Going haywire? Sparks fly
From a reader at Tringale Electric, Lexington, MA: “Concerning the diagrams, Figure 2 needs to be corrected in both A and B voltage drops due to the fact that the light, if it is a light, could not be arrived at these voltage drops. Assuming this is a light, I therefore question the values of the voltage in both diagrams. The only way these values could be arrived at would be to replace the light as shown with a single-pole switch.
“Figure 4: The connection shown physically on the cells does not conform to the diagram below (to the right). As I see it, cell 1 and cell 2 are looking into the internal impedance of cell 3. As shown, cell 1 and 2 could never contribute to a total output voltage due to the fact that cells 3 and 4 are of a different potential than cells 1 and 2 leading to the total output voltage expected. Looking at the schematic, this would work without question.
“Figure 5: Contact D — this wiring bypasses D completely, so D is of no circuit value. Figures 2, 4, and 5 do not contribute to a working knowledge of electricity as I see it. There are electrical evaluations better able to describe series and parallel networks.”
From Roger Seymour at TIF Instruments, Miami, FL: “I’m sure you’ll have many more comments on a couple of errors in your ‘Electricity 101’ article. Figure 4 is incorrect and very confusing. And in Figure 5, capacitor D is shorted out. In both cases, ‘aspiring technicians’ will have their understanding made much more difficult than it should be.”
Finally, from Dave Hickman, Dave’s Heating and Air, Sterling, VA: “I noticed that Figure 4 is wrong in the illustration, although its schematic is correct. The positive/negative connections on cell 1 are reversed in the illustration but correct on the corresponding schematic. “Otherwise the article is excellent at enlightening the novice. We enjoy The News tremendously.”