I’m not sure it would make sense to add them to this card because you would need 3 cards 1 for inside focal point, 1 within f to 2f and then one beyond 2f. Since there’s currently only 2 cards one for inside and outside. It might seem more logical to make them into new cards.
@Brian_BH thoughts?.
My hesitation here is that the card is specifying the particular conditions that arise when an object is very close to a concave mirror.
For a concave mirror, this represents a specific scenario in which the image is virtual and upright (its being notable is why the card). By comparison, IIRC, this is always true with a convex mirror.
Thus I think it’s probably a bit confusing to add them both. The suggested edit implies that being virtual and upright is conditional on object distance which is not true for both mirror types.
That being said, I’m not against including a note about how this is conditional for concave mirrors, and not for convex, in the Extra field and/or image size relative to object distance in the Extra field. I could see that being helpful (and mirrors are famously one of those topics that get confusing for people quickly).
I agree. I don’t really like the edit I suggested either. More was trying to start a conversation about how not including more specific distances discussed in all the primary MCAT sources for convex lenses and concave mirrors (outside 2f, between 2f and f, and inside f) as well as the relative sizes creates some issues. I think making an addition to the extra section is a good step as you suggested. I also agree with @kevinpanini that including all these changes isn’t really possible without the addition of one more card. So this is maybe something we can compromise on now and then come back to at a later date.
Lenses is one of those things that is such a minefield for potential confusion that it’s hard to imagine any suitable solution other than a fine-toothed comb approach, which would rightly include going through all the cards and really sitting down to determine what needs to be added (or refined).
For sure I think adding some context to the Extra field could be helpful and, arguably, might just be a good tact for subjects like this that are particularly prone to inherent confusion for students.
In my opinion we could probably add a card that’s covers all 3 scenarios at once.
For example. (Ignore any mistakes I make this is just a rough idea.
In converging mirrors/lenses.
When the object is {{c1::farther than 2f}} the image is {{c2::inverted, real, larger}}
When the object is {{c1::between 2f and f}} the image is {{c2::inverted, real, smaller}}
When the object is {{c1::closer than r}} the image is {{c2::upright, virtual, bigger}}
Once we’re at the point of adding cards it’s for sure a good candidate.
I agree. These would be good cards to add. Also a graphic like this below might be helpful to include in these cards eventually. Honestly I wonder if they would benefit from inclusion now? Seems like a great way to include a lot of missing info without having to change the card. @Brian_BH
Definitely can’t hurt. This is one of those concepts where, again, an image just does so much heavy lifting for clarifying what’s going on and helping students understand the dynamics at play. I see no reason not to include an image here, for sure