Hacker News Reader

Comment by violet13 | Hacker News Reader

Let me say that I really like that this is a free textbook, and I realize it's a textbook for EE students, not the general public.

That said, it bums me out a bit when textbooks are written in this style. It's essentially a big data dump of formulas that doesn't explain the "why".

I know that classical magnetism doesn't have a good explanation beyond "it is like that because that's how it is." But at the very least, the formulas are derived from and relate to empirical observations. You don't teach chemistry by treating it as a set of math axioms, right?

"The Art of Electronics" doesn't exactly handhold you through the basics, but it takes a far more accessible approach to EE once you grasp the basics. And their secret is real-world examples, anecdotes, and so on.

View on HN

2nd that. As a hobbyist with a limited theory knowledge and no chance to learn something as I would forget it in a week if not used daily, I'd rather pick a book that explains the "why" in a way i can understand (examples!) just like I was learning to play an instrument by ear instead of attending music school for a decade or more.

I loved The Art of Electronics and some books by the ARRL, but also would suggest those from RSGB (the ARRL equivalent in Great Britain). Regarding antennas, unless one works above the GHZ, technology hasn't changed in decades, so many electronics and HAM related magazines and books that can be downloaded for free from the Internet Archive can be a valuable source of information.

> I'd rather pick a book that explains the "why" in a way i can understand (examples!)

Examples don't explain the "why". Hard physics textbooks, on the other hand, attempt to do (at least up to the level of the boundary of the current scientific state of knowledge), but often demand a lot from the reader,

> It's essentially a big data dump of formulas that doesn't explain the "why". [...] But at the very least, the formulas are derived from and relate to empirical observations. You don't teach chemistry by treating it as a set of math axioms, right?

It is common in science to define/treat some objects as "axiomatically defined black boxes", because this enables a much faster lecture pace and thus teaching the student a lot more deep material.

But it is common that the lecturer (at least if asked) loves to gives literature references to much deeper textbooks that give these explanations. But you should keep in mind that these textbooks are typically not for the faint of heart, because they demand a lot from the student. That is actually the reason why such topics are not treated in introductory courses for the students who don't want to major in this subject. But nearly always: if you are interested, simply ask the lecturer for literature references and be prepared to learn brutally hard from the literature references that he gives.

I understand exactly what you mean. I think I had to read/learn how to interpret Maxwell's Equations many times before it started to click (and even then, a refresher every so often is useful). Feels to me that the electromagnetism traditionally taught in Physics is more of the "basics" then the EE courses do the deep-dive.

These textbooks tend to be aimed at graduate students that have had the following classes:

- calculus 1-4

- diff equations

- linear algebra

- electrostatics/magnetism

- electronics (analog, digital, microwave)

- signal processing

When you see Maxwell's Equations as the first chapter, that indicates prerequisite knowledge in just that. The first chapter in this book is just a summary of the whole electromagnetism class, which is traditionally a pretty rigorous and difficult class.

At least that was the case when I took similar classes during grad school.

Either way, any class on antennas, radars, communication systems, etc. will be a pretty applied type of class, that is the sum of all the pre-req classes.

We have arguably more basic layer of abstractions which can help to derive the Maxwell equations. That is basic existence of charge (and vacuum properties - permittivity and permeability), theory of relativity (the special one) and math, which allows derivation of Gauss's law, Faraday's law, Amper's law. So if for somebody it's easier to understand the constant nature of the speed of light, he can explain Maxwell's equations from that.

Classical magnetism has a fantastic explanation in Feynman Lectures on Physics fwiw.

You may like the style of books written by the ARRL for ham radio operators. Here is a link: https://www.arrl.org/9

Reply on news.ycombinator.com