Practical Electronics for Inventors, 3rd

[uwezi]

On page 414 there are some examples of diode applications. For the adjustable waveform clipper and adjustable attenuator there is a point V+. I assume the FG is connected to the terminals on the left.  But what gets hooked up to V+? DC power supply?

Yes, it marks an arbitrary, external DC potential - actually it can of course even be another AC signal...

[TomC]

On page 414 there are some examples of diode applications. For the adjustable waveform clipper and adjustable attenuator there is a point V+. I assume the FG is connected to the terminals on the left.  But what gets hooked up to V+? DC power supply?

I breadboarded these circuits to test them. The DC PS is attached across the 1k pot and the FG is attached between ground (bottom terminal), and the input (top terminal). The circuits don't work well as depicted. The 1k fixed resistors need to be at least 10k. The adjustable attenuator doesn't work at all. It needs to be modified to use both a positive and negative supply as well as separate but ganged pots. You can see the alternate circuits I suggest in the unofficial errata.

https://onedrive.live.com/redir?resid=967A90CA47FD025B!170&authkey=!ACpFP8XYwtzjqmg&ithint=file%2c.pdf

Edit: Link no longer functional , see later posts for the updated link.

[Legion]

On page 414 there are some examples of diode applications. For the adjustable waveform clipper and adjustable attenuator there is a point V+. I assume the FG is connected to the terminals on the left.  But what gets hooked up to V+? DC power supply?

Yes, it marks an arbitrary, external DC potential - actually it can of course even be another AC signal...

Thanks

[Legion]

I breadboarded these circuits to test them. The DC PS is attached across the 1k pot and the FG is attached between ground (bottom terminal), and the input (top terminal). The circuits don't work well as depicted. The 1k fixed resistors need to be at least 10k. The adjustable attenuator doesn't work at all. It needs to be modified to use both a positive and negative supply as well as separate but ganged pots. You can see the alternate circuits I suggest in the unofficial errata.

https://onedrive.live.com/redir?resid=967A90CA47FD025B!170&authkey=!ACpFP8XYwtzjqmg&ithint=file%2c.pdf

Would you characterize these as the schematic equivalent of a typo? Or are these designs fundamentally flawed? I ask because many times I've stared at a circuit fragment in a book and been unable to wrap my head around how it works. Now I'm wondering if it's the circuit fragments that are flawed and not my understanding.

[TomC]

I breadboarded these circuits to test them. The DC PS is attached across the 1k pot and the FG is attached between ground (bottom terminal), and the input (top terminal). The circuits don't work well as depicted. The 1k fixed resistors need to be at least 10k. The adjustable attenuator doesn't work at all. It needs to be modified to use both a positive and negative supply as well as separate but ganged pots. You can see the alternate circuits I suggest in the unofficial errata.

https://onedrive.live.com/redir?resid=967A90CA47FD025B!170&authkey=!ACpFP8XYwtzjqmg&ithint=file%2c.pdf

Would you characterize these as the schematic equivalent of a typo? Or are these designs fundamentally flawed? I ask because many times I've stared at a circuit fragment in a book and been unable to wrap my head around how it works. Now I'm wondering if it's the circuit fragments that are flawed and not my understanding.

I think that in the author's mind these circuits were so simple that he decided not to test them, he may have thought that there was hardly a chance that they wouldn't work as advertised. So in a way that's some sort of a mind's lapse typo. You are not alone in finding some circuit fragments inscrutable, in my experience, sometimes the circuit is flawed, sometimes I needed to dig deeper to understand it.

[Legion]

I think that in the author's mind these circuits were so simple that he decided not to test them, he may have thought that there was hardly a chance that they wouldn't work as advertised. So in a way that's some sort of a mind's lapse typo. You are not alone in finding some circuit fragments inscrutable, in my experience, sometimes the circuit is flawed, sometimes I needed to dig deeper to understand it.

Good to know. Sounds like the best course of action, if possible, is to build the circuit and test it.

[uwezi]

I actually just looked at the circuits and didn't read the text what these were supposed to be. Indeed these are not attenuators but clippers!
 
I bought the book for myself and got it earlier this week, but at the same time I asked for a teacher's copy. Additionally to sending me a copy I also got a date with a Swedish representative of the publisher next week. I will confront him with the flaws and errors discussed here in the forum!

[TomC]

I'm curios what their response will be! I haven't seem many comments elsewhere on the web concerning errors on the third edition. In essence, it seems that the book is touted as having been mostly corrected and screened for additional errors. And in some ways this is true, but as you probably realize by now, it isn't quite as bullet proof as it has been portrayed.

That said, I still think it's an awesome compilation of the state of electronics at a ridiculous low price! I find the author to be quite competent as far as knowledge of the field and the approach to explaining the subject. The occasional gaffes in my mind are not representative of the value of the work as a whole.

[Astroplio]

First of all thanks a lot @TomC and @uwezi I really appreciate what you are doing.

I have a question; when I first bought my 2nd edition copy, I flipped through the pages and came upon page 891, where I found a nice 2 page table with "Recommended Electronics Parts" (paragraph 14.5.21).

I must say, I am thankful for this table, because as a hobbyist that had to buy parts online, I almost always needed to get extra stuff from what I needed at the time, to complete a decent size order from overseas so that postage will make sense...
In this table I found some good suggestions that I threw in my orders and now I have at hand a small collection of general components for breadboarding circuits.

I am eager to know, if such a table exists in the 3rd edition and if it is updated with new components, and maybe some part replacements?

Thanks!

[TomC]

First of all thanks a lot @TomC and @uwezi I really appreciate what you are doing.

I have a question; when I first bought my 2nd edition copy, I flipped through the pages and came upon page 891, where I found a nice 2 page table with "Recommended Electronics Parts" (paragraph 14.5.21).

I must say, I am thankful for this table, because as a hobbyist that had to buy parts online, I almost always needed to get extra stuff from what I needed at the time, to complete a decent size order from overseas so that postage will make sense...
In this table I found some good suggestions that I threw in my orders and now I have at hand a small collection of general components for breadboarding circuits.

I am eager to know, if such a table exists in the 3rd edition and if it is updated with new components, and maybe some part replacements?

Thanks!

There is a shortened replacement table, some areas have been reduced, some expanded. For example, the table for the TTL ICs was eliminated, but the table for the Microcontrollers was expanded. In my opinion, I think that components that appeared in the second edition version and are no longer recommended in the third edition are still useful for the hobbyist.

Another thing that was eliminated in the third edition is appendix D, which had a more detailed list of useful components along with their specs. I plan to hang on to that appendix myself, as you said, I think it's a nice guide for adding components to your collection.

[TomC]

I finally completed the unofficial corrected pages section of the unofficial errata. The link for the new document which includes both the unofficial errata and the corrected pages is below:

https://onedrive.live.com/redir?resid=967A90CA47FD025B!172&authkey=!ACEbpvA4f9gUlxc&ithint=file%2c.pdf

The links for previous versions of these documents on my previous posts are no longer functional.

[ablacon64]

TomC, thank you for all that effort! Man, a 173 pages errata, that's another book!

[TomC]

TomC, thank you for all that effort! Man, a 173 pages errata, that's another book!

My pleasure!

Keep in mind that 120 pages of that is corrected pages, and in many cases the only change is one or just a few words. Also, on the errata pages, a lot of the text is devoted to explaining why the change is needed or citing historical data of how the error evolved. So the length of the document doesn't actually reflect or represent the frequency or extent of the inaccuracies that are present in the third edition. In fact, there is no doubt in my mind that when compared to all the previous editions, the third edition is definitely an improved, more up to date, and more accurate version.

[ablacon64]

Also, on the errata pages, a lot of the text is devoted to explaining why the change is needed or citing historical data of how the error evolved.

Yes, I noticed that, very good indeed! Never seen an errata like that before. Thanks again.

BTW, I'm very interested in that "complete" (as in "not modified" or "shortened") 2nd edition "Recommended Electronics Parts", now is on chapter 7 (7.5.21). I'll see if I can get an used 2nd edition here.

[Astroplio]

BTW, I'm very interested in that "complete" (as in "not modified" or "shortened") 2nd edition "Recommended Electronics Parts", now is on chapter 7 (7.5.21). I'll see if I can get an used 2nd edition here.

I could just scan that table for you, you don't need to get the whole book for that, especially since you already got the new edition.

But this general topic is already discussed before on this forum, also someone already made a new thread, if you missed it here it is:
https://www.eevblog.com/forum/beginners/basic-essentials-electronic-components-for-every-experimenter%27s-lab/

Also includes links to previous threads. That's nice.

I will however try and scan the table, also maybe the appendix D, in the next couple of days and report back.
Just because it is interesting to know what the author recommends, no other reason really.

[Astroplio]

Yes, I noticed that, very good indeed! Never seen an errata like that before. Thanks again.

@TomC
Yeah, actually I wanted to comment on this also, you did a very nice job noting and correcting in-place the errata, I would like to know what software/process you used to get that beautiful result?

[Legion]

I finally completed the unofficial corrected pages section of the unofficial errata. The link for the new document which includes both the unofficial errata and the corrected pages is below:

https://onedrive.live.com/redir?resid=967A90CA47FD025B!172&authkey=!ACEbpvA4f9gUlxc&ithint=file%2c.pdf

The links for previous versions of these documents on my previous posts are no longer functional.

Thanks so much for this! I had it printed and bound.

[icon]

Hi

Congratulations to TomC on an absolutely Herculean task. Despite all these errors, I still really like the book.

I have an error which isn't in the errata (I don't think). I was struggling with a spreadsheet I made to calculate resistor values for hysteresis, using the formulae on p.654, to the right of the diagrams - I just couldn't get it to produce sensible values. Eventually I tracked it down to an error in the formula for V_ref1.

I think the formula should read

+V_sR₂(R₁+R₃*)
----------------------
R₁R₂+ R₁R₃ + R₂R₃

(* is R₂ in the book)

Do I get a prize?

Regards
John

[As an aside, I nearly submitted this post with 2 different errors of my own, proving how hard it is to correct things without introducing new errors!]

[Legion]

Found a small error on page 440. Near the bottom of the page it says "... or r_tr equals 52R". The correct value of 52k is shown below in the gain formula.

[TomC]

Hi

Congratulations to TomC on an absolutely Herculean task. Despite all these errors, I still really like the book.

I have an error which isn't in the errata (I don't think). I was struggling with a spreadsheet I made to calculate resistor values for hysteresis, using the formulae on p.654, to the right of the diagrams - I just couldn't get it to produce sensible values. Eventually I tracked it down to an error in the formula for V_ref1.

I think the formula should read

+V_sR₂(R₁+R₃*)
----------------------
R₁R₂+ R₁R₃ + R₂R₃

(* is R₂ in the book)

Do I get a prize?

Regards
John

[As an aside, I nearly submitted this post with 2 different errors of my own, proving how hard it is to correct things without introducing new errors!]

Thanks icon!

As far as I can tell and according to Microsoft Mathematics you are right! so you get a prize!

I'm with you in the difficulty of double-checking your own work, when I miss something the first time I'm likely to miss it again when I check it a second time. I hate to admit it, but at my age the brain doesn't work as fast or as clearly as in its prime. So I try to compensate with technology, there is a lot of it free in the web. To double check your correction I used Microsoft Mathematics. The attachment is the worksheet it produced.

Thanks a lot for the report, I'll incorporate it into the errata as soon as I can.

[TomC]

Found a small error on page 440. Near the bottom of the page it says "... or r_tr equals 52R". The correct value of 52k is shown below in the gain formula.

Hi Legion,

Thanks for the report!

I agree that the text and the equation don't match. Preliminarily it looks to me that the text is OK (52 ohms) but the equation is wrong (52k ohms should be changed to 52 ohms). This is how I come up with that answer:

0.026V/0.5mA = 0.026V/0.0005A = 52 ohms

So in the gain formula we should have:

-10k ohms/52 ohms = -10000/52 = -192

Again, thanks a lot for the report. I will incorporate it into the errata as soon as I can.

[TomC]

Yeah, actually I wanted to comment on this also, you did a very nice job noting and correcting in-place the errata, I would like to know what software/process you used to get that beautiful result?

Hi Astroplio,

I really don't use anything fancy, for scanning I use an older HP all-in-one inkjet printer. To scan the book pages I used the flatbed because it produces a little bit better results than the document feeder. I scan into TIFF images at 300DPI and then use Microsoft Paint (which comes free with windows) to make text or graphics corrections. For some jobs like cleaning up an image, rotating a graphic, or straightening out a page, I use Infarview which you can get free in the web. For word processing I use Open Office which also allows you to export to PDF. It also has a nice formula editor that I use whenever I need to create an equation from scratch.

[TomC]

I just got the latest errors reported in the forum incorporated into the unofficial errata. The complete document including the new corrected pages is uploading and will be available at the previously posted link in about 20 minutes. Since that is a very long download I also uploaded an addendum that consists of just the new changes (pages 440 & 654). The link for the addendum is below:

https://onedrive.live.com/redir?resid=967A90CA47FD025B!176&authkey=!AGYyJakAKmmjSWo&ithint=file%2c.pdf

[ablacon64]

But this general topic is already discussed before on this forum, also someone already made a new thread, if you missed it here it is:
https://www.eevblog.com/forum/beginners/basic-essentials-electronic-components-for-every-experimenter%27s-lab/

Thank you! I'm always searching for suggestions on components to buy to get the most components possible in the same shipping, since everything is just too expensive (and takes a loooong time) to get here.

[Legion]

Page 448, middle of the paragraph about monostable multivibrators it states "the capacitor suddenly behaves as a short circuit (a capacitor likes to pass current when the voltage across it changes suddenly)". Is this correct? A short for *any* kind of current, including DC? Or just high frequency current?

If they really mean it acts like a short, I'm surprised that the crux of their explanation is predicated upon an undisclosed (in the book, to this point) property of capacitors. And that this property isn't explained beyond the above phrase.