Here is another comment ; this paper is too self-centered for it to be the reliable historical report which we would like. It seems that Edson did some great work before, 73 de Ulrich , and I agree with the statement http://www.tubebooks.org/Books/vto.pdf Vacuum tube oscillators xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxx In a message dated 8/6/2016 9:02:43 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, time-nuts@febo.com writes: Good morning, yes I saw the reference but he did not point out what it was or function, This paper is more about people and events and very little since ....... Ulrich In a message dated 8/6/2016 2:26:54 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, michaeljwouters@gmail.com writes: On Sat, Aug 6, 2016 at 9:34 AM, KA2WEU--- via time-nuts <time-nuts@febo.com> wrote: > Leeson produced a somewhat random selection of papers , omitting important > things like the sapphire based best in the word . This was not even > referenced . The reference [145] at the end of the sentence that mentions sapphire oscillators also discusses a hybrid photonic-microwave oscillator that incorporates a room-temperature sapphire oscillator so I think he tried to cover both subjects with that single reference. The paper has a misleading title. It suggests that it is a history of the last 50 years, when it is about events roughly 50 years ago. The abstract makes this clear though. So I didn't really expect to read much about developments past 1970. Cheers Michael On Sat, Aug 6, 2016 at 9:34 AM, KA2WEU--- via time-nuts <time-nuts@febo.com> wrote: > Some of the cited references are poor, modern non-linear mathematic is kind > of omitted . After all the oscillator phase noise speculation, I would > have really liked to see at last a reference about the most modern > measurements techniques and it validation. How do you calibrate a phase noise test > system. > > Leeson produced a somewhat random selection of papers , omitting important > things like the sapphire based best in the word . This was not even > referenced . > > I think he is really out of it . > > 73 de N1UL > > > > In a message dated 8/5/2016 7:11:18 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, > john@miles.io writes: > >> >> Very selected and incomplete references and the equally important >> question >> of measurements strangely not covered >> >> 73 de N 1 UL >> > > I suppose he could write an equally-lengthy article on measurements alone, > but leaving out the post-1970s history entirely was a little > disappointing. It was strange to hit "ctrl-f Rohde" and see only one reference in the > bibliography. Same for "Hewlett." "Rubiola" brings up one hit (but no > citations) and "Stein" brings up none at all. > > -- john, KE5FX > Miles Design LLC > > > _______________________________________________ > time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@febo.com > To unsubscribe, go to > https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts > and follow the instructions there. > > _______________________________________________ > time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@febo.com > To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts > and follow the instructions there. _______________________________________________ time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@febo.com To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts and follow the instructions there.

Well, it is nothing but his personal recollection of the events, so that is expected. It represents one voice of several. Better have that on record than it being lost. But it is not the complete story. That would have to be collected over a much larger set of people. BTW. Ref 44 in this paper is one of Edson's articles. I've read Chapter 15 of Edson's book, and it provides a model, but fail to include flicker noise, which is in Leesons model. It is a straight-forward extension thought. I don't have access to any of his articles, except the one-page letter that Rick linked. There is surely more work to be done to build a more comprehensive detail of events, show where ideas came up, was re-invented, incorporated and extended. Edson clearly contributed. Cheers, Magnus On 08/07/2016 06:32 PM, KA2WEU--- via time-nuts wrote: > Here is another comment ; > > > this paper is too self-centered for it to be the reliable historical > report which we would like. > It seems that Edson did some great work before, > > > 73 de Ulrich , and I agree with the statement > > > > > > http://www.tubebooks.org/Books/vto.pdf > > Vacuum tube oscillators > > > xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > xxxxxxxxxx > > > In a message dated 8/6/2016 9:02:43 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, > time-nuts@febo.com writes: > > Good morning, > > yes I saw the reference but he did not point out what it was or > function, > This paper is more about people and events and very little since ....... > > Ulrich > > > In a message dated 8/6/2016 2:26:54 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, > michaeljwouters@gmail.com writes: > > On Sat, Aug 6, 2016 at 9:34 AM, KA2WEU--- via time-nuts > <time-nuts@febo.com> wrote: > >> Leeson produced a somewhat random selection of papers , omitting > important >> things like the sapphire based best in the word . This was not even >> referenced . > > The reference [145] at the end of the sentence that mentions sapphire > oscillators also discusses a hybrid photonic-microwave oscillator that > incorporates a room-temperature sapphire oscillator so I think he > tried to cover both subjects with that single reference. > > The paper has a misleading title. It suggests that it is a history of > the last 50 years, when it is about events roughly 50 years ago. The > abstract makes this clear though. So I didn't really expect to read > much about developments past 1970. > > Cheers > Michael > > > On Sat, Aug 6, 2016 at 9:34 AM, KA2WEU--- via time-nuts > <time-nuts@febo.com> wrote: >> Some of the cited references are poor, modern non-linear mathematic is > > kind >> of omitted . After all the oscillator phase noise speculation, I would >> have really liked to see at last a reference about the most modern >> measurements techniques and it validation. How do you calibrate a > phase > noise test >> system. >> >> Leeson produced a somewhat random selection of papers , omitting > important >> things like the sapphire based best in the word . This was not even >> referenced . >> >> I think he is really out of it . >> >> 73 de N1UL >> >> >> >> In a message dated 8/5/2016 7:11:18 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, >> john@miles.io writes: >> >>> >>> Very selected and incomplete references and the equally important >>> question >>> of measurements strangely not covered >>> >>> 73 de N 1 UL >>> >> >> I suppose he could write an equally-lengthy article on measurements > alone, >> but leaving out the post-1970s history entirely was a little >> disappointing. It was strange to hit "ctrl-f Rohde" and see only one > reference in the >> bibliography. Same for "Hewlett." "Rubiola" brings up one hit (but no >> citations) and "Stein" brings up none at all. >> >> -- john, KE5FX >> Miles Design LLC >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@febo.com >> To unsubscribe, go to >> https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts >> and follow the instructions there. >> >> _______________________________________________ >> time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@febo.com >> To unsubscribe, go to > https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts >> and follow the instructions there. > > _______________________________________________ > time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@febo.com > To unsubscribe, go to > https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts > and follow the instructions there. > > _______________________________________________ > time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@febo.com > To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts > and follow the instructions there. >

Hi I have seen several other attempts in the past few decades to write “history” papers in the context of IEEE proceedings. They (unfortunately) always seem to turn into a set of personal recollections rather than a proper history. It would be *very* useful to have a complete trace of who did what and when in some of these areas. We seem to be very poor at doing all the (very) heavy lifting involved in getting that done. This is hardly unique to this field. It is very typical in a lot of tech areas, and has been for at least a few hundred years …. Bob > On Aug 7, 2016, at 6:10 PM, Magnus Danielson <magnus@rubidium.dyndns.org> wrote: > > Well, it is nothing but his personal recollection of the events, so that is expected. It represents one voice of several. Better have that on record than it being lost. But it is not the complete story. That would have to be collected over a much larger set of people. > > BTW. Ref 44 in this paper is one of Edson's articles. > > I've read Chapter 15 of Edson's book, and it provides a model, but fail to include flicker noise, which is in Leesons model. It is a straight-forward extension thought. I don't have access to any of his articles, except the one-page letter that Rick linked. > > There is surely more work to be done to build a more comprehensive detail of events, show where ideas came up, was re-invented, incorporated and extended. Edson clearly contributed. > > Cheers, > Magnus > > On 08/07/2016 06:32 PM, KA2WEU--- via time-nuts wrote: >> Here is another comment ; >> >> >> this paper is too self-centered for it to be the reliable historical >> report which we would like. >> It seems that Edson did some great work before, >> >> >> 73 de Ulrich , and I agree with the statement >> >> >> >> >> >> http://www.tubebooks.org/Books/vto.pdf >> >> Vacuum tube oscillators >> >> >> xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >> xxxxxxxxxx >> >> >> In a message dated 8/6/2016 9:02:43 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, >> time-nuts@febo.com writes: >> >> Good morning, >> >> yes I saw the reference but he did not point out what it was or >> function, >> This paper is more about people and events and very little since ....... >> >> Ulrich >> >> >> In a message dated 8/6/2016 2:26:54 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, >> michaeljwouters@gmail.com writes: >> >> On Sat, Aug 6, 2016 at 9:34 AM, KA2WEU--- via time-nuts >> <time-nuts@febo.com> wrote: >> >>> Leeson produced a somewhat random selection of papers , omitting >> important >>> things like the sapphire based best in the word . This was not even >>> referenced . >> >> The reference [145] at the end of the sentence that mentions sapphire >> oscillators also discusses a hybrid photonic-microwave oscillator that >> incorporates a room-temperature sapphire oscillator so I think he >> tried to cover both subjects with that single reference. >> >> The paper has a misleading title. It suggests that it is a history of >> the last 50 years, when it is about events roughly 50 years ago. The >> abstract makes this clear though. So I didn't really expect to read >> much about developments past 1970. >> >> Cheers >> Michael >> >> >> On Sat, Aug 6, 2016 at 9:34 AM, KA2WEU--- via time-nuts >> <time-nuts@febo.com> wrote: >>> Some of the cited references are poor, modern non-linear mathematic is >> >> kind >>> of omitted . After all the oscillator phase noise speculation, I would >>> have really liked to see at last a reference about the most modern >>> measurements techniques and it validation. How do you calibrate a >> phase >> noise test >>> system. >>> >>> Leeson produced a somewhat random selection of papers , omitting >> important >>> things like the sapphire based best in the word . This was not even >>> referenced . >>> >>> I think he is really out of it . >>> >>> 73 de N1UL >>> >>> >>> >>> In a message dated 8/5/2016 7:11:18 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, >>> john@miles.io writes: >>> >>>> >>>> Very selected and incomplete references and the equally important >>>> question >>>> of measurements strangely not covered >>>> >>>> 73 de N 1 UL >>>> >>> >>> I suppose he could write an equally-lengthy article on measurements >> alone, >>> but leaving out the post-1970s history entirely was a little >>> disappointing. It was strange to hit "ctrl-f Rohde" and see only one >> reference in the >>> bibliography. Same for "Hewlett." "Rubiola" brings up one hit (but no >>> citations) and "Stein" brings up none at all. >>> >>> -- john, KE5FX >>> Miles Design LLC >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@febo.com >>> To unsubscribe, go to >>> https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts >>> and follow the instructions there. >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@febo.com >>> To unsubscribe, go to >> https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts >>> and follow the instructions there. >> >> _______________________________________________ >> time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@febo.com >> To unsubscribe, go to >> https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts >> and follow the instructions there. >> >> _______________________________________________ >> time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@febo.com >> To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts >> and follow the instructions there. >> > _______________________________________________ > time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@febo.com > To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts > and follow the instructions there.

On 8/7/16 4:13 PM, Bob Camp wrote: > Hi > > I have seen several other attempts in the past few decades to write “history” papers in the context > of IEEE proceedings. They (unfortunately) always seem to turn into a set of personal recollections > rather than a proper history. It would be *very* useful to have a complete trace of who did what and > when in some of these areas. We seem to be very poor at doing all the (very) heavy lifting involved > in getting that done. This is hardly unique to this field. It is very typical in a lot of tech areas, and has > been for at least a few hundred years …. > I find that some of the best summaries of "previous work" are found in the second section of a PhD dissertation: you have to describe all the previous work, so you can say why your work is something new and different. And putting together a good summary is "your job" as opposed to "something on the side" which would be the case for most working engineers.