Just downloaded this e-book, installed it and opened it.
First topic selected was "Common emitter amplifier design." Text states, "the figure is a four resistor biased pnp transistor with capacitively coupled input and output." Figure has the transistor symbol for NPN transistor.
Is this a simple case of one small mistake, or symptomatic of a larger problem?
Seems suspicious that five minutes of effort by a rank amateur would find an error.
I originated this topic and have all I wanted now. The original Schaum's Outlines Feedback and Control Systems with all it's Mathcad icon references. The companion Schaum's Interactive Outlines Feedback and Control Systems and files.
Amazon.com had two copies claiming to be the companion book and discs. I ordered one described as new which turned out to be old used and without discs. I returned that one. I ordered the remaining one and checked that there were discs. That one is in the mail. I called McGraw-Hill and they said the books and discs were not available now. Out of print. Anyway, end of saga.
I did download several e-books from Mathcad libraries, electrical, mechanical, materials of machines. Plenty to be going on with. Great stuff. No complaints.
There may be an occasional error in the material but overall from what I've seen so far I'm very pleased.
Process Control is my baby since young, never had chance to see that book, not even in any of all the libraries I have eaten . At the time I only knew Mathcad for plugging some math formulas on PID diagram. I have Stefanopoulos ! If you are in that gear, don't be shy, I have done a lot.
Are you also in T/C's, Orifice plates, valves ... The last Work sheet "Mathcad for Engineers" posted yesterday or the day before, contains our glorious T/C "T" and Colebrook, Orifice plate is in the collab (maybe not the latest).
What I mean: there is a collection of related sheets, fresh from the press.
Here's my simple question (in the attachment). It probably shouldn't be in this topic but it doesn't deserve a separate topic methinks. Can anyone show me how I got from equation (1) to equation (2). Thanks.
On 2/15/2007 1:12:44 PM, robohudson wrote: >Here's my simple question (in >the attachment). >It probably shouldn't be in >this topic but it doesn't >deserve a separate topic >methinks. >Can anyone show me how I got >from equation (1) to equation >(2). Thanks.
Maybe, if we can read it. Please post in version 11.
Thanks Fred and Eden. Not so simple after all, eh! I see the working backwards bit and where the sqrt(1.33) came from. I wouldn't have worked it backwards though and I can't recall any trick I might have used (no surprise). Could [it] have been a problem that showed the answer as (2)? I now think that equation (1) was quite sufficient and satisfactory 🙂
BTW Fred, even though Mathcad 14 has just been announced (yesterday in fact), I just upgraded to Mathcad 13 two weeks ago for $245 including 8 free add-ons like: Signal Processing, Image Proc'g, Wavelets, Solving & Optimization, Elect Eng, Mech Eng, Civil Eng libraries. Heck of a deal.
On 2/15/2007 8:55:52 PM, robohudson wrote: >Thanks Tom and all. I get it >now. Excellent! >I hope I expressed it properly >in the attached. > >Rob ______________________
You attached nothing !
You must always starts from the XFR function as demonstrated in the "attached". All those things Mathcad will solve . Take great care understanding the "cubic solver", a pretty rare tool (modified Cardan). I just posted today the Laplace solver applied to 2nd order DE.
You should avoid using atan for calculations. Like all of the inverse trigonometrics it has a range limited by the arbitrary choice of principle value. For atan that limits the range to ±π/2, the first and fourth quadrant. But the phase angle has a range of ±π, covering alll quadrants. You will get the wrong answer from atan for angles in the second and third quadrants. You should use atan2 for calculating angles, as that covers the full range.
I also added some notes showing the power of live symbolics.
You said I attached nothing? Are you saying you couldn't read it because of wrong version for you? I thought I attached in version 11. What's your version? 2001? Anyway what's best way to handle version in this situation?
On 2/16/2007 12:07:40 PM, robohudson wrote: > > >jmG, > >You said I attached nothing? >Are you saying you couldn't >read it because of wrong >version for you? >I thought I attached in >version 11. >What's your version? 2001? >Anyway what's best way to >handle version in this >situation? > >Thanks for your "attachment". >Very informative. > >Rob ____________________
You posted XMCD
If you specify your version immediately that rings a bell from the onset.
If you post to the Collab, you should, in general, post in version 11 format. That way, almost everyone can read it, and you will get more answers. You do have to be a little careful though. Some worksheets developed in MC13 may not work in MC11. That's not such a big deal, because at least they can be read, and possibly modified. Worse, however, is that some stuff may disappear from the file altogether if it's completely unsupported by MC11. Certain graph formatting features would be an example (there's not a lot of things in this category, but there are some).