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 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 dow
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_produc
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,
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
> 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 spread
On Nov 22, 2007 9:18 PM, Drew Van Zandt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> LEGO
> Erector sets
> Tinkertoys
> Lincoln Logs
> Piles of junk + imagination
>
> Any I've missed?
Along with most of those, I had a blast with Capsela toys when I was
a kid. They had more electric gizmos, earlier, than LEGO
On Nov 21, 2007 11:03 PM, Greg Rundlett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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
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 + imagi
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 defini
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 t
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,
http://www.aapt.o
On Thursday, Nov 22nd 2007 at 12:01 -, quoth Ric Werme:
=>Most high school physics ignores such second level effects. There is a
=>book titled "The Physics of Baseball," I believe, I don't own it though.
One more title to add, just for fun: The Physics Of Superheroes by
Kakalios. Very intel
Greg Rundlett:
> 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 a
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 / 5
> 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 real physics (1960's vintage, no calculators, no linux) answers (plural)
are even simpler. If you're asking how fast is the ball going, it's going
50mph. 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
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
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.
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 physi
On Nov 21, 2007 6:07 PM, Bill Ricker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > 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 PROTECTE
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
> 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]
___
gnhlug-discu
23 matches
Mail list logo
