🚀 go-pugleaf

Since the other thread went off into workshop talk, I thought I would
respond to the original note here.  I have some reservations about the
software I have seen and has been mentioned here.  I think Graphs and
Tracks is very nice, and engaging, especially for teachers, but I haven't
seen good data to support such general enthusism.  My personal experience
suggests that it works ok but may not provide all the insight one would
like...of course that could be the way I presented it.  I have spent some
time with Electric Field Hockey and cannot for the life of me understand
why people like it.  It is fun for a while to play with but the phenomenon
of motion in an electric field defined by charged particles is so complex 
(you have to integrate the force twice to get to the observed position
change) it is not clear to me that one learns much from it, other than that
the field falls off as the square of the distance and thus objects far away
have a smaller influence on the motion.  What a long sentence!  After
working with the program for a half-hour or so, I could not figure out what
I was learning...would anyone like to enlighten me?

PS  Hi Cherie, I have chatted with you in years...appropriate that we
should meet again on email.In article
<PHYSHARE%93090212251351@PSUVM.PSU.EDU>, Lois Nicholson
<LNICHOLS@NAS.BITNET> wrote:
> 
> Hi, Judy.  It looks like things are getting exciting now that I've left
> teaching in the system!
> 
> If you no longer teach PSSC or conceptual physics, I'm curious about what text
> you give students.
> 
> In addition to your software needs, do you have lab "hardware" that's in good
> enough shape to justify some of the computer interfacing?  For example,
> although a sonic ranger or photogates are great for monitoring motion, if the
> only motion you have to monitor is that of an old lopsided dynamics cart with
> sticky out-of-balance wheels on a scratched-up lab table, what good will it do?
> 
> Lois Nicholson, National Research Council