Awesome EE Tech Guides (USN NEETS), Free & Highly Recommended! - Page 1
Forum section: electronics / beginners

author: SuperFlyEDSguy
author_rank: Contributor
timestamp: August 29, 2025, 08:19:30 pm
content: Hi all,I started my career in the U.S. Navy in engineering and one of my first supervisory roles was managing test equipment onboard a nuclear aircraft carrier. I had to understand EE principles pretty well for that alone, but I also had to stand regular watch, and I was certified as repair party electrician with ⅑ of thatfloating monsterbecoming my responsibility if disaster ever strikes! Fortunately no disasters, but I was serving duringOperation Southern Watch (OSW)at the time and we did have to carryMission Oriented Protective Posture (MOPP)gear around with us because of Saddam Hussein going into“threat mode.”(Low level, just in case, but we had to doGeneral Quarters / GQ / Battle StationsdrillsA LOTif only to be ready.) And, thankfully he was smart enough toNOTattack a U.S. Navy Carrier Battle Group as those are fights that oneNEVERwins!So, getting to my point, I loved everything about electronics from an early age and one of my first jobs as a teenager was even for my local Radio Shack! The Navy ended up introducing the“Navy Electricity and Electronics Series”a/k/a“NEETS”way back in September of 1998  that consisted of 24 modules with each guide being dedicated to a specific EE concept. The guides are thorough and the subject matter is broad! I mean they have guides dedicated to nearly everything!I recently found out that these manuals are bothUnclassifiedandPublicly Available!That said, I am going to share a link that I found so you could download any or all of the 24 modules in PDF format!I 100% cannot overstate how much these guides have helped me early on in my career!I worked on them in the little free time that I did have andpassed my E-5 exam on my very first try!I definitely owe thanks to these guides for giving me that edge!Now, here’s a link to download them, which I would not only recommend to EEnewbs, but to even those that could use any of the guides to further specialize:https://www.microwaves101.com/encyclopedias/navy-electricity-and-electronics-seriesAnd, lastly, here’s the complete course list with page counts for each module:• NEETS Module 1, Introduction to Matter, Energy, and Direct Current, (2.0 MB, 283 pages)• NEETS Module 2, Introduction to Alternating Current and Transformers, (3.9 MB, 250 pages)• NEETS Module 3, Introduction to Circuit Protection, Control, and Measurement, (2.4 MB, 214 pages)• NEETS Module 4, Introduction to Electrical Conductors, Wiring Techniques, and Schematic Reading, (1.5 MB, 152 pages)• NEETS Module 5, Introduction to Generators and Motors, (1.3 MB, 120 pages)• NEETS Module 6, Introduction to Electronic Emissions, Tubes, and Power Supplies, (1.5 MB, 204 pages)• NEETS Module 7, Introduction to Solid State Devices and Power Supplies, (2.4 MB, 287 pages)• NEETS Module 8, Introduction to Amplifiers, (1.8 MB, 186 pages)• NEETS Module 9, Introduction to Wave Generation and Wave Shaping, (1.8 MB, 275 pages)• NEETS Module 10, Introduction to Wave Propagation, Transmission Lines and Antennas, (2.4 MB, 276 pages)• NEETS Module 11, Microwave Principles, (3.6 MB, 192 pages)• NEETS Module 12, Modulation, (1.7 MB, 230 pages)• NEETS Module 13, Introduction to Numbering Systems and Logic, (1.2 MB, 218 pages)• NEETS Module 14, Introduction to Microelectronics, (6 MB, 175 pages)• NEETS Module 15, Introduction to Synchros, Servos, and Gyros, (1.6 MB, 196 pages)• NEETS Module 16, Test Equipment, (1.9 MB, 272 pages)• NEETS Module 17, Radio-Frequency Communication Principles, (5.6 MB, 201 pages)• NEETS Module 18, Radar Principles (1.7 MB, 204 pages)• NEETS Module 19, The Technicians Handbook, (1.3 MB, 156 pages)• NEETS Module 20, Master Glossary, (508 KB, 95 pages)• NEETS Module 21, Test Methods and Practices, (2 MB, 216 pages)• NEETS Module 22, Introduction to Digital Computers, (3.6 MB, 172 pages)• NEETS Module 23, Magnetic Recording, (3 MB, 164 pages)• NEETS Module 24, Introduction to Fiber Optics, (1.7 MB, 238 pages)Best of luck!

author: watchmaker
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: August 30, 2025, 11:59:03 am
content: This is the curriculum we followed in Voc Ed in 1969. I tried using it as a refresher a couple years ago and found it dated and tedious. There are much better approaches today (Foley, Boylestad, Malvino, REal Analog, Open University level courseware) etc.

author: SuperFlyEDSguy
author_rank: Contributor
timestamp: August 30, 2025, 02:08:45 pm
content: Quote from: watchmaker on August 30, 2025, 11:59:03 amDid you follow the link and look at any of the volumes?Here’s why I ask:I believe that you must be confusing this with another course becausethese were authored by Navy service members in electrical- and/or electronic-related ratings to better help other service members that are also in any of those ratings.You would see that although the purpose is to broadly teach EE concepts,it’s clearly written for Navy use.Additionally, each volume contains the name of the service member that prepared that particular volume,e.g. ETCS(SW) Donnie Jones prepared Module 1, NAVEDTRA 14173.1Most importantly, each volume contains the preface that starts with the following:The Navy Electricity and Electronics Training Series (NEETS) was developed for use by personnel in many electrical- and electronic-related Navy ratings. Written by, and with the advice of, senior technicians in these ratings, this series provides beginners with fundamental electrical and electronic concepts through self-study. The presentation of this series is not oriented to any specific rating structure, but is divided into modules containing related information organized into traditional paths of instruction.The series is designed to give small amounts of information that can be easily digested before advancing further into the more complex material. For a student just becoming acquainted with electricity or electronics, it is highly recommended that the modules be studied in their suggested sequence. While there is a listing of NEETS by module title, the following brief descriptions give a quick overview of how the individual modules flow together.It just doesn’t make sense how you would confuse this with a work from two decades prior, unless you didn’t look at the volumes themselves to see the above. The NAVEDTRA catalog clearly shows these as being initially released in 1998 aside from being prepared by senior active duty U.S. Navy service members. Maybe the format is similar? Was it a military vocational training program or a civilian one? Do you remember the name of the workbooks that you used? Did you notice the page count across all modules, we’re talking roughly 4,000 pages. That seems like A LOT for most vocational education courses that are generally around one year in length, but more importantly focus on practical applications.I only want to make sure that there’s no confusion because these are outstanding resources and it would be a shame if someone passes on them because they believe that it may be a different, older text, brought back to life in a“new”series.Quote from: watchmaker on August 30, 2025, 11:59:03 amThank you for sharing. I noted these resources to look into them. The more information, the better prepared anyone could be. You will also find very good quality contemporary training resources oncoursera.org. The thing is that I was trying to focus on this particular resource, which is why I went into so much detail regarding it. If I would have shared a plethora of resources, free ones at that, and thoroughly explained how they could all be of value, the post would have been far too long. I was trying to shorten it as it stood.I’m hoping that this clears up any confusion. Be well.Note:1“ETCS” is how one shows their name and rating when they are a Senior Chief Electronics Technician (E-8). “(SW)” denotes being qualified as an Enlisted Surface Warfare Specialist (ESWS). “NAVEDTRA” indicates Naval Education and Training Command. The number following NAVEDTRA here is their catalog number, which is different than the NAVSUP Tracking Number (Navy Supply) which cross references here as 0504-LP-026-8260.

author: edavid
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 30, 2025, 02:27:23 pm
content: These courses use the strange "electron flow" convention, which means you have to mentally reverse every diagram that shows current flow. This is confusing and pointless for anyone not in the Navy. Highly disrecommended.

author: SuperFlyEDSguy
author_rank: Contributor
timestamp: August 31, 2025, 01:55:57 am
content: Quote from: edavid on August 30, 2025, 02:27:23 pmI do hear what you’re saying, but you didn’t entertain any of my questions, and yet from what I now gather these areNOTthe same books that you originally referenced, howeverthey use a flow convention that appears confusing to you.Would that be correct?I will also venture to guess thatyou’re referring to the basic DC schematicsvery early on, not something more advanced like “hole flow” in diodes, as that also uses a “backwards flow” by convention.And, is that part correct?Now, if you are referring to the way that basic DC is taught here, this is very much intentional, and is the very same way that the majority of college and university EE programs teach the very basics.You may have noticed that the DC module starts off with the absolute basics, quite literally“matter, energy, and electricity.”I think I see your issue now, you were hoping for a more direct learning route, but just like with a university course, although these books do simplify things a bit, they absolutely take no shortcuts. That’s actually why I like them so much. If you take your time to understand the scientific facts that go along with the lesson, and some of it really does take time because of the concepts being so thorough, you will spend more time learning, but you’ll come out way ahead because you’ll have a freshly discovered understanding of what is going on microscopically(I’m being very literal here)and why that is! You mentioned vocational school and I’m going to guess that it was a civilian one based on your answers, because most regular vocational technology programs are specifically designed for applied science and do just enough with theory to make sure you could be a decent tech by your expected graduation date. Yes, the Navy teaches both sides of the coin for a couple of very important reasons that will probably make sense after I’m done explaining why.First: Extremely High Safety Standards Are A Must.When you are an engineer in the Navy,SAFETYis by far theBIGGESTconcern! This is because the equipment that you may applying these principles oncould cost millions or even billions of dollars, and it would be a bona fide national security concern if anything goes down, especially during a deployment!That’s why the Navy hasNEVEReven come close to a nuclear power emergency with both the surface-board nuclear reactors installed on its aircraft carriers or on the their submarine reactors.It’sVERYdifficult to go 75-ish years with literally zero safety issues! We’re also not only speaking about only a couple of reactors as there are a great many ships deployed that are part of the nuclear navy, that includes ALL current aircraft carriers! Each carrier also has more than one installed, but I don’t recall if I could say the exact number of current systems. I will share how the very first reactors were HUGE, yet not anywhere close to today’s efficiency levels, so the USS Enterprise actually hadEIGHT of them powering her! We’ve certainly come a very long way!This is why the Navy teaches the practical applications very similar to vocational school, but also spends almost the very same number of hours teaching theory and testing their students regularly on difficult key concepts. I don’t say that the Navy has some of the finest engineers and training programs only because I served, I say it because it’s true as I saw it in operation!Second: “Life And Death” Is A Very Real Concern.This part is simple, basically, anywhere the Navy goes, we need to ensure that we will be mission capable. If we end up experiencing major problems, it could segue into the death of far too many service members. Aside from “getting stuck” during a deploymentthere’s a much more personal concern that we all have. We each have to trust each other literally with life and death decisions regularly. This is also a big part as to why the Navy is so meticulous about delivering training with the science necessary to allow you to better think, especially in high stress situations. Sure, it absolutely does take longer to understand it, but you’ll be able to solve complex problems with little if any help as the science will become second nature to you and the equations will prove very useful for problem solving.Third: Electrons Actually DO “Flow Backwards.”I know it totally appears counterintuitive at first, but there is more than just one force traveling down a wire, especially in an AC circuit; however in true DC theory, electrons (e–) are already negatively charged andCAN’Tflow from positive to negative asthe negative power terminal will repel them towards the positive terminal.When you think of flow from positive to negative, that’s the convention on current flow within a circuit. If you read through this in the books, you’ll probably find the theory very interesting, and perhaps even satisfying to learn and truly understand.Remember, the books start off talking about atoms, their components, any electrical properties; and then introduce valence electrons as it helps to better understand what type of wire makes the best conductor. You’ll start seeing how resistance works by“flipping the picture.”Then semiconductors will start making far more sense as you’ll learn about the materials used, their atomic properties,and why they actually function the way that they do to include “hole theory,” which also flows “backwards” just as electrons actually do.Dave has spoken about this before and asked some great questions to get us viewers thinking!The truth is thatELECTRONS DON’T MOVEdown the wire, their charge excites the electrons down the wire, so they sort of get active and bounce around more rapidly. The charge passing through as a field is flowing in this direction because you repel when putting two negative polarities together!Fourth: So Why Is It Taught In the Opposite Direction?!It’s aVERYsimple answer:Ignorance.When the decision was first made to initially go from positive to negative polarity, it was simplyBEFORE THE DISCOVERY OF ELECTRONS AND THEIR ACTUAL “FLOW!”As this design methodology was already employed globally and in very wide use,nobody wanted to change it. So, it’sSTILL USUALLY TAUGHT BACKWARDS EVEN TODAY!Isn’t it just crazy how almost nobody is taught this on a basic level in today’s world?!Lastly: You Don’t Need To Reverse Anything In Modern Diagrams?!NO!Remember, although electron excitation actually goes from the negative terminal down the line towards the positive side, the“current convention”is still represented and intact when going from positive to negative. You reallyDON’Tneed to change anything becauseALL OF THE BASIC LAWS AND RULES WILL STILL WORK FROM EITHER DIRECTION(you may have to account for it being positive when actually negative or vice versa, and all that means is that you will maybe insert a negative sign to show this, or remove it if need be.)When I say the math still works, I’m referring to the “Big 3” rules:Ohm’s Law.(Including Power.)Kirchhoff's Voltage Law (KVL)— As long as it’s a closed loop, it will absolutely work, and it’s still a loop no matter how you look at it!Kirchhoff's Current Law (KCL)— As long as the sum of the currents entering and exiting a common node equal zero (0), it doesn’t matter which way the currents are designated as flowing, provided it’s uniform of course!Just think of a simple KCL example being a node with three (3) separate inputs and a single (1) output. Let’s call these inputs A, B, & C. The single output will simply be “Output.” As we are measuring for current (I), we would have our equation look like this:IA+ IB+ IC+ (-IOutput) = 0Notice that even if we flip the ± of each given term, we still result in a net zero current! Here’s how it would look in that case:-(IA+ IB+ IC) + (IOutput) = 0And, if that wasn’t clear for some reason, let’s simply say that our three “Inputs” are 10mA each (30mA Total), and our “Output” is 30mA; it will absolutely work bidirectionally as long as the polarity is true relative to its position, e.g. opposite ± when going around the “other way.” It really doesn’t make a difference, especially with DC as nothing changes except maybe a sign that you could add or remove to your liking to show as per the regular convention. The “backwards flow” is interesting, but will really start to show its applications later on as we look at diodes, some AC theory, etc.So,10 + 10 + 10 + (-30) = 0And,-(10+10+10) + (30) = 0Any thoughts based on the above proofs (or anything else)?A Few Final Thoughts. Please Do Hear Me Out.I am hoping that I explained this well enough, especially regarding the importance of these very concepts, not to mention that instead of revising it once electrons were eventually discovered, it was something that mainstream science choose to ignore! I’ve taken A LOT of courses and certifications over the years, and really do get that there are many different teaching styles, to include those that are nearly all about electronics in practice and NOTHING else. To each their own, but I think that leaves out far too much information, constructs that would otherwise make new technicians learn to think instead of simply react. None of this is really ‘that’ complicated, at least until you get to a very advanced level, so teaching it along with the concepts and science may allow technicians to start thinking freely again. “Learning to learn” is far more important, IMHO, than simply making people memorize facts and only be able to execute what they already know and not much else.I also get that you are perhaps “set in your ways,” but after seeing, learning, and now finally understanding some of these concepts, I’m only hoping that you discovered an appreciation for such training. Keeping it “half science” and “half practical” is a big part of why the Navy doesn’t have nuclear accidents, especially when you consider the amount of equipment run by the navy aside from the fact that most new nuclear power technicians are very bright, highly trained, capable, motivated, and yet only around 20 years old when they set foot at their very first command! To make that work, you not only need a proven system, but almost a miracle! The thing is that whatever you want to call it, the U.S. Navy simply has it!I guess my entire point is simple, I just don’t want anyone who could truly benefit from this to be turned-off by it before even starting or at the very least giving it a chance of their own, and subsequently making their own decision. You were a bit harsh in your critique, but I think that we could both admit two things. First, you didn’t give these modules the necessary time to give an honest and viable critique; and second, these are concepts that are truly very simple, they could help a ton with more advanced electronics, but because you were never taught it, it was simply “wrong.” You had no idea that the science was spot on because nobody ever took the time to teach this to you. Just like how that fact would make almost anyone think that the “Big 3” rules couldn’t possibly hold up this way, yet that’s why they are the heart of electronics, they most certainly will hold up because the science behind it is correct! That’s why I think it’s a damn shame that no revisions were ever made at any point after the discovery of the electron! It shouldn’t confuse anyone, I only gave a quick explanation, but it’s extremely simple, right?!

author: Haenk
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 01, 2025, 06:59:28 am
content: A lot of work went into this, and there are some interesting tidbits in there (practical use). Maybe a good starting point for getting a general idea.But the technical level of these courses is low, IMHO often below what is taught in german High School. You would not stand a chance in the first introductory week, likely not even the first day, when going for an EE degree. However that specific knowledge in punch tape and magnetic multitrack recorders is good for the LULZ (I like it, because i love old tech, though.).That orbital shell model really cracked me up

author: iMo
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 01, 2025, 07:25:33 am
content: Hopefully the manuals and guides of USN are much better written than those of USAF (ie. like to have 1/3 of hydraulic liquid be water in an F-35A, especially when flying Alaska's wintertime)..

author: johnboxall
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: September 01, 2025, 07:36:04 am
content: Quote from: SuperFlyEDSguy on August 29, 2025, 08:19:30 pmThanks for sharing that. Everyone is taught differently for different goals, and it was interesting to read about your experience.

author: watchmaker
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: September 01, 2025, 08:46:32 pm
content: Quote from: SuperFlyEDSguy on August 30, 2025, 02:08:45 pmOf course I did, As others point out, this course teaches electron flow which caused me endless confusion when I went to Clarkson College. Brain was too immature to adapt.I believe I even listed it as a resource in the sticky above. There exist more modern approaches to the pedagogy and in my experience these materals are best used with an instructor very knowlegeable where student confusion will occur.BUT, if it works for you, go for it. For first/second year electronics I recommend modern text books by Foley, Malvino and Boylestad.

author: SuperFlyEDSguy
author_rank: Contributor
timestamp: September 02, 2025, 02:23:43 am
content: Quote from: watchmaker on September 01, 2025, 08:46:32 pmYou do make a fair point as this is a construct that often becomes way harder than it should be and it will ironically take a very good instructor to break down those concepts in a way that’s actually easy to understand.Okay, take my thoughts of KVL & KCL for example, I said earlier in this thread that it shouldn’t matter which direction you choose to go because you’ll still end up with a respective net zero. To my more“refined”mind, that makes perfect sense, and the reality is that 10 + 10 + 10 + (-30) = -(10 + 10 + 10) + 30 = 0, but I remember struggling with Kirchhoff’s Laws many decades ago until it eventually just clicked for me! I had a similar issue upon starting off with Calculus. In both cases, all it took was the right instructor to explain it to me in terms that I was easily able to wrap my brain around! I guess that it just goes to show the rote nature that far too many instructors take when explaining even relatively simple concepts. Such instructors make what essentially amounts to addition and subtraction no easier than basic calculus!I also detest how the system itself never tried to resolve knowledge that proved to be false. It was just assumed that electricity must flow from positive to negative, just like damn near everything else does. Almost everything in nature will gravitate from a high pressure to a low pressure system. Yet, they were wrong about this with electricity! Upon the discovery of the electron and its inherent negative charge, they saw rather quickly that electrons can’t attract to an equally negative charge, they repel exactly like its close cousin magnetism interacts. Yet, here we are today and this was never changed primarily because it was already convention. So, when we explain nature, young folks in particular can’t wrap their head easily around it as it’s just counterintuitive! Then when it is explained, it’s usually done so poorly that many students just fail to reconcile a natural concept. The biggest downfall with that is that you really need to understand this concept to appreciate“hole flow”when moving on to semiconductors, but so many instructors absolutely cannot explain that concept either!That said, I digress that you’re raising a good point and not just a valid one. The way that I try to reconcile the concepts today is that they should be taught, but taught correctly as to appreciate the simplicity and naturalistic aspects that so many will never get an opportunity to understand. Not every course or method of learning works for everyone, it somehow worked for me, albeit I already knew the basics by that point in my career. Here’s my personal takeaway after wrestling with this for a few days now, many people were never taught simply how to learn, that ties in with the rote methods that so many teachers sadly use. Everything is about memorizing facts, but facts will only get anyone so far. Nobody could know everything, but anybody could be taught how to best search to find answers. So, I would have to say to anyone learning to just try a plethora of resources and see what works well for them. The thing that I am actually appreciating more today is that these concepts will take many people out of their comfort zone, and that’s sometimes a very good thing.I guess what I’m saying is that I would only consider this yet another in a vast sea of resources. It wouldn’t hurt to try it, but I wouldn’t dissuade anyone because it could actually mesh with their particular learning style. Ultimately, if it sucks for them, you said it best with“if it works for you, go for it.”There’s only one way to find out though, so if it doesn’t relate, simply move on. We’re also very fortunate to live in a time where we have a veritable smorgasbord of resources that go well beyond textbooks, so anyone would be crazy to not mix it up a little and use videos, sims, podcasts, quiz banks, or whatever else they could find. The best part may just be how much good quality stuff is actually freely available! It also doesn’t hurt that the price of components has become extremely fair over the years and that we could build nearly anything we dream up without ever having to leave our home workshop!

author: BILLPOD
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: September 02, 2025, 01:14:49 pm
content: Good Morning SuperFlyEDSguy, I don't have anything to add to this conversation, I just wanted to thank you for your service to our country