It terns owt that aye reely doant like Inglish to much. Aye wish it wur ezr to spel. Aye hav sumtimes thot peepl wr stoopid for not spelling stuf rite. Now aye understand y Inglish is so tuff to lrn. Fzx iz to but for uthr reezuns.
Where can I wear your wares?
We're teaching TheBoy to read a bit of Spanish. It's more like doing physics since there are solid rules, but it's still not quite the linguist's dream of one sound for every letter, one letter for every sound.
I pedal daily to peddle my petals.
When students don't read, they can't physics. So I need to add more diagrams and make the questions and problems more practical and engaging. And rite in simpl Inglish.
Tuesday, December 30, 2014
Saturday, December 27, 2014
The Metric System is Modern Latin
Knowing the language of the Bible - common Greek of the time - is essentially no help in reading the Ancient Greek of Homer's Illiad and both are vastly different from modern Greek. But once a tongue dies, there is no language drift and I can easily read what someone wrote centuries ago.
Until I covered a Latin class last week, I considered Latin to be a "dead" language in a negative sense. If we study theology or philosophy, literature or law, Latin might be a good thing to know but with the Universal Translator I find that Latin has little value for me.
But the metric system is also a dead language. With minor modifications - definitions and forms of expression - both Latin and the Systeme International remain the same today as they were a couple centuries ago. The SI is great for communication across the world. It is the common language of science and industry.
It turns out that my beloved metric system and the ancient language of scholars are the same in concept and in use.
Until I covered a Latin class last week, I considered Latin to be a "dead" language in a negative sense. If we study theology or philosophy, literature or law, Latin might be a good thing to know but with the Universal Translator I find that Latin has little value for me.
It turns out that my beloved metric system and the ancient language of scholars are the same in concept and in use.
Friday, December 26, 2014
Freaky Fzx Friday - Lagrange Points
I used to think that the lagrange point was the position between two celestial bodies where the gravitational forces between two objects balanced each other. But the celestial spheres are much more complicated than that and Lagrange sounds much better when pronounced in French.
Consider the earth and the moon. Place something at the perfect point between them and it stays put because moonweight and earthweight balance, right? It sounds good until you actually think for a few seconds.
The problem is that everything's in orbit and a net force is necessary.
Imagine. Let's place that satellite - your favorite cat in a cute space suit - at that point where the weights balance. Since the system moves and there's no net force on the catastronaut, she will soon no longer be in that zero net force bubble. Even if you put her in motion at the perfect speed to orbit something, she needs a centripetal net force to turn her from her tangential path. So that can't be the lagrange point and he's a lot smarter than I thought.
The real story starts with Newton's 2nd Law of Motion.
That equation quantifies the idea that no acceleration in the universe will occur without a force. But it's wrong. It's not just some random force and it doesn't just apply to linear motion. A better representation is
but only if we understand that it applies to direction changes also. We need a net force to make our catastronaut orbit and we call that centripetal net force. It is always perpendicular to the direction of the velocity (toward the center) and causes all direction changes.
Now let's take the rocket cat and imagine placing her in higher and higher earth orbit between earth and moon. The moon's influence will change the necessary orbital speed until, at that perfect point, the centripetal force needed for constant orbit between earth and moon will be supplied by a combination of the gravitational forces of earth and moon.
In other words, earthweight and moonweight combine to make catastronaut orbit in a moonth.
It turns out that there are five of those balance points where the net force is exactly the force necessary to maintain the same orbital period as the moon. Here's an animation
and it turns out that those five points exist for Sun-Earth and Sun-Jupiter and lots of other combinations. We found trapped asteroids in the Sun-Jupiter lagrange points (another Bermuda Triangle?) and can use lagrange points for satellites.
Lagrange was a genius.
No cats were harmed in the writing or filming of this installment of Freaky Fzx Friday in honor of Lagrange. And cats.
Consider the earth and the moon. Place something at the perfect point between them and it stays put because moonweight and earthweight balance, right? It sounds good until you actually think for a few seconds.
The problem is that everything's in orbit and a net force is necessary.
Imagine. Let's place that satellite - your favorite cat in a cute space suit - at that point where the weights balance. Since the system moves and there's no net force on the catastronaut, she will soon no longer be in that zero net force bubble. Even if you put her in motion at the perfect speed to orbit something, she needs a centripetal net force to turn her from her tangential path. So that can't be the lagrange point and he's a lot smarter than I thought.
The real story starts with Newton's 2nd Law of Motion.
That equation quantifies the idea that no acceleration in the universe will occur without a force. But it's wrong. It's not just some random force and it doesn't just apply to linear motion. A better representation is
but only if we understand that it applies to direction changes also. We need a net force to make our catastronaut orbit and we call that centripetal net force. It is always perpendicular to the direction of the velocity (toward the center) and causes all direction changes.
Now let's take the rocket cat and imagine placing her in higher and higher earth orbit between earth and moon. The moon's influence will change the necessary orbital speed until, at that perfect point, the centripetal force needed for constant orbit between earth and moon will be supplied by a combination of the gravitational forces of earth and moon.
In other words, earthweight and moonweight combine to make catastronaut orbit in a moonth.
It turns out that there are five of those balance points where the net force is exactly the force necessary to maintain the same orbital period as the moon. Here's an animation
and it turns out that those five points exist for Sun-Earth and Sun-Jupiter and lots of other combinations. We found trapped asteroids in the Sun-Jupiter lagrange points (another Bermuda Triangle?) and can use lagrange points for satellites.
Lagrange was a genius.
No cats were harmed in the writing or filming of this installment of Freaky Fzx Friday in honor of Lagrange. And cats.
Tuesday, December 23, 2014
Teach Fzx Tuesday - The Real Periodic Table
This is the standard form of the periodic table in books and chemistry classrooms around the world.
The class discussion versions, like the one above, are big, often poorly lit, and difficult to read from the back of the class so the students always have other copies at their desks.
I love the periodic table. It represents several of the underlying organizational principles of matter. I remember, however, being annoyed in high school and college by those two breakout lines at the bottom. Some tables have spaces and labels and arrows in the main chart where the lower two lines of elements should be. The one above has only asterisks.
Like the neighbor's barking dog, I learned to put up with the chart above. But then I got angry and did something about it since I realized it had that form only to fill a standard paper size. My wall is an educational canvas so I can cut it up and make it correct.
The lighting is worse and the details are unreadable from even the front row but now I understand it. The numbers are all in counting order and the electron configurations show a clear pattern as subshells are progressively filled.
Maybe I get the periodic table better now just because of my age and experience. But maybe I'd have gotten it earlier had somebody given me one I can understand easily.
Let's remove every barrier to our students' understanding of science. Drop the algebra if we can do it another way. Remove the ponderous numbers when appropriate. Focus on the big picture understandings by making the other stuff easier.
But first, cut and paste your periodic table - it's tough enough already.
The class discussion versions, like the one above, are big, often poorly lit, and difficult to read from the back of the class so the students always have other copies at their desks.
I love the periodic table. It represents several of the underlying organizational principles of matter. I remember, however, being annoyed in high school and college by those two breakout lines at the bottom. Some tables have spaces and labels and arrows in the main chart where the lower two lines of elements should be. The one above has only asterisks.
Like the neighbor's barking dog, I learned to put up with the chart above. But then I got angry and did something about it since I realized it had that form only to fill a standard paper size. My wall is an educational canvas so I can cut it up and make it correct.
The lighting is worse and the details are unreadable from even the front row but now I understand it. The numbers are all in counting order and the electron configurations show a clear pattern as subshells are progressively filled.
Maybe I get the periodic table better now just because of my age and experience. But maybe I'd have gotten it earlier had somebody given me one I can understand easily.
Let's remove every barrier to our students' understanding of science. Drop the algebra if we can do it another way. Remove the ponderous numbers when appropriate. Focus on the big picture understandings by making the other stuff easier.
But first, cut and paste your periodic table - it's tough enough already.
Friday, December 19, 2014
Freaky Fzx Friday - Political Fission
Nuclear Fission is an excellent source of electric energy that we have been using for more than half a century. The process has serious problems, but so do coal and hydro and wind and natural gas.
The thing I find most interesting at this moment about nuclear fission is how politics, natural resources, economics, and nuclear accidents have influenced its use in different countries around the world.
Nuclear in the US has remained basically constant since we didn't commission any nuclear plants for decades after the Three Mile Island accident of 1979.
United States of America
The spike in nuclear production in France began in the 1970s. They have limited natural resources and decided to focus on the nuclear option. Today almost 80% of their electricity is generated by nuclear fission.
France
I was surprised when I pulled up Japan's numbers. I had the impression that they used a lot more nuclear power than the graph shows. Notice the precipitous drop in nuclear and the corresponding spike in fossil fuel electricity production around the start of the Fukushima problem in 2011.
Japan
And finally we have the world.
Earthlings
Nuclear requires excellence in science and engineering along with huge capital investments. It's easier and less expensive to generate electricity using anything but nuclear.
I want fusion-powered electricity but it seems that's still a work of science fiction. So far.
Wednesday, December 17, 2014
Anniversary - A Decade in the US
It was the afternoon of December 17, 2004 that Kristel Orzuza arrived at the Pittsburgh International Airport. She had a fiancee visa but I wasn't about to give her a ring unless she was content with the cold, the English, and the family that comes with that permanent bond that's often more krazy than glue.
We had met on the first weekend of July in Paraguay the year before and started dating a few months later.
It wasn't until a month after she arrived here that I decided to take the plunge. Get hitched. Tie the knot. Get shackled to the ball and chain. We planned and executed a small wedding in 52 days and officially started our lives together. Then we did it again the next year. Know anybody else who got married to the same person twice in two countries?
New Castle, Pennsylvania, USA Asuncion, Paraguay
The adventures have been wonderful and the memories fill my mind. We've got three great kids and a wonderful life.
I have way too many bicycles, too few motorcycles, and I get live music every day.
Gracias, mi amor. Casado contigo estoy feliz.
We had met on the first weekend of July in Paraguay the year before and started dating a few months later.
It wasn't until a month after she arrived here that I decided to take the plunge. Get hitched. Tie the knot. Get shackled to the ball and chain. We planned and executed a small wedding in 52 days and officially started our lives together. Then we did it again the next year. Know anybody else who got married to the same person twice in two countries?
The adventures have been wonderful and the memories fill my mind. We've got three great kids and a wonderful life.
I have way too many bicycles, too few motorcycles, and I get live music every day.
Musical Instrument Day in Fzx class
Medieval instruments in ancient clothing
Gracias, mi amor. Casado contigo estoy feliz.
Tuesday, December 16, 2014
Teach Fzx Tuesday - PowerPoint Sucks
I gave it up for lent a few years ago and never went back. Back on processed sugar, struggling not to mainline Mountain Dew, and still kicking the dog, but nary a PowerPoint in my class.
I am easily amused but even I was bored with some of my PowerPoint presentations. So I abandoned them. I did not return to the overhead projector or to the chalk board. I did not technologically turn back time.
"If I could turn back time
If I could find a way
I'd take back those powerpoints that hurt you
and you'd stay (in love with physics)
"I don't know why I did the things I did
I don't know why I said the things I said
PowerPoint's like a knife, it can cut deep inside
Those slides are like weapons, they wound sometimes"
PowerPoint has wonderful uses but delivering basic information to students on a regular basis in a classroom setting should not be one of them. I post past PowerPoint presentations on BlackBoard but most students never access them. They will, however, access narrated PowerPoint tutorials if they really want to learn. In-class PowerPoint has been replaced by the following - outside class:
- students reading books and gathering basic information
- students accessing a website and gathering basic information
- students viewing a short video and gathering information
Student-gathered information is then followed with a discussion in which we put it all together in a new and interesting way. Or it is followed by a lab or activity or problem session in which they use the new ideas.
If you still want to Point with Power, keep the lights bright, the giggles frequent, the time short, and the discussion level high.
P.S. - Full disclosure - I used two slides from a PowerPoint presentation last week to discuss the concept of Newton's Third Law. That law is the toughest concept in basic physics and the PPT organized the graphics for me.
P.P.S. - I recommend the use of PowerPoint more often at the beginning of a career or a new class.
P.P.P.S. - I don't have a dog.
Sleep Incubator
I am easily amused but even I was bored with some of my PowerPoint presentations. So I abandoned them. I did not return to the overhead projector or to the chalk board. I did not technologically turn back time.
"If I could turn back time
If I could find a way
I'd take back those powerpoints that hurt you
and you'd stay (in love with physics)
"I don't know why I did the things I did
I don't know why I said the things I said
PowerPoint's like a knife, it can cut deep inside
Those slides are like weapons, they wound sometimes"
PowerPoint has wonderful uses but delivering basic information to students on a regular basis in a classroom setting should not be one of them. I post past PowerPoint presentations on BlackBoard but most students never access them. They will, however, access narrated PowerPoint tutorials if they really want to learn. In-class PowerPoint has been replaced by the following - outside class:
- students reading books and gathering basic information
- students accessing a website and gathering basic information
- students viewing a short video and gathering information
Student-gathered information is then followed with a discussion in which we put it all together in a new and interesting way. Or it is followed by a lab or activity or problem session in which they use the new ideas.
If you still want to Point with Power, keep the lights bright, the giggles frequent, the time short, and the discussion level high.
P.S. - Full disclosure - I used two slides from a PowerPoint presentation last week to discuss the concept of Newton's Third Law. That law is the toughest concept in basic physics and the PPT organized the graphics for me.
P.P.S. - I recommend the use of PowerPoint more often at the beginning of a career or a new class.
P.P.P.S. - I don't have a dog.
Friday, December 12, 2014
Freaky Fzx Friday - Splitting the Nucleus
Splitting the Atom was nothing compared to splitting the nucleus. Once we found the teenytiny nucleus it wasn't a hard process to find the proton. Ernest Rutherford just verified that he couldn't find a smaller nucleus than the simplest hydrogen isotope and he had it.
The neutron was tougher to find since it had no charge. We now know that it's also unstable when by itself - the half life of a bachelor neutron is about ten minutes.
James Chadwick, working in Rutherford's lab and following the experimental ideas of others, decided to smash alpha particles into various materials and try to knock out the neutrons theorized by Rutherford. Those neutrons would then knock hydrogen nuclei (protons) out of paraffin (a hydrocarbon) and run them into an ionization chamber used to detect charged particles.
It worked so well that Chadwick received the 1935 Nobel prize in physics. Physicists then found natural neutron emitters everywhere just like we see that newly defined vocabulary word in everything we read.
Neutrons, since they weren't repelled by the positive nucleus, were great for bombarding nuclei and by the late 1930s scientists had verified that large nuclei could be split - nuclear fission had been discovered and it was promising for energy production. Mass was lost in the process and converted to energy in a quantity defined by the famousest equation in our universe:
Enrico Fermi headed up a team to make the first nuclear reactor under a football stadium at the University of Chicago in 1942. Uranium-235 nuclei were split into two smaller nuclei
It worked. So they moved directly into developing a nuclear weapon since WWII was well under way.
It's never tough to split a nucleus as long as you pick the right one. Many just split themselves and we call that radioactivity.
The neutron was tougher to find since it had no charge. We now know that it's also unstable when by itself - the half life of a bachelor neutron is about ten minutes.
James Chadwick, working in Rutherford's lab and following the experimental ideas of others, decided to smash alpha particles into various materials and try to knock out the neutrons theorized by Rutherford. Those neutrons would then knock hydrogen nuclei (protons) out of paraffin (a hydrocarbon) and run them into an ionization chamber used to detect charged particles.
It worked so well that Chadwick received the 1935 Nobel prize in physics. Physicists then found natural neutron emitters everywhere just like we see that newly defined vocabulary word in everything we read.
Neutrons, since they weren't repelled by the positive nucleus, were great for bombarding nuclei and by the late 1930s scientists had verified that large nuclei could be split - nuclear fission had been discovered and it was promising for energy production. Mass was lost in the process and converted to energy in a quantity defined by the famousest equation in our universe:
Enrico Fermi headed up a team to make the first nuclear reactor under a football stadium at the University of Chicago in 1942. Uranium-235 nuclei were split into two smaller nuclei
and released a few neutrons to fission other nuclei nearby.
supercritical reaction
It worked. So they moved directly into developing a nuclear weapon since WWII was well under way.
It's never tough to split a nucleus as long as you pick the right one. Many just split themselves and we call that radioactivity.
Tuesday, December 9, 2014
Teach Fzx Tuesday - Simplify the Algebra
I used to think algebra was essential. But when I have the choice of requiring the official algebra techniques or focusing on physics, I'll choose the physics every time.
You may say we can get good physics and "good" math, but that just ain't true any more - especially for lower level classes. It is for that reason that I introduce my students to the first cousins of cross-multiplication.
I interviewed a chemistry teacher and a physics teacher in the following video to bring out the algebra weaknesses our students have. Then I presented what I call "cross-switching" and "cross-moving."
Cross-multiplication is just a name for two multiplications in one step. Cross-switching and cross-moving hang on the same principle using multiplication and division.
I expected protests and quickly confronted some from a math teacher next door. He expressed his discomfort with my proposed techniques from what he called a "math purist" perspective, stating that he would not teach those techniques to his math students.
He then quietly confided that he uses my approach on a regular basis in his own brain. Other teachers have said the same. They use easy algebra daily that they refuse to teach their students. I have also felt constrained to use the math I "should" use but I have recently decided to abandon anything that makes the physics more difficult.
Many math teachers despise cross-multiplication, calling it a "tomfoolery," "wizardry," or a "trick." Whatever. I'll have my students use cross-switching and cross-moving every day - it's better for Fzx.
You may say we can get good physics and "good" math, but that just ain't true any more - especially for lower level classes. It is for that reason that I introduce my students to the first cousins of cross-multiplication.
I interviewed a chemistry teacher and a physics teacher in the following video to bring out the algebra weaknesses our students have. Then I presented what I call "cross-switching" and "cross-moving."
Cross-multiplication is just a name for two multiplications in one step. Cross-switching and cross-moving hang on the same principle using multiplication and division.
I expected protests and quickly confronted some from a math teacher next door. He expressed his discomfort with my proposed techniques from what he called a "math purist" perspective, stating that he would not teach those techniques to his math students.
He then quietly confided that he uses my approach on a regular basis in his own brain. Other teachers have said the same. They use easy algebra daily that they refuse to teach their students. I have also felt constrained to use the math I "should" use but I have recently decided to abandon anything that makes the physics more difficult.
Many math teachers despise cross-multiplication, calling it a "tomfoolery," "wizardry," or a "trick." Whatever. I'll have my students use cross-switching and cross-moving every day - it's better for Fzx.
Friday, December 5, 2014
Freaky Fzx Friday - Splitting the Atom
Some Greek Philosophers thought that there was a tiny particle of matter that was indivisible. Others thought that we could cut matter forever if we had a sharp knife and eagle eyes. Most of us never ponder things like that, but back in the 4th century BC it was a big debate in the Golden Age of Greece.
The name "atom" is, in fact, taken from the Greek word meaning "indivisible" but there was little good evidence either way until well after the 1500s and the beginnings of modern science.
Dalton and Lavoisier and Avogadro, in the early 1800's, began to understand the evidence for atoms - and molecules as combinations of atoms. A century later, after treating the atom as indivisible for 100 years, the atom started to split.
1897 - JJ Thomson discovered the electron and proposed my favorite cookie dough as a model.
Then Rutherford did his famous experiment where he fired BBs at a many-layered collection of mushy cookie dough balls and the BBs passed right through. He expected that result since he knew the BBs had high energy and the cookie dough balls weren't very solid. What Rutherford did not expect was that a small number of the BBs would bounce off the web of soft, warm, yummy cookie dough straight back at the source.
His conclusion was that the atom is not a ball of chocolate chip cookie dough and that's good since I'd never be able to maintain my boyish figure. Rutherford proposed the nuclear model of the atom - 1911.
Bazinga! But just remember that all the models of the atom you have seen are total crap.
They get some things right, but if the scale were correct, this would be the model of the atom:
We split the atom more than a century ago. Whatever. Splitting the nucleus is a much bigger deal.
Sharp Knife and Eagle Eyes
The name "atom" is, in fact, taken from the Greek word meaning "indivisible" but there was little good evidence either way until well after the 1500s and the beginnings of modern science.
Dalton and Lavoisier and Avogadro, in the early 1800's, began to understand the evidence for atoms - and molecules as combinations of atoms. A century later, after treating the atom as indivisible for 100 years, the atom started to split.
1897 - JJ Thomson discovered the electron and proposed my favorite cookie dough as a model.
The chips are the electrons but the dough is too solid.
Then Rutherford did his famous experiment where he fired BBs at a many-layered collection of mushy cookie dough balls and the BBs passed right through. He expected that result since he knew the BBs had high energy and the cookie dough balls weren't very solid. What Rutherford did not expect was that a small number of the BBs would bounce off the web of soft, warm, yummy cookie dough straight back at the source.
His conclusion was that the atom is not a ball of chocolate chip cookie dough and that's good since I'd never be able to maintain my boyish figure. Rutherford proposed the nuclear model of the atom - 1911.
Rutherford's atomic models
Bazinga! But just remember that all the models of the atom you have seen are total crap.
They get some things right, but if the scale were correct, this would be the model of the atom:
The best scale model of the atom
We split the atom more than a century ago. Whatever. Splitting the nucleus is a much bigger deal.
Tuesday, December 2, 2014
Teach Fzx Tuesday - Interconnected
LittleBoy does not understand the internet. He believes that different devices are intended for different tasks and we're OK with that because he's 3.
Mommy's iPod is for music and for playing AngryBirds since Tembireko turned off the WiFi antenna to limit its capacity.
The iPad is only for certain videos - this is the race scene song from Pocoyo. It's pretty cute.
The desktop, for LittleBoy, is mainly for family pictures and music videos. Tembireko often plays guitar while watching the original videos. Live music in the home is wonderful and he's the drummer in the family band.
Just to confirm Tembireko's hypothesis that he believes that specific devices are for specific tasks, I asked him a series of questions:
"Can you play AngryBirds on my smart phone?"
"No."
"Can you watch music videos on the laptop?"
"No."
"Can you listen to music on the iPad?"
"Uumm, No."
You get the idea. LittleBoy, at 3 years old, does not understand the interconnected nature of our world. He does not get the idea that whatever is accessible from the iPad can also be had from the laptop and the desktop and the iPod - as long as Mommy turns on the WiFi antenna.
He is, however, capable of operating a mouse, closing apps and opening others, one-click purchases on Amazon, and playing whatever has an attractive picture at the end of a YouTube video.
LittleBoy can also read books...
...or at least look at the pictures and tell a story. But he doesn't understand the Kindle App or the fact that everything published before 1923 is public domain and electronically available in various forms.
LittleBoy is hysterical and supercute and it's fine that he doesn't understand the interconnected nature of devices and our modern world of information. It seems, however, that a similar tale can be told about many educators. A fellow teacher recently said "My students don't know how to do anything until I tell them." He was talking about a pretty high-level class, but it's a lie we like to tell ourselves.
Let's be realistic. How many things could a motivated student NOT learn independently? Very few.
The information that we deliver as teachers is readily available everywhere in various forms and we need to quit thinking like LittleBoy and struggle with the question: "What is the place of an 'educator' in our interconnected world?"
Mommy's iPod is for music and for playing AngryBirds since Tembireko turned off the WiFi antenna to limit its capacity.
The iPad is only for certain videos - this is the race scene song from Pocoyo. It's pretty cute.
The desktop, for LittleBoy, is mainly for family pictures and music videos. Tembireko often plays guitar while watching the original videos. Live music in the home is wonderful and he's the drummer in the family band.
Just to confirm Tembireko's hypothesis that he believes that specific devices are for specific tasks, I asked him a series of questions:
"Can you play AngryBirds on my smart phone?"
"No."
"Can you watch music videos on the laptop?"
"No."
"Can you listen to music on the iPad?"
"Uumm, No."
You get the idea. LittleBoy, at 3 years old, does not understand the interconnected nature of our world. He does not get the idea that whatever is accessible from the iPad can also be had from the laptop and the desktop and the iPod - as long as Mommy turns on the WiFi antenna.
He is, however, capable of operating a mouse, closing apps and opening others, one-click purchases on Amazon, and playing whatever has an attractive picture at the end of a YouTube video.
LittleBoy can also read books...
LittleBoy is hysterical and supercute and it's fine that he doesn't understand the interconnected nature of devices and our modern world of information. It seems, however, that a similar tale can be told about many educators. A fellow teacher recently said "My students don't know how to do anything until I tell them." He was talking about a pretty high-level class, but it's a lie we like to tell ourselves.
Let's be realistic. How many things could a motivated student NOT learn independently? Very few.
The information that we deliver as teachers is readily available everywhere in various forms and we need to quit thinking like LittleBoy and struggle with the question: "What is the place of an 'educator' in our interconnected world?"
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)