I was not talking about developing an interest, I was pointing out that even to play with a crystal radio one needs to understand the very fundamental concepts of series connections and parallel connections. That is totally different from understanding the inner workings of components.

I don't think this is true. It's nice, but not required. A lot depends on the context.

There are lots of kits out there for all kinds of things that can be put together without knowing anything about any concepts whatsoever. The kit may or may not try to teach anything about those concepts. A crystal radio kit aimed at a five year old is probably going to be pretty light on anything resembling theory and what it does have is probably going to be so handwavy as to be all but useless at anything other than the most superficial level. They aren't going to be expected to know or learn anything about series and parallel connections.

A couple years ago I bought my daughter one of those kits to make an aluminum air battery using a soda can and pencil lead to power a little calculator for a few minutes. The description of what was happening was extremely thin on substance. But she was nine or ten at the time and it was enough just to see her eyes light up at having built a battery that powered something. I doubt she learned a thing about chemistry or electronics or circuits or anything, but when she starts seeing some of that stuff in school, she will already have a partial skeleton upon which to start hanging the meat.

The Radio Shack 65-in-1 electronics kit that got me started down the electronics road tried to teach you a bit about each of the circuits you built and I doubt I grasped more than a couple percent of it at the time (I was nine or so). I was able to wire up most of the projects according to the wiring diagram (and start making some correlation to the schematic that accompanied it, but a lot of it made no sense, too) and get most of them doing what they claimed they could do. But most of those circuits were still all-but-magic. But the magic was cool. And seeing that I could build something that worked and did neat things using components that could be hooked up other ways to do completely different neat things was life altering in many ways -- it only barely developed an interest in electronics (that wouldn't start to sprout for another five or six years), but it changed how I looked at things in general. Now something wasn't just a collection of parts that was cool to tear apart to try to figure out how it worked and attempt to put it back together and get it to work again, but now everything was a collection of parts that could be used for all kinds of other things that were completely unrelated to the original purpose. I already had some of that naturally, but that kit made me consciously aware of it and now I expressly looked at things that way (much to the very mixed pleasure of my father).

 

There's series. There's parallel. THEN there's series-parallel. Inductance, capacitance, resistance, radiated energy and lots of other terms. The simple question was "How to know what's in parallel or series?" Without getting into electronics theories the simple explanation is the right one. And it's been said already, but it's worth saying again - two components in parallel experience the same voltage. Two components in series do NOT experience the same voltage but they DO experience the same current. Give me 10 min's and I'll bang out some drawings to help understand. And I'll include "Series-Parallel".

 

Give me 10 min's and I'll bang out some drawings to help understand. And I'll include "Series-Parallel".

Positive attitude; I like that.

 

First is two 1KΩ resistors in series. They form a voltage divider. Since both resistor values are the same, the voltage in the middle is half the starting voltage.

Second is two 1KΩ resistors in parallel. They don't divide the voltage but they do share the current. Since they are the same resistance they share the current equally. The TOTAL current through the circuit is the sum of both legs of the parallel resistors.

Third are three resistors, two are 1KΩ parallel to each other and one series resistor of 500Ω. They form a voltage divider same as the first circuit. Though the values are a little different, they still form an equal division of voltage. As you can see, the two parallel resistors are conducting 2.5 mA of current. Remember? Add the two together for the total current. That would be 5 mA. The two parallel resistors can be thought of as a single resistor of a lower value. It's like a freeway with two lanes. A certain amount of traffic can get through. Double the lanes and you double the amount of traffic that can get through. Same is true of resistors and current. The more pathways you have the more current can flow. The last resistor (the series resistor of 500Ω) has to handle the same amount of current. if that were a 1KΩ resistor then the current would be 3.3mA flowing through the total circuit. I chose 500Ω because two 1KΩ resistors in parallel act like a single 500Ω resistor, thus forming the original voltage divider. If I DID use a 1KΩ resistor then the voltage would NOT be 2.5V, it would be 3.3 volts.

 

Not too experienced I know...
Still confused, if everything is in parallel, every component will get the same amount of voltage from the battery. Say if I had say 6V battery, would everything plugged into the 5V pin run off 6V or 5V?.

They would get whatever voltage the battery was capable of providing. At some point in the discharge cycle the battery would provide exactly 5 VDC. That is kind of like a broken watch that tells the correct time twice a day.

 

Not too experienced I know...
Still confused, if everything is in parallel, every component will get the same amount of voltage from the battery. Say if I had say 6V battery, would everything plugged into the 5V pin run off 6V or 5V?.

What 5 V pin are you talking about?

Complex parts are almost never in parallel. To truly be in parallel, every pin on one part would have to be tied to the corresponding pin on the other part. Unless they are identical parts, this very requirement usually has little or now meaning -- which pins correspond to which pins if one part if a 50 pin microcontroller and another part is a 30 pin memory module.

Forget series and parallel. What is it you are trying to accomplish?

 

Why does the circuit show a 9V battery VCC1 that is not connected to anything??

 

This thread perfectly illustrates the reason that I am critical of the arduino theology. Basic circuit theory, including an understanding of series and parallel, in addition to the concept of power being the product of voltage and current, is required even a simple understanding of how things work. SOFTWARE IS NOT ENOUGH, nor will it ever be enough. And picking different names for parts normally referenced by other names is counterproductive always.
To see if something iis in series or parallel one needs to be able to know the flow of current, which we define as being from positive to negative. If the current must flow through one device after leaving the previous device, then the two are in series.

I was not talking about developing an interest, I was pointing out that even to play with a crystal radio one needs to understand the very fundamental concepts of series connections and parallel connections. That is totally different from understanding the inner workings of components.

When I first built a crystal set, I understood nothing. Just followed the picture!
The Arduino "theology" was primarily designed to generate an interest in programming and electronics, then to be a vehicle to build on teaching of the theory as one progressed.
My first painting as a chis was just splashing paint on paper.
Why some folk are so anti Arduino escapes me. The Arduino world is not perfect by any means, but it is a wonderful start, and has lead to very many folk discovering electronics or just programming.
I use a number of processors in my designs, and still the Arduinos are a very good starting step. For instance, my latest effort is to encourage our ham radio club members to convert old crystal locked transceivers to Arduino based synthesizer control.
The "VCO" I use is the Si5351, and so far I've done a Trio 2M FM set, an FT7B HF transceiver, a PCM Hawk, and a Codan 8525B. There are more in the pipeline, and all these can be done with less then $20US worth of off the shelf parts.
This is encouraging some hams in our club to look at Arduinos and programming for the very first time.
Another example, when at high school year 7, I did music. It was all theory and history, we did not see an instrument at all. Needless to say, I have some knowledge of music history and theory, but no musical skill. And no real interest in learning to play either. That was driven out by the very dry bones school lessons.
It comes down to the first step. Generating an interest. Not pounding in the theory.

 

When I first built a crystal set, I understood nothing. Just followed the picture!
The Arduino "theology" was primarily designed to generate an interest in programming and electronics, then to be a vehicle to build on teaching of the theory as one progressed.
My first painting as a chis was just splashing paint on paper.
Why some folk are so anti Arduino escapes me. The Arduino world is not perfect by any means, but it is a wonderful start, and has lead to very many folk discovering electronics or just programming.
I use a number of processors in my designs, and still the Arduinos are a very good starting step. For instance, my latest effort is to encourage our ham radio club members to convert old crystal locked transceivers to Arduino based synthesizer control.
The "VCO" I use is the Si5351, and so far I've done a Trio 2M FM set, an FT7B HF transceiver, a PCM Hawk, and a Codan 8525B. There are more in the pipeline, and all these can be done with less then $20US worth of off the shelf parts.
This is encouraging some hams in our club to look at Arduinos and programming for the very first time.
Another example, when at high school year 7, I did music. It was all theory and history, we did not see an instrument at all. Needless to say, I have some knowledge of music history and theory, but no musical skill. And no real interest in learning to play either. That was driven out by the very dry bones school lessons.
It comes down to the first step. Generating an interest. Not pounding in the theory.

My first criticism is in the fact that very intentionally the promoters call things by entirely different names than what is normally used. Why refuse to speak the same language as all of the vast sea of knowledge is published in?? THAT provides nobody any benefit.
For that crystal radio example, would it make any sense if the instructions called the coil a waffle, and the diode was referred to as a doorknob? How confusing would it be if the antenna were referenced as a fly-swatter?
It is not forcing the theory to tell the builder that the diode has to be connected to the coil, and that the tuning capacitor must connect to both ends of the coil. But calling every component by an entirely different name is not doing anybody a favor, except assuring that any search for it will only find one seller's listing.

If you were explaining to somebody how to change a tire you would certainly need to use the same terms as are commonly used to identify the jack, the jack handle, and the lug nuts, wouldn't you? I am critical of the assignment of different names to things as aimed at beginners who will quite likely then not be equipped to get information from others not speaking in those made-up names.

 

Yikes! Just agree to disagree.

Another example, when at high school year 7, I did music.

You were in high school for SEVEN YEARS???

 

Some countries use odd names for things: Lorry instead of Truck and Boot instead of Trunk.
They even talk funny: Woetah instead of water.
In one country they call everybody their Mate!

 

Yikes! Just agree to disagree.


You were in high school for SEVEN YEARS???

Maybe high school started in the 6th grade.

 

Yikes! Just agree to disagree.


You were in high school for SEVEN YEARS???

Some high schools have been known to include grades 7 and 8. I am thinking that is what was meant.

 

Gymnasium starts in the 9th grade after you finish your elementary forms and High School starts after 4 years of Gym.

 

Gymnasium starts in the 9th grade after you finish your elementary forms and High School starts after 4 years of Gym.

Where are you referring to? Where Dendad is? Where is that?

So wherever this is, High School starts with Grade 13? How long does High School last? At what age does a student typically graduate from High School there?

I thought that "gymnasium" was typically a high school that emphasized preparing its students for university -- what in the U.S. is often referred to as a Prep High School or a College Prep School. My impression is that these are typically private schools with selective enrollment standards and often high tuition fees -- though that is not always the case.

 

In some countries, post-secondary education is referred to as High School (as in getting a higher education). What we and most of the world call College or University. Gymnasium is not necessarily a "Prepatory" (although it could be) school, simply post-elementary. Here in the US, at one time Prepatory schools were private schools between High School and College but that term now typically means a High School with AP classes.

 

You were in high school for SEVEN YEARS???

When I was at high school, it was actually called "Form 1". Now it is referred to as "Year 7". To translate, "Junior High, 7th Grade".
Just as another example of different names for things, when my wife was out here in Oz from USA as a 16 year old exchange student, someone at school asked her is they could use her eraser.
"Can I borrow a rubber?".
She was very offended! And that sort of thing happened quite a bit until things got translated.

 

"Junior High, 7th Grade".

That makes sense. Thanks. Sorry for derailing the thread.

 

This thread perfectly illustrates the reason that I am critical of the arduino theology. Basic circuit theory, including an understanding of series and parallel, in addition to the concept of power being the product of voltage and current, is required even a simple understanding of how things work. SOFTWARE IS NOT ENOUGH, nor will it ever be enough. And picking different names for parts normally referenced by other names is counterproductive always.
To see if something iis in series or parallel one needs to be able to know the flow of current, which we define as being from positive to negative. If the current must flow through one device after leaving the previous device, then the two are in series.

And yet, here is an Arduino user looking to learn series or parallel circuits. The Arduino does not eliminate the need for the basics. It is yet another path to learning those same basics.

Yet, you would deny someone the opportunity to learn the basics that you hold so dear. Without the Arduino, some people would never learn.

 

My first criticism is in the fact that very intentionally the promoters call things by entirely different names than what is normally used. Why refuse to speak the same language as all of the vast sea of knowledge is published in?? THAT provides nobody any benefit.
For that crystal radio example, would it make any sense if the instructions called the coil a waffle, and the diode was referred to as a doorknob? How confusing would it be if the antenna were referenced as a fly-swatter?
It is not forcing the theory to tell the builder that the diode has to be connected to the coil, and that the tuning capacitor must connect to both ends of the coil. But calling every component by an entirely different name is not doing anybody a favor, except assuring that any search for it will only find one seller's listing.

If you were explaining to somebody how to change a tire you would certainly need to use the same terms as are commonly used to identify the jack, the jack handle, and the lug nuts, wouldn't you? I am critical of the assignment of different names to things as aimed at beginners who will quite likely then not be equipped to get information from others not speaking in those made-up names.

Why call something a name that is different from the vast sea of previous knowledge? Because it is aimed at a different audience. One that has yet learned that same vast sea of knowledge.

Why do we call a van a van instead of an automobile?

Why would anyone seek to limit knowledge instead of expanding upon it?