What books do you use for...

nota bene

yeh aimee, I think it sounds like a good idea to get a book yourself if the only one you use is Kirk... I'd probably recommend the one I am using (Tsokos) but I might be biased :tongue:

would be interesting to hear what someone else using that book thinks...

Thanks a lot! I'll have a look at it :smile:

Reply 23

HMSChocolate

aimee_22

Im pretty furious as this is the only book we use for physics. im contemplating buying a seperate one for myself!!

Mistakes or not it can't be the only book you use for physics. It hardly explains indepth enough. It's a revision guide, NOT something to learn from. Seriously, yeah, I think you should buy a different book.

Reply 24

well what d'ya know my school sucks.... the highest pts achieved last year was 34 pts (first year my school did the IB) and bear in mind, this girl had about 10 or 11A* at GCSEs.... shocking...

Reply 25

Les_Miserables

HMSChocolate

Mistakes or not it can't be the only book you use for physics. It hardly explains indepth enough. It's a revision guide, NOT something to learn from. Seriously, yeah, I think you should buy a different book.

I agree! The Giancoli, although I do hate it, seems to be one of the better bets out there. And as a revision guide, apart from the Kirk (which I like, but which admittedly does have many mistakes), the A-level Oxford Revision Guide for Physics is fantastic. It really is - I think it's a much better revisino guide than Kirk's (whose main advantage is that it caters for the IB syllabus, e.g. providing History of Physics and stuff).

Reply 26

ok, physics book = ordered (Tsokos)
should arrive sometimes next week *evil laughs*

Reply 27

nomasaya

Ok, perhaps i wasn't really clear enough..i've broken one of the IB rules ha? :biggrin:

hehe.

Firstly, i didn't call them mass of mistakes...i just said there are quite some mistakes...and not just typos (like for example p.40 representation of electric fields - a picture should show two opposite charges; while the lines are ok, there are two negative charges drawn actually...) and there are many mistakes of this type...but ok, i don't mind that...let's blame it on the printers our computers..never mind

however, there are two other types of mistakes

a) mistakes like p.45 ..Magnetic force on a current..the second picture on the left...the force is drawn upwards, while it should be drawn downwards (this cannot be considered a typo, sorry)...moreover, he introduces the Left hand rule; ok, no problem with that..but he only makes more confusion..right hand rule is far more convenient; but either way (right or left) hand rule, the force should have be drawn downwards...drawing forces on currents very often appear on f.exams..so, yes, i do consider it quite a big mistake

b) Nevertheless, i am mostly bothered with his conceptual explanations, which in my opinion, show either his weaknesses in physics or simply lack of knowledge. p. 78, ''production of induced emf by relative motion''..just read the text..first two paragraphs..

I wish i could have given you more examples, but these were the ones i could recall quickly...and i just really have to work on sth else at the moment...

Otherwise, yes, the book is, let's say 'ok' for the revision...but definitely not a reliable one :wink:

Pg. 45 is perfectly right as the force does indeed go upwards - Utterly rubbish and wrong physics on your part.

And his conceptual explanation on page 78 is, yet again, perfectly right.

Seriously these "mistakes" you point out are just bullsh*t

Reply 28

danglenister

Pg. 45 is perfectly right as the force does indeed go upwards - Utterly rubbish and wrong physics on your part.

And his conceptual explanation on page 78 is, yet again, perfectly right.

Seriously these "mistakes" you point out are just bullsh*t

perhaps, but you cant ignore the numerous mistakes i mentioned, even though they are in the options.
i really cant be bothered to look to see which but im pretty sure we found one mistake in the electricity chapter.

just a question to everyone, what book do you use for chemistry higher??

Reply 29

aimee_22

I have to agree, there are so many mistakes in his book. like the first page of the Astrophysics section, he got the order magnitude wrong for the distance of the planets from the sun. What he said about Cepheid variables was also stupid. They compress and expand, not compress and contract like he said. In his way of saying it, Cepheid variables are just getting smaller and smaller!! He also got Heisenberg equations wrong. its h/2pi, not 4pi *sorry for my inability to past the pi symbol here...

Im pretty furious as this is the only book we use for physics. im contemplating buying a seperate one for myself!!

Tim Kirk

Its outer layers undergo a periodic compression and contraction.

I.e. every now and then the gas compresses and that causes a contraction (i.e. it sharply decreases and then later increases in size).

Nothing wrong with what he said, you just didn't understand it correctly.

And now to the Heisenberg..... just LOL

The heisenberg is actually h with a line through it (so its the reduced planks constant)

reduced planks constant is h/2pi

combine that with the actual heinseberg of *h with a line through it*/2 and you get h/4pi

any more rubbish errors you want to pick out??

Reply 30

I see, sorry for the Heisenberg stuff, obviously a typo. But I still don't agree with how he explains Cepheid variables. He fails to mention that they increase in size later. Yes Mr Kirk if something compresses then it contracts. And I'm pretty sure "to contract" only means to decrease in size...

PS: reduced Plack's constant = h/2
if it was h/2pi you would end up with h/4pi^2

Reply 31

Because they dont increase in size, they return to their original state.

A contraction returns to its original state (think pregnancy).

Reply 32

LOL i could argue with that. it's weird that they use the word contraction, explaining it in your way (returns to its orgininal state) when in fact the woman undergoes dilation --hence the doctors saying "you are fully dilated"

Tim Kirk --> they compress = get smaller
they contract = oooh look getting even smaller

the way i understand it is they get smaller twice and then increase in size once (lol reminds me of how one time, this guy at school had to walk 1 step forward and 2 steps backward on his way home)

Biologists and Physicists correct me if im wrong.

Reply 33

The gas in the outer layers compresses causing a contraction

Obviously you dont understand the wording properly because it doesn't get smaller and then EXPAND because it isn't expanding - it is simply returning to the original larger state.

EDIT: I even tried to use the pregnancy image to try to get you to understand it in simple terms but you still don't get it. It's beyond me how, for someone who live in England, you don't understand the logic behind English.

The gas compresses which causes the contraction (i.e. the star gets smaller). It doesn't then EXPAND because contraction assumes a tightening (or in this case the particles rushing inwards towards the centre of mass). When you tighten, it doesnt then EXPAND afterwards, it loosens and returns to its original shape.

Reply 34

nomasaya

1

danglenister

Pg. 45 is perfectly right as the force does indeed go upwards - Utterly rubbish and wrong physics on your part.

And his conceptual explanation on page 78 is, yet again, perfectly right.

Seriously these "mistakes" you point out are just bullsh*t

ok, you asked for it:

Disclaimer: I use the right hand rule
look at the second picture.
check, I (current) - use thumb - goes away from you, ok? B (field) - use first finger - goes to your right; hence, if you want to have right angles to both of them, so I and B, the force (F) must point downwards...very simple, mate

In future, do argument you statements, otherwise you are pointing out just bull**** ok?

Reply 35

nomasaya

ok, you asked for it:

Disclaimer: I use the right hand rule
look at the second picture.
check, I (current) - use thumb goes away from you, ok? B (field) - use first finger goes to your right; hence, if you want to have right angles to both of them, so I and B, the force (F) must point downwards...very simple, mate

In future, do argument you statements, otherwise you are pointing out just bull**** ok?

Using LEFT HAND rule

Thumb is the direction of the force (i.e. upwards in this case), your first finger (yes the one after your thumb) is the direction of the magnetic field from north to south and the second finger (yes the one after your first) is the direction of the current.

Use logic not idiotic rules you make up.

Proof (and oh look it says using right hand rule - proved wrong again? I think so).

Want any more of my supposed bullsh*t? Seriously, start learning proper physics and stop making things up.

Reply 36

danglenister

The gas in the outer layers compresses causing a contraction

Obviously you dont understand the wording properly because it doesn't get smaller and then EXPAND because it isn't expanding - it is simply returning to the original larger state.

EDIT: I even tried to use the pregnancy image to try to get you to understand it in simple terms but you still don't get it. It's beyond me how, for someone who live in England, you don't understand the logic behind English.

The gas compresses which causes the contraction (i.e. the star gets smaller). It doesn't then EXPAND because contraction assumes a tightening (or in this case the particles rushing inwards towards the centre of mass). When you tighten, it doesnt then EXPAND afterwards, it loosens and returns to its original shape.

Well I apologise that my first language isnt English. We obviously just understand it in different ways *makes mental note to ask Physics teacher*

Reply 37

nomasaya

1

danglenister

Using LEFT HAND rule

Thumb is the direction of the force (i.e. upwards in this case), your first finger (yes the one after your thumb) is the direction of the magnetic field from north to south and the second finger (yes the one after your first) is the direction of the current.

Use logic not idiotic rules you make up.

Proof (and oh look it says using right hand rule - proved wrong again? I think so).

Want any more of my supposed bullsh*t? Seriously, start learning proper physics and stop making things up.

oh jesus...the link is ok, but it's not the same situation. Look, in the book, Kirk drew I, the current pointing to the opposite direction as it is drawn on the picture you provided. In your picture I is pointing towards you, in the Kirk situation I is pointing away from (in both pics however, field points to the right)...visualize man :wink:

EDIT: ok, i see what Kirk was trying to show..he wanted to show the same thing as in your picture...but then the current is definitely pointing to the wrong direction.

Either way, you and Kirk are wrong :biggrin:

Reply 38