My apologies to Vernier and thanks for the correction. The article is
definitely worth reading for anyone who has used the picket fence.
________________________
Joel Rauber
Department of Physics - SDSU
Joel.Rauber@sdstate.edu
605-688-4293
| -----Original Message-----
| From: phys-l-bounces@carnot.physics.buffalo.edu
| [mailto:phys-l-bounces@carnot.physics.buffalo.edu] On Behalf
| Of John Gastineau
| Sent: Monday, September 17, 2007 11:45 AM
| To: Forum for Physics Educators
| Subject: Re: [Phys-l] picket fence free fall vs. ticker tape timer
|
| On Sep 16, 2007, at 1:54 PM, Rauber, Joel wrote:
| >
| > The Physics Teacher, Vol. 35, April 1997.
| >
| > Vernier changed their coding of the data taking as a result of this
| > article, as I understand it.
| > ________________________
| > Joel Rauber
| > Department of Physics - SDSU
|
| While the algorithm used for photogate motion timing (aka
| picket fence timing) used by various Vernier programs has
| been changed over the years to make more raw data available,
| our software never made the gross error described in the
| excellent paper above (which does not mention Vernier).
|
| The paper describes data from a picket fence free-fall
| experiment as analyzed by a commercial software package from
| another interface company, and how the software's developers
| make an error that creates poor results from good raw data.
|
| The full title is "Dangers of Automated Data Analysis" by William J.
| Leonard. TPT volume 35, April 1997, page 220-222. It's well
| worth reading, and is within reach of better introductory
| physics students.
|
| --
| John Gastineau
| Staff Scientist and Partner
| Vernier Software & Technology
| jgastineau@vernier.com
|
|
|
| _______________________________________________
| Forum for Physics Educators
| Phys-l@carnot.physics.buffalo.edu
| https://carnot.physics.buffalo.edu/mailman/listinfo/phys-l
|