OT: Physics teachers

[forty_three]

Time for a 43 rant.

I know there are some fellow science nerds on here. I enjoyed physics, but it wasn't my big interest. I preferred engineering, and as it turns out - reverse engineering. Anyway, I remember in high school, back when the world was in black and white, we had a typical project to build an 8+ Step Rube Goldberg machine. Mine had to hit a tape player's "play" button and play a song. I chose LL Cool J's "Radio". I also used a friend's giant boom box.

My daughter, 43.5, has been working on hers. The task is to flip a Tassle from one side of a graduation cap to the other. Problem is, the teacher is only allowing the students to flip a tassle on HIS cap. He has allowed them to take photos, he has allowed them to measure the mannequin head it's on. But the mannequin head and cap are in his classroom, and there is no classroom time allowed for the project. So they are building 7 or more steps at home, and then taking it in to school to get one shot on something they are not allowed to test on. The rules specifically state you get one shot.

What kind of shit is that? So I ask you, science guys; did you ever have to do this project and would you have gone apeshit if you weren't allowed to test and tune the final step?

I was thinking of helping her create an additional step of hitting a Co2 canister and inflating a surgical glove with only one finger accepting air.

 

[puckhead]

unless everyone else also has their final step untested, it is absolute and utter bullshit.
that's like making an egg drop machine without being able to test on an ... i don't know.... egg!

 

[Darkstone42]

Time for a 43 rant.

I know there are some fellow science nerds on here. I enjoyed physics, but it wasn't my big interest. I preferred engineering, and as it turns out - reverse engineering. Anyway, I remember in high school, back when the world was in black and white, we had a typical project to build an 8+ Step Rube Goldberg machine. Mine had to hit a tape player's "play" button and play a song. I chose LL Cool J's "Radio". I also used a friend's giant boom box.

My daughter, 43.5, has been working on hers. The task is to flip a Tassle from one side of a graduation cap to the other. Problem is, the teacher is only allowing the students to flip a tassle on HIS cap. He has allowed them to take photos, he has allowed them to measure the mannequin head it's on. But the mannequin head and cap are in his classroom, and there is no classroom time allowed for the project. So they are building 7 or more steps at home, and then taking it in to school to get one shot on something they are not allowed to test on. The rules specifically state you get one shot.

What kind of shit is that? So I ask you, science guys; did you ever have to do this project and would you have gone apeshit if you weren't allowed to test and tune the final step?

I was thinking of helping her create an additional step of hitting a Co2 canister and inflating a surgical glove with only one finger accepting air.

He's teaching them a terrible lesson by not letting them test their machines. He's basically telling them science is about getting it right. It isn't. It's about trial and error, trying out solutions based on reasonable insight, and then testing those solutions to see if they work. If they don't work, assess why they don't work, and use that to shape each successive effort.

 

[dash]

I'm an applications developer and to me, it sounds analagous to putting an application into a production environment without testing it fully and hoping all goes well. In the real world, that's a sure fire way to get your work contract terminated.

 

[rares]

I can't help with suggestions (sorry), but I will share a quick funny story:

During my first (or was it 2nd? I forget) quarter of physics (of 3 total, required for engineering majors) my freshman year in college, professor in large (400+ students) lecture hall says he's going to do an experiment.

He tied a bowling ball from the ceiling (super high up) and went all the way to one side of the room, while bringing the ball up to his nose.

He then let it swing like a pendulum to prove that it won't hit him on the way back and... you guessed it... the entire audience saw him lean forward a little bit and collectively went "Oh shit!" as he proceeded to get nailed in the nose.

Luckily, he didn't even get a bloody nose and even joked about messing it all up and we all laughed...

 

[Dacks]

Yeah, that's bullshit. Any good rube goldberg project needs tons of testing.

A better project to teach the lesson (maybe?) he's trying to teach, was the following: our physics teacher gave us a ping-pong launching gun, a timer, and measuring tape, and allowed us to test the guy to our hearts' desire for half an hour. After that he was going to place the gun at a specific angle a specific height above the floor, and (in our teams) we had to mark where on the floor we expected the ping pong to hit.

My team won, of course. Free pop in class the next day. It was sweet. LITERALLY

 

[Forty_Sixand2]

Not to sound contrarian, but don't we have to come up with simulated situations in a lot of scientific areas because we simply cannot test a new machine/discovery/whatever in a real situation.

 

[forty_three]

unless everyone else also has their final step untested, it is absolute and utter bullshit.
that's like making an egg drop machine without being able to test on an ... i don't know.... egg!

Everyone is under the same constraint. But even so, I still think it's BS.

When I did mine, we had free reign to use whatever device we wanted to play the song, the only constraint was it couldn't be playing the song the whole time. IE: You couldn't hit a volume button. You actually had to initiate the tape playing.

He's teaching them a terrible lesson by not letting them test their machines. He's basically telling them science is about getting it right. It isn't. It's about trial and error, trying out solutions based on reasonable insight, and then testing those solutions to see if they work. If they don't work, assess why they don't work, and use that to shape each successive effort.

Maybe it's just the engineer in me, but I get all kinds of twitchy when I am not allowed to tweak tolerances. And she's not really into Physics either (She's more biology), so we are really not the right team.

Thank you for articulating it for me. Science isn't about getting it right. And to extend that, Physics has always been the least about getting it right. It's about knowing why or how.

I'm an applications developer and to me, it sounds analagous to putting an application into a production environment without testing it fully and hoping all goes well. In the real world, that's a sure fire way to get your work contract terminated.

Ed Zachary. I think what bugs me the most is the idea that they can build their own replica based on a photo and some measurements, but they will not really know for sure if they got that part right until the go live. How would software developer dash enjoy such a requirements conversation?

Goal: "Has to do what we want it to".

"What do you want it to do?"

"Something"

 

[Dacks]

Not to sound contrarian, but don't we have to come up with simulated situations in a lot of scientific areas because we simply cannot test a new machine/discovery/whatever in a real situation.

Sure, but a Rube Goldberg is essentially for the exact opposite purpose. Test and fine-tune a machine repeatedly so that it does exactly what you expect it to do on a single run.

 

[Forty_Sixand2]

Well, I am in the life sciences so i have never heard of a "Rube Goldberg". I kind of read through the thread, and ignored some details.

I just wanted to make the point that in many cases, you do not get the luxury of testing something.

 

[forty_three]

Not to sound contrarian, but don't we have to come up with simulated situations in a lot of scientific areas because we simply cannot test a new machine/discovery/whatever in a real situation.

Yes. But the whole process of building the machine covers that.

I see what you're saying, but in this case the only thing we know is the final step. And they build to the final step without being allowed to test it. How they get there is wide open.

The class is not Theoretical Physics. When she gets into the real world, she will have to improvise. But right now she is learning method and practice.

Rube Goldberg machines are unnecessarily complex machines to complete a simple task. Think Ferris Bueller's day off when he rigged the door to his bedroom to make his mom think he was in there sleeping.

 

[Forty_Sixand2]

Yeah, i didn't follow correctly.....

 

[Dacks]

Well, I am in the life sciences so i have never heard of a "Rube Goldberg". I kind of read through the thread, and ignored some details.

I just wanted to make the point that in many cases, you do not get the luxury of testing something.

Here's an example:


The point is to do something relatively simple, using a series of increasingly elaborate and unnecessary mechanisms. It's usually done in a graduating physics class after exams are done to let them have fun while creatively applying various physics and engineering principles they've learned. At the end of the year we would present them to our school.

The more elaborate you get the more entertaining the result - but also the more important it is to test the machine relentlesly to make sure everything works on the big day.

 

[TheRobotDevil]

Can't go wrong if the final step is shea weber

 

[TheRobotDevil]

Ok being serious anything tat says the final step can't be something ranged like a fan

 

[juliansteed]

Those students should test some laws of physics (maybe some chemistry too) on that teacher's house!

 

[Vadered]

Can't go wrong if the final step is shea weber

I suppose slamming the mannequin's face into the boards would probably move the tassle over. I don't know if that's what they are really hoping for though.

 

[TheRobotDevil]

I suppose slamming the mannequin's face into the boards would probably move the tassle over. I don't know if that's what they are really hoping for though.

I think its a lesson on thinking outside the box but that's just my opinion.best bet is to pick a final step that can't go wrong like a fan or shea weber

 

[forty_three]

It's usually done in a graduating physics class after exams are done to let them have fun while creatively applying various physics and engineering principles they've learned.

Don't get me started on this. This is before the exams.

I suppose slamming the mannequin's face into the boards would probably move the tassle over. I don't know if that's what they are really hoping for though.

This is good. I might have to incorporate this. I could use a hockey glove to jam the mannequin head forward into a corner using some type of device to lift the tassel as the head gets smashed. The final step has to start ten inches away from the tassel. I could easily develop enough force to smack the head across the room....

That's better than the finger to get the point across. It is HIS graduation hat after all...

WHAM!

 

[forty_three]

Fuckity-fuck fuck fucking fuck-faced fucker.

Machine tested, working. Powerpoint done, video presented today. He liked it. Except "make sure that nothing is within ten inches of the tassel". Presentation in full is tomorrow.

Rules state "Final step must start at least ten inches from the tassel". Our final step had a pendulum that swung (from 20 inches above) and smacked the tassel. The pivot was mounted on a camera tripod over the head. Feet of the tripod are within ten inches. Basically, two of the feet straddle the head.

But the impetus of the final step is 20 inches above (within spec in my mind). But since the base for the final step is within ten inches; minus 10 points.

So, now the pendulum starts way far away, and instead of a small hook slapping the tassel at the apex of the lower arc, there is now a 12 inch CCM glove that glances a punch right off that fuckers face. 8 out of ten, the tassel moves. 5 of those 8, the hat comes clean off.

If she is losing ten points, she is going to earn it.

Clarkson, rep for you sir.