fhsst-physics
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Fhsst-physics] Optics topic opinions?


From: lglesene
Subject: Re: [Fhsst-physics] Optics topic opinions?
Date: Fri, 3 Feb 2006 16:56:31 -0800 (PST)
User-agent: SquirrelMail/1.4.0

That sounds fine.  In that form it would be a good optional topic--a
teacher could cover the section if desired, or skip it without detriment
to the rest of the chapter.

Thanks for the input!
Lindsay


> Hi Lindsay
>
> Thanks for the kick on this topic. I just had a chat with Sam (Maths
> coordinator) and we have decided, but its open to debate, to include it
> using the small angle approximation.
>
> We must clearly mark the 'derivation' as Grade 12 level. They will cover
> most of the Optics chapter in Grade 10.
>
> So I would introduce the idea conceptually, quote the formula and use it
> in some examples. Following that have a derivation section which won't
> be very long. That way it doesn't break up the flow but is included.
>
> We will have to tidy up introduction of the small angle approximation
> after having a good look at the ideas we cover in Maths but Physics is
> ahead right now.
>
> How does that sound?
>
> Mark
>
>
> address@hidden wrote:
>> Mark (and/or anybody else):
>>
>> The topic of apparent depth is coming up in working on the optics
>> chapter.
>>  We'd like to include a way to derive the apparent depth of an object in
>> the chapter, but there seem to be two options, both with something
>> nasty:
>>
>> (1)  The nice result:  real depth/apparent depth ratio is the index of
>> refraction of water (or whatever material).  This is easy to derive, but
>> requires a small angle approximation.  I'm worried that the small-angle
>> approximation would be confusing to students.
>>
>> (2)  Derive a more accurate formula.  Not bad, but ends up with a
>> formula
>> involving tangents of inverse sines.  Here I'm worried that students
>> would
>> get scared away by that much trig, and also the result isn't terribly
>> enlightening.
>>
>> I guess a third option would be to discuss the topic conceptually and
>> not
>> develop a formula.  Any thoughts?
>>
>> Lindsay
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Fhsst-physics mailing list
>> address@hidden
>> http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/fhsst-physics
>>
>
>
> --
> --
> Mark Horner
>
> Jabber/AIM/Yahoo/Gizmo/Skype/Google:   marknewlyn
>
>
> Co-author:
> http://www.nongnu.org/fhsst
> http://savannah.gnu.org/projects/fhsst
>
> "Life is but a seg-fault away ...
>
> Life received signal SIGSEGV, Segmentation fault.
> 0x42074d40 in calloc () from /lib/i686/liblife.so.6"
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Fhsst-physics mailing list
> address@hidden
> http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/fhsst-physics
>





reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]