How accurate are these volumes (I don't want to begin learning electronics wrongly)

Discussion in 'Feedback and Suggestions' started by Unregistered, Aug 25, 2007.

  1. Unregistered

    Thread Starter Guest

    How accurate are the 6 volumes? I do not want to have to buy a bunch of manuals so that I learn the principles of electricity and how to fiddle with and (hopefully later) build my own electronics. So far I have not noticed anything that stands out as being wrong, but then again I do not know much so.. I am a little over halfgway through the first chapter in the DC electricity volume so far. I am just wondering, as you all know you cannot trsut every source you read from, and in my opinion, especially if it is free. I am not discrediting this site or the material on it just because it is free, but I do not want to start off learning incorrect information and have to relearn things later (because that will be much harder than learning it the first time)

    One thing that confused me, although I have seen this elsewhere is that the negative side is the side that actually has the abundance of electrons, and the DC volume said that it just stays that way because it has been accepted for so long, but I have read in other places that that is actually correct, because electrons have a negative charge and so having a bunch of them would make that side negative. Also, the DC volume seemed to talk like electrons were what electricity was, and I have seen elsewhere that when the electrons are moving they are actually being moved away form the protons and revealing the proton's positive charge and therein that is electricity.
  2. hgmjr

    Retired Moderator

    Jan 28, 2005
    It is safe to assume that the information they contain is quite accurate.

  3. recca02

    Senior Member

    Apr 2, 2007
    i believe they were written to the best of the writer's knowledge and have been corrected for typos over the years, yet they are a work in progress.

    i m not asking you to trust any, but can u cite one reference for such inference?

    can u convert charge of electrons independently(not with capacitance) in terms of voltage(potential)?
    the statement is quite correct if u know how a electric cell is made u would know about SHM the lower one can be called a negative side and the higher one can be called a positive IIRC .Its the difference between them that gives the total voltage. even in SHM the reference is not exactly at zero potential it was decided to be chosen as standard zero potential.
    there is nothing like absolute zero potential and hence nothing like negative voltage too, zero voltage(as we know) was decided on to ac as standard reference.

    electricity is the flow of charges.
    for solid conductors since the protons are quite large their motion is negligible & does not contribute much to current flow. it is the electrons which constitute of the current flow.
    for electrolytic solutions both anions and cations flow constitute flow of current.

    does that help?
  4. Unregistered

    Thread Starter Guest

    no not really. I do not really know what you are talking about.. haha
  5. Dave

    Retired Moderator

    Nov 17, 2003
    The nature of the AAC project means that the e-books are written and vetted for content by those that use and understand the concepts. As always, like any literary resource, there are errors which have propagated into the e-book and have yet to be corrected or verified.

    Throughout the years we have had companies and training organisations asking to use sections of the e-book for training purposes and to assist with customer training and concept familiarity.

    You are safe to assume that the content presented here is as accurate a resource as you are going to get. By all means assess the information from the e-book against that provided in other reference texts.