# Thanks and some typos

#### stacymckenna

Joined Nov 26, 2007
5
First, let me say how much I appreciate having this resource available online! I've always classified electricity in the "and then magic happens" category, much like cars (despite being an engineer - I'm civil and environmental) but a recent interest in home-generated power has me Googling up a storm to find sources of data more practical/intuitive than my long-neglected college Physics text. This site is FANTASTIC - thank you! I particularly appreciate the DC chapter on Safety, which I found oddly reassuring, as now I know what/where the issues are instead of just stumbling around blindly responding with "Ack! Don't touch it! It's electrical! You could DIE!".

I have come across a few typos or vocabulary issues that I thought you might be interested in addressing. Thank you for all the hard work, and for making this publication so accessible!

Stacy McKenna Seip
-------------------------------------------

"To be more precise, it could be called dynamic electricity in contrast to static electricity, which is an unmoving accumulation of electric charge."
This implies that static electricity is not capable of moving, which isn't true. Static charge can (and often is) transferred between objects while both maintain a static charge (for example, taking a sphere charged off a Van Degraaf generator, removing it from the generator, and using it to charge another sphere - static charge has been transferred/moved [they're now both at half the original sphere's charge] and still have a static charge. The "static" refers to a "separation of charge", not whether or not the charged particles can move.

"it is advisable to only use on hand to work on live circuits"

"However, what if the car actually did weight 3,000 pounds,"

"The laboratory scale balance beam doesn't actually weight anything;"

"a shunt resistor could be placed between those points and left their permanently"

"We simply cannot spare to have even a single millivolt of drop along the conductor lengths without incurring serious temperature measurement errors."
should this read "we simply can not bear/afford"?

neither of the hyperlinks to "octav", "spi", "dvn", or "aef" worked for me. Have octav, dvn, or aef been previously mentioned?

Again, links to octav and spi bring up nothing.

"For a series LR circuit,"
Everywhere else uses "L/R" - was this a typo, or is there an intentional distinction?

#### stacymckenna

Joined Nov 26, 2007
5
BTW, my mother works for a reprographics shop so I had her print them for me - for less than \$60 (employee discount), they were WELL worth it! Thank you for the affordability.

#### Dcrunkilton

Joined Jul 31, 2004
422
First, let me say how much I appreciate having this resource available online! I've always classified electricity in the "and then magic happens" category, much like cars (despite being an engineer - I'm civil and environmental) but a recent interest in home-generated power has me Googling up a storm to find sources of data more practical/intuitive than my long-neglected college Physics text. This site is FANTASTIC - thank you! I particularly appreciate the DC chapter on Safety, which I found oddly reassuring, as now I know what/where the issues are instead of just stumbling around blindly responding with "Ack! Don't touch it! It's electrical! You could DIE!".

I have come across a few typos or vocabulary issues that I thought you might be interested in addressing. Thank you for all the hard work, and for making this publication so accessible!

Stacy McKenna Seip
-------------------------------------------

"To be more precise, it could be called dynamic electricity in contrast to static electricity, which is an unmoving accumulation of electric charge."
This implies that static electricity is not capable of moving, which isn't true. Static charge can (and often is) transferred between objects while both maintain a static charge (for example, taking a sphere charged off a Van Degraaf generator, removing it from the generator, and using it to charge another sphere - static charge has been transferred/moved [they're now both at half the original sphere's charge] and still have a static charge. The "static" refers to a "separation of charge", not whether or not the charged particles can move.
I have removed or re-written most of the text which characterizes static electricity as being unmoving-- at least with respect to static electricity on conductors. The only case of static electricity that I personally consider to be unmoving (static) is when a charge resides on the surface of an insulator. Static electricity associated with thunder storms is anything but static.

The main characteristic of static electricity is that it is high voltage, low current. I think that the text points out that it was proven in the 1832 that DC and static electricity were the same thing. So, that leaves us with static electricity being mostly associated with its method of generation, by charge separation due to the triboelectric effect, charging by the touching and separation of dis-similar materials.

Having said this, I have not added much to the existing static electricity because it is in a very basic introductory chapter/section. No doubt there is a place somewhere in the volumes for a more advanced treatment, eg: ESD precautions Vol ?, Tribolelctric series (table) for REF Vol 5. I have tried to remove/correct mistatements from the CH1 discussion of static electricity

http://amasci.com/emotor/stmiscon.html

"it is advisable to only use on hand to work on live circuits"

"However, what if the car actually did weight 3,000 pounds,"

"The laboratory scale balance beam doesn't actually weight anything;"

"a shunt resistor could be placed between those points and left their permanently"

"We simply cannot spare to have even a single millivolt of drop along the conductor lengths without incurring serious temperature measurement errors."
should this read "we simply can not bear/afford"?
The above changes have been made to my localcopy, and it is up at ibiblio.

neither of the hyperlinks to "octav", "spi", "dvn", or "aef" worked for me. Have octav, dvn, or aef been previously mentioned?

Again, links to octav and spi bring up nothing.
At the time, I discouraged anyone at AAC from wasting any time fixing it because I was moving the bibliography for the whole volume to the end of each chapter. Now that I have done that for the DC volume (SEMI has been like that), I would encourage trying to accommodate the bibliography section at the end of chapters. No longer will you be wasting your time. All volumes with bibliography have the same system now.

" grep thebibliography *.sml" without the quotes shows the .sml's with bibliography, for DC Vol 1 CH10 it is dcnet.sml . This is the only one in the DC volum.e (there are several chapters in SEMI Volume 3 with bibliography)

The links that Stacy refers to are in the CH10 text and link to the citation in the bibiolgraphy section at the end of the chapter at ibiblio. However, at AAC, this seems to correspond to a new page which you need to accomodate.

Then there is the matter of the links themselves which work OK in the long-page format at ibiblio. I do not believe that you are presently setup to handle links, at least from one page to another.
If you want to play with the Volume1 CH 10 links at ibiblio search for one of: aef, spi, dav, octav. Clicking on these in the body of the text should take you to reference the end of the page.

"For a series LR circuit,"
Everywhere else uses "L/R" - was this a typo, or is there an intentional distinction?
I entered this change.

All accumulated Volume 1, DC changes are up now at ibiblio.