They call you Priya. :(
Worse, they call you Ma'am :((
They go overboard trying to explain or understand something and usually have NO clue what they are trying to explain or understand!
They are richer than you and they all have cars!
They divide whole numbers by .5 using calculators.
IN 'their' world of Math, multiply by .5 cannot possibly be equal to divide by 2!
They have not even a tiny, minuscule, microscopic iota of a concept of Physics! Which is well corroborated below:
I have to take some coaching classes where in I have to solve any doubt in Physics that a person may have.
So one fine day a guy comes up to me and confesses he has issues with Potential Energy. He wants to calculate the potential energy of a system consisting of a cube kept on a cylinder, he professes.
Quite the problem solver, I tell him to find the P.E. (for that's what we Physics people call it!) of the cube and that for the cylinder separately and then add (He has a calculator, I was very sure he could add)! But it emerges he has problems calculating P.E. of these too (ahem!)
Fine, the cube is easy I claim, just mgh and the cylinder would have a related formula which I (ahem!) confess that I didn't quite remember, but I'm sure he had a Physics book too...Else there was always Wikipedia I mean! So I thought, another problem expertly handled and was about to dismiss him when the chap replied:
Ohh I have a basic doubt, I know the Potential Energy of the cube should be non-zero because it's kept on top of the cylinder, if you move the cylinder it'll fall. But the cylinder is kept on the ground, it can never fall, why should it have any potential energy at all?!!
Worse, they call you Ma'am :((
They go overboard trying to explain or understand something and usually have NO clue what they are trying to explain or understand!
They are richer than you and they all have cars!
They divide whole numbers by .5 using calculators.
IN 'their' world of Math, multiply by .5 cannot possibly be equal to divide by 2!
They have not even a tiny, minuscule, microscopic iota of a concept of Physics! Which is well corroborated below:
I have to take some coaching classes where in I have to solve any doubt in Physics that a person may have.
So one fine day a guy comes up to me and confesses he has issues with Potential Energy. He wants to calculate the potential energy of a system consisting of a cube kept on a cylinder, he professes.
Quite the problem solver, I tell him to find the P.E. (for that's what we Physics people call it!) of the cube and that for the cylinder separately and then add (He has a calculator, I was very sure he could add)! But it emerges he has problems calculating P.E. of these too (ahem!)
Fine, the cube is easy I claim, just mgh and the cylinder would have a related formula which I (ahem!) confess that I didn't quite remember, but I'm sure he had a Physics book too...Else there was always Wikipedia I mean! So I thought, another problem expertly handled and was about to dismiss him when the chap replied:
Ohh I have a basic doubt, I know the Potential Energy of the cube should be non-zero because it's kept on top of the cylinder, if you move the cylinder it'll fall. But the cylinder is kept on the ground, it can never fall, why should it have any potential energy at all?!!
You will grasp the enormity of my exclamation if you imagine two third year Mechanical Engineering students, who are given a problem in finding the point of zero electric field between two static charges, spending 45 minutes trying to figure it out and finally getting me to solve it completely for them!!
They are asked to measure some charging curves of a capacitor using a CRO ( Cathode Ray Oscilloscope- for the uninitiated, although no uninitiated will ever read my blog I am sure:P :P )
Then they are expected to draw graphs of the curves observed on the CRO, complete with voltage values and time constants. One guy simply clicks snaps of the CRO output and submits that in his report instead!
Q asked in a quiz: How would you measure the resolving power of a telescope?
Expected A: An elaboration of the procedure that involves Changing aperture width till resolution achieved, changing focus, distances etc and measuring them.
Answers I got:
1. We will use a machine that will measure the resolving power for us.
2. We will read the procedure given in the manual and follow it carefully
When asked to justify any % errors obtained and list possible sources of error, a group that got some 300%+ error(while people got less than 1%) writes: We got so much error cause this experiment is totally crappy and was a complete waste of our time.
No comments:
Post a Comment