Re: Problem with a problem

["Lemmerhirt, Fred" <FLemmerhirt@MAIL.WCC.CC.IL.US>]

Could you elaborate a little on what makes this problem "poorly specified"?
I have re-read it several time and still don't see it (unless it's that the
acceleration vector is not specified to be in the plane of rotation).

Though "intrinsically interesting" problems are probably best, I find that
some students (particularly the "better" ones) appreciate any problem that
helps them solidify their understanding of some concept, even if the problem
was obviously contrived solely for that purpose.

______________________________________________________
Fred Lemmerhirt
flemmerhirt@mail.wcc.cc.il.us
http://chat.wcc.cc.il.us/~flemmerh/physics.html
Waubonsee Community College      Sugar Grove, Illinois

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Leigh Palmer [SMTP:palmer@SFU.CA]
> Sent: Thursday, November 18, 1999 12:41 PM
> To:   PHYS-L@lists.nau.edu
> Subject:      Re: Problem with a problem
>
> Rick has already told you how to solve the problem. I will point
> out that there is more than one solution to this poorly specified
> problem. My principal objection to it, however, is that it is a
> *stupid* problem. What is the point of doing this calculation?
>
> I think that good problems in physics should motivate students to
> solve them because the result will be intrinsically interesting.
> This one isn't. The result I fear most is that the student will
> go away from the only physics course she takes thinking that this
> is what physics is.
>
> Thus endeth the sermon.
>
> Leigh