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] A geek's observations on "Avatar"



Bought a pair of real cheap sunglasses once - just because they were labeled as blocking 110% of all UV.

I couldn't figure out the 'magic' that might result from this.

At 9:53 PM -0500 1/5/10, Kyle Forinash wrote:
Hi

Speaking of 3D- I went to the Siggraph meeting
(http://www.siggraph.org/s2009/computer_animation_festival/index.php) in
New Orleans this past summer and saw a very good 3D video playing on
what looked like a normal flat screen TV WITHOUT POLARIZING GLASSES. You
had to stand in a 30-40 degree angle from direct center and less than 15
ft away but it was definitely 3D without glasses. Anyone know how this
works? It was very impressive.

I am also puzzled by the "not sunglasses" disclaimer for the Avatar
glasses. I use to have an admittedly crude UV sensor (I don't know the
exact frequency sensitivity- I think UVB was included) and tested
probably around 100 sunglasses and glasses in a wide price range (from
students) and they ALL blocked UV (at least as far as this sensor could
detect). I came to the conclusion that any plastic or glass blocks UVB
(purportedly the range that damages corneas) so paying big bucks for
expensive "UV blocking" sunglasses was unwarranted. I'll admit this
isn't completely air tight since I don't know the exact sensitivity of
the detector (which I no longer have). Anyone have any more information
about this?

kyle
------------------------------

Message: 13
Date: Sun, 3 Jan 2010 17:34:48 -0800
From: Bernard Cleyet <bernardcleyet@redshift.com>
Subject: Re: [Phys-l] A geek's observations on "Avatar"
To: Forum for Physics Educators <phys-l@carnot.physics.buffalo.edu>
Cc: Nancy Seese <nancyseese@redshift.com>
Message-ID: <A80E25C0-6413-4A7C-A746-CB6FAC40B854@redshift.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii



At first I wondered why circular? Perhaps, so tilting head doesn't affect the 3D and if the screen is tall / wide also?

When I Disneylanded, I kept the glasses to use w/ my 3D projector (father's, and grandfather's glass slides from, ca 1903 to 1935). They are simple linear polarizers. I'm also surprised broad spectrum circular polarizers can be made cheaply. Are they not 1/4 wave plates w/ a lin. polarizer?


On 2010, Jan 03, , at 10:47, Leigh Palmer wrote:

I haven't contributed anything to this group in a long time, but thanks to an improvement in my physical health I feel inspired to do so again. This won't be deep physics, but it is interesting, especially for teachers going back into classrooms tomorrow.


Pleased you're back --

cut

It is interesting to note that the package in which the glasses were handed out says:

NOT SAFE FOR USE AS SUNGLASSES
These glasses do not screen ultraviolet
light. Wearing them as sunglasses will not
protect your eyes. Use only in the theater.
Keep out of reach of children under 3."


I think they've got this backwards, it's the IR that'll do the most damage. Especially bad as the iris' response is to the vis. Wiki. claims PMMA (most used optical plastic except for contacts) absorbance in the UV is similar to window glass. i.e. strongly absorbs < 0.3 E-6 m. and other sources show it's rather transmissive in the near IR. Same for polycarbonate, ~> 80% transmission vis to 1.8 E-6 m. Absorbs UV -- used for UV protection glasses

cut


bc additionally saddened by father's death before acquiring the projector, and wonders what plastic the Avatar people are using.


p.s. In Galesburg returning from the AAPT Adv. Lab. Conference, I spent my allotment on a Taxiphote! It moves, by depressing a lever. stereo slides from a 25X tray up to the binoc. viewer. Cutely rings a bell after the last slide. Included locked drawer. I assumed the unlocked access door uses the same key, so took that look to smith who very surprisingly found an almost match (very rusted!). A little filing revealed five more nearly filled trays + more broken slides**. A few hours disassembly, cleaning. lubing and bending and it works well (smoothly). Can't understand why one (a child perhaps?) would continue braking slides after the first one or two!
>

** The Nile, Abu Simbel, etc. Unfortunately, Father's slides smaller, but more are available:


http://www.taxiphote.com/(S(bx4q0rvvetmw53iquyiynbak))/Default.aspx

------------------------------

Message: 14
Date: Sun, 3 Jan 2010 22:37:25 -0800
From: Bernard Cleyet <bernardcleyet@redshift.com>
Subject: Re: [Phys-l] A geek's observations on "Avatar"
To: Forum for Physics Educators <phys-l@carnot.physics.buffalo.edu>
Cc: Nancy Seese <nancyseese@redshift.com>
Message-ID: <EB86E805-CDDE-4486-8A8E-B0BD64C4B44F@redshift.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii

... the polarization is not in the vertical plane so they will not serve to reduce glare the way that traditional polarized sunglasses do.


An effort to prevent pilfering?

Not from us physicists!

bc, who didn't steal from Disney, as he asked the "girl" w/ the collection box for the one he used as a donation to bc's physics.

p.s. I may go for the effect, not the dialog. I have not been to a show for several years due to now 70 dB hearing loss. We have here in the boondocks** an IMAX, as Cannery Row is a tourist trap.

On 2010, Jan 03, , at 11:53, LaMontagne, Bob wrote:

I'm afraid that collecting "extra" glasses after the show is stealing. My daughter works part time for IMAX and the glasses are an incredible expense for them. They have to be collected by staff after each show (although some people hide them and sneak off with them), sterilize them, and then hand dry them so there will be no streaks or spots. They are of no use as polarizing sun glasses. As you noted, the polarization is not in the vertical plane so they will not serve to reduce glare the way that traditional polarized sunglasses do.


Why sterilize? I'd think one would want to sterilize just before the show! Bob, does IMAX clean them after each use; especially w/ the H1N1 hype?


** very interesting etymology -- occupying US imperialist soldiers' slang from a mountain in the Philippines.

------------------------------

Message: 15
Date: Sun, 3 Jan 2010 23:34:26 -0800
From: Bernard Cleyet <bernardcleyet@redshift.com>
Subject: Re: [Phys-l] Nurture vs Nature (Was:Student engagement)
To: Forum for Physics Educators <phys-l@carnot.physics.buffalo.edu>
Cc: Nancy Seese <nancyseese@redshift.com>
Message-ID: <B90F0843-D3E5-4E1E-A8CB-2EE0E08B632C@redshift.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii

Is this a conspiracy by the electric companies?

bc


On 2009, Dec 09, , at 05:22, LaMontagne, Bob wrote:

One can't blame the Amish for the space heaters. If you read the ads carefully, the Amish only make the hand crafted mantels that hold the heaters. Besides, the heaters are given away free - one only pays for the mantel - how can you argue with a deal like that?

:-)

Bob at PC

Physics - Fair and Balanced

________________________________________
From: phys-l-bounces@carnot.physics.buffalo.edu [phys-l-bounces@carnot.physics.buffalo.edu] On Behalf Of Hugh Haskell [haskellh@verizon.net]
Sent: Tuesday, December 08, 2009 11:55 PM
To: Forum for Physics Educators
Subject: Re: [Phys-l] Nurture vs Nature (Was:Student engagement)

At 15:51 -0600 12/08/2009, John Clement wrote:
What about physicists and chemists. We invented much more efficient killing
machines. Biologists are not far behind. About the only people you can not
blame for modern society's ills are the Amish.

Except for those bloody space heaters that purportedly produce 50%
more heat energy than the electricity they consume. If the money
spent on ads for those infernal devices was available to the federal
government we could cut our deficit to zero :-). I'm all for jobs for
the Amish, but I think we have to draw the line at repeal of the
First law of Thermodynamics.

Hugh

--
Hugh Haskell
mailto:hugh@ieer.org
mailto:haskellh@verizon.net

So-called "global warming" is just a secret ploy by wacko
tree-huggers to make America energy independent, clean our air and
>> water, improve the fuel efficiency of our vehicles, kick-start
21st-century industries, and make our cities safer. Don't let them
get away with it!!

Chip Giller, Founder, Grist.org
_______________________________________________
Forum for Physics Educators
Phys-l@carnot.physics.buffalo.edu
https://carnot.physics.buffalo.edu/mailman/listinfo/phys-l
_______________________________________________
Forum for Physics Educators
Phys-l@carnot.physics.buffalo.edu
https://carnot.physics.buffalo.edu/mailman/listinfo/phys-l




------------------------------

Message: 16
Date: Sun, 3 Jan 2010 23:59:22 -0800
From: Bernard Cleyet <bernardcleyet@redshift.com>
Subject: Re: [Phys-l] Nurture vs Nature (Was:Student engagement)
To: Forum for Physics Educators <phys-l@carnot.physics.buffalo.edu>
Cc: Nancy Seese <nancyseese@redshift.com>
Message-ID: <FC19F510-1DC8-4FD3-9E8B-426BB6A9183E@redshift.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii

It's unfortunate that they and the other "primitive" (innocent) people in the world are going to be punished by Gaia for our sins.

bc had read, IERC, that their compromise is WRT agriculture and ranching.



On 2009, Dec 09, , at 22:38, John Clement wrote:

Actually the Amish have a custom that their children must leave the
community for a period of time, either a year or 2 as I recall. This lets
them taste the modern world, and confirm their commitment to the Amish way
of life. He may have escaped at that point in time. In other words they
let people escape and encourage them to go if they wish.

Of course many people glory in their ignorance, and unfortunately some of
them are influential politicians. The governor of TX is a dyed in the wool
creationist, and does not believe in global warming. Half of the TX state
board of Ed. Is creationist.

At least the Amish do not try to convert others to their way of thinking, or
rather force their religious beliefs onto others. Some of them actually are
now compromising with the modern world. They may have a workshop with
modern woodworking tools and a generator to supply it, but they won't have
flush toilets or power in their houses. They mow the lawn the old fashioned
way with a push mower. But then so do I because is exercise,
environmentally sound, quiet, cheap, safe, and I have a tiny lawn.

John M. Clement
Houston, TX



------------------------------

Message: 17
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 2010 00:31:52 -0800
From: Bernard Cleyet <bernardcleyet@redshift.com>
Subject: Re: [Phys-l] possible projectile lab
To: Forum for Physics Educators <phys-l@carnot.physics.buffalo.edu>
Cc: Nancy Seese <nancyseese@redshift.com>
Message-ID: <BACDBF9B-1DB9-45D8-925D-C930350B75DD@redshift.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii

A coincidence -- only a few days ago I saw a pic. very vividly remembered, of rings thru which a ball following a parabolic path passes. I've scanned the last few hundred site titles in my history w/ no luck.

I suspect a Galileo model.

search: ramp OR "inclined plane" parabola OR "parabolic path" rings

results in: PIRA 1D60.50 described in Meiners, and TPT [22, 402 & 2, 336]

bc, googler






On 2009, Dec 16, , at 07:44, Souder Dwight wrote:

Soon, my physics students will be covering projectile motion. I've been thinking of doing a new lab, but wanted to see if someone else had already done it, and/or suggestions.

I'm thinking of having the students roll marbles down an incline, have it roll across the lab table a short distance, and mark where it lands on the ground (get an average of its landing distance).

From the information as to where it lands and the height of the lab table, the students would then calculate its initial horizontal velocity.
Then comes the challenging part. I'm thinking of giving the students 2-4 rings (about 2-3 inches in diameter) and they would have to place them in equal intervals of the marble's path, so that the marble passes through each ring.
>>
Has anyone done a similar lab? Any suggestions? If someone has already done this, could someone email me their lab?

Thank you in advance,
Dwight

_______________________________________________
Forum for Physics Educators
Phys-l@carnot.physics.buffalo.edu
https://carnot.physics.buffalo.edu/mailman/listinfo/phys-l



------------------------------

Message: 18
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 2010 01:55:04 -0800
From: Bernard Cleyet <bernardcleyet@redshift.com>
Subject: Re: [Phys-l] Understanding the physics lab
To: Forum for Physics Educators <phys-l@carnot.physics.buffalo.edu>
Message-ID: <072B739E-D85E-48B6-BF0B-78925C882B28@redshift.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii

The intro. labs. described earlier contrast markedly w/ the intermediate and adv'd labs. to which I'm accustomed. The apps. are kept set up for weeks and the sessions can be many hours. It's unfortunate that this is impossible in the society where there are hundreds in the class and the same space is used by more than one class. The only detail I can add to JD's idealization, and easily done, is to plot the data (usually appropriate) as taken. The reasons are obvious.

bc



On 2010, Jan 03, , at 13:21, John Denker wrote:

Something else to think about: This thread implicitly (and
now explicitly :-) calls into question the wisdom of having
3-hour lab sessions. It is better in many ways, including
being more like the real world, if students can observe for
an hour or so and then go off and think about it -- leaving
the apparatus set up -- and then come back and observe some
more. Obviously there is a cost to this in terms of space
and equipment and security ... but there is also major value,
in terms of showing them how things should be done.



------------------------------

Message: 19
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 2010 09:02:36 -0500
From: ludwik kowalski <kowalskil@mail.montclair.edu>
Subject: Re: [Phys-l] A geek's observations on "Avatar"
To: Forum for Physics Educators <phys-l@carnot.physics.buffalo.edu>
Message-ID: <bccfbadc9cc6797509a1adecc38407c3@mail.montclair.edu>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed

On Jan 3, 2010, at 1:47 PM, Leigh Palmer wrote:

I haven't contributed anything to this group in a long time, but
thanks to an improvement in my physical health I feel inspired to do
so again. This won't be deep physics, but it is interesting,
especially for teachers going back into classrooms tomorrow.

WELCOME BACK, LEIGH


Ludwik's new book (AUTOBIOGRAPHY) see:

http://csam.montclair.edu/~kowalski/mybook2.html

Share this link with those who might be interersted. Thanks in advanve.



------------------------------

Message: 20
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 2010 09:22:30 -0500
From: "LaMontagne, Bob" <RLAMONT@providence.edu>
Subject: Re: [Phys-l] A geek's observations on "Avatar"
To: Forum for Physics Educators <phys-l@carnot.physics.buffalo.edu>
Message-ID:

<417F573DD2969E48B8E33D1D5ED8DE7A5DCE44C61D@EXCHMBXCL.providence.col>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

Hi Bernard,

Yes they do sterilize them after each show. At the IMAX theater where my daughter works they actually have a room dedicated to the sterilization process. They are very serious about the spread of disease through the use of the glasses.

The theft is a real problem. Last night they could not fill their showings of Avatar because of theft of the glasses. Their losses were not only the expense of the glasses themselves but also the loss of income from customers they had to turn away. Movie theaters work on low margins, so any loss of customers is a serious concern.

If anyone has not seen the level of sophistication in the current IMAX 3D presentations, Avatar is a great introduction to it. It is also shown in regular flat screen theaters, but the effect is not as convincing. In either case, try to sit toward the front of the theater, but not the first couple of rows.
>
Bob at PC
________________________________________
From: phys-l-bounces@carnot.physics.buffalo.edu [phys-l-bounces@carnot.physics.buffalo.edu] On Behalf Of Bernard Cleyet [bernardcleyet@redshift.com]
Sent: Monday, January 04, 2010 1:37 AM
To: Forum for Physics Educators
Cc: Nancy Seese
Subject: Re: [Phys-l] A geek's observations on "Avatar"

... the polarization is not in the vertical plane so they will not serve to reduce glare the way that traditional polarized sunglasses do.


An effort to prevent pilfering?

Not from us physicists!

bc, who didn't steal from Disney, as he asked the "girl" w/ the collection box for the one he used as a donation to bc's physics.

p.s. I may go for the effect, not the dialog. I have not been to a show for several years due to now 70 dB hearing loss. We have here in the boondocks** an IMAX, as Cannery Row is a tourist trap.

On 2010, Jan 03, , at 11:53, LaMontagne, Bob wrote:

I'm afraid that collecting "extra" glasses after the show is stealing. My daughter works part time for IMAX and the glasses are an incredible expense for them. They have to be collected by staff after each show (although some people hide them and sneak off with them), sterilize them, and then hand dry them so there will be no streaks or spots. They are of no use as polarizing sun glasses. As you noted, the polarization is not in the vertical plane so they will not serve to reduce glare the way that traditional polarized sunglasses do.


Why sterilize? I'd think one would want to sterilize just before the show! Bob, does IMAX clean them after each use; especially w/ the H1N1 hype?


** very interesting etymology -- occupying US imperialist soldiers' slang from a mountain in the Philippines.
_______________________________________________
Forum for Physics Educators
Phys-l@carnot.physics.buffalo.edu
https://carnot.physics.buffalo.edu/mailman/listinfo/phys-l

------------------------------

Message: 21
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 2010 09:13:19 -0600
From: "Rauber, Joel" <Joel.Rauber@SDSTATE.EDU>
Subject: Re: [Phys-l] A geek's observations on "Avatar"
To: Forum for Physics Educators <phys-l@carnot.physics.buffalo.edu>
Message-ID:
<FCA5EF47F9BC694CBB4C58FEA0421963490EBACA54@SDSU-MBX.jacks.local>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"

Fun movie, but I definitely had the impression that I had seen this western before.

Depending on the theatre it may or may not be stealing the glasses; some theatre's sell the glasses to the audience. I so Beowulf and paid $2.00, for my glasses and saved them.

_________________________

Joel Rauber, Ph.D?
Professor and Head of Physics
Department of Physics
South Dakota State University
Brookings, SD 57007
Joel.Rauber@sdstate.edu
605.688.5428 (w)
605.688.5878 (fax)


-----Original Message-----
From: phys-l-bounces@carnot.physics.buffalo.edu [mailto:phys-l-
bounces@carnot.physics.buffalo.edu] On Behalf Of LaMontagne, Bob
Sent: Sunday, January 03, 2010 1:53 PM
To: Forum for Physics Educators
Subject: Re: [Phys-l] A geek's observations on "Avatar"

I'm afraid that collecting "extra" glasses after the show is stealing.
My daughter works part time for IMAX and the glasses are an incredible
expense for them. They have to be collected by staff after each show
(although some people hide them and sneak off with them), sterilize
them, and then hand dry them so there will be no streaks or spots. They
are of no use as polarizing sun glasses. As you noted, the polarization
is not in the vertical plane so they will not serve to reduce glare the
way that traditional polarized sunglasses do.

They movie was technically astounding. I definitely intend to see it
again. However, I was aghast at the racism in the film. The only blacks
portrayed were at the very beginning when the transport ship was being
boarded on earth to go to the planet. Once the "evil" deeds were
started, not a black or Hispanic face was to be seen - just evil white
>> European types - and of course the usual military and corporate
villains. There was one Hispanic female who, of course, went rogue and
defied the Anglo defilers. The plot was ripped whole cloth from
"Dancing with Wolves".

Despite this, I would highly recommend the movie - great fun and the
best 3-D so far. Definitely see it at an IMAX theater if possible.

Bob at PC
________________________________________
From: phys-l-bounces@carnot.physics.buffalo.edu [phys-l-
bounces@carnot.physics.buffalo.edu] On Behalf Of Leigh Palmer
[palmer@sfu.ca]
Sent: Sunday, January 03, 2010 1:47 PM
To: phys-l@carnot.physics.buffalo.edu
Subject: [Phys-l] A geek's observations on "Avatar"

I haven't contributed anything to this group in a long time, but thanks
to an improvement in my physical health I feel inspired to do so again.
This won't be deep physics, but it is interesting, especially for
teachers going back into classrooms tomorrow.


I, my wife, two of our sons, and a family of four friends saw the
remarkable film "Avatar" in RealD 3D. A member of our AAPT section had
kindly posted a technical writeup* which sons David, Aaron and I had
read in advance. The experience was well worth the time and money
spent, especially since Aaron treated us all!

My principal interest was in seeing the finished product. It was not
quite perfect, I'm afraid, but it was much, much better than any
previous 3D movies I had seen. The rendition is effectively at 24
frames per second, regular movie frame rate. As a consequence the
motion is not smooth, something that showed up dramatically in the 20th
Century Fox logo before the start of the film itself. As the CGI image
rotates, some small objects at the bottom of the screen are supposed to
appear to be moving rapidly from right to left. They don't; they jump
across instead in ten or fifteen discreet steps each. Once I had
recognized this "shortcoming" I continued to watch for it in the movie,
but I really didn't see another instance where it was noticeably
annoying. As I understand it, the problem could have been addressed by
the in-betweening process of computing intermediate images up to the 72
frames per second rate at which the images are projected to each eye,
in the same manner that

modern TV displays produce 120 Hz and 240 Hz frame rates to smooth
motion.

The other thing that really interested me is the glasses. They are
circular polarizers that alternately transmit and block light reflected
from the screen. I stood outside the theater after the show and
collected half a dozen pair because I knew they would be fun to play
with. The family's nine and eleven year old girls were fascinated by
the tricks I could do with the lenses. Of course I have played with
circular polarizers a lot previously, so I already knew exactly what to
expect, and I was able to put on a good series of demonstrations,
including using them as simple plane polarizers, showing that light
reflected from a kitchen floor is strongly plane polarized, for
example. I also showed how a single lens could suppress reflections
from a shiny coin, and that the antireflective capability cold be
destroyed by simply adding a second filter in series. It was a
remarkable instance of a teachable moment, even though my only handy
students were 10- and 13-year-old girls. I ha

ven't yet removed any of the lenses from the frames, but doing so will
make them easier to use in demonstrations.

It is interesting to note that the package in which the glasses were
handed out says:

NOT SAFE FOR USE AS SUNGLASSES
These glasses do not screen ultraviolet
light. Wearing them as sunglasses will not
protect your eyes. Use only in the theater.
Keep out of reach of children under 3."

This is a CYA disclaimer, of course, but it is interesting to note that
the glasses can be used to function like Polaroid sunglasses - to
reduce glare from water or pavement, rather than to screen out
>> ultraviolet radiation. However this can only be done by modifying their
use; they won't work as provided in the theater. For the pairs I
examined the lenses work as plane polarized light blockers if one looks
through them backwards. However the plane polarized light they transmit
is horizontally polarized, and that's the component that must be
blocked to reduce glare. Thus to use them as ordinary polarized
sunglasses you must remove the lenses, reverse them front-to-back, and
also rotate them 90 degrees about the line of sight. That would
scarcely be worth the effort, by the way.

If you take a child to the movie a child-sized pair of glasses will be
offered. Before accepting them be sure your child cannot use the full
sized glasses. The whole screen cannot be viewed within the width of
the child sized lens from a reasonable distance. We were sitting three
rows above the middle aisle, and I sent the 13-year-old back to trade
glasses before the film started. I should have sent the ten year old
back too, as it turned out.

If you are a geek you must see this film, and you should read the short
pdf* first. Don't forget to collect some extra glasses after the film
is over. The two lenses are different, and you need at least two of
each kind to explore their fascinating properties. If you don't know
how the circularly polarizing lenses work and you want to know, I can
give you little help. A brief Googling yielded one good result, but I
could read only the cached version. You can reach it via Googling
"circular polarizer 45" (without the quotes, of course) and clicking on
the cached version of
<http://corporateportal.ppg.com/NA/chemicals/Optical/InternationalPolar
izer/Products/circularPolarizers.htm> which shows up on the second page
of results. Briefly, a circular polarizer consists of a linear
polarizer laminated to a quarter wave retardation plate at 45 degrees
to its fast axis. Scarcely a good description. (The textbooks I have
don't include good descriptions either.)

Leigh

*See <http://www.sfu.ca/~palmer/real-d.pdf>. This writeup is by Matt
Cowan, q.g.
_______________________________________________
Forum for Physics Educators
Phys-l@carnot.physics.buffalo.edu
https://carnot.physics.buffalo.edu/mailman/listinfo/phys-l
_______________________________________________
Forum for Physics Educators
Phys-l@carnot.physics.buffalo.edu
https://carnot.physics.buffalo.edu/mailman/listinfo/phys-l


------------------------------

_______________________________________________
Forum for Physics Educators
Phys-l@carnot.physics.buffalo.edu
https://carnot.physics.buffalo.edu/mailman/listinfo/phys-l


End of Phys-l Digest, Vol 60, Issue 4
*************************************

--
------------------------------------------
"The modern conservative is engaged in one
of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy;
that is, the search for a superior moral
justification for selfishness."
- John Kenneth Galbraith

kyle forinash kforinas@ius.edu -----------------------------------------

_______________________________________________
Forum for Physics Educators
Phys-l@carnot.physics.buffalo.edu
https://carnot.physics.buffalo.edu/mailman/listinfo/phys-l