for
> the @ symbol, etc.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Thanks Phantom, I'd love a copy.
gherold(at)teachspin.com
The Phantom
>On 24 Nov 2009 19:43:02 -0600, The Phantom <pha...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 24 Nov 2009 15:24:58 -0800 (PST), Wayne <wayne....@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On Nov 24, 11:31�am, George Herold <ggher...@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.
>>
>>Have you already ordered it? If not, I discovered I have a copy which I can
>>email to you.
>
>I will have to scan it tonight.
Unexpected family obligations have cropped up. I won't be able to post it until
the end of what has become a 4 day weekend, but I will get it out after I get
back.
The Phantom
another try.
Michael A. Terrell
The Phantom wrote:
>
> It has been sent. If anybody didn't get it, mention it here and I'll give it
> another try.
I got it. :) It is a good, clean scan. Thank you.
baron
> It has been sent. If anybody didn't get it, mention it here and I'll
> give it another try.
Brilliant ! Many Thanks.
--
Best Regards:
Baron.
ehsjr
> It has been sent. If anybody didn't get it, mention it here and I'll give it
> another try.
Got it. Thank You!
Ed