Re: Misconceptions FAQ

[Ludwik Kowalski <KowalskiL@MAIL.MONTCLAIR.EDU>]

Brian McInnes wrote:

> Hi Doug,
> I would be interested to be involved in the putting-together of a
> misconceptions faq.  Now that I am semi-retired from my academic
> work at the University of Sydney, my time is free to be spent on
> what I'm really interested in and the plan for this misconceptions
> faq based on the many worthwhile contributions to our list does
> seem to be worthspending time on. Are you getting much
> feed-back and interest?

1) The idea of preserving phys-L threads (apart from the archive),
and turning them into "teaching resources", is certainly worth
applauding. But is the FAQ format appropriate here? In my
opinion it would be OK for some topics only. For others the
digest format (summaries of threads) would be better. Just call
your project "phys-L topics" (or something like that) and select
the best format for each. The "one format" approach may
complicate your tasks unnecessarily. It can also interfere with
the idea of creating a useful resource. Good luck to Dan, Doug
and Brian.

2) I am still ambivalent about adding my misconceptions about
the conical pendulum to our list. I now know that the concept
of amplitude is not applicable to a conical pendulum (we may
say deflection angle instead) and that its circular motion can
not be "decomposed" into two simple pendula oscillating in
mutually perpendicular planes. Perhaps this was always
obvious to others.
Ludwik Kowalski