On Sat, 16 Oct 2004 15:31:40 +0100, Paul Burridge
wrote:

On Fri, 15 Oct 2004 11:39:27 -0700, Roy Lewallen
wrote:

I've had a copy since it was first published in 1982. It's intended to
be more of an engineering textbook than the more cookbook-like
_Experimental Methods. . _ and its predecessor _Solid State Design for
the Radio Amateur_. (Although those books are much more than
cookbooks.) Now published in a second edition by the ARRL, it's an
excellent reference. It also contains insights into the fundamental
workings of circuits that you'll find in few other texts. As just one of
many examples, the discussion of oscillators presents some unique
insights into the similarities between oscillator types and an
understanding of the fundamentals requirements of oscillators.

I highly recommend it for anyone interested in understanding electronic
circuits on a more basic level. It nicely complements his other books,
and it's a bargain at the price.

Oh, blast! You were doing so well there for a while, Roy. Now you've
gone and spoilt it all by using that word "basic." I was hoping for
something at least "intermediate" and I don't really see how "basic"
and "RF design" sit easily together in a single description. Please
tell me it's useful for more advanced stuff too!

Paul, maybe you should stay away from it because apparently you can't
read.

At the beginning, Roy said, "It's intended to be more of an engineering
textbook than the more cookbook-like _Experimental Methods. . _"

At the end he said, "I highly recommend it for anyone interested in
understanding electronic circuits on a more basic level." This is
apparently where you got confused. Oh, and he never specifically
mentioned "RF design".

English can be tricky. In the context of the rest of the message, I take
Roy's, "understanding electronic circuits on a more basic level," to
mean at the level of the basic principles that define the circuit's
functions, not less than advanced. As Roy and others have said it is
MORE rigorous and mathematical than the other books.

If you were trying to make a joke, you should have ended with a happy
face.