Investigate nonlinear motion and power trade-offs by inspecting quantities with units.
Start with everyday situations, predict an outcome, and test your ideas. You need basic arithmetic, percentages and graph reading; explanations introduce additional ideas where needed. No coding or account is required. Every investigation has school, college and workplace extensions—you can choose any of them.
What you will learn
Use motion, circuit and energy models to compare feasible designs, inspect feedback failures and choose measurements that distinguish faults.
Before you begin
Use multiplication, division, squared values and units.
Read positive and negative changes.
Trigonometric components are explained at the trajectory experiment; programming is optional.
The original two-investigation starter remains available. Choosing the full course adds its published lessons to your selected scope; your earlier work stays saved. Skipping does not count as completion or understanding.
Free exploration: no completion scope selected yet. Project reports and independent evidence are tracked separately.
Course outline
Choose a unit, then open a lesson on its own page. This outline lists the sequence; it does not combine the full lessons into one page.
Predict motion under constraints2 lessons
Separate motion components and distinguish target accuracy from feasible operation.
○ Not marked complete · Included · Practice check available
Lesson preview
What changes warm-up time, and what changes eventual temperature?
Original synthetic scenario. A virtual object starts at ambient 20°C. Constant heating supplies energy while heat leaks in proportion to its temperature above ambient.
○ Not marked complete · Included · Practice check available
Lesson preview
Does a low loaded voltage identify a unique problem?
Original synthetic scenario. A virtual circuit may be healthy, have lower source voltage, or have excessive internal resistance. A shared meter offset can affect both voltage readings.
Choose a virtual motion, power or heating design and specify a target plus a binding constraint. Compare alternatives, deliberately introduce a failure or disturbance, and justify a diagnostic or control change using captures from at least two experiments. This is a model-based design review, not authorization to operate physical hardware.
Save a report, compare captured evidence, and attempt three new cases. A completed report records submitted work; the rubric supports a separate human review of its quality.