Practical Electronics for Inventors, 3rd

[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.