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]

Re: [Phys-l] Simulated Labs for General Physics Course



<I wrote this and fw hours ago and now discover not sent.>


I simulated (wrote the leapfrog basic) the coupled spring oscillator supporting a pendulum**, because I didn't have the app. I then purchased the app. [Pasco and Vernier low friction cart, track, rotary optical ecoder, rod and masses, etc.]

I hadn't included friction, which in the app. added to my understanding.

Reinforcing what's already been written:


According to the PER people simulatio are better at reaching principles. Not intuitive , but perhaps for the very reason they are "bad" labs, ie ideal and w/o the physical stuff clutter.

OTOH th ephysicla clutter is necesary to develop experimental techniques. It's nto an acciden most grad students (even some theory ones at UCSC) are required to take a shop course.

Knowledge gained kiesthetically is supposed to be the best learned and retained.


** and this was to explain an unexplaned behaviour found by an Horologist.

On 2011, Jan 20, , at 11:45, ludwik kowalski wrote:

I agree with both of you. Simulations help us to explore consequences of theoretically formulated statements. Ideally, all simulation programs should be written by those who use them.

Ludwik