The Vikings were the first Europeans to reach North America, more than 1000 years ago. The Vikings established settlements and traded with indigenous people in North America for about 400 years, finally abandoning the continent less than 100 years before Columbus’ voyage.
The story of the Vikings’ exploits in North America provides not only additional context to the history of human exploration, but also matches ideally to the study of the Geography of North America, as the names used by the Vikings for areas in North America provide a perfect match to the biomes in these regions.
Long consigned to the realms of myth within Norse sagas, the first archaeological evidence of the truth of the old stories of “Vinland” (Newfoundland) was uncovered by a Norwegian archaeologist in 1960. In recent years archaeologists have uncovered yet more evidence of Viking settlements in North America. OpenSTEM is delighted to share this story of how satellite technology is assisting this process, as we publish our own resource on the Vikings in North America.
“When integrating technology there needs to be a Return on Instruction (ROI) that results in evidence of improved student learning outcomes.” — Eric Sheninger
For educational technology to be fully embraced as a powerful teaching and learning tool there must be a focus on substance over assumptions and generalizations. There is a great deal of evidence to make educators reflect upon their use of technology. The most glaring was the OECD Report that came out last fall. Here is an excerpt:
“Schools have yet to take advantage of the potential of technology in the classroom to tackle the digital divide and give every student the skills they need in today’s connected world, according to the first OECD PISA assessment of digital skills.
Even countries which have invested heavily in information and communication technologies (ICT) for education have seen no noticeable improvement in their performances in PISA results for reading, mathematics, or science.”
Read the full article on Eric Sheninger’s blog site.
This T-shirt sums up soldering basics quite well. Funny too. But I hear you say, surely you don’t need to really explain that?
I’d agree, and in our experience with soldering with primary school students in classrooms, we’ve never had any such fuss.
However, in stock photography, we find the following “examples”…
This stock photo model (they appear in many other photos) is holding a hot air gun of a soldering rework station, by the metal part! If the station were turned on, there’d be third degree burns and a distinct nasty smell…
The open hard disk assembly near the front is also quite shiny…..
As if one isn’t enough, here’s another stock photo sample, again held by the metal part:
On a practical level, it’s very unlikely you’d be dealing with a modern computer main board using a regular soldering iron, on the component side.
But what actually annoyed me most about this photo is something else: the original title goes something like “beautiful woman … soldering …”. Relevance? The other photo doesn’t say “hot spunk soldering”, and although that would be just as irrelevant, fact is that with articles and photos of professional women, their appearance is more often than not made a key part of their description. Which is just sexist garbage, bad journalism and bad copy-writing.
Which brings us to this final soldering stock photo sample. Just What The?
Female body selling soldering iron? Come on now. “Bad taste” doesn’t even remotely sum up the wrongness of it all.
Note: the low-res stock photo samples in this article are shown in a satirical fair-use context.
Did you know that the pi symbol (π) was only introduced in 1706, William Jones (1675-1749) used it in his Synopsis palmariorum matheseos, most likely after the initial letter of the Ancient Greek περιφέρεια (periphéreia), meaning periphery (the line around the circle).
Before then, instead of π, the long Latin phrase “quantitas, in quam cum multiplicetur diameter, provenient circumferentia” had been used, meaning “the quantity which, when the diameter is multiplied by it, gives the circumference”. Clear, but quite a mouthful! In any case they had worked out that there was a mathematical constant there, which I reckon is already pretty cool.
Anyhow, π approximations! So who got close, and when? The answer may surprise you.
The Babylonians got to π = = 3.125 (sunbaked clay tablet found in 1936 at Susa).
The Rhind Papyrus of Egypt (c. 1650 BCE) contains a solved problem that states that “the area of a circle of nine length units in diameter is the same as the area of a square whose side is eight units of length”, which (skipping some maths that is difficult to represent in a blogpost) comes to π = = 3.160 49
The Greeks began with π = 3 for every day use (eek!); for more serious stuff they developed other values which were not much better, e.g. π = the square root of 10 = 3.162 2.
In the 2nd century BCE, Hipparchus (c. 147 – after 127 BCE) did some extensive computations and proposed the value π = = 3.141 66…, which is not bad at all.
Archimedes ( c. 287 – 212 BCE), regarded as the greatest scientist-mathematician of antiquity, worked out
3.140 8… < π < 3.142 8…
Archimedes got to that value by applying his method for calculation of arc length to determine π. Beginning with regular hexagons – inscribed in, and circumscribed to a circle – and doubling the number of sides four times until he had a pair of regular 96-gons, he calculated the length of the perimeters of the successive polygons.
After that, no essentially new ideas for the calculation of π were suggested until the development of calculus towards the end of the 17th century! Of course, this had everything to do with the fall of the West Roman Empire in 476, which triggered the “Dark Ages” in Europe for a 1000 years. Mathematics and other sciences progressed very slowly in Europe during that time. But outside of Europe, things were actually moving along.
In India:
Aryabatha, in 499, published π = 3.141 6…;
Bhaskara (born in 1114), held that π = 3.141 56…;
unfortunately neither bothered telling how they got to those figures.
In China:
Liu Hui in 263 CE published the limits
3.140 24… < π < 3.142704… obtained for a pair of 96-gons (same method as Archimedes, but could he have been aware of that?); for a 3072-gon, he found π = 3.141 59… which is absolutely brilliant!
Astronomer Tsu-Chung-chih (430-501) suggested π = = 3.141 592 9… which is correct to six decimal places, and was not to be bettered in Europe until the 16th century, more than a thousand years later.
In Persia:
Jamshid Masud al-Kashi in 1424 published Risala al-muhitiyya (“Treatise on the Circumference”) with the results of his calculations on an inscribed substantial n-gon (3 x 3), arriving at π = 3.141 592 653 589 793 25… which is correct to sixteen decimal places, thereby surpassing all earlier determinations of π.
Back to Europe (after the end of the Dark Ages):
Ludolph van Ceulen (1540-1610), a fencing master teaching arithmetic, surveying and fortification at the engineering school at Leiden in Holland, got to 20 decimals of π in Van den Circkel (“About the Circle”, 1596), followed by 32 decimals in Arithmetische en Geometische fondamenten (“Arithmetic and Geometric fundamentals”), published posthumously in 161, and 35 decimals published in 1621 by his pupil Willebrord Snel,
the last three digits of that were engraved as an epitaph on van Ceulen’s tombstone! Van Ceulen’s accomplishment so impressed his contemporaries that π was often called the Ludolphine constant.
In conclusion… van Ceulen’s later accomplishments notwithstanding, it’s important to recognise the very significant achievements of the early Chinese and Persians over a thousand years earlier! (I’d include the Indians but they really should have shown their working)
Many awesome facts sourced from: Mathematics, from the Birth of Numbers (Jan Gulberg).
Ray Tomlinson (Amsterdam, New York state USA, 23 April 1941 – 5 March 2016) invented email in 1971. While working at a company in Massachusetts that had computers on the ARPANET (which morphed into the Internet we know), he thought it would be a good idea if employees were able to send messages to each other as well as files. He choose the ‘@’ sign separate the username from the machine (host) name which he added, enabling the system to distinguish a remote username from a local one.
Email wasn’t actually part of the actual project he was supposed to be working on… but it caught on very quickly because of its obvious benefits. Fast forward to now.. in 2015 it was estimated more than 200 billion emails are sent daily, but that number does include spam which actually makes up a large proportion (about half in 2015).
It is also estimated there are currently over 4 billion email addresses – unfortunately that doesn’t quite mean that more than half the planet’s population has email, as quite a few people have more than one email address, and also computer programs can have an email address of their own.
In our research for OpenSTEM material we often find (or rediscover) that the “famous” person we all know is not the person who actually first did whatever it was. This applies to inventors, scientists, explorers.
Marco Polo was not the first to go East and hang out with the heirs of Genghis Khan, Magellan did not actually circumnavigate the world (he died on the way, in the Philippines), and so on.
In the field of science this has also happened quite often and it’s quite frustrating (to put it mildly). It’s important that the people who do the work credit the credit – and particularly not other people claiming (or otherwise getting, such as through a Nobel prize) that work as their own. That’s distinctly uncool.
Rosalind Franklin was an accomplished British chemist and X-ray crystallographer. It was her work that first showed the double-helix form of DNA. Watson & Crick (with Wilkins) ran with it (without her permission even) and they only mentioned her name in a footnote. As we all know, Watson, Crick and Wilkins received the Nobel prize for “discovering DNA”. False history.
While it’s not exclusively women who get a bad deal here, there are a fair number, and the research shows that this is often as a result of some very arrogant other people in their surroundings who grab and run with the work. Sexism and chauvinism have played a big role there.
An article by Katherine Handcock at A Mighty Girl provides a short bio of 15 Women Scientists – many of which you may never have heard of, but all of which did critical work. She writes:
For centuries, women have made important contributions to the sciences, but in many cases, it took far too long for their discoveries to be recognized — if they were acknowledged at all. And too often, books and academic courses that explore the history of science neglect the remarkable, ground breaking women who changed the world. In fact, it’s a rare person, child or adult, who can name more than two or three female scientists from history — and, even in those instances, the same few names are usually mentioned time and again.
I was very impressed with the layout and design of the Mirobot. I purchased the kit which required soldering. The…
Ian Cunningham