Live data from Hacker News

Ask HN: Best Layman's Book on Electricity

news.ycombinator.com

51–60 of 65 posts

Re: Ask HN: Best Layman's Book on Electricity

#51
post #39
post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Comments about impedance and the BJT calculations were completely wrong. Also it suffers from having bits of information in little islands and no clue as to how to stick them together. One of the fun things in electronics is when someone builds a small signal amplifier then wonders why the output is lower than calculated with zero understanding of source / load impedances. Because no one taught them about that.

Sorry to push back on this but I'm a little suspicious. I found a list of (independent) errata for the 2nd edition [0], presumably because it was used in a class. I see one note about the "Rule 2" for transistors but, to me at least, it looks like the author just forgot a "not" in the sentence. In general, the errata looks like what would exist for a textbook that was written by a person. It has mistakes, mostly typo…

It's not in any errata. It's a complete misunderstanding of the problem domain and modelling. I don't like to crap on the authors too hard, but they are both hobbyists on the EE side of things and really shouldn't be writing authoritative material on the matter.

The only way to outline this is to do better which I may do if I ever get the time to do so.

Re: Ask HN: Best Layman's Book on Electricity

#52
post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The entire content from this was open source and they built a community and advertising network around it and slowly devalued the content. I’m not sure what they did license wise with the original. The original source material is out there still but I can’t remember what it is called or where it is.

Interesting history I had no idea about. Thanks for sharing, will keep an eye out for the original. Sad that sometimes credit is not given where it's due.

Credit is very much given but the spirit of the original work is lost under the layers added over the top.

Re: Ask HN: Best Layman's Book on Electricity

#56
I watched "Shock and Awe: The Story of Electricity" by Jim Al-Khalili (it's available to stream on Amazon Prime Video), and enjoyed it. In fact, Jim Al-Khalili has produced excellent documentaries about other topics of scientific interest as well.

Re: Ask HN: Best Layman's Book on Electricity

#57
If you’d like to know about BIG circuits (the power grid), “Electric Power System Basics for the Nonelectrical Professional” is good.

Electric Power System Basics for the Nonelectrical Professional (IEEE Press Series on Power and Energy Systems) https://a.co/d/2tlLXfN

Re: Ask HN: Best Layman's Book on Electricity

#58

Decades ago, like in the 1950's perhaps, the US Navy created a training manual about electricity and electronics for its personnel (a reasonable facsimile of laymen). This was used as the basis for a book called Basic Electricity . 1970: https://www.amazon.ca/Basic-Electricity-Bureau-Naval-Personn... 2002: https://www.amazon.ca/Handbook-Basic-Electricity-Naval-Perso... 2020: https://www.amazon.ca/Basic-Electricity-Bu…

It's funny to see the cover design degrade over time. The 1970 design is lovely

Re: Ask HN: Best Layman's Book on Electricity

#59
post #48

Closely related to this! Does anyone know of any good books that would build upon this knowledge as an introduction to integrating RF / the theory of RF circuits, antennae's etc?

I suggest the ARRL Handbook for Radio Amateurs.

Thanks! This looks like just the thing I needed.

Re: Ask HN: Best Layman's Book on Electricity

#60
post #51
post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sorry to push back on this but I'm a little suspicious. I found a list of (independent) errata for the 2nd edition [0], presumably because it was used in a class. I see one note about the "Rule 2" for transistors but, to me at least, it looks like the author just forgot a "not" in the sentence. In general, the errata looks like what would exist for a textbook that was written by a person. It has mistakes, mostly typo…

It's not in any errata. It's a complete misunderstanding of the problem domain and modelling. I don't like to crap on the authors too hard, but they are both hobbyists on the EE side of things and really shouldn't be writing authoritative material on the matter. The only way to outline this is to do better which I may do if I ever get the time to do so.

Do better
Post reply on HN