Re: [Phys-l] The attack on science is political, not philosophical

[Brian Whatcott <betwys1@sbcglobal.net>]

This is in the nature of an anecdotal response to Skip's question which
 may possibly shed a little light.

Late last century, I needed to model the observable effects of
 using some test equipment on a  Navy trainer (simulation).
 The equipment in question was a time domain reflectometer,
and a frequency domain reflectometer, which were (are?) used
to check aircraft signal cables operating at high frequencies.

It was not difficult to code an arbitrary signal generator with the noisy
spectral response that the data was intended to represent, with a
 peak or dip at a particular frequency intended to define the ltransit time
and hence cable length to a discontinuity.

The time domain reflectometer display was also suitably presented
 (I thought), with steps representing impedance changes at the
required variable distance and value and reflections and  junctions
and terminal impedance....

A Navy user was not impressed however - the time domain was far
too clean for his taste.   So then with the appropriate injection of
quasi random noise, the customer was satisfied.

This tale is meant to show that a simulation can portray more clearly,
more simply, than the real thing.
But what gains in clarity, loses in reality. There is a balance.

Brian W

At 08:04 AM 1/17/2008, Skip,  you wrote:
> As a teacher who employs both simulated and real experiments,
> I'd like to see a reference that the latter works better.
>  Do you recall where you read that, John?
> skip
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: phys-l-bounces@carnot.physics.buffalo.edu 
> [mailto:phys-l-bounces@carnot.physics.buffalo.edu] On Behalf Of John Clement
> Sent: Wednesday, January 16, 2008 11:43 PM
> To: 'Forum for Physics Educators'
> Subject: Re: [Phys-l] The attack on science is political, not philosophical
>
> The issue of dissection of animals is easily solved in HS.  There are
> virtual dissections available on the web, and according to some research I
> have seen, they work very well.  Indeed it is possible they might work
> better than real dissections. .....


Brian Whatcott    Altus OK    Eureka!