17 of 17 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars
Still a great reference, December 22, 2005
This review is from: Physics for Scientists and Engineers (3rd Edition) (Hardcover)
I used this book for my highschool AP Physics class in 2001-2002. I just finished the Fall 2005 school semester as a mechanical engineering major, and I have to say that this is by far the most worn-out book I own. I still occasionally pull it out. I own three other textbooks in physics at this level, and I've seen many others; I think this is the most well-written book I've seen for this material. If your instructor doesn't require this book, and if you can find a cheap used copy, I'd recommend getting this to supplement your studies. The pictures and diagrams are great. The text is clear. The formulas are easy to follow. Yes, the problems are rough, but they force you to have a good foundation in calculus, which is absolutely necessary in later courses. Most physics books have similar problems anyway. This isn't the book to get if you need help in math, which is the #1 reason for physics difficulties these days.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
17 of 19 people found the following review helpful:
2.0 out of 5 stars
blehhh, December 17, 2003
This review is from: Physics for Scientists and Engineers (3rd Edition) (Hardcover)
Like the other reviewer from UCB, I had to use Giancoli for two semesters of physics, and this book did not help me one bit. All it did was make me feel completely helpless. The explanations of most concepts are pretty clear and concise. The problem is when you get to the problems.
Most of the practice problems at the end of the chapters are much harder than the level at which the actual text covers the physics. As another reviewer said, this book may be good if you've taken a rigorous Honors Physics or AP Physics class in high school, but not everyone has. If your high school only offered a regular college-prep physics class (non-calculus based at that), you will suffer from all the knowledge that it is assumed you can automatically derive or figure out (as if it were common sense) on your own.
I highly regret not looking for other, better, physics textbooks at the time I took my introductory physics classes. I urge anyone who doesn't feel like they already have a good solid background in calculus-based physics, and is assigned this book, to go and find one that explains things in a more in-depth way. Physics is all about the problems, if you can't do the problems then you're screwed in the class. This book does not help you figure out how to solve problems.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
14 of 16 people found the following review helpful:
3.0 out of 5 stars
An inadequate introduction to physics, April 19, 2002
This review is from: Physics for Scientists and Engineers (3rd Edition) (Hardcover)
Physics without vectors and calculus (and hence, vector calculus) is a nightmare.
Relying on special cases where symmetry allows you only to consider convenient angles and where interesting little tools like Stokes' theorem allow you to resolve Maxwell's equations into dot products perhaps may be convenient for the student only seeking to cop out of any real calculation, but is a nightmare for the student actually trying to learn the material.
In the sections on electromagnetism, Giancoli considers only special cases where he first tells you, for instance, how to find the E field of a ring on a plane, and then, using that knowledge, how to find the field of a cylinder and very slightly more complicated objects. It is true that he states important formulas, like the Biot-Savart law, in their correct, vector calculus form, but then he goes on to treat the student as if he had never seen vectors before and has only a rudimentary knowledge of integration, and thus must be pampered so that he's only dealing with situations of very high symmetry where a lot of things cancel out.
It is true that the good physicist reduces his problems to the most simple form possible, but he does so with the knowledge of how difficult the calculation can be -- knowing the general form of being able to calculate the E field for ANY charge distribution, for instance, but then being able to draw from his own knowledge of symmetry and/or ingenuity to reduce a difficult problem to an easy one. A student who only integrates over sphere his whole life will be unprepared for any real-world theoretical applications -- for he is a specialist in spheres only!
With the equations being over-simplified, Giancoli is able to cover a lot more material than an E&M class that concentrates on how to do the equations in their most general form, thus packing in a year or more of material into less than a semester. This confuses the bright student, leaving her wondering how all the ideas and equations he states and half-derives have any connection with one another --- while in a class where the treatment of the material was more thorough, she would be taught the most general form from the outset.
If you are an instructor looking to assign this book, don't let yourself be blinded by its seemingly easy mathematics. It, in fact, is harder to learn from Giancoli than it is from a book that does a more thorough treatment, and I guarantee your students will forget everything they did in your class by the next semester. I, in fact, highly recommend a different introductory book that does an excellent job -- a book called "University Physics" by Reese.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No