Searching \ for 'electronics education (was Horrible Newbie...)' in subject line. ()
Make payments with PayPal - it's fast, free and secure! Help us get a faster server
FAQ page: www.piclist.com/techref/index.htm?key=electronics+education
Search entire site for: 'electronics education (was Horrible Newbie...)'.

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

flavicon
face
>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 0-8306-4133-5.
       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 Addison-Wesley
       ISBN 0-201-17558-4. 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: 0-07-008711-3. 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 1-5 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

flavicon
face
> From: Mike Schreck <spam_OUTschreckTakeThisOuTspamHORIZSYS.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

flavicon
face
Steve Hardy wrote:
>
> > From: Mike Schreck <.....schreckKILLspamspam@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

flavicon
face
At 12:52 PM 6/6/97 EST, you wrote:
>> From: Mike Schreck <schreckspamKILLspamHORIZSYS.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

flavicon
face
At 04:34 AM 6/6/97 +0800, you wrote:
>Steve Hardy wrote:
>>
>> > From: Mike Schreck <.....schreckKILLspamspam.....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

flavicon
face
       Or,

               i * 1/i = 1
       =>  i * i * 1/i = i
       =>         -1/i = i
       =>          1/i = -i


{Quote hidden}

/*****************************************/
/* Matt Calder, Dept. of Statistics, CSU */
/* http://www.stat.colostate.edu/~calder */
/*****************************************/

1997\06\06@113820 by Mike Schreck

flavicon
face
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

flavicon
face
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

flavicon
face
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

flavicon
face
> > >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_OUTspamTakeThisOuTaleph.fi.uba.ar

1997\06\08@044255 by Mike

flavicon
face
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

flavicon
face
>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
flavicon
face
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

flavicon
face
> >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
adjordjspamspam_OUTaleph.fi.uba.ar

1997\06\08@182640 by Sean Breheny

flavicon
face
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
current-carrying 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

flavicon
face
>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

flavicon
face
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 "belly-up" 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 "lock-up" and have to
have to be recycled.  It is only a "soft" latch-up, 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

flavicon
face
> From: Sean Breheny <@spam@sbrehenyKILLspamspamCSRLINK.NET>
> To: KILLspamPICLISTKILLspamspamMITVMA.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
> current-carrying 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 (mu-metal) help here?

MikeS
<RemoveMEmikesmith_ozTakeThisOuTspamrelaymail.net>

More... (looser matching)
- Last day of these posts
- In 1997 , 1998 only
- Today
- New search...