Comment by nostrademons | Hacker News Reader

Comment by nostrademons | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

I'm worried that we're headed for another Dark Ages, between declining literacy rates, forced climate migrations, falling population (increasing population = higher specialization = more knowledge generation), overreliance on advanced technology, and complex systems that grow ever more rigid and lose their ability to adapt. With complex systems, when you get a shock to the fundamentals of the system, you often see the highest and more interconnected layers of the system fail first, since it's easier for simpler systems to reconfigure themselves into something that works.

I wonder if something like Asimov's Encyclopedia Galactica is needed to preserve human knowledge for the upcoming dark ages, and if it's possible to keep the most impactful technologies (eg. electricity, semiconductors, software, antibiotics, heat pumps, transportation) but with a dramatically shortened supply chain so that they can continue to be produced when travel and transport outside of a metropolitan region may not be safe.

Some years ago, I bought a nice electronics set from Amazon that essentially taught a basic electronics course. I was looking for one yesterday, but couldn't find one. All of them were centered around interfacing to an Arduino.

I had to go to ebay to find a used one.

What about an Arduino makes it inappropriate to teach basic electronics?

Basic electronics is how resistor-capacitor-inductor circuits work, along with diodes and the various transistor devices, up to op-amps. Computers have nothing to do with it.

Nothing is stopping you from demonstrating any basic circuit with an Ardiuno.

It is a way of being able to learn and use basic electronics and also do something functional with them as well as learn how to code.

I think the problem is more that-- assuming a comparable price-- they're probably going to skimp out on the "lower level" stuff in a kit with an Arduino. If you have a perfect timer, you don't need to showcase basic resistor-capacitor timer circuits, or pack a huge bag of related components. If you can define any logic function you want in code, there's no need to discuss wiring 74xx gates to each other.

> I think the problem is more that-- assuming a comparable price-- they're probably going to skimp out on the "lower level" stuff in a kit with an Arduino.

The person I replied to did not mention anything about what was included in the arduino kits, just that they refused to consider them at all.

> If you can define any logic function you want in code, there's no need to discuss wiring 74xx gates to each other.

How is wiring 74xx gates together more or less applicable to basic electronic circuits than an 8bit CPU breakout board?

https://www.amazon.com/ELEGOO-Project-Tutorial-Controller-Pr...

The focus is on using a computer to interface with sensors, LED displays, etc. Not learning analog circuitry. It doesn't include any capacitors or inductors, for example.

It contains transistors, resistors, LEDs, a bunch of sensors, stepper motors, a couple displays, jumper wires... I don't know why you would want inductors unless you are making a switching power supply or an audio crossover or something. There are capacitor selections you can grab for a few bucks.

Do you think someone would rather learn how to make an LC and then look at it do nothing, or make something that can sense when it is light out and open the curtains? I don't know, dismissing a kit because it interfaces with a computer seems a bit like a 1950s stodgy teacher who will hit a kid with a ruler if they think they are having fun learning.

> I don't know why you would want inductors

It's missing capacitors, too. You cannot build RLC circuits without resistors, inductors, and capacitors. Google "RLC circuits" if you don't know what they are. RLC circuits are analogous to mass-spring-damper systems, the math is identical. It's certainly easier to study them with electronics than with building the mechanical equivalent.

> dismissing a kit because it interfaces with a computer

I'm dismissing a kit about interfacing with a computer because the person I want to give it to wants to learn analog electronics, and the analog electronics kits are no longer available.

If you want to learn digital electronics, those computer kits are fine for that. Of course, there is very little math involved with digital electronics, and that appeals to some.

> Google "RLC circuits" if you don't know what they are.

I'm not sure if you are purposefully trying to be insulting, but I want to give the benefit of the doubt so I will chalk it up to poor reading comprehension.

Actually, I remember interacting with you before, and you have consistently spoken to me and others in a similar condescending manner, so I will assume that you know exactly what you are doing.

> you have consistently spoken to me and others in a similar condescending manner

LOL, you compared me to:

> a 1950s stodgy teacher

Is this an unwarranted assessment of your character?

Well, you deserve it

Says the person following the WalterBright account around complimenting them and agreeing with them on everything?

The computer gets in the way. Diffuses attention.

I actually agree that it's a lot _better_ to teach Arduino/coding with some _basic_ electronics concepts involved.

I love tech/electronics so I started from bottom upwards just fine, but I think for many students they'd much prefer "we can connect up these RGB leds to this Arduino and you can learn how to control them, then learn how LEDs and microcontrollers work at a higher level". Then, once they think it's cool and are interested, it's possible to introduce lower and lower level concepts to them.

Starting with resistance/capaticance/inductance/electrons in a wire etc etc is a good starting point but it has the prerequisite of a child already being intensely interested in the subject - all other children are gonna get bored.

But showing them what's it's possible to do "the easy way" first gets them interested, making it a lot easier to hold their interest when explaining how it all works at a lower level.

It's teaching the product not the principles.

Well, to teach the principles you just need a pen and some paper and a calculator. Is using a multimeter to measure the output of a circuit 'teaching the product'?

I'm also really worried about teaching chemistry/physics in this day of hypervigilant anti-terrorism. I saw a family setting off model rockets on a mudflat in the Bay Area; a couple Karens standing next to us threatened to call the police on them. With the departure of LUNAR from Moffett because the Air Force didn't want them back, there are now no acceptable model rocketry clubs or sites in the Bay Area. And now you've got to worry that you'll end up on some FBI watch list for ordering basic chemistry sets for kids.

I was fortunate to get a decent chemistry set, as the next year they were emasculated. I had a lot of fun with it.

Isn't this a little hyperbolic? Go back to the 1920s and try and find a way to gain knowledge on something accessible but uncommon, like how to make glass. Would you have been able to do it without finding someone who knew already and would teach you? It is a relatively short chapter in our history that we have had access to such a large amount of information easily.

Right, and I worry that this is the apogee of human knowledge and we're going to start a steep downhill slide relatively soon.

> Would you have been able to do it without finding someone who knew already

Yes. Encyclopedias of the day had a lot of this sort of information and so did DIY books.

I have a copy of Everything Within from about 1930 that has chapters on radio. In addition it tells you how to make a rectifier from scratch using just copper sheets and various chemicals.

See also, for instance, The Art of Glass-Blowing by T.-P. Danger, 1831

"Artists and Students of the Experimental Sciences will find this work adapted to aid them effectually in the economical preparation of their Apparatus; and persons who would willingly occupy their leisure hours in practising the charming art of working Glass and Enamels with the Blowpipe, but who have hitherto been deterred by the anticipated expense of the instruments, and the imaginary difficulties of the undertaking, are taught herein the simplest, most expeditious, least expensive, and most effectual methods of working Glass into every variety of useful or fanciful device."

https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/55266

Not how to make glass I grant you.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com