Jargon

[Bob Williams]

I cannot talk about Advanced Mathematics, as I only reached as far as Calculus, algebra and geometry. That I managed to understand and apply most of those, is down to one teacher at my old Technical school, Mr. Crofts. I only began to realise and appreciate the man and his unique way of educating the 800+ boys in the school, when I had been in the world of work (specifically the Army) for some time. I was only ever enthused by Engineering, Tech Drawing (both treated as a combined subject) English and History in my first year. Maths was just too slippery and elusive for my brain, and my first teacher believed in the same methods as Graham D‘s Maths teacher – if it’s on the board and in the book, the pupil’s job is to understand it, no further explanations are necessary. We also had a teacher of French like that, who blew my first year’s interest in Language. Not until I joined the Army, went to other countries and decided to learn other languages, did I find that I had an aptitude for language.

Mr Crofts also took the football teams and helped with the athletics squads. When I could not find a route into my brain for geometry, he took myself and several other sufferers for extra lessons after school. He drew a footy pitch on the blackboard and began with the angles formed by interaction between the lines, then did the same with a running track and a cricket pitch. I remenber clearly the moment that I ‘got it’. The man was just so dedicated and gave so much of his own time to extra curricular activities. He was passed over for Head for years after I left, having made Deputy Head so many times. I believe it was his preference for ‘old school’ education, and his opposition to the Trendies, that meant he would never progress further.

Many of us old students kept in touch over the years, several of us writing to him. When he became ill we took turns visiting him. When he passed away, there were hundreds of us of all ages at the funeral. I do not believe that there would be any of his colleagues, who would have received such a send off. There were grown men, some middle-aged, wiping their eyes inside and outside the church. Including myself: what that man gave me was something priceless. I will never forget him, neither will many more. Perhaps that is the real quality of a man: the respect and love he generates amongst others.

When the Thought Police arrive at your door, think -
I'm out.

[Ed P]

I checked out Wayne Wickelgren’s later book. link Essentially it has very similar content to the older book I first gave as a link. It is also on Kindle.

[Wheels-Of-Fire]

Ed. As a chemist this should be a simple one for you but it’s bugged me since secondary school. What exactly is a “mol” as in a mili mol of this or that ? Sometimes it just seems to be a convenient unit but at other times it seems to be an exact measure refering to molecular weight that has had two different ways of calculating it.

[Ed P]

Your spelling was a bit amiss it is ‘mole‘ which is probably why you could not find it. It is just a convenient way of expressing the weights of components that in a perfect world all react together to form an equivalent weight of a finished product. The wiki referenced above gives the standard definitions:

“The mole is widely used in chemistry as a convenient way to express amounts of reactants and products of chemical reactions. For example, the chemical equation 2 H2 + O2 → 2 H2O implies that 2 moles of dihydrogen (H2) and 1 mole of dioxygen (O2) react to form 2 moles of water (H2O). The mole may also be used to express the number of atoms, ions, or other elementary entities in a given sample of any substance. The concentration of a solution is commonly expressed by its molarity, defined as the number of moles of the dissolved substance per litre of solution.

The number of molecules per mole is known as Avogadro’s constant, and is defined such that the mass of one mole of a substance, expressed in grams, is equal to the mean relative molecular mass of the substance. For example, the mean relative molecular mass of natural water is about 18.015, therefore, one mole of water has a mass of about 18.015 grams.”

In reality a perfect combination of components does not occur, and there is often a kinetic interplay between the reactants and the finished product, but for simple GCSE science the wiki definition of the world is good enough.

[Wheels-Of-Fire]

Thanks Ed. Spelling never was my strong suit in fact I only scraped a grade 3 CSE at english.

I have always had a passing interest in chemistry but I only covered it in general science. When the time came to choose options for my final two years at school chemistry clashed with either physics or design and technology on the time table so as I always saw myself in engineering chemistry lost.

[Jukebox]

Ed P wrote:

transitioned across with a post-graduate course in full-blown Chemical Engineering.

Interesting point there EdP. I started a Chem Eng course in Manchester in 1960. During the first year we had a works visit to ICI at Runcorn. A massive place. They took us into the sodium store where you could hardly breathe for the fumes; that put me off  for a start (perhaps health and safety has improved since then). I then asked how many Chemical Engineers they employed…….ONE! As there were 120 in my year I decided that the chances of getting a good job may be fairly remote so I switched to Elec Eng! Turned out to be a good move.

[Jason]

I believe from my own science studies that “mol” is the SI symbol for mole, just as cm is the SI symbol for centimetre, so the original comment was not incorrect.

[Ed P]

Fair point Jason.

SI was not even mandated when I was at uni, we dealt in good old BTUs and English horsepower or human-scale units – none of your fancy French stuff! It started to come in vogue as I started work, and there were even ‘transition’ units that mixed Imperial and Frog units e.g. Centigrade Heat Units (CHUs). IIRC SI was not really in common use until the 70s.

It probably would not surprise you to learn that British Engineers are adept at handling a multiplicity of different units and scales. It is only Yank scientists such as those at NASA that get confused as they normally only deal in US units (i.e. Imperial).

[Bob Williams]

Ed, my grandbrats admire my ability to translate Imperial weights & measures into Metric. I often amaze them with a mental equivalent ” Oh that’s about (XX:XX) – whatever.” Knowing very well that it’s acurate. Our pre-Metric generation had the kind of flexible mental processes that only concepts such as gallons, pints, feet, inches etc., can impart. Not to mention esoteric stuff like chains, Cwt, fathoms, furlongs, Pounds, Shillings and Pence, et al.

And don’t mention 45+ drippy-nosed 5 year olds in a packed, draughty, 1950 classroom, reciting their Times Tables en masse, all the way up to ‘Twelve Times Twelve!’ Visiting my old primary schoolteacher at 12 after being in Technical school a year and hearing that sound, took me back to 5 years old immediately.

When the Thought Police arrive at your door, think -
I'm out.

[The Duke]

I admire how my phone can translate imperial to metric, and any over conversion. Kids today have no need to learn, or even store knowledge. Thats old school.

 

[oldtimer]

Not Really.  It is a test of mental agility – something that will never be “Old School” and is sadly lacking now.  I do not play computer games, but I suspect that the good players can out think a ‘phone any day.

Its easy when you know how

[Dave Rice]

The “older” generation, and I mean generally older than me (57), got good at mental games because they they had to. I grew up in the more metric than imperial world and I’m very glad of that. The “new money” came in when I was 11 and I soon felt no need to compare what half a crown could buy to what 25p could. You got 4 black jacks or fruit salads for a new penny , end of.

My Grandparents wrestled with these conversions until the day they died 25 years later. But even before that their house cost them £1,100 to buy but nice furnishings were costed in guineas. Purchase tax was  33 1⁄3% on 12 pence to the shilling and 20 shillings to the pound. All this with no calculators; yes there were slide rules but only engineers like my dad used them.

Today’s generation are not lacking in anything other than they have no need to indulge in such stupidities. From their perspective the older generations are lacking in the skills required to operate in today’s world, which will soon belong to them. It’s called social media.

“But the world has wondrously changed, Granny, since the days when you were young;

It thinks quite different thoughts from then, and speaks with a different tongue.”

That’s from a Victorian poem. Get over it, your skills are no longer relevant to today’s world and it was ever thus.

[The Duke]

I was just having fun. Bit your spot in day, society moves on.

What always amazes me is how each generation jump, (may be two), people are on average smarter, it’s a very fast rate of evolution.

Things like steam engines, once not long ago they was the pinnacle of science, which craft to the average Joe. Now I reckon one brief hour lesson to the average 14 year old, and they would grasp the concept, no problems. Withing in a few months could probably build one.

In a few years that will be cpus, maybe they won’t be able to build one, but they will just be a give that everyone understands how they work, they will be amusesed the average Joe from now still doesn’t

There is many examples  this, but I always find the steam engine one the easiest to explain.

One thing you get folk are worse at is the written word, and this will only get worse. With the Internet, American English is the given language, and most of the world’s English speakers don’t come form England or USA or any country that has English as a 1st language. I think on 100 years, less, English will of changed drastically. More so than from Shakespeare to now.

I’m ahead of the game for once.  :yahoo:

[Ed P]

The Duke wrote:

…  people are on average smarter, it’s a very fast rate of evolution. Things like steam engines, once not long ago they was the pinnacle of science, which craft to the average Joe. Now I reckon one brief hour lesson to the average 14 year old, and they would grasp the concept, no problems. Withing in a few months could probably build one. …

You are quoting Flynn’s observation. Unfortunately on the same measure British kids are stagnating and maybe even regressing. There are also views that using different measures, Victorians were smarter than us! link

Its probably impossible to ensure that the measurements are equivalent as context changes and people are far more familiar with IQ tests today. IQ is of course a contentious issue and if you really want to get Jason going just mention the research on genetics and IQ.

Even ‘smarter’ is hard to define as context is everything. A few years ago there was a Beeb program that took modern A* 16 year olds and gave them a 1960s O-Level Physics paper. In theory they should all have been capable of passing in practice most (all?) failed. Context is everything – the students had been taught a very wide range of concepts but problem solving was not something on which they had been taught ( doesn’t fit with multiple choice questions and no-one fails ethos?).

With respect to actually building a steam engine – not a hope in hell. Restricted school budgets, Nanny State and ‘Elf & Safety’ keeps kids well away from sharp objects and rotating machinery. Subjects like chemistry where things may actually go bang are even more nannified and restricted. I doubt more than one in a hundred could get close to building a steam engine even if they were given a box containing all the parts.

Today’s youngsters just have a very different world-view and skill sets from old pharts like me.

[The Duke]

I’m not aware of Flynn, or the saying tbh. I doubt I’d be the first to come to this point, as I sure ain’t special. Well my mum said I was, but I don’t think she meant it in a good way lol.

It’s defiantly a different  world, I think today kids can do problem solving, it’s just a different set of skills needed.

Re the steam engine. I didn’t actually mean they would, just that they probably could.

I do think play sets like technique Lego, and michano should be pushed on kids more. Now it’s all themed box sets. As a kid I had the motors, and the pneumatic pistons and spent hours to weeks creating things.

Also as my old man couldn’t afford the offical Lego motors, we had one, and he made me a hand full of the modular 9 or 12v motors,  spaced  and glued the flat blocks on. They was actually better than the offical ones.

I think kids today miss learning these skills. I got oldest  all this kit, and non of the kids through the years took to it like I did as a kid. I use it more to be honest while playing with the arduino.

[Richard]

I am unsure that the discussion about steam engine bits is really a true measure of mental skills. Apparently Paris bought a steam pumping engine to help clear the sewage problems they had at the time. The theory was that having bought and examined one they could develop their own solutions. It did not happen that way. Any new design had to pass through scientific examination by a range of skilled specialists in their own field, which had little relevance to steam engines of the time. this was a civil service type way. In other contexts a prototype could be built, operated and its weakness could be found and perhaps fixed by one person or a small team allowing rapid progress. Does this mean that the Paris staff were all silly, or feeble minded? No, they simply had a very risk averse set up that targetted the highest standards but took to long to get there. So it was with some German armaments, too complex and unsuited to field repair by ordinary field types it was hard to keep working and cannibalising stuff was not on.

In short context is all, the Victorians had far more to find out, far more freedom to find things out and often more scope to work through to the end. At school I rewired some of the school electric heaters from strip down to re-assembly and testing before they went back into service, I was about 14~15 at the time. I can just imagine how well that would fly now.

I decomposed some specialised computer programs in order to reprogram the training devices they ran. My mental image was of a train shunting yard moving data about until it arrived in the right place, all in HEX code, I had no assembler. I was not trained to do anything like that, I dug in and sorted it out. Along the way I also found short cuts to achieve the end result that surprised the original builders, what was different was that I had the freedom to do such things. Do many now get such freedom? I doubt it, the environment has become more restricted with far more written and, thanks to antisocial media unwritten rules about what can be said or cannot be said or done.

So many seek new objectives such as ‘experiences’ which appear to be high cost apparent thrills – all supposedly sanitised until someone gets killed when all hell breaks loose.

I am left wondering quite how well we are doing when I read today that midwives are qualified to work without ever getting proper training on the use of basic equipment leading to lost lives. Coroners are suggesting a bar on new recruits until the issue is resolved.

Where was the much vaunted ‘elf and safe tea’ – drinking their brew when this was allowed to happen?

It is not really the fault of the newly qualified but it was a serious error by those training and certifying them.

[Ed P]

Lego is a bit like Marmite, some kids love it and some just reject it. I agree that those who take to it learn a lot, though things like technical Lego have changed over the years. They can now build much better looking models, but I’m not convinced that the contents of the Technical Lego sets are better overall in the context of learning by doing.

[Bob Williams]

I am not going to take part in the game of generational opposition. Regular meeting and having real conversations with young people today, can reveal that they are neither less, nor more intelligent than previous generations. They have different intelligence because they have different life paths with different aims and different obstacles in the way of those paths. One thing I will say about this generation, is that most of them seem to have a method of opposing or simply bypassing BS. This is often seen by older people as disrespect, and in a few cases it is, but mostly I have learned that they respect that which deserves respect, but find the kind of pumped-up officialdom that frowns upon them and their activities, to be amusing at best, and totally ridiculous at worst.

My post about Imperial weights and measures was meant to be taken with a large saline lump. Of course metric measures are easier and make for more efficient and accurate calculations. The problem for my generation is that metric measures do not “feel real“, after years of using one system our brains are hard wired with the stuff that appears to be the stuff of calculation nightmares, to someone who has grown up with a brain hard wired for metrication. TBH, Imperial measures are meaningless today. The USA has not understood this, but Canada and the rest of the old Commonwealth has. There is no more amusing sight than the US driver I saw at a Canadian ‘Gas Station’, trying to equate Litres into US gallons, in 1982 British Columbia.

Steam engines and mental skills of young people? Maybe a bit left-field, but two weeks ago I was at one of my son’s Stationary Engine Shows and saw three young early – teenage lads buying some “Mamod” model steam engines, then building them on a board laid out on the grass. When I came back later, they were almost done: within a couple of hours the little engines were working and the lads were obviously happy with the results. I spoke to their dads, who said it was the first time the boys had taken an interest in anything other than computers and gaming. Then I thought back to my own youth and the ‘mamods’ I had built with my cousin. Some things have universal appeal to the young male mind!

In short, if us oldpharts were given ‘flexible’ brains by the convolutions inherent in calculating Imperial weights & measures, why are they not flexible enough to make lightning conversions? Mine, I am overly proud to say, is flexible enough for that: but what does that give me that is worthwhile, except for an ability to convert a dead system that only my age group understands, to a living one?

When the Thought Police arrive at your door, think -
I'm out.

[Ed P]

Being able to handle different measures does still have value and is best illustrated by not finding it at all difficult to think and manipulate in base8 (byte) or base sixteen (hex) values. It is a piece of cake for someone brought up in base ten, twelve, sixteen or twenty!

Joking aside there is one thing I was taught at school that I have found invaluable throughout my life, and one that is rarely taught today. That is the art or skill of approximating by rounding to ‘easy’ numbers. If you have it you can very easily rough-out the answer to a complex bit of arithmetic and tell if you have had decimal point finger trouble with a calculator entry. If you do not have it then doing a Diane Abbott is always a risk. :wacko:

[Jason]

Not sure the system is completely dead. Most youngsters would know what was what if they were told something was two-foot long, some liquid or other was a pint, some town was 100 miles away, and someone had lost a stone in weight.

[Author]

Posts