Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics > #524213 > unrolled thread
| Started by | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2015-10-02 01:17 -0700 |
| Last post | 2015-10-04 07:53 -0500 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 98 — 28 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics
green stars The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-10-02 01:17 -0700
Re: green stars Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-10-02 08:19 -0500
Re: green stars john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2015-10-02 06:30 -0700
Re: green stars Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-10-02 08:59 -0500
Re: green stars benj <nobody@gmail.com> - 2015-10-02 12:24 -0400
Re: green stars HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2015-10-05 10:19 -0700
Re: green stars Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2015-10-03 12:14 +0200
Re: green stars Yousuf Khan <bbbl67@spammenot.yahoo.com> - 2015-10-02 14:40 -0400
Re: green stars djheydt@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) - 2015-10-02 22:18 +0000
Re: green stars Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-10-02 17:45 -0500
Re: green stars Angelo <patrizio.pan-2002@libero.it> - 2015-10-05 08:30 -0700
Re: green stars Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy <taustinca@gmail.com> - 2015-10-02 16:02 -0700
Re: green stars djheydt@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) - 2015-10-03 02:29 +0000
Re: green stars Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy <taustinca@gmail.com> - 2015-10-02 22:29 -0700
Re: green stars Joy Beeson <jbeeson@invalid.net.invalid> - 2015-10-03 23:49 -0300
Re: green stars "Mike Dworetsky" <platinum198@pants.btinternet.com> - 2015-10-04 08:48 +0100
Re: green stars Cryptoengineer <treifamily@gmail.com> - 2015-10-04 11:07 -0500
Re: green stars "Brian M. Scott" <b.scott@csuohio.edu> - 2015-10-04 12:50 -0400
Re: green stars Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy <taustinca@gmail.com> - 2015-10-04 10:54 -0700
Re: green stars "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2015-10-04 13:21 -0400
Re: green stars Greg Goss <gossg@gossg.org> - 2015-10-04 11:15 -0600
Re: green stars Stumpy <perilmung@spamnet.con> - 2015-10-05 13:39 -0700
Re: green stars "Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)" <seawasp@sgeinc.invalid.com> - 2015-10-04 09:27 -0400
Re: green stars William Vetter <mdhangton@gmail.com> - 2015-10-04 16:45 -0400
Re: green stars Yousuf Khan <bbbl67@spammenot.yahoo.com> - 2015-10-03 17:40 -0400
Re: green stars Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy <taustinca@gmail.com> - 2015-10-03 14:51 -0700
Re: green stars djheydt@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) - 2015-10-03 21:54 +0000
Re: green stars Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy <taustinca@gmail.com> - 2015-10-03 17:24 -0700
Re: green stars wdstarr@panix.com (William December Starr) - 2015-10-04 06:46 -0400
Re: green stars djheydt@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) - 2015-10-04 13:15 +0000
Re: green stars jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2015-10-04 14:27 +0000
Re: green stars djheydt@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) - 2015-10-04 16:53 +0000
Re: green stars jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2015-10-05 13:02 +0000
Re: green stars djheydt@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) - 2015-10-05 14:39 +0000
Re: green stars jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2015-10-06 13:34 +0000
Re: green stars djheydt@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) - 2015-10-06 14:24 +0000
Re: green stars jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2015-10-07 13:18 +0000
Re: green stars Yousuf Khan <bbbl67@spammenot.yahoo.com> - 2015-10-07 19:27 -0400
Re: green stars "Brian M. Scott" <b.scott@csuohio.edu> - 2015-10-07 19:43 -0400
Re: green stars Greg Goss <gossg@gossg.org> - 2015-10-08 01:58 -0600
Re: green stars The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-10-08 01:11 -0700
Re: green stars The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-10-08 13:49 -0700
Re: green stars The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-10-08 21:20 -0700
Re: green stars The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-10-09 22:04 -0700
Re: green stars wdstarr@panix.com (William December Starr) - 2015-10-08 08:19 -0400
Re: green stars pnalsing@gmail.com - 2015-10-08 08:59 -0700
Re: green stars Greg Goss <gossg@gossg.org> - 2015-10-09 00:10 -0600
Re: green stars William Vetter <mdhangton@gmail.com> - 2015-10-09 13:19 -0400
Re: green stars wdstarr@panix.com (William December Starr) - 2015-10-09 21:27 -0400
Re: green stars Greg Goss <gossg@gossg.org> - 2015-10-10 20:12 -0600
Re: green stars Lofty Goat <rlwatkins@gmail.com> - 2015-10-05 19:08 -0500
Re: green stars Dimensional Traveler <dtravel@sonic.net> - 2015-10-05 17:20 -0700
Re: green stars djheydt@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) - 2015-10-06 01:09 +0000
Re: green stars "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2015-10-05 22:21 -0400
Re: green stars djheydt@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) - 2015-10-06 02:33 +0000
Re: green stars "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2015-10-05 23:03 -0400
Re: green stars Dimensional Traveler <dtravel@sonic.net> - 2015-10-05 22:03 -0700
Re: green stars Wayne Brown <fwbrown@bellsouth.net> - 2015-10-08 19:38 +0000
Re: green stars djheydt@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) - 2015-10-08 22:19 +0000
Re: green stars The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-10-08 16:14 -0700
Re: green stars The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-10-08 16:16 -0700
Re: green stars pnalsing@gmail.com - 2015-10-08 17:33 -0700
Re: green stars The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-10-08 19:33 -0700
Re: green stars pnalsing@gmail.com - 2015-10-08 19:59 -0700
Re: green stars "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2015-10-08 21:36 -0400
Re: green stars djheydt@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) - 2015-10-09 04:19 +0000
Re: green stars The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-10-09 11:12 -0700
Re: green stars scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2015-10-09 14:05 +0000
Re: green stars "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2015-10-08 18:57 -0400
Re: green stars jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2015-10-06 13:34 +0000
Re: green stars Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy <taustinca@gmail.com> - 2015-10-04 10:57 -0700
Re: green stars "Brian M. Scott" <b.scott@csuohio.edu> - 2015-10-04 10:41 -0400
Re: green stars wdstarr@panix.com (William December Starr) - 2015-10-04 13:43 -0400
Re: green stars wdstarr@panix.com (William December Starr) - 2015-10-02 22:38 -0400
Re: green stars Yousuf Khan <bbbl67@spammenot.yahoo.com> - 2015-10-03 17:37 -0400
Re: green stars Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy <taustinca@gmail.com> - 2015-10-03 14:52 -0700
Re: green stars Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-10-03 17:36 -0500
Re: green stars The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-10-05 01:39 -0700
Re: green stars The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-10-05 01:55 -0700
Re: green stars The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-10-05 01:17 -0700
Re: green stars Yousuf Khan <bbbl67@spammenot.yahoo.com> - 2015-10-05 14:04 -0400
Re: green stars Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-10-05 13:07 -0500
Re: green stars The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-10-05 12:58 -0700
Re: green stars The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-10-05 23:52 -0700
Re: green stars The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-10-06 10:24 -0700
Re: green stars pnalsing@gmail.com - 2015-10-06 11:39 -0700
Re: green stars The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-10-06 12:35 -0700
Re: green stars pnalsing@gmail.com - 2015-10-06 13:20 -0700
Re: green stars The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-10-06 15:15 -0700
Re: green stars The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-10-06 15:31 -0700
Re: green stars pnalsing@gmail.com - 2015-10-06 15:58 -0700
Re: green stars The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-10-06 23:12 -0700
Re: green stars The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-10-06 23:34 -0700
Re: green stars The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-10-07 00:49 -0700
Re: green stars The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-10-08 21:24 -0700
Re: green stars "reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2015-10-02 13:26 -0700
Re: green stars "reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2015-10-06 09:58 -0700
Re: green stars Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-10-04 07:53 -0500
Page 2 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 5 Next page →
| From | Greg Goss <gossg@gossg.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-04 11:15 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <d7d56kFmhttU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #524516 |
Cryptoengineer <treifamily@gmail.com> wrote: >"Mike Dworetsky" <platinum198@pants.btinternet.com> wrote in >news:nN6dnXmNp_gsRI3LnZ2dnUU78UednZ2d@supernews.com: > >> Joy Beeson wrote: >>> I figured it out when I wondered why I never see electric stove >>> burners glowing read. > >In my youth, growing up in Europe, I saw electric stove burners >glowing cherry red often enough that it was unremarkable. > >This wasn't the big flat disk type of burner that's most common >here in the US - they were open spirals of metal, a little under >a centimeter thick. > >They were also running at 220V, which might make a difference. The spiral glowing red is the normal burner in North America. When I was young, the common burner was TWO spirals, and either or both were turned on to combine to various of seven power settings. Flat plate burners are rare here. Glass top may be more common that flat plate, but still uncommon. And we use 220 for high-power units like a stove, dryer, water heater or baseboard heating. -- We are geeks. Resistance is voltage over current.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Stumpy <perilmung@spamnet.con> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-05 13:39 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <mpqdncso3PWQfY_LnZ2dnUU7-VOdnZ2d@earthlink.com> |
| In reply to | #524526 |
> > The spiral glowing red is the normal burner in North America. When I > was young, the common burner was TWO spirals, and either or both were > turned on to combine to various of seven power settings. Flat plate > burners are rare here. Glass top may be more common that flat plate, > but still uncommon. > > And we use 220 for high-power units like a stove, dryer, water heater > or baseboard heating. > I'll show you my American, 1970's 220v stovetop. Over on alt.binaries.schematics Had some problem the first time.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)" <seawasp@sgeinc.invalid.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-04 09:27 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <mur9bm$166$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #524470 |
On 10/3/15 10:49 PM, Joy Beeson wrote:
>
> I figured it out when I wondered why I never see electric stove
> burners glowing read.
Switch off the lights and you do. Or at least I do. I watch it go
smoothly from dull-red to cherry-red to orange, yellow, and then
white-hot (well, the burners don't get that high, but I worked with my
dad when he was blacksmithing).
--
Sea Wasp
/^\
;;;
Website: http://www.grandcentralarena.com Blog:
http://seawasp.livejournal.com
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | William Vetter <mdhangton@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-04 16:45 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <mus310$apr$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #524470 |
Joy Beeson wrote: > I figured it out when I wondered why I never see electric stove > burners glowing read. > > Start with a burner that's merely warm. You can feel the infra-red > radiation coming off it, but the coils are black. > > As the burner heats, it gives off more infra red, but the peak of the > spectrum its giving off shifts blueward, so it also gives off a little > red. But it's very little red, and you'd have to be thoroughly > dark-adapted to see it. > > As it heats further, it give off more infra-red, and more red, but > when the peak is in the red, there is a lot of orange and yellow and > green and blue in the sloping tail, just as there is a lot of > infra-red in the other sloping tail. > > Even though the peak is in the red, there's enough higher-frequency > light that you don't see a pure-red red. > > Get it a little hotter and the peak goes higher and shifts a little > more, and you see a definite orange. > > We've pulled a safety device off somewhere, and this being a gedanken > experiment, the coils won't melt as the burner keeps heating and the > peak emission gets higher and bluer. > > As the light gets brighter and the peak moves into the yellow area, > the light gets paler as well as yellower, and once it's pure yellow, > it just gets paler. And when the peak hits green, we get pure white > light, because green is right in the middle, and there is as much > long-wave radiation below it as there is short-wave radiation above > it. > > Which makes me wonder why plants reject green light instead of using > it. > > Still hotter, and the light starts to take on a pale blue cast. If > it's possible for something to get hot enough to appear pure blue, I > don't want to be in the same solar system with it, and I'm not sure I > want to be in the same galaxy. I happened to be looking at one when it burnt out a couple months ago. It was normal red, then one spot on the coil turned yellow then splattered apart in a white spark. Inside the metal spiral there's a resistance wire with some kind of ceramic packing. This ceramic burned for a while with a modest yellow flame and then went out after I turned circuit breaker off. No sequence of blackbody color changes.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Yousuf Khan <bbbl67@spammenot.yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-03 17:40 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <QYudnQPAGrXc1o3LnZ2dnUU7-bEAAAAA@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #524320 |
On 02/10/2015 7:02 PM, Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy wrote: > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_star_(astronomy) > > Short answer: you are, as usual, correct. Interesting. So it's a feature of quantum mechanics that prevents us from seeing green stars? Yousuf Khan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy <taustinca@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-03 14:51 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <XnsA5289737A4025taustingmail@69.16.179.42> |
| In reply to | #524436 |
Yousuf Khan <bbbl67@spammenot.yahoo.com> wrote in
news:QYudnQPAGrXc1o3LnZ2dnUU7-bEAAAAA@giganews.com:
> On 02/10/2015 7:02 PM, Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy wrote:
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_star_(astronomy)
>>
>> Short answer: you are, as usual, correct.
>
> Interesting. So it's a feature of quantum mechanics that
> prevents us from seeing green stars?
>
If guantum mechanics is the reason why stars that peak in the green
wavelengths also put out a huge amount of light in red and blue, then
I suppose. Half-so, anyway. The other half being how human eyes work.
--
Terry Austin
"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek
Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | djheydt@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-03 21:54 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <nvnzI5.15Dv@kithrup.com> |
| In reply to | #524436 |
In article <QYudnQPAGrXc1o3LnZ2dnUU7-bEAAAAA@giganews.com>, Yousuf Khan <bbbl67@spammenot.yahoo.com> wrote: >On 02/10/2015 7:02 PM, Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy wrote: >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_star_(astronomy) >> >> Short answer: you are, as usual, correct. > >Interesting. So it's a feature of quantum mechanics that prevents us >from seeing green stars? Damfino. I suggest you look at the link posted upthread and see if it says why. I managed to get an A in my one physics course (Physics 10, aka Bonehead Physics), but I do not understand anything past Newton. I haven't had to. I take it on faith. -- Dorothy J. Heydt Vallejo, California djheydt at gmail dot com Should you wish to email me, you'd better use the gmail edress. Kithrup's all spammy and hotmail's been hacked.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy <taustinca@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-03 17:24 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <XnsA528B12675E10taustingmail@69.16.179.42> |
| In reply to | #524440 |
djheydt@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) wrote in
news:nvnzI5.15Dv@kithrup.com:
> In article <QYudnQPAGrXc1o3LnZ2dnUU7-bEAAAAA@giganews.com>,
> Yousuf Khan <bbbl67@spammenot.yahoo.com> wrote:
>>On 02/10/2015 7:02 PM, Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy wrote:
>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_star_(astronomy)
>>>
>>> Short answer: you are, as usual, correct.
>>
>>Interesting. So it's a feature of quantum mechanics that
>>prevents us from seeing green stars?
>
> Damfino. I suggest you look at the link posted upthread and see
> if it says why.
Phil's article is much easier to understand. It amounts to "If a star
radiates in the green spectrum, it also radiates nearly as much
around green, so it looks white to us because of how our eyes work."
If you want more detail than that, you'll need to understand black
body radiation, which is. . . complicated.
--
Terry Austin
"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek
Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | wdstarr@panix.com (William December Starr) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-04 06:46 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <mur018$5ei$1@panix3.panix.com> |
| In reply to | #524440 |
In article <nvnzI5.15Dv@kithrup.com>, djheydt@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) said: > I managed to get an A in my one physics course (Physics 10, aka > Bonehead Physics), but I do not understand anything past Newton. > I haven't had to. I take it on faith. Did you drop a '1' off the end of that, or was the course really "Physics [ten]?" -- wds
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | djheydt@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-04 13:15 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <nvp65o.1ID2@kithrup.com> |
| In reply to | #524483 |
In article <mur018$5ei$1@panix3.panix.com>, William December Starr <wdstarr@panix.com> wrote: >In article <nvnzI5.15Dv@kithrup.com>, >djheydt@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) said: > >> I managed to get an A in my one physics course (Physics 10, aka >> Bonehead Physics), but I do not understand anything past Newton. >> I haven't had to. I take it on faith. > >Did you drop a '1' off the end of that, or was the course really >"Physics [ten]?" Yes. Its official title, I think, was "physics for Humanities Majors". Everybody enrolled in the College of Letters and Sciences, who wasn't actually majoring in a science, had to take it. In a similar way, those majoring in math or sciences, if they couldn't pass a basic entrance exam in written English (in which case they'd take the standard lower-division English courses like the rest of us) would take English 10, which of course was called Bonehead English. Mind you, this was nearly sixty years ago; I don't know what they do now. -- Dorothy J. Heydt Vallejo, California djheydt at gmail dot com Should you wish to email me, you'd better use the gmail edress. Kithrup's all spammy and hotmail's been hacked.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-04 14:27 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <PM00052148602F2733@aca41f97.ipt.aol.com> |
| In reply to | #524492 |
Dorothy J Heydt wrote: > In article <mur018$5ei$1@panix3.panix.com>, > William December Starr <wdstarr@panix.com> wrote: >>In article <nvnzI5.15Dv@kithrup.com>, >>djheydt@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) said: >> >>> I managed to get an A in my one physics course (Physics 10, aka >>> Bonehead Physics), but I do not understand anything past Newton. >>> I haven't had to. I take it on faith. >> >>Did you drop a '1' off the end of that, or was the course really >>"Physics [ten]?" > > Yes. > > Its official title, I think, was "physics for Humanities Majors". > Everybody enrolled in the College of Letters and Sciences, who > wasn't actually majoring in a science, had to take it. In a > similar way, those majoring in math or sciences, if they couldn't > pass a basic entrance exam in written English (in which case > they'd take the standard lower-division English courses like the > rest of us) would take English 10, which of course was called > Bonehead English. > > Mind you, this was nearly sixty years ago; I don't know what they > do now. > When I went to college, we were required to take an Honors Physics course which was real physics without using calculus. The art majors were not interested in the course until they figured out it helped them with their art which was mostly drawing and painting. /BAH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | djheydt@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-04 16:53 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <nvpG9J.21DC@kithrup.com> |
| In reply to | #524502 |
In article <PM00052148602F2733@aca41f97.ipt.aol.com>, jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> wrote: >Dorothy J Heydt wrote: >> In article <mur018$5ei$1@panix3.panix.com>, >> William December Starr <wdstarr@panix.com> wrote: >>>In article <nvnzI5.15Dv@kithrup.com>, >>>djheydt@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) said: >>> >>>> I managed to get an A in my one physics course (Physics 10, aka >>>> Bonehead Physics), but I do not understand anything past Newton. >>>> I haven't had to. I take it on faith. >>> >>>Did you drop a '1' off the end of that, or was the course really >>>"Physics [ten]?" >> >> Yes. >> >> Its official title, I think, was "physics for Humanities Majors". >> Everybody enrolled in the College of Letters and Sciences, who >> wasn't actually majoring in a science, had to take it. In a >> similar way, those majoring in math or sciences, if they couldn't >> pass a basic entrance exam in written English (in which case >> they'd take the standard lower-division English courses like the >> rest of us) would take English 10, which of course was called >> Bonehead English. >> >> Mind you, this was nearly sixty years ago; I don't know what they >> do now. >> >When I went to college, we were required to take an Honors Physics >course which was real physics without using calculus. The art >majors were not interested in the course until they figured out >it helped them with their art which was mostly drawing and >painting. We did not, thank heaven, have to use calculus. Just algebra. At which I was not very good either. I know I've told this story before, but it's been a while. If you remember it from last time, hit 'n' now. I was living in a rooming house where we did our own cooking. There was a kitchen on the ground floor and another (small) kitchen on the third floor, where I lived. One of my housemates was not only taking Physics 10 when I was, but we had the same section with the same TA. So we got the same problem sets, which the TA handed out at the Tuesday section and got back at the Thursday section. So every Wednesday evening she and I would settle down in the third-floor kitchen and do the problem sets. She had, and knew how to use, a slide rule. I didn't. So we would both read the problem, and I would set up the equation, and she would solve it with her slide rule. We would thus have exactly the same answers on our problem sets, and get the same grades on them. We got some credit toward our final grade from the problem sets, more from the midterm, and a lot more from the final. Came the final, and we were put into a much larger room than we'd taken the class in, so we could be separated from one another by several seats; standard procedure. Memory tells me now that there were several hundred problems to solve; it was probably more like 100. And there I sat, with no slide rule, just basic arithmetic, at which I have always stunk. (And there were no electronic calculators, back in the early 1950s.) After a moment of despair, I reasoned, "Well, this is a physics class, not a math class, so if I set up all the equations and then solve as many as there's time for by brute force and scratch paper, I'll get at least partial credit." So I did that. I got maybe halfway through the arithmetic by time's end. Meanwhile, my housemate was doing whatever she did, armed with her slide rule. Came the final, I got an A, she got a C. -- Dorothy J. Heydt Vallejo, California djheydt at gmail dot com Should you wish to email me, you'd better use the gmail edress. Kithrup's all spammy and hotmail's been hacked.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-05 13:02 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <PM0005215B50CBB539@aca40732.ipt.aol.com> |
| In reply to | #524520 |
Dorothy J Heydt wrote: > In article <PM00052148602F2733@aca41f97.ipt.aol.com>, > jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> wrote: >>Dorothy J Heydt wrote: >>> In article <mur018$5ei$1@panix3.panix.com>, >>> William December Starr <wdstarr@panix.com> wrote: >>>>In article <nvnzI5.15Dv@kithrup.com>, >>>>djheydt@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) said: >>>> >>>>> I managed to get an A in my one physics course (Physics 10, aka >>>>> Bonehead Physics), but I do not understand anything past Newton. >>>>> I haven't had to. I take it on faith. >>>> >>>>Did you drop a '1' off the end of that, or was the course really >>>>"Physics [ten]?" >>> >>> Yes. >>> >>> Its official title, I think, was "physics for Humanities Majors". >>> Everybody enrolled in the College of Letters and Sciences, who >>> wasn't actually majoring in a science, had to take it. In a >>> similar way, those majoring in math or sciences, if they couldn't >>> pass a basic entrance exam in written English (in which case >>> they'd take the standard lower-division English courses like the >>> rest of us) would take English 10, which of course was called >>> Bonehead English. >>> >>> Mind you, this was nearly sixty years ago; I don't know what they >>> do now. >>> >>When I went to college, we were required to take an Honors Physics >>course which was real physics without using calculus. The art >>majors were not interested in the course until they figured out >>it helped them with their art which was mostly drawing and >>painting. > > We did not, thank heaven, have to use calculus. Just algebra. > At which I was not very good either. > > I know I've told this story before, but it's been a while. If > you remember it from last time, hit 'n' now. > > I was living in a rooming house where we did our own cooking. > There was a kitchen on the ground floor and another (small) > kitchen on the third floor, where I lived. One of my housemates > was not only taking Physics 10 when I was, but we had the same > section with the same TA. So we got the same problem sets, which > the TA handed out at the Tuesday section and got back at the > Thursday section. > > So every Wednesday evening she and I would settle down in the > third-floor kitchen and do the problem sets. She had, and knew > how to use, a slide rule. I didn't. > > So we would both read the problem, and I would set up the > equation, and she would solve it with her slide rule. We would > thus have exactly the same answers on our problem sets, and get > the same grades on them. We got some credit toward our final > grade from the problem sets, more from the midterm, and a lot > more from the final. > > Came the final, and we were put into a much larger room than we'd > taken the class in, so we could be separated from one another by > several seats; standard procedure. Memory tells me now that > there were several hundred problems to solve; it was probably > more like 100. And there I sat, with no slide rule, just basic > arithmetic, at which I have always stunk. (And there were no > electronic calculators, back in the early 1950s.) > > After a moment of despair, I reasoned, "Well, this is a physics > class, not a math class, so if I set up all the equations and > then solve as many as there's time for by brute force and scratch > paper, I'll get at least partial credit." So I did that. That's how engineers do it :-). Crunching numbers is left as an exercise for computers. I always thought that computers were invented so engineers didn't have to do arithmetic. ;-) > I got > maybe halfway through the arithmetic by time's end. Meanwhile, > my housemate was doing whatever she did, armed with her slide > rule. > > Came the final, I got an A, she got a C. It's interesting how diffeent approaches to the same problems produce different results. /BAH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | djheydt@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-05 14:39 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <nvr4p3.1C3I@kithrup.com> |
| In reply to | #524641 |
In article <PM0005215B50CBB539@aca40732.ipt.aol.com>, jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> wrote: >Dorothy J Heydt wrote: >> In article <PM00052148602F2733@aca41f97.ipt.aol.com>, >> jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> wrote: >>>Dorothy J Heydt wrote: >>>> In article <mur018$5ei$1@panix3.panix.com>, >>>> William December Starr <wdstarr@panix.com> wrote: >>>>>In article <nvnzI5.15Dv@kithrup.com>, >>>>>djheydt@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) said: >>>>> >>>>>> I managed to get an A in my one physics course (Physics 10, aka >>>>>> Bonehead Physics), but I do not understand anything past Newton. >>>>>> I haven't had to. I take it on faith. >>>>> >>>>>Did you drop a '1' off the end of that, or was the course really >>>>>"Physics [ten]?" >>>> >>>> Yes. >>>> >>>> Its official title, I think, was "physics for Humanities Majors". >>>> Everybody enrolled in the College of Letters and Sciences, who >>>> wasn't actually majoring in a science, had to take it. In a >>>> similar way, those majoring in math or sciences, if they couldn't >>>> pass a basic entrance exam in written English (in which case >>>> they'd take the standard lower-division English courses like the >>>> rest of us) would take English 10, which of course was called >>>> Bonehead English. >>>> >>>> Mind you, this was nearly sixty years ago; I don't know what they >>>> do now. >>>> >>>When I went to college, we were required to take an Honors Physics >>>course which was real physics without using calculus. The art >>>majors were not interested in the course until they figured out >>>it helped them with their art which was mostly drawing and >>>painting. >> >> We did not, thank heaven, have to use calculus. Just algebra. >> At which I was not very good either. >> >> I know I've told this story before, but it's been a while. If >> you remember it from last time, hit 'n' now. >> >> I was living in a rooming house where we did our own cooking. >> There was a kitchen on the ground floor and another (small) >> kitchen on the third floor, where I lived. One of my housemates >> was not only taking Physics 10 when I was, but we had the same >> section with the same TA. So we got the same problem sets, which >> the TA handed out at the Tuesday section and got back at the >> Thursday section. >> >> So every Wednesday evening she and I would settle down in the >> third-floor kitchen and do the problem sets. She had, and knew >> how to use, a slide rule. I didn't. >> >> So we would both read the problem, and I would set up the >> equation, and she would solve it with her slide rule. We would >> thus have exactly the same answers on our problem sets, and get >> the same grades on them. We got some credit toward our final >> grade from the problem sets, more from the midterm, and a lot >> more from the final. >> >> Came the final, and we were put into a much larger room than we'd >> taken the class in, so we could be separated from one another by >> several seats; standard procedure. Memory tells me now that >> there were several hundred problems to solve; it was probably >> more like 100. And there I sat, with no slide rule, just basic >> arithmetic, at which I have always stunk. (And there were no >> electronic calculators, back in the early 1950s.) >> >> After a moment of despair, I reasoned, "Well, this is a physics >> class, not a math class, so if I set up all the equations and >> then solve as many as there's time for by brute force and scratch >> paper, I'll get at least partial credit." So I did that. > >That's how engineers do it :-). Crunching numbers is left >as an exercise for computers. I always thought that computers >were invented so engineers didn't have to do arithmetic. ;-) Well, the *original* intention was so that US Army artillery personnel didn't have to use arithmetic. > >> I got >> maybe halfway through the arithmetic by time's end. Meanwhile, >> my housemate was doing whatever she did, armed with her slide >> rule. >> >> Came the final, I got an A, she got a C. > >It's interesting how diffeent approaches to the same problems >produce different results. I can only assume that because I did the setting-up, she didn't get enough practice in that. A lesson to all of us, I guess. -- Dorothy J. Heydt Vallejo, California djheydt at gmail dot com Should you wish to email me, you'd better use the gmail edress. Kithrup's all spammy and hotmail's been hacked. >/BAH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-06 13:34 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <PM0005216FEF28A86B@aca41669.ipt.aol.com> |
| In reply to | #524646 |
Dorothy J Heydt wrote: > In article <PM0005215B50CBB539@aca40732.ipt.aol.com>, > jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> wrote: >>Dorothy J Heydt wrote: >>> In article <PM00052148602F2733@aca41f97.ipt.aol.com>, >>> jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> wrote: >>>>Dorothy J Heydt wrote: >>>>> In article <mur018$5ei$1@panix3.panix.com>, >>>>> William December Starr <wdstarr@panix.com> wrote: >>>>>>In article <nvnzI5.15Dv@kithrup.com>, >>>>>>djheydt@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) said: >>>>>> >>>>>>> I managed to get an A in my one physics course (Physics 10, aka >>>>>>> Bonehead Physics), but I do not understand anything past Newton. >>>>>>> I haven't had to. I take it on faith. >>>>>> >>>>>>Did you drop a '1' off the end of that, or was the course really >>>>>>"Physics [ten]?" >>>>> >>>>> Yes. >>>>> >>>>> Its official title, I think, was "physics for Humanities Majors". >>>>> Everybody enrolled in the College of Letters and Sciences, who >>>>> wasn't actually majoring in a science, had to take it. In a >>>>> similar way, those majoring in math or sciences, if they couldn't >>>>> pass a basic entrance exam in written English (in which case >>>>> they'd take the standard lower-division English courses like the >>>>> rest of us) would take English 10, which of course was called >>>>> Bonehead English. >>>>> >>>>> Mind you, this was nearly sixty years ago; I don't know what they >>>>> do now. >>>>> >>>>When I went to college, we were required to take an Honors Physics >>>>course which was real physics without using calculus. The art >>>>majors were not interested in the course until they figured out >>>>it helped them with their art which was mostly drawing and >>>>painting. >>> >>> We did not, thank heaven, have to use calculus. Just algebra. >>> At which I was not very good either. >>> >>> I know I've told this story before, but it's been a while. If >>> you remember it from last time, hit 'n' now. >>> >>> I was living in a rooming house where we did our own cooking. >>> There was a kitchen on the ground floor and another (small) >>> kitchen on the third floor, where I lived. One of my housemates >>> was not only taking Physics 10 when I was, but we had the same >>> section with the same TA. So we got the same problem sets, which >>> the TA handed out at the Tuesday section and got back at the >>> Thursday section. >>> >>> So every Wednesday evening she and I would settle down in the >>> third-floor kitchen and do the problem sets. She had, and knew >>> how to use, a slide rule. I didn't. >>> >>> So we would both read the problem, and I would set up the >>> equation, and she would solve it with her slide rule. We would >>> thus have exactly the same answers on our problem sets, and get >>> the same grades on them. We got some credit toward our final >>> grade from the problem sets, more from the midterm, and a lot >>> more from the final. >>> >>> Came the final, and we were put into a much larger room than we'd >>> taken the class in, so we could be separated from one another by >>> several seats; standard procedure. Memory tells me now that >>> there were several hundred problems to solve; it was probably >>> more like 100. And there I sat, with no slide rule, just basic >>> arithmetic, at which I have always stunk. (And there were no >>> electronic calculators, back in the early 1950s.) >>> >>> After a moment of despair, I reasoned, "Well, this is a physics >>> class, not a math class, so if I set up all the equations and >>> then solve as many as there's time for by brute force and scratch >>> paper, I'll get at least partial credit." So I did that. >> >>That's how engineers do it :-). Crunching numbers is left >>as an exercise for computers. I always thought that computers >>were invented so engineers didn't have to do arithmetic. ;-) > > Well, the *original* intention was so that US Army artillery > personnel didn't have to use arithmetic. They had tables. I had the thought when I was taking a class in circuit analysis; it was a humorous thought which got me through the problem sets. That class banned use of the programming functions of calculators so all calculations had to be done "by hand". At least the idiot instructor didn't insist on banning calculators. He gave a final which took him 3 hours to complete (he had a computer to help) but we only had 2 hours for the class. Then he had the balls to grade on the basis of right/wrong numerical answer, not the set up of the problems. >> >>> I got >>> maybe halfway through the arithmetic by time's end. Meanwhile, >>> my housemate was doing whatever she did, armed with her slide >>> rule. >>> >>> Came the final, I got an A, she got a C. >> >>It's interesting how diffeent approaches to the same problems >>produce different results. > > I can only assume that because I did the setting-up, she didn't > get enough practice in that. A lesson to all of us, I guess. She probably had problems w.r.t. setup. There are tasks which require predetermined step-by-step operation so she would have been good at doing that work but would have had you climbing walls and trying to find short-cuts, which was not part of the task :-). Based on your approach to doing work, you might enjoy reading _Boyd_ by Robert Coram. /BAH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | djheydt@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-06 14:24 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <nvsyo0.yCL@kithrup.com> |
| In reply to | #524880 |
In article <PM0005216FEF28A86B@aca41669.ipt.aol.com>, jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> wrote: >Dorothy J Heydt wrote: >> In article <PM0005215B50CBB539@aca40732.ipt.aol.com>, >> jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> wrote: >>>Dorothy J Heydt wrote: >>>> In article <PM00052148602F2733@aca41f97.ipt.aol.com>, >>>> jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> wrote: >>>>>Dorothy J Heydt wrote: >>>>>> In article <mur018$5ei$1@panix3.panix.com>, >>>>>> William December Starr <wdstarr@panix.com> wrote: >>>>>>>In article <nvnzI5.15Dv@kithrup.com>, >>>>>>>djheydt@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) said: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I managed to get an A in my one physics course (Physics 10, aka >>>>>>>> Bonehead Physics), but I do not understand anything past Newton. >>>>>>>> I haven't had to. I take it on faith. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Did you drop a '1' off the end of that, or was the course really >>>>>>>"Physics [ten]?" >>>>>> >>>>>> Yes. >>>>>> >>>>>> Its official title, I think, was "physics for Humanities Majors". >>>>>> Everybody enrolled in the College of Letters and Sciences, who >>>>>> wasn't actually majoring in a science, had to take it. In a >>>>>> similar way, those majoring in math or sciences, if they couldn't >>>>>> pass a basic entrance exam in written English (in which case >>>>>> they'd take the standard lower-division English courses like the >>>>>> rest of us) would take English 10, which of course was called >>>>>> Bonehead English. >>>>>> >>>>>> Mind you, this was nearly sixty years ago; I don't know what they >>>>>> do now. >>>>>> >>>>>When I went to college, we were required to take an Honors Physics >>>>>course which was real physics without using calculus. The art >>>>>majors were not interested in the course until they figured out >>>>>it helped them with their art which was mostly drawing and >>>>>painting. >>>> >>>> We did not, thank heaven, have to use calculus. Just algebra. >>>> At which I was not very good either. >>>> >>>> I know I've told this story before, but it's been a while. If >>>> you remember it from last time, hit 'n' now. >>>> >>>> I was living in a rooming house where we did our own cooking. >>>> There was a kitchen on the ground floor and another (small) >>>> kitchen on the third floor, where I lived. One of my housemates >>>> was not only taking Physics 10 when I was, but we had the same >>>> section with the same TA. So we got the same problem sets, which >>>> the TA handed out at the Tuesday section and got back at the >>>> Thursday section. >>>> >>>> So every Wednesday evening she and I would settle down in the >>>> third-floor kitchen and do the problem sets. She had, and knew >>>> how to use, a slide rule. I didn't. >>>> >>>> So we would both read the problem, and I would set up the >>>> equation, and she would solve it with her slide rule. We would >>>> thus have exactly the same answers on our problem sets, and get >>>> the same grades on them. We got some credit toward our final >>>> grade from the problem sets, more from the midterm, and a lot >>>> more from the final. >>>> >>>> Came the final, and we were put into a much larger room than we'd >>>> taken the class in, so we could be separated from one another by >>>> several seats; standard procedure. Memory tells me now that >>>> there were several hundred problems to solve; it was probably >>>> more like 100. And there I sat, with no slide rule, just basic >>>> arithmetic, at which I have always stunk. (And there were no >>>> electronic calculators, back in the early 1950s.) >>>> >>>> After a moment of despair, I reasoned, "Well, this is a physics >>>> class, not a math class, so if I set up all the equations and >>>> then solve as many as there's time for by brute force and scratch >>>> paper, I'll get at least partial credit." So I did that. >>> >>>That's how engineers do it :-). Crunching numbers is left >>>as an exercise for computers. I always thought that computers >>>were invented so engineers didn't have to do arithmetic. ;-) >> >> Well, the *original* intention was so that US Army artillery >> personnel didn't have to use arithmetic. > >They had tables. I had the thought when I was taking a class >in circuit analysis; it was a humorous thought which got me >through the problem sets. That class banned use of the >programming functions of calculators so all calculations had >to be done "by hand". At least the idiot instructor didn't >insist on banning calculators. He gave a final which took him >3 hours to complete (he had a computer to help) but we only >had 2 hours for the class. Then he had the balls to grade >on the basis of right/wrong numerical answer, not the set up >of the problems. > >>> >>>> I got >>>> maybe halfway through the arithmetic by time's end. Meanwhile, >>>> my housemate was doing whatever she did, armed with her slide >>>> rule. >>>> >>>> Came the final, I got an A, she got a C. >>> >>>It's interesting how diffeent approaches to the same problems >>>produce different results. >> >> I can only assume that because I did the setting-up, she didn't >> get enough practice in that. A lesson to all of us, I guess. > >She probably had problems w.r.t. setup. There are tasks which >require predetermined step-by-step operation so she would have >been good at doing that work but would have had you climbing >walls and trying to find short-cuts, which was not part of the >task :-). > >Based on your approach to doing work, you might enjoy reading >_Boyd_ by Robert Coram. Bookmarked; my husband will probably be more interested than I would; but it's cheap used from Amazon, so maybe sometime. Thanks. -- Dorothy J. Heydt Vallejo, California djheydt at gmail dot com Should you wish to email me, you'd better use the gmail edress. Kithrup's all spammy and hotmail's been hacked.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-07 13:18 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <PM00052183C1540671@aca410b9.ipt.aol.com> |
| In reply to | #524897 |
Dorothy J Heydt wrote: > In article <PM0005216FEF28A86B@aca41669.ipt.aol.com>, > jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> wrote: >>Dorothy J Heydt wrote: <snip> >>> I can only assume that because I did the setting-up, she didn't >>> get enough practice in that. A lesson to all of us, I guess. >> >>She probably had problems w.r.t. setup. There are tasks which >>require predetermined step-by-step operation so she would have >>been good at doing that work but would have had you climbing >>walls and trying to find short-cuts, which was not part of the >>task :-). >> >>Based on your approach to doing work, you might enjoy reading >>_Boyd_ by Robert Coram. > > Bookmarked; my husband will probably be more interested than I > would; but it's cheap used from Amazon, so maybe sometime. > Thanks. > Read the Appenidx; the rest of the book is how that thinking style evolved. /BAH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Yousuf Khan <bbbl67@spammenot.yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-07 19:27 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <5K2dnZbXR87wN4jLnZ2dnUU7-TmdnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #524880 |
On 06/10/2015 9:34 AM, jmfbahciv wrote: > They had tables. I had the thought when I was taking a class > in circuit analysis; it was a humorous thought which got me > through the problem sets. That class banned use of the > programming functions of calculators so all calculations had > to be done "by hand". At least the idiot instructor didn't > insist on banning calculators. He gave a final which took him > 3 hours to complete (he had a computer to help) but we only > had 2 hours for the class. Then he had the balls to grade > on the basis of right/wrong numerical answer, not the set up > of the problems. I think all of us who went through engineering in the 80's and 90's had to deal with brain-dead method of teaching. The teachers weren't ready yet for the new world of calculators and computers, and they were actively resisting it. People in the late 90's and beyond probably didn't have to go through this problem. Yousuf Khan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Brian M. Scott" <b.scott@csuohio.edu> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-07 19:43 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <152oyxjh7lg7c$.1me3hj516anfy.dlg@40tude.net> |
| In reply to | #525168 |
On Wed, 7 Oct 2015 19:27:43 -0400, Yousuf Khan <bbbl67@spammenot.yahoo.com> wrote in<news:5K2dnZbXR87wN4jLnZ2dnUU7-TmdnZ2d@giganews.com> in rec.arts.sf.written,sci.physics: > On 06/10/2015 9:34 AM, jmfbahciv wrote: >> They had tables. I had the thought when I was taking a >> class in circuit analysis; it was a humorous thought >> which got me through the problem sets. That class >> banned use of the programming functions of calculators >> so all calculations had to be done "by hand". At least >> the idiot instructor didn't insist on banning >> calculators. He gave a final which took him 3 hours to >> complete (he had a computer to help) but we only had 2 >> hours for the class. Then he had the balls to grade on >> the basis of right/wrong numerical answer, not the set >> up of the problems. > I think all of us who went through engineering in the > 80's and 90's had to deal with brain-dead method of > teaching. The teachers weren't ready yet for the new > world of calculators and computers, and they were > actively resisting it. People in the late 90's and > beyond probably didn't have to go through this problem. It wasn’t as simple as you make out. What BAH described is indeed brain-dead, but in a calculus class at the urban university where I taught you could not guarantee that every student could even afford a programmable calculator, let alone know how to use one. And at the other extreme you’d have a student or three who had calculators capable of some symbolic manipulation. It's difficult to design fair exams under those circumstances, to put it mildly. My solution was to insist on exact answers (e.g., 2π, not some decimal approximation); to insist that students show enough work for me to follow their reasoning; and to award considerable partial credit based on the reasoning (e.g., 8 or 9 out of 10 for a minor computational error, unless it led to an what should have been an obviously absurd result). In the earlier part of that period I generally made the arithmetic ‘nice’ and banned calculators altogether; later on, as they became more common, I worried less about making the arithmetic nice and allowed any calculator that did not do symbolic manipulations. Brian -- It was the neap tide, when the baga venture out of their holes to root for sandtatties. The waves whispered rhythmically over the packed sand: haggisss, haggisss, haggisss.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Greg Goss <gossg@gossg.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-08 01:58 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <d7mm0aF4l4jU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #525168 |
Yousuf Khan <bbbl67@spammenot.yahoo.com> wrote: >I think all of us who went through engineering in the 80's and 90's had >to deal with brain-dead method of teaching. The teachers weren't ready >yet for the new world of calculators and computers, and they were >actively resisting it. People in the late 90's and beyond probably >didn't have to go through this problem. 80s and 90s? I got a scientific calculator in grade 10 in 1973. There was resistance to using it up to 75. I never ran into any objections to using it in college after 1975. The "rubber book" I got cheap in 1975 because it was the previous edition was, I think, the last edition to include log and trig tables. The next edition was a fifth the size because you were expected to do trig on your calculator. Was there still resistance in the 80s to calculators? Really? Where? -- We are geeks. Resistance is voltage over current.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 2 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 5 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics
csiph-web