book for basic electronics hobby

Hmm, I was going to recommend starting with the basic passives, LRC circuits. Then add diodes. And then get AofE

George H.

This testimonial

"I read it in less than 3 weeks and now I really know how to understand electric circuits - John K."

is impressive.

John

On a sunny day (Mon, 16 Jan 2012 18:29:32 -0800) it happened John Larkin wrote in :

Yes, sure is, after almost a century learning I still do not understand all circuits, let alone what an electron really is. I need to read that book! On second thought, why spoil a fascinating mystery.

If there's anyone lurking looking for a basics book, I wouldn't bother. The internet is a far faster & more effective way to learn, and I've not yet seen any beginners book thats of satisfactory quality. And no, AofE is not a beginners book.

NT

NEETS

A few other sources as well.

Note that most of the testimonials use the same fractured-English syntax as the rest of the page.

John

My tech school book was electronic communication, by shrader. After 13 years, AofE then became my bible.

Greg

Note the blatant lie that the guy has had a century of electronics study. The dope isn't even that old.

In arguing with an EE* who believes that voltage is always caused by current, I became curious about the surface potential of charged particles.

q =3D 1.6e-19 r =3D 5.64e-15M / 2

V =3D q/4piEo/r =3D 511KV

So now I finally know! Clearly electrons are little conductive spheres charged to a voltage related to positron annhilation energy (since antimatter cancellation requires *two* 511KeV little metal balls. And when they spiral semiclassically together, they must launch a circ-pol EM chirp like an axial jet! Riiight?)

((((((((((((((((((((((( ( ( (o) ) ) ))))))))))))))))))))))) William J. Beaty UW Chem Dept, Bagley Hall RM74 beaty a chem washington edu Box 351700, Seattle, WA 98195-1700 ph206-543-6195 http//staff.washington.edu/wbeaty

• on internet, nobody knows whether you're really Claude

;)

You've just rederived the value of the "classical electron radius", only backwards. That number has no other physical significance. Certainly electrons behave as point particles up to energies as high as accelerators can reach. (The string theorists have been doing math on particles with internal structure, but after 30 years or so, there's zero data to support it AFAIK. They'd have been shouting from the housetops if there were.)

Cheers

Phil Hobbs

Can't open /usr/lib64/ispell/british.hash On a sunny day (Thu, 19 Jan 2012 14:21:52 -0800 (PST)) it happened Bill Beaty wrote in :

Sounds a bit like 2 black holes merging, would be interesting to know if it came out as 'jets', maybe more powerful in one direction than the other. There is a guy in sci.physics that thinks things sort of repeat themselves on an ever smaller scale, like the atom is a universe in its own. While ago I was thinking about a neutrino black hole, is there any basic physics against that, apart from the continuation of gravity at ever smaller scales? There is also the electron black hole, as theorized by Murat Ozer. Been quiet around that too, I thought that was ball-lightning (I have seen one once), size matches. So much for todays philosophy

eaty

Well the 'inside' of a black hole is unknown, But you could think about a neutrino 'star'. (like a neutron star)

Since netrino's have a very small mass.... (I don't know the current guesses.. but lets say an eV) they have some average thermal velocity. kT~mv**2. You can then compare this to the escape velocity from the surface. And ask how big a mass you need at the current temperature of the universe to make a neutrino 'star'. I'm too lazy at the moment to try putting numbers in... My WAG is it's still to 'hot' in the universe neutrino 'star'.

George H.

On a sunny day (Fri, 20 Jan 2012 06:27:11 -0800 (PST)) it happened George Herold wrote in :

I am glad you use the word 'unknown'. It depends a lot on how gravity works, and if it has a maximum. In the theory I like, Le Sage's, if all particles - that cause gravity - are intercepted, then there would be no more increase in pressure. So although perhaps EM waves could not escape, something that was faster could. Independent of the theory chosen, if indeed neutrinos are confirmed to move FTL, as CERN detected, then those could still escape where EM could not. That would require more mass in any theory to form a hole that was also 'neutrino black'. (Think mass of neutrino and escape speed required, simple Newton). Fun :-)

could.

ve FTL,

neutrino black'.

Well, *IF* the cern netrino FTL results are correct, then the difference in speed is not that much... so about the same mass. Indeed since the netrino's have a non-zero rest mass, the required black hole mass could be the same. Oh here's a crazy idea... I wonder if lower energy netrino's go faster. That would almost make a twisted kind of sense.

Yeah neutrinos are cool.. too bad they are so darn hard to detect.

George H.

ty