On Nov 22, 2007, at 21:18, Drew Van Zandt wrote:
I'm sure you can't MAKE kids interested in engineering, but there are
certainly classes of toys that a great many of the more geek-
inclined people
I know remember fondly.
I'm largely siding with nature on this one. I had our two kids down
On Nov 21, 2007, at 17:51, Greg Rundlett wrote:
That's fast. It's also faster than the guy said. He said it was
supposed to be somewhere in the 70 mph range.
Perhaps the numbers are off.
Perhaps it's more than a physics problem (likely it's still a math
problem).
My guess is it's more
On Saturday 24 November 2007 23:47, Ben Scott wrote:
On Nov 24, 2007 8:56 PM, Jim Kuzdrall [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Try this on for an idea: Linus' lasting contribution may be
the concept of collaborative, open technical development using the
Web or some other egalitarian communication
On 11/24/07, Jon 'maddog' Hall [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
That book (unfortunately) has been out of print for many, many years,
but here is another book along the same lines that I would recommend:
http://www.amazon.com/American-Boys-Handy-Book-Nonpareil/dp/0879234490/ref=si3_rdr_bb_product
a
From: Jim Kuzdrall
I believe it was Jean Jacques Rousseau who concluded a letter to a
friend saying, I am sorry this letter is so long, but I did not have
time to write a shorter one. (Did I get that attribution right?)
I'm not sure, but that quote is in Strunk White's Elements of
On Nov 23, 2007 10:01 PM, Jon 'maddog' Hall [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
but here is another book along the same lines that I would recommend:
http://www.amazon.com/American-Boys-Handy-Book-Nonpareil/dp/0879234490/ref=si3_rdr_bb_product
a reprint of Dan Beard's book: The American Boy's Handy
Great book. Also check out the magazine MAKE.
Mike
- Original Message -
From: Michael Costolo
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org
Sent: Saturday, November 24, 2007 5:59 AM
Subject: Re: [OT] Simple math considered physics
On Nov 23, 2007 10:01
On Friday 23 November 2007 23:56, Ben Scott wrote:
On Nov 23, 2007 9:47 PM, Ric Werme [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
No More Edisons?
I find sweet irony in the tone of this essay, given that it was
re-posted in a forum whose nominal focus is an operating system
created by an upstart college
On Friday 23 November 2007 21:47, Ric Werme wrote:
As for the former, I wrote the following a while back. While it ran
in the NH Mensa newsletter, I was never happy with it and haven't
put it on the web yet. Too many omissions, too many sentences that
need their own paragraph, but it really
[this is a reply to multiple messages from the same author]
On Nov 24, 2007 8:56 PM, Jim Kuzdrall [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Try this on for an idea: Linus' lasting contribution may be
the concept of collaborative, open technical development using the Web
or some other egalitarian communication
Any I've missed? If I ever have children they're definitely going to
have easy access LEGO and random electronic components.
Rubber-band powered airplanes made of balsa and tissue paper (today the
tissue paper is sometimes replaced with ultra-thin plastic, which can
actually be made by
On Nov 23, 2007 9:47 PM, Ric Werme [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
No More Edisons?
I find sweet irony in the tone of this essay, given that it was
re-posted in a forum whose nominal focus is an operating system
created by an upstart college kid. :-)
-- Ben
On Thursday 22 November 2007 21:18, you wrote:
I'm sure you can't MAKE kids interested in engineering, but there are
certainly classes of toys that a great many of the more geek-inclined
people I know remember fondly.
LEGO
Erector sets
Tinkertoys
Lincoln Logs
Piles of junk + imagination
Perhaps our society has been wealthy for too many generations. Few
young people seem think about what they want to accomplish in life.
Everything they could want is there - or so it might appear.
And too many distractions. John Taylor Gatti, NYC teacher of the year
a few times was
On Wednesday 21 November 2007 17:51, Greg Rundlett wrote:
I really like the indoor batting facility in Salisbury, MA (Extra
Innings). I wondered how 'fast' the fast cage was
Y = Big League pitch speed =
60.5 feet / .45 seconds = Y feet / 1 second
Y = 134.444 feet / second * 3600 / 5280
If you're asking how fast does it appear to be going based on
time of flight from the pitchers mound to the batter, the answer
is 100mph.
Heh. And I wonder if the insurance premiums aren't a bit
more affordable if you explain to your insuror that you're
only beaning your customers with
the difference
between a 90mph and a 91.66mph pitch.
Mike Miller
- Original Message -
From: Greg Rundlett [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: GNHLUG gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org
Cc: Geoff Rundlett [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, November 21, 2007 5:51 PM
Subject: [OT] Simple math considered physics; turns
Brian Chabot wrote
In terms of education and its promotion, it might be interesting
to use baseball physics to get students more interested who
otherwise might not be...
It's an opportunity that's being pursued. As one example there's a
book specifically about baseball,
On Thursday 22 November 2007 12:01, Ric Werme wrote:
Sigh, one course I didn't take in college and kinda wish I had was
Fluid Dynamics. I really should read up on that. I did show some
movies in a FD class showing turbulent laminar drag.
I took Fluid Mechanics at Michigan Tech (in the
I'm sure you can't MAKE kids interested in engineering, but there are
certainly classes of toys that a great many of the more geek-inclined people
I know remember fondly.
LEGO
Erector sets
Tinkertoys
Lincoln Logs
Piles of junk + imagination
Any I've missed? If I ever have children they're
I really like the indoor batting facility in Salisbury, MA (Extra
Innings). I wondered how 'fast' the fast cage was. It seemed really
fast and has taken me a few visits to get to the point where I can hit
the ball. I asked today how fast the machine was. The friendly staff
person told me it
that is in the big leagues. I'm not making fun of the guy, but
physics isn't involved in solving the problem, just regular math.
Physics is just applied math. All the world is functions.
--
Bill
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
___
On Nov 21, 2007 5:51 PM, Greg Rundlett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Or, if I should be sad that an average person might think that
there is physics rather than math involved.
Physics was involved. Indeed, you just solved a physics problem.
The fact that you used math doesn't mean it wasn't a
On Wednesday 21 November 2007 17:51, Greg Rundlett wrote:
He said if I have some friends who know physics I could figure out
how fast that is in the big leagues. I'm not making fun of the guy,
but physics isn't involved in solving the problem, just regular math.
Actually, it is a physics
I just offer an interesting example of how math ain't that hard, and
can be used to solve fun problems. The basic question at hand was
How fast does the machine pitch? (compared to a major-league
pitcher). The basic answer could be found through some unit
conversion and cross multiplication. I
Greg Rundlett wrote:
Philosophically and sociologically, I'm asking why somebody who worked
there wouldn't solve these problems out of curiosity. Because they
don't know how? Because they don't care? Because they were
conditioned by social norms to believe the subject is too difficult or
26 matches
Mail list logo
