I have decided to publish a book on Electronics, which, analyses BJT's and BJT circuits, with some JFET information too.
The book analyses this with simple logic only and without Mathematics and Physics. Where Mathematics and Physics are inevitable, the book informs the reader, so, the reader can skip this part.
A special chapter is reserved to Mathematics and Physics, used for Electricity and Electronics. The reader is informed to skip this chapter. This chapter provides readily available formulae, theorems and laws and does not derive anything mathematically.
Practically made examples are provided.
Now, the book became huge, even without the practical examples. I have double checked the book, but, I cannot carefully check everything.
The book is, also, intended to be used as a manual and help in some designs.
People on this forum are, also, not expected to read nearly a thousand pages ( and, probably, much more in new editions ). However, some may decide to choose a topic and read, say, one or a few pages.
These people are requested to, please, provide information on possible mistakes, so, these are corrected for new editions.
Here is a link to the book :
Simple, Practical Electronics - Google Drive
The book analyses this with simple logic only and without Mathematics and Physics. Where Mathematics and Physics are inevitable, the book informs the reader, so, the reader can skip this part.
A special chapter is reserved to Mathematics and Physics, used for Electricity and Electronics. The reader is informed to skip this chapter. This chapter provides readily available formulae, theorems and laws and does not derive anything mathematically.
Practically made examples are provided.
Now, the book became huge, even without the practical examples. I have double checked the book, but, I cannot carefully check everything.
The book is, also, intended to be used as a manual and help in some designs.
People on this forum are, also, not expected to read nearly a thousand pages ( and, probably, much more in new editions ). However, some may decide to choose a topic and read, say, one or a few pages.
These people are requested to, please, provide information on possible mistakes, so, these are corrected for new editions.
Here is a link to the book :
Simple, Practical Electronics - Google Drive
Hmmm. I read a few pages until I got to a misspelled Thévenin feeling a little uncomfortable. For example, it is more generic to say a current flows from a higher voltage to a lower voltage if there is a connection and a voltage exists between any two nodes (if zero volts is included). However I am reading as an engineer and this is probably not useful.
Worked examples with real numbers is always helpful.
Honestly, any high school introductory text would do a similar but more consistent job.Admire your ambitious effort but I think you are trying to re-invent a wheel.
Worked examples with real numbers is always helpful.
Honestly, any high school introductory text would do a similar but more consistent job.Admire your ambitious effort but I think you are trying to re-invent a wheel.
I have tried to make the book with labels, which, should not be read, because they contain mathematics and not electronics.
I am unable to understand what you mean in the Thevenin comment. Yes, current flows from high to low voltage, but, I do not know where this is concerned.
In regards to engineering, you are totally wrong. Most engineers use terms, because, they do NOT understand electronics. There is only one way to discuss electronics : without any terms and with explanations. In this sense, the ONLY engineering book is a book, written for high or even, elementary school. The rest is total garbage, which, makes no sense and there is no logic.
Basically, electronics ( and engineering in general ) is nothing, but, simple logic and there is nothing else. Therefore, the only way to talk electronics is to use ONLY simple logic.
Just the same as an explanation of an engine with internal combustion.
Generally, what people call layman terms is the correct way. Other than this, they talk total garbage. Thus, as an engineer, you should be able to explain everything in just simple logic.
Initially, I wanted to write the book only on simple, transistor electronics. I could not resist to add more, though. Thus, the book became complicated.
However, in case there are some, better written, high school texts as you call them, they would be better, thus, read them.
Here is an example with a FAST explanation on engines with internal combustion : gasoline air mixture explodes, piston goes down, then, inertia or other piston explosions drive the piston up, while, a valve opens and the upward moving piston blows gases ( from the explosion ) out of the cylinder, then, also, because of inertia or other piston's ex[plosion, the piston gets to move down, during which movement, another valve opens and the piston sucks air gasoline mixture, just like a syringe, then, again, because of inertia or other piston's explosions, the piston gets to move up again and compresses the air gasoline mixture. Somewhere, before the piston gets up to the most, a spark is generated, but, the explosion does not happen immediately, because of slow response of the mixture : takes a while to ignite and explode. Thus, the explosion happens slightly after the piston starts to move down again ( still, because of inertia or other pistons' explosions ) and the whole cycle repeats.
The only other important things is the size of the piston, which determines how much the piston can move left to right , which, in turns, determines the size of the ARM ( the length of the crank ). The wider the piston, the longer the piston rod and crank. The taller the cylinder, the lower the length of the piston rod and crank.
Now, the longer the arm ( crank ) the higher the torque at a given press, but, the longer the system takes to make a turn ( or better said, half of a turn ), just like the Archimedes lever.
These and only these are important for the explanation of the engine with internal combustion. The rest is garbage.
Similarly, only simple logic ( layman's ) explanation are important for electronics. The rest is garbage. This garbage is, usually, fed into universities and this is why you and other people expect to see this in a book. Well, the universities are wrong and, yes, they teach pure garbage to students.
I am unable to understand what you mean in the Thevenin comment. Yes, current flows from high to low voltage, but, I do not know where this is concerned.
In regards to engineering, you are totally wrong. Most engineers use terms, because, they do NOT understand electronics. There is only one way to discuss electronics : without any terms and with explanations. In this sense, the ONLY engineering book is a book, written for high or even, elementary school. The rest is total garbage, which, makes no sense and there is no logic.
Basically, electronics ( and engineering in general ) is nothing, but, simple logic and there is nothing else. Therefore, the only way to talk electronics is to use ONLY simple logic.
Just the same as an explanation of an engine with internal combustion.
Generally, what people call layman terms is the correct way. Other than this, they talk total garbage. Thus, as an engineer, you should be able to explain everything in just simple logic.
Initially, I wanted to write the book only on simple, transistor electronics. I could not resist to add more, though. Thus, the book became complicated.
However, in case there are some, better written, high school texts as you call them, they would be better, thus, read them.
Here is an example with a FAST explanation on engines with internal combustion : gasoline air mixture explodes, piston goes down, then, inertia or other piston explosions drive the piston up, while, a valve opens and the upward moving piston blows gases ( from the explosion ) out of the cylinder, then, also, because of inertia or other piston's ex[plosion, the piston gets to move down, during which movement, another valve opens and the piston sucks air gasoline mixture, just like a syringe, then, again, because of inertia or other piston's explosions, the piston gets to move up again and compresses the air gasoline mixture. Somewhere, before the piston gets up to the most, a spark is generated, but, the explosion does not happen immediately, because of slow response of the mixture : takes a while to ignite and explode. Thus, the explosion happens slightly after the piston starts to move down again ( still, because of inertia or other pistons' explosions ) and the whole cycle repeats.
The only other important things is the size of the piston, which determines how much the piston can move left to right , which, in turns, determines the size of the ARM ( the length of the crank ). The wider the piston, the longer the piston rod and crank. The taller the cylinder, the lower the length of the piston rod and crank.
Now, the longer the arm ( crank ) the higher the torque at a given press, but, the longer the system takes to make a turn ( or better said, half of a turn ), just like the Archimedes lever.
These and only these are important for the explanation of the engine with internal combustion. The rest is garbage.
Similarly, only simple logic ( layman's ) explanation are important for electronics. The rest is garbage. This garbage is, usually, fed into universities and this is why you and other people expect to see this in a book. Well, the universities are wrong and, yes, they teach pure garbage to students.
But engineers need all that garbage to design and build working equipment, which is their job, after all.
A description of the operation in general terms is woefully insufficient to allow them to accomplish that.
What we know as science is our empirical observations which have not been refuted by experiment, not logic.
Perhaps you are alluding to fundamental theory, but this by nature must be abstract and is of no direct,
practical use. In any event we have no such theory at present. But we still have to build stuff.
A description of the operation in general terms is woefully insufficient to allow them to accomplish that.
What we know as science is our empirical observations which have not been refuted by experiment, not logic.
Perhaps you are alluding to fundamental theory, but this by nature must be abstract and is of no direct,
practical use. In any event we have no such theory at present. But we still have to build stuff.
Last edited:
No. Nothing else is necessary :
1. One designs ONLY by simple logic. Say the internal combustion engine. This is the only design. There is no much dependents on the rest. A few INITIAL designs may be helpful.
2. The rest is garbage. Yet, garbage has to be carried out. We, all, have to carry our garbage to the bin. With the engine example, again, there is no more design. There is TECHNOLOGY. Technology is NOT design. NOT logic. For example, what do we make the pistons of? Cheese, Wood, Titanium, Chrome, Vanadium alloys? The principle is still the same, the technology ( metallurgy in this case ) is different.
In other words, in case anyone was to use elliptical pistons to tackle the long arm ( rod ) movement, this is design. This is logic. Now, what metal to use for this elliptical piston, what metal for rings, cylinders, etcetera, all these, are technology.
Usually, the technology ( the development ) is easy. THE IDEA and THE DESIGN are important.
Again, this is a DESIGN versus DEVELOPMENT topic. They are not the same.
1. One designs ONLY by simple logic. Say the internal combustion engine. This is the only design. There is no much dependents on the rest. A few INITIAL designs may be helpful.
2. The rest is garbage. Yet, garbage has to be carried out. We, all, have to carry our garbage to the bin. With the engine example, again, there is no more design. There is TECHNOLOGY. Technology is NOT design. NOT logic. For example, what do we make the pistons of? Cheese, Wood, Titanium, Chrome, Vanadium alloys? The principle is still the same, the technology ( metallurgy in this case ) is different.
In other words, in case anyone was to use elliptical pistons to tackle the long arm ( rod ) movement, this is design. This is logic. Now, what metal to use for this elliptical piston, what metal for rings, cylinders, etcetera, all these, are technology.
Usually, the technology ( the development ) is easy. THE IDEA and THE DESIGN are important.
Again, this is a DESIGN versus DEVELOPMENT topic. They are not the same.
Here is, basically, what electronics is.
Electronics is NOT electrical. Electrical deals with voltages, currents, resistors, capacitors, coils, transformers and other PASSIVE components.
Electronics is NOT automation. Automation deals with feedbacks, filters, etcetera.
Electrical and automation are used in electronics, but, they are a totally different subject. Flow of current is used in electrical and in water supply. However, these are different subjects. So is magnetism.
So, what is electronics :
1. A diode. A diode allows current in one direction and not in the other. An ideal diode has a forward voltage of 0V and a reverse impedance of infinity.
2. A Zener diode. A Zener diode is a diode in one direction and a voltage stabiliser in the other. Regardless of the reverse current, the voltage is , always the same and cannot change with the current. This is an ideal Zener. An ideal Zener is an ideal diode in forward direction and an ideal Zener ( voltage definer ) in the opposite direction.
3. The most important part of electronics : A Bipolar Transistor ( A THREE POD ).
3a. An ideal bipolar transistor measures the current between the base and the emitter and adjusts the collector emitter resistance in such a way, so, the collector emitter current is, always, a coefficient B * the base emitter current. The coefficient B does not depend on currents and temperature.
3b. An ideal bipolar transistor is directionally oriented. Only NPN will be analysed. PNP is analogical.
5. Real components can be considered during the technological and not during the design stage.
Only 1 through 5 are important. The rest is garbage.
I may have missed something, but, as far as I can tell, this is everything involved in electronics. You and anyone can design any circuit with these points and, then, consider real parameters, introduce feedbacks, add electrical circuits, etcetera.
Again, the most important point is to distinguish electronics, electrical and automation. These are three, totally different subjects. The most important is to understand electronics. The others will come easily. Thus, one can have a quick go through electrical. Only a glance. One can have, even, a faster look at automation, only basic feedbacks and filters. Then, one can get to electronics. Or the other way around.
In this sense, there is no such a thing as electronics ENGINEER. There is, only, an electronics TECHICIAN. Electronics is not a science and not an engineering. Electronics is TECHNICS, but, NOT technology.
Of course, there are, also, electronics technologists, but, they have nothing to do with electronics design. Every technician can, also, TO SOME EXTENT, be a technologist, but, this does not mean design and does not mean electronics.
Electronics is NOT electrical. Electrical deals with voltages, currents, resistors, capacitors, coils, transformers and other PASSIVE components.
Electronics is NOT automation. Automation deals with feedbacks, filters, etcetera.
Electrical and automation are used in electronics, but, they are a totally different subject. Flow of current is used in electrical and in water supply. However, these are different subjects. So is magnetism.
So, what is electronics :
1. A diode. A diode allows current in one direction and not in the other. An ideal diode has a forward voltage of 0V and a reverse impedance of infinity.
2. A Zener diode. A Zener diode is a diode in one direction and a voltage stabiliser in the other. Regardless of the reverse current, the voltage is , always the same and cannot change with the current. This is an ideal Zener. An ideal Zener is an ideal diode in forward direction and an ideal Zener ( voltage definer ) in the opposite direction.
3. The most important part of electronics : A Bipolar Transistor ( A THREE POD ).
3a. An ideal bipolar transistor measures the current between the base and the emitter and adjusts the collector emitter resistance in such a way, so, the collector emitter current is, always, a coefficient B * the base emitter current. The coefficient B does not depend on currents and temperature.
3b. An ideal bipolar transistor is directionally oriented. Only NPN will be analysed. PNP is analogical.
- No current can flow from emitter to base, regardless of voltages, currents, components, etcetera.
- No current can flow from collector to base, regardless of voltages, currents, components, etcetera.
- No current can flow from emitter to collector, regardless of voltages, currents, components, etcetera.
- The base emitter junction can be represented as an ideal diode from the base towards the emitter with forward voltage of 0V.
- The base collector junction can be represented as an ideal diode from the base towards the collector with forward voltage of 0V.
- The collector emitter junction can be represented as an ideal diode from the collector towards the emitter with forward voltage of 0V, when, the base emitter current * B is higher than the collector emitter current ( when fully open and in saturation ).
5. Real components can be considered during the technological and not during the design stage.
- In some cases, the emitter resistance, re, must be considered, which, depends on the emitter current and juncture temperature, but, this is not important in most cases.
- The forward voltage of a junction or diode is not 0V and depends on the through current and temperature. In most transistor documentation, the dependence of the base emitter junction forward voltage and the collector emitter current and the temperature is given.
- Similarly, the Zener voltage depends on the through current and temperature.
- Although the electrical current moves with a speed close to the speed of light, all components have parasitic capacitances, resistors and inductances and their response is not immediate.
Only 1 through 5 are important. The rest is garbage.
I may have missed something, but, as far as I can tell, this is everything involved in electronics. You and anyone can design any circuit with these points and, then, consider real parameters, introduce feedbacks, add electrical circuits, etcetera.
Again, the most important point is to distinguish electronics, electrical and automation. These are three, totally different subjects. The most important is to understand electronics. The others will come easily. Thus, one can have a quick go through electrical. Only a glance. One can have, even, a faster look at automation, only basic feedbacks and filters. Then, one can get to electronics. Or the other way around.
In this sense, there is no such a thing as electronics ENGINEER. There is, only, an electronics TECHICIAN. Electronics is not a science and not an engineering. Electronics is TECHNICS, but, NOT technology.
Of course, there are, also, electronics technologists, but, they have nothing to do with electronics design. Every technician can, also, TO SOME EXTENT, be a technologist, but, this does not mean design and does not mean electronics.
I wonder what the purpose of the book is, what you wish to accomplish?
You seem to be of the opinion that most everyone, universities, technical people, we, are totally wrong and deal mostly with garbage, and we should switch to your system? It is very confusing, because you seem to want to change our total system of reference., instead of helping our understanding.
For instance, in the chapter 'Some Electrical Forewords' you try to change our notion of passive versus active components into electrical versus electronic components. I have a hard time to image how that would help anyone in the field.
In the chapter on Ohm's law you introduce the notion of bi-directionality. That seems an artificial construct - what you describe is simple rearranging of terms, simple algebra. That 'bidirectionality' doesn't help me, only confuses me.
Jan
You seem to be of the opinion that most everyone, universities, technical people, we, are totally wrong and deal mostly with garbage, and we should switch to your system? It is very confusing, because you seem to want to change our total system of reference., instead of helping our understanding.
For instance, in the chapter 'Some Electrical Forewords' you try to change our notion of passive versus active components into electrical versus electronic components. I have a hard time to image how that would help anyone in the field.
In the chapter on Ohm's law you introduce the notion of bi-directionality. That seems an artificial construct - what you describe is simple rearranging of terms, simple algebra. That 'bidirectionality' doesn't help me, only confuses me.
Jan
I'll save everyone wasting their time reading such incomprehensible nonsense and suggest anyone looking at getting into electronics at a entry level get yourself a copy of the Art of Electronics by Horowitz & Hill. At least you'll have a proper textbook written by university qualified individuals.
This thread is an affront to Electrical / Electronic Engineering and Engineers.
The more you read the worse it gets.........seriously.......omg
This thread is an affront to Electrical / Electronic Engineering and Engineers.
The more you read the worse it gets.........seriously.......omg
Last edited:
I am very sad about this because clearly we are dealing with a problem, which goes way beyond mere "opinion", way beyond whether germanium is good or bad and any other Technical/Physics based subject.
Just expect Mr Bayes narrowness of focus does not extend to other areas of his life.
Won´t argue anything about his Germanium ideas, concepts used in his book or ideas about Physics and Mathematics irrelevance, those are all self evident, but only as a final thought, find hard to concile the WIDE and very detailed experience, training and skills he brags about in his Resume (which I won´t link to here) with his CRUDE "raw HTML written on Wordpad" personal and professional pages.
Or not, they look as dated as using germanium transistors for modern designs, hinting that his anachronistic ideas apply to more than just "germanium".
Ok, I´m out.
Just expect Mr Bayes narrowness of focus does not extend to other areas of his life.
Won´t argue anything about his Germanium ideas, concepts used in his book or ideas about Physics and Mathematics irrelevance, those are all self evident, but only as a final thought, find hard to concile the WIDE and very detailed experience, training and skills he brags about in his Resume (which I won´t link to here) with his CRUDE "raw HTML written on Wordpad" personal and professional pages.
Or not, they look as dated as using germanium transistors for modern designs, hinting that his anachronistic ideas apply to more than just "germanium".
Ok, I´m out.
Reading through it, you see that there's a very wide range of topics, very wide differences of detail in some places, surface scratching on others. Deep insight in some places, total misunderstanding in others. Hard to think that this could have been written by one person.
I also noted that some illustration apparently were coming from the 'net.
When thinking some more about this, it is the type of text that one would get with cut and paste from internet pages.
Not saying that is the case, but it surely gives me the impression.
I'm out too, huge time drain, not any help as far as I can see.
Jan
I also noted that some illustration apparently were coming from the 'net.
When thinking some more about this, it is the type of text that one would get with cut and paste from internet pages.
Not saying that is the case, but it surely gives me the impression.
I'm out too, huge time drain, not any help as far as I can see.
Jan
Quick question: have you read "The Art of Electronics" by Howovitz and Hill? It sets a high standard for accessibie introductions to analog electronics. I'd ask where are you trying to position your text relative to that - for instance it assumes a basic background of physics and maths, but doesn't focus on either, its all about what you can get electronics to do for you - a very motivating approach.
From the paragraph about Kirchhoff's current law:
"Thus, Kirchhoff says : The sum of all currents which go in the same direction to or from an intersection is zero. Thus, the sum of all currents which go in the direction, towards an intersection, is zero and the sum of all currents which go in the same direction, away from an intersection is zero.
I think that these statements could only be true when each and every one of the currents is zero. As soon as one of the currents is greater than zero, atleast one of the other currents also has to be greater than zero, and more importantly, has to flow in the opposite direction. But flowing in the opposite direction contradicts the statements since they presume same directions (meaning: either all currents go towards the intersection or all currents go away from the intersection).
So if the statements could only be true when each and every one of the currents is zero, than why write about currents flowing in a certain direction? There is no flow going on at all.
"Thus, Kirchhoff says : The sum of all currents which go in the same direction to or from an intersection is zero. Thus, the sum of all currents which go in the direction, towards an intersection, is zero and the sum of all currents which go in the same direction, away from an intersection is zero.
I think that these statements could only be true when each and every one of the currents is zero. As soon as one of the currents is greater than zero, atleast one of the other currents also has to be greater than zero, and more importantly, has to flow in the opposite direction. But flowing in the opposite direction contradicts the statements since they presume same directions (meaning: either all currents go towards the intersection or all currents go away from the intersection).
So if the statements could only be true when each and every one of the currents is zero, than why write about currents flowing in a certain direction? There is no flow going on at all.
Yeah he's got it wrong. The correct phrasing is:
"Thus, Kirchhoff says : The sum of all currents into a node is zero".
That neatly takes care of the fact that some currents can flow into the node and some flow out of the node. By properly taking care of polarities, it automagically sums to zero.
Jan
"Thus, Kirchhoff says : The sum of all currents into a node is zero".
That neatly takes care of the fact that some currents can flow into the node and some flow out of the node. By properly taking care of polarities, it automagically sums to zero.
Jan
In my country there's common practice with corrupt politician convicts that write books while in prison to shorten their years in detainment.Most of them never finished a highschool for good as their parents paid even for a highschool diploma.There are other convicts or free civilians who get paid for that job.A few months ago a famous rich vip which barely finished gimnasium years launched a book about one of the most notorious convicts for money laundring, proxenetism and loan sharking, a guy famous for keeping lions and tigers in his house to remind his victims of the consequences if they don't pay their debts in time ...a book aimed at brain washing a generally stupid population deprived of good education that got almost 50% illiterate over the last 30 years of wild "democracy"...
I see a pattern here...besides why writing books in the Youtube era? I have a cubic meter of electronics books in my house and i never get settled on finishing at least one book.
I see a pattern here...besides why writing books in the Youtube era? I have a cubic meter of electronics books in my house and i never get settled on finishing at least one book.
Yes. The system is wrong and must be changed.
I have forgotten the bi directionality part, but, just the word bi directionality is a correct, intuitive word and therefore, can be used elsewhere. There are bidirectional and unidirectional streets, so, everyone knows the word.
Another, incorrect word is the word " bias " ( off the transistor ). The correct word, instead, is " offset ". There is current offset, voltage offset, power offset, etcetera. Offset is a word, which, everyone uses, say, in the intuitive Mechanics.
The Art is a very badly written book. Keep reading, though. Hope others don't, so, they know correctly.
Keep doing things the wrong way, instead of changing and improving! Learn nuclear physics to change a light bulb.
Yes. I agree. The problem of the book is, not only the possible mistakes, which, I am sure, there are a lot, but, the book, as you have said, became tooo " deep " in some cases. This is bad, because, there is nothing deep in electronics. Electronics is like 2 + 2 = 4. How deep can you go with this? So, therefore, the deep points are a mistake.
The only thing to use as an excuse is I forget many things and, instead of thinking them over again, I can go to the book and find them out, than, check them whether correct or not and continue. In other words, the book is also, so, I can use parts thereof when I need them.
All I wanted was to make a simple book at the level, described by the post, which, explained what electronics is, earlier in this thread. However, I got carried away, so, I can use stuff too. This was a mistake. Probably, I can write another piece, but, I do not want to spend so long, even for a simple thing. Not now.