Chronology |
Current Month |
Current Thread |
Current Date |

[Year List] [Month List (current year)] | [Date Index] [Thread Index] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] | [Date Prev] [Date Next] |

*From*: "John Clement" <clement@hal-pc.org>*Date*: Sun, 20 Apr 2008 00:07:05 -0500

This business of an accepted value is nonsense. Students are often asked to

calculate error by subtracting the accepted value from their value, when

they should be looking at how their values spread. Notice that the idea of

an accepted value makes error seem like something that is "wrong". And how

is the accepted value calculated in this case? Is it measured at a

"standard" location, or is it just an average over the entire surface of the

Earth? Or is it an average by latitude, which will give a different value.

That being said, the value that students should use is the value they

measure in the lab. Since my students do it in a very approximate fashion,

they measure 10N/kg, so that is what we use. Since the text I use also uses

this value, it is quite good enough.

One of the important reasons for using 10 is that they have previously been

told that the gravitational acceleration is 9.81, but they do not understand

this, and they are very confused when calculating F_g = m g where g is

quoted as an acceleration. After all a book on a table is not accelerating

so why use an acceleration in the calculation. But encountering the idea

that the force is 10N/kg x the mass is fairly natural. The fact that we use

a different number somewhat decouples the previous memorized knowledge from

the new understanding.

There is another problem in that g can be interpreted either as the actual

acceleration or the gravitational field constant. These yield different

values. One must make a choice there, and all too often this is glossed

over. Since my students are at a fairly low level, this distinction is

never brought out, but at all times g is treated as the gravitational field

constant.

While Knight certainly has many good things, the big misconceptions are not

always treated well. By doing Newton's laws in the numerically correct

order, they are done in the pedagogically wrong order. NTN3 needs to come

first with the idea of interactions. By deriving the local gravitational

field constant from NTN2, students are then confused. He introduces energy

bar charts, but then does not have students use them in textbook problems.

He also uses 2 types of bar charts, which can be confusing. So the research

based ideas are sometimes decorations rather than a solid part of the book.

His kinematics section is better in this regard as he does use motion maps

and graphs in textbook problems. The student workbook, however, does look

good, as it resembles McDermott tutorials.

So I would not worry about the difference between 9.80 and 9.81. This is a

small thing compared to the many other issues.

John M. Clement

Houston, TX

The value of g at my location is less than 9.80 m/s^2, and Randy Knight

uses 9.80 in his textbook, but NIST says the accepted value for standard

gravity is 9.80665 which rounds to 9.81. Most textbooks use 9.81 when

they

want three sig-figs (but not Knight).

**References**:**Re: [Phys-l] harmonics***From:*kyle forinash <kforinas@ius.edu>

**Re: [Phys-l] harmonics***From:*John Denker <jsd@av8n.com>

**[Phys-l] 9.80 vs. 9.81***From:*Larry Smith <larry.smith@snow.edu>

- Prev by Date:
**Re: [Phys-l] 9.80 vs. 9.81** - Next by Date:
**Re: [Phys-l] 9.80 vs. 9.81** - Previous by thread:
**Re: [Phys-l] 9.80 vs. 9.81** - Next by thread:
**Re: [Phys-l] 9.80 vs. 9.81** - Index(es):