IMO, electronic beginners and most everybody else can learn a few things from this site. In particular, read the sections on bad physics and bad electricity, as they may clarify some fuzzy concepts that were never really taught correctly, if at all.
........................... I drew an electrical semantic once, but got the words crossed up.
They admit there may be some mistakes on the site, but I find most of it to be valid, plus it keeps the brain working to examine their viewpoint vs what's often taught. The particular analogy I find most important is under capacitor misconceptions, where they debunk the "water bucket" nonsense that's often taught, and replace it with the 2-port captured diaphragm. That alone is worth the price of admission.
They admit there may be some mistakes on the site, but I find most of it to be valid, plus it keeps the brain working to examine their viewpoint vs what's often taught. The particular analogy I find most important is under capacitor misconceptions, where they debunk the "water bucket" nonsense that's often taught, and replace it with the 2-port captured diaphragm. That alone is worth the price of admission.
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.
The guy's approach is what has people accusing him of nitpicking. In several cases he is accusing the teachers of stupidity and also saying that people taught these concepts will never learn science.
When I read these things, I am annoyed. To a certain extent, one must consider the audience when teaching things, a kindergardener will not be doing surface integrals anytime soon.... Rather than picking on general - and honestly mostly trivial - misconceptions, he should spend his energy creating a lesson plan or science book that is accessible and explains these concepts in a proper manner.
Perhaps he is being provocative to increase the chances that someone will be annoyed and come up with a better explanation
When I read these things, I am annoyed. To a certain extent, one must consider the audience when teaching things, a kindergardener will not be doing surface integrals anytime soon.... Rather than picking on general - and honestly mostly trivial - misconceptions, he should spend his energy creating a lesson plan or science book that is accessible and explains these concepts in a proper manner.
Perhaps he is being provocative to increase the chances that someone will be annoyed and come up with a better explanation
Ha! I see the man himself is here. Joined today in fact.
I found quite early in life that if I questioned anyone about conceptual details, I would run out of answers quite quickly. That, and a few good teachers, helped to develop a healthy sense of skepticism about what was being taught and what teachers actually knew. Often a misconception such as the ones he claims are hurtful were the reason I looked further and increased my understanding on a topic. These are like doors opened along the path of education.
I found quite early in life that if I questioned anyone about conceptual details, I would run out of answers quite quickly. That, and a few good teachers, helped to develop a healthy sense of skepticism about what was being taught and what teachers actually knew. Often a misconception such as the ones he claims are hurtful were the reason I looked further and increased my understanding on a topic. These are like doors opened along the path of education.
Hey, Mr. Beaty, I'm impressed- how did you find us so quickly? I've known about the site for a long time and have always enjoyed it. As an example of why I think the sorts of explanations on the site are needed, I was confused about AF, RF, UHF and such for many years. I had never been clearly taught that the electromagnetic spectrum is a continuum, and the same rules govern everything. On casual examination, the working rules and "rules of thumb" are different. Audio people speak one language, hams speak another and telecom people a third. Even after grasping it, it took a long time to be comfortable and confident that what I was thinking was correct.
IMO, the fundamentals have to be solid before one can talk about the audibility of various things like skin effect and cable properties, so I think the site reference is valuable here.
As for errors, I don't know of any, but find it helps acceptance to keep the possibility open and not present things as absolutes; thus my mention.
IMO, the fundamentals have to be solid before one can talk about the audibility of various things like skin effect and cable properties, so I think the site reference is valuable here.
As for errors, I don't know of any, but find it helps acceptance to keep the possibility open and not present things as absolutes; thus my mention.
Welcome to the forum, William. Or is it Bill?
You must have been watching your website traffic to find us so quickly.
Bill B.
Yep, if there's nothing else to do I can merge into the flow of stumbleupon and google search. Big unexplained pulse of diyaudio comes by, then get slashdotted in the dreaded Reddit vortex.
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??? Airfoils are airfoils, not aquatic propellers.
I think this guy is a little nuts!
_______________________________________________________Rick.........
Say what??? Airfoils are airfoils, not aquatic propellers.
I think this guy is a little nuts!
_______________________________________________________Rick.........
Um. The equations behind the fluid dynamics for air and for water are identical. The cross section of ships propellors have airfoil shapes. If you disagree, Main CFD Forum -- CFD Online Discussion Forums is a group which will set you straight.
And what's with the namecalling? I'm only here hours, and already someone is delivering personal insults. Not a good sign at all.
Richard, By all means question the content but don't make it personal. 
Hi Bill, got to say that I agree with your sentiments and enjoyed your website.
I recall all through high school physics and college electronics the consternation I felt as overly-simplified concepts were successively replaced by bigger, more sophisticated and presumably more accurate concepts. And the math became more and more challenging.
I recall all through high school physics and college electronics the consternation I felt as overly-simplified concepts were successively replaced by bigger, more sophisticated and presumably more accurate concepts. And the math became more and more challenging.
I haven't looked elswhere on the site but the airfoil discussion agrees well with me - I have long complained that Newton force law should be taught 1st as the fundamental principle - "throw mass down" to generate lift
the fluid dynamics details are secondary to me, a clever way to most eficiently "throw mass down"
the fluid dynamics details are secondary to me, a clever way to most eficiently "throw mass down"
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.