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]

The "typical" high school physics teacher



I usually like to only lurk, but the transformer discussion intrigued me.

As a young teacher I referred to one of those power adapters used to replace a
battery as a transformer. Some students quickly pointed out to me that since
the output was dc and transformers only worked with ac, it could not be a
transformer. It was then that the concept of the two components - transformer
and rectifier crystalized in my mind. (Was that you, Mike Edmiston, in class?
I don't remember kicking you out ;-))

I used to have a train set (HO gauge) growing up in the 50's and 60's and I
clearly recall a "power source" labeled "transformer". The outputs were labeled
+ and - . I'd bet a lot that it was dc. There was also a reversing toggle
switch on the "transformer" which, when set in the reverse position, caused the
engine to move backwards. I'd bet lots that it had a dc motor.

That power supply was, to me at that time, a transformer, as the label stated,
and not a separate transformer and rectifier, as we all now agree it is.

I think that the real problem with is incident, as it was described, is that the
avenues of communication broke down before there was an effective exchange of
ideas. The student did not like being told that what he knew was right, was not
right; and the teacher did not like to be challenged in front of his class.
Right or wrong, I don't think that it is appropriate for a student to tell a
teacher he doesn't know what he is talking about in front of a class.

I also don't think it was a good idea to allow the disagreement to escalate to
the point that the parties became so entrenched in their views that ego's
dictated the final exchange.

Perhaps this is more analysis that the topic warrants.

Stu Leinoff
Adirondack CC

Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2000 09:03:37 -0800
From: Leigh Palmer <palmer@SFU.CA>
Subject: Re: The "typical" high school physics teacher
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed

Sometimes we physics types get awful posessive of the language. I have a
black box with my train set that is clearly labeled "transformer" (stamped
into the steel). It has a dc output.

So what? I've seen other toys labeled "Transformer". They have no
electrical inputs or outputs at all.

One of the great strengths of science is its parsimonious use of
language. Once properly defined, a scientific term has precise
meaning. In science this usually means that communication of
ideas is facilitated. While ambiguity and redundancy undeniably
make English literature more interesting, they do not seem to
have redeeming value in the scientific literature. Michael's
anecdote is a good example. Science is capable of describing
phenomena of great complexity (and, I will maintain, beauty)
using elegant language. In science, elegance entails simplicity
and it excludes ambiguity and redundancy.

Let's continue our possessive attitude regarding language when
it is appropriate to do so. Science class is certainly one place
where this is necessary.

Leigh