Forrest Mims, Radio Shack, and the Notebooks That Launched a Thousand Careers
hackaday.com
hackaday.com
I believe Mims was also the author of the awful manual for Rat Shack's 100-in-one kit, which told the lie that a bipolar junction transistor is two diodes back-to-back. This is only true in the literal sense that a transistor has two P-N junctions; it's like if you roll down your car window and ask a passer-by for directions, and he helpfully tells you that you're in your car. It omits the key feature of the transistor, namely transconductance. And after reading it, I couldn't understand transistors for decades. Eventually I got hold of a college-level textbook which explained that when the base-emitter junction is forward-biased, the collector-emitter path acts like a resistor. Simple and clear, unlike Mims' writing which is designed to obfuscate and confound.
I used one of Mims' designs for a final project in an entry-level elecronics lab in college. I can't remember the specifics, but I think it was a little sender/receiver setup that transmitted audio over beam of light. When I couldn't get it to work after a bunch of troubleshooting, I showed it to the TA.
I'll never forget his incredulous expression. "Where did you get this? This resistor should be ten times this value. This shouldn't be an electrolytic capacitor. This. . . hell, I don't know what they're even trying to do here." And so forth.
Bit of a distraction perhaps. Yep, incredible variety. All at the worst value for money known to mankind (at least in the UK).
Pack of three resistors. £1.95. Or was that £5.95? In 1970s or 1980. Enough bits for a simple op amp demo project £80, arm and leg.
If memory serves, they were an early adopter of custom currency. Instead of pricing the items on shelves they colour coded the cheap (lol) stuff. Red dot meant 1.95, blue 5.95 etc. There were only 5 or 7 price bands. I hated the place.
Thankfully in the back of an electronics mag were ads for a mysterious company "Maplin" that had a mail order catalogue. Everything was 10% or less of Tandy prices. Surprisingly Maplin was the one that lasted longest, though it was many years before they had a store nearby.
On to books.
The Radio Shack quick reference posters, cards, etc were brilliant. So I grabbed a a few indecipherable Radio Shack introductory books explaining various topics. They rarely seemed to explain anything. They were all shrink wrapped so you couldn't skim in store. I forget the authors though. I just remember quickly learning their own titles were something to avoid. I may have missed a dozen great authors thanks to that lesson. :)
The ones to get were the Babani books as they were 95p each for a 100 page paperback. Not shrink wrapped either! Thankfully long before the end of the Net Book Agreement (Price printed on cover by publisher) or Radio shack would have sold them for a tenner. Most of which seemed to be by a guy called R A Penfold. Don't ever remember reading an "about the author". Never did work out if he was a real author or a house pen name as he was impossibly prolific. Turns out yes, indeed, he was one guy. Who must have written hundreds of electronics, radio, and other hobbyist books.
I still have a couple of those books, though I moved away from hardware without delving too deeply. It's only recently I've started tackling hardware again, but these days I think of microcontrollers and microprocessors which can be programmed, rather than discrete components. At the time the most I'd have touched would have been the odd op-amp, and the 555.
The complete list is here: http://www.forrestmims.org/publications.html
These days though you sometimes have to figure out what the industry part number is for the radio shack number.
In my childhood we would go to Radioshack to pick up components required to repair our wood-enclosed CRT TV. Burnt resistors, that kind of thing. This was in the 80s and very early 90s. By the mid-90s Radioshack was already becoming largely useless.
Another thing I miss from the 80s: Local mom & pop hardware stores in my neighborhood generally had a quality hobby section with RC model kits and replacement parts. I would ride my bmx bike to get replacement control arms and alternative pinion/spur gears for my RC-10. By the 90s it required an hour drive by car to reach one of the few surviving hobby shops stocking any RC stuff.
At least Fry's Electronics stocks a good selection of electronics components, not that there's any near me.
Now we have RS etc. Free next day delivery on everything. I regularly buy £0.20 of resistors at 7pm and they’re here by 10am next day.
Everything was in a prepack. You didn't get prices on packs or shelves, you got colour codes that were pre-printed on the Radio Shack brand packs, so I'd guess they did that in US stores too.
Pack of three resistors, or three LEDs, or two electrolytics. £1.95. Or was that a fixed pack of 10 (including 8 values you didn't want) for £5.95? In 1970s or early 1980s. This when £1 Sterling was maybe $2.80
All US books were shrink wrapped, so you had only the back cover to go on.
If you mail ordered from Maplin in Southampton and spent £20, Radio Shack would be £400 for the same bits.
3-5 resistors (depending on wattage) 50p.
That was the price of a mars bar and can of Coke at the time.
Maplin 6p.
The Tandy stores were pretty rubbish and overpriced. I've heard exactly the same complaints from people in the US at the time as well.
Tandy turned up with their price gouging, and were literally laughed at. They managed to sell some TRS-80s - not a bad little computer - but aside from that most hobbyists were either indifferent or aggressively contemptuous because of their insanely greedy pricing.
Where Maplin understood how to build a loyal customer base by giving away free information in a massive catalogue, and creating projects that were challenging and fun, Tandy only ever seemed to see their customers as prey they could exploit.
It wasn't a good look then, and it's not a good look now.
I tried hacking my evap sensor with a resistor as you described, but for some reason I couldn't get it to work. Ended up spending $700 to fix it...
While I enjoyed reading through them and learned a number of concepts, his books helped demonstrate that I was not going to become an electrical engineer. I just didn't know what to do with it. Whereas, I was exposed to programming books at the same time (starting with David A. Lien) and was like a fish in water.
Also, RIP Radio Shack, though it was really a slow death by degrees.
Does anyone have any recommendations for a more "from zero knowledge" place to start learning?
I've heard good things about Practical Electronics for Inventors as well but haven't actually seen a copy.
I would also strongly recommend against his books for beginners now because even simple projects should at least consider alternatives based on microcontrollers and there are now much better and more comprehensive books that cover the basics that Mims covered and more modern alternatives. I would recommend The Art of Electronics [2] (older editions can be bought affordably) which incorporates learn- from- real- world- bad- design wisdom, and which has a sense of humor utterly lacking in Mims' writing.
1 (with controversy section) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forrest_Mims
The Art of Electronics is like a recipe book — it's a (whimsical, yes) set of reference designs to be referred to like templates for a design engineer. The Art of Electronics is not a well-suited recommendation for a beginner or novice.
Furthermore: I have spoken to Forrest Mims (disclosure: the discussions I have had with him were in the process of creating circuitclassics.com. That said, I have not met him personally.) The conclusion I came to was that his personal beliefs do not affect and have no bearing on his technical work.
(Broadly, I do not understand why this man is so hounded for his particular personal beliefs.)
It is true that hundreds of thousands of engineers launched their careers after being exposed to his books, that they are quite good at this, still relevant — and probably the only book on electronics to sell over 1M genuine (and many more untrackably via unauthorized reproduction etc.) copies.
We all have our quirks, don't we.
One can be a Christian and not be a creationist -- that's a choice.
This is the same kind of fundamental misunderstanding that separates (for example) a white supremacist from one who is not. The general idea is that the former is refusing to reason, examine, or use logic. But if you talk to a white supremacist or neo-Nazi at length, you find that they have nuanced, complex, logical explanations for their beliefs. They may be wildly inaccurate, but that isn't to say they didn't put thought into it. Not only that, but their positions are bolstered by the fact that there's basically no way to completely disprove them, because it would require observing nature over millennia, or having records we just don't have.
Calling them willfully unintelligent not only misunderstands their reasoning, but it questions their motives. It's not just a false observation, it's an accusation. This moves the conversation from "I don't think you're right" to "you're a bad person". And I think that's at the core of how political and ideological discourse is so rotten today.
> You're saying "willfully unintelligent" as if he's explicitly trying not to be intelligent
No, I did not. He has access to the science and he also has a religious tract. He chooses to treat that religious tract as an inerrant literal depiction of the creation of the world.
Those are competing thoughts and "willfully" means that he made a choice.
And "willfully" is kind of tricky here, because it would not surprise me if he was raised in a Christian household that effectively brainwashed him into these beliefs.
>And I think that's at the core of how political and ideological discourse is so rotten today.
And I disagree. I think a huge part of the problem is religious fundamentalism and a rejection of science.
Edit: oh, and neo-nazis and white supremacist are bad people m'kay?
Well, I apologize. I'm not intending to blame you for anything.
> He chooses to treat that religious tract as an inerrant literal depiction of the creation of the world.
According to an article I read about him, that doesn't appear to be the case. https://books.google.com/books?id=hSsEAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA40#v=one... Third column, halfway down: "Mims did not become a Bible literalist." etc
> Those are competing thoughts and "willfully" means that he made a choice.
According to the article, Mims came to his conclusions after scientific study, not from growing up with a bible and deciding to just go with what he learned first. He looked at fossil records (among other things) and decided they weren't good enough to explain things without some extra force, and "chose" an intelligent designer as that force.
> it would not surprise me if he was raised in a Christian household that effectively brainwashed him into these beliefs.
He's a Texan, so I'm sure he was raised around Christianity, but he was actually an evolutionist before he became a science writer.
> I think a huge part of the problem is religious fundamentalism and a rejection of science.
In this case, science brought him to God. It would be funny if the public response and effect on his career wasn't so sad.
If Mims was being truly scientific about the Bible then that would include looking for finding falsifiability in the literal truths of the Bible. (Clearly I'm not religious and my take on that book is that it is, at best, a collection of inspirational stories -- not documented fact).
I respect each individual's right to have their own relationship with "God", including believing in things that I think are, dare I say it, stupid.
Scientific American did the wrong thing to fire him, but instead should have had a very clear firewall to ensure that they respected his personal beliefs and would not be associated with them.
Judging by the Wikipedia article, he's Christian. Which means creationism is a part of his belief systems. As for climate skepticism, hard to say, though I am curious about one thing. Wikipedia mentions him doing a lot of atmospheric research, hand has some pretty charts near the end - charts that, to my layman's opinion, should show a rising trend (due to correlation between water vapour and carbon dioxide in the atmosphere), not a steady one. Could anyone comment on that and their relevance?
This is only true for some doctrinal subsets of Christianity, and it's rare in European christian communities.
Far weirder to find someone who's innovated in atmospheric research - a great little paper on how to determine atmospheric water content with a $10 IR thermometer - who doesn't believe in climate change.
(https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/2011BAMS3215.1 if you want the paper)
Mims's beliefs came to the forefront several years ago (probably more like 20 at this point) when he was under consideration to take over editorship of the 'Amateur Scientist' column in Scientific American. This column isn't too well-known today, but it was hugely influential from the WWII years through at least the 1970s. It regularly featured experiments in all sorts of areas, from physics and chemistry to meteorology to natural history and archaeology.
I don't remember how the editors at SciAm found out that Mims was a creationist, but when they did, they rescinded the offer. There was a great deal of controversy among the magazine's readership at the time. The decision seemed prejudicial at best. Even without being religious, it felt like Mims was getting a raw deal.
I originally fell into that camp myself, but the events and trends that have taken place since then make me inclined to support the magazine's decision. If it was true that Mims's faith required him to deny basic elements of geological history and biological evolution -- and apparently it was -- then it's hard to see how he could do that particular job effectively.
It's a real shame, because it was otherwise the perfect job for him. Mental illness sucks, especially when it's voluntary.
I actually started with 1st edition Art of Electronics Laboratory Manual back in the 1980s before I even went to university. That was in all incarnations total gold. It’s a tutorial guide rather than the textbook format of the main book.
In this day and age, Make Electronics (this will teach you which end of the soldering iron is hot) followed by TAOE is the way to go. Harry Kybett / Earl Boysen also produce an excellent book.
Electronics is vastly more complicated (and interesting) than cutting and pasting knowledge which is what you end up with from Mimms.
Most programmers start off copy/pasting hello world; they don’t generally start off with accumulators and indirect addressing modes.
Unfortunately, it's not exactly an uncommon problem.
https://theness.com/index.php/creationists-mechanical-engine...
https://scienceblogs.com/tfk/2007/11/11/the-salem-hypothesis...
http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/creation/thermo_patterson...