Truncated match.
PICList
Thread
'electronics education (was Horrible Newbie...)'
1997\06\05@122954
by
Mike Schreck

>Where do I get a quick practical self taught electronics education?
I did it in this order:
"Teach Yourself Electricity and Electronics" (The Hamburger Book)
Stan Gibilisco, Tab Books (McGraw Hill) ISBN 0830641335.
Takes you from Atoms, to RLC, and Digital Principals. Complete
with tests at every chapter/ Midterm and final. More than an
introduction. It tool me 6 months to finish the book but it was
worth the struggle. Freshman college level text, you had better
remember graph theory and that 1/sqrt(1) = sqrt(1) for RL, RC, RLC
"Electronics, A Systems Approach" Neil Storey AddisonWesley
ISBN 0201175584. This book is how to build systems with the
information you've just learned. Alot of practical approximations.
heavy on opamps/ fet/ BiPolar.
Don Lancaster's "TTL/CMOS Cookbooks" Hard to find but not impossible.
classic texts. Alot of overlap as most devices come in ttl/cmos
flavors.
"CMOS/TTL Digital Systems Design" James Buchanan, McGraw Hill
ISBN: 0070087113. Into the frying pan! covers Noise, transient
currents, power distribution, synchronous design, clock distribution,
signal interconnection, signal quality, system timing, and reset signals
.
a real eye opener.
Then Pick up a copy of "The Art of Electronics" by Horowitz and Hill.
2nd Edition. It will drive home much of the above but from a different
perspective.
as far as a "QUICK" education... expect to spend 6 months to a year with the
above material, and alot of time at the bench. Get a comfortable stool!
I'd like to find a good Systems Level book on designing WITHOUT IC's. Something
like the Vol 15 of "Circuits you'll never use :)" that focuses on HOW
to work magic with a handful of resistors/caps/transistors/and diodes. any
recommendations?
mjps_
1997\06\05@225322
by
Steve Hardy
> From: Mike Schreck <spam_OUTschreckTakeThisOuTHORIZSYS.COM>
>[cut]
> remember graph theory and that 1/sqrt(1) = sqrt(1) for RL, RC, RLC
Please explain  in normal complex mathematics 1/i = i.
Regards,
SJH
Canberra, Australia
1997\06\05@230409
by
Sarunas Cepulis
Steve Hardy wrote:
>
> > From: Mike Schreck <.....schreckKILLspam@spam@HORIZSYS.COM>
> >[cut]
> > remember graph theory and that 1/sqrt(1) = sqrt(1) for RL, RC, RLC
>
> Please explain  in normal complex mathematics 1/i = i.
>
> Regards,
> SJH
> Canberra, Australia
Who your mean (high school).
B.R.
Saras
1997\06\06@044653
by
Mike
At 12:52 PM 6/6/97 EST, you wrote:
>> From: Mike Schreck <schreckKILLspamHORIZSYS.COM>
>>[cut]
>> remember graph theory and that 1/sqrt(1) = sqrt(1) for RL, RC,
RLC
>
>Please explain  in normal complex mathematics 1/i = i.
mmmmm !
If i=sqrt(1) then i^2=1 so by substitution,
1/i = (1)/i
= i^2/i
= i
So 1/sqrt(1) <> sqrt(1) but 1/sqrt(1) = sqrt(1)
Rgds
Mike
Some say there is no magic but, all things begin with thought then it becomes
academic, then some poor slob works out a practical way to implement all that
theory, this is called Engineering  for most people another form of magic.
Massen
1997\06\06@045106
by
Mike
At 04:34 AM 6/6/97 +0800, you wrote:
>Steve Hardy wrote:
>>
>> > From: Mike Schreck <.....schreckKILLspam.....HORIZSYS.COM>
>> >[cut]
>> > remember graph theory and that 1/sqrt(1) = sqrt(1) for RL,
RC, RLC
>>
>> Please explain  in normal complex mathematics 1/i = i.
>>
>> Regards,
>> SJH
>> Canberra, Australia
>Who your mean (high school).
>B.R.
> Saras
Hey saras  first one is wrong, the last one is correct 1/i = i !!
Rgds
Mike
Some say there is no magic but, all things begin with thought then it becomes
academic, then some poor slob works out a practical way to implement all that
theory, this is called Engineering  for most people another form of magic.
Massen
1997\06\06@110653
by
Matt Calder
Or,
i * 1/i = 1
=> i * i * 1/i = i
=> 1/i = i
=> 1/i = i
{Quote hidden}>
> If i=sqrt(1) then i^2=1 so by substitution,
>
> 1/i = (1)/i
>
> = i^2/i
>
> = i
>
> So 1/sqrt(1) <> sqrt(1) but 1/sqrt(1) = sqrt(1)
>
/*****************************************/
/* Matt Calder, Dept. of Statistics, CSU */
/* http://www.stat.colostate.edu/~calder */
/*****************************************/
1997\06\06@113820
by
Mike Schreck
Steve,
>>remember graph theory and that 1/sqrt(1) = sqrt(1) for RL, RC, RLC
>Please explain  in normal complex mathematics 1/i = i.
What can I say? I forgot to remember! 1/i = 1 for sure!
mjps_
1997\06\07@190308
by
J.P.D. Kooij
On Fri, 6 Jun 1997, you wrote:
> >Please explain  in normal complex mathematics 1/i = i.
>
> If i=sqrt(1) then i^2=1 so by substitution,
Sorry to be a purist here, but the square root is not defined on negative
numbers. Although the complex number i has the property i^2 = 1, that
does not implicate that i = sqrt(1). Even if this were a valid
expression at all, i = sqrt(1) would have been an equally valid
implication. At that point, i = i would be a valid conclusion.. and 1 =
0 also.
Cheers,
Joost
1997\06\08@035656
by
Mike

At 01:01 AM 6/8/97 +0200, you wrote:
>On Fri, 6 Jun 1997, you wrote:
>
>> >Please explain  in normal complex mathematics 1/i = i.
>>
>> If i=sqrt(1) then i^2=1 so by substitution,
>
>Sorry to be a purist here, but the square root is not defined on negative
>numbers. Although the complex number i has the property i^2 = 1, that
>does not implicate that i = sqrt(1). Even if this were a valid
>expression at all, i = sqrt(1) would have been an equally valid
>implication. At that point, i = i would be a valid conclusion.. and 1 =
>0 also.
Bollocks  there is no consistent mathematic proof that arrives at 1=0
or i=i UNLESS you are inconsistent with your definitions OR apply them
selectively.
Note I said 'IF i=sqrt()'
Sure sqrt of (1) is not defined AS A RESULT  that is why we give it
the value 'i'  because we do not have anything other than a symbolic
understanding of the result.
By giving i the value sqrt(1) does not invalidate i^2.
Check your definition of sqrt and square, last time I came across this
it was valid for all SYMBOLS !
You are stepping into psuedo maths  the sort some people use to try
and prove that Engineering is a branch of Devil worship etc
Rgds
Mike
Some say there is no magic but, all things begin with thought then it becomes
academic, then some poor slob works out a practical way to implement all that
theory, this is called Engineering  for most people another form of magic.
Massen
1997\06\08@042845
by
Andres Djordjalian
> > >Please explain  in normal complex mathematics 1/i = i.
> > If i=sqrt(1) then i^2=1 so by substitution,
> Sorry to be a purist here, but the square root is not defined on negative
> numbers. Although the complex number i has the property i^2 = 1, that
> does not implicate that i = sqrt(1). Even if this were a valid
> expression at all, i = sqrt(1) would have been an equally valid
> implication. At that point, i = i would be a valid conclusion.. and 1 =
> 0 also.
> Joost
Joost, I think you're right if you're talking about the arithmetic square
root but I guess they were referring to the general square root that,
BTW, has two answers and so you can't implicate something like i=i . . .
Regards,
Andres
EraseMEadjordjspam_OUTTakeThisOuTaleph.fi.uba.ar
1997\06\08@044255
by
Mike

At 05:26 AM 6/8/97 +0000, you wrote:
>> > >Please explain  in normal complex mathematics 1/i = i.
>> > If i=sqrt(1) then i^2=1 so by substitution,
>> Sorry to be a purist here, but the square root is not defined on negative
>> numbers. Although the complex number i has the property i^2 = 1, that
>> does not implicate that i = sqrt(1). Even if this were a valid
>> expression at all, i = sqrt(1) would have been an equally valid
>> implication. At that point, i = i would be a valid conclusion.. and 1 =
>> 0 also.
>> Joost
>
>Joost, I think you're right if you're talking about the arithmetic square
>root but I guess they were referring to the general square root that,
>BTW, has two answers and so you can't implicate something like i=i . . .
Definitely NOT  he can't be right for arithmetic square root Andres !!!
Take the example of sqrt(4) which has two possible solutions 2 OR 2.
This does NOT (in any way) MEAN 2 = 2 <Cough splutter groan>
======================================
So moving on to the case of i.
Sqrt(1) also has two possible solutions i OR i.
Now lets check it (and apply maths consitently):
i x i = (1)xi x (1)xi
= (1)x(1) x i x i
= 1 x i^2
= i^2
And by definition i=sqrt(1), so:
i x i = 1
Just because i x i = 1 is a possible solution, does not mean
i = i, just because the equate of i x i = i x i
Care to check it with the number 2 ?
2 x 2 = 2 x 2
Which does NOT mean 2 = 2 (in the universe of which I am a participant) !
Therefore Joost is either nuts or should go back to high school...
Rgds
Mike
A conclusion is a place where a person got tired of thinking.
1997\06\08@084647
by
Andy Kunz
>You are stepping into psuedo maths  the sort some people use to try
>and prove that Engineering is a branch of Devil worship etc
Aren't they?
Andy
==================================================================
Andy Kunz  Montana Design  409 S 6th St  Phillipsburg, NJ 08865
Hardware & Software for Industry & R/C Hobbies
"Go fast, turn right, and keep the wet side down!"
==================================================================
1997\06\08@115835
by
Mike
At 08:47 AM 6/8/97 0400, you wrote:
>>You are stepping into psuedo maths  the sort some people use to try
>>and prove that Engineering is a branch of Devil worship etc
>
>Aren't they?
mmm  well magnetism was always looked on suspiciously by the church,
and there was this german guy in 16th century who covered his body
with drawn wire  waved a few odd shaped magnetics and dissappeared  eek!
The Dusseldorf experiment perhaps ;)
Cheers Mike, Still in Perth, Western Australia
"Angels are able to fly because they take themselves so lightly."
G.K. Chesterton
PS: Anyone know if PICs (and micros in general have) an upper limit of
operation on exposure to static magnetic fields.
1997\06\08@164843
by
Andres Djordjalian

> >Joost, I think you're right if you're talking about the arithmetic square
> >root but I guess they were referring to the general square root that,
> >BTW, has two answers and so you can't implicate something like i=i . . .
> Definitely NOT  he can't be right for arithmetic square root Andres !!!
> Take the example of sqrt(4) which has two possible solutions 2 OR 2.
> This does NOT (in any way) MEAN 2 = 2 <Cough splutter groan>
That's what I'm talking about, but have in consideration that the root
that has several results is the general root, the arithmetic root has
only one solution that has to be a postive real number. At least is what
I've learned.
> Therefore Joost is either nuts or should go back to high school...
Oops... Now that I think again, Joost has another point on his side, that is
that if you're using an operator like "sqrt()" it's pretty obvious that you're
talking about the arithmetic root because it would be odd to have a computer
function return two values!
And again, when we use the symbol we use for roots it is for the
arithmetic one, the general root should have a different notation like
putting the radicand between double parenthesis or writng an asterisk
before it, so most of the times we talk about arithmetic roots unless
stated.
Regards,
Andres Djordjalian
adjordjspam_OUTaleph.fi.uba.ar
1997\06\08@182640
by
Sean Breheny
At 11:58 AM 6/8/97 0400, you wrote:
>PS: Anyone know if PICs (and micros in general have) an upper limit of
>operation on exposure to static magnetic fields.
They must. How about the force that a magnetic field produces on a
currentcarrying wire? If the field were _REALLY_ strong, it could pull the
connections apart inside. Also, the Hall effect would cause parts of the
chip to become polarized when they shouldn't be. The field would probably
have to be rediculously strong!
Sean
1997\06\08@205913
by
Andy Kunz
>PS: Anyone know if PICs (and micros in general have) an upper limit of
>operation on exposure to static magnetic fields.
I'll ask a buddy of mine who does EMS testing for NASA. (FWIW, some of the
best PCMCIA ethernet cards turned out to be Xircom).
Andy
==================================================================
Andy Kunz  Montana Design  409 S 6th St  Phillipsburg, NJ 08865
Hardware & Software for Industry & R/C Hobbies
"Go fast, turn right, and keep the wet side down!"
==================================================================
1997\06\10@064714
by
Andy Kunz

For all who were interested in magnetic susceptibility, this comes from a
friend of mine who works for NASA's Johnson Space Center (aka "Houston" as
in "we have a problem.")
Andy
>
>
>PS: Anyone know if PICs (and micros in general have) an upper limit of
operation on exposure to static magnetic fields.
Andy,
I just spoke to our Portable Computer System (Space Station PC) folks
and they told me that the EMI testing consists of blasts of radio
frequencies over a broad spectrum. However, they do not do steady state
magnetic susceptibility testing at all. As a matter of fact, they are
under the impression that PC seem to "bellyup" when exposed to even
moderate magnetic fields. I asked about exposure to degaussers and they
said that they avoid that entirely because of potential damage to the
units. On thing that comes to mind though is that when the Shuttle
passes through the South Atlantic anomaly (essentially where the Van
Allen belt converges into the atmosphere in the southern hemisphere,
there are strange magnetic anomalies all over the place (compasses
undergo wild swings, etc.). I don't have any data from flights
regarding PC performance while passing through the area but I do know
that about once a day, the PC's on the Shuttle do "lockup" and have to
have to be recycled. It is only a "soft" latchup, not a "hard" or
damaging the PC occurrence.
While this might not be what you're seeking, it is an answer! Sorry I
don't have a complete one for you.
Talk to you later,
Jimmy
==================================================================
Andy Kunz  Montana Design  409 S 6th St  Phillipsburg, NJ 08865
Hardware & Software for Industry & R/C Hobbies
"Go fast, turn right, and keep the wet side down!"
==================================================================
1997\06\11@011119
by
Mike Smith

> From: Sean Breheny <@spam@sbrehenyKILLspamCSRLINK.NET>
> To: KILLspamPICLISTKILLspamMITVMA.MIT.EDU
> Subject: Re: electronics education (was Horrible Newbie...)
> Date: Monday, 9 June 1997 07:55
>
> At 11:58 AM 6/8/97 0400, you wrote:
>
> >PS: Anyone know if PICs (and micros in general have) an upper limit of
> >operation on exposure to static magnetic fields.
>
> They must. How about the force that a magnetic field produces on a
> currentcarrying wire? If the field were _REALLY_ strong, it could pull
the
> connections apart inside. Also, the Hall effect would cause parts of the
> chip to become polarized when they shouldn't be. The field would probably
> have to be rediculously strong!
Some are, f'rinstance, the superconducting magnets inside medical
diagnostic equipment like MRI etc. I was reading a fire fighters journal
about the kind of precautions that need to be taken inside these  WOW!
And the hospital authorities are reluctant to 'dump' the field
(understandable). Would shielding (mumetal) help here?
MikeS
<RemoveMEmikesmith_ozTakeThisOuTrelaymail.net>
More... (looser matching)
 Last day of these posts
 In 1997
, 1998 only
 Today
 New search...