Practical Electronics for Inventors, 3rd

[kd7eir]

I just picked up Practical Electronics for Inventors, 3rd edition.  This is such a HUGE improvement over the previous editions!  It has all new chapters on sensors and microcontrollers.  Gone are the days of 22 page erratas for this great book.  I highly recommend this new edition to everyone.

[nadona]

Thank you for the heads-up!
This author is one of the very few who put in a lot of hard work to publish a better edition.
Also, for a book with 1000+ pages, $26.40 is a great price. Here's the link on Amazon: http://www.amazon.com/dp/0071771336/ref=rdr_ext_tmb

[robrenz]

This is my favorite all around practical electronics book. If I could only keep one this would be it. Its not art of electronics but much more practical for the average guy.

[nadona]

This is my favorite all around practical electronics book. If I could only keep one this would be it. Its not art of electronics but much more practical for the average guy.

1+

I have the first and second editions already. The third edition will be arriving on Tuesday.
I got the first edition for .99 cents, and it was so good I ordered the second edition new. Now I ordered the third.

[TomC]

Hello everyone,

I'm also a fan of this book. Own all 3 editions and have been checking in detail the third edition for mistakes since it was published. In addition to the official errata, so far I've compiled an additional errata through chapter 2, which is where most of the unreported or improperly corrected errors are located. At this point the errata is over 40 pages long. I'm doing this by myself and don't have anyone to double check my work. I'm wondering if there is any interest for this among the members that land in this thread. I'll check for responses, and if there is interest, I'll post the errata here in the near future.

[valentinc]

     I have also read this book and can say that, in my opinion, is the most comprehensive book for beginners... Most books like this don't make you feel like you get it... Some books are written by people who know very well what they teach, but don't know very well how to teach others... So I recommend this book for beginners !

[Rigby]

Hello everyone,

I'm also a fan of this book. Own all 3 editions and have been checking in detail the third edition for mistakes since it was published. In addition to the official errata, so far I've compiled an additional errata through chapter 2, which is where most of the unreported or improperly corrected errors are located. At this point the errata is over 40 pages long. I'm doing this by myself and don't have anyone to double check my work. I'm wondering if there is any interest for this among the members that land in this thread. I'll check for responses, and if there is interest, I'll post the errata here in the near future.

I just ordered the book.  I'd like to see the errata if you wish to share it.

To be clear, are you listing the errata that have been corrected in 3rd Ed. or new errata?

[TomC]

The errata contains new unreported errors, errors that were reported in the second edition errata but not corrected in the third edition, the third edition errata including errors in the errata itself, and new unreported errors caused by corrections inspired by the existing errata documents.

Many of the errors are trivial, some more serious, and some subject to interpretation. I have created corrected pages for many of these errors that could be used in place of existing pages. I took apart my personal copy of the book and three hole punched the pages so I can easily substitute original pages with corrected pages.

[Rigby]

Many of the errors are trivial, some more serious, and some subject to interpretation. I have created corrected pages for many of these errors that could be used in place of existing pages. I took apart my personal copy of the book and three hole punched the pages so I can easily substitute original pages with corrected pages.

This is something publishers should do.  Almost no books freaking lay FLAT on the table and should be bound in a way that lets them lay flat.  They're not books you hold and read page by page, at least not always.  And the ability to subscribe to a service that auto-sends me new pages (or lets me print them) for replacement is a great idea.  now that I think about it, this is how technical docs were managed while I was in the USAF.  We had a bajillion FIVE-ring binders with documents in them, and once a month we'd get a fat envelope full of corrected pages.  It was my job to go through all the changes and replace the old pages with the new.  Our paper documentation was always up to date.

How do you typeset the replacement pages?

[TomC]

How do you typeset the replacement pages?

I scan the original page into a TIFF file and use Microsoft paint and Irfanview to make corrections/changes as necessary. Then I print the new page from the corrected TIFF. It's not a perfect process but the new pages look pretty good, almost as good as the originals.

[Rigby]

For consistency's sake you might be better just scanning all the images and resetting the print in HTML or something like that.  LaTeX, if you know how to do it.

I tell you, though, I absolutely love the idea of getting updates to technical books I purchase, and having the ability to "patch" my book to the latest version.

[TomC]

I tried LATEX sometime in the past, but I found it too feature rich and complicated for occasional use. By the time I wanted to use it a second time I had forgotten a lot and had to relearn. Right now, if I need to rewrite equations or formulas from scratch, I'm using Open Office, it has a decent formula editor and it's free. I don't know HTML, but I've heard that it's not very good for writing equations and formulas, and judging from some of the renditions I see on the WEB I suspect it is true.

I have a little more work to do on the chapter 2 errata, just the last 2 or 3 pages. As soon as that is done I'll upload it and hopefully some of you will give me some input. If there is interest, I'll also upload the corrected pages for chapter 2. That's going to take a little longer because although I've got most chapter 2 pages done, it takes quite a while to do just one page of the few I got left.

[TomC]

Here is the unofficial errata for the table of contents and chapter 2. Please let me know of any suggestions, comments, disagreements, or anything else you'd like to change or add. I appreciate all input!


https://onedrive.live.com/redir?resid=967A90CA47FD025B!163&authkey=!AHXlbCuYmDtN5IY&ithint=file%2c.pdf

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

[Bored@Work]

Most books like this don't make you feel like you get it...

And I think here you are badly mistaken. Unfortunately it has become a trend that people prefer things like books that make them feel good instead of making them good. You recognize the small  but important difference?

[valentinc]

        Yes, I admit I was wrong... That is what I was trying to say, that there are many books that make you feel that you know, but when you actually want to apply what you have "learned", you are confused... I myself, years ago, was trying very hard to find some good books for electronics, but I couldn't find very many of them... And I also think that you must first understand the principles behind some circuit, and then the maths behind it... Many authors start from the mathematics point of view and try to demonstrate mathematically why and how things work... Maybe it's not a totally bad idea, but for the most part (and for most people) it just doesn't work like that...

[Sigmoid]

BTW, beware the Kindle or iBooks version of this book. The figures are the CRAP, low resolution with JPEG artifacts! It's worse than something off of an illegal scan download site.
I got 50% back from Amazon after posting a complaint.
Get it on paper. I did.

[casinada]

Great work compiling the errata, you take reading this book seriously. Probably they should have hired you to proof read it
By the time you're done with the errata it will have as many pages as the original book
Some books only make sense when you take the class with the instructor, other books are useless even with the instructor (and I mean the author).
The best books are probably good on their own
Not to boast but I was the first one to report the 3rd edition on this forum
Again congratulations on the effort.

[TomC]

Great work compiling the errata, you take reading this book seriously. Probably they should have hired you to proof read it
By the time you're done with the errata it will have as many pages as the original book
Some books only make sense when you take the class with the instructor, other books are useless even with the instructor (and I mean the author).
The best books are probably good on their own
Not to boast but I was the first one to report the 3rd edition on this forum
Again congratulations on the effort.

Thanks!
I'm hoping that some of you may have the time to look at some part of it in detail and give me feedback if you uncover any errors. Also, if any one suspects that something in the third edition book is an error, even if you are not sure, let me know and I'll try to figure it out. I'm retired (former educator for NCR/ATT), so I have quite a bit of time to pursue these things. The link below is for the unofficial Ch2 corrected pages. I think they match the errata pretty closely. Let me know if you uncover any mistakes.


https://onedrive.live.com/redir?resid=967A90CA47FD025B!168&authkey=!AJsIsTA2TlrKedo&ithint=file%2c.pdf

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

[uwezi]

Looking for a book I can recommend to students I just ordered the book and will have a look at your errata list once I have the book. Then I think this list should be communicated to the publisher!

[TomC]

Looking for a book I can recommend to students I just ordered the book and will have a look at your errata list once I have the book. Then I think this list should be communicated to the publisher!

In my opinion, this is a very good book in spite of the long errata, specially if you are on a budget. It covers a broad spectrum of the field and uses a down to earth friendly style to convey the subject. There are other good books out there, like for example, The Art of Electronics, one of my favorites. But it's pricey and somewhat outdated.

I've tried to pass on some of these errors to the publisher ever since the early days of the second edition, but got no response. The errata compiled at Bucknell hit the same firewall for years. Perhaps they pay attention only when they are ready to work on a new edition. That's OK, I guess offering interim updates is not part of their business model. However, I'd like to pass on this information to current readers in the hope that it will enhance their experience.

[uwezi]

In our introductory course on electronics we use Neil Storey's "Electonics a systems apporach" as a textbook, and have been using it since the 3rd edition. However, like most textbooks, the author appears to be paid by the word and not by contents. It is much too much text and none of the students actually takes an effort to read anything of the chapters.

http://www.pearson.com.au/9780273773276

(excuse for lack of political correctness if any of my students or the author is following this forum)

In the 4th edition essential parts were skipped, which luckily ere reintroduced in the 5th edition last year. But it also might tell something about a textbook, if there is a new edition almost every year.

For an advanced course - if there was any - I really would like to use "The Art of Electronics", but it lacks the very basics. There are many more books out there, perhaps we should have a best books/worst books here?

Candidates for worst books ever (luckily only German) are almost all recent books from the previously premium German publisher Franzis. Don't bother to buy these. One of the worst is called "AVR-Mikrocontroller in C programmieren" (Programming AVR microcontrollers in C) - most of the programming examples are actually shown in assembler 

[casinada]

Is this the official errata?
http://ebookily.org/pdf/0071771336-9780071771337-pbg-practical-electronics-for-79777079.html

[Shock]

Looking for a book I can recommend to students I just ordered the book and will have a look at your errata list once I have the book. Then I think this list should be communicated to the publisher!

Introduction Into Electronics - Earl D. Gates
Probably the best beginner book I have seen so far.  It is well paced, has illustrations and doesn't over explain things or have too much type.
It has questions (solutions in back) frequently throughout the book but they don't stop the flow of the text.  Appendices cover symbols and metric prefixes and color codes.
For beginners even easier to digest than Practical Electronics for Inventors. The negative would be that it is light on math but there are other books that handle that.

If someone has seen a better beginner book than this I'd be really interested in seeing it.

[Legion]

After reading all the good things about this book in this thread I ordered it. So far I'm really enjoying it. I'm using it with The Art of Electronics. Usually if one doesn't explain something well, the other will.

[uwezi]

Introduction Into Electronics - Earl D. Gates

First result, trying to find this book: "The Metric System, Considered with Reference to Its Introduction Into the United States",
Charles Davies, ISBN: 9781290242271 

Now I found it - from previous experiences I am a bit skeptical about books from Cengage/Delmar Learning, but I'll check it out as well...

[casinada]

The official errata site is on the McGraw Hill site
http://www.mhprofessional.com/product.php?isbn=0071771336
just look under the picture of the book and there is a download link.

Still TomC is doing a great job and may be we can help....

[Shock]

Now I found it - from previous experiences I am a bit skeptical about books from Cengage/Delmar Learning, but I'll check it out as well...

I think edition 6 is the latest and it comes with a CD.
I guess it depends on what skill your class is and how much you need to hold their attention.

There will no doubt be mistakes (there always is and finding them means your learning).
What I can't stand is when the author self promotes then makes mistakes.

Edit:

Grob: Basic Electronics - Mitchel E. Schultz
Another good one, I think edition 11e is the latest there is a student CD and is similar to Introduction Into Electronics.

[TomC]

The official errata site is on the McGraw Hill site
http://www.mhprofessional.com/product.php?isbn=0071771336
just look under the picture of the book and there is a download link.

Still TomC is doing a great job and may be we can help....

Thanks for posting that link!

The link to the Bucknel errata (For the second edition of Practical Electronics for Inventors) can be found in the following page:

http://www.eg.bucknell.edu/physics/ph235/

I started working on Chapter 3, seems fairly clean so far.

[TomC]

Introduction Into Electronics - Earl D. Gates

First result, trying to find this book: "The Metric System, Considered with Reference to Its Introduction Into the United States",
Charles Davies, ISBN: 9781290242271 

Now I found it - from previous experiences I am a bit skeptical about books from Cengage/Delmar Learning, but I'll check it out as well...

I'm not familiar with this book, so I checked it out on Amazon where they usually have previews. It seems to have beautiful graphics, however, the reviews are mostly not flattering. The comments claim the math is somewhat shallow. Below is the link at Amazon.

http://www.amazon.com/Introduction-Electronics-Earl-Gates/dp/1111128537

[Shock]

Introduction Into Electronics - Earl D. Gates
I'm not familiar with this book, so I checked it out on Amazon where they usually have previews. It seems to have beautiful graphics, however, the reviews are mostly not flattering. The comments claim the math is somewhat shallow. Below is the link at Amazon.
http://www.amazon.com/Introduction-Electronics-Earl-Gates/dp/1111128537

I'm sure they sold more than 8 copies   It's in it's 6th edition.
The difference in contrast is some books go into math over the beginners head and lose them in subsequent chapters.
 
Grob: Basic Electronics - Mitchel E. Schultz
Still easy to read layout but a little more math and lots more exercises.

[TomC]

Introduction Into Electronics - Earl D. Gates
I'm not familiar with this book, so I checked it out on Amazon where they usually have previews. It seems to have beautiful graphics, however, the reviews are mostly not flattering. The comments claim the math is somewhat shallow. Below is the link at Amazon.
http://www.amazon.com/Introduction-Electronics-Earl-Gates/dp/1111128537

I'm sure they sold more than 8 copies   It's in it's 6th edition.
The difference in contrast is some books go into math over the beginners head and lose them in subsequent chapters.
 
Grob: Basic Electronics - Mitchel E. Schultz
Still easy to read layout but a little more math and lots more exercises.

I agree with you, reviews don't always tell the whole story. Sometimes people don't research before purchasing and are disappointed when what they receive doesn't meet their needs. I'm not familiar with the book by Schultz either, however, the reviews at Amazon are mostly positive. Again, reviews are just a starting point!

[uwezi]

http://www.amazon.com/Introduction-Electronics-Earl-Gates/dp/1111128537

I'm sure they sold more than 8 copies   It's in it's 6th edition.

Being in its 6th edition is not necessarily a sign of a good book. The text book we currently use with our students has gone through three editions at a pace of about one edition a year. It is difficult for us teachers to keep pace with the changes (like problems, chapter numbering and contents) and it shows in my eyes that the publisher/author/editors are not satisfied with the book themselves.

If on the other hand the book has been around for quite some time and just been adapted to new technologies all the time, a high number of (revised) editions is a good sign.

[Shock]

Being in its 6th edition is not necessarily a sign of a good book. The text book we currently use with our students has gone through three editions at a pace of about one edition a year. It is difficult for us teachers to keep pace with the changes (like problems, chapter numbering and contents) and it shows in my eyes that the publisher/author/editors are not satisfied with the book themselves.
If on the other hand the book has been around for quite some time and just been adapted to new technologies all the time, a high number of (revised) editions is a good sign.

Yeah it's been around since 2007.
Actually it's possibly called the "Introduction to Basic Electricity and Electronics Technology" now.
Looks like they added extra technical and industry sections.

You can check out the 6th edition here and the new 2014 book here.

[Astroplio]

I also own a copy of the 2nd edition of the book and I enjoy it.

At first, I was put off a little by the long list of errata, but now I think I understand why they didn't pay someone to do a proofread; it would screw up publishing deadlines and increase costs. It is good that a hobbyist/student doesn't have to pay insane prices to get ALL this content!

Also, as it is evident here, thanks to the electronics community forums, we can always collaborate and sort out issues like errata anyways.

Now, having said all that, I would like to hear a little more about the additions on the 3rd edition.

Do you think it is worth buying if you already own the 2nd edition; especially the chapter on sensors and microcontrollers, aren't just stuff you will find anyways if you get a microcontroller specific book, ie like "Exploring Arduino by J.Blum" etc
Keep in mind there are already some pages about microcontrollers in 2nd edition and an Appendix E with circuits.

I am leaning towards getting some uC book next (haven't decided which yet), but I would like to hear your thoughts on that. Thanks.

[TomC]

I also own a copy of the 2nd edition of the book and I enjoy it.

At first, I was put off a little by the long list of errata, but now I think I understand why they didn't pay someone to do a proofread; it would screw up publishing deadlines and increase costs. It is good that a hobbyist/student doesn't have to pay insane prices to get ALL this content!

Also, as it is evident here, thanks to the electronics community forums, we can always collaborate and sort out issues like errata anyways.

Now, having said all that, I would like to hear a little more about the additions on the 3rd edition.

Do you think it is worth buying if you already own the 2nd edition; especially the chapter on sensors and microcontrollers, aren't just stuff you will find anyways if you get a microcontroller specific book, ie like "Exploring Arduino by J.Blum" etc
Keep in mind there are already some pages about microcontrollers in 2nd edition and an Appendix E with circuits.

I am leaning towards getting some uC book next (haven't decided which yet), but I would like to hear your thoughts on that. Thanks.

In my opinion, there is not a dramatic change in content between the two editions. However, there are improvements and additional chapters as you mentioned. I believe that many of the mistakes reported in the Bucknell errata have been satisfactorily corrected and others partially corrected. The possibility of a more accurate edition was one of the main reasons I decided to purchase the third edition. The other reason was that my second edition copy had become somewhat crammed with hand written notes and corrections and the prospect of a clean slate to start over with was enticing. Of less importance but still welcome was the addition of the new chapters. Ultimately is up to you. I think this is an awesome book for the price, and if it's within your budget without excluding other advanced books that you may need I would get it.

[uwezi]

...Or maybe there's another equation I'm missing that allows that substitution?

Yes, you are missing something here. All equations stated are completely correct: the first one which is the same as the first part of the second line is how angular frequency and "normal" frequency are related.

The second part of the second equation is based on the fact that the angular cutoff frequency w (actually: omega) is 1 divided by tau. It is not missing but probably stated somewhere before these equations in the book.

(this was a first: the original post disappeared while I was answering  )

[Legion]

...Or maybe there's another equation I'm missing that allows that substitution?

Yes, you are missing something here. All equations stated are completely correct: the first one which is the same as the first part of the second line is how angular frequency and "normal" frequency are related.

The second part of the second equation is based on the fact that the angular cutoff frequency w (actually: omega) is 1 divided by tau. It is not missing but probably stated somewhere before these equations in the book.

(this was a first: the original post disappeared while I was answering  )

Yeah, right after posting I found the missing equation on a previous page so I deleted my post. Sorry about that.

[TomC]

Hi everybody,

Just an update on the unofficial errata!

I'm now working on page 700+ of the book and will upload the updated document soon.

This will include contributions from members that have reported additional errors via PM. Thanks a lot!

I want to again encourage anyone that suspects a mistake to let me know either via the forum or via PM. If you let me know via the forum I will reply via the forum which will allow other members to participate in validating/correcting the mistake. If you let me know via PM I will respect your privacy and reply via PM.

[Chris_PL]

Maybe I'm trolling a bit, I own 1st edition, one of the greatest beginners book I think, even after it's a great reference. Did "they" finally convert equations, tables and so on to proper SI? Or is it still oz per inch, degrees F per fortnight in full moon etc., which for 4/6 (don't correct it to 2/3) of the world is a complete WTF?

[Rigby]

It's more like 6/7ths if you go by population, but if you want to call that 4/6, that's fine with me.

I'm turning pages in my copy now, and I don't see any mention of degrees F per fortnight nor any mention of headlamp fluid.  If you can point to a particular location where it jumps out, I can probably find the correlating page in the new edition and check.

[uwezi]

Did "they" finally convert equations, tables and so on to proper SI? Or is it still oz per inch, degrees F per fortnight in full moon etc., which for 4/6 (don't correct it to 2/3) of the world is a complete WTF?

It is a nice blend of units. I got mine today and still have to do more than just browsing, but on page 17 pressure is in PSI and perhaps more funny for us 4/6 on page 39 you will find a table over wire gauges. As far as I remember the AWG numbering is more or less arbitrary anyway, so here resistance is given (as usual for 2/6) in OHMS PER 1000FT, but then there is also a column AREA (CM) (everything is capitalized in this table). 

CM ?

Oh yes, there is even a footnote attached to make it clear to all 6/6: A circular mil (CM) is a unit area equal to that of a 1-mil-diameter circle. The CM area of a wire is the square of the mil diameter. 

[Weez]

As far as I remember the AWG numbering is more or less arbitrary anyway, so here resistance is given (as usual for 2/6) in OHMS PER 1000FT, but then there is also a column AREA (CM) (everything is capitalized in this table). 

CM ?

Oh yes, there is even a footnote attached to make it clear to all 6/6: A circular mil (CM) is a unit area equal to that of a 1-mil-diameter circle. The CM area of a wire is the square of the mil diameter. 

I'm not following you, uwezi.  This is exactly what my textbook (Floyd, 4th ed.) says...is it incorrect?

[Bored@Work]

Oh yes, there is even a footnote attached to make it clear to all 6/6: A circular mil (CM) is a unit area equal to that of a 1-mil-diameter circle. The CM area of a wire is the square of the mil diameter. 

Whoever came up with that great idea should be taken out and shot. Twice. And resuscitate, and shot a third time.

[TomC]

As far as I know, CM is popular, at least in the US, because you don't have to use geometry to figure out the area, just need to find the square of the diameter. Just a little bit less math than finding the area in square centimeters, inches, or mils of an inch.

[TomC]

I just completed the unofficial errata for the third edition, this includes all the errors reported by members of this forum, errors I found on my own, errors reported on the Bucknell errata for the second edition that were not fixed, and errors reported on the official errata for the third edition.

I intend to continue updating this list as additional errors are reported by members of this forum and as I spot additional errors while using the book. The link for the errata is below.

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

It doesn't yet include the corrected pages. That's going to take a while since so far I've only created corrected pages for chapter 2 and I need to create pages for all the remaining chapters.

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

[uwezi]

CM ?

I'm not following you, uwezi.  This is exactly what my textbook (Floyd, 4th ed.) says...is it incorrect?
[/quote]

In 4/6 of the world CM in the capitalized header of a table would stand for cm - centimeter, 1/100 of a metre, the SI unit of length (not area).

[electrolux]

the previous editions were great so this must be awesome. I'll have to take a look at it.

[Chris_PL]

Whoever came up with that great idea should be taken out and shot. Twice. And resuscitate, and shot a third time.

And then for a fourth time, just to be safe - unless he'll be still celebrating the Pi-day with all the fuss available

PS. To Dave or other admins/mods : Why does the standard Greek alphabet pi letter (UTF-8 of course) render as "?", it's just me, or the forum engine?

[uwezi]

Whoever came up with that great idea should be taken out and shot. Twice. And resuscitate, and shot a third time.

And then for a fourth time, just to be safe - unless he'll be still celebrating the Pi-day with all the fuss available

PS. To Dave or other admins/mods : Why does the standard Greek alphabet pi letter (UTF-8 of course) render as "?", it's just me, or the forum engine?

It's the forum engine which is not able to handle UTF-8 or unicode. I hade the same problem with other letters, like cyrillic markings of Geiger tubes earlier...

[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?

[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.

[uwezi]

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?

It is not a nice wording, but essentially it is correct. If you connect a discharged capacitor to a DC voltage source you will have an inrush of current which is only limited by the ESR of the capacitor, your wiring and the capability of your voltage source.

There are other ways to interpret or describe this phenomenon, one would be to see the voltage step as composed of an infinite number of frequency components (Fourier) or just as a step (Laplace). In the Fourier-view you will see that the impedance of the capacitor for infinitely high frequencies becomes infinitely small, allowing an infinite current to pass (for an infinitely short amount of time). You get rid of the infinities if you stop to neglect the series resistances, but this does not make the math simpler.

However, the current is not actually passing through the capacitor! The capacitor is charged by collecting the inrushing charges on its electrodes, but it looks as if the current would actually pass through the capacitor.

This behavior is also utilized in differentiator circuits: the current through the capacitor is proportional to the derivative of the applied voltage. The derivative of an ideal step is infinite. However, real steps are rarely infinitely sharp, and hence the derivative in all our practical circuits will be finite.

[TomC]

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.

Hi Legion,

I just read that excerpt, I think that, in the context of a sudden change to ground, saying that the capacitor will act as a short is a fair description of the effect caused by the capacitor charging. Of course, you will only see ground on the other end of the capacitor momentarily, and as the capacitor charges you'll begin to see a voltage drop across it. But at the time you apply ground to one end of the capacitor, you are going to see ground on the other end for an instant, just as if you had placed a short across the capacitor.

While reading the text for the monostable multivibrators I ran into the following sentence that appears to have a small mistake:

 "It can be thrown into its unstable state by applying an external signal, but it will automatically return to its unstable state afterward."

I think it should be corrected as suggested.

[TomC]

I've been looking at Appendix D from the 2nd edition and I think I realize now why it wasn't included in the 3rd edition. There are too many mistakes and omissions. I never looked at it in detail before and didn't suspect that at least over half of the specs contained errors, even the list of standard resistor values is missing half of the E24 values. I'm trying to fix it, but I'm beginning to think that it may be easier to rewrite it from scratch.

Just wanted to let everyone know that the specs in that appendix are at best unreliable and at worst dangerous. 

For example, the 2N5210 is shown to have a max collector current of 50A, the correct value is 50mA. Many more wrong specs like that in that section. So I suggest that it is best to suspect everything and look at a manufacturer's datasheet instead.

[Astroplio]

Hello guys, sorry for the delay I was busy!

@ablacon64
I attach below the aforementioned table with the recommended components from the 2nd edition of the book.

catch you later!

[Rigby]

Not related to the book, I guess, but I think someone should come up with a digikey cart link that contains all of these parts in the quantities specified.  Perhaps combine the 2nd and 3rd edition parts recommendations and just put together a cart in digikey and share a link to it.

maybe I can tackle that this weekend.

[rivest]

TomC, I took the initiative to upload the errata to google drive. I believe it will be a much faster download for most:

http://docs.google.com/file/d/0Bxp03EhzdniIeElNT21EcDVzSTg

[ablacon64]

@ablacon64
I attach below the aforementioned table with the recommended components from the 2nd edition of the book.

Thank you! Another user has already sent me, we were afraid to brake forum rules posting them here. I see no problem since I've already bought the 3rd edition.

BTW, Rigby's idea is very good, maybe we could come up with an essential parts list for all to have on the lab (I'm always missing something...).

[Legion]

Bottom of page 687 and top of 688 describes a 555's astable mode. Perhaps I'm not understanding their explanation but I think they've made an error here:
"With Qbar high, the discharge transistor is turned on, which allows the capacitor to charge toward V_cc through R₁ and R₂." However, a few sentences later they say "At this point, the discharge transistor turns on and shorts pin 7 to ground, discharging the capacitor through R₂."

I think the first sentence may be in error as it would make more sense if the transistor were off for the capacitor to charge.

[TomC]

Bottom of page 687 and top of 688 describes a 555's astable mode. Perhaps I'm not understanding their explanation but I think they've made an error here:
"With Qbar high, the discharge transistor is turned on, which allows the capacitor to charge toward V_cc through R₁ and R₂." However, a few sentences later they say "At this point, the discharge transistor turns on and shorts pin 7 to ground, discharging the capacitor through R₂."

I think the first sentence may be in error as it would make more sense if the transistor were off for the capacitor to charge.

You are right Legion. The transistor needs to be off for the capacitor to charge. Some rewording on one or both pages is needed to fix this mistake.

Thanks a lot for reporting this error!

[TomC]

The partial paragraph below is how I think the text on pages 687 and 688 could be corrected. The strikethroughs on the Qs are meant to be overlines, I don't know how to render overlines with this forum's text editor.

      "With Q high, the discharge transistor turns on and shorts pin 7 to ground, discharging
      the capacitor through R₂. When the capacitor's voltage drops below 1/3V_CC, comparator 2's
      output jumps to a high level, setting the flip-flop and making Q low and the output high.
      With Q low, the transistor turns on, allowing the capacitor to start charging toward V_CC
      through R₁ and R₂. When the capacitor voltage exceeds 1/3V_CC, comparator 2 goes low,
      which has no effect on the SR flip-flop. However, when the capacitor voltage exceeds
      2/3V_CC, comparator 1 goes high, resetting the flip-flop and forcing Q high and the output
      low. At this point, the discharge transistor turns on again and shorts pin 7 to ground,
      discharging the capacitor through R2. The cycle repeats over and over again. The net
      result is a squarewave output pattern whose voltage level is approximately V_CC - 1.5V and
      whose on/off periods are determined by the C, R₁, and R₂."

[Legion]

The partial paragraph below is how I think the text on pages 687 and 688 could be corrected. The strikethroughs on the Qs are meant to be overlines, I don't know how to render overlines with this forum's text editor.

      "With Q high, the discharge transistor turns on and shorts pin 7 to ground, discharging
      the capacitor through R₂. When the capacitor's voltage drops below 1/3V_CC, comparator 2's
      output jumps to a high level, setting the flip-flop and making Q low and the output high.
      With Q low, the transistor turns on, allowing the capacitor to start charging toward V_CC
      through R₁ and R₂. When the capacitor voltage exceeds 1/3V_CC, comparator 2 goes low,
      which has no effect on the SR flip-flop. However, when the capacitor voltage exceeds
      2/3V_CC, comparator 1 goes high, resetting the flip-flop and forcing Q high and the output
      low. At this point, the discharge transistor turns on again and shorts pin 7 to ground,
      discharging the capacitor through R2. The cycle repeats over and over again. The net
      result is a squarewave output pattern whose voltage level is approximately V_CC - 1.5V and
      whose on/off periods are determined by the C, R₁, and R₂."

There's still a contradiction in there. The first sentence says "With Qbar high, the discharge transistor turns on..." A couple lines below it says "With Qbar low the transistor turns on..."

My understanding is that whenever Qbar is high the transistor is on and the cap discharges. Whenever Qbar is low the transistor is off and the cap charges.

[TomC]

There's still a contradiction in there. The first sentence says "With Qbar high, the discharge transistor turns on..." A couple lines below it says "With Qbar low the transistor turns on..."

My understanding is that whenever Qbar is high the transistor is on and the cap discharges. Whenever Qbar is low the transistor is off and the cap charges.

I'm glad I posted that before creating new pages!

Of course you are right, again!

Very easy to slip up even when you know what you want to say. I think the edit below may be OK:


      "With Q high, the discharge transistor turns on and shorts pin 7 to ground, discharging
      the capacitor through R₂. When the capacitor's voltage drops below 1/3V_CC, comparator 2's
      output jumps to a high level, setting the flip-flop and making Q low and the output high.
      With Q low, the transistor turns off, allowing the capacitor to start charging toward V_CC
      through R₁ and R₂. When the capacitor voltage exceeds 1/3V_CC, comparator 2 goes low,
      which has no effect on the SR flip-flop. However, when the capacitor voltage exceeds
      2/3V_CC, comparator 1 goes high, resetting the flip-flop and forcing Q high and the output
      low. At this point, the discharge transistor turns on again and shorts pin 7 to ground,
      discharging the capacitor through R2. The cycle repeats over and over again. The net
      result is a squarewave output pattern whose voltage level is approximately V_CC - 1.5V and
      whose on/off periods are determined by the C, R₁, and R₂."

[Legion]

I'm glad I posted that before creating new pages!

Of course you are right, again!

Very easy to slip up even when you know what you want to say. I think the edit below may be OK:


      "With Q high, the discharge transistor turns on and shorts pin 7 to ground, discharging
      the capacitor through R₂. When the capacitor's voltage drops below 1/3V_CC, comparator 2's
      output jumps to a high level, setting the flip-flop and making Q low and the output high.
      With Q low, the transistor turns off, allowing the capacitor to start charging toward V_CC
      through R₁ and R₂. When the capacitor voltage exceeds 1/3V_CC, comparator 2 goes low,
      which has no effect on the SR flip-flop. However, when the capacitor voltage exceeds
      2/3V_CC, comparator 1 goes high, resetting the flip-flop and forcing Q high and the output
      low. At this point, the discharge transistor turns on again and shorts pin 7 to ground,
      discharging the capacitor through R2. The cycle repeats over and over again. The net
      result is a squarewave output pattern whose voltage level is approximately V_CC - 1.5V and
      whose on/off periods are determined by the C, R₁, and R₂."

Reads right to me!

[TomC]

Just uploaded an updated version of the unofficial errata!

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

[Rigby]

+1 for OneDrive.

+100 for impressing me.   You've spent a hell of a lot of time on this, wholly for benefiting others.  Thank you.

[Legion]

At the bottom of page 772, figure 12.72 they show an SR flip-flop with NAND enable gates so a clock signal can be fed in. Why NAND? It seems like AND gates would make much more sense.

[TomC]

At the bottom of page 772, figure 12.72 they show an SR flip-flop with NAND enable gates so a clock signal can be fed in. Why NAND? It seems like AND gates would make much more sense.

Since the SR flip-flop is built with cross-NANDs, you need a low at the Q input to set it, or a low at the Qbar input to reset it. If the enable gates were built with ANDs, you would need to invert their output before the signal was fed into the SR flip-flop inputs. By using NAND gates you eliminate the need for the extra inverters resulting in a simpler circuit.

[Witention]

I've had previous versions of this book and it just keeps getting better, and bigger. It does a great job of explaining electronic devices and concepts such that even a novice can understand it, while at the same time providing sufficient details to make it a practical reference for experimentation and development. No electronics experimenter should be without this outstanding book.

[E-lectr0de125]

Just uploaded an updated version of the unofficial errata!

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

Dear TomC,

    I want to say first thank you for your work. I would like to submit a candidate error for consideration. On page 18, example 1 seems to have errors in the calculations. For example, in part b, they list the voltage from point B to point C as +9 V. However, this seems to be inconsistent with the way he obtains voltage measurements for the other points (this error also extends into parts c and d). The value should be -9 V however as by how I see it, the calculation is putting the positive lead of the voltameter on B and the negative lead on C (that's how +3V was gotten for the voltage between A and C in part b as far as I can tell).

[TomC]

Dear TomC,

    I want to say first thank you for your work. I would like to submit a candidate error for consideration. On page 18, example 1 seems to have errors in the calculations. For example, in part b, they list the voltage from point B to point C as +9 V. However, this seems to be inconsistent with the way he obtains voltage measurements for the other points (this error also extends into parts c and d). The value should be -9 V however as by how I see it, the calculation is putting the positive lead of the voltameter on B and the negative lead on C (that's how +3V was gotten for the voltage between A and C in part b as far as I can tell).

Hi E-lectr0de125,
Thanks a lot for your input regarding example 1 on page 18.

If I understand correctly, you are trying to figure out the reference point the author expects you to use when determining the voltage between two points, or in other words, how to connect the voltmeter leads. As far as I can tell, this is not stated anywhere in this case, so there are two possible answers for each question, one would be a positive voltage, and the other an identical negative voltage. However, in the cases where one of the points is connected to ground, I think it's safe to assume that this is the reference point where you would connect the negative lead. The answers given contain at least one of the possible correct values depending on how you connect the leads, so I'm not sure if a correction is needed there.

However, there is obviously something confusing about this example or you wouldn't have brought it up. So maybe the problem should be stated differently or should clearly state which point is the reference. I'll wait and see if there is more feedback on this issue before adding it to the errata.

[nixfu]

Just wanted to chime in and say that this book is excellent.    Its a great reader, and a very good reference.

It is quite possibly the best book on electronics available today, and is right up there with Horowitz's AOE which I have also read.

Thanks for the fantastic book recommendation.

[NinjaBristle]

I have a question about the differential amplifier on page 446.  In the top paragraph it says that a larger current will flow in the right transistor if V1 is larger than V2.  Is that correct? I thought that essentially the right transistor would be cut off if V1>V2.

Thanks

[TomC]

I have a question about the differential amplifier on page 446.  In the top paragraph it says that a larger current will flow in the right transistor if V1 is larger than V2.  Is that correct? I thought that essentially the right transistor would be cut off if V1>V2.

Thanks

Hi NinjaBristle,

Thanks for pointing this out, as far as I can tell this is incorrect. I think the error can be fixed by changing the sentence: "Now, assume the signals applied to the inputs are different, say V1 is larger than V2." to the following: Now, assume the signals applied to the inputs are different, say V2 is larger than V1.

I'll add this to the next revision of the errata.

[edy]

Awesome book! I am now working my way through the 3rd edition, after making my way a bit through an older what I assumed to be the 1st edition down at my local library (which only had Paul Scherz as the author?).... It was dated copyright 2000. Not sure when 2nd edition came out, but the 3rd edition looks easier to understand. I was struggling with the RC/RL/RLC circuits and the phasor diagrams, trying to get a grip on intuitively what is going on and not just relying on the math calculations! I hope the new book helps in this regard... can't wait to work through it....

[cdwilson]

@TomC this is an AMAZING contribution, thanks!  I just found this thread after posting this errata question on EESE http://electronics.stackexchange.com/questions/123891/bipolar-transistor-switch-base-current-calculation-example-from-pefi-seems-wrong

I don't see this issue in the last errata pdf you published.  Can you have a look at the question and see if there is really an error in the text, or if I'm just misunderstanding something about how BJTs work? 

[TomC]

@TomC this is an AMAZING contribution, thanks!  I just found this thread after posting this errata question on EESE http://electronics.stackexchange.com/questions/123891/bipolar-transistor-switch-base-current-calculation-example-from-pefi-seems-wrong

I don't see this issue in the last errata pdf you published.  Can you have a look at the question and see if there is really an error in the text, or if I'm just misunderstanding something about how BJTs work?

Hi cdwilson,

Thanks a lot for bringing this up. I agree that the equation at the top of page 437 is incorrect. This equation refers to the diagram at the top of Fig. 4.52 and, as you pointed out in your EESE post, the equation should read: I_B = (V_CC - 0.6V)/R₁

I'll add this to the next revision of the errata.

[TomC]

The latest revision of the Unofficial Errata is uploading and should be available in about 30 minutes:

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

Thanks to the EEVblog members that reported errors or problems with the text the following pages have been added or modified:

213
214
215
229
437
446

[neslekkim]

That was some comprehensive errata!:), Is this submitted to the authors for corrections?
To bad this book is not as the Oreilly ebooks, that is updated from time to time, so one can download them when they do new reprints of the books.

[TomC]

That was some comprehensive errata!:), Is this submitted to the authors for corrections?
To bad this book is not as the Oreilly ebooks, that is updated from time to time, so one can download them when they do new reprints of the books.

Hi neslekkim,

I've tried to pass on some of these errors to the publisher ever since the early days of the second edition, but got no response. The errata compiled at Bucknell hit the same firewall for years. Perhaps they pay attention only when they are ready to work on a new edition. That's OK, I guess offering interim updates is not part of their business model. However, I'd like to pass on this information to current readers in the hope that it will enhance their experience.

Since I first published the errata there has been quite a bit of input from EEVblog members resulting in additional entries. Hopefully this will lead to an overall far more error free text for all to enjoy.

[cdwilson]

@TomC I sent an email to Simon Monk <evilgeniusauthor@gmail.com> letting him know this thread existed.  See his response below.  I bet if you get in touch with him directly, he may have some swing with the publisher.

Thanks very much!

I have passed this on to my editor. I know someone there was working through another list of errata.

Si.

[neslekkim]

So the Author itself is not interrested in corrections?, hm.. Do the editors have any knowledge about the subject, and can validate what's reported?, hm..

[Rigby]

So the Author itself is not interrested in corrections?, hm.. Do the editors have any knowledge about the subject, and can validate what's reported?, hm..

MUCH more likely that he has someone already working on errata and is not interested in duplicating work.

[TomC]

The latest revision of the Unofficial Errata is uploading and should be available in about 30 minutes:

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

Thanks to the EEVblog members that reported errors or problems with the text the following pages have been added or modified:

225
228
229
230

[cdwilson]

On Page 23, Figure 2.18 shows a graph of the "Response of Ohmic Materials" with Voltage on the Y axis, and Current on the X axis.  Should these axis labels be swapped?  For example, in a conductor, a small voltage should product a large current.  However, the graph seems to indicate that a small current would product a large voltage in conductors, which doesn't seem correct.

[TomC]

On Page 23, Figure 2.18 shows a graph of the "Response of Ohmic Materials" with Voltage on the Y axis, and Current on the X axis.  Should these axis labels be swapped?  For example, in a conductor, a small voltage should product a large current.  However, the graph seems to indicate that a small current would product a large voltage in conductors, which doesn't seem correct.

Hi cdwilson,

Thanks for pointing this out!

As I see it, the labels "conductors" and "insulators" need to be swapped. That way a small voltage will produce a large current on conductors but a very high voltage would be required to produce a very small current on insulators. This will have the same general effect as swapping the labels on the axes, but given the current angle of the graph lines I think it will be more representative of the actual ohmic range of conductors and insulators. I will add this correction to the next revision of the errata.

Again, thanks a lot for the input!

[TomC]

The latest revision of the Unofficial Errata is now available:

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

Thanks to the EEVblog members that reported errors or problems with the text the following pages have been added or modified:

23

[cdwilson]

Couple questions on page 35:

1) The errata says equation 2.11 should use the integral form of Fourier's law.  Can you provide more insight about why the differential form is incorrect?  Is it because the differential form (-k*deltaT) is equal to the heat flux density, and when you integrate the heat flux density over the total surface, you get the total total heat transferred per unit time (i.e. the total power)?  Also, in this Wikipedia article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermal_conduction#Integral_form the integral form ends in dA while the errata ends in dS.  Which is correct (and why)?

2) equation 2.12 is defined as P_heat = -k*A*deltaT/L, where deltaT = T_hot - T_cold.  Should deltaT be defined instead as T_cold - T_hot?  Since T_cold - T_hot will always be a negative quantity, P_heat will be a positive quantity.

3) Why were the brackets on the gradient equation changed to square brackets?  Do these denote a vector or something?

[TomC]

Couple questions on page 35:

1) The errata says equation 2.11 should use the integral form of Fourier's law.  Can you provide more insight about why the differential form is incorrect?  Is it because the differential form (-k*deltaT) is equal to the heat flux density, and when you integrate the heat flux density over the total surface, you get the total total heat transferred per unit time (i.e. the total power)?  Also, in this Wikipedia article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermal_conduction#Integral_form the integral form ends in dA while the errata ends in dS.  Which is correct (and why)?

2) equation 2.12 is defined as P_heat = -k*A*deltaT/L, where deltaT = T_hot - T_cold.  Should deltaT be defined instead as T_cold - T_hot?  Since T_cold - T_hot will always be a negative quantity, P_heat will be a positive quantity.

3) Why were the brackets on the gradient equation changed to square brackets?  Do these denote a vector or something?

Hi cdwilson,

Thanks for posting your concerns in this forum!

1) I think you got the idea. It's not that the differential form is incorrect, but in the context of what the author says it seems to me that he meant the integral form. The differential form refers to the "heat flux density" or heat rate per unit area which is a vectorial quantity, the integral form refers to "heat rate" through a body as a whole which is a scalar quantity. In the caption for Fig 2.24 it seems to me that the author defines Pheat as "the rate of heat transfer, or power due to heating", also at the top of page 37 he defines Pheat as thermal current (heat flow). These statements again lead me to believe that on equation 2.11 he was talking about the integral form. There is a Wikepedia article on "heat current" where the integral form is used to define it:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat_current

The Wikipedia article you mention is where I got the formula for the errata, but I did the research for this errata entry back in 2009 or 2010 and since then the article has undergone many edits. Either version is OK in my opinion since dS and dA are defined as the same quantity. The link for the article just before they edited the formula is below:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Thermal_conduction&oldid=337138011

I surmise that the reason for the change is to avoid confusion between the S used as a limit and the S in dS.

2) As I understand it this is by design and the negative sign represents the direction of the flow from hot to cold. However I've seen one article where the author omitted the minus sign on a similar formula.

3) There is no special meaning for the brackets, I use the Open Office formula editor and as I remember the scaling of parentheses didn't work well at the time I did this.

@ A reminder to other members:

Please jump in at any time and offer your opinion!
Specially if you have expertise on one of these complex subjects that are glossed over in the book!

[cdwilson]

Hi Tom,

Thanks for the detailed reply.  Agreed, if anybody else wants to jump in and provide more insight, please feel free!

1) I think I understand the difference between heat flow (dQ/dt) and the "heat flux density" as defined on this page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermal_conduction#Fourier.27s_law  However, I'm having a hard time figuring out if this "heat flux density" is synonymous with "heat flux", or if they are actually two different things (for example, in E&M they are different, flux density is flux/unit area).  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat_flux doesn't provide any clarification, and seems to use them synonymously.  From the Wikipedia definition of heat flux, it appears that it already is defined per unit area, which makes me totally confused as to what "heat flux density" is (per unit area, per unit area???)

2) I think the negative sign is required in the differential form (-k*A*gradient_T) because the negative sign counteracts the "downhill" gradient, providing a positive heat flow along the gradient from hot to cold.  However, when you integrate this equation to obtain the heat flow through a uniform object, you end up with delta_Q/delta_t=k*A*(T1-T2)/l where T1=hot and T2=cold.  See the example given on this page http://www.brighthubengineering.com/hvac/54035-the-one-dimensional-heat-conduction-equation/ Also check out Physics for Scientists & Engineers, 3rd Ed, Giancoli, Page 503.  I'm trying to find a clear explanation of this online so I can verify, if you find one, please post it. 

[TomC]

Hi cdwilson,

You pose some interesting questions and arguments for which I have no ready answer. I'm not an expert on this subject but I'll do some more research and give you my opinion. Right now I have to mow the lawn so I'll take a better look at this tonight!

[cdwilson]

Hi Tom,

RE: #1 below, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flux seems to indicate that there are two different usages for "flux":

1) Flux as a surface integral (including E&M).  Defined as the surface integral of the vector field.  In electrical fields for example, the E-field is the electric flux density, and the surface integral is the total electric flux out of the surface.

2) Transport phenomena (including heat flux).  Defined as flow rate of property per unit area.  Since the definition on Wikipedia already includes per unit area, it would make more sense (to me) if this quantity was called "heat flux density" instead of "heat flux".  I'm totally confused why in one context (#2) "flux" would be per unit area, and in another context (#1) "flux" would be the total over the entire surface...

I wasn't familiar with Fourier's law before coming across it in the text.  I could be totally wrong about all of this 

Btw, I think part of the reason why I was initially confused was because I didn't realize that the differential form and the integral form were actually different quantities (i.e. they weren't just different forms for heat flow).

If we figure out the remaining details about heat flux vs. heat flux density, I think the errata could be improved if both the differential and integral forms are shown in the explanation, with proper labels (heat flow vs. heat flux [density???]).

[TomC]

Hi cdwilson,

Intuitively I believed that "heat flux" and "heat flux density" were the same until you questioned it and aired some valid concerns. However, after researching this further, I'm again convinced that they are the same. I think  the word "density" added to "heat flux" just sort of reaffirms the formal meaning of "heat flux". Go figure that this reaffirmation can be confusing if you know the formal meaning of "heat flux" beforehand. I found quite a few corroborating articles on the web by searching for: define "heat flux density". Here is a link to one that spells it out unequivocally:

http://www.norenproducts.com/thermal-solution-components

I also did some research on the comments that you had about equation 2.12 and I know believe, as you indicated, that something needs to be changed so that you don't end up with negative results all the time. The easiest to implement would be to just delete the minus sign on the RHS of the equation. Another possibility would be to delete delta_T and replace it with Tcold - Thot. This would also require changing the paragraph below the equation to something like:

Figure 2.24 shows a picture of the situation. Here delta_T = Thot - Tcold, measured at points across the length L of the material. The material may be steel, silicon, copper, PCboard material, and so on.

A number of web articles influenced my thinking on this but below is a link to a PDF that helped a lot:

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=7&ved=0CEwQFjAG&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.me.umn.edu%2Fcourses%2Fold_me_course_pages%2Fme3333%2Fessays%2Fessay%25203.pdf&ei=ClYWVMTzAeTbsAT7zYKIAg&usg=AFQjCNFd-VZKZj6KbYW7I9uINUH9-dAgNw&bvm=bv.75097201,d.cWc&cad=rja

The reason I'm not proposing to change the definition of delta_T to Tcold - Thot as you initially suggested is because of conflict with the thermal resistivity equations that follow. Otherwise this would be more mathematically precise as indicated in the text of the above PDF.

[cdwilson]

Thanks Tom.  I agree on the "density" suffix, thanks for looking into this and clearing it up for me. 

The easiest to implement would be to just delete the minus sign on the RHS of the equation.

I think this is the correct change to make.  It is consistent with the equation/explanation in the physics textbook I have which also removes the minus sign and uses delta_T = T_hot - T_cold. 

Seriously man, many thanks for your responses and hard work on the errata doc.  It has saved me from many head scratching moments while starting to read through this text 

[robrenz]

Seriously man, many thanks for your responses and hard work on the errata doc.  It has saved me from many head scratching moments while starting to read through this text 

I still scratch my head even when the formulas are corrected   

[TomC]

The latest revision of the Unofficial Errata is uploading and should be available in about 30 minutes:

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

Thanks to the EEVblog members that reported errors or problems with the text the following pages have been added or modified:

35

[cdwilson]

Page 381, example 7, part c, shouldn't the answer be 7.5 ohms instead of 8?  (did they just round up?)

[TomC]

Page 381, example 7, part c, shouldn't the answer be 7.5 ohms instead of 8?  (did they just round up?)

Hi cdwilson,

I think you are right and the author just rounded the answer. It seems that in this section all the answers involving numbers greater than 1 are rounded to a whole number.

[nowlan]

Havent looked at the question myself, but you would normally have to round to nearest E12 value in real life.

1.0, 1.2, 1.5, 1.8, 2.2, 2.7, 3.3, 3.9, 4.7, 5.6, 6.8, 8.2 and 10.0
times a power of ten.

8.2 - 7.5 = 0.7
7.5 - 6.8 = 0.7

[TomC]

Hi nowlan,

You are right that when selecting resistors you normally round to one of the E values depending on the precision you need. However, in this case we are looking at the calculation for the input impedance of a transformer. The exact value is 7.5 ohms, but the author rounded to a whole number (8 ohms).

[cdwilson]

Page 52, Figure 2.40, the middle plot shows a non-linear curve for Current vs. Resistance (I = V/R).  Shouldn't this be linear for resistors?

[TomC]

Page 52, Figure 2.40, the middle plot shows a non-linear curve for Current vs. Resistance (I = V/R).  Shouldn't this be linear for resistors?

Hi cdwilson,

The x axis appears to be from 100 ohms to 1000 ohms. If you apply the formula using those values the graph appears to be pretty close to me.

[cdwilson]

   doh! you are right, when I saw it I was thinking about V=IR being linear where R is fixed, but this plot is I=V/R where V is fixed (i.e. plot y=a/x).  Thanks for putting me right!

[cdwilson]

On page 53, the second paragraph states:

Factoring out V_total, we get: I_total = V_total(1/R1 + 1/R2 + 1/R3 ... 1/R4).  We call the term in brackets R_total.

Should it be changed to the following?

Factoring out V_total, we get: I_total = V_total(1/R1 + 1/R2 + 1/R3 + ... + 1/RN).  We call the reciprocal of the term in brackets R_total.)

[TomC]

Hi cdwilson,

Thanks for the input!

I see a problem with the formula on that sentence but a little different than what you mentioned. It seems that the author missed a division sign between V_total and the term in brackets. So I think the formula should be:

I_total = V_total / (1/R1 + 1/R2 + 1/R3 + ... 1/Rn)

I think the rest of the sentence would be correct with this change.

[cdwilson]

Whoops, yeah, you're right, thanks for catching that.

[cdwilson]

Wait, I don't think that's right.  R_total = 1/(1/R1 + 1/R2 ...), but if you just add a "/" sign, then (1/R1 + 1/R2 ...) is 1/R_total right?

[TomC]

Wait, I don't think that's right.  R_total = 1/(1/R1 + 1/R2 ...), but if you just add a "/" sign, then (1/R1 + 1/R2 ...) is 1/R_total right?

Right, but I think that's what you need to get the correct answer. On the next page he shows the formula in a simpler form:

I_in = V_in / R_total

let me know what you think!

[cdwilson]

I think the equation is correct as is, but the "We call the term in brackets R_total." is wrong.

I_in = V_in / R_total = V_in / 1/(1/R1 + 1/R2 + ...) = V_in * (1/R1 +1/R2 + ...)

This equation is the same as what's printed in the book.  However, saying that (1/R1 +1/R2 + ...) = R_total is wrong.

If you wan to put the "/" sign into the equation, you need to change (1/R1 +1/R2 + ...) to 1/(1/R1 +1/R2 + ...).

[TomC]

I think the equation is correct as is, but the "We call the term in brackets R_total." is wrong.

I_in = V_in / R_total = V_in / 1/(1/R1 + 1/R2 + ...) = V_in * (1/R1 +1/R2 + ...)

This equation is the same as what's printed in the book.  However, saying that (1/R1 +1/R2 + ...) = R_total is wrong.

If you wan to put the "/" sign into the equation, you need to change (1/R1 +1/R2 + ...) to 1/(1/R1 +1/R2 + ...).

I see what you are saying now! and I agree, the last sentence should say something like: The term in brackets is the reciprocal of R_total.

[cdwilson]

Yeah, he basically skips the step factoring out the V_total variable from "I_total = V_total/R1 + V_total/R2 + ... + V_total/RN" and skips directly to I_total = V_total * (1/R1 +1/R2 + ...).  It's confusing because most people expect to see something that looks like I_total = V_total / R_total.

[TomC]

Yeah, he basically skips the step factoring out the V_total variable from "I_total = V_total/R1 + V_total/R2 + ... + V_total/RN" and skips directly to I_total = V_total * (1/R1 +1/R2 + ...).  It's confusing because most people expect to see something that looks like I_total = V_total / R_total.

Yeah, it's pretty simple fractions math though, invert the divisor and multiply, for some reason I didn't see that initially. It's a good thing you were alert and caught it!

So I think the last two sentences should then look like:

Factoring out V_total, we get: I_total = V_total (1/R1 + 1/R2 + 1/R3 + ... 1/Rn). The term in brackets is the reciprocal of R_total.

Thanks a lot for the input! I'll add this to the next revision of the errata.

[Bored@Work]

The term in brackets is the reciprocal of R_total.

Why beating around the bush? It is the conductance.

[TomC]

Hi Bored@Work,

You are right, it's the conductance!

However, that concept should probably be introduced in more detail before using it to describe a term in an equation. Although the conductivity of materials was introduced earlier, I don't think that conductance in the way that it could be portrayed here is introduced until page 247.

[TomC]

The latest revision of the Unofficial Errata is uploading and should be available in about 30 minutes:

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

Thanks to the EEVblog members that reported errors or problems with the text the following pages have been added or modified:

53

[khendar]

I've just downloaded a preview of the Kobo version of this book, and it appears as if the illustrations are of reasonable quality in this version. Those in the first two chapters at least are easily readable on my 7" tablet (some of the smaller labels on the schematics are a little hard to make out but their meaning can be easily determined). Does anybody else have the Kobo version of this and can verify  that the rest of the book is okay ?

[TomC]

Hi khendar,

It doesn't look like any other members have the Kobo version!

Did you buy it anyway?

I'm also curious as to the quality of the illustrations, so if you have it, would you mind sharing your impression?

[cdwilson]

Quick question about Figure 2.54, c. on page 65 ("Practical Current Source").

Figure C labels the the 2nd transistor base "B" and the emitter "E".  When I first read the equation "I_0 = V_BE/R2", I thought that V_BE was referring to the base-emitter voltage on the 2nd transistor (because that was the one that was labeled with the "B" and "E" nodes).  However, I think the V_BE in the equation is actually referring to the base-emitter voltage on the 1st transitor (the left one).  Is that right?

[Fantome]

Hello, I am new to the EEVblog forums and I have to say this is the most interesting tech thread I have ever read. I already had the 3rd edition of the book, but I hadn't spent much time with it yet. Now that I realize what a gem this book is, I think I will be getting much more familiar with it.

@TomC...you are an inspiration man! I thank you profusely for the work you have done and your willingness to share it. 

I think I am really going to enjoy EEVblog forums!

P.S.

For those of you who would like to make your books lie flat, here is a solution (though not cheap):
Cutter - shears the binding right off the book: http://www.amazon.com/QCM-8200M-Heavy-Desktop-Cutter/dp/B0010KTIL6
Comb punch & binder (up to 2" books): http://www.amazon.com/Akiles-MegaBind-2-Plastic-Binding-Spiral-O/dp/B002RX1DFY
Example Combs (there are many sizes): http://www.amazon.com/Fellowes-Plastic-Binding-Capacity-52501/dp/B000YD17U0

The blade in that cutter can actually shear the binding off of a book as thick as Practical Electronics For Inventors 3rd edition in one pass, but unfortunately the book is about 50 pages too thick for the clamp that holds it in place. So it would require manually slicing the binding between two pages (say in the middle of the book) with a razor blade and then shearing the binding off for each half. The book is about 1.5 inches thick, so a 1.5 or 1.75 inch comb would fit. Or since it is somewhat unweildy, you bind it in two volumes (or more!). I'll probably do mine soon, perhaps I will take some pictures.

I've never tried it, but Wire binding is another option that may allow the book to lie flat even better than combs, but may not work for thicker books.
Example Wire punch & binder: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B004KU0V6Y

[TomC]

Quick question about Figure 2.54, c. on page 65 ("Practical Current Source").

Figure C labels the the 2nd transistor base "B" and the emitter "E".  When I first read the equation "I_0 = V_BE/R2", I thought that V_BE was referring to the base-emitter voltage on the 2nd transistor (because that was the one that was labeled with the "B" and "E" nodes).  However, I think the V_BE in the equation is actually referring to the base-emitter voltage on the 1st transitor (the left one).  Is that right?

Hi cdwilson,

I agree with you that the formula refers to the first transistor's V_BE. This can be significant depending on the type of transistors used since the V_BE voltage drops may be different. However, in most cases, the V_BE is basically a diode's voltage drop. So if both transistors have a similar base emitter drop, say 0.6V, the answer would be the same regardless of which V_BE you use.

While looking at the circuit I remembered seeing something similar in "The Art of Electronics". So I checked my copy and there is an almost identical circuit on page 76, except that it uses PNP's. The formula is the same, and the text clearly indicates that the V_BE in the formula refers to Q1, which is the equivalent to the first transistor on Fig. 2.54. The example in "The Art of Electronics" is a 10mA current source where R2 is 62 ohms. They don't state the V_BE value in the text, but 62 ohms x .010A = 0.62V.

[TomC]

Hello, I am new to the EEVblog forums and I have to say this is the most interesting tech thread I have ever read. I already had the 3rd edition of the book, but I hadn't spent much time with it yet. Now that I realize what a gem this book is, I think I will be getting much more familiar with it.

Hi Fantome,

Welcome to the EEVblog!

I'd like to see how your book looks like once you rebind it with a comb! I did mine, very slowly, with a box cutter, then just three hole punched it. It came out pretty good, but required a lot of patience!

Again, welcome, and hope to see you in this thread often!

[the_phet]

Hi, first comment here, great community.

I have a question, third edition, page 62, at the very end of the example, when it calculates R1 = 25V/0.116A = 216ohms

Why the voltage through R1 is 25V and not 50?

the source is 100V, and the first junction, when it goes to load1, it is 50V, shouldn't it be 50V?

[TomC]

Hi, first comment here, great community.

I have a question, third edition, page 62, at the very end of the example, when it calculates R1 = 25V/0.116A = 216ohms

Why the voltage through R1 is 25V and not 50?

the source is 100V, and the first junction, when it goes to load1, it is 50V, shouldn't it be 50V?

Hi the_phet,

You are right the source is 100V total, however, in respect to ground, the voltage at the top  of R1 is +75V, although it's not labeled. If you look just below R4 it's labeled -25V, so that's a clue that at the top of R1 we have +75V. Following your reasoning, with 75V at the top of R1 and 50V at the first junction the voltage across R1 is 75 - 50 = 25V.

[GK]

Why do so many keep singing praises for a book that need a companion volume of errata? Just put the thing into the toilet and do a big sloppy #2 on it.

[timb]

Find me any electronics book that doesn't have egregious errors. Go on. I'll wait. At least with this it's fairly minor stuff for the most part. Even the Holy Sacred Art of Electronics had some pretty big errors in places.


Sent from my Smartphone

[GK]

The number of errors for what is an elementary text are a bit excessive, don't you think?
 

[JoeO]

The number of errors for what is an elementary text are a bit excessive, don't you think?

Exactly.
The dichotomy is that the technical editor of a book should know MORE about the topic and be MORE exacting than the author.

 

[robrenz]

For the average nitwit like me, Practical Electronics for Inventors has so much broader a range of information than AoE that it is worth checking the errata when necessary.  The way things are presented fits my learning style.

[Rigby]

Same.  Great book.

[timb]

The number of errors for what is an elementary text are a bit excessive, don't you think?

You've never opened a college or high school textbook I see.


Sent from my Smartphone

[Bored@Work]

Now that I realize what a gem this book is, I think I will be getting much more familiar with it.

Why do so many keep singing praises for a book that need a companion volume of errata? Just put the thing into the toilet and do a big sloppy #2 on it.

Some people take glass beads, thinking they got real gems.

[the_phet]

Hi, first comment here, great community.

I have a question, third edition, page 62, at the very end of the example, when it calculates R1 = 25V/0.116A = 216ohms

Why the voltage through R1 is 25V and not 50?

the source is 100V, and the first junction, when it goes to load1, it is 50V, shouldn't it be 50V?

Hi the_phet,

You are right the source is 100V total, however, in respect to ground, the voltage at the top  of R1 is +75V, although it's not labeled. If you look just below R4 it's labeled -25V, so that's a clue that at the top of R1 we have +75V. Following your reasoning, with 75V at the top of R1 and 50V at the first junction the voltage across R1 is 75 - 50 = 25V.

Why is it 75v and not 100v?

I don't understand

[TomC]

Why is it 75v and not 100v?

I don't understand

Hi the_phet,

The answer has to do with the location of the reference point or ground. Try to visualize using a voltmeter to read the voltages with the common of the voltmeter connected to the junction of R3 and R4. If you read the voltage across R4 you get a negative voltage because its bottom end is connected to the negative side of the 100V V_S. The voltage in this case is -25V. On the other hand, if you read the voltage at the top of R1 you get a positive voltage. However, since 25V were dropped across R4, you'll only see 100V -25V = 75V. To see the full 100V the voltmeter's common would have to be connected to the bottom of R4, but that's not the reference point.

Although the example deals with calculating the voltage divider resistors required to supply specific voltages and currents to three loads, it is also possible to just use ohms law and the parallel resistors formula to simplify the circuit using the given values. That's what I did to come up with the attached Simplified Figure 2.50 illustration in an attempt to help visualize the above. For example, Load 3 is equivalent to 25V/0.100A = 250 ohms, and R4 parallel to Load 3 is equivalent to (1562 x 250)/(1562+250) = 215.5 ohms.

Let me know if this helps with your question!

[the_phet]

Why is it 75v and not 100v?

I don't understand

Hi the_phet,

The answer has to do with the location of the reference point or ground. Try to visualize using a voltmeter to read the voltages with the common of the voltmeter connected to the junction of R3 and R4. If you read the voltage across R4 you get a negative voltage because its bottom end is connected to the negative side of the 100V V_S. The voltage in this case is -25V. On the other hand, if you read the voltage at the top of R1 you get a positive voltage. However, since 25V were dropped across R4, you'll only see 100V -25V = 75V. To see the full 100V the voltmeter's common would have to be connected to the bottom of R4, but that's not the reference point.

Although the example deals with calculating the voltage divider resistors required to supply specific voltages and currents to three loads, it is also possible to just use ohms law and the parallel resistors formula to simplify the circuit using the given values. That's what I did to come up with the attached Simplified Figure 2.50 illustration in an attempt to help visualize the above. For example, Load 3 is equivalent to 25V/0.100A = 250 ohms, and R4 parallel to Load 3 is equivalent to (1562 x 250)/(1562+250) = 215.5 ohms.

Let me know if this helps with your question!

yes it does, thank you very much

[the_phet]

Hi, I have another question about the book and the unofficial errata.

page 75 in the book, I1 and I2. I see why I2 is Va+IbR1 but why I1 is negative (Va-IbR2)

is it not calculated the same why? Why I1 is I11 - I12?

[TomC]

Hi, I have another question about the book and the unofficial errata.

page 75 in the book, I1 and I2. I see why I2 is Va+IbR1 but why I1 is negative (Va-IbR2)

is it not calculated the same why? Why I1 is I11 - I12?

Hi,

Oversimplifying a bit, I think we can look at it this way: V_A and I_B are both positive at their top end, so they are generating opposite currents. As a result, both V_A and I_B contribute to the current flowing through R2 (I2). So for I2 we add the currents of both sources. On the other hand, the current through R1 depends on the difference of potential between V_A and I_B, for example, if both were generating the same voltage no current would flow through R1. So for the current through R1 (I1) we subtract I22 from I21 to find the difference between the two sources.

However, in reality, the current through R1 could flow either from left to right or right to left depending on whether the voltage generated by the I_B source is lower or greater than V_A. But to try and help visualize the situation, let's assume that these two voltages are equal. In this case, without any math, we can see that I1 = 0 and I2 = I_B. To test the equations with simple numbers let's assume that R1 = 0.5 ohms, R2 = 0.5 ohms, V_A = 5V, and I_B = 10A. Note that by choosing 10A for I_B the current source will need to output 5V for 10A to flow through 0.5 ohms, so since V_A is also 5V this should make both voltages equal. With these values we get:

I21 = V_A = 5A

I22 = I_B x R1 = 10 x 0.5 = 5A

I2 = I21 + I22 = 5 + 5 = 10A

I1 = I21 - I22 = 5 - 5 = 0A



Let me know if this helps with your question!

[the_phet]

yes, thank you!

I think they need this explanations in the book

[the_phet]

I am having problems with the exercise that spreads between page 78 and 79 with 4 circuits

in circuit B, my Inorton is 9V / 400A so 0.0225, while they give 0.02A (I assume nothing goes through the resistance with 600 ohms)

in circuit D,  my I norton is 0.011A (3/266) while they give 0.007A

Can anyone help me solve this example? thanks!

[TomC]

I am having problems with the exercise that spreads between page 78 and 79 with 4 circuits

in circuit B, my Inorton is 9V / 400A so 0.0225, while they give 0.02A (I assume nothing goes through the resistance with 600 ohms)

in circuit D,  my I norton is 0.011A (3/266) while they give 0.007A

Can anyone help me solve this example? thanks!

Hi the_phet,

It seems that you are calculating the total current instead of the Inorton. For the Inorton you can imagine that you have an ammeter connected between points A and B. Keep in mind that the ammeter itself looks like a short between points A and B. Alternately, if you already know Vthev and Rthev, you can simply get Inorton by dividing Vthev by Rthev. The attached image shows one way to solve part d of the example, part b can be solved in a similar way.

Let me know if this helps with your question!

[the_phet]

When you calculate Inorton I don't see where the 0.01/3*2 comes from, especially the part "/3*2"

[TomC]

When you calculate Inorton I don't see where the 0.01/3*2 comes from, especially the part "/3*2"

It's just a shortcut for calculating the current through parallel resistors. For example, if you have two parallel resistors of equal value you get half of the current through each one. You can easily use the same principle if they are exact multiples, like in this case 200 ohms and 100 ohms. The 100 ohms carries 2/3 of the current and the 200 ohms 1/3 of the current.

[the_phet]

When you calculate Inorton I don't see where the 0.01/3*2 comes from, especially the part "/3*2"

It's just a shortcut for calculating the current through parallel resistors. For example, if you have two parallel resistors of equal value you get half of the current through each one. You can easily use the same principle if they are exact multiples, like in this case 200 ohms and 100 ohms. The 100 ohms carries 2/3 of the current and the 200 ohms 1/3 of the current.

I understand that R4 is ignored because it is shorted, but then I don't understand where you get the 200ohms, because there is one with 100 ohms and two with 200 ohms

[TomC]

I understand that R4 is ignored because it is shorted, but then I don't understand where you get the 200ohms, because there is one with 100 ohms and two with 200 ohms

The total current is 0.01A, this flows from the positive side of the battery through the first 200 ohm (R1), then it flows through the second 200 ohm (R2) in parallel with the 100 ohm (R3). So 0.01A is flowing through the parallel combination of R2 and R3. We need to find out what part of this 0.01A flows through R3 to get the Inorton. The classical way of doing this is to first find the voltage drop across one of the voltage divider resistors and then use that to find the current. In this case, the voltage divider consists of R1 = 200 ohms, and R2 || R3 = 67 ohms. The voltage drop across 67 ohms is 0.01A x 67 ohms = 0.67V. Now the current through R3 can be calculated with ohms law: I_R3 = 0.67V / 100 ohms = 0.007A, which is also Inorton. However, instead of calculating it this way, I used a shortcut that is easier to use in some cases when trying to determine the portion of the current flowing through individual parallel resistors when you know the total current flowing through them in combination. Because the resistors in parallel are R2 (200 ohms) and R3 (100 ohms), it was easier to mentally figure out that R3 would carry 2/3 of the current. So I simplified the calculation to 2/3 of 0.01A = 0.007A.

[the_phet]

I understand that R4 is ignored because it is shorted, but then I don't understand where you get the 200ohms, because there is one with 100 ohms and two with 200 ohms

The total current is 0.01A, this flows from the positive side of the battery through the first 200 ohm (R1), then it flows through the second 200 ohm (R2) in parallel with the 100 ohm (R3). So 0.01A is flowing through the parallel combination of R2 and R3. We need to find out what part of this 0.01A flows through R3 to get the Inorton. The classical way of doing this is to first find the voltage drop across one of the voltage divider resistors and then use that to find the current. In this case, the voltage divider consists of R1 = 200 ohms, and R2 || R3 = 67 ohms. The voltage drop across 67 ohms is 0.01A x 67 ohms = 0.67V. Now the current through R3 can be calculated with ohms law: I_R3 = 0.67V / 100 ohms = 0.007A, which is also Inorton. However, instead of calculating it this way, I used a shortcut that is easier to use in some cases when trying to determine the portion of the current flowing through individual parallel resistors when you know the total current flowing through them in combination. Because the resistors in parallel are R2 (200 ohms) and R3 (100 ohms), it was easier to mentally figure out that R3 would carry 2/3 of the current. So I simplified the calculation to 2/3 of 0.01A = 0.007A.

I understand now sorry for all these questions... but I have another one.

Same example, part d, the way you calculated Vthev I don't understand. To solve this I read some tutorials elsewhere and used the transformation between Norton and Thevenin equivalent circuits, but it seems you are doing something else.

I understand how the I_tot = 0.01 is, but then, why divided by 1 multiplied by 100 ohms.

THe 0.01 amps go through R1 and then arrive to the junction between R2, R3 and R4. I don't know how you followed your calculation

[TomC]

THe 0.01 amps go through R1 and then arrive to the junction between R2, R3 and R4. I don't know how you followed your calculation

It's the same shortcut for calculating the current. Since R2 is 200 ohms and is in parallel to R3 & R4 (100 ohms + 100 ohms) which are in series, we have the equivalent of two 200 ohms resistors in parallel. So the current through each branch is half the total current or 0.01A/2 = 0.005A. Since R4 is on one of these branches, you also have 0.005A going through it. Now to find Vthev you find the voltage across it using Ohms law: Vthev = 0.005A x 100 ohms = 0.5V.

[socratidion]

New member here, stumbled upon this post when googling for errata for Monk/Scherz 3rd edition.
I read 'Practical Electronics' over the summer/autumn of 2013: I was a complete beginner, so I read very carefully. I collected errata as I went, which (since there seemed to be a lot of them) made me read more carefully. At some point in chapter 2, I contacted the publisher, who put me in touch with the editor, Roger Stewart; and I began sending packets of errata at intervals as I read. I am told that Paul Scherz has submitted his corrections for a fourth edition (which would include some of my suggestions).

Being a beginner, there were obviously a large number of things I didn't know anything about: what I could spot was errors in logic, inconsistencies, poor labelling, and maths; and as time went on, some little knowledge I had got from practical experience.

I haven't had time to look carefully at the errata list from TomC, nor to compare it with mine, but a brief scan suggests he's done a comprehensive, admirable job, which I will study with great interest. Many things there that I didn't spot! I only waste everyone's time with this post because there was at least one error I happened to remember from my list which I didn't see on his:

p. 689, the diagram showing the internal layout of the 555 timer, there is a connection between pin 6 and the junction of the internal voltage divider. This diagram is a kind of repeat of the one on p. 687, where they are not connected. I know enough about the workings of this chip, at least, to know that the p. 689 version is wrong.

While I'm on it, I did offer a corrected version of the paragraph at the bottom of p.687, and see that TomC has done so too. However, I can add that at the top of p. 687, in the small text accompanying the diagram, line 7, the words '- input to comparator 2' should be changed to '- input to comparator 1'.

I'm so fearfully pressed for time I can't write any more. I would post my complete collection of errata but for two reasons: 1) No point in duplicating what you've already go, and 2) there are some of my suggestions that I now realise are wrong. But maybe in due course I'll be able to weed out the bad stuff and find a few more things to add to TomC's rather wonderful assembly.

[TomC]

Hi socratidion,

Welcome to the EEVblog!

I agree with you about the error on page 689 figure 10.9 and the error on page 687 on the caption for figure 10.6. I will add both errors to the next version of the unofficial errata.

I'm very interested on any additional errors that you have uncovered! I haven't really read the entire book yet, just the areas I needed to refresh while working on other projects, and the areas where errors have been reported by others, specially, the Bucknell errata. So I really think the errata could benefit from someone that has read the entire book while collecting errata!

[TomC]

The latest revision of the Unofficial Errata is now available:

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

Thanks to the EEVblog members that reported errors or problems with the text the following pages have been added or modified:

687
689

[RogerL]

I have just joined this community having found this post while searching for the official errata.  I am an electronics newbie and have been dabbling with Arduinos for a few months.  I soon came to the conclusion that I needed a decent grounding in electronics to achieve what I wanted out of my projects, so bought the book last week from Amazon UK and have started flogging through it.

The reason for my post is that although my copy of the book is still the third edition, it seems to have had at least some of the corrections mentioned in TomC's errata as being in the official errata (I haven't checked them all yet).  I mention this in case the errata issues have put anyone off buying the book ----- the publishers do appear to be making an effort.

[TomC]

Hi Rogert,

Welcome to the EEVblog!

That's interesting news!

Can you post more details regarding the errors you can confirm have been corrected?

[JoeO]

I have just joined this community having found this post while searching for the official errata.  I am an electronics newbie and have been dabbling with Arduinos for a few months.  I soon came to the conclusion that I needed a decent grounding in electronics to achieve what I wanted out of my projects, so bought the book last week from Amazon UK and have started flogging through it.

The reason for my post is that although my copy of the book is still the third edition, it seems to have had at least some of the corrections mentioned in TomC's errata as being in the official errata (I haven't checked them all yet).  I mention this in case the errata issues have put anyone off buying the book ----- the publishers do appear to be making an effort.

Roger:  Thanks for letting us know.  How about giving us some info about which printing it is.  Could you please document here the numbers that are on the page before the first Content page.  It would be page viii although mine does not have this Roman Numeral on it.

If you could scan and paste a copy of this page it would be better and very helpful.
Thanks

[RogerL]

Can you post more details regarding the errors you can confirm have been corrected?

OK Tom, will do.  I was going to start marking up my book with the corrections this evening, so when I have completed that I will report back.

On the publisher's page in my copy, the line that I believe tells you the print run (if only I knew how to decode it) is:
5 6 7 8 9 0 QVS/QVS  10 9 8 7 6 5 4

Maybe this means its print run 4 or 5 ??

Roger

[RogerL]

Roger:  Thanks for letting us know.  How about giving us some info about which printing it is.  Could you please document here the numbers that are on the page before the first Content page.  It would be page viii although mine does not have this Roman Numeral on it.

If you could scan and paste a copy of this page it would be better and very helpful.
Thanks

Hi Joe,

Our posts seem to have crossed, but I think I had already guessed what the next question was going to be.  If you need any other info let me know.

[RogerL]

Can you post more details regarding the errors you can confirm have been corrected?

OK, I got to page 185 this evening and have decided I want to do this in chucks as its obviously going to take some time and I would like to make some progress on actually reading the book.  Up to this point, all the official errata mentioned in TomC's list have been corrected in print in my copy.

[TomC]

Rogert,

Thanks a lot for the info!

I'm glad the publisher has improved the accuracy of the book!

I don't know how to decode the print run either, but for comparison, the below is what's printed on my copy which also came from Amazon:

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 WCK WCK 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3
ISBN 978-0-07-177133-7
MHID 0-07-177133-6

I'm pretty sure my book is part of the first run because it was pre-ordered before the book was released.

[JoeO]

Roger:  Thanks for letting us know.  How about giving us some info about which printing it is.  Could you please document here the numbers that are on the page before the first Content page.  It would be page viii although mine does not have this Roman Numeral on it.

If you could scan and paste a copy of this page it would be better and very helpful.
Thanks

Hi Joe,

Our posts seem to have crossed, but I think I had already guessed what the next question was going to be.  If you need any other info let me know.

Thanks

My book is:
5 6 7 8 9 0 QVS/QVS  10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3

[neslekkim]

My book is:
5 6 7 8 9 0 QVS/QVS  10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3

And mine:

6 7 8 9 0 QVS/QVS  10 9 8 7 6 5 4

[JoeO]

Roger:  Thanks for letting us know.  How about giving us some info about which printing it is.  Could you please document here the numbers that are on the page before the first Content page.  It would be page viii although mine does not have this Roman Numeral on it.

If you could scan and paste a copy of this page it would be better and very helpful.
Thanks

Hi Joe,

Our posts seem to have crossed, but I think I had already guessed what the next question was going to be.  If you need any other info let me know.

Thanks

My book is:
5 6 7 8 9 0 QVS/QVS  10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3

Correction: My book is 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 QVS/QVS  10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3

[RogerL]

OK, how about this for a hypothesis.

The number on the extreme left is the number of the print run and the number on the extreme right is the revision number.

If this is correct, then I predict that neslekkim has the updates as his book has the same revision number (4) as mine.

Well neslekkim, are you going to keep me in suspense?

[neslekkim]

I need to start checking, I didn't know that they had edited the books between print runs, but if they did, that's good.

Anything specific I need to check?, or just start somewhere?

[Rigby]

That's why there are multiple print runs, to fix errors between.  Editions are released and are major revisions by the author(s) and are considered different books as a result.

Ordering from the publisher directly will usually get you the latest printing.  You can usually email them and ask to verify that.

[RogerL]

Anything specific I need to check?, or just start somewhere?

Just look in TomC's list for any items that have an Explanation of "Reported on the official errata" ---- say the ones on pages 45 and 46.

[neslekkim]

Page 45, 46, 57 is corrected, 53, 56 is not.

[RogerL]

Page 45, 46, 57 is corrected, 53, 56 is not.

That is what I would expect --- 53 and most of 56 is not on the official errata.  You have the revised edition.

[TomC]

Good job RogerL!

I think your hypothesis is correct!

For those planning to buy the book, I think it would be wise to ask the seller about the number on the extreme right and shoot for 4 or higher.

[socratidion]

I've started going through comparing my errata list with TomC's. So as not to waste anyone's time, I've made a new list where I've deleted anything that duplicates what you know already. It's not finished yet -- I'm up to p.453 -- but I'll try to complete the job asap. Attached are two chunks.

Bear in mind I'm a relative noob at all this, and I don't doubt that occasionally ignorance and naivety led me astray. Even so, I think I got most of it right.

[socratidion]

And here's the last of my errata. I didn't read the chapter on microcontrollers at all (not where my interest lies at the moment). There's a lot of minor stuff, correcting spelling mistakes, grammar, what have you. But still a few major things (that I still don't know if I was right about).

Whatever you make of the corrections/comments I've sent, I do urge you to get in touch with Roger Stewart (the commissioning editor at McGraw Hill) and let him know of the list you've built up on this forum. I get the sense he genuinely welcomes improvements to the book, and it's no good to him if the book gets a reputation for being full of errors. STOP THE PRESSES! STOP THE PRESSES!

[TomC]

Hi socratidion,

Thanks a lot for putting together and sharing the errata chunks!

Briefly looking at batch 1 & 2 it seems they are almost identical except for a few items that are present on batch 1 but not on batch 2, I'm not sure if that's what you intended.

It's going to take me a while to go through these in detail, but I'll give you my opinion item by item once I do. It would help if you can provide the chunks in .odt or .doc format so I can insert my comments right below each item as I go along.

As far as Roger Stewart, it wouldn't hurt to send him an email and point out that this thread exists. So feel free to do so if you wish or PM me with contact information if you prefer.

Again, thanks a lot for this major effort!

[socratidion]

Hmm, quite right, I bungled trying to divide the files up to stay under the 1Megabyte limit. But in .doc format it's a lot less. So I've attached the whole lot together. I think.

You're also right, I might as well email Roger Stewart myself.

[Forser]

Thanks to this thread, i ordered and received my copy of this book today.
Oh boy, it is a lot of stuff to read and learn. Specially for a newbie like me.

[TomC]

Hi,

I'm still working through socratidion's errata. It's going to be a while longer before I can post my opinion on all of his entries, specially if I keep getting sidetracked by other things in the book that catch my attention!

For example, a couple entries in the errata point out some errors in Figure 2.133 on page 138. While there I noticed that an A_L index format widely used is not mentioned. Having struggled with toroid core specs in the past while trying to redesign a PWM power supply, I decided to research this a little and look for an explanation of the different formats and conversion methods from one to the other in the web. I couldn't find much, so I decided to figure it out myself and write a paper on it. So, since it's related to information in the book I thought I'll post it here in case someone else may find it useful.

[TomC]

Hi socratidion,

Thanks again for this comprehensive compilation of errata!

So far I've gone through all the entries for Chapter 2. I've found everyone of your entries easy to understand and well thought, so I've been trying to be as thorough as possible before offering my opinion, specially on the few cases where I currently don't see things the same as you. It's a slow process, so I thought that it would be better to post what I have so far rather than wait until I get through the whole document. Please let me know if you disagree with any of my views, although I try hard not to, I bungle things and miss obvious points often. Of course, anyone else reading the errata is also welcome to comment and point out anything they disagree with!

[timofonic]

Hello.

I was going to buy an electronics book that is enough complete but easy to approach for a complete beginner that lacks mathematics background, plus focused on learning by practicing. But the errors made me scary, because I don't want to get messed with errors.

Any news in your errata finding effort? Any news from the publisher?

[TomC]

Hello.

I was going to buy an electronics book that is enough complete but easy to approach for a complete beginner that lacks mathematics background, plus focused on learning by practicing. But the errors made me scary, because I don't want to get messed with errors.

Any news in your errata finding effort? Any news from the publisher?

Hi Circuiteromalaguito,

In spite of the errors, I think this is a good reference book. However, if you have no clue about electronics, perhaps a more basic text would be more appropriate for the time being. That said, although this book will use calculus to initially explain many concepts, you can generally ignore the high math and just use the much simpler formulas derived from it for your electronics tinkering. Simpler texts may only offer the reader the basic formulas without mentioning the high math that was used to obtain them, this book gives you the chance to explore the subject to the depth you are comfortable with.

As far as the errata, the effort is temporarily in a hiatus due to some other more pressing work. However, I think most of the more egregious errors are covered in what we got so far in the unofficial errata and in socratidion's compilation. I do plan to continue working on it in the near future. So the plan is to update the unofficial errata using socratidion's compilation and any other submissions by members of this forum.

[JacquesBBB]

Together with TomC,

I believe that this  book is a very good book. Two years ago, I started electronics as a complete
beginner, there were two books that I found very helpful to start :

- Make : Electronics from Charles Platt (which is at a lower level than Practical electronics ..)
- Practical Electronics for Inventors (which  has also the advantage of being very cheap).

Then I went  to "The Art of Electronics" which is a pure marvel. But it was too difficult as a first step,
because of the too rich content. So Practical Electronics was a good intermediary step for
The art of Electronics.

Now that  know a little bit more, I never go back to "Make: Electronics",  but I come back to "Practical electronics",
and most often  to "The art of Electronics" which is the kind of book that you will never master completely.
Every time you read again a chapter, you find something new.

--------------------------------------------------------------

Concerning "Practical Electronics fro Inventors", there are numerous errors that have been listed, so
it is an additional exercise to find the errors while you are reading.

There is an error  that does not seem to have been noticed before
(although I have  not searched extensively in the lists of errors).
It is a quite enormous error and it reaches a summit in the appendix
C.6 Trigonometry.

Indeed on p. 965, Figure C.5 is totally wrong (attached).

All the sine curve have infinite slope at k \pi, with the slope precisely
drawn as a vertical line.
In elementary (high) school, one learn that the derivative of sin(x)
is cos(x), so the derivative at 0 (and at all  k \pi) is  cos(0)=1.

If you take a general function V_0 sin(x)  the slope value at zero will be
V_0.  The tangent  at the origine
will thus be  y = V_0 x, with value \pi/2 V_0 = 1.57 V_0 at  the maximum (x= \pi/2)
that is 57% above the max of the sine curve  V_0. You can thus
easily draw the tangent at the origin, as it needs to reach the point 57% above the max
at x= pi/2 (and not infinity as in Fig C5).

This gross error is propagated all along the book.
Although some of the sine curves are correct. I have listed here
all the places that I found with incorrect sine curves.


p. 438  F 4.55 : Another error here as the 0.6 V offset of Vout is not properly
                 drawn. As the slope is infinite at V=0, the difference of the
                 two curves should reduce to zero at the crossing (or decrease very much).
                 It would also be visible in a true sine curve.

p.439  F. 4.56
p.440  F. 4.57
p.441  F. 4.58
p.447  F. 4.65   same comment on the 0.6V offset
p.455  F. 4.79
p.456  F. 4.81
p.457  F. 4.81 (cont)
p.475  F. 4.75
p.479  F. 4.124
p.579  F. 7.29
p.580  F. 7.29 (cont)
p.580-1  F. 7.30
p.582  F. 7.32
p.584  F. 7.34
p.585  F. 7.35
p.585  F. 7.36
p.586  F. 7.37
p.588  F. 7.39
p.589  F. 7.41
p.590  F. 7.42
p.590  F. 7.43
p.636  F. 8.3
p.641  F. 8.11
p.641  F. 8.12
p.661  F. 8.45 & 846
p.663  F. 9.1
p.683  F. 10.1
p.694  F. 10.16
p.699  F. 11.1
p.700  F. 11.2
p.703  F. 11.7
p.707  F. 11.12  (although here it is not said that it is a sine )
p.929  F. 15.2
p.955  F. A.2

[TomC]

Hi JacquesBBB,

Good observation!

I had noticed that many of the sine wave drawings looked funny, but never stopped to analyze why. I guess my brain dismissed it as an approximation, although as you point out, quite an inaccurate one. I'll add a comment to the errata pointing out that these drawings are not very good depictions of a sine wave. Also, I think at least the drawing on page 965 should be replaced with a better illustration.

For comparison to what a sine wave should look like, I attached a sketch of a sine wave representation using 17 data points. Point 9 is the zero crossing, and the plot of points 8, 9, & 10 gives a better representation of what the slope should look like.

[JacquesBBB]

More precisely,
this is an illustration of what I  said concerning the tangent at the origine.

[sbugnon]

Hi. Just got that book. Love it ! And many thanks for your invaluable efforts putting together errata. I maybe have an unseen one yet - although am not sure I´ve gone through all the errata. So, while visiting chapter 2, a minor error showed up on top of p.19. Fig. 2.15, legend of copper nucleus pic: it reads ´Strong force (exchange of ions)´ while it should read ´Strong force (exchange of gluons)´. Cheers.

[neslekkim]

what is your print run number?

check here:
https://www.eevblog.com/forum/beginners/practical-electronics-for-inventors-3rd/msg566122/#msg566122

[TomC]

Hi. Just got that book. Love it ! And many thanks for your invaluable efforts putting together errata. I maybe have an unseen one yet - although am not sure I´ve gone through all the errata. So, while visiting chapter 2, a minor error showed up on top of p.19. Fig. 2.15, legend of copper nucleus pic: it reads ´Strong force (exchange of ions)´ while it should read ´Strong force (exchange of gluons)´. Cheers.

Thanks sbugnon!

As you said, that's an unseen yet error! I'll add it to the errata when I start working on it again.

[uwezi]

All the sine curve have infinite slope at k \pi, with the slope precisely
drawn as a vertical line.
In elementary (high) school, one learn that the derivative of sin(x)
is cos(x), so the derivative at 0 (and at all  k \pi) is  cos(0)=1.

I see these wrong sine curves everywhere - strangely enough too many textbooks show sine curves as some aligned half-circles or similar misshaped curves. I wonder why - it is not difficult to even hand-draw a nice and correct sine curve if you start with a diagonal line at the zero-crossings.

Nowadays it cannot be too complicated to let the layout software itself draw a perfect sine curve - if the author is unable to provide a better version...

[timofonic]

Hello Tom.

Thanks and sorry for my late reply.

Is the publisher/author friendly to the exoanded errata? I would prefer to buy a newer edition with all the fixes. I'm at zero money again so I would need to wait a few months before able to buy it again.

So the book doesn't teach the required math. Can I live without the advanced maths? I want to learn the basics, master them and learn enough background to do my own designs. I was going to study a computing programming course but finally only was able to enter at an electronics course. I don't regret at all, despite back to studies is getting very messy, I always loved to make circuits since childhood and it seemed like magic to me (I owned an electronics.kit for children too).


Best regards.

Hello.

I was going to buy an electronics book that is enough complete but easy to approach for a complete beginner that lacks mathematics background, plus focused on learning by practicing. But the errors made me scary, because I don't want to get messed with errors.

Any news in your errata finding effort? Any news from the publisher?

Hi Circuiteromalaguito,

In spite of the errors, I think this is a good reference book. However, if you have no clue about electronics, perhaps a more basic text would be more appropriate for the time being. That said, although this book will use calculus to initially explain many concepts, you can generally ignore the high math and just use the much simpler formulas derived from it for your electronics tinkering. Simpler texts may only offer the reader the basic formulas without mentioning the high math that was used to obtain them, this book gives you the chance to explore the subject to the depth you are comfortable with.

As far as the errata, the effort is temporarily in a hiatus due to some other more pressing work. However, I think most of the more egregious errors are covered in what we got so far in the unofficial errata and in socratidion's compilation. I do plan to continue working on it in the near future. So the plan is to update the unofficial errata using socratidion's compilation and any other submissions by members of this forum.

[Trey]

I am disappointed with the qualify of PEfI, 3rd and think there are too many errors. Some are inexcusable, particularly for the 3rd edition. If you have a local library, check for electronics books -- mine has AoE 2nd edition and others. Or find a used copy of a better book.

[TomC]

Hello Tom.

Thanks and sorry for my late reply.

Is the publisher/author friendly to the exoanded errata? I would prefer to buy a newer edition with all the fixes. I'm at zero money again so I would need to wait a few months before able to buy it again.

So the book doesn't teach the required math. Can I live without the advanced maths? I want to learn the basics, master them and learn enough background to do my own designs. I was going to study a computing programming course but finally only was able to enter at an electronics course. I don't regret at all, despite back to studies is getting very messy, I always loved to make circuits since childhood and it seemed like magic to me (I owned an electronics.kit for children too).


Best regards.

Hi Circuiteromalaguito,

I'm not sure what the publisher/author plan to do concerning the errata discussed in this forum. However, when the 3rd edition was published, they made an effort to correct the errors reported in the errata compiled by Bucknell University. I hear rumors that a 4th edition is in the works, hopefully, at least the major errors reported here will be corrected. However, I have no official indication or confirmation that this will be the case.

There are many things you can do with just the basic formulas and without going into calculus, including designing many circuits. However, like everything else in life, the more you know ...!

If I were in you shoes, with limited funds, I would do what another member just suggested, check out the local public libraries. Try to find a book that matches your needs and expectations before investing on it. You are better equipped than anyone else to determine what's more suitable for you at this point in your career!

[timofonic]

Hello.

Any news about erratas and a new fixed edition from the publisher?

Hello Tom.

Thanks and sorry for my late reply.

Is the publisher/author friendly to the exoanded errata? I would prefer to buy a newer edition with all the fixes. I'm at zero money again so I would need to wait a few months before able to buy it again.

So the book doesn't teach the required math. Can I live without the advanced maths? I want to learn the basics, master them and learn enough background to do my own designs. I was going to study a computing programming course but finally only was able to enter at an electronics course. I don't regret at all, despite back to studies is getting very messy, I always loved to make circuits since childhood and it seemed like magic to me (I owned an electronics.kit for children too).


Best regards.

Hi Circuiteromalaguito,

I'm not sure what the publisher/author plan to do concerning the errata discussed in this forum. However, when the 3rd edition was published, they made an effort to correct the errors reported in the errata compiled by Bucknell University. I hear rumors that a 4th edition is in the works, hopefully, at least the major errors reported here will be corrected. However, I have no official indication or confirmation that this will be the case.

There are many things you can do with just the basic formulas and without going into calculus, including designing many circuits. However, like everything else in life, the more you know ...!

If I were in you shoes, with limited funds, I would do what another member just suggested, check out the local public libraries. Try to find a book that matches your needs and expectations before investing on it. You are better equipped than anyone else to determine what's more suitable for you at this point in your career!

Local libraries for average people sucks here for technical book, but luckily I have 3rd party access to university libraries. I'll check it after I finish the course. These days in very stessed and struggling with my learning and organizational issues, I'm lost.

Thanks for your advice!

[TomC]

Hello.

Any news about erratas and a new fixed edition from the publisher?


Local libraries for average people sucks here for technical book, but luckily I have 3rd party access to university libraries. I'll check it after I finish the course. These days in very stessed and struggling with my learning and organizational issues, I'm lost.

Thanks for your advice!

Hi,

Nothing new to report yet, but I still plan to continue with the project later on!

In the mean time, there is a new book out that you may want to consider, The Art of Electronics 3rd Edition.

https://www.eevblog.com/forum/blog/the-art-of-electronics-3rd-edition/225/

I ordered a copy of it but haven't received it yet. So I can't tell you first hand what I think, but I know the 2nd edition was excellent!

[ez24]

FYI 

errata for the   2nd   edition  -->

[url=http://www.eg.bucknell.edu/physics/ph235/errata.pdf]http://www.eg.bucknell.edu/physics/ph235/errata.pdf[/url]

seems to me to be a bit much

but ordered a 3rd edition because of the cost

[socratidion]

Alas, I just bought a copy of Art of Electronics 2nd edition, last December. Sooner or later I will just have to cut my losses and get the 3rd edition, I suppose. Meanwhile, plenty to work on in the 2nd edition. I don't suppose the principles have changed... or have they? I can live with not knowing the most contemporary component numbers. For now.

[Blofeld]

Alas, I just bought a copy of Art of Electronics 2nd edition, last December. Sooner or later I will just have to cut my losses and get the 3rd edition, I suppose. Meanwhile, plenty to work on in the 2nd edition. I don't suppose the principles have changed... or have they? I can live with not knowing the most contemporary component numbers. For now.

Nothing wrong with reading the first 5 chapters of the 2nd edition. But instead of reading chapter 6 "Voltage Regulators and Power Circuits", you can download the corresponding chapter of the 3rd edition. The authors give it away as a free sample - you can find the link at the begin of my review:

http://www.wisewarthog.com/electronics/horowitz-hill-the-art-of-electronics-3rd-edition.html

After you have read this, it is probably time to get the 3rd edition. In case you stick with the 2nd edition - don't fall in love too deeply with the 68000 

[baoblackcoal]

This is my favorite all around

[timofonic]

Alas, I just bought a copy of Art of Electronics 2nd edition, last December. Sooner or later I will just have to cut my losses and get the 3rd edition, I suppose. Meanwhile, plenty to work on in the 2nd edition. I don't suppose the principles have changed... or have they? I can live with not knowing the most contemporary component numbers. For now.

Nothing wrong with reading the first 5 chapters of the 2nd edition. But instead of reading chapter 6 "Voltage Regulators and Power Circuits", you can download the corresponding chapter of the 3rd edition. The authors give it away as a free sample - you can find the link at the begin of my review:

http://www.wisewarthog.com/electronics/horowitz-hill-the-art-of-electronics-3rd-edition.html

After you have read this, it is probably time to get the 3rd edition. In case you stick with the 2nd edition - don't fall in love too deeply with the 68000 

Why not? 68000, 6809, 6502 and Z80 are lovely CPUs.

Go retro!

[TomC]

I received my copy about a week ago, and so far what I've seen is very encouraging! Same style and approach as the 2nd edition, hard to believe it took 25 years to get here! There is also an official errata and submissions seem to be vetted by the authors! I think that's an splendid idea!

http://artofelectronics.net/errata/

[timofonic]

I received my copy about a week ago, and so far what I've seen is very encouraging! Same style and approach as the 2nd edition, hard to believe it took 25 years to get here! There is also an official errata and submissions seem to be vetted by the authors! I think that's an splendid idea!

http://artofelectronics.net/errata/

I wish Practical Electronics for inventors would have website like that and absimilar official  errata system. It think list would be huge, but can fix them on next prints.

[wobblycogs]

Is anyone still collecting errors for this book? If so I think I've spotted a couple that aren't current in the errata (and I've only got to page 10). Going by the printing numbers discussed earlier in this thread I've got print run five of the book.

Page 2 Diagram: Output Devices, Stopper should be Stepper

Page 8, Figure 2.3: Partially corrected, still reads 2 seconds in the lower note starting "Amount of charge..."

Page 10, Figure 2.5a: This one I'm not sure about. Although it doesn't say this diagram presumably depicts an alkaline cell. The "Cathode MnO2" label points to the outer can but I think it would be clearer if it pointed to what is marked as electrolyte (and the electrolyte label should probably be removed). As it is it implies the can is consumed as it was with Zinc-Carbon cells.

[timofonic]

Are there news about a 4th edition? I think the errata list is big enough for it...

[tooki]

Why do so many keep singing praises for a book that need a companion volume of errata? Just put the thing into the toilet and do a big sloppy #2 on it.

I am disappointed with the qualify of PEfI, 3rd and think there are too many errors. Some are inexcusable, particularly for the 3rd edition. If you have a local library, check for electronics books -- mine has AoE 2nd edition and others. Or find a used copy of a better book.

Having recently bought this book, before stumbling upon this thread, and I tend to agree. I don't understand the praise it's garnering. I chose it due to its high rating on Amazon, but having actually read it... I find it at times confusing, sometimes contradictory, often outdated (for example, half the time it correctly refers to 120V mains in North America, at others it refers to 117V mains, which hasn't been the nominal voltage for decades), but most of all, I don't really quite understand why some topics are started in one place, then finished in another. When I read it cover-to-cover, several times I found myself puzzled at encountering a topic again, with different information than in the first mention.

Is it full of useful information? Yes, no doubt. But the technical writer in me (I did that for a few years) thinks it needs a LOT of editing to become a truly good book.

I also think this book is just begging for a better binding than paperback. It's kinda crazy that this is paperback, yet the local electronics distributor (Distrelec) sends a free catalog that is hardcover, 2600 pages in full color!

Now, off to compare the errata to my copy. (7 8 9 0 QVS/QVS 10 9 8 7 6 5 for those who were wondering.)

[timofonic]

Why do so many keep singing praises for a book that need a companion volume of errata? Just put the thing into the toilet and do a big sloppy #2 on it.

I am disappointed with the qualify of PEfI, 3rd and think there are too many errors. Some are inexcusable, particularly for the 3rd edition. If you have a local library, check for electronics books -- mine has AoE 2nd edition and others. Or find a used copy of a better book.

Having recently bought this book, before stumbling upon this thread, and I tend to agree. I don't understand the praise it's garnering. I chose it due to its high rating on Amazon, but having actually read it... I find it at times confusing, sometimes contradictory, often outdated (for example, half the time it correctly refers to 120V mains in North America, at others it refers to 117V mains, which hasn't been the nominal voltage for decades), but most of all, I don't really quite understand why some topics are started in one place, then finished in another. When I read it cover-to-cover, several times I found myself puzzled at encountering a topic again, with different information than in the first mention.

Is it full of useful information? Yes, no doubt. But the technical writer in me (I did that for a few years) thinks it needs a LOT of editing to become a truly good book.

I also think this book is just begging for a better binding than paperback. It's kinda crazy that this is paperback, yet the local electronics distributor (Distrelec) sends a free catalog that is hardcover, 2600 pages in full color!

Now, off to compare the errata to my copy. (7 8 9 0 QVS/QVS 10 9 8 7 6 5 for those who were wondering.)

Do you suggest an equivalent alternative?

Even the mythical AoE 3e still keeps receiving erratas. Fortunately, they are getting them documented officially:
http://artofelectronics.net/errata/

[ez24]

This post is too long.  But I just checked my new (got it last week) PEFI 3rd against this errata:

http://www.mhprofessional.com/downloads/products/0071771336/0071771336_scherzmonk_errata.pdf

I checked 5 corrections and they were corrected in my book, ie they are ok.

So the publisher is correcting the mistakes as the book is being printed.    ie new 3rd edition books will have fewer errors than older 3rd edition books

Very impressive book for the money. 

[tooki]

Do you suggest an equivalent alternative?

I'm looking!!!

For what it's worth, as an example of a book I think is much better written (but doesn't have similar scope) is "Understanding Solid-State Electronics, 3rd ed." written by Texas Instruments and sold by Radio Shack, of all places, long ago.

That said, if none of us can find a great book, maybe this is an opportunity for someone! I do not have the solid electronics background to do this, but I'm a great technical writer/editor if someone wants to collaborate!

Even the mythical AoE 3e still keeps receiving erratas. Fortunately, they are getting them documented officially:
http://artofelectronics.net/errata/

I've just ordered a copy of that, we shall see how it is!

[tooki]

I checked 5 corrections and they were corrected in my book, ie they are ok.

So the publisher is correcting the mistakes as the book is being printed.    ie new 3rd edition books will have fewer errors than older 3rd edition books

Indeed, my copy also seems to contain those fixes. Can you list the printing number (the series of numbers from the copyright page, see above) so we can compare?

[ez24]

(7 8 9 0 QVS/QVS 10 9 8 7 6 5 )

If you are talking about this number

this is above the ISBN

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9   RHR   20 19 18 17 16 15

also there is this number:

MHID    0-07-177133-6

Could the counting code be  QVS  to  RHR  (whatever that is)

hope this helps

[TomTomminson]

Hi,

I'm studing electronics for fun. Concerning the theory, I'm following a couple of MIT open courses with related books, but I also enjoy practice and I'm considering to buy this book after "Make:electronics", instead of "Make: more electronics".

"Make:electronics" was very very fun, but this seems to be more complete. Can you confirm? Or you suggest to read the "Make:more electronics" before?

The next will be the mighty "The art of electronics", but is too early for that.

Thanks a lot for help!

[Nic]

I built a PWM motor controller at 24V and I parallel three MOSFETs IRF1404, each 162A current 4m ohms RDs ON resistance, 200W. How can I calculate the max current or power in Watts of the system output?

 Should I suppose that Imax= 3 x 162A or Pmax= 3 x 200W or nothing of that?

[JoeN]

Hi,

I'm studing electronics for fun. Concerning the theory, I'm following a couple of MIT open courses with related books, but I also enjoy practice and I'm considering to buy this book after "Make:electronics", instead of "Make: more electronics".

"Make:electronics" was very very fun, but this seems to be more complete. Can you confirm? Or you suggest to read the "Make:more electronics" before?

The next will be the mighty "The art of electronics", but is too early for that.

Thanks a lot for help!

I read all three books mentioned, plus the old AOE and as it is I am reading the new AOE now and I am familiar with the table of contents so I know what is in there at least even if I have not read more than 20% of it so far.

Practical Electronics for Inventors is like a somewhat lite version of AOE.  It's basically a full survey course of electronics without a huge amount of theory.  If anything, Practical Electronics has more theory but omits some very important topics like high precision circuits, PLDs, and anything serious on ADC/DAC topics (there may be 5 pages total, it's a damn shame).  Still, it's a great book and a bargain and I highly recommend it.  They really need a PLD section for the next version, more data conversion, and at least mention that DSP exists so people know to look it up if it is applicable for their application.

Make Electronics was a lot of fun, it's a project book not a theory book, you know that.  Make More Electronics is in the same vein, but I think it is actually less interesting.   The topics are largely centered around using 30 year old CMOS logic gate ICs and at the end of every chapter I was asking the same question - why didn't we just use an ATTiny or PIC12 for that?   Honestly, it didn't do anything for me.  I think I built 6-8 circuits out of the original book and none of the More book.  The publisher had to be leaning on the guy to capitalize on the success of the first book, it feels like it was rushed in terms of lining up interesting projects.

AOE3 is the best.   The writing style is wonderful.  The precision analog stuff is great and PLDs actually exist in their world with HDL code and everything (it is not a comprehensive though, just an introduction).   I wonder how such an important subject was completely missed by Practical Electronics.  DSP gets maybe the smallest introduction of any major subject, about 4 pages, but at least the authors make the reader aware it exists and what it is used for.  And they give a nice introduction too.

But I think you should get Practical Electronics first.  It's the best value in a book of its type and has a lot of great information.

[TomTomminson]

@JoeN:
Thank you so much for time and kindness you spent on my question. I really appreciate.

It seems to be the right book for me, now. The AOE is a little bit intimidating at the moment, but a certain future step.

I'll skip "Make: more electronics" and hope to find a lot of fun on the Practical part of Practical Electronics.
I love to solder stuff I learn!

  Thank you again!

[vpcd]

Hello!

I am stuck on page 7 of this book. The equation in the middle of the page describing 1 Amp, in addition to being confusing to me, is presumably derived from the Eq. 2.2, which I guess is an equation
on the bottom of the page 6, 1 A = 1 C/s, but it is not marked so I suppose that's an error.

The equation and some context:

"Using Eq. 2.2, we see that if a current of 1 A flows through a copper wire, the number of electrons flowing by a cross section of the wire in 1 s is equal to:

1 A = (1 C / 1 s)(electron / -1.602 * 10^-19 C) = -6.24 * 10^18 electrons/s"

First and foremost, what does the "electron" here mean? I presume it could mean "total charge", which makes sense to me; if we divide the sum of the electron charges that passed by a cross section of the wire with the charge of a single electron, then we would get the number of electrons that passed, am I right? Then again, where do we get this number?
I would be better able to understand it if I understood why is that ratio multiplied by Coloumb / Second?
I am no good in physics, but my first guess is that this represents a dimension, i.e. electrons / s, but I never saw those things written in front of the number like that.

I would like to understand this before moving on but I need your help!

P.S. I hope this is the right place to post this.

[tooki]

Why do so many keep singing praises for a book that need a companion volume of errata? Just put the thing into the toilet and do a big sloppy #2 on it.

I am disappointed with the qualify of PEfI, 3rd and think there are too many errors. Some are inexcusable, particularly for the 3rd edition. If you have a local library, check for electronics books -- mine has AoE 2nd edition and others. Or find a used copy of a better book.

Having recently bought this book, before stumbling upon this thread, and I tend to agree. I don't understand the praise it's garnering. I chose it due to its high rating on Amazon, but having actually read it... I find it at times confusing, sometimes contradictory, often outdated (for example, half the time it correctly refers to 120V mains in North America, at others it refers to 117V mains, which hasn't been the nominal voltage for decades), but most of all, I don't really quite understand why some topics are started in one place, then finished in another. When I read it cover-to-cover, several times I found myself puzzled at encountering a topic again, with different information than in the first mention.

Is it full of useful information? Yes, no doubt. But the technical writer in me (I did that for a few years) thinks it needs a LOT of editing to become a truly good book.

I also think this book is just begging for a better binding than paperback. It's kinda crazy that this is paperback, yet the local electronics distributor (Distrelec) sends a free catalog that is hardcover, 2600 pages in full color!

Now, off to compare the errata to my copy. (7 8 9 0 QVS/QVS 10 9 8 7 6 5 for those who were wondering.)

Do you suggest an equivalent alternative?

Even the mythical AoE 3e still keeps receiving erratas. Fortunately, they are getting them documented officially:
http://artofelectronics.net/errata/

Having had time to explore both books, my feeling that Practical Electronics is overrated is just reinforced. AOE3 is not only more comprehensive, it's far more readable, clearer, and just plain more fun. They're not even in the same ballpark of quality.

[nanofrog]

Having had time to explore both books, my feeling that Practical Electronics is overrated is just reinforced. AOE3 is not only more comprehensive, it's far more readable, clearer, and just plain more fun. They're not even in the same ballpark of quality.

Perhaps, but do keep in mind Practical Electronics for Inventors, 3rd ed. is way cheaper at ~25 - 33% of the cost of Art of Electronics 3 (~$25 shipped in the US). And since a lot of beginners tend to be on tighter budgets, there's not much else that's as good for the money AFAIK.

When AOE3 comes out with the International Edition (paperback), that could change matters.  But we're not at that point yet (would guess a couple of years yet). 

[TomC]

Hello!

I am stuck on page 7 of this book. The equation in the middle of the page describing 1 Amp, in addition to being confusing to me, is presumably derived from the Eq. 2.2, which I guess is an equation
on the bottom of the page 6, 1 A = 1 C/s, but it is not marked so I suppose that's an error.

The equation and some context:

"Using Eq. 2.2, we see that if a current of 1 A flows through a copper wire, the number of electrons flowing by a cross section of the wire in 1 s is equal to:

1 A = (1 C / 1 s)(electron / -1.602 * 10^-19 C) = -6.24 * 10^18 electrons/s"

First and foremost, what does the "electron" here mean? I presume it could mean "total charge", which makes sense to me; if we divide the sum of the electron charges that passed by a cross section of the wire with the charge of a single electron, then we would get the number of electrons that passed, am I right? Then again, where do we get this number?
I would be better able to understand it if I understood why is that ratio multiplied by Coloumb / Second?
I am no good in physics, but my first guess is that this represents a dimension, i.e. electrons / s, but I never saw those things written in front of the number like that.

I would like to understand this before moving on but I need your help!

P.S. I hope this is the right place to post this.

Hi vpcd,

I agree that's confusing. However, in my experience, coulombs (C) are seldom used for calculations in electronics. So I wouldn't dwell too much trying to understand this page.

I'll try to explain the way I see what's covered in these 2 pages hoping it may help:

The equation at the bottom of page 6 should be marked (2.2) as you suggested.

The equation at the center of page 7 seems to be trying to define a coulomb and an ampere at the same time. In this equation I believe "electron" is meant to mean "1 electron" where 1 is the quantity and electron is the unit. I believe this is the part of the equation that is giving you the most trouble. If I was writing this equation I would put a 1 in front of electron, as in:

1 A = (1 C / 1 s) (1 electron / -1.602 * 10^-19 C) = -6.24 * 10^18 electrons/s

I think the reason this ratio is multiplied by coulombs per second is so that the answer will naturally include per second (/s). It doesn't introduce any meaningful quantity since 1/1 = 1.

The ratio itself (1 electron / -1.602 * 10^-19 C) is the reciprocal of the charge of one electron. The charge of one electron has been determined to be: -1.602 * 10^-19 coulombs (equation 2.2a). Since the unit is coulombs then the reciprocal should represent the number of electron charges that comprise a coulomb. This is the number of electron charges that would flow through a cross section of the wire in 1 second when the current is 1A.

Like I said before, in my experience, in electronics you talk about amperes and calculations are made using the unit A (amp), so this more formal definition is usually quickly forgotten!

[TomC]

The fourth edition is available for pre-order:

http://www.amazon.com/Practical-Electronics-Inventors-Fourth-Edition/dp/1259587541/ref=pd_sim_14_2?ie=UTF8&dpID=51Gto2IsMYL&dpSrc=sims&preST=_AC_UL160_SR124%2C160_&refRID=0EX9W769PZCVNE988N5H

[MrSlack]

Literally just grabbed a copy of 3rd edition today. Good timing

[6sigma]

The fourth edition is available for pre-order:

http://www.amazon.com/Practical-Electronics-Inventors-Fourth-Edition/dp/1259587541/ref=pd_sim_14_2?ie=UTF8&dpID=51Gto2IsMYL&dpSrc=sims&preST=_AC_UL160_SR124%2C160_&refRID=0EX9W769PZCVNE988N5H

Would be great if this discussion's error lists were used to "fix" the fourth edition.

[FearTec]

4th edition can't be that far away: http://www.amazon.com/Practical-Electronics-Inventors-Fourth-Edition/dp/1259587541/ref=pd_sim_14_4?ie=UTF8&dpID=51Gto2IsMYL&dpSrc=sims&preST=_AC_UL160_SR124%2C160_&refRID=1J6ADYWWXMG7MH1P2B3G

[6sigma]

My 4th edition arrived this afternoon. Hefty.

[MSO]

When AOE3 comes out with the International Edition (paperback), that could change matters.

I really like AOE3, but the damn book weighs in at 5.5 pounds making it a part of my daily workout routine rather than a relaxing read.

[JoeN]

My 4th edition arrived this afternoon. Hefty.

Thanks for the head's up!  I will be getting the updated version as well.  This was my take on the 3rd edition from this earlier in the thread:

Practical Electronics for Inventors is like a somewhat lite version of AOE.  It's basically a full survey course of electronics without a huge amount of theory.  If anything, Practical Electronics has more theory but omits some very important topics like high precision circuits, PLDs, and anything serious on ADC/DAC topics (there may be 5 pages total, it's a damn shame).  Still, it's a great book and a bargain and I highly recommend it.  They really need a PLD section for the next version, more data conversion, and at least mention that DSP exists so people know to look it up if it is applicable for their application.

I just watch Paul Monk's introduction video for the 4th edition on Amazon.  It looks like they did a chapter on FPGAs, which solves the whole PLD issue.  I hope they added some information on data conversion, that is an enormously important topic for many microcontroller applications.

[Ampere]

How is the 4th edition? Is it worth getting if I already have the 3rd?

[casinada]

It is a half inch thicker and includes a chapter of combinational and sequential programmable logic. It has only 13 more pages than the third edition. The paper on the third edition felt shinier/glossier. 
 

[casinada]

Error on Page 60 in Both 3rd and 4th edition

Example 2
R3+R4= 13.3K ok
R34|| R2 = 13.3K || 6.8K =4.5K (the book shows 4.3K)
Req=R1+Req2= 1K + 4.5K = 5.5K
So all the calculations based on that resistance value are wrong.
I might be wrong but it doesn't make sense to adjust the value of the resistance to a 5% real value when it is an intermediate calculation (4.3K exists, 4.5K doesn't)
The only reason of the whole exercise is to find current flows and Voltages across the resistors.

[TomC]

Error on Page 60 in Both 3rd and 4th edition

Example 2
R3+R4= 13.3K ok
R34|| R2 = 13.3K || 6.8K =4.5K (the book shows 4.3K)
Req=R1+Req2= 1K + 4.5K = 5.5K
So all the calculations based on that resistance value are wrong.
I might be wrong but it doesn't make sense to adjust the value of the resistance to a 5% real value when it is an intermediate calculation (4.3K exists, 4.5K doesn't)
The only reason of the whole exercise is to find current flows and Voltages across the resistors.

Here is what I had on the unofficial errata.

It's a pity that they didn't take the time to incorporate some of these corrections!

[JoeO]

Error on Page 60 in Both 3rd and 4th edition

Example 2
R3+R4= 13.3K ok
R34|| R2 = 13.3K || 6.8K =4.5K (the book shows 4.3K)
Req=R1+Req2= 1K + 4.5K = 5.5K
So all the calculations based on that resistance value are wrong.
I might be wrong but it doesn't make sense to adjust the value of the resistance to a 5% real value when it is an intermediate calculation (4.3K exists, 4.5K doesn't)
The only reason of the whole exercise is to find current flows and Voltages across the resistors.

Here is what I had on the unofficial errata.

It's a pity that they didn't take the time to incorporate some of these corrections!

Tom:  I see by your posting here in March of 2014 that you have been collecting errata for this book for over 2 years.
Did any of the authors try to contact you?  If yes, did you send them the errata?
This is sad because the detail work you have done is valuable.   

[TomC]

Tom:  I see by your posting here in March of 2014 that you have been collecting errata for this book for over 2 years.
Did any of the authors try to contact you?  If yes, did you send them the errata?
This is sad because the detail work you have done is valuable.

I e-mailed McGraw Hill back when I first started but got no response. Later Monk became aware of the errata but never got directly in contact with me. I suspect the publisher has the last word on what's included on a new edition, perhaps for an inexpensive book like this errata is not very high on their priority list!

[casinada]

Tom,
Thank you for the errata post. I had your full errata and the official errata but I didn't see page 60. I even posted the hyperlinks to those erratas on another post.
Is there a new unofficial errata?
Thank you for your work. 

[neslekkim]

crap, ordered 4th edition in the hope that they had fixed most of these.. what a waste of forrests..
I guess it's not available electronically either?

[TomC]

Tom,
Thank you for the errata post. I had your full errata and the official errata but I didn't see page 60. I even posted the hyperlinks to those erratas on another post.
Is there a new unofficial errata?
Thank you for your work. 

I figured you had inadvertently missed it, just wanted to show all the associated errors so that other readers wouldn't need to work it out manually again. As for the unofficial errata, I haven't had a chance to update it. The main thing that is missing is socratidion's contributions, but those can be downloaded from his post's attachments. I haven't ordered the 4th edition, from what I've heard it seems that the main difference is a new chapter by Monk. Have you compared the contents of the two editions? If so, it would be nice to know your impression and any other details you may want to share!

[casinada]

They decided to eliminate the TTL explanation section (I think it is silly). It was already there, only a couple of pages. They corrected most of the errors based on the official errata.
The paper is a little bit thicker and flat (the 3rd edition was a little bit glossy). I haven't gone through the whole book. I'll post more if I find any other problems.

[TomC]

They decided to eliminate the TTL explanation section (I think it is silly). It was already there, only a couple of pages. They corrected most of the errors based on the official errata.
The paper is a little bit thicker and flat (the 3rd edition was a little bit glossy). I haven't gone through the whole book. I'll post more if I find any other problems.

Thanks!,

I hate to be negative, but so far I don't see enough improvement to justify upgrading to the latest edition. Sure, the new chapter on programmable devices is a welcome addition. However, if nothing else got a makeover, is hard to justify buying the whole book again just for that. Let us know if you find any other improvements!