Hi,

I'm completely new to electronics, but I'd like to get started.

Perhaps it is just me getting tired of this wasteful culture where
devices are disposable, or just me being a tightwad, but I'd really
love to learn how to repair my own stuff, and know how various little
DIY projects actually work as opposed to putting them blindly together.

Are there any books that you guys might recommend to help me get started?

I've always been a software person by training and trade, so you can
say I have absolutely no background in this, except for being a geek.

Thanks for any tips and recommendations

"Woei Shyang" wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
Hi,

I'm completely new to electronics, but I'd like to get started.

Perhaps it is just me getting tired of this wasteful culture where devices
are disposable, or just me being a tightwad, but I'd really love to learn
how to repair my own stuff, and know how various little DIY projects
actually work as opposed to putting them blindly together.

Are there any books that you guys might recommend to help me get started?

I've always been a software person by training and trade, so you can say I
have absolutely no background in this, except for being a geek.

Thanks for any tips and recommendations



http://www.repairfaq.org/REPAIR/

http://library.thinkquest.org/16497/intro/index.html

Here's a couple links to get you started...

Mark Z.

Woei Shyang wrote:
Hi,

I'm completely new to electronics, but I'd like to get started.

Perhaps it is just me getting tired of this wasteful culture where devices are disposable, or just me being a tightwad,
but I'd really love to learn how to repair my own stuff, and know how various little DIY projects actually work as
opposed to putting them blindly together.

Are there any books that you guys might recommend to help me get started?

I've always been a software person by training and trade, so you can say I have absolutely no background in this, except
for being a geek.

Thanks for any tips and recommendations

http://jricher.com/NEETS/

This will give you a solid foundation if you read through the
modules, answer the quiz questions and ask the folks in
sci.electronics.basics to get you unstuck.

It is a fascinating hobby.

--Winston

On Jan 19, 6:20*pm, Woei Shyang
wrote:
Hi,

I'm completely new to electronics, but I'd like to get started.

Perhaps it is just me getting tired of this wasteful culture where
devices are disposable, or just me being a tightwad, but I'd really
love to learn how to repair my own stuff, and know how various little
DIY projects actually work as opposed to putting them blindly together.

Are there any books that you guys might recommend to help me get started?

I've always been a software person by training and trade, so you can
say I have absolutely no background in this, except for being a geek.

Thanks for any tips and recommendations

For me, seeing how things work reading about how things work. Radio
Shack no longer makes experimenters' kits, so I would check out Make
Magazine's introduction to electronics:

http://www.makershed.com/category_s/49.htm

Experimenter's kits are still available. You really need one of these,
especially as Heath, Allied, EICO, etc, have long been out the kit business.

Allied had a wonderful kit, which cost $30 50 years ago. It was a small
console, with a pegboard for the circuits on the back. Someone should revive
it, but it would be pretty pricey. (Still have the manual. Don't know why I
didn't save the unit itself.)

"Mark Zacharias" wrote in message
...
"Woei Shyang" wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
Hi,

I'm completely new to electronics, but I'd like to get started.

Perhaps it is just me getting tired of this wasteful culture where
devices are disposable, or just me being a tightwad, but I'd really love
to learn how to repair my own stuff, and know how various little DIY
projects actually work as opposed to putting them blindly together.

Are there any books that you guys might recommend to help me get started?

I've always been a software person by training and trade, so you can say
I have absolutely no background in this, except for being a geek.

Thanks for any tips and recommendations



http://www.repairfaq.org/REPAIR/

http://library.thinkquest.org/16497/intro/index.html

Here's a couple links to get you started...

Mark Z.

There's a few beginner books occasionally get reposted on
alt.binaries.e-book.technical, not to mention magazines like Everyday
Practical Electronics, Nuts&Volts, Circuit cellar, Elektor etc.

Beware though, there's a couple of ******s posting pages of virus's! - Avoid
RARs and other archive files untill you know which posters you can trust.

On Jan 21, 1:02*pm, Nelson wrote:
On Sat, 21 Jan 2012 04:39:46 -0500, William Sommerwerck wrote
(in article ):

Experimenter's kits are still available. You really need one of these,
especially as Heath, Allied, EICO, etc, have long been out the kit business.

Allied had a wonderful kit, which cost $30 50 years ago. It was a small
console, with a pegboard for the circuits on the back. Someone should revive
it, but it would be pretty pricey. (Still have the manual. Don't know why I
didn't save the unit itself.)

Radio Shack has a couple of nice ones. *I bought this one for my kid:

*http://www.radioshack.com/product/in...ductId=3814337


Wow, I missed that one. Aside from a few small Radio Shack branded
items, everything in the hobby kit selection on their website was
either Make or Velleman.

Poor man's fireworks: Always connect electrolytic caps the
wrong-way-round before applying power!

Would that it /were/ fireworks. The caps usually explode and emit a
foul-smelling gas.

On 1/19/2012 9:20 PM, Woei Shyang wrote:
Hi,

I'm completely new to electronics, but I'd like to get started.

Perhaps it is just me getting tired of this wasteful culture where
devices are disposable, or just me being a tightwad, but I'd really love
to learn how to repair my own stuff, and know how various little DIY
projects actually work as opposed to putting them blindly together.

Are there any books that you guys might recommend to help me get started?

I've always been a software person by training and trade, so you can say
I have absolutely no background in this, except for being a geek.

Thanks for any tips and recommendations

Poor man's fireworks: Always connect electrolytic caps the
wrong-way-round before applying power!

"Ian Field" wrote in message
...
"William Sommerwerck" wrote in message
...

Poor man's fireworks: Always connect electrolytic caps
the wrong-way-round before applying power!

Would that it /were/ fireworks. The caps usually explode
and emit a foul-smelling gas.

Tantalum caps can be a bit more entertaining.

They give a tantalizing performance, no doubt.

"William Sommerwerck" wrote in message
...
Poor man's fireworks: Always connect electrolytic caps the
wrong-way-round before applying power!

Would that it /were/ fireworks. The caps usually explode and emit a
foul-smelling gas.


Tantalum caps can be a bit more entertaining.

"William Sommerwerck" wrote in message
...
"Ian Field" wrote in message
...
"William Sommerwerck" wrote in message
...

Poor man's fireworks: Always connect electrolytic caps
the wrong-way-round before applying power!

Would that it /were/ fireworks. The caps usually explode
and emit a foul-smelling gas.

Tantalum caps can be a bit more entertaining.

They give a tantalizing performance, no doubt.

And just as smelly as alu caps too.

Mark Zacharias wrote:

http://library.thinkquest.org/16497/intro/index.html

I don't like this much. Defining voltage in terms of resistance. It should
be in terms of coulombs and joules.


"Voltage is represented by the letter E. The basic unit of measure is volts
or the letter V. One volt will push 1 amp of current through 1 ohm of
resistance. Resistance will be discussed in a later section."


--

Reply in group, but if emailing add one more
zero, and remove the last word.

Winston wrote:

http://jricher.com/NEETS/

Yeah, I wish they had labs to go with that. Guided experiments are what's
missing from almost all good electronic courseware. The lab manual for The
Art of Electronics is available and costs about half the price of the main
text, so that might be helpful.


--

Reply in group, but if emailing add one more
zero, and remove the last word.

Nelson wrote:
On Sun, 22 Jan 2012 20:33:26 -0500, Tom Del Rosso wrote
(in article ):


Mark Zacharias wrote:

http://library.thinkquest.org/16497/intro/index.html

I don't like this much. Defining voltage in terms of resistance.
It should be in terms of coulombs and joules.


"Voltage is represented by the letter E. The basic unit of measure
is volts or the letter V. One volt will push 1 amp of current
through 1 ohm of resistance. Resistance will be discussed in a
later section."

Do you really think it's necessary for someone trying to get started
in electronics as a hobby to to worry about such niceties? Defining
voltage in terms of resistance or "pressure" is much more intuitive to
a neophyte.

Yes, I can say that it is harder to learn when you start by learning it
wrong.

If they want to talk about pressure then at least they can do it
conceptually instead of quantitatively, and it doesn't take a great effort
for them to make clear that they are using analogy. When they take the
ass-backwards approach of defining voltage quantitatively in terms of
resistance then they are only making it necessary to unlearn all that and
start over from scratch some day.

Defining things backwards is not a mere detail.


--

Reply in group, but if emailing add one more
zero, and remove the last word.

On Jan 23, 11:13*am, "Tom Del Rosso"
wrote:
Nelson wrote:
On Sun, 22 Jan 2012 20:33:26 -0500, Tom Del Rosso wrote
(in article ):

Mark Zacharias wrote:

http://library.thinkquest.org/16497/intro/index.html

I don't like this much. *Defining voltage in terms of resistance.
It should be in terms of coulombs and joules.

"Voltage is represented by the letter E. The basic unit of measure
is volts or the letter V. One volt will push 1 amp of current
through 1 ohm of resistance. Resistance will be discussed in a
later section."

Do you really think it's necessary for someone trying to get started
in electronics as a hobby to to worry about such niceties? *Defining
voltage in terms of resistance or "pressure" is much more intuitive to
a neophyte.

Yes, I can say that it is harder to learn when you start by learning it
wrong.

If they want to talk about pressure then at least they can do it
conceptually instead of quantitatively, and it doesn't take a great effort
for them to make clear that they are using analogy. *When they take the
ass-backwards approach of defining voltage quantitatively in terms of
resistance then they are only making it necessary to unlearn all that and
start over from scratch some day.

Defining things backwards is not a mere detail.

Let people get a good working understanding of things before you drown
them with abstractions. Thank goodness when I first became interested
in electronics, no one sat me down and emphasized the difference
between the abvolt and the statvolt.

spamtrap1888 wrote:

Let people get a good working understanding of things before you drown
them with abstractions. Thank goodness when I first became interested
in electronics, no one sat me down and emphasized the difference
between the abvolt and the statvolt.

I didn't say anything like that at all. I said resistance is defined in
terms of voltage and current, not the other way around, and if you aren't
ready to define voltage then just don't do it.

You can omit lots of things without being compelled to teach something that
isn't so, but most "science" teachers think the resistor color code is the
root of everything.

And lots of abstrations are taught to 5-year-olds, like the concept of time.
You don't have to teach them SR. You just teach them how things are
affected by time. But you don't teach them that the clock makes time
happen, do you?

Kids are more capable of learning abstractions than adults. Adults assume
incorrectly that kids need an explanation for abstractions, so they provide
one that is wrong and make learning harder rather than easier.


--

Reply in group, but if emailing add one more
zero, and remove the last word.

On 24/01/2012 5:39 AM, Tom Del Rosso wrote:
spamtrap1888 wrote:

Let people get a good working understanding of things before you drown
them with abstractions. Thank goodness when I first became interested
in electronics, no one sat me down and emphasized the difference
between the abvolt and the statvolt.

I didn't say anything like that at all. I said resistance is defined in
terms of voltage and current, not the other way around, and if you aren't
ready to define voltage then just don't do it.

You can omit lots of things without being compelled to teach something that
isn't so, but most "science" teachers think the resistor color code is the
root of everything.

And lots of abstrations are taught to 5-year-olds, like the concept of time.
You don't have to teach them SR. You just teach them how things are
affected by time. But you don't teach them that the clock makes time
happen, do you?

Kids are more capable of learning abstractions than adults. Adults assume
incorrectly that kids need an explanation for abstractions, so they provide
one that is wrong and make learning harder rather than easier.


That's how it's explained:
https://plus.google.com/photos/11044...60195642074977

On Jan 23, 6:23*pm, TonyS wrote:
On 24/01/2012 5:39 AM, Tom Del Rosso wrote:







spamtrap1888 wrote:

Let people get a good working understanding of things before you drown
them with abstractions. Thank goodness when I first became interested
in electronics, no one sat me down and emphasized the difference
between the abvolt and the statvolt.

I didn't say anything like that at all. *I said resistance is defined in
terms of voltage and current, not the other way around, and if you aren't
ready to define voltage then just don't do it.

You can omit lots of things without being compelled to teach something that
isn't so, but most "science" teachers think the resistor color code is the
root of everything.

And lots of abstrations are taught to 5-year-olds, like the concept of time.
You don't have to teach them SR. *You just teach them how things are
affected by time. *But you don't teach them that the clock makes time
happen, do you?

Kids are more capable of learning abstractions than adults. *Adults assume
incorrectly that kids need an explanation for abstractions, so they provide
one that is wrong and make learning harder rather than easier.

That's how it's explained:https://plus.google.com/photos/11044...bums/567266019...

Where are the coulombs and joules in that drawing?

The best way to explain three new concepts is not by adding two more
new concepts.

Drilling down to bedrock is not always the best way to learn
something. As a kid, the current convention always bothered me,
because I knew current was a flow of electrons, and electrons went the
other way. Did current reflect a hole-centric way of looking at
things?

But then I realized electrons were irrelevant to my study of current
flow. They're important to a deeper understanding of electronics, but
if you're not operating at that level they just get in the way.

On Jan 23, 1:39*pm, "Tom Del Rosso" wrote:
spamtrap1888 wrote:

Let people get a good working understanding of things before you drown
them with abstractions. Thank goodness when I first became interested
in electronics, no one sat me down and emphasized the difference
between the abvolt and the statvolt.

I didn't say anything like that at all. *I said resistance is defined in
terms of voltage and current, not the other way around, and if you aren't
ready to define voltage then just don't do it.

I don't think you sufficiently understand voltage. Explain to me the
difference between the abvolt and the statvolt, to prove me wrong.


You can omit lots of things without being compelled to teach something that
isn't so, but most "science" teachers think the resistor color code is the
root of everything.

And lots of abstrations are taught to 5-year-olds, like the concept of time.
You don't have to teach them SR. *You just teach them how things are
affected by time. *But you don't teach them that the clock makes time
happen, do you?

You don't start by teaching them about the leap second if you want
them to learn about the big hand and the little hand. Similarly they
don't need to know about how the earth wobbles on its access to know
when it's a quarter to five.


Kids are more capable of learning abstractions than adults. *Adults assume
incorrectly that kids need an explanation for abstractions, so they provide
one that is wrong and make learning harder rather than easier.

Don't make up stuff, but don't teach them more than they can absorb.
If some kid asks how an airplane flies, you don't need to start your
explanation by teaching him tensor mathematics.

"Nelson" wrote in message
.com...
On Tue, 24 Jan 2012 03:23:58 -0500, spamtrap1888 wrote
(in article
):

Drilling down to bedrock is not always the best way to learn
something. As a kid, the current convention always bothered me,
because I knew current was a flow of electrons, and electrons
went the other way. Did current reflect a hole-centric way of looking
at things?

No. See below.

I still find myself occasionally getting momentarily hung up on this...
and I have Master's Degrees in Electrical Engineering and Physics :-)
I have always found "holes" counterintuitive. It's too bad the
conventions didn't evolve so that they were consistent with the
underlying physics. It's as if we defined the basic unit of heat as
the "friggie" so that when a body heated up, we would say it lost so
many friggies.

Positive and negative, as you point out, are misnamed. This is supposedly
the fault of B. Franklin, who said that electrical particles flowed from an
source with an excess to a sink with fewer -- which is basically correct. He
called the excess side "positive", not knowing that the charge of the
electrical particles would eventually be called "negative".

BY CONVENTION, current flows from positive to negative. This has never much
bothered me, nor has hole flow. (A hole is a place in the lattice where an
electron "should" be.)

Now, if someone could explain exactly how -- on a quantum level -- junction
transistors work -- I would be delighted. I've yet to find a book that makes
it clear. (FETs are easy.)

spamtrap1888 wrote:
On Jan 23, 1:39 pm, "Tom Del Rosso" wrote:
spamtrap1888 wrote:

Let people get a good working understanding of things before you
drown them with abstractions. Thank goodness when I first became
interested in electronics, no one sat me down and emphasized the
difference between the abvolt and the statvolt.

I didn't say anything like that at all. I said resistance is
defined in terms of voltage and current, not the other way around,
and if you aren't ready to define voltage then just don't do it.

I don't think you sufficiently understand voltage. Explain to me the
difference between the abvolt and the statvolt, to prove me wrong.

They're just different units. Convert by multiplying by a constant. That's
all. It's like using the bell instead of the decibel or microns instead of
angstroms. That's not a big deal.


You don't start by teaching them about the leap second if you want
them to learn about the big hand and the little hand. Similarly they
don't need to know about how the earth wobbles on its access to know
when it's a quarter to five.

Which has nothing to do with avoiding teaching them something that's wrong.

Resistance is not a fundamental quantity. It's nothing but the ratio of
voltage and current, and only when measured in the absence of other factors
which are fundamental, so it's not something you should refer to when
explaining voltage.

The last sentence in the cited web page could simply be deleted and nothing
would be lost. I'm baffled why you think it's so important to include it.


--

Reply in group, but if emailing add one more
zero, and remove the last word.

spamtrap1888 wrote:

Drilling down to bedrock is not always the best way to learn
something.

You can never reach bedrock.


As a kid, the current convention always bothered me,
because I knew current was a flow of electrons, and electrons went the
other way. Did current reflect a hole-centric way of looking at
things?

So you just think of current as an abstraction. You don't think about
holes. You didn't need to learn (at first) about holes. But you also
didn't need to learn a lie about positive particles. It can just be left as
an abstraction. So can voltage.


--

Reply in group, but if emailing add one more
zero, and remove the last word.

spamtrap1888 wrote:

Where are the coulombs and joules in that drawing?

Coulombs and joules are in the other drawing, in the web page in question.
They were included without naming them in an abstract and intuitive way.
Then the author went off in the wrong direction when he should have just
left it as an abstraction.


--

Reply in group, but if emailing add one more
zero, and remove the last word.

On Tue, 24 Jan 2012 00:23:58 -0800 (PST), spamtrap1888
wrote:

snip

Kids are more capable of learning abstractions than adults. *Adults assume
incorrectly that kids need an explanation for abstractions, so they provide
one that is wrong and make learning harder rather than easier.

Do not be too quick to judge on that. Mostly learning it wrong first is
the real stumbling block rather than abstraction itself. Learning formal
abstraction is a different issue, and needs to be treated as such.

That's how it's explained:https://plus.google.com/photos/11044...bums/567266019...

Where are the coulombs and joules in that drawing?

The best way to explain three new concepts is not by adding two more
new concepts.

Drilling down to bedrock is not always the best way to learn
something. As a kid, the current convention always bothered me,
because I knew current was a flow of electrons, and electrons went the
other way. Did current reflect a hole-centric way of looking at
things?

But then I realized electrons were irrelevant to my study of current
flow. They're important to a deeper understanding of electronics, but
if you're not operating at that level they just get in the way.

What happened was merely an incorrect A|B choice long before there was
anything enough information to decide correctly. But it has been embedded
in the ASSumptions for hundreds of years and there is no reasonable way of
correcting it. Not that electrons move in conductors at anything like
light speed.

?-)

On Jan 24, 7:32*am, "Tom Del Rosso" wrote:
spamtrap1888 wrote:
On Jan 23, 1:39 pm, "Tom Del Rosso" wrote:
spamtrap1888 wrote:

Let people get a good working understanding of things before you
drown them with abstractions. Thank goodness when I first became
interested in electronics, no one sat me down and emphasized the
difference between the abvolt and the statvolt.

I didn't say anything like that at all. I said resistance is
defined in terms of voltage and current, not the other way around,
and if you aren't ready to define voltage then just don't do it.

I don't think you sufficiently understand *voltage. Explain to me the
difference between the abvolt and the statvolt, to prove me wrong.

They're just different units. *Convert by multiplying by a constant. *That's
all. *It's like using the bell instead of the decibel or microns instead of
angstroms. *That's not a big deal.

That's like saying a pound is a unit of mass. Try again.


You don't start by teaching them about the leap second if you want
them to learn about the big hand and the little hand. Similarly they
don't need to know about how the earth wobbles on its access to know
when it's a quarter to five.

Which has nothing to do with avoiding teaching them something that's wrong.

Resistance is not a fundamental quantity. *It's nothing but the ratio of
voltage and current, and only when measured in the absence of other factors
which are fundamental, so it's not something you should refer to when
explaining voltage.

What do you mean by fundamental property? Resistance (more precisely,
resistivity) is a materials property, as is potential difference. If I
make a cell (defining the voltage) and apply it to a hunk of material
(geometry plus a property of the material), that defines the current
that flows through the material.

"Woei Shyang" wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
Hi,

I'm completely new to electronics, but I'd like to get started.

Perhaps it is just me getting tired of this wasteful culture where devices
are disposable, or just me being a tightwad, but I'd really love to learn
how to repair my own stuff, and know how various little DIY projects
actually work as opposed to putting them blindly together.

Are there any books that you guys might recommend to help me get started?

I've always been a software person by training and trade, so you can say I
have absolutely no background in this, except for being a geek.

Thanks for any tips and recommendations



The group: alt.binaries.e-book.technical has the book; Starting Electronics
4th ed K. brindley Newnes 2011 you can download free right now.