Wikijunior talk:How Things Work
From Wikibooks, the open-content textbooks collection
Contents |
[edit] Starting this Wikielementary Book with the name Wikijunior Book is a misnomer
I've created a basic stub for the light bulb, and started a few of the major sections. I expect this is going to be a rather busy Wikibook, and it will be interesting to see what sorts of things are going to be developed here. Please feel free to modify and add to this idea. --Rob Horning 15:29, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
- So I'd like to know, for example, what does a page like Wikijunior How Things Work/Laser need? Is that sufficient? — RJHall 17:43, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
- I think it's a very informative article. I know more about lasers now than I knew before. I don't think it needs more technical detail. The Flesch Kincaid grade level is 7.6 (MS Word) which is a little high. But now we have at least two articles in this book worth reading! --Xixtas 20:40, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks. — RJHall 20:34, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
- I think it's a very informative article. I know more about lasers now than I knew before. I don't think it needs more technical detail. The Flesch Kincaid grade level is 7.6 (MS Word) which is a little high. But now we have at least two articles in this book worth reading! --Xixtas 20:40, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Content Reviews
I need your opinion - is this too complicated for a wikijunior book? It should be possible to simply leave the specific examples out, if they're more trouble than they're worth. (The problem with sailboats is, they have a whole separate lexicon.) --Infinoid 01:36, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
- I would leave it in there and see what happens with it over time. I like the specifics about pulleys being used to hoist sales, but I'm not sure about listing the different names for pulleys on a ship. If you are a sailing enthusiast, you might think about a How Things Work for sails. The sail is a fascinating and really important invention that I think kids would be interested in. --Xixtas 15:21, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
- A suggestion for the pulley article would be to mention the physical concept of work as some amount of force applied over a given distance. So, when using a pulley, the amount of work required stays the same; it just allows somebody to increase the maximum load they can lift. — RJHall 20:39, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
- In the article Wikijunior How Things Work/Pulley under the heading "How does it work?", the description doesn't seem to match the illustration. It reads "looping around another wheel and then back to around the first wheel" but in the picture it doesn't go back around the first wheel. Mcgill 20:10, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
- A suggestion for the pulley article would be to mention the physical concept of work as some amount of force applied over a given distance. So, when using a pulley, the amount of work required stays the same; it just allows somebody to increase the maximum load they can lift. — RJHall 20:39, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Main Simple Machine Page
I believe that we should have one page summing up the Simple Machines and talking about where most of their information overlaps. This will allow us to introduce some basic physic concepts such as work, force, and rotational vs linear if possible, but also let us say things like "We don't know when most simple machines were invented because they are all very old", "Simple machines can get their power from people or other machines", or something like that. Anything that can be generalized about the simple machines could go on that page. Then we can talk about each Simple Machine. I think it's good to give a good distinction between the simple machines and the rest of the stuff in the book.
Also, eventually we need to decide an order among the simple machines, though it isn't necessary to do that too soon. Currently each simple machine page would say something like "Levers are one of the six simple machines." In the final product, that could be the first one, but the second simple machine page could say something like "Wheels are another of the six simple machines." MiltonT 12:12, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
- I think that's a very good idea. It occurred to me when I was doing some illustrations for the flush toilet that the handle was a lever. So the page on levers would have to come before the page on flush toilets. I didn't think it through to the logical conclusion, but you obviously have. I agree, simple machines would have to come first. --Mcgill 00:40, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
-
- I like that idea. I think we should create a special section for the six simple machines. If we took the natural order of progression from most basic to most complex, I think the order would be inclined plane, wedge, lever, wheel, screw, and pulley. --xixtas 03:13, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Final order of topics
I was thinking in the final order, the inventions be roughly ordered by when they were invented. This will give an idea of the progress of science. This will also let the last question, "What did we have to know...?" to build upon earlier pages. MiltonT 12:12, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
- I agree. Maybe we should include the invention date in parenthesis along with the name. --xixtas 03:13, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Rocket article - rename it?
This article seems to be generating a bit of controversy, and is marked for cleanup. But it will also be very long if it covers everything from fireworks to military rockets to space exploration and everything in between. I wonder if it would be a good idea to rename the article "Space Rocket", or something similar that captures the imagination. It would eliminate the controversial military uses, and leave the article shorter and simpler - just covering solid and liquid rockets and how they get into space (usually without killing any schoolkids or flattening hospitals as the article currently suggests!). Chinese fireworks and military precursors could be mentioned in the history. -- Mcgill 20:43, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
I agree with this point. As much as explosives are technology, there is a reason we're not including things such an "grenades" and "guns" among the items we're talking about in this book.MiltonT
- I agree, let's teach kids How Space Rockets work and leave out the cruise missiles.--xixtas 03:13, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
Even with space rockets, the example is too simplistic. Children's minds should be challenged with examples of more realistic FUTURE space exploration outside our solar system. Perhaps you are not familiar with some of the concepts that are already reality using solar or nuclear power. Let us not limit this to Apollo rockets and challenge their imaginations with real examples! 02:50 13 October 2006 (Eastern [US] Time Zone) User:Initial Author -- Not Revealed
[edit] Computer stuff
GUI is not exactly physical, so it is hard to talk about it in the same way as many of the other inventions on the list. I propose that we have a computer subsection with more specific questions dealing with computing inventions and such. It is, of course, quite possible to write a whole separate book about How Computers Work, since there are so many different parts (although, on the other hand, there are many other inventions that could make their own books, too). For the time being, I think we should restrict our treament in this book on computer-related stuff so that we can discuss this idea of computer-specific technology, especially since, for the most part, you can't really talk about how software gets its power or if software is dangerous. MiltonT 04:12, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
- I agree. --xixtas 03:13, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
Well, when I spied the GUI article, I thought "What is that doing here? It's probably mostly opinion like a lot of articles." Then I opened it and it seemed to be a Linux user not aiming their talk at young kids but attempting to slight Windows users (see the Danger section). I agree with MiltonT and Xixtas that this article does not belong here. In fact, I believe a "How does GUI work?" article is pointless and doesn't belong anywhere. I wrote the Binary article, and I think even that seems somewhat misplaced. Maybe in a Math wikibook or in a Computers wikibook, but not here. take a few looks at real How It Works type books and then take some good topics.
[edit] Stub template
I think that the stub template should just be a starting point, not a strict rule. Some of the sections do not apply, while others amy not always justify thier own section, like "where does it draw its power". —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Palmtree3000 (talk • contribs) .
- I agree. If the sections do not fit, you shouldn't use them and should use an organizational methodology that makes sense in the context. I also don't think there's a need to stick to them exactly even if they do fit. Whatever adds clarity to the individual module should be the rule. --xixtas talk 05:35, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
