Unofficial Errata New

Practical Electronics for Inventors, Third Edition, published 2013
Authors: Paul Scherz & Simon Monk

Unofficial ERRATA
This errata contains a list of all the errors in the third edition known to me. Some of these errors were
reported by members of the EEVblog, and some I found on my own. In addition, I've checked the
corresponding pages on the third edition against the errors that were originally reported in the errata
for the second edition compiled at Bucknell University by Martin Ligare. A large number of the errors
identified in this unofficial errata are errors originally reported in the Bucknell errata that weren't
addressed in the third edition. Note that I've found a few errors in changes inspired by the Bucknell
errata that were either wrong or caused additional errors. I've also included the list of errors published
on the official errata for the third edition available at the McGraw-Hill web site. Here again, I've found a
few of these corrections to be in error or incomplete. Some of the items in this unofficial errata are not
necessarily errors, rather, they are suggestions that in my opinion would improve the text.
At the end of this PDF I've have included a copy of the corrected pages that I created for my personal
copy of the third edition. Keep in mind that these are my version of the way these corrections should be
implemented and are not connected to or sanctioned by the authors or the publisher. Please address
any comments, suggestions, or additions to TomC (retired NCR/AT&T Curriculum Analyst). You can
contact me through the EEVblog forum topic: Practical Electronics for Inventors, 3rd by posting a reply,
or via PM if direct contact is necessary. This document was last updated December 6, 2014.
Pg. xii xxii:
Errors in the Contents entries:

Correct the following entries:
Pg. 8:
Pg. xii:
3.3.2 Describing a Switch
292 291
Pg. xv:
5.8.2 Basic Operation

5.9.1 Integrated Optoisolators
522 521
523 522
Pg. xvii:
7.5.22 Electronic CAD Programs
620 630
Pg. xviii:
CHAPTER 10 Oscillators and Timers
684 683
Pg. xx:
13.4.6 Arduino Example Project
884 886
Pg. xxii:
C4 Quadratic Equation (y = ax2 2 + bx + c)
964
Figure 2.3:
Correct the figure as follows:
Explanation:
The text specifies 3s and 2A, the figure specifies 2s and 3A. The total charge
is the same in either case, but it would be better if the text and the figure were
consistent.
Pg. 9:
Example 2 answer:
Correct the following sentence:
For example, if t = 1, the current would be 0.174 0.562A. At t = 3 s, the current would
be -0.5 0.976A, ..
Explanation:
The solution steps given for the derivative, which involve using the Chain Rule, are only
valid if 1000/s is a value in radians. The answer given (0.174A & 0.5A) is correct for
1000 degrees/s, but to arrive at this answer using the given solution steps the value
1000 degrees/s would have to be expressed in radians (17.453 radians/s).
Pg. 9:
Last paragraph:
Replace the following sentences:
When the switch is open ("off"), no current will flow. The moment the switch is
closed, however, the resistance of the switch falls to almost zero, and current will
flow.
When the switch is open ("off"), the battery is chemically inactive. The moment the
switch is closed, however, the battery's voltage causes electrons to flow which in
turn causes the battery to become chemically active practically instantaneously.
Explanation:
The crossed out sentences are a Bucknell errata inspired correction to the original
sentences in the Second Edition, which read:
When the switch is open ("off"), the battery generates no voltage across its
terminals. The moment the switch is closed, however, the battery practically
instantaneously generates a voltage.
Although the crossed out sentences make the statement technically correct, in my
opinion, they don't do justice to the author's original line of thought. In addition,
since there is no mention of voltage, the next sentence, which starts with This
voltage ., becomes rather puzzling since there is no clear connection to the
voltage it refers to. In my opinion, the suggested sentences are a more suitable
replacement:
Technical Note: The voltage present when the switch is open is called the
equilibrium or open circuit voltage. It can be calculated using the Nernst equation
which takes into account the number of electrons exchanged between the redox and
oxidation chemical reaction in the battery. However, since the electrons have
nowhere to go the chemical reaction stops when this voltage is reached.
Pg. 17: Top of the page:

Static electricity is considered a nuisance in electrons electronics, not a source of useful
power.
Explanation:
Pg. 23:
Reported on the official errata.
Figure 2.18:
The graph line labels Insulators and Conductors should be switched.
Explanation:
The existing graph indicates that in a conductor a large current is required to
produce a small current and that in an insulator a small voltage produces a large
current. This is incorrect, switching the labels as suggested above rectifies the
problem. Reported by cdwilson.
Pg. 25:
Figure 2.19:
In the top-right box, the units for the Current Density in the 12-gauge column should
be A/m2. In the bottom-right box, the symbols for Conductivity and Resistivity
should be switched. The words Conductivity and Resistivity should also be
switched.
Explanation:
Most of this was reported on the official errata. The only addition is switching the
words Conductivity and Resistivity.
Note: The copper article in Wikipedia gives resistivity at 20C as 16.78n m. The
normalized value is = 1.6810 8m. The conductivity is the reciprocal of the
resistivity which yields 0.0596n( m) 1. The normalized value is
= 5.96 10 7(m)1.
Pg. 35:
Equations 2.11, 2.12, and Temperature Gradient equation:

Correct the equations as follows:
Explanation:
Problems with equation 2.11 and the temperature gradient equation were originally
reported in the Bucknell errata.
Note: The author briefly overviews these equations for background but states that a
simpler version, Eq. 2.12, is his choice for this book. Nevertheless, it would be better if
the equations were correct even though they are not going to be used in this book.
Equation 2.11 The Bucknell errata suggests that equation 2.11 should be replaced with
the differential form of Fourier's Law of conduction by replacing the left hand side of the
equation with
q which represents the local heat flux also called heat flux density:
q = k T
Although this change would produce a correct equation, note that this form of the
equation yields the heat rate per unit area which is a vectorial quantity. For this reason,
in my opinion, this change doesn't match the author's explanation just above the
equation. In addition, this change ignores that the original equation was supposed to
yield Pheat . A quantity that the author defines as the rate of heat transfer, or power due
to heating" at one point, and as thermal current (heat flow) at the top of page 37. This
combined with the original left hand side of the equation
P heat =
dQ H
=
dt
which matches the left hand side of the integral form of Fourier's law, leads me to
believe that the author's intent was to use the integral form. The integral form yields
the "heat rate" through a body as a whole, a scalar quantity that matches the author's
definition of Pheat. So, in my opinion, the integral form of Fourier's law as in the following
version is a better match as well as a correct equation:
P heat =
dQ H
= k S
T
dS
dt
Temperature Gradient Equation The official errata reported a correction for the
gradient equation. However, in my opinion, their suggestion didn't fix all the incorrect
elements as they were originally reported in the Bucknell errata. The following version
contains all the corrections:
T = i + j + k T
x
y
z
Equation 2.12 In its current form this equation always yields a negative result. This
happens because in this text T is defined as Thot Tcold. This results in a positive number
that represents the temperature drop. This is the customary T definition for thermal
resistivity equations such as the ones presented in this section. However, this definition
is different from the default mathematics definition which involves subtracting the
beginning point from the ending point. Since heat flows from hot to cold, in our case
the default T definition would be Tcold Thot . Equation 2.12 would yield the correct
result in its current form if the default definition was used. However, rather than
complicate things with two different definitions, it would be easier to resolve this
problem by removing the negative sign on the right hand side of the equation as
suggested. This approach has been used by other authors. Reported by cdwilson.
Pg. 45:
Figure 2.33:
Ground rod should be connected to circuit in 3rd and 6th diagram.
Explanation:
Pg. 46:
Figure 2.34:
The first label under the third symbol should be "A-Analog.
Explanation:
Pg. 53:
Second paragraph:
Replace the last two sentences:
Explanation:
On the first sentence a plus sign (+) is missing and R4 should be changed to RN. On
the second sentence the term in brackets should be identified as the reciprocal of
Rtotal, not just Rtotal. Reported by cdwilson.
Pg. 56:
Figure 2.44:
Explanation:
Example 2 indicates R IN is 10M, the figure shows 1M. Reported by Chris.M.
Pg. 57:
Second-last equation on page:

P1R1 = V12/ R1 = (7 V)2 / (700 ) = 0.07 W = 70 mW
Explanation:
Pg. 57:
Text next to figure 2.45 :

Correct the text as follows:
Explanation:
There is an alternative simpler way to calculate the bleeder resistance that should
be mentioned in my opinion. The following could be added as shown above:
Alternatively, calculate the load resistance:
Rload = 3V/0.0091A = 330. Then multiply
the result by 10:
Rbleed = Rload 10 = 330 10 = 3300.
Pg. 58:
Close to top of page:

If the computed value of the resistance were a 500 510 , a 500 510 resistor could
be used.
Explanation:
Pg. 60:
Figure 2.48 and calculation results throughout the page:

Starting at the top of the page correct the text as follows:
Change 4.3k to 4.5k in 3 places, 5.3k to 5.5k in 2 places, 2.26mA to 2.18mA in 4
places, 9.7V to 9.8V in 5 places, 2.3V to 2.2V in 2 places, 1.43mA to 1.44mA in 2 places,
0.73mA to 0.74mA in 4 places, 7.3V to 7.4V in 2 places.
Correct Fig 2.48 as follows:
Change 4.3k to 4.5k in 1 place, 5.3k to 5.5k in 1 place, 2.3mA to 2.2mA in 1 place.
Explanation:
The problem starts with the calculation of parallel resistors near the top of page 60. The
answer given is 4.3k but should be 4.5k. As a result all the remaining calculations are
also slightly off. In addition, some of the values in Fig 2.48 are also off.
Pg. 61:
Figure 2.49:
Correct Fig 2.49 as follows:
The voltage in the Load 2 box should be "+50V".
Explanation:
Pg. 62:
Second paragraph:
Correct the following sentences:
in the preceding example. IR4 IR4 is the bleeder current
Calculating R1 R4:
To calculate current through R2 R3, use Kirchoffs current law
Explanation:
Pg. 63:
Beginning of second paragraph:

In Fig. 2.52, when an ideal real voltage source"
Explanation:
Pg. 66:
Figure 2.56:
Order of Actual/Measured resistance in third diagram should be switched, for
consistency with first and second diagrams.
Explanation:
Pg. 70:
Figure 2.63 bottom right of shaded area:

Vab ba = Vb Va = 3V
Explanation:
This was correct on the Second Edition, however, an entry in the Bucknell errata
questioned its correctness. The complaint was that the same quantity
(Vb Va)
was equal to Vba on the bottom right, and to Vab on the bottom left. In reality, the
two equations are not related to each other, instead, they represent the elements of
the diagram directly above each equation. For this reason, since the loop trace on
the diagram above the equation on the bottom right is from right to left, the voltage
is measured between points b and a in that sequence. As a result, the correct
expression is Vba . It should also be noted, that the example in this figure uses
conventional current flow, as is the case on most other similar books. However, part
of the complaint in the Bucknell errata was that the equations on this figure were
inconsistent with the equations presented on Page 12. Again, the equations are
unrelated, and since the thrust of Page 12 is to define Voltage, Figure 2.7 shows
electron current flow. However, as it should be, the equation is still written with the
points in the same sequence as they are transversed by conventional current flow.
Pg. 72:
Figure 2.67a top left square:

Explanation:
There are some typos in all three equations.
Note: A set of free on-line calculators that can solve Systems of Equations using
Cramer's rule or other algorithms, matrices, etc. is available at:
http://matrixcalc.org/en/
Pg. 74:
Last paragraph:
It is important...when interrupting interpreting the superposition theorem."
Explanation:
Pg. 75:
Equations for I2 and I 1:

The numerator on the I 2 equation should read VA + IB R1, and the numerator on the I 1
equation should read VA IBR2.
Explanation:
The negative and positive signs on the numerators are incorrect.
The sign on I1's numerator was correct on the Second Edition. However, an entry in
the Bucknell errata identified an incorrect sign on I 2's numerator. Apparently the
correction was applied to the I 1 numerator inadvertently.
Pg. 81 & 120: Figures 2.78 & 2.117:
Correct the figures as follows:
Explanation:
These figures contain corrections based on the Bucknell errata. However, a few
things could still be improved. First, the vertical axis is still missing the V label in one
of the figures. Second, there is no definition for the variable N. A simple definition
such as: N = number of turns could be included for completeness. Third, the
notation style and term arrangement of the I equation could be modified for
consistency. Fourth, the angle symbol on the flux equation could be changed to the
Greek phi symbol () instead of the Greek letter theta () to prevent confusion with
the angle variable in the equation.
Pg. 85:
Figure 2.84:
Explanation:
The formula doesn't match the illustration, either the formula or the illustration
should be changed for consistency. The above shows changing the formula:
This figure contains corrections based on the Bucknell errata. An entry on this errata
calls the phasor illustration and the accompanying formula unconventional, because
it does not conform to the commonly used complex number representation of
sinusoidal signals.
Admittedly, the complex number representation of sinusoidal signals provides many
advantages in circuit analysis. If this method was used for this figure, a projection of
the phasor perpendicular to the real axis (horizontal axis) would have to be used to
trace the instantaneous amplitude of the sinusoidal waveform as shown below:
However, Fig. 2.84 is not depicting a complex plane. It's purpose is to illustrate the
relationship between the sine of an angle and a sinewave using a phasor diagram on
a Cartesian plane. It uses a projection of the phasor perpendicular to the vertical axis
to trace the instantaneous amplitude of the sinusoidal waveform. This is equivalent
to the complex plane's phasor projection perpendicular to the imaginary axis. As a
result the plot is a sine wave. Scherz is not alone in using this type of illustration to
describe an AC waveform, it has been used by many other authors. The formula
given in the Second Edition was correct and did not need to be changed. As it stands
now, the existing formula doesn't match the illustration.
Pg. 88 - 225:
Figures 2.86, 87, 106, 125, 146, 167, 168, 170 173, 175, 180, 201, & 202:
No changes required in my opinion.
Explanation:
On the Third Edition, the label on the vertical axis of Figure 2.87 (page 90) was
changed from Amplitude to Magnitude. However, on many similar figures this label
is still Amplitude. Although some may disagree, either word is acceptable in my
opinion.
Throughout the text and in several figures on the Third Edition the word amplitude
has been changed to words such as voltage or magnitude to avoid
misinterpretation. These changes were inspired by the Bucknell errata. An entry on
this errata calls Scherz's use of the term amplitude non-standard because, on the
writer's opinion, this term is conventionally used to mean peak amplitude.
While the changes are welcome to improve readability, it would be hard to agree on
a standard or conventional meaning for the word amplitude. Although peak
amplitude or semi-amplitude is often called the amplitude, this usage is not
universal, the instantaneous amplitude is also called the amplitude by a number
of contemporary authors. It would be nice if the term amplitude was always
qualified with additional words, as in peak amplitude. However, in the absence of a
universal standard, different authors are free to use the alternative meaning they
prefer, and readers should be aware that the meaning often depends on context.
Pg. 88:
Equation 2.26:
Correct the equation as follows:
Explanation:
This equation was corrected as per the Bucknell errata and is perfectly functional in
its current form. However, since the text suggests that this formula was developed
by plugging in the voltage expression, the slightly different form shown above may
be more appropriate to illustrate this point.
Pg. 104:
Bottom of page:
50V
Explanation:
Pg. 105:
Answer for Example 3:

The V at the end of the Answer for Example 3 should be eliminated.
Explanation:
Pg. 105:
Example 3:
Correct the example as follows:
Explanation:
The official errata reported an error in the example 3 answer. However, after
correcting that error, there is still room for improvement.
Notice that the format of the mathematical expressions that have unit specifiers is
unconventional. This was first reported in the Bucknell errata. It's a trivial matter
since the existing expressions and equations are correct, but it wouldn't hurt to
change them as suggested above to improve readability.
Pg. 110:
Near end of second-last paragraph:

In interval BC, the voltage rises to by 21, from 71 to 92.
Explanation:
Pg. 112:
Figure 2.107b:
Explanation:
On the x axis the first line should be labeled "1" instead of "0.1".
Pg. 112:
Figure 2.107, caption:

Correct the caption as follows:
(a) Graph showing how reactance increases decreases with frequency
Explanation:
Pg. 114:
Section 2.24.1 first sentence of second paragraph:

Correct the sentence as follows:
As depicted in Fig. 2.110b-c,the electric field (denoted E) of a moving
Explanation:
Field E is on Fig. 2.110b. Reported by Chris.M.
Pg. 115:
Figure 2.110e:
Explanation:
The symbols at the 6 o'clock position, E and B, as well as their cross product EB
(wave direction), are representative labels for the figure. The set of symbols at the
1 o'clock position are spurious and should be deleted.
Pg. 116, 122, & 129:
Figure 2.111b & e, Figure 2.120, Figure 2.127:
Explanation:
Figure 2.111e contains a correction that addresses an error originally reported in the
Bucknell errata. The errata pointed out that the field lines encircling the wires at the
bottom, where the current is directed into the page, have the wrong direction on
them.
Unfortunately, the editors decided to implement this change by reversing the battery
polarity. This corrects the problem with the fields mentioned in the Bucknell errata,
but causes all the other field lines to be incorrect. So to correct this part of the
problem it would be best to flip the battery back to its original position and correct
the field lines as originally suggested in the Bucknell errata.
Also, the same problem is present on page 122, Fig. 2.120. In addition, on both
figures, there is an extra field on the left end of the inductor that should be deleted.
There is a similar problem on page 129, Fig. 2.127. In this case the illustration is
vertical, so the fields with the wrong field direction are on the left, and the extra
field is at the top left. In addition, the whole coil needs to be flipped vertically to
match IL's current direction.
There is one more error on page 116, figure 2.111b. The negative sign at the left end
of the top conductor should be replaced with a positive sign.
Pg. 119:
Figure 2.116 & text preceding it:

Add the following text at the location shown below:
According to Lenz's law, the direction of the resulting current is such, that its
magnetic field always opposes the change in the flux that produced the EMF.
Replace the existing figure 2.116 with the figure and caption below:
Explanation:
Figure 2.116 was changed to address a comment originally reported in the Bucknell
errata. The comment stated that Fig. 2.116 was incomprehensible. The editor's
correction involved deleting the right half of the figure, an illustration of Lenz's Law.
This part of the figure contained several errors, and since Lenz's Law is not
mentioned in the text, I surmise that their thinking was that deleting it at least
would remove one roadblock to proper comprehension.
However, in my opinion, the figure is still difficult to understand, and could benefit
from an explanatory caption. I also think that it's unfortunate that Lenz's Law is not
mentioned and is no longer included in the figure. Also, the magnetic flux formula in
the figure, although correct, could be changed to a version without deltas to simplify
the text on the caption. The above is a version of Fig. 2.116 with all the changes I
suggested and the Lenz's Law part of the figure (right half) corrected.
To compliment these changes, I suggest mentioning Lenz's law in the text just before
the sentence See Fig. 2.116.. The above shows this suggested addition.
Pg. 125:
Second paragraph:
The expanding magnetic fieldexerts a force of on free electrons within the coil.
Explanation:
Pg. 125 & 126: Figure 2.123, Figure 2.124, & text on both pages:
Correct the following sentence in Page 125, middle of second paragraph:
This effective reverse force and the effect it has on the free electrons it deems is
deemed a reverse EMFit's analogous ...
Correct the following sentence in Page 125, third sentence up from the end of the
second paragraph:
... no increase in magnet magnetic flux through ..."
Correct the following sentence in Page 125, last sentence of second paragraph:
Figure 2.123c shows the induced voltage and the voltage across the resistor
inductor's internal resistance as a function of time.
Explanation:
The original sentence is correct, but requires extra effort on the reader's part to
identify the resistor in question.
Correct the following sentence in Page 125, first sentence of third paragraph:
Figure 2.123d shows the resultant current flow through the inductor as a result of
the resultant voltage function of time.
Explanation:
The original sentence is correct, but may be confusing.
Add the following text to Page 125, blank area at the bottom of the page:
Note: The voltage across the inductor is always equal to the applied voltage. While
the inductor is being energized the voltage across the inductor is the sum of the
voltage drop caused by the reverse EMF and the voltage drop across the internal
resistance. Once the inductor is fully energized, since the reverse EMF has subsided,
the voltage across the inductor is just the voltage drop across its internal resistance.
In both cases the voltage across the inductor is equal to the applied voltage.
Explanation:
Although the voltage across the inductor should be obvious and can be deduced
from the text, there is no specific reference to it. To avoid misinterpretation, I
suggest adding a note at the bottom of the page such as the one above.
Correct the following sentence in Page 126, first sentence of second paragraph:
... from position A to B, a sudden change voltage voltage change occurs across the
inductor.
Correct the following sentence in Page 126, third paragraph:

Part (c) shows the resultant voltage across an the inductor's internal resistance
adding the applied voltage to the inducted voltage as a function of time.
Explanation:
The original sentence leads you to believe that the voltage across the inductor is
equal to the net voltage. This is not true, the voltage across the inductor is always
zero volts in this case. While the inductor is being deenergized the voltage across the
inductor is the sum of the voltage sourced by the forward EMF and the voltage drop
across the internal resistance. Once the inductor is fully deenergized, since the
forward EMF has subsided, the voltage across the inductor is the same as the voltage
across its internal resistance. In both cases the voltage across the inductor is zero
volts.
Correct the following sentence in Page 126, fourth paragraph:
Part (d) shows the resultant current flow through the inductor as a result of the
resultant voltage function of time.
Explanation:
The original sentence is correct, but may be confusing.
Correct the following label in Page 126, Fig. 2.124c, At the top of the figure:
(idea ideal inductor, R = 0)
Correct the following label in Page 126, Fig. 2.124c, Graph label:
Net Voltage = Induced + . Voltage across resistor R
Add the following text to Page 126, blank area at the bottom of the page:
Note: The voltage across the inductor is always zero volts in this case. While the
inductor is being deenergized the voltage across the inductor is the sum of the
voltage sourced by the forward EMF and the voltage drop across the internal
resistance. Once the inductor is fully deenergized, since the forward EMF has
subsided, the voltage across the inductor is the same as the voltage across its
internal resistance. In both cases the voltage across the inductor is zero volts.
Explanation:
Although the voltage across the inductor should be obvious and can be deduced
from the text, there is no specific reference to it. To avoid misinterpretation, I
suggest adding a note at the bottom of the page such as the one above.
Correct the subscripts in Page 125 & 126, Figure 2.123a & c, Figure 2.124a & c:
Vs Vs
V L VL
Explanation:
The subscript s on Vs and the subscript L on V L are extremely small.
Correct the exponents in Page 125 & 126, Equations:
I=
R
t
VS
1e L
R
I=
V S t RL
e
R
Explanation:
The exponents are extremely small.
Explanation:
Figure 2.123 and the text on both pages contain corrections that address comments
originally reported in the Bucknell errata. However, there are several additional
errors that should be corrected.
Pg. 128:
Figure 2.126, Example text & Answers (a), (b), (c) text:
Replace the existing figure 2.126 with the figure below:
Correct the last sentence of answer (c) as follows:

Note that since the voltage source is ideal, no matter what value the parallel resistor
has, there will always be 12V across the lamp, and hence the brightness of the lamp
does not change over time.
The larger the parallel resistor, the brighter the lamp.
Note: If the voltage source was ideal, no matter what component parallels the lamp,
there would always be 12V across it, and hence the brightness would not change.
Explanation:
The Example text & Answer (c) text was changed to address comments originally
reported in the Bucknell errata. The Answer (c) correction involved changing the last
sentence from The larger the parallel resistor, the brighter the lamp. to Note that
since the voltage source is ideal, no matter what value the parallel resistor has, there
will always be 12V across the lamp, and hence the brightness of the lamp does not
change over time.
This change corrects Answer (c), however, since the voltage source is ideal, there will
always be 12V across the lamp regardless of the component that is placed in parallel
with it. As a result, Answer (a) and Answer (b) are also incorrect, since in either case
the brightness of the lamp will not change overtime. In my opinion, Answer (c)
should be changed back to the original The larger the parallel resistor, the brighter
the lamp., and a series resistance representing the battery's internal resistance
should be added to each circuit as shown above. Alternatively, the problem

statement should state that the battery has a substantial internal resistance.
Also, in my opinion, a note explaining what would happen if the voltage source was
ideal should be added after answer (c) as shown above.
Pg. 131:
Bottom of page:
Correct the answer as follows:
Explanation:
Pg. 133:
Equation 2.55:
Replace the existing equation with the following:
t
It
dI
1
E L = P dt = IV dt = IL
dt = LI dI = LI 2
dt
2
0
0
0
I
0
Explanation:
This equation was changed to address comments originally reported in the Bucknell
errata. The comment stated that limits of integration should really be used to get
this expression right. It also stated that this is the integrated power from a condition
in which I = 0 up to a final value of current.
The changes in the third edition provide acceptable limits for the last integral, but
are not appropriate for the first three integrals. They should be time limits instead of
current limits. Also, a typo on the next to last expression was not corrected: LIdt LIdI
Note that the final expression, which in my opinion is what most readers will use, is
correct. However, it wouldn't hurt to change the rest of the expressions as suggested
above.
Pg. 139:
Example 9, Answer:
Correct the answer as follows:
Explanation:
Pg. 139:
Figure 2.134:
Explanation:
The text and the equations state that the rate of current change is 1A/s, the figure
shows 2A/s. The change suggested corrects the mismatch. Reported by Chris.M.
Pg. 141 & 142: Example 12:
Delete the following sentence at the top of page 146:
The answer in the text ignores the initial current and has a numerical error in the last
equality.
Replace the existing example 12 in its entirety with the following:
Example 12: Suppose you apply a single ramp voltage that raises from 5V to 10V over a
10ms period across an ideal 20mH inductor starting at t = 2ms. The initial current
through the inductor is 2A. Find the value of the inductor current at t = 8ms.
Answer: The ramp voltage can be modeled by the equation of a line in the point-slope
form:
V t = mtt 1 y 1
where m is the slope (change in voltage over change in time in seconds), and (t1 , y1) is
the point. In this case the fact that the ramp starts at t = 2ms is represented by t1 and the
fact that the ramp is 5V at that time is represented by y1. The calculation is as follows:
V t =
10V 5V
t 0.002s 5V = 500 t 0.002 5
0.010s 0s
This equation can then be used in place of V(t) in the inductor equation:
I t =
1 t
1 t
V t dt I 0 = t [500t 0.002 5] dt I 0
t
L
L
0
The problem states that the ramp starts at t = 2ms and that we should find the current
value at t = 8ms. To find the area under the ramp plot that is bound by these two values
we evaluate the equation's definite integral as follows:
t
0.008
t V (t)dt = 0.002 [500(t 0.002) + 5] dt

0.008
0.008
= 500 0.002 (t 0.002) dt + 50.002 dt
0
= [250 (t 0.002)2 + 5 t ]0.008

0.002
2
= [250(0.008 0.002) + 5(0.008)] [250(0.002 0.002)2 + 5(0.002)]
= 0.039V /s
The problem states that the inductance L = 20mH and that the initial current I(0) = 2A. To
find I(t) at t = 8ms we evaluate the rest of the inductor equation as follows:
I ( 0.008) =
1
1
(0.039) + I (0) =
(0.039) + 2 = 3.95A
L
0.02
Explanation:
This example was changed to address comments originally reported in the Bucknell
errata. The comment stated that this question was ill-posed and there wasn't enough
information . . The original example that appeared in the Second Edition was
completely replaced, verbatim, with the one suggested in the Bucknell errata. Also,
the sentence at the top of page 142 was mistakenly included following the new
example. This sentence was at the end of the errata entry that suggested the new
example, and since everything was copied verbatim, apparently slipped in
accidentally as part of the new example.
The new example, although correct and an improvement over the original example,
in my opinion, doesn't fit with the original thoughts the author tried to convey and
uses a different, although correct, mathematical style. The above is a suggested
alternative that in my opinion more closely corresponds to the original line of
thinking and mathematical style.
There are several reasons why I chose to make changes to the Second Edition's original
Example 12. First, when solving problems of this type I prefer to evaluate the equation's
definite integral first. Then I evaluate the rest of the equation in a separate step. In
contrast, Scherz chose to evaluate the equation all at once. Second, Scherz chose to use
a 1H inductor and an initial current I(0) = 0. In my opinion, these choices make the
solution steps look deceptively simple. For example, since 1/L = 1, the area under the
plot of V(t) represents the definite integral solution as well as the portion of the inductor
current for which the voltage ramp is responsible. In addition, since I(0) = 0, this area
also represents the total current flowing through the inductor at t = 0.01. This
coincidental convergence may be misleading and is not representative of what you may
encounter on similar problems. I fear that a reader using the original example as a
template to solve similar problems may get the impression that the only thing that
needs to be evaluated is the definite integral.
To better visualize the Example 12 version I suggested, I graphed V(t) and I using the free
Microsoft Mathematics:
V(t)
The following is the plot command I used:
show2d(plot2d(500(x-0.002)+5,{x, 0.002, 0.012},{y, 0, 10}),plot2d((1/(0.02))(250(x0.002)^2+5x-(250(0.002-0.002)^2+5(0.002)))+2,{x, 0.002, 0.012},{y, 0, 10}),{x, 0.002,

0.012},{y, 0, 10})
Pg. 144:
First equation, text following the first equation, and second equation:
Correct the text and the equations as follows:
V S = IR+L
dI
=0
dt
0 = IR+L
dI
dt
Vs is 0 because the battery is no longer in the circuit. Rewriting in the standard form
gives:
dI R
V
+ I = =0
dt L
L
dI R
+ I =0
dt L
Explanation:
The equations and text were changed in an attempt to address a comment originally
reported in the Bucknell errata. The comment stated that there is no Vs because the
battery is no longer in the circuit and that the left-hand side of the first equation and
the right-hand side of the second should both be zero.
Unfortunately, the editors did not implement the changes exactly as instructed and
the changes they made did not correct the situation. In addition, the text added
after the first equation Vs is 0 because the battery is no longer in the circuit., is not
true. Although the battery is no longer in the circuit, Vs is part of the fourth, fifth,
and sixth equations. Since Vs was the voltage applied to the circuit before the switch
was flipped, it is also the starting point after the switch was flipped. Vs is not
included in the first two equations because these equations represent a KVL closed
loop after the switch was flipped and Vs is not part of that loop.
Pg. 145:
Second-last equation in shaded box, fig 2.138B, & fig 2.139 bottom left equation:
Correct the second-last equation in shaded box as follows:
Delete the asterisk (*) at the end.
Replace the top half of figure 2.138B with the following:
Correct the equation below the first diagram of figure 2.139 as follows:
Explanation:
Pg. 150:
Sentence just above Example 15:

1/L1 + 1/L2 + 1/L3 is called the reciprocal equivalent inductance
Explanation:
Pg. 154:
Sentences at the end of first paragraph:

Correct the sentences as follows:
Below resonance, the reactance is inductive, but it decreases increases as the
frequency increases. Above resonance, the reactance is capacitive and increases
decreases with frequency.
Explanation:
Pg. 156:
Equations at top of page:

Change the sequence the equations are listed to the following order:
Explanation:
Pg. 157:
First three equations:

Correct equations 2 and 3 as follows:
L
L
dI
1
+RI + Idt = V 0 sin (t )
dt
C
d2 I
dI 1
+R + I = V 0 sin(t )
2
dt C
dt
L
L
dI
1
+RI + Idt = V 0 cos (t )
dt
C
d2 I
dI 1
+ R + I = V 0 cos (t)
2
dt C
dt
Explanation:
These equations were changed to address comments originally reported in the
Bucknell errata. The equations are now individually correct, however, the first one
uses a cos function to represent the voltage source, and the other two use a sin
function. The voltage source can be represented either way, but all three equations
should use the same trigonometric function for consistency. Since the figure uses the
cos function, suggest changing sin to cos in equations 2 and 3.
Pg. 162:
Table 2.10 multiple corrections:

Shaded box below Addition/Subtraction, first line:
Shaded box below Addition/Subtraction, last line:
First row below Multiplication, final answer:
= -26 + 7j j23
Note: Don't do this correction, see Pg. 162 entry below. |TomC|
First row below Division, first line:

Note: Ignore the exponent on bd2.|TomC|
Second row below Multiplication:
Explanation:
Pg. 162:
Table 2.10 rectangular multiplication, polar multiplication, polar division, and note
below the table:
Delete the asterisks (*) in the polar division and polar multiplication shaded boxes:
Polar Multiplication
shaded box top line:
Polar Division
shaded box top line:
.(1 + 2)*XX
.(1 2)*X
Correct the note below the table as follows:

*= Usually the most efficient form to use when doing your calculations other
forms are too difficult or provide unintuitive results.
The forms in the shaded areas are usually the most efficient when doing your
calculationsother forms are too difficult or provide unintuitive results.
Correct the following rectangular multiplication lines:
Z1 Z2 = (ac bd) + j(ad bc) Z1 Z2 = (ac bd) + j(ad + bc)
Example:
Z1 = 5 + j2, Z2 = 4 + j3
Z1 Z2 = [5(4) 2(3)] + j[5(3) 2(4)] Z1 Z2 = [5(4) 2(3)] + j[5(3) + 2(4)]
= 26+j23
Note: If you didn't apply the official errata
correction the above line will be: = 26+7j
|TomC|
= 26+j7
Explanation:
This table was first changed to address a comment originally reported in the Bucknell
errata. It was changed again as per an entry on the official errata.
One Bucknell errata change involved removing the asterisk next to the rectangular
form for addition/subtraction to avoid confusion with the symbol for complex
conjugation. However, the asterisks next to the polar form for multiplication and
division, which could also cause confusion, were not removed. Of concern is that the
note below the table refers to the three forms that originally had asterisks next to
them. If the asterisks are removed the note is left orphan. I suggest changing the
note to indicate that it refers to the forms in the shaded areas, this way the asterisks
can be removed and the note will still be meaningful.
The other Bucknell errata change involved correcting the final answer to the example
in the rectangular multiplication area. In the Second Edition the answer was 26+ j23
and this was changed to 26+7j. However, the form itself was not corrected the way
the Bucknell errata comment suggested. The comment stated that:
Z1 Z2 = (ac bd) + j(ad bc) should be: Z 1 Z2 = (ac bd) + j(ad + bc)
When the official errata was compiled the editor presumably used the incorrect form
to check the answer. As a result, an entry in the official errata indicates that the final
answer should be changed back to the original but incorrect value:
26+j23.
As it stands now the rectangular multiplication area needs to be corrected and the
situation with the asterisks needs to be resolved. The above are my suggested
corrections.
Pg. 163:
Bottom of page, second-last line:

is the magnitude or modus modulus of a complex number
Explanation:
Pg. 163 & 164: Calculation Example (page 163) and Explanation of alternative Polar form notation
(pages 163 and 164):
Correct the calculation example as follows:
(2+ j 5)+(3 j 10)

5 j 5
7.07 45.0
7.07 45.0
=
=
=
( 3+ j 4)(2+ j 8)
( 3+ j 4)(2+ j 8) (5 53.1 )(8.25 76.0 ) (41.25 129.1 )
=0.17 84.1
0.17 84.1 = 0.17 cos(84.1 )+ j 0.17 sin(84.1 ) = 0.017 j 0.17

(2+ j 5)+(3 j 10)
5 j 5
7.07 45.0
7.07 45.0
=
=
=
( 3+ j 4)(2+ j 8)
(3+ j 4)( 2+ j 8) ( 5 53.1 )(8.25 76.0 ) (41.25 129.1 )
=0.17174.1
0.17 174.1 = 0.17 cos(174.1 )+ j 0.17 sin(174.1 ) = 0.17 j 0.017

Correct the text at the bottom of page 163 and the top of page 164 as follows:
where |Z|is the magnitude or modulus of a complex number (or r), Re Z is the real
part of the complex number, and Im Z is the imaginary part of the number, while
arg(Z) (or phase ) represents the argument of Z or the phase angle (). For example,
if Z = 3 + j4, then:
where |Z|, an alternate symbol for r, is the magnitude or modulus of a complex
number, Re Z is the real part of the complex number, and Im Z is the imaginary part
of the number, while arg(Z), an alternate name for , represents the argument of Z
or the phase angle (). For example, if Z = 3 + j4, then:
Explanation:
The example and explanation were changed to address comments originally reported
in the Bucknell errata. The example is still incorrect, and the explanation is better
but still somewhat confusing.
The Bucknell errata's changes to the third part of the example's equation included
two changes, one on the numerator changing 45 to 45 and another one on the
denominator changing 66.8 to 53.1. The Third Edition incorporated the change on
the denominator, but the numerator was not changed. As a result, the subsequent
expressions are also still wrong. I suggest the changes above.
A useful online complex number calculator is available for free here:
http://www.2pif.com/complex-number.php
Pg. 170:
Figure 2.161, bottom:

XC should be XL and all occurrences of lower-case j should be distinguishable
from lower-case i.
Explanation:
Pg. 171:
Figure 2.162:
Asterisk (*) in first box should be removed and all occurrences of lower-case j
should be distinguishable from lower-case i.
Explanation:
Pg. 172:
Figures 2.164 & 2.165:

Correct fig 2.164 as follows:
All occurrences of subscript IN should be lower-case in.
Correct fig 2.165 as follows:

Box at bottom right should be labeled Z 6 , not Z1 .
Explanation:
Pg. 173:
Figure 2.166:
R1 and L1 should be removed from circuit (d). R2 should be renamed R1 and R3
should be renamed R2.
Correct the answer to (d) as follows:

All occurrences of R2 should be R1 and all occurrences of R3 should be R2 .
Explanation:
Pg. 173:
Example 2 answer:
Correct the answer to part (c) as follows:
Explanation:
The answers to Example 2 parts (a) and (c) were changed to address comments
originally reported in the Bucknell errata. The answer for part (c) is still incorrect.
The original answer on the second edition was missing a negative sign on the first
term of the phase angle as the Bucknell errata pointed out. However, the Bucknell
errata also suggested an incorrect simplification of the first term that was published
verbatim on the third edition.
L
With the the above correction the current version would produce the correct answer
if values are plugged into the variables. However, in my opinion, it would be better
to use the unsimplified version published on the second edition and just add the
missing negative sign. For one thing, the other terms on both examples can also be
simplified, so to simplify just this one term could be confusing for the reader. Also, I
think the main thrust here is to illustrate the procedure for converting rectangular to
polar. This is readily apparent by examining the unsimplified answers. With
simplification the reader would also have to understand how the expression was
manipulated. So I suggest the above correction instead.
Pg. 180:
Equation following The real (true) power consumed by the circuit is: :
= (0.167 A)2(0 VAC ) = 0 W
Explanation:
Pg. 181:
Second equation, Figure 2.171 Equivalent Impedance and Current diagram:

Missing equal sign.

I = 0.759 0.750A
Explanation:
Pg. 182:
Figure 2.172:
The units for the capacitor value should be F.
Explanation:
Pg. 183:
Figure 2.172 (Continued), calculations starting in the middle of the page:

First diagram heading should be Voltage across R, L, and C. Within this diagram,
the source voltage should be listed as 1.00V 0 , and the equations within the
circuit should be corrected as follows: Z tot = 2.33 64.5 and VA = 0.429 VA.
Correct the calculations as follows:

Middle of page:
Three lines down:
Bottom of page:
Explanation:
Pg. 184:
Second-last paragraph:
Correct the paragraph as follows:
Since the inductor and capacitor are in parallel, the math is relatively easyuse two
components in parallel formula, and multiply and add complex numbers:
Since the inductor, capacitor and resistor are in parallel, the math is relatively easy
plug the impedances in the general parallel formula, and add complex numbers:
Explanation:
The paragraph incorrectly indicates that two components should be plugged in the
parallel formula when in reality three components are involved. It also implies that
multiplying and adding complex numbers is involved when in this case only adding is
necessary. It seems that an excerpt from somewhere else in the book where the two
component parallel formula was used, was copied and pasted here and not properly
modified to accommodate the new situation.
The official errata offers the following correction:
the math is relatively easyuse two components in parallel general formula
This correction seems to recognize that the two component parallel formula is not
appropriate for this situation and the general parallel formula that can accommodate
any number of parallel components should be used instead. However, just changing
the word parallel to general doesn't correct the misstatements and in my opinion
just makes the paragraph more confusing. So I suggest the above correction instead.
Pg. 185:
Figure 2.173 (Continued), sentence at the bottom of the page:

Labels IL and IC in upper right corner of Sinusoidal Waveforms within Parallel LC
Circuit diagram should be switched.

Well cover resonant circuits in a moment.
Explanation:
Pg. 187:
First sentence after the equations for VTHEV:

To find ZTHEV, you short the load 10VAC source with a wire and take the impedance of
the inductor and capacitor in parallel:
Explanation:
This page contains several changes that address comments originally reported in the
Bucknell errata. However, one of the Bucknell suggestions wasn't fully implemented
and should have been.
Pg. 188:
Equation for I, and fig. 2.176 graphs and formulas:

Correct the equation for I as follows:
Correct the figure's graphs and formulas as follows:
Original top graph

Corrected top graph
Bottom Graph
Formulas
Note: In the above formulas s -1 is used as the unit of frequency instead of Hz. In this
context s-1 is equivalent to Hz although I seldom see it used in other books. The
rationale is that since frequency in Hz = 1/time period in seconds or Hz = 1/s, and
since 1/s = s -1 , then Hz = s -1.
Explanation:
This page contains two changes that address comments originally reported in the
Bucknell errata.
The first change corrected the impedance scale on the top graph of fig. 2.176,
however, the bottom graph's impedance scale was left unchanged when it should
have also been corrected. In addition, there are additional problems with the top
graph not previously reported. First, the plot for the current was apparently done
disregarding the j operator and needs to be vertically flipped to represent the
correct phase in the Argand plane. Second, it would be better if the numbers in the
scale for the current included the j operator since, as the numbers in the impedance
scale, they are also complex numbers.
The second change inspired by the Bucknell errata was supposed to correct the
phase on the equation for I near the bottom of the page. However, the Bucknell
errata erroneously indicated that the phase on the second line of the equation
should be changed to positive. The third edition editors changed the phase to
positive on both the first and second lines of the equation. As it turns out, the first
line needed to be changed, but the second line should have remained negative.
I have one more suggestion for this page. The reactance formulas on fig. 2.176 use
62,663Hz as the resonant frequency. The actual resonance frequency is 63,661.97...
It looks like the 2 and the 3 were accidentally transposed. I think that for consistency
this should be changed to 63,662.
Pg. 189:
First three equations:

Explanation:
The first two equations were changed to address a comment originally reported in
the Bucknell errata. The change involved rewriting the left hand side of each
equation as an absolute value. I think the idea was to insure that the formulas would
only produce positive values as depicted by the bottom graph of fig. 2.176. The
problem is that this change doesn't address the fact that the right hand side of the
equations can still produce negative values depending on the value assigned to the
variable f.
Since mathematically |x| can not be equal to a negative number, the equations as
currently written are unsolvable. This problem can be corrected by raising the right
hand side of the equations to the power of 2 and then finding the square root, for
example: |I| = (10VAC/(6.28x10 -4 f (2,546,479/f)))2 , or by simply rewriting the
right hand side of the equations as absolute values, for example:
|I| = |10VAC/(6.28x10 -4 f (2,546,479/f))|. Either method will result in solvable

equations that only produce positive values, for example: |I| = always positive. This
is true even if the left hand side of the equations is not written as an absolute value,
for example: I = |10VAC/(6.28x10 -4 f (2,546,479/f))| yields I = always positive.
Since similar equations on the next several pages don't use the |x|or absolute value
format for the left hand side, I think it shouldn't be used here either for consistency.
I have one more suggestion for this page. The resonant frequency formula ( fo) is
shown to yield 63,663Hz as the resonant frequency. However, the actual resonance
frequency is 63,661.97... This is an insignificant discrepancy, but I think that for
consistency, it would be better to use the rounded value of 63,662 as was done in
the graphs.
Pg. 190:
Last three equations, and fig. 2.177 graphs and formulas:

Correct the figure's graphs and formulas as follows:
Original top graph

Corrected top graph
Bottom Graph
Formulas
Explanation:
The second and third equations were changed to address a comment originally
reported in the Bucknell errata. The change involved rewriting the left hand side of
each equation as an absolute value. I think the idea was to insure that the formulas
would only produce positive values as depicted by the bottom graph of fig. 2.177.
The problem is that this change doesn't address the fact that the right hand side of
the equations can still produce negative values depending on the value assigned to
the variable f.
Since mathematically |x| can not be equal to a negative number, the equations as
currently written are unsolvable. This problem can be corrected by raising the right
hand side of the equations to the power of 2 and then finding the square root, for
example: |I| = (0.00625(6.28x10 -4 f (1/3.92x10 -7f)))2 , or by simply rewriting the
right hand side of the equations as absolute values, for example:
|I| = |0.00625(6.28x10 -4 f (1/3.92x10 -7f))|. Either method will result in solvable
equations that only produce positive values, for example: |I| = always positive. This
is true even if the left hand side of the equations is not written as an absolute value,
for example: I = |0.00625(6.28x10 -4 f (1/3.92x10 -7f))| yields I = always positive.
Since similar equations on the next several pages don't use the |x|or absolute value
format for the left hand side, I think it shouldn't be used here either for consistency.
The fourth formula is the same resonant frequency formula (fo) illustrated on page
189 and is also shown to yield 63,663Hz as the resonant frequency. However, the
actual resonance frequency is 63,661.97... This is an insignificant discrepancy, but I
think that for consistency, it would be better to use the rounded value of 63,662.
Also, the reactance formulas and graph captions on fig. 2.177 use the wrong
resonant frequency and should also be changed to 63,662.
There is also another problem with the top graph. First, the plot for the impedance
was apparently done disregarding the j operator and needs to be vertically flipped to
represent the correct phase in the Argand plane. Second, the capacitive and the
inductive labels need to be switched. Third, it would be better if the numbers in
the scale for the current included the j operator since they are complex numbers.
Pg. 192:
Next to last equation and fig. 2.178 formulas:

Correct the fig. 2.178 formulas as follows:
Explanation:
The next to last equation is the same resonant frequency formula ( fo) illustrated on
page 189 and is also shown to yield 63,663Hz as the resonant frequency. However,
the actual resonance frequency is 63,661.97... This is an insignificant discrepancy,
but I think that for consistency, it would be better to use the rounded value of
63,662.
Also, the reactance formulas on fig. 2.178 use the wrong resonant frequency and
should be changed to 63,662.
Pg. 207:
Section 2.32.1 halfway through the first paragraph:

Therefore, the input impedance may allow only a little current to enter at one
frequency, while a very highly impeding current enters at another frequency.
Explanation:
The last clause of the sentence doesn't make sense as written, I believe the intent
was to explain that the input current may be small or large depending on its
frequency.
Pg. 213:
Fig. 2.192 equation and the H and equations below the figure:
Correct the fig. 2.192 equation as follows:
Correct the H and equations as follows:
Explanation:
The equations are incorrect due to typographical errors. Reported by Sturgeon.
Pg. 214:
First sentence:
Correct as follows:
Explanation:
There is an L missing due to a typographical errors. Reported by Sturgeon.
Pg. 215:
Second paragraph and fifth equation:

Explanation:
On the second paragraph the word sorting should be shorting. On the fifth
equation the equal sign (=) should be replaced by a plus sign (+). Reported by
Sturgeon.
Pg. 222:
First equation (Z in formula):

Replace the original formula:
replace with:
Z in = R1+
R2 RL
( R2+R L )
Explanation:
The Zin formula and the paragraph above it were originally reported as incorrect in
the Bucknell errata. The paragraph was corrected but the formula was left
unchanged. The current formula is incorrect.
The Bucknell errata also reported that the Z in and Zout terminology used in this
section is wrong. The terminology in this section was not changed. However,
extensive changes in the preceding sections were made to address this concern. The
way Zin and Zout are explained in this section, in my opinion, although not always
using the standard definition, is appropriate as a way to simplify the explanation.

This is used to build toward the conventional understanding that Z in and Zout should
be looked at from the point of view of the source and the load as is later explained.
Pg. 225:
Second equation on page:

Explanation:
The arrangement of the equation's terms doesn't match the text below the equation.
Homogeneous equations are written with the 0 on the right by convention. So the
equation's terms should be transposed to match the text. Reported by Sturgeon.
Pg. 226:
Columns in middle of page:

Correct the column headings as follows:
LC RL energizingLC RL deenergizing
Explanation:
Pg. 227:
Third-last equation on page:

Explanation:
Pg. 228:
Figure 2.206:
R1 should only be R.
Explanation:
Pg. 228 & 229: Last two sentences on page 228 and first sentence on page 229:
Correct the sentences on page 228 as follows:
The instant after the switch is closed, the capacitor cannot change in voltage
instantaneously, so the current is still zero full voltage is applied across R. The instant
before and the instant after the
Correct the sentence on page 229 as follows:
after the switch is closed, the voltage across the capacitor is equal to the supply
voltage.
Explanation:
When the voltage across C is applied across R a current is instantly established
because the load, R, is resistive. Therefore, the statement, the current is still zero,
is incorrect. The initial value of the current is determined via Ohm's law based on the
value of the initial voltage applied across R and R's value. The replacement
statement, the full voltage is applied across R, points out that the value of the
initial voltage applied across R is whatever value was present across C prior to the
transition.
After correcting the sentences on page 228 the last two words of the last sentence
no longer fit on page 228 and must be moved to the top of page 229.
Pg. 229:
Fourth equation on page:

Correct the fourth equation on page as follows:
Explanation:
The equation is incorrect and inappropriate.
It's incorrect because as shown on the fifth equation:
IC(0+) = 6A, so, IC(0+)R = (6)(3)= 18V
Since VC(0+) = 18V,
IC(0+)R + VC(0+) = (18) + (18) = 0V
Given the statement at the bottom of page 228: The instant after the switch is
closed, the capacitor cannot change in voltage instantaneously, so the current is still
zero., It seems that the author was thinking that IC(0+) = 0A. Had that been true,
IC(0+)R + VC(0+) = 18V would be correct. However, the true value of IC(0+) is 6A as
shown on the fifth equation.
It's inappropriate because IC(0+) is calculated on equation 5, and since equation 4 is
supposed to offer information for the solution of equation 5, it would be better if
IC(0+) didn't appear in equation 4.
Deleting IC(0+)R + from equation 4 makes equation 4 correct and provides a value
used in the solution of equation 5.
Reported by Sturgeon.
Pg. 229:
Various equations and text:

Correct the fifth equation on page as follows:
Correct the text following the equation as follows:
Plugging this back in to find A B we get
Correct the equation above Example 5 as follows:
Correct the answer to Example 5 as follows:

Since before the switch is initially closed
Explanation:
Pg. 229:
Equation above Example 5:

Replace the equation above Example 5 with the following:
Explanation:
The original equation is correct, but its evaluation is not obvious. The above shows
the additional steps required to find the solution. Reported by Sturgeon.
Pg. 230:
Third and sixth equations on page:

Correct the third equation as follows:
60p2 + 20 30p + 1 = 0
Correct the sixth equation as follows:
+ (30 )/ I(0+) + ...
Explanation:
These are typographical errors with no other consequences. On equation 3 the 20
should be a 30 which represents the value of RL. On equation 6 the division sign (/)
should be an I representing the current at time (0 +). The solutions to the equations
are correct and no other changes are required. Reported by Sturgeon.
Pg. 230:
Third-last equation on page:

Term V24V should be 24 V.
Explanation:
Pg. 231:
Last paragraph:
Note that a solution of the form et always reduces a linear homogeneous differential
equation to an algebraic equation in which first derivates derivatives are replaced by
and second derivates derivatives by 2, and so forth.
Explanation:
The first occurrence of this error was reported on the 3 rd edition official errata,
however, the second occurrence was not reported.
Pg. 247:
Third equation on page:

Second occurrence of R1 should be R2:
Explanation:
Pg. 254 & 255: Table 3.1:

Correct the heading of the next to last column as follows:
CURRENT-CARRYING CAPACITY (A)*
Add the following to the caption:
*1 Mil = 2.54 x 10 -5 m. The current carrying capacity is based on 1 A/700 CM.
CM = Circular Mils = (Diameter in Mils) 2. This is safe for most applications. Higher
currents may be allowed depending on the application, consult the appropriate
table, e.g. NEC.
Explanation:
An entry in the Bucknell errata states that the current values are low, for example,
compared to NEC, and that listing currents with 6 significant digits is overkill. In my
opinion, the table is acceptable as it is. No different than many other tables found on
the web or other books. However, it wouldn't hurt to make it better by adding a
caption explaining how the current values were determined as suggested above.
Pg. 256:
Figure 3.2:
Correct the text next to the drawing as follows:
Multiple wrapping with magnetic wire
Explanation:
The heading of this figure was changed from Magnetic Wire to Magnet Wire to
address a comment originally reported in the Bucknell errata. However, the editors
missed the same error on the text next to the drawing.
Pg. 287:
Figure 3.31:
Within the chart legend, option for Yes, but not the best choice should be removed
and Yes, or common should simply read Yes. The d in the High peak loadcurrent rating row, Supercapacitor column should be removed.
Explanation:
Pg. 290:
Figure 3.3 caption:

"A green LED has around 2.0 V on across it when it is illuminated."
Explanation:
Pg. 290:
Figure 3.3 caption:

Here a green LED is used to indicate that the battery is okay. This stays
on all the time to indicate that the battery is live, and the red LED comes
on when the battery voltage falls below the set threshold. A green LED
has around 2.0 V across it when it is illuminated. This value varies a bit
with different manufacturers, but is pretty well matched within any
batch. Add the base emitter voltage drop, and you need 2.6 V on the base of the
right transistor (i.e., across the 3k3) to turn on the transistor. 2.6 V across
3k3 needs 9.1 across the supply rail. Below this threshold voltage, the
transistor is off and the red LED is on. Above this voltage, the red LED is
off. By adjusting the values of the three resistors, you can alter the threshold
level. We'll discuss transistors and LEDs later on in this book.

Explanation:
The text was changed to address a comment originally reported in the Bucknell
errata. However, I think the changes suggested above will improve readability a little
bit more.
Pg. 301:
Figure 3.49:
Superscripts within shaded boxes should be increased in size and positioned further
down. Equations should read as follows:
Explanation:
Pg. 302:
Second equation on page and paragraph below it:


the formula reduces to the equation below above.
Explanation:
Pg. 362:
Text near bottom of the page:

Correct the text a s follows:
Curie temperature (TCC): ..
Explanation:
errata. However, the part of the comment indicating that the symbol was incorrect
was not implemented. The error was also present in the second edition index entry,
the third edition doesn't have an index entry for Curie.
Pg. 374:
Figure 3.95:
The X and OK are reversed in Box H.
Explanation:
Pg. 394:
Figure 3.120:
Explanation:
This figure was changed to address a comment originally reported in the Bucknell
errata. However, the part of the comment indicating that C3 was missing a
connection point was not implemented.
Pg. 402:
Figure 4.3:
Line from 4 valence electrons should point to outer circle rather than inner.
Explanation:
Pg. 407:
Figure 4.9:
Bipolar transistor graphic missing label B at the top.
Explanation:
Pg. 409:
Section 4.2.2 end of first paragraph and Figure 4.13:

its entirely possible for a silicon p-n junction diodes threshold
Correct the Diode IV Curve diagram as follows:
VRR R
Explanation:
Pg. 414:
Figure 4.19 Adjustable Waveform Clipper:

Explanation:
The drawing and the accompanying text were changed to address a comment
originally reported in the Bucknell errata. The change in the text was OK. However,
the changes in the drawing did not resolve the problem. In the original drawing both
resistors were 10k, the editors changed both resistors to 1k. However, only the
potentiometer should have been changed from 10k to 1k. The change was required
to reduce the influence of the input signal on the threshold voltage. If the two
resistors have equal values the clipped tops are not flat because the threshold
voltage rises significantly as the input signal rises and forward biases the diode. Note
that I breadboarded this circuit to test it. The output is much closer to the output
waveform illustration with the resistor values suggested above.
Pg. 414:
Figure 4.19 Adjustable Attenuator and accompanying text:

Replace the circuit drawing with the following:

The adjustable attenuator is similar to the last circuit, but the additional opposing
diode allows for clipping on both positive and negative swings. You can use separate
independent potentiometers if you want separate positive and negative clipping
level control. +V and V should be a volt or so higher more than the corresponding
peak input voltage.
Explanation:
The circuit just doesn't work in its current configuration. The back to back diodes
wont let the input voltage swing more than about 0.6V above and below the
threshold level. Turning the pot just moves the reference level of the output signal
up or down. The solution is to use ganged pots as suggested above and to add a
negative supply. As in the Adjustable Waveform Clipper, the input resistor has also
been changed to 10k to reduce the influence of the input signal on the threshold
voltages. Note that I breadboarded this circuit to test it. After implementing the
changes suggested above its output is very close to the output waveform illustration.
Pg. 419:
Figure 4.26:
Duplicate D1 labels, both should be removed.
Explanation:
Pg. 433:
Rule 2:
Rule 2 For an npn transistor, there is a voltage drop from the base to the emitter of
0.6 V. For a pnp transistor, there is a 0.6-//V rise from base to emitter. In terms of
operation, this means that the base voltage VB of an npn transistor must be at least
0.6 V greater than the emitter voltage VE; otherwise, the transistor will not pass an
collector-to-emitter current. For a pnp transistor, VB must be at least 0.6 V less than
VE; otherwise, it will not pass an emitter-to collector-to-emitter current.
Explanation:
errata. However, the part of the comment indicating that the word not should be
added was not implemented. In addition the last sentence should be changed as
suggested above for consistency with conventional current flow. There is also what
seems to be a spurious minus sign or hyphen (-) in the second sentence (0.6-V).
Pg. 437:
First equation:
Replace the complete equation for IB with the following:
Explanation:
The original equation is incorrect and doesn't yield the correct IB value. Reported by
cdwilson.
Pg. 440:
Gain equation near the bottom of the page:

Explanation:
The equation doesn't match the text or the answer given. Reported by Legion.
Pg. 442:
Various errors from step 4 through step 5 :

Correct the Gain equation at the top of the page as follows:
Correct the next line as follows:

The double line means to take RE and (rtr + R3) R3 in parallel.) To find rtr, use
= .026 V / IC IC = ...
Correct the next Gain equation as follows:
10k
Correct step 5 as follows:
Solving this equation, you get Rin = 5k. This means
Explanation:
Pg. 446:
Sentence just below halfway through the first paragraph:

Now, assume the signals applied to the inputs are different, say V1 V2 is larger than
V 2 V1.
Explanation:
Typographical error that if left uncorrected makes the rest of the text incorrect.
Reported by NinjaBristle.
Pg. 448:
Figure 4.68 Monostable Multivibrator caption:

Correct the second sentence as follows:
It can be thrown into its unstable state by applying an external signal, but it will
automatically return to its unstable state afterward.
Explanation:
Obvious minor mistake.
Pg. 459:
Figure 4.86:
The potentiometer should be labeled R 2.
Explanation:
This was reported in the Bucknell errata but was not fixed.
Pg. 507:
Last paragraph:
you should never look into a laser beam or any secular specular reflection...
Explanation:
Pg. 599:
Text at the top of page and text following the caption:

Correct the text at the top of the page as follows:
Figure 7.55 7.56 shows attenuation and rise-time"
Correct the text following the caption as follows:
When buying a scope (Figure 7.55), youll need
Explanation:
Pg. 605:
Figure 7.28:
Images are missing labels. Top row should be (a) then (b) (left to right), followed by
bottom row (c) then (d).
Explanation:
Pg. 624:
Start of Wire and Cable section:

Get a selection of solid and strained stranded hookup wire
Explanation:
Pg. 636:
Second paragraph:
The circuit in Fig. 8.3, called an inverting amplifier, has an output equal to
Vin/(RF/Rin) Vin(RF/Rin) (you will learn how to derive this formula later in this
chapter).
Explanation:
This was reported in the Bucknell errata but was not fixed.
Pg. 645:
Second paragraph:
This voltage is called the negative threshold voltage (VT) (VT). The negative threshold
voltage can be determined by using the previous two equationsthe end result being
VT = Vout/(R2/R1) VT = Vout/(R2/R1). In the example, VT = 1.5 V VT = 1.5 V. Now, if
the output is at negative saturation (15 V) and 0 V is applied to the input, Vd = 1.36 V.
The output remains at 15 V. However, if the input voltage is increased, there is a point
where Vd goes to zero and the output switches states. This point is called the positive
threshold voltage (+VT) (VT+), which is also equal to +Vout/(R2/R1) Vout/(R2/R1). In the
example, +VT = +1.5 V VT+ = +1.5 V. Now the difference between the two saturation
voltages is the hysteresis voltage: Vh= +VT (VT) Vh= VT+ (VT). In the example, Vh = 3 V.
Explanation:
+VT and VT are variable names, but including a (+) or a () at the beginning of a
variable name can be confusing. It would be better to place the signs in the subscript
portion of the variable name as suggested above.
In addition, the equations for VT and VT+ should be the same, the sign of the result
will be correct in either case since the equation contains Vout. This will cause the
result to be negative in the case of VT, and to be positive in the case of VT+.
Pg. 651:
Figure 8.26:
Misprinted equation, should read as follows:
Explanation:
Pg. 654:
Figure 8.30 caption:

Correct the Vref1 equation as follows:
Explanation:
The simplification is incorrect. Reported by John (icon).
Pg. 684:
Equation for VT:

Explanation:
This was reported in the Bucknell errata but was fixed incorrectly.
Pg. 685:
Equation for VT:

Explanation:
This was reported in the Bucknell errata but was not fixed. The Bucknell errata
suggested the following equation:
VT =
R2
V .
R 3 sat
It's a simplified version of the equation I suggested above. However, since on page
645 an equation similar to the unsimplified version was used to explain positive
feedback, I would rather use the unsimplified version for consistency.
Pg. 686:
Equation to the right of figure 10.5:

Replace the equation with the following:
f =
1
1
4.99
RC
4 2 RC
Explanation:
This equation was changed to address a comment originally reported in the Bucknell
errata. However, the new formula, although closer to experimental results than the
original, is still quite a bit off. It seems that the formula originally published in the
second edition was misprinted. The formula appeared as shown below:
f =
1
4 2 RC
After breadboarding the circuit, the version I suggest above could predict the
oscillation frequency with much more accuracy. With the values suggested on page
686 the circuit's output was around 10kHz. The circuit was also tested with R values
from 1k to 10M which produced a frequency range from about 100Hz to 1MHz.
Lower R values produced higher frequencies but the frequency values started to
deviate from the values predicted by the formula. This is probably because the
influence of the input and output impedance as well as parasitic reactance is more
noticeable at higher frequencies. The formula ignores these factors.
Additional Technical Information:
Note that it's impossible to derive a perfectly accurate equation for this type of
circuit. Some of the variables that can affect the oscillation frequency include the
supply voltage and the threshold voltage tolerance of the IC. In addition, because of
the quasi parallel operation of the two capacitors used in this circuit, the traditional
method of deriving the time period using an ln factor doesn't produce accurate
results. The fact that the capacitors are not exactly in parallel seems to skew the
answer even when the V1/V2 ratio is obtained experimentally from a specific IC at a
specific supply voltage. As a matter of fact, the V1/V2 values I obtained for some of
the ICs that I tested at certain supply voltage values translated into a formula almost
identical to the one suggested in the Bucknell errata. However, plugging-in the
experimental values in the formula didn't yield the correct answer.
I don't know the method that the original circuit designer used to derive the
formula. However, I located a more complete article describing this circuit that
included a graph. According to this source the circuit was first published in the
5/1977 issue of Electronic Engineering. I reproduced the graph using the public
domain program Graph. The points plotted on the original graph perfectly
correspond with the plot of the formula I suggested above. This leads me to believe
that the circuit designer used an identical formula to create the original graph. Below
is an image of the graph I reproduced as rendered by Graph:
Pg. 687:
Figure 10.6 caption 2 nd sentence:

Correct the caption's text as follows:
These resistors act as a three-step voltage divider between the supply voltage ( VCC)
and ground. The top of the lower 5-k resistor (+ input to comparator 2) is set to
VCC, while the top of the middle 5-k resistor ( input to comparator 2 1) is set to
VCC.
Explanation:
The text contains a typo. The voltage divider is not connected to to the input of
comparator 2, instead, it is connected to the input of comparator 1. Reported by
socratidion.
Pg. 687 & 688: Last paragraph on page 687 that continues on page 688:
With Q high, the discharge transistor is turned on, which allows the capacitor to charge
toward VCC through R1 and R2. When the capacitor voltage exceeds VCC, comparator 2
goes low, which has no effect on the SR flip-flop. However, when the capacitor voltage
exceeds VCC, comparator 1 goes high, resetting the flip-flop and forcing Q high and the
output low. At this point, the discharge transistor turns on and shorts pin 7 to ground,
discharging the capacitor through R2. When the capacitor's voltage drops below VCC,
comparator 2's output jumps back to a high level, setting the flip-flop and making Q low
and the output high. With Q low, the transistor turns on, allowing the capacitor to start
charging again. The cycle repeats over and over again. The net result is a squarewave
output pattern whose voltage level is approximately VCC - 1.5V and whose on/off periods
are determined by the C, R1, and R2.
With Q high, the discharge transistor turns on and shorts pin 7 to ground, discharging
the capacitor through R2. When the capacitor's voltage drops below VCC, comparator
2's output jumps to a high level, setting the flip-flop and making Q low and the output
high. With Q low, the transistor turns off, allowing the capacitor to start charging toward
VCC through R1 and R2. When the capacitor voltage exceeds VCC, comparator 2 goes low,
which has no effect on the SR flip-flop. However, when the capacitor voltage exceeds
VCC, comparator 1 goes high, resetting the flip-flop and forcing Q high and the output
low. At this point, the discharge transistor turns on again and shorts pin 7 to ground,
discharging the capacitor through R2. The cycle repeats over and over again. The net
result is a squarewave output pattern whose voltage level is approximately VCC - 1.5V and
whose on/off periods are determined by the C, R1, and R2.
Explanation:
The text contained conflicting statements indicating that the capacitor was both
charged and discharged as a result of the transistor being turned on. This is
inaccurate, when the transistor is on the capacitor is always discharged. In contrast,
when the transistor is off the capacitor is allowed to charge. Reported by Legion.
Pg. 688:
Figure 10.7:
Explanation:
These equations were changed to address a comment originally reported in the
Bucknell errata. However, the formula for tlow wasn't corrected. Also, because of the
changes, the answer for f is now closer to 43Hz than 42Hz.
Pg. 689:
Figure 10.9:
Explanation:
The figure contains a connection point at the junction of the top 5k resistor and
the + input of comparator 1. These two elements are not connected since this would
short out the comparator's inputs. Reported by socratidion.
Pg. 706:
Figure 11.10c:
Explanation:
The electrolytic (polarized) capacitors on the negative side of the supply have the
wrong polarity. The schematic is also missing a connection point at the junction at
the "top" of capacitor C3. This was reported in the Bucknell errata but was not fixed.
Pg. 719:
Figure 12.2:
Explanation:
This figure was changed to address a comment originally reported in the Bucknell
errata. However, the editors changed the title of the wrong sub-fig. The titles of the
sub-figures need to be swapped.
Pg. 733:
Figure 12.20 caption:

Correct the caption as follows:
Using Identities 17 (BB = 0) and 11 (B + 0 = B), you get:
out = AB + 0 + B + BC = AB + BC + B
Factoring a B from the preceding term gives:
out = B(A + 1) + BC
Using Identityies 12 (A + 1 = 1) and 10, you get:
out out = B(1) + BC = B + BC
Explanation:
This caption was changed to address a comment originally reported in the Bucknell
errata. However, the editors made some additional changes that should be reversed
as suggested above.
Pg. 770:
Figure 12.70. Mislabeled diagrams:

Explanation:
Pg. 771:
Third paragraph:
This occurs because, unlike the NOR gate, which outputs a low high only when both its
inputs are the same low, the NAND gate outputs a high low only when both its inputs
are the same high. This means that the hold condition for the cross-NAND SR flip-flop is
S S = 1, R R = 1, while the indeterminate condition is S S = 0, R R = 0.
Explanation:
Pg. 804:
Figure 12.118 timing diagram and text below the figure:

When strobe and CLK are both high a clock pulse is applied during this load mode,
the 4-bit parallel word is latched simultaneously into the four flip-flops and appears
at the Q0-Q3 outputs.
Replace the existing timing diagram with the following:
Explanation:
errata. The comment indicated that the text and the timing diagram didn't match,
and that the timing diagram made sense. In reality, the timing diagram is incorrect
because it shows the parallel word loading while the clock is inhibited. The flip-flops
require a clock pulse to either load the parallel word or to shift. The original verbiage
in the second edition was correct, the timing chart should be replaced with the one
suggested above. Unfortunately the editors of the third edition changed the verbiage
to address the Bucknell errata comment, so the verbiage needs to be changed back
as suggested above.
Pg. 826:
Second-last paragraph:
to an output current through the Iout Iout terminal.
Explanation:
Pg. 966:
Bottom of page:
Correct the last row as follows:
Chain rule: If u is a function of y v, and y v is in turn a function of x, then
Explanation:
Pg. 967:
Third-last paragraph:
to place the boundaries boundary points into the x term of F.
Explanation:
Pg. 968:
Fourth and fifth equations:

Correct the fourth equation as follows:
Correct the fifth equation as follows:
Explanation:
Pg. N/A:
Appendix D:
Correct as follows:
There are too many errors on this appendix to list here.
Explanation:
Appendix D was not included in the third edition, instead, a highly compressed
substitute, section 7.5.21 Recommended Electronics Parts, takes its place. For those
that own the second edition, I think the list of parts may be useful for beginners,
specially if undecided as to what to get for a hobby lab. However, the condensed
specifications are riddled with errors and shouldn't be trusted. In addition, many of
the listed components are obsolete and no longer easily available.
While exploring this appendix I downloaded datasheets for most everything listed to
check the condensed specifications. Using the datasheets and other printed
resources in my possession, I created new corrected pages with what I believe are
more realistic condensed specifications. Realizing halfway that the value of this
corrected document is dubious at best, I didn't take the time to triple check
everything for correctness. However, since I frequently salvage components from
discarded devices old and new, I though that it may come in handy at times. While
I'm not including a copy of this corrected appendix in this document, I'll be glad to
share it with anyone that owns the book and thinks it may be of some value.
Corrected Pages:
The following pages contain a copy of the corrected pages that I created for my personal copy of the
third edition. Keep in mind that these are my version of the way these corrections should be
implemented and are not connected to or sanctioned by the authors or the publisher.

Unofficial Errata New

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Unofficial Errata New

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Unofficial Errata New

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Practical Electronics for Inventors, Third Edition, published 2013

Authors: Paul Scherz & Simon Monk

Errors in the Contents entries:

3.3.2 Describing a Switch

5.8.2 Basic Operation

7.5.22 Electronic CAD Programs

CHAPTER 10 Oscillators and Timers

13.4.6 Arduino Example Project

C4 Quadratic Equation (y = ax2 2 + bx + c)

Pg. 17: Top of the page:

Reported on the official errata.

Equations 2.11, 2.12, and Temperature Gradient equation:

Reported on the official errata.

Reported on the official errata.

Second-last equation on page:

Reported on the official errata.

Text next to figure 2.45 :

Close to top of page:

Reported on the official errata.

Figure 2.48 and calculation results throughout the page:

Reported on the official errata.

Reported on the official errata.

Beginning of second paragraph:

Reported on the official errata.

Reported on the official errata.

Figure 2.63 bottom right of shaded area:

Figure 2.67a top left square:

Equations for I2 and I 1:

Reported on the official errata.

Answer for Example 3:

Reported on the official errata.

Near end of second-last paragraph:

Reported on the official errata.

Figure 2.107, caption:

Reported on the official errata.

Section 2.24.1 first sentence of second paragraph:

Figure 2.111b & e, Figure 2.120, Figure 2.127:

Correct the figures as follows:

Figure 2.116 & text preceding it:

Reported on the official errata.

Correct the following sentence in Page 126, third paragraph:

Correct the exponents in Page 125 & 126, Equations:

Correct the last sentence of answer (c) as follows:

should be added to each circuit as shown above. Alternatively, the problem

Reported on the official errata.

Reported on the official errata.

t V (t)dt = 0.002 [500(t 0.002) + 5] dt

= [250 (t 0.002)2 + 5 t ]0.008

The following is the plot command I used:

show2d(plot2d(500(x-0.002)+5,{x, 0.002, 0.012},{y, 0, 10}),plot2d((1/(0.02))(250(x0.002)^2+5x-(250(0.002-0.002)^2+5(0.002)))+2,{x, 0.002, 0.012},{y, 0, 10}),{x, 0.002,

Reported on the official errata.

Sentence just above Example 15:

Reported on the official errata.

Sentences at the end of first paragraph:

Reported on the official errata.

Equations at top of page:

Reported on the official errata.

First three equations:

Table 2.10 multiple corrections: