14-12-2015, 05:13 PM
(11-12-2015, 04:53 PM)ppppenguin Wrote: If you're publishing a book you owe it to your readers to do basic proof reading. It's not a like a forum post which is often done in haste. I don't know Mc Whorter's book but if it's as bad as you say then he deserved all the criticism he got.I believe I have found yet another mistake. My book Everyman's Radio is discussing capacitor values in a special chapter. In this maximum and minimum values are suggested for either H.T. filtering or R.F. bypass and so on. The writer then suggests 30 Micro-Microfarads as a limit figure but then writes 0.0003. Now, so far as I can gather, it should be 0.00003. The reason I say that is as follows:
Many GVR members will have a copy of Gerry Wells' autobiography**. This is a wonderful book, Gerry's voice leaps from the page. But it's marred slightly by numerous typographical errors. This is despite having been edited by a professional. It appears he edited for sense and continuity while keeping Gerry's unique voice intact but neglected to do the basic copy editing. Even a spill chucker wouldl have picked up many of the typos. In this case the reader isn't being mislead, unlike in McWhorter's book where an inexperienced reader might make serious mistakes as a result of what he's seen.
**Obsession: A life in Wireless. Copies should still be available at BVWS events and from the Vintage Wireless Museum.
If there are 1000000 picofarads in a microfarad, by the time you get to a thousandth of a microfarad, there ought to be just 1000 picofarads. So, 0.003 ought to be 3000 picofarads? And therefore, 0.0009 is as close as 900 picofarads and nearly 1000 picofarads 0.001. Consequently, 0.0001 = 100 picofarads and 0.00001 10 picofarads.
I think I got this correct, unless my brain is frazzled again!!
I don't think they had picofarads back then so perhaps easier to confuse digits.
Does this make sense?
