As an author, one always hopes to find and correct all errors and have a perfect result. Although there have been many layers of checks and corrections to this book, some errors came out only in printing and others slipped through. The information below provides corrections to the texts. We appreciate your understanding.

FIRST PRINTING (2015) U.S. Second Edition errata

Figs. 15.5 and 15.6 somehow did not reproduce properly in the printing process. Fig. 8.25 is missing the photgraph that should appear as d). The axis did not reproduce correctly in Fig. 11.13d. Fig. 12.42 has a symbol out of position.

The original of Fig. 15.5 is linked here.

The original of Fig. 15.6 is linked here.

The original of Fig. 8.25d is linked here.

The original of Fig. 11.13 is linked here.

The original of Fig. 12.42 is linked here.

Fig. 2.29: The bottom horizontal line that defines the current source was cropped out in printing.

Fig. 2.50: The horizontal line that defines the bottom connections was cropped out in printing.

Fig. 2.51: The horizontal line that defines the bottom connections was cropped out in printing.

p. 102, Example 3.4.1: in the second to last line on the page, the current ramp is 5000 A/s. The 3 should be a superscript to reflect this.

p. 119, below eq. (3.41): "boost converter must have positive output larger than" rather than "input".

p. 128, Example 3.5.3: The output side inductance is 259.2 mH. (It must be higher than the input side inductance since there are more turns on the output side.)

p. 167, problem 30:

Fig. 4.71: The inductor symbol is missing next to L

p. 192, eqs. (4.37) and (4.38) are correct as written only for m=2. The broader result for alpha+pi/m <= pi/2 is the same as in (4.31). For alpha+pi/m > pi/2, the result is [m V

p. 193 eq. 4.40, the upper integral limit should be min(alpha+pi/m,pi/2).

p. 236 eq. (4.100) should match eq. (4.37), per error on p. 192 given above.

Fig. 5.40: The horizontal line that defines the bottom connections was cropped out in printing.

p. 308, near the bottom, the triangle waveform peak-to-peak value is 3.00 V, as shown in eq. (6.13).

p. 309, eq. (6.14), the peak-to-peak voltage in the numerator should be shown as 3.00 V. The end result, however, is still 2.6 A and the losses are shown correctly.

p. 329, center, the reference current is I

p. 385, the first full line of text: the reluctance is

p. 401, Fig. 8.25: The photo that should appear as part (d) did not print. See above for the original.

p. 403, last paragraph: Table 7.1, not Table 11.1.

pp. 470-471, Example 9.13.1: In the last line on p. 470, the total on-state loss has been written incorrectly. It is 5.6 W, not 8.1 W. On p. 471, without the snubber, the sum of switching and on-state loss is 7.4 W, and the efficiency is 77%. With the snubber, the loss is 6.7 W, and the efficiency is 79%. The thermal computations in eqs. (9.46) and (9.47) are correct as printed.

p. 555, eq. (11.33): The factor of D

p. 566, eq. (11.45): The factor of D

p. 606, third line below eq. (12.59), “ratio ω

p. 619, Fig. 12.42: The symbol

p. 664, problem 13.5 part b, q

p. 665, problem 13.2, the modulating function is cos

Fig. 14.21: The horizontal line that defines the bottom connections was cropped out in printing.

Fig. 14.24: The equations and results are consistent if the arrow direction shown for i

p. 695, Example 14.4.2: there is a numerical error that alters some of the outcome, beginning in the second line. The second integral yields -3.78 μVs. This coefficient should appear in place of -4.76 in eq. (14.51), and the result is V

p. 730: second paragraph, the boundary is the line k

FIRST PRINTING (2016) International Second Edition errata

p. 102, Example 3.4.1: in the second to last line on the page, the current ramp is 5000 A/s. The 3 should be a superscript to reflect this.

p. 119, below eq. (3.41): "boost converter must have positive output larger than" rather than "input".

p. 128, Example 3.5.3: The output side inductance is 259.2 mH. (It must be higher than the input side inductance since there are more turns on the output side.)

p. 192, eqs. (4.37) and (4.38) are correct as written only for m=2. The broader result for alpha+pi/m <= pi/2 is the same as in (4.31). For alpha+pi/m > pi/2, the result is [m V

p. 193 eq. 4.40, the upper integral limit should be min(alpha+pi/m,pi/2).

p. 236 eq. (4.100) should match eq. (4.37), per error on p. 192 given above.

p. 258 Figure 5.15, The horizontal line that defines the bottom switch and connections was cropped out in printing.

p. 308, near the bottom, the triangle waveform peak-to-peak value is 3.00 V, as shown in eq. (6.13).

p. 309, eq. (6.14), the peak-to-peak voltage in the numerator should be shown as 3.00 V. The end result, however, is still 2.6 A and the losses are shown correctly.

p. 337, international edition, problem 6.22 should read: “22. A VSI delivers 50 kW in the form of a square wave into a 5 Ω load at 400 Hz. It is desired to add tuned traps to remove 1200 Hz and 2000 Hz unwanted components. Find L and C values that will accomplish this without altering the output power (based on the 400 Hz component) by more than 2%.”

p. 385, the first full line of text: the reluctance is

p. 401, Fig. 8.25: The photo that should appear as part (d) did not print. See above for the original.

p. 403, last paragraph: Table 7.1, not Table 11.1.

pp. 470-471, Example 9.13.1: In the last line on p. 470, the total on-state loss has been written incorrectly. It is 5.6 W, not 8.1 W. On p. 471, without the snubber, the sum of switching and on-state loss is 7.4 W, and the efficiency is 77%. With the snubber, the loss is 6.7 W, and the efficiency is 79%. The thermal computations in eqs. (9.46) and (9.47) are correct as printed.

p. 491, international edition, problem 3, second line, add “is” to read “modulation depth is such that”.

p. 555 eq. (11.33), remove D

p. 566 eq. (11.45), remove D

p. 606, third line below eq. (12.59), “ratio ω

p. 619, Fig. 12.42: The symbol

Fig. 14.24: The equations and results are consistent if the arrow direction shown for i

p. 695, Example 14.4.2: there is a numerical error that alters some of the outcome, beginning in the second line. The second integral yields -3.78 μVs. This coefficient should appear in place of -4.76 in eq. (14.51), and the result is V

p. 730: second paragraph, the boundary is the line k

Errata will be updated as issues are found.