[OT] Simple math considered physics

[Jim Kuzdrall]

On Thursday 22 November 2007 21:18, you wrote:
> I'm sure you can't MAKE kids interested in engineering, but there are
> certainly classes of toys that a great many of the more geek-inclined
> people I know remember fondly.
>
> LEGO
> Erector sets
> Tinkertoys
> Lincoln Logs
> Piles of junk + imagination
>
> Any I've missed?  If I ever have children they're definitely going to
> have easy access LEGO and random electronic components.

    I had the last 3 of the above.  LEGOs weren't invented, and we 
couldn't afford the Erector set.  I did get a hand-me-down electric 
train and used 5-tube table radio though.  You might guess the source 
of my ham radio interests.

    Two areas that you might consider when expanding your list are 1) 
things to extend the child's senses, and 2) stuff to take apart.

    I never got a microscope, but tried to build one.  A binoculars led 
to many summer nights on the lawn matching constellations to those in 
my book, watching meteors, and hoping to spot a UFO.  (The binoculars 
had an eerie story with them.  My father had taken them from a dead 
French officer in the Pacific.  There was blood on the leather case.)

    Before things were junked (which was seldom), they were offered to 
us to take apart.  I remember getting a wind-up alarm clock at age 4.  
The brass gears were fascinating.  And frustrating, because there was 
nothing I could do with them.

    My mother was usually neutral about taking things apart.  Usually.  
My younger sister had an expensive doll that gave out a Whaaah sound 
when tipped over.  My brother and I convinced her that her baby would 
not be crying unless there was something wrong with it.  So, my good 
hearted sister gave permission to "operate".  My mother was not 
pleased.

Jim Kuzdrall