Shorter? No no no! The shorter a book gets the more it's like all the other ones you've already read. Just make it paperback for price. We need an advanced tube book that covers:
SE emulation by P-P, anti-triodes
Class G or H Hybrid amps
Composite V+I Hybrid amps
Switching impedance converters, switched capacitor Z converters, switchmode gyrators and inductors
High bandwidth OT design and inductor design
Non-linear feedback techniques
Beam deflection tubes, active volume controls
Switchmode HV supplies
Filament-less tube design (yes, very do-able these days)
Linear tube design techniques (internal design of the tubes for linearity)
HV PC board design
Parametric gain tracer tester (like a curve tracer but displays delta gain versus some varied parameter or input signal)
.....
SE emulation by P-P, anti-triodes
Class G or H Hybrid amps
Composite V+I Hybrid amps
Switching impedance converters, switched capacitor Z converters, switchmode gyrators and inductors
High bandwidth OT design and inductor design
Non-linear feedback techniques
Beam deflection tubes, active volume controls
Switchmode HV supplies
Filament-less tube design (yes, very do-able these days)
Linear tube design techniques (internal design of the tubes for linearity)
HV PC board design
Parametric gain tracer tester (like a curve tracer but displays delta gain versus some varied parameter or input signal)
.....
That would be a different book. This book appears to be aimed at the college textbook market, so it covers basic circuits (like MJ) but with all the maths included. The more advanced a book, or the more esoteric, the smaller the sales.
Take a bunch of second-year students. They know about op-amps and can recognise things like LTP. Now you want to teach them about valves. What do you use for a textbook? RDH4 is excellent, but will not impress most modern students simply because of its style. MJ is not appropriate because it has no maths. This book appears to be an attempt to fill the gap.
Take a bunch of second-year students. They know about op-amps and can recognise things like LTP. Now you want to teach them about valves. What do you use for a textbook? RDH4 is excellent, but will not impress most modern students simply because of its style. MJ is not appropriate because it has no maths. This book appears to be an attempt to fill the gap.
I agree with the language issue. But this book has something that is different from the others. Rudolf really started his investigations to find things out, and in my opinion the book shows this. It's like he says 'look what I found!'.
Somehow charming.
Disclaimer: I do not benefit from sales from this book
jan didden
Somehow charming.
Disclaimer: I do not benefit from sales from this book
jan didden
Some valid points above on language, the use of the word "basic" for "grounded" and similar but I found that where he uses a non-standard naming convention that he explains that in the book.
For example he consistently, throughout the entire book used symbol "S" which he calls Anode Steepness for gm - but states openly after the first usage that this is the same as what is usually called "transconductance" and seen with the symbol "gm". I have no problem with using "S" for transconductance (all the Solid State guys do) and in fact "anode steepness" is more descriptive.
I'm particularly impressed with the mathematical detail. Where assumptions are made to simplify expressions ,then the assumptions are specifically stated, each step in the maths is there.
ASIDE:
I get really annoyed with some other books where you see the 1st derivation of a mathematical expression and then a, statement saying "it is therefore obvious that...". Now I'm not a mathematical genius, but I have typical electronic design engineer maths skills, and I often find that it is not obvious at all, so can waste significant time trying to fill in all the intermediate steps. Some times I can, some times I can't and am then left with deciding between "I am stupid" and "the author is stupid". Now anyone who knows any electronic design engineer will know which of those I'm going to decide upon.
The more I read, the more I conclude that its a worthwhile addition to my bookshelf. I'm happy with the value I got for my money.
Cheers,
Ian
For example he consistently, throughout the entire book used symbol "S" which he calls Anode Steepness for gm - but states openly after the first usage that this is the same as what is usually called "transconductance" and seen with the symbol "gm". I have no problem with using "S" for transconductance (all the Solid State guys do) and in fact "anode steepness" is more descriptive.
I'm particularly impressed with the mathematical detail. Where assumptions are made to simplify expressions ,then the assumptions are specifically stated, each step in the maths is there.
ASIDE:
I get really annoyed with some other books where you see the 1st derivation of a mathematical expression and then a, statement saying "it is therefore obvious that...". Now I'm not a mathematical genius, but I have typical electronic design engineer maths skills, and I often find that it is not obvious at all, so can waste significant time trying to fill in all the intermediate steps. Some times I can, some times I can't and am then left with deciding between "I am stupid" and "the author is stupid". Now anyone who knows any electronic design engineer will know which of those I'm going to decide upon.
The more I read, the more I conclude that its a worthwhile addition to my bookshelf. I'm happy with the value I got for my money.
Cheers,
Ian
Wow, so I'm not the only design engineer who has this problem, very reassuring to know. I usually end up feeling annoyed... and stupid..
Thanks for the laugh, after a long day of interviews I needed that.. 
"S" is short for "Steilheit", the German for "steepness", which we call "transconductance". Presumably there is a similar word in Dutch. Using it means he didn''t have to change all the "S"s to "gm" in his diagrams.
Yes, the Dutch word is almost the same as the German word: Steilheid.
But the book IS in English, and while explaining that you use S for transconductance is good, it may confuse the name S (for transconductance) with the unit S (transconductance expressed in S).
Suppose the Dutch word was Pupukaka, would we then have to remember that with P the transconductance is meant, although there is a well-accepted term Gm?
jan didden
My message seems to have been cut off at the head by DIYAudio's nightly maintenance. What I wrote was : I wasn't trying to defend the use of "S" for "gm", merely to explain it. I expect the translator used a literal translation because he wasn't aware of the correct English term just as he used "basic" for "grounded". How often does Babelfish on Google translate the German term for "current" as "river"?
Generally not a good idea to invent a new term, unless you strongly feel that everyone else has got it wrong. Anode Steepness is a bad name for transconductance, because gm is a mutual characteristic - it involves the grid too. Bad idea to use S as a symbol for it too. The SS guys use S as a unit (siemens=Mho) not a symbol. Once again, I am unsure whether the author is wrong or his readers have misunderstood him.gingertube said:
He hasn't invented a new term. He's just translating the Dutch word for transconductance ("Steilheid") literally. You may think it's "bad" but both the Dutch and the Germans ("Steilheit") use it. Personally I think "tube" for valve is "bad" ("tube" always meant "cathode ray tube" in 50's British electronics mags) but I'm not going to stop the Americans using it.
The book (presumably) claims to be written in English. He (reportedly) admits that he knows that the normal English term is transconductance, but he intends to use a different term (based on a more literal translation of Dutch/German). To me this looks like an attempt to invent a new English term, not merely a mistake in translation.
If I was writing a book in German, I think I would want to find out what words the Germans already use for the concepts I was explaining. I don't think it is bad for Germans to use whatever word they prefer. What we call a grid they call a gitter, which translates as lattice. Similarly, I have no complaint about Americans using tube and plate for what I call valve and anode, although it would be nice if two versions of technical English did not exist.
If I was writing a book in German, I think I would want to find out what words the Germans already use for the concepts I was explaining. I don't think it is bad for Germans to use whatever word they prefer. What we call a grid they call a gitter, which translates as lattice. Similarly, I have no complaint about Americans using tube and plate for what I call valve and anode, although it would be nice if two versions of technical English did not exist.
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.