AoE 3rd Edition: Help With Errata - Page 1
Forum section: electronics / general

author: asg32000
author_rank: Contributor
timestamp: October 05, 2015, 07:37:03 pm
content: I recently purchased The Art of Electronics 3rd Edition, and I'm trying to go through my book and make corrections according to the AoE errata page:http://artofelectronics.net/errata/I'm having trouble determining which of these changes are actually applicable to my book. All my book says on the publisher information page is:First published 1980Second edition 1989Third edition 2015Reprinted with corrections 2015Unfortunately, the errata page doesn't actually say which corrections apply to the reprint. Further, I don't even know if there have been multiple reprints that have been lumped into that one "Reprinted with corrections 2015" line.You might think: "Why don't you just go through each correction on the errata page, see if it is already corrected in your version, and make the correction if necessary?" Well, some of the corrections are things like: "diodes need to be flipped". I can't tell just by looking at the figure if the diodes have already been flipped - there is no absolute reference.I tried sorting the errata by date, and finding a date cutoff where all errata afterwards are not corrected in my version. This kind of worked. It /looks/ like all of the errata on or before April 10th, 2015 were corrected in my edition (I didn't do a thorough check), but I don't think I can make this assumption, since I didn't get a very firm answer from the authors via the "Contact" feature on their website.Can anyone provide guidance or give examples of the methods you have used to apply the errata to your book? Some of these errata are just plain confusing for a beginner, even if I knew I had to correct them in my version.Edit: My ISBN is 978-0-521-80926-9 Hardback. Looking at a different thread, it seemed like this might be relevant.

author: timofonic
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: November 09, 2015, 01:05:38 am
content: Bumping post, as I would like to buy this book and be aware of errata.I would like to get the (3.2?) newest edition with latest found erratas fixed.The list is abysmal for a big an expensive book, I'm afraid why books have so much erratas...

author: tggzzz
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 09, 2015, 08:58:59 am
content: Quote from: timofonic on November 09, 2015, 01:05:38 amYou should be more "afraid" of the big books where the authors don't bother or are ashamed to publish errata.If you want the book, get it and add the errata yourself.

author: timofonic
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: January 06, 2016, 11:38:01 pm
content: Quote from: tggzzz on November 09, 2015, 08:58:59 amThat would make me the difficult challenge of learning electronics (for me) even more difficult.I would prefer an extremely proofreaded book, even better if it's a "live book" I can read over a web browser and my eink reader by using a OPDS server with login and password. I would pay for that.I understand there's fetichism with big books, but I would prefer it in digital format too.

author: retrolefty
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 07, 2016, 12:24:14 am
content: Quote from: timofonic on January 06, 2016, 11:38:01 pmNice to wish for perfection in our reference materials. But of course in the real world datasheets have errors and misprints that require feedback from users to correct. Schematic drawings have errors until spotted by users. It would be interested to know the error rate, total number of words and figures Vs number of so far found errata errors compared to other published references. I suspect errors will continue to be found until version 4 arrives.The problems is that mere humans create the words and draw the schematic figures, and will always suffer some error rate, just like with software programming.

author: timofonic
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: January 07, 2016, 12:49:43 am
content: Quote from: retrolefty on January 07, 2016, 12:24:14 amSoftware are very difficult to fix in comparison, because they are abstraction layers after abstraction layers, after abstractions, etc. It's extremely difficult to not miss some detail.Books are different, but of course it's difficult to "debug" a book. I think the main issue is the outdated way of working of publishers and book writers and the authorship concept:* This would be better and faster if a positive collaborative environment would done and proofreaded the book, and not wait years to make a new edition of a technical book (30 YEARS is an eternity in technology!). And not, Wikipedia isn't the best example:** But a good collective of individuals and communities would proofread in a "double blind" way, to check misunderstandings and wrong information.** They would provide extra material to add and improvement suggestions, then there would be a "release candidate" to be checked and continue the cycle until the "project manager" says it's OK to release because XYZ. This already happens with Free Software.Of course, this isn't something that interests big publishers.Deadtrees must die.

author: retrolefty
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 07, 2016, 01:29:22 am
content: QuoteI suspect that big publishers will change or die, their business model just will not survive. The music industry seems to have come to terms with the Web and now sell songs by the single song to vastly higher volume and probably are still profitable. Newspapers and book publishers know their world has changed but yet to find the business model that will work for them.