Neil Ardley (1937–2004)

This book has a lot of good information, and, for the most part, the explanations are decently and concisely done. This was a big undertaking, and the end result is... okay. I feel like it's a near miss for what it could have been.

One primary issue was the choice of illustrations. In many circumstances (zippers, inclined planes, etc.) the quasi-cartoony drawings don't matter. But because the book kept with that theme, once it started to get into describing engines and more complicated mechanics, I didn't think the drawings really cut it. If you're introducing this to someone for presumably the first time, more realistic drawings or, gosh, even a picture, would have REALLY helped get some ideas across.

Also, "thematically", ideas didn't go for more than two pages. So I was quite surprised by how short some of the explanations were. I get that is aimed at children, but I did think some of the explanations needed a bit more. I used to review engineering topics in schools, and the steps were a little easier to tackle.

For example, the binary details. The book has a narrative use of mammoths throughout. The mammoth is struggling, with various issues, and inventions help him along. (I think this could help keep interest for those less interested in the topics. For those who are more technically-minded and in it for just the info, these sections becoming annoying things to skip.) The author uses his mammoth narrative and a fictional pumpkin patch to try and draw an analogy to how binary works, and that's the introduction. He says there are two digits, and then goes to explain the on-off basis of computers. I thought the mammoth/pumpkin patch mess was an awful attempt at shortening a binary explanation, and he would have been much better served to take an extra paragraph and just cleanly lay out the traditional power of 2s -for those who want to understand.

There were dozens of instances where I couldn't see what age this book was aiming at. I also didn't understand why the author seemed completely gung-ho against equations of any kind. Again, I guess that was the theme. But there are lots of connections where a clean little equation REALLY makes the idea, and those were left completely out. And they belong! For people like myself, those help a bunch.

I had the older version of this book as a child, and I never took to it. I went on to major in Mechanical and Nuclear Engineering, so it wasn't the subjects. Now that I look back as this an adult, I can see why it didn't suit me. This isn't quite right for the young who are really keen on the topics.

Speaking of which...

A few quotes: "The principle of conversation of energy holds good and all machines obey. Or nearly all. Nuclear machines are an exception." And then: "A nuclear reaction in fact creates energy; it does not convert one form of energy into another."

Magic!

The author does later mention mass to energy, briefly (and not to my satisfaction). And of course we can't have the E=mc^2 equation; that'd be sacrilege. But to put the first quote in your introduction, and then include the second quote your blurb out nuclear energy makes it sound like reactors are breaking Newton's laws, and that mass and energy aren't also in a closed system... that's converting energy.

There's more minor things that I just have to mention. Before discussing reactors, the book mentions fission is specific to either uranium or plutonium, and fusion by hydrogen. Really, the process should be explained, because it's misleading to think it's limited to those elements without explaining why those elements are used. Nitpicky, perhaps, but this is my wheelhouse.

Then, there's this gem, when describing nuclear fusion, "Radiation is not emitted." Blinks. (To be fair, the author does mention neutrons, and I know not everyone counts that as radiation. Regardless.) He had just described the gamma radiation from fission, so I'm assuming the author was on the same kick. But to say no radiation is emitted from fusion reactions?? Wow. That is bold. (Shush, alpha and beta! Nobody cares about you! Be scarier!) And are ya reallllly sure there aren't any gamma rays in fusion? I'm stunned.

I feel bad for being caught up on those few pages in a 400 page book. But I can't get over it. If I feel misled in areas where my knowledge is strong, then I start to be wary of the other information. I knew a lot of it, but not all. Suddenly I don't trust you, Mr. Macaulay.

Anyway. Back to my first thoughts. It's decent. Not great. If someone wants a general overview, this would be okay. If a young'n has a sincere interest in engineering, I would look elsewhere.
… (plus d'informations)