1 comments about Force and Motion: Stop Faking It! Finally Understanding Science So You Can Teach It.

1. I've never even come close to understanding even one of Newton's laws. I only made it through Physics in college because my brother-in-law is a science whiz, and I took the course over the internet. I am so happy to have come across this book though. For the first time in my life, I think I get it! Robertson's explanations address all of my (to what some people may believe) silly questions respectfully - as if I am the one who is logical for questioning and not grasping it! He explains the rationale behind the concepts in a humorous (sometimes laugh out loud) way - and I walked away wishing I could take a stab at that college physics class once more.

No comments about Fundamentals of Power System Economics.

No comments about China's Energy Future: The Middle Kingdom Seeks Its Place in the Sun.

5 comments about Introduction to High Energy Physics.

1. I just took an intro to particle physics class as a fifth year undergraduate who has had all of the usual courses that one is supposed to have to be able to at least gain a glimpse into the world of particles. This book by Perkins is one of the worst textbooks that I have ever had to use. The examples were limited if any, and the problems seemed not to correlate with the content of the chapters at all. The problems that I did work on I had to reference other texts just to get an idea of what he was talking about. I have to say that Griffiths' (whose EM book was great and his quantum book not all that bad) was much more mathematical and clear, as well as Halzen and Martin. I agree with the other comment. Get another book before ever buying this book. Plus my Professor was not too thrilled with it as well. I ended up buying the Griffiths text in the end, which helped a lot.



2. I used Perkin's book for a one sememester 500 level graduate course. I honestly believe that of the 20+ books that I have used in undergrad and grad school, that this is the absolute worst text I have encountered. The equations in the text are mearly thrown in without the slightest justification or hint of the possible method of derivation. If you would truly understand the significance of the equations, then you would need a background knowledge that I can hardly believe anybody looking for an introduction to high energy physics could have. However, this is far from its biggest pitfall. The book is choppy to read. There are almost no quantitative examples and yet the questions are mostly quantitative. I am sure that I could think of more specifics dislikes, but I think that the reader has seen my opion. To anybody considering buying this text I suggest instead purchasing griffiths "introduction to elementary particles." My class was so displeased with perkins text that our professor has promised to switch to griffiths next year. To reiterate.... Perkins book is the epitome of bad writing. I give my apologies to the author, but I don't want others to waste their time and money on this text. Buy Griffiths Book, it is good!



3. As many previous reviewers have already pointed out, this book is not nearly as good an introduction to theoretical high energy physics as Griffiths' "Introduction to Elementary Particles". The primary reason for this is that Perkins' book was never meant to be read as a theoretical course in the first place. This is why Griffiths introduces Feynman rules and gamma matrices near the middle of the book and uses them extensively throughout the rest; Perkins mentions them in passing in the first chapter and then completely forgets them. In Perkins you will find little rigorous math, but a lot of experimental physics. If you want to understand the theory behind T violation, use Griffiths. If you want to know how physicists measured the electric dipole momentum of the neutron ( thus putting an upper limit on the magnitude of T violation ), Perkins will explain it in detail, together with the schematics of the apparatus they used.
   Overall, this book does not fit its title well - it is not a good introduction to high energy physics ( unless you are so totally averse to math that you can't manage Griffiths or Peskin/Shroeder ). However, it has its own purpose - that is, to teach experimental methods in high energy physics. It probably should be studied after Griffiths by those who are interested in experimental side of particle physics.



4. Basically, If you want theoretical approach stop reading this and buy griffiths' book, it's a lot better.
   I'm using Perkins for a course mainly made up of senior undergraduates. First of all, a lot of the other reviewers have ripped the book to shreds, and most of their complaints are valid. I'd like to point out that this book actually attempts a fairly difficult task of introducing relatively advanced concepts which require qft, to students without any background in field theory.
   The long and the short of it is... Perkins' book is geared for learning with a phenomonological, experimental approach. This results in a lot of hand waving, and not many mathematical or theoretical insights. If you're expecting these things, the book will be dissapointing.
   All of this aside, there are some major flaws in the book. First of all, it kind of lacks on organization. There are a lot of charts, tables and graphs thrown about at random, and with little reasoning or thought. This makes Perkins' fairly useless as a reference, since you might have to look at four or more different charts to find out the relevant properties of a given particle.
   My other major complaint, is that Perkins uses a lot of jargon without sufficiently introducing the terminology. While, this is fine for people who already know particle physics, I'm guessing that if you're reading this book, you don't already know particle physics.
   Finally, despite being a fourth addition, there are still a bunch of misprints/omissions. For example, there's a question (which i conveniently had for a homework assignment) totally based on a concept not mentioned anywhere within the book. Google searches on the topic led only to obscure and inaccessible papers.
   Basically, if you have to use this book for a course be prepared to read and re-read each section of it, and to suppliment with other books. I'd suggest buying griffiths along with it, event if you're not into the whole theory thing.



5. This is a book whose content is close to that of most 'traditional' undergraduate courses on particle physics. Yet, you will probably be tempted to throw it in the dustbin after a few pages unless you have trained yourself into thinking that it's better reading it than failing your exam and have already read a book like Giffiths' before, where you will find some good theoretical basis for all this stuff.

3 comments about Energy Audit of Building Systems: An Engineering Approach (Mechanical Engineering Series).

1. Interesante libro. Recomendable para ser leido



2. Useful and hepful in the aproaching to energy saving process.
   Units in I.S. (for europeans users.)



3. ...with many interesting and relevant worked examples. One of the best building energy audit books available. The occasional non-standard phrase and innumerable arithmetical typos will challenge the student, however. The author could address the latter with an errata Web page.

No comments about Renewable Energy Resources.

No comments about Thin-Film Solar Cells: Next Generation Photovoltaics and Its Applications (Springer Series in Photonics).

No comments about Energy (Robertson, William C. Stop Faking It!,).

3 comments about Oil and the Future of Energy: Climate Repair * Hydrogen * Nuclear Fuel * Renewable and Green Sources * Energy Efficiency.

1. This book is an anthology. Its first major article is one by Colin Campbell and Jean LaHerrere that predicts that a decline in world oil production will begin before 2010. The other major article is one on global warming by James Hansen. The remainder of the book is a collection of articles on topics that offer solutions to these issues, such as hydrogen fuel cells, nuclear energy, or energy efficiency. Even though the title is "Oil (in very large letters) and the Future of Energy", the vast majority of the articles deal with replacements for fossil fuel energy in general, rather than replacements for liquid fuel.
   
   Peak oil is a topic that is not very familiar to most readers, but the topic is not covered very extensively. Besides Campbell and LaHerrere's article, the only other peak oil item is a book review (Hubbert's Peak by Kenneth Deffeyes). It is left to the reader's imagination what impact a decline in oil production, starting about now, might have. The book is not entirely up to date -- it fails to mention that there is already some evidence that world oil production may have started to decline - hence all the concern we keep seeing about oil prices, oil shortages, biofuels, etc.
   
   Clearly, if there is a decline in oil production, starting about now, there is a need to find some sort of liquid fuel replacement. The book says virtually nothing about biofuels (except for a few paragraphs in Daniel Kammen's article). Most of the energy solutions presented would require many years to implement. Since this is an anthology, there is no need to explain this "detail". On a topic of this importance, I would have preferred more narrative, explaining exactly what is happening with respect to peak oil, what the consequences are likely to be, and what solutions that might be expected in particular time frames.
   



2. Well, as tempting as the use of the video review option is I am not quite that cruel. This collection of articles from Scientific America was about the dullest piece of work I have ever had the misfortune to be required to read. In addition to the monotonous repetitive bilge that spills from its paper back binding the editors of SA seem to have left out a crucial component to any good scientific publication...references. Yes, it seems that each article is very well written yet void of a reference as to where it came from. Blah Blah Blah...have a nice day.
   
   -tom



3. I don't know what the other previous 2 star reviews were complaining about. I received this book yesterday and thought it was a great book for people wanting to learn more about not only oil but other forms of fuels and alternative fuels. This book does talk about bio-fuels as well (under "bio-mass fuels"), contrary to what one reviewer said. The diagrams were great and they even had a section in color with some great computer generated graphics/diagrams. Since it's edited by the people at Scientific American, it is not too simple, yet not too technical either. Actually, I kind of wished they "dumbed it down" for readers who are not as technically familiar with how fuels are processed.
   Overall, I thought it was a great primer on fuels and will allow the reader to better understand this topic.

5 comments about The Solar Fraud: Why Solar Energy Won't Run the World, Second Edition.

1. page 10 is misleading, comparing the 6% output of solar power generation versus the predicted 36% of 2000 projection of "soft energy paths". So the author is equating all soft energies with just solar. Amory Lovins soft energy paths wasn't just talking about solar, it was talking about all soft energies (all different types of renewables AND co-generation!) in that 36%, which turned out to be very close to projection. This is an example of the lack of thoroughness, or possibly, intentional misleading by the author.
   
   I agree that solar is an expensive technology for the efficiency rates it achieves, but consider this: If we had the same subsidies in renewable technologies as coal and oil do, how much better would they be now? Seems like coal and oil are the only ones that don't play by the rules of the "free market" w/o help, especially if you take into account the indirect subsidies of needing to protect pipelines or go to war.



2. The Solar Fraud: Why Solar Energy Won't Run the World, Second Edition
   
   I found this book to be an utter triple waste. A waste of money buying it; a waste of time reading it; and waste of paper (and trees) printing it. Mr. Hayden offers nothing but quibbling, carping, and criticism; no valid solutions whatsoever for the energy predicament in which we find ourselves. If I could give this book zero stars, or a negative number of them, I would.



3. This book is much the best introduction to solar energy's prospects and possibilities. It makes the science easy, and puts the politics of solar energy firmly in the context of the physics of the possible. A highly recommended guide for anyone considering a solar project, and also a superb guide for those who seek to influence or to understand energy policy.



4. First of all, there is plenty of daytime solar and nighttime wind energy to meet our national and global energy needs. Check out Scientific American, January 2008 issue, which says 69% of US energy needs can be met by solar by 2050. Secondly, this was written before First Solar is now at $1.14 cost of production per watt with 10.6% solar efficiency (source - latest First Solar conference call). First Solar expects grid parity by 2012! This book, in my opinion, is poorly written and a waste of time. Thank you.



5. I bought this book to see if it had any new information regarding solar power - I was hoping for a reasoned discourse on why solar power faced insurmountable technical or other challenges. Instead it was a one sided discussion of the very old and tired about how solar would never scale and was to expensive. It made no mention of the incredible progress being made in solar costs - how solar is already cost competitive with peak power in many sunny places and how the rise in fuel/power prices was likely to make breakeven come sooner. I found this book to have no useful insights at all.