A rant about a Chris Kitcher book

[rustynails]

I bought this book over a year and half ago to do 2382/2392. Back then I noticed a few small things that were not right. Especially when cross referencing them with the GN3 etc. Afer doing some of the exercises in the back of the Chris Kitcher book on Inspection and testing second edition it appears that some of the basic principles for calculating R1 + R2 are not correct. In particular it is the books lack of ability to divise the r1 + r2/4 to get an approximation of R1 + R2 calculated from the m/ohm/m value and the length of the circuit given to you in the exercise. All of the answers lack the division. It's either me or I'm going banana's. But I feel let down by this book that I've paid hard earned money for lol something that if I didn't have any other book I would be calculating the incorrect answers...does anyone agree with me, has anyone seen this as well.

 

[happysteve]

Ah right, I see where you're coming from, now.

In my version, it's been half corrected, but it's still wrong! In my book, it says:

From table 41.2 Zs for a 5A BS 3036 fuse is 9.58 ohm.
The r1+r2 value for 1mm copper from Table 9A is 36.2mOhm.
Maximum resistance permissible for the cable:

9.58 - 0.45 = 9.13 Ohm <---- Ah ha!

(then it all goes down hill...)

Maximum length of circuit is:

18.05 x 1000 /36.2 = 498M <--- what the....?

So yeah, not the greatest feat of proof reading!

On the other hand, I challenge you to find another book that's written with as much common sense and as nicely illustrated with photographs as this one. I'm glad I bought it, but probably won't be using it for the questions (or if I do, I'll treat the answers with a pinch of salt)!

 

[Geoffsd]

I don't know.

It should clearly be 9.58 - 0.45 = 9.13 etc.

 

[PEG]

Agreed

GN3 is not without its own errors:

View attachment 26786

This is meant to represent an IR test of a single final circuit (as opposed to an IR test of the complete installation, which is shown correctly in the previous figure).

...mmm this was one of my first ever posts,on this forum,having purchased a new copy of said manuscript.....but,if we are spotting errors,at least these books have taught us something...i have a few books penned by Chris Kitcher,being a collector of books,and find them to be very explicit,and well written. There are errors and issues in most journals,whilst at college,due to my mothers lifelong belief in NOT having an opinion on something,without knowing about it,i read both the Bible,and the Quoran,and let me tell you.........:conehead:

 

[telectrix]

Quoran? thought they made fake sausages.

 

[PEG]

Quoran? thought they made fake sausages.

Both journals contain a mixture of ingredients,some more wholesome than others,squoze into the constraints of a narrow envelope,with a series of twists,separating the contents at intervals.Some eat it regularly.Some try it now and again.But,in my limited opinion,you cannot live an entire life relying on just one sausage...my names peg,and i'm on all week :conehead:

 

[Kitch1]

I bought this book over a year and half ago to do 2382/2392. Back then I noticed a few small things that were not right. Especially when cross referencing them with the GN3 etc. Afer doing some of the exercises in the back of the Chris Kitcher book on Inspection and testing second edition it appears that some of the basic principles for calculating R1 + R2 are not correct. In particular it is the books lack of ability to divise the r1 + r2/4 to get an approximation of R1 + R2 calculated from the m/ohm/m value and the length of the circuit given to you in the exercise. All of the answers lack the division. It's either me or I'm going banana's. But I feel let down by this book that I've paid hard earned money for lol something that if I didn't have any other book I would be calculating the incorrect answers...does anyone agree with me, has anyone seen this as well.

Hi, I must apologise for the mistake. It is the first time that I have been made aware of it and will certainly make sure that it is corrected for the next publication. Unfortunately mistakes / printing errors do occur sometimes for various reasons and I am well aware of how annoying they can be when you are trying to understand something, particularly a calculation.

It my have been a lack of concentration on my part or a publishers printing error, I am happy to take responsibility for both, sorry for any confusion. Kindest regards, Chris

 

[pennychew]

Hi, I must apologise for the mistake. It is the first time that I have been made aware of it and will certainly make sure that it is corrected for the next publication. Unfortunately mistakes / printing errors do occur sometimes for various reasons and I am well aware of how annoying they can be when you are trying to understand something, particularly a calculation.

It my have been a lack of concentration on my part or a publishers printing error, I am happy to take responsibility for both, sorry for any confusion. Kindest regards, Chris

I think the book is a good read and I really enjoyed the videos that go with it, easy to watch and well explained. [emoji106]

 

[atm84]

I have got Chris Kitcher's book 'Guide to BS7671' and its full of mistakes. I actually contacted the publisher and they got back in touch to say that they didn't have the rights to it anymore and that it had been bought by another publisher. I contacted them but they haven't fit back in touch.

 

[Pete999]

I bought this book over a year and half ago to do 2382/2392. Back then I noticed a few small things that were not right. Especially when cross referencing them with the GN3 etc. Afer doing some of the exercises in the back of the Chris Kitcher book on Inspection and testing second edition it appears that some of the basic principles for calculating R1 + R2 are not correct. In particular it is the books lack of ability to divise the r1 + r2/4 to get an approximation of R1 + R2 calculated from the m/ohm/m value and the length of the circuit given to you in the exercise. All of the answers lack the division. It's either me or I'm going banana's. But I feel let down by this book that I've paid hard earned money for lol something that if I didn't have any other book I would be calculating the incorrect answers...does anyone agree with me, has anyone seen this as well.

Bit late complaining now that you bought 18 months ago.

 

[newtothis]

Blimey ! the last thing I need is a book with duff info.
What about the ones City & Guilds are flogging specifically designed for each course number.

 

[pennychew]

Very rarely read my c+g book to be honest!

 

[PEG]

Hi, I must apologise for the mistake. It is the first time that I have been made aware of it and will certainly make sure that it is corrected for the next publication. Unfortunately mistakes / printing errors do occur sometimes for various reasons and I am well aware of how annoying they can be when you are trying to understand something, particularly a calculation.

It my have been a lack of concentration on my part or a publishers printing error, I am happy to take responsibility for both, sorry for any confusion. Kindest regards, Chris

Respect due for reply,content and intention :icon12:

I have several of your publications,and have found them to be excellent.

They are concise,well laid out,and the explanations are as good as is possible,bridging the gap between technical,and layman.

Collecting books is a hobby of mine,and i have no issue recommending journals of the above standard.

There are errors,in the Oxford Concise,the Magna Carta,and the Bible......

A book with zero mistakes has probably been read by the same number of people... :conehead:

 

[SPARTYKUS]

Hello Chris

I too used your fantastic book to aid and abet me through my 2391-10.... It was bloody brilliant thank you

 

[GB.Kayak]

Respect due for reply,content and intention :icon12:

I have several of your publications,and have found them to be excellent.

They are concise,well laid out,and the explanations are as good as is possible,bridging the gap between technical,and layman.

Collecting books is a hobby of mine,and i have no issue recommending journals of the above standard.

There are errors,in the Oxford Concise,the Magna Carta,and the Bible......

A book with zero mistakes has probably been read by the same number of people... :conehead:

... now I really am interested ... errors in the bible; chapter and verse please ... the source of your claim and evidence upon which you base it?

 

[Deleted member 72666]

Has Kitch left the building.... and did anyone get his autograph?