Re: heat, centrifugal force, etc.

[John Barrer <forcejb@YAHOO.COM>]

I would argue that the small percentage of my students
who go on to more advanced coursework are fully
capable of comprehending the effects of rotating
reference frames, especially as they mature and their
abstract/theoretical reasoning improves. It is hard
enough to get (younger, ie, less intellectually
mature) HS students to understand physics in a "fixed"
reference frame. Would the list purists be satisfied
if we (in HS) said "There is no such thing as
centrifugal force in our usual reference frame"? I do
not see our goal in HS as producing "better"
scientists and engineers; you univ folks do that
rather well already. Our (IMO more difficult)
challenge is to produce a higher percentage of HS
graduates who have at least some degree of scientific
literacy and reasoning ability. John Barrere  Apex, HS
 Apex, NC

--- Robert Cohen <Robert.Cohen@PO-BOX.ESU.EDU> wrote:
> Savinainen Antti wrote:
>
> > Phys-L among other sources have taught me not to
> ban centrifugal
> > forces; they do belong to more advanced courses
> and modern
> > physics.
>
> The question is whether such a hard stance in intro
> courses causes
> hardship in the advanced courses.
>
> I agree that using the term "centrifugal force"
> (like "centripetal
> force", by the way) confuses students.  For this
> reason, I prefer
> using the phrase "apparent force away from the
> center" instead of
> "centrifugal" until the students get used to the
> idea.
>
> ____________________________________________
> Robert Cohen; rcohen@po-box.esu.edu; 570-422-3428;
> http://www.esu.edu=
> /~bbq
> Physics, East Stroudsburg Univ., E. Stroudsburg, PA
18301


__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now.
http://mailplus.yahoo.com