Notices
Results 1 to 11 of 11

Thread: The modern way to sketch basic physics

  1. #1 The modern way to sketch basic physics 
    Forum Ph.D. william's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Wherever I go, there I am
    Posts
    935
    This is pretty neat.

    youtube video


    Cheers


    "... the polhode rolls without slipping on the herpolhode lying in the invariable plane."
    ~Footnote in Goldstein's Mechanics, 3rd ed. p. 202
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope MagiMaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    3,440
    Wow. I want one.


    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    2,178
    Quote Originally Posted by MagiMaster
    Wow. I want one.
    Seems like more hype to me.

    By the time you tell the computer the mass, the density, surface hardness, of all those different things in that tiny little demonstration. A demonstration that most builders and designers already know the outcome of. You would be better off going into the garage and just building it.



    Sincerely,


    William McCormick
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Forum Professor serpicojr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    JRZ
    Posts
    1,069
    You've got to be a crass old curmudgeon to think that this can't be useful in high school physics classrooms.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Forum Ph.D. william's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Wherever I go, there I am
    Posts
    935
    This guy should sketch the airplane on the conveyor.
    "... the polhode rolls without slipping on the herpolhode lying in the invariable plane."
    ~Footnote in Goldstein's Mechanics, 3rd ed. p. 202
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Forum Professor serpicojr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    JRZ
    Posts
    1,069
    No, you'd be better off building it in your garage.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    2,178
    Quote Originally Posted by serpicojr
    You've got to be a crass old curmudgeon to think that this can't be useful in high school physics classrooms.
    Did you read the next post after yours. The airplane on the conveyor?

    Could you do it sure. But to be honest if you cannot figure it out, you will not be able to program the computer. If you can figure it out, you do not need the computer demonstration.

    Unless it is a real demonstration. Not a computer simulation. You should see the real thing not a computer simulation. Especially for learning.

    Over the years I had only a few chemistry and science teachers that could actualy perform experiments to a useful conclusion. Other teachers that could not do them did not really believe in them.

    I do computer simulations and animations of real things. However I suggest you try them yourself.

    Here is one that many lose fingers and hands over.

    http://www.Rockwelder.com/Flash/brea...breakwave.html

    I have a video of a break/brake press but it does not clearly show this phenomena. You can demonstrate it with a yard stick or other similar object.

    Place the object on another object to create a see-saw. Then put one hand under the one end of the stick, so that the stick is just above that hand but not touching. Then hit the other side of the stick with your other hand downward.

    In real life, this phenomena manifests itself in some strange ways. A guy I used to work with Ray Boben, had actually shown me this phenomena manifested in railings. And although I knew it existed from my fathers lessons, and by actual test on singular pieces of metal. Ray showed me the phenomena, manifested over a longer distance.

    He was a master of railings. And loved phenomena. He showed me a long rail, that was built very well. The uprights were one inch solid iron balusters. Mounted with hydraulic cement into solid concrete.

    The rails were not very high. He said what do I think of them. I knew from building such rails twenty feet long that they would be much stronger then necessary. Or so I thought.

    It appeared that over that distance a rail that should have made itself actually stronger and stronger, with all the extra balusters anchored into the ground. Actually was unstable due to this wave phenomena over a longer distance. It was a perfectly tuned self destructive, railing. You actually had to stop it. Because it just seemed to keep moving.

    If you gave it a push, it would start to violently shake, the whole way up the 100 foot long rail. To someone that knows rails fairly well, they would say no way. To an engineer they will still deny it is true. Because it breaks all their rules of engineering.


    Sincerely,


    William McCormick
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Forum Professor serpicojr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    JRZ
    Posts
    1,069
    William, I'm not saying that this program is useful for, say, university physics labs or engineering firms. This is useful for physics classrooms in cash-strapped, overcrowded, understaffed high schools. They'll welcome this program with fucking bells on.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    2,178
    Quote Originally Posted by serpicojr
    William, I'm not saying that this program is useful for, say, university physics labs or engineering firms. This is useful for physics classrooms in cash-strapped, overcrowded, understaffed high schools. They'll welcome this program with fucking bells on.

    Just like they welcomed the neutron, boson, meson, pion, gluon, quark and slew of others, I am highly embarrassed of.

    You cannot prove a single one of those particles. But some are basing reality on them. Just like they will start to believe the computer simulation over reality.

    They need to get off their butts, and do something real. The reason they don't, is because they will be exposed as very poor physics teachers. The ones that do a few experiments will stand with me.

    Sincerely,


    William McCormick
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Forum Professor serpicojr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    JRZ
    Posts
    1,069
    Dude, schools simply do not have enough time and resources to have students build a working example of everything they learn in physics. By necessity, most of what they do in the classroom is abstracted and simplified to the point that students are just dealing with words and pictures and equations. Not everyone is blessed with the ability to visualize a physical system in motion given this information. This tool is invaluable for such individuals--it's a cheap way to give people a rough picture of what's happening in simple physical situations.

    You have a very constructivist idea of learning: in your ideal world, education is student-directed and hands-on, and ultimately understanding is created by the student as opposed to knowledge being passed down from the teacher. I think you'd be surprised to learn that this form of pedagogy is very popular in the education research world, and you may also be surprised that I'm a fan of the idea. However, reality dictates that this philosophy cannot be followed strictly: our country does not devote enough resources to education, there is a certain set of knowledge which people need to have, and, frankly, people need to learn to trust the expertise of others. This criticism should appeal to you: it's nice to have an ideal vision of the world, but it's silly to apply it when it doesn't fit reality.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    2,178
    Quote Originally Posted by serpicojr
    Dude, schools simply do not have enough time and resources to have students build a working example of everything they learn in physics. By necessity, most of what they do in the classroom is abstracted and simplified to the point that students are just dealing with words and pictures and equations. Not everyone is blessed with the ability to visualize a physical system in motion given this information. This tool is invaluable for such individuals--it's a cheap way to give people a rough picture of what's happening in simple physical situations.

    You have a very constructivist idea of learning: in your ideal world, education is student-directed and hands-on, and ultimately understanding is created by the student as opposed to knowledge being passed down from the teacher. I think you'd be surprised to learn that this form of pedagogy is very popular in the education research world, and you may also be surprised that I'm a fan of the idea. However, realitynot devote enough resources to education, there is a certain set of knowledge which people need to have, and, frankly, people need to lehave an ideal vision of the world, but it's silly to apply it when it doesn't fit realityarn to trust the expertise of others. This criticism should appeal to you: it's nice to . dictates that this philosophy cannot be followed strictly: our country does
    I think you hit the nail on the head there. When you said "cheap way".

    Lets package up that cheap hunk of junk, and send it to Pakistan, Somalia, if either country would even want it.

    Heck they could simulate the fuel filled choppers getting shot down over a fifth world nation. And relive the proof that we are not a first world nation.

    Do you know where money comes from? It does not represent gold anymore.
    It is printed, and given to individuals, who mine products from the ground, and turn them into tradable items. They farm food. They grow livestock. They give the money the worth. It did not cost the government a penny to print it.
    Especially when that dollar changes hands many times. They get the dollar back a hundred fold sometimes in collected taxes.

    There were no income taxes, before world war two for poor to upper middle class. The government pitted the poor against the rich, because the government could not touch the rich. Eventually the poor voted in a tax that was as high as 75 percent of a rich persons income.

    The rich hated the poor after that. Just a couple years later the rich did not stop the government from taxing the poor. Up until that time they would not allow it.

    George Washington said if there ever be a tax, after a government had failed in their duties to keep the country prepared for war. Let the war tax be no greater then a penny tax on the dollar. For anymore will actually hinder the flow of funds to the government.

    So we know that the government is a bunch of seething losers that merely want satisfaction from our suffering. Misery loves company. We don't even have a space program.


    Sincerely,


    William McCormick
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •