My favorite thing about this book is the online lab ideas, with their descriptions, procedures, and teacher notes. I have found many of them both excellent and doable, well-suited to the topic at hand. I like that there are both scientific experiments and engineering design labs.

The 1st thing to note about the text itself is that the symbols for the equations do not match those for the AP test, if one is interested in prepping for that test. I have spent considerable time trying to show how the two sets of equations are the same, just with different symbols.

Also, another difference between this text and the AP test, is that the test graders do not like to see centripetal force drawn on a free-body diagram, just the centripetal force's component forces. Also, this text says not to use centrifugal force, but just the concept of inertia to explain the tangential speed if the rotating object is released. However, the AP test does involve questions of centrifugal force.

I would say it's between a 3 and a 4. The most important thing, I would think, for a textbook, is that the explanations and illustrations were concise and clear. They were. It was very readable.

The equations chosen were appropriate for the high school level, mostly algebraic, but with some trig in some cases. I have concerns with students being concurrently in Pre-Calculus not reaching the pertinent parts of trig before they are needed in this course. I would prefer that Pre-Calculus be a prerequisite, or at least for a Geometry that includes trig to be prerequisite.

The descriptions and pictures of the right hand rule in electromagnetics could have been more clear with more examples.

I was a little surprised to see a chapter on Fluid Mechanics. I was only aware of it being taught in the collegiate levels. Someone else commented surprise upon seeing Thermodynamics. However, both the Fluid Mechanics and Thermodynamics were on a very basic level. The Subatomic Physics chapter could have been made more clear with a better chart involving the various subatomic particles, but I was pleasantly surprised that it went as far as it did.

Early on, I didn't care for the way the physics book seemed to be for four different classes in one book: basic physics, general physics, advanced physics, and heavy lab physics. They were not sequential classes, but each class required the same sections in differing degrees of depth. Honestly, it was mildly confusing as to what material was appropriate for which class, even with the Pacing Guide towards the beginning of the book. It would have been better to have that information within each section, as appropriate rather than having to flip back and forth. I almost felt like I needed an engineering flow chart (something with which I am familiar) just for the flow of the book.

One teacher suggested that the four ways of teaching the material be color-coded rather than just having a chart with how many days to spend on each topic for each type of physics class.

One teacher said, "I've seen a mess someone tried to pass off as a textbook before - trying to fit more than one purpose when it would have been better just to make separate books, or at least divide it out better with optional or advanced sections/chapters that go more in depth or whatever."

In the end, I described the complicated flow of the book for four different classes as "spaghetti logic." I hadn't thought about spaghetti logic since my own college days in design class. Tracing each train of thought is like tracing a spaghetti noodle through a dish of spaghetti. It's not very obvious. It's tedious. It can work for things, but it is not very pretty or orderly. (We were taught to design with truth tables instead of spaghetti logic.)

Most of the scientific descriptions in the book were very good, but the occasional cartoons, Thing Explainer sections, were very odd. I wasn't sure where they were trying to be funny and where it just misfired. For example, in describing a car engine, they use the word "fire water" for gasoline, "pusher" for engine, and "go stick" for accelerator. Someone asked me if it had been translated from a different language. I don't think so, because the concepts and the equations in the rest of the book were explained well, but whenever they tried to explain an invention that uses those concepts, they reverted to 5-year-old language. (By the way, someone here said that "fire water" was slang for moonshine.)

The reason I am giving this book a 4-star review rather than a 3-star review is because the scientific explanations and charts were well-presented, with the exceptions of the Thin Explainer sections.
- - -
Ch 3 There is only one review problem on adding vectors and resultant vectors in the Chapter 3 Review and it is too long. It might be better to do more of this type of problems from the end of the earlier sec 3.2.

Ch 4: I added directions on how to find the normal force on an incline because it wasn’t in the book, and yet the problems assumed they knew how to do it.

Ch 5: #21 is poorly worded. They mean for Ft = Fg + Fb = 1500 N when the diver is underwater. Fb is due to buoyancy, but they mean for the whole total force at that point to be 1500 N.

Problem #24a has the origin in an odd point, especially as we’ve been talking about energy being scalar and not having a sign. Usually you choose the origin to be at the lowest PEg point in the system. The “-” in part a is to show that you have to put energy into a system to get it there. It might be better just to focus on Problem #24 b & c.

Chapter 5 Conservation of Mechanical Energy Lab. Use sticky note tabs instead of rubber bands, so it doesn’t disrupt the meter stick as much to move them.

Ch 5 Test: The question I got online for the test “What is the average power output of a weightlifter …” is not a good question. It can be solved using W = F*d, but not using W = Δ KE equations. They don’t give the same result. This is probably due to an invalid assumption of the velocity being constant, or perhaps the question writers have created an inconsistent mathematical world.

Ch 7: Both the review problems for Fc in section 1 (#10 & #11) are different than the ones worked in the book because the circular motion is vertical rather than horizontal. So, Fg becomes part of the centripetal force.

In prior problems, prior chapters that the book hasn’t explained, it has expected the students to be able to calculate the answers in the homework (practice problems and formative assessments) and we’ve worked through them together. I’ve come up with overhead slides on procedures that we’re given.

This feels wrong to suddenly “spring” this kind of problem on the students in the chapter review when they’ve never had it in the homework. I checked through all the practice problems & the formative assessment problems, and there aren’t any with vertical circular motion. So, the issue cannot be resolved by just choosing different homework problems.

Usually, of the online tests, I choose the hardest problems - and they do well - so I looked to see what those problems entailed. One of the online tests does have a vertical circular motion and the other has a horizontal circular motion.

I think there are three fair solutions:

1) For this section, use a problem from the practice problems rather than the chapter review & use the horizontal circular motion problem on the test. I wouldn’t mind doing this because until now I’ve always chosen the harder path.

2) Assign one of these two chapter review problems as homework when we are on that section, and then the other in the chapter review, to enable the students to be able to do the vertical type problem on the test.

3) Do like #2 but still have the easier, horizontal problem on the test. I might like that solution the best, because they’ve been exposed to it, but it’s shorter to solve on the exam. Frequently the homework/chapter review problems are harder than the exam. I figure if they can do the harder ones, then they can do the easier ones.

For this first year, I believe we’ll just muddle through. I’ll just go through one of the vertical problems with them for the chapter review - without having had it in the homework - and yet still do the easier horizontal problem on the test. I plan to add a slide on what constitutes centripetal force to help explain this better.

Ch 10 p. 347. There's a misprint on #4. In order to get the correct answer, the problem needs to read "The increase in the cylinder's volume is 4.05 x 10-4 m3." rather than "4.0^5 x 10-4 m3."

Ch 11: A slip knot works better for pendulum experiments because then the length can be adjusted more easily. Also a dow rod works better than a metal for resonance for the cross-beam to hang pendulums on. Tape can be used at the top so that there isn’t as much slippage.

Ch 12 p. 425 #3. The answer is incorrect. It should be 53.3 cm. Their answer was given as if the pipe were open at both ends.

Ch 12 Test: The text only said that solids & liquids carried sound better than gasses, and that gasses at hotter temperatures carried sound better than gasses at cooler temperatures. But it didn’t say how the gasses at various temperatures would compare to solids at various temperatures. So I threw out that question.