Some basic electronics and unlearning the wrong

[SY]

Re: the airfoil, when I first started flying, my instructor gave me a copy of Langewiesche's "Stick and Rudder," a classic book which demolished the notion of the Bernoulli approach taught in school. When it came time to teach my son about how airplanes work, I took him for a ride in my car and had him stick his hand out the window and play with the angle of attack as I drove faster or slower.

 

[CopperTop]

And what's with the namecalling? I'm only here hours, and already someone is delivering personal insults. Not a good sign at all.

Quite right. I was brought up in a household that somehow learned that discussion and argument was a good thing, to be enjoyed. I believe that is how it works in academia too.

Sites like DIYAudio are obviously open to people of all sorts, and are often reduced to lowest common denominator discussions where someone makes an assertion and then takes attempts to merely explore what they've said as a personal challenge to their expertise, responding with personal insults and effectively closing the discussion down. I've noticed a tendency, often seen in the male-dominated world of business, to regard self deprecation or the asking of questions instead of dogmatic assertion, as signs of weakness to be pounced upon, rather than opportunities for fruitful discussion. The implication is often that a contribution isn't valid unless the poster has got some (purely self-certified) expertise in the most mundane aspects of something, rather than just a desire to discuss ideas for the sake of it.

The worst aspect of all this is that I then feel pressure to make my own contributions more assertive and abrasive just to be able to 'join in'. It's a shame, because there are some really interesting discussions to be had.

 

[Ron E]

I've noticed a tendency, often seen in the male-dominated world of business, to regard self deprecation or the asking of questions instead of dogmatic assertion, as signs of weakness to be pounced upon, rather than opportunities for fruitful discussion. The implication is often that a contribution isn't valid unless the poster has got some (purely self-certified) expertise in the most mundane aspects of something, rather than just a desire to discuss ideas for the sake of it.

Ha, how true. I've noticed that in the culture of this country, if I qualify a statement at all, the person on the other end automatically assumes I am wrong if it disagrees with their belief. Confidence is more appreciated than correctness, and while discussion is always cited as useful, there is never any real room for debate or discussion. A wrong answer delivered immediately is always preferred to a correct one arrived at by thoughtful discussion. There is always time to do it two or three times, but never time to do it right the first time.

 

[Ron E]

Pick the worst mistake and email the author. (Or ...post it right here To avoid confusion, copy some actual text and *not* what you think it says.)

I'm constantly improving those articles. A few physicists have been over them to help fix up unclear sections. But outsiders often can see things that even the experts have missed.

Today when unwary teachers try to understand "electricity", they encounter this morass of contradictions. Often they throw up their hands in frustration and say: "Electricity is just a kind of event."

This is wrong too!

<Grin>

Pretending that electricity is an event doesn't solve the problem, instead it makes it worse. Teachers are trying to add yet another definition of "Electricity" to the growing list!

Do I smell a straw man? Your prose is rife with them. I believe this approach probably results in the nitpicking accusations...

Don't get me wrong, you have some interesting things to say. Keep it up! Perhaps toning it down a bit will make the pill easier to swallow?

Best Regards.

 

[Pano]

Re: the airfoil, when I first started flying, my instructor gave me a copy of Langewiesche's "Stick and Rudder," a classic book which demolished the notion of the Bernoulli

Ditto!


I'd sure like to see a section on light and the inverse square law. Too many folks don't understand it and think it applies to every source. It does not. Just being going thru all that on another forum.

(can apply to sound, too)

 

[Conrad Hoffman]

I linked to the page on infrared radiation in another forum (topic was coloring the edges of CD with green marker, but things drifted a bit OT) because so many people think infrared radiation has some special heat-carrying or heating ability vs other parts of the spectrum.

The straw man complaint may or may not be valid, but given the generally wretched state of science teaching in this country (OK, I can't prove that, but I can tell you job applicants for technical jobs seem to be pretty clueless), I think it's a good way to address the perceived issues.

 

[Ron E]

Comments about approach aside, a better way to view the true inventive character of wbeaty is to peruse:
SCIENCE HOBBYIST: Top Page
I am familiar with his website but never looked at the textbook section before.

 

[SY]

Wow, there's some... interesting stuff there.

 

[sofaspud]

The Amazing Science website isn't new to me, and there's lots of useful stuff there. On the other hand, making a bunch of noise about perpetual motion machines is no where near the same as actually demonstrating one. And on the other hand (gee, you're so anthrocentric), "It can't be" is also a fine motivator.

 

[wbeaty]

Do I smell a straw man? Your prose is rife with them.

Again: just go and pick the most egregious offence and post it here. Without examples I have no idea what you mean by "straw man." If there are that many instances as you say, it should be easy.

Don't get me wrong, you have some interesting things to say. Keep it up! Perhaps toning it down a bit will make the pill easier to swallow?

I said this many years ago in the electricity intro:

Sorry if the following is a bit contentious at times. I wrote it in an attempt to get some things off my chest. If you keep watching this site, I'll probably clean it up and make it sound a bit more professional.

When I posted that I received immediate multiple responses: NO DON'T TONE IT DOWN. Apparently everyone wanted me to dig dirt on textbook errors. So I never followed up on my offer.

 

[Ron E]

Mr. Beaty,
I honestly support what you are doing, just thought I would share more of what I found annoying in the textbook section as a bit of non-personal feedback since I have posted about it a few times. If you have received feedback to the contrary, so be it - consider my opinion as a data point, perhaps an outlier. I really have no dog in this fight. Certainly your videos don't generally come off as abrasive.

Probably my favorite sections of your website are the pranks and experiments. Very imaginative stuff there! I enjoyed the kindergartner death ray gag

 

[AndrewT]

Im paraphrasing here' The airflow across the top of the airfoil must be heading downward off the trailing edge to "push down" to apply lift'

Say what???

I am inclined to agree.
Take a symetrical airfoil (NACA xyz), placed horizontally = no lift.
Add some camber to create NACA xybb, and place it horizontally and you get lift. Now incline nose up and you get more lift. Incline it nose down and you get less lift. There is an inclination of nose down attitude where the cambered airfoil has no lift. I wonder how close to horizontal the final few mm of the tail section (trailing edge) is?

 

[poynton]

Straw man - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[wbeaty]

I honestly support what you are doing, just thought I would share more of what I found annoying in the textbook section

Yes, thanks, that's exactly what I want.

Which particular sentence/paragraph in the textbook section is annoying? I can't respond to constructive criticism unless I know where the problem occurs. Same as with grammar errors: if you've noticed some, I can't fix them unless I know where they are. If I've indulged in straw-man fallacy, please point to the paragraph so I can fix it. If it's everywhere all through my article, then please point out just one or two so I can try to do something about it. And if you know a way to change things so it's no longer "straw man," I'd love to hear suggestions.

Probably my favorite sections of your website are the pranks and experiments. Very imaginative stuff there! I enjoyed the kindergartner death ray gag

List of more YT vids to come, electronics, physics, "stuff," including RC speedboat powered by deathrays. Don't stick your hand back there. http://amasci.com/amateur/vidlist.html

 

[wbeaty]

Often they throw up their hands in frustration and say: "Electricity is just a kind of event."

Is this phrase above the "straw man?"

 

[Ron E]

Is this phrase above the "straw man?"

After a fashion. You are setting up someone to hold a position that sort of strays from the point, then pushing it over and grinning about it. A more neutral point of view would be more effective, in my opinion. Otherwise it sort of looks like you are bashing the teachers rather than critiquing the books. There are some other similar examples.

A little side story that comes to my point: In college I spent some time working at a pizza joint. I tore my ACL and my boss kindly let me answer phones, handle complaints and dispatch the drivers. I started to get to where I could read people exceptionally well over the phone. I could read a prank order (even a pie or two) and I would immediately call back the number they gave (pre caller ID) and they would never answer or it would be a different voice who hadn't ordered pizza etc...

I also found that in nearly all cases, people who called and complained, and had a legitimate complaint, were very polite and frank about the issue. Whenever I had a complaint that I later found was not legitimate, the people were screaming and yelling and making a big issue - overstating their case.

The same thing applies in many other circumstances. When an argument is contentious or overstated, I (and other people as well) tend to discount it as a rant.

Regards,
Ron

 

[Pano]

Yes Ron. But we live in a noisy and distracting world. It can often take a lot of noise to get noticed. I like subtlety but it fails more often than not.

 

[gmphadte]

I had read the site some months back. What impressed me was the correct interpretation of subject. As far as I am concerned, I don't bother what ways correct things r told. I don't, in any way mean anything. Improvements r always welcome.

But I found the explanations r quite good.

Gajanan Phadte

 

[Ron E]

Yes Ron. But we live in a noisy and distracting world. It can often take a lot of noise to get noticed. I like subtlety but it fails more often than not.

It would make a neat experiment to leave the originals and make a more neutral version, and see what people found more valid. Someone here posted some link which said people are more likely to believe that which matches their preconception, which could be an alternative reason why people find wbeaty's dissections as nitpicking. psychology is strange

--
Ron

 

[wbeaty]

When an argument is contentious or overstated, I (and other people as well) tend to discount it as a rant.

Some background on this textbook issue: RP Feynman would BLOOWWWWW, and he finally had to flee from the problem, saying it might have harmed his marriage. Working on the K6 math books was bad, and it all turned out to be for nothing. And next year they wanted him to do K6 physics texts...

JUDGING BOOKS BY THEIR COVERS
Corruption in textbook-adoption proceedings: 'Judging Books by Their Covers'

I went through a similar incident. Large numbers of others have as well. From stories I've heard, I conclude that the problem is far more widespread than Feynman describes.