Learn

Learning preferences

Make learning more comfortable. Changes apply immediately.

Enlarges page content, including diagrams and their labels. You can also use your browser’s zoom.

Choose the colours that are easiest for you to distinguish. Applies to lesson diagrams and lab plots. Labels, shapes, hatching and line patterns also distinguish meanings. Source photographs and raw image brightness stay unchanged; mask-only views are available for image overlays.

ExampleComparisonSample link

Saved in this browser on this device. Preferences are separate from progress backups.

SCIENCE · INVESTIGATE AND EXPLAIN

Turn failed requirements into a useful failure log

Separate a failing criterion, its observed symptom and a proposed cause.

Learning outcome: Reproduce a failure with exact candidate/scenario settings and retain alternatives rather than replacing the original evidence.

Starting recap

A candidate contains gain, hardware and correction. One selected candidate is unchanged across its four-scenario suite.

All lessons are open directly. Your saved experiments remain when you leave and return.

Try

Standard gain 6 with zero correction passes nominal but fails the delayed tail band despite a passing final temperature.

Open the experiment

Predict

Predict whether one passing endpoint is enough to pass the four tail samples.

Experiment

Select standard gain 6, zero correction and delayed operation. Capture the candidate/scenario and record failed tail rows, symptom, mechanism, alternative cause and proposed test. Compare its other three scenarios without retuning.

Compare failures and constrained design tradeoffs

Worked teaching model · synthetic values · Twelve fixed candidates and four public deterministic cases reuse engineering-device-v1. Keep hardware, gain and correction fixed across each four-case suite. Case pass counts are coverage of supplied conditions, not field reliability, probabilities, independent trials or physical validation. Feasibility requires every supplied criterion; energy and assigned token cost are separate conditional objectives. An empty robust feasible set is a supported result, not permission to relax requirements silently.

Reset keeps your prediction, captures and practice history.

Keep the candidate fixed while changing the test condition

1: gain 2 W/K · Standard enclosure · subtract 0°C. Each matrix row retains one gain, hardware and subtracted correction across all four public scenarios. The selected detail scenario is Nominal. Changing the scenario selector inspects a different condition; it does not retune this candidate.

These are 48 deterministic model combinations, not 48 manufactured devices or independent trials. Passing a fraction of these four selected cases describes only this public suite; it is not a field reliability probability. All outcomes are development evidence with known public exposure.

Compare all twelve candidates across four scenarios
Every supplied criterion is retained. A cell passes only when all four pass.
Fixed candidateNominalTwo-sample delay (20 s)Sensor offset +2 degCHeater limited to 8 WCases meeting all criteria
1: gain 2 W/K · Standard enclosure · subtract 0°C (selected)
Tail 29–31°C at 90–120 s: pass
Peak ≤32°C: pass
Input ≤2000 J: pass
Cost ≤6 tokens: pass
Tail 29–31°C at 90–120 s: pass
Peak ≤32°C: pass
Input ≤2000 J: pass
Cost ≤6 tokens: pass
Tail 29–31°C at 90–120 s: fail
Peak ≤32°C: pass
Input ≤2000 J: pass
Cost ≤6 tokens: pass
Tail 29–31°C at 90–120 s: fail
Peak ≤32°C: pass
Input ≤2000 J: pass
Cost ≤6 tokens: pass
2 / 4
Not feasible across all four
2: gain 2 W/K · Standard enclosure · subtract 2°C
Tail 29–31°C at 90–120 s: fail
Peak ≤32°C: pass
Input ≤2000 J: fail
Cost ≤6 tokens: pass
Tail 29–31°C at 90–120 s: fail
Peak ≤32°C: pass
Input ≤2000 J: fail
Cost ≤6 tokens: pass
Tail 29–31°C at 90–120 s: pass
Peak ≤32°C: pass
Input ≤2000 J: pass
Cost ≤6 tokens: pass
Tail 29–31°C at 90–120 s: fail
Peak ≤32°C: pass
Input ≤2000 J: pass
Cost ≤6 tokens: pass
1 / 4
Not feasible across all four
3: gain 2 W/K · Insulated enclosure · subtract 0°C
Tail 29–31°C at 90–120 s: fail
Peak ≤32°C: pass
Input ≤2000 J: pass
Cost ≤6 tokens: pass
Tail 29–31°C at 90–120 s: fail
Peak ≤32°C: fail
Input ≤2000 J: pass
Cost ≤6 tokens: pass
Tail 29–31°C at 90–120 s: pass
Peak ≤32°C: pass
Input ≤2000 J: pass
Cost ≤6 tokens: pass
Tail 29–31°C at 90–120 s: fail
Peak ≤32°C: pass
Input ≤2000 J: pass
Cost ≤6 tokens: pass
1 / 4
Not feasible across all four
4: gain 2 W/K · Insulated enclosure · subtract 2°C
Tail 29–31°C at 90–120 s: fail
Peak ≤32°C: fail
Input ≤2000 J: pass
Cost ≤6 tokens: pass
Tail 29–31°C at 90–120 s: fail
Peak ≤32°C: fail
Input ≤2000 J: pass
Cost ≤6 tokens: pass
Tail 29–31°C at 90–120 s: fail
Peak ≤32°C: pass
Input ≤2000 J: pass
Cost ≤6 tokens: pass
Tail 29–31°C at 90–120 s: fail
Peak ≤32°C: pass
Input ≤2000 J: pass
Cost ≤6 tokens: pass
0 / 4
Not feasible across all four
5: gain 6 W/K · Standard enclosure · subtract 0°C
Tail 29–31°C at 90–120 s: pass
Peak ≤32°C: pass
Input ≤2000 J: pass
Cost ≤6 tokens: pass
Tail 29–31°C at 90–120 s: fail
Peak ≤32°C: pass
Input ≤2000 J: pass
Cost ≤6 tokens: pass
Tail 29–31°C at 90–120 s: fail
Peak ≤32°C: pass
Input ≤2000 J: pass
Cost ≤6 tokens: pass
Tail 29–31°C at 90–120 s: fail
Peak ≤32°C: pass
Input ≤2000 J: pass
Cost ≤6 tokens: pass
1 / 4
Not feasible across all four
6: gain 6 W/K · Standard enclosure · subtract 2°C
Tail 29–31°C at 90–120 s: fail
Peak ≤32°C: pass
Input ≤2000 J: fail
Cost ≤6 tokens: pass
Tail 29–31°C at 90–120 s: fail
Peak ≤32°C: fail
Input ≤2000 J: fail
Cost ≤6 tokens: pass
Tail 29–31°C at 90–120 s: pass
Peak ≤32°C: pass
Input ≤2000 J: pass
Cost ≤6 tokens: pass
Tail 29–31°C at 90–120 s: fail
Peak ≤32°C: pass
Input ≤2000 J: pass
Cost ≤6 tokens: pass
1 / 4
Not feasible across all four
7: gain 6 W/K · Insulated enclosure · subtract 0°C
Tail 29–31°C at 90–120 s: pass
Peak ≤32°C: pass
Input ≤2000 J: pass
Cost ≤6 tokens: pass
Tail 29–31°C at 90–120 s: fail
Peak ≤32°C: fail
Input ≤2000 J: pass
Cost ≤6 tokens: pass
Tail 29–31°C at 90–120 s: fail
Peak ≤32°C: pass
Input ≤2000 J: pass
Cost ≤6 tokens: pass
Tail 29–31°C at 90–120 s: fail
Peak ≤32°C: pass
Input ≤2000 J: pass
Cost ≤6 tokens: pass
1 / 4
Not feasible across all four
8: gain 6 W/K · Insulated enclosure · subtract 2°C
Tail 29–31°C at 90–120 s: fail
Peak ≤32°C: fail
Input ≤2000 J: pass
Cost ≤6 tokens: pass
Tail 29–31°C at 90–120 s: fail
Peak ≤32°C: fail
Input ≤2000 J: pass
Cost ≤6 tokens: pass
Tail 29–31°C at 90–120 s: pass
Peak ≤32°C: pass
Input ≤2000 J: pass
Cost ≤6 tokens: pass
Tail 29–31°C at 90–120 s: fail
Peak ≤32°C: pass
Input ≤2000 J: pass
Cost ≤6 tokens: pass
1 / 4
Not feasible across all four
9: gain 12 W/K · Standard enclosure · subtract 0°C
Tail 29–31°C at 90–120 s: pass
Peak ≤32°C: pass
Input ≤2000 J: pass
Cost ≤6 tokens: pass
Tail 29–31°C at 90–120 s: fail
Peak ≤32°C: pass
Input ≤2000 J: pass
Cost ≤6 tokens: pass
Tail 29–31°C at 90–120 s: fail
Peak ≤32°C: pass
Input ≤2000 J: pass
Cost ≤6 tokens: pass
Tail 29–31°C at 90–120 s: fail
Peak ≤32°C: pass
Input ≤2000 J: pass
Cost ≤6 tokens: pass
1 / 4
Not feasible across all four
10: gain 12 W/K · Standard enclosure · subtract 2°C
Tail 29–31°C at 90–120 s: fail
Peak ≤32°C: pass
Input ≤2000 J: fail
Cost ≤6 tokens: pass
Tail 29–31°C at 90–120 s: fail
Peak ≤32°C: fail
Input ≤2000 J: fail
Cost ≤6 tokens: pass
Tail 29–31°C at 90–120 s: pass
Peak ≤32°C: pass
Input ≤2000 J: pass
Cost ≤6 tokens: pass
Tail 29–31°C at 90–120 s: fail
Peak ≤32°C: pass
Input ≤2000 J: pass
Cost ≤6 tokens: pass
1 / 4
Not feasible across all four
11: gain 12 W/K · Insulated enclosure · subtract 0°C
Tail 29–31°C at 90–120 s: pass
Peak ≤32°C: pass
Input ≤2000 J: pass
Cost ≤6 tokens: pass
Tail 29–31°C at 90–120 s: fail
Peak ≤32°C: fail
Input ≤2000 J: pass
Cost ≤6 tokens: pass
Tail 29–31°C at 90–120 s: fail
Peak ≤32°C: pass
Input ≤2000 J: pass
Cost ≤6 tokens: pass
Tail 29–31°C at 90–120 s: fail
Peak ≤32°C: pass
Input ≤2000 J: pass
Cost ≤6 tokens: pass
1 / 4
Not feasible across all four
12: gain 12 W/K · Insulated enclosure · subtract 2°C
Tail 29–31°C at 90–120 s: fail
Peak ≤32°C: fail
Input ≤2000 J: pass
Cost ≤6 tokens: pass
Tail 29–31°C at 90–120 s: fail
Peak ≤32°C: fail
Input ≤2000 J: pass
Cost ≤6 tokens: pass
Tail 29–31°C at 90–120 s: pass
Peak ≤32°C: pass
Input ≤2000 J: pass
Cost ≤6 tokens: pass
Tail 29–31°C at 90–120 s: fail
Peak ≤32°C: pass
Input ≤2000 J: pass
Cost ≤6 tokens: pass
1 / 4
Not feasible across all four

No candidate meets all four scenarios in this finite suite. In particular, the 8 W case fails the finite-time tail requirement even for insulated hardware. Its constant-input equilibrium is 20 + 8/0.5 = 36°C, but its 200 s time constant means the 20°C start reaches only about 27.219°C after 120 s. This is a finite-time service failure, not proof that insulation makes 29°C permanently unreachable. Standard hardware instead has an 8 W equilibrium of 28°C.

Selected candidate: separate requirements in each condition

Same candidate, same initial temperature and 120 s horizon; scenario changes are explicit
ScenarioTail samples at 90, 100, 110, 120 s (°C)Peak (°C)Applied input (J)Assigned costAll criteria
Nominal29.359, 29.542, 29.673, 29.766
Pass
29.766 at 120 s
Pass
1821.035
Pass
3 tokens
Pass
Pass
Two-sample delay (20 s)30.341, 30.359, 30.294, 30.201
Pass
30.359 at 100 s
Pass
1922.517
Pass
3 tokens
Pass
Pass
Sensor offset +2 degC28.187, 28.324, 28.422, 28.492
Fail
28.492 at 120 s
Pass
1607.588
Pass
3 tokens
Pass
Fail
Heater limited to 8 W24.747, 25.057, 25.337, 25.590
Fail
25.590 at 120 s
Pass
960.000
Pass
3 tokens
Pass
Fail

Temperature judgments use full precision, not rounded display values. Held-input exact one-node intervals are monotonic toward their interval equilibria, so endpoint samples bound their peaks and the intervening tail temperatures here. This is not a general claim about physical temperature fields. A passing energy budget cannot compensate for a failed temperature requirement.

Cost and input energy within one feasible scenario

For Nominal, feasible means meeting all four supplied requirements. The comparison then minimizes only assigned token cost and applied heater energy. A candidate is nondominated if no other feasible candidate is no worse on both and strictly better on at least one. Equal pairs do not dominate each other. This conditional comparison excludes other priorities and is not a universal best design.

Feasible candidates only · fixed axes: cost 3–5 tokens, input 0–2400 J
0600120018002400345Applied heater input (J)Assigned resource cost (tokens)

Circles: feasible pairs. Outer squares: nondominated pairs. Identical or nearby points can overlap; the table retains every candidate. Points outside the fixed scale are omitted with a notice, never moved onto the boundary.

Nominal: retain rejected candidates and their failed criteria alongside the feasible comparison
CandidateCost (tokens)Applied input (J)Failed criteriaCost–energy status
1: gain 2 W/K · Standard enclosure · subtract 0°C31821.035488NoneFeasible and nondominated
2: gain 2 W/K · Standard enclosure · subtract 2°C32012.930200Tail 29–31°C at 90–120 s; Input ≤2000 JExcluded: infeasible
3: gain 2 W/K · Insulated enclosure · subtract 0°C51624.624719Tail 29–31°C at 90–120 sExcluded: infeasible
4: gain 2 W/K · Insulated enclosure · subtract 2°C51809.091605Tail 29–31°C at 90–120 s; Peak ≤32°CExcluded: infeasible
5: gain 6 W/K · Standard enclosure · subtract 0°C31887.808894NoneFeasible, dominated on cost/energy
6: gain 6 W/K · Standard enclosure · subtract 2°C32130.915020Tail 29–31°C at 90–120 s; Input ≤2000 JExcluded: infeasible
7: gain 6 W/K · Insulated enclosure · subtract 0°C51558.581071NoneFeasible, dominated on cost/energy
8: gain 6 W/K · Insulated enclosure · subtract 2°C51790.699641Tail 29–31°C at 90–120 s; Peak ≤32°CExcluded: infeasible
9: gain 12 W/K · Standard enclosure · subtract 0°C31893.370525NoneFeasible, dominated on cost/energy
10: gain 12 W/K · Standard enclosure · subtract 2°C32153.177644Tail 29–31°C at 90–120 s; Input ≤2000 JExcluded: infeasible
11: gain 12 W/K · Insulated enclosure · subtract 0°C51515.220813NoneFeasible and nondominated
12: gain 12 W/K · Insulated enclosure · subtract 2°C51757.975786Tail 29–31°C at 90–120 s; Peak ≤32°CExcluded: infeasible
Selected run: all thirteen true states
1: gain 2 W/K · Standard enclosure · subtract 0°C · Nominal
Time (s)True temperature (°C)
020.000000
1021.903252
2023.625385
3025.183636
4026.558649
5027.541112
6028.243095
7028.744670
8029.103051
9029.359119
10029.542083
11029.672812
12029.766220
Selected run: all twelve observation, command and energy receipts

Commands occur at 0–110 s; 120 s is the final state, not a new observation command. The delayed scenario requests t − 20 s. Negative requested times use the held initial state at effective time 0, not a measured prehistory. Raw indication adds the scenario bias to the selected true observation; corrected indication subtracts the candidate correction of 0°C. A nonzero correction is not automatically appropriate in an unbiased scenario.

Held input for each 10 s interval; positive ambient energy is outward
Step / interval (s)True start → end (°C)Requested / effective observation (s)Raw / subtracted correction / corrected (°C)Error (K)Requested / applied (W)ClippingInput (J)Stored change (J)To ambient (J)Residual (J)
0: 0–1020.000000 → 21.9032520 / 020.000000 / 0 / 20.00000010.00000030.000000 / 20.000000Upper200.000000190.3251649.6748360.00e+0
1: 10–2021.903252 → 23.62538510 / 1021.903252 / 0 / 21.9032528.09674826.193497 / 20.000000Upper200.000000172.21333027.7866700.00e+0
2: 20–3023.625385 → 25.18363620 / 2023.625385 / 0 / 23.6253856.37461522.749230 / 20.000000Upper200.000000155.82506544.1749350.00e+0
3: 30–4025.183636 → 26.55864930 / 3025.183636 / 0 / 25.1836364.81636419.632729 / 19.632729None196.327288137.50130258.8259860.00e+0
4: 40–5026.558649 → 27.54111240 / 4026.558649 / 0 / 26.5586493.44135116.882703 / 16.882703None168.82702898.24636570.5806630.00e+0
5: 50–6027.541112 → 28.24309550 / 5027.541112 / 0 / 27.5411122.45888814.917775 / 14.917775None149.17775570.19823278.9795230.00e+0
6: 60–7028.243095 → 28.74467060 / 6028.243095 / 0 / 28.2430951.75690513.513811 / 13.513811None135.13810850.15749784.9806120.00e+0
7: 70–8028.744670 → 29.10305170 / 7028.744670 / 0 / 28.7446701.25533012.510661 / 12.510661None125.10660935.83814689.2684630.00e+0
8: 80–9029.103051 → 29.35911980 / 8029.103051 / 0 / 29.1030510.89694911.793898 / 11.793898None117.93898025.60679592.3321850.00e+0
9: 90–10029.359119 → 29.54208390 / 9029.359119 / 0 / 29.3591190.64088111.281762 / 11.281762None112.81762118.29636994.5212520.00e+0
10: 100–11029.542083 → 29.672812100 / 10029.542083 / 0 / 29.5420830.45791710.915835 / 10.915835None109.15834713.07298096.0853680.00e+0
11: 110–12029.672812 → 29.766220110 / 11029.672812 / 0 / 29.6728120.32718810.654375 / 10.654375None106.5437519.34080497.2029470.00e+0

Whole-run balance: 1821.035488 J applied input = 976.622047 J stored change + 844.413440 J signed ambient transfer. Residual -3.41e-13 J. Display rounding can create a small apparent discrepancy.

Original fictional one-node device and assigned costs. Uniform temperature, constant heat capacity/conductance/ambient, held heater input and exact exponential propagation within each sample. No spatial gradient, evaporation, radiation law, random noise, active cooling, integral control or physical safety/efficiency/reliability certification. Public cases are exposed teaching practice. The 2000 J requirement is an acceptance criterion, not an automatic cutoff. Token cost is fictional; heater input is not a measured wall-plug consumption. No averaging of these indicators repairs a failed requirement.

Your investigation: predict the scenarios a fixed candidate will fail, inspect its receipts and retain a failure explanation. Compare a second candidate without changing the criteria. Explain one tradeoff and one condition outside this finite public suite before recommending a design.

Selected fixed candidate meets all criteria in 2 of 4 supplied public cases. Nominal: all requirements met.

Selected case: 1821.035 J applied heater energy; 3 assigned tokens. 5 feasible candidates in this scenario; 2 nondominated on cost and energy. This case count is not field reliability. Changing correction between scenarios would define different candidates.

Captures preserve recipes and replay their calculated results. They are synthetic model evidence, not physical measurements.

Understand

Record what failed before naming its cause

A failure log connects a requirement with evidence and a proposed next step. “The controller is bad” identifies neither the violated requirement nor the condition that produced it. Begin with a particular candidate: standard enclosure, gain 6 W/K, correction 0°C. Keep those three choices fixed while comparing nominal and delayed operation.

The suite offers twelve candidates, combining three gains, two hardware choices and two corrections. Each is evaluated under the same four public scenarios: nominal, 20-second sensing delay, +2°C sensor offset and an 8 W heater limit. Selecting a different scenario does not authorize a different correction or gain when claiming performance of one candidate across the suite. The full matrix contains 48 deterministic combinations, not 48 measured prototypes.

Distinguish requirement, symptom and explanation

For the selected delayed case, temperatures at 90, 100, 110 and 120 seconds are approximately 31.474, 31.295, 30.593 and 29.695°C. The requirement is 29–31°C at every one of those samples. The symptom is therefore two upper-band violations. The passing final temperature does not cancel the earlier failures. Peak remains below 32°C, input energy below 2,000 J and cost below six tokens; those are separate entries in the log.

A proposed explanation is that old sensor information keeps the applied heating too high after the true state has risen. That mechanism is consistent with the delayed-case receipts. It is different from the observation itself. In actual equipment, alternative explanations might include a sensor offset or a changed thermal boundary; they would need distinguishing evidence. Here the scenario deliberately supplies the cause, so the activity practices reasoning rather than discovering an unknown real fault.

Create a log with columns for candidate/version, scenario, requirement, failing value/time, mechanism hypothesis, alternative explanation and proposed retest. Include units. Record “31.474°C at 90 s exceeds 31°C,” rather than merely marking a red cell. A table reader should understand the failure without relying on color.

Reproduce before revising

Capture the selected recipe and explain its 120-second horizon, 20°C start and ambient, fixed standard hardware and correction. Inspect the same case again to check that the result can be reconstructed. Reproducing a deterministic result confirms the recipe was applied consistently; it does not add a new physical specimen or independent failure observation.

Next compare gain 2 while retaining standard hardware, zero correction and the delayed scenario. Its tail samples all lie in the band. That is a candidate revision, not a correction to the original failed record. Keep both captures and explain the changed input. Return to controller redesign for the detailed tradeoff, including the small increase in energy for this successful delayed-case revision.

NASA’s verification guidance connects compliance evidence with stated requirements and test conditions. The original log here supports a bounded model comparison; it does not validate intended physical use, provide a field failure rate or certify safety.

Recognize distinct kinds of heating failure

Switch the standard candidate to the 8 W limited scenario. Every allowed gain has the same applied-power trace and ends near 25.590°C. Its constant-maximum-input equilibrium is only 28°C, below the 29°C lower requirement. Increasing gain cannot fix that capacity shortfall under the stated standard-plant boundary.

For insulated hardware, the same 8 W input has equilibrium 36°C, yet reaches only about 27.219°C at 120 seconds. This is still a failure of the stated deadline, but not proof that 29°C is permanently unattainable. The lower conductance also changes the time constant. Preserve this distinction in the cause column instead of grouping every cool endpoint as “heater can never reach target.”

Transfer: repair an incomplete failure report

A paper report says, “The insulated limited case failed because its equilibrium is below target.” Use conductance 0.5 W/K, ambient 20°C and constant input 8 W to check that sentence. Rewrite it without claiming a new widget run or changing the deadline.

Check the failure-description transfer

Equilibrium is 20 + 8/0.5 = 36°C, so the stated explanation is wrong. The run fails because its actual temperatures during the specified 90–120 s window remain below 29°C; its final value is about 27.219°C. A steady limit above target does not establish performance by a deadline. The corrected report preserves the failure while changing the causal interpretation.

Keep the original report beside the correction. Continue to reliability claims to explain what a suite of such logs can and cannot establish.

Apply

A delayed candidate ends at 29.695°C but has tail samples 31.474°C and 31.295°C above the 31°C ceiling. Its tail requirement is:

Public practice checks a specific claim. It does not establish independent mastery.

Explain which observed statement supports the failure and which causal statement still depends on the stipulated model.

Continue

Completion requires a saved prediction, at least one capture and a reflection. Presence checks do not grade your reasoning.

Skipping retains experiments and awards no mastery.

Save a science backup or import one

Science work is stored locally in this browser, separately from mathematics and AI. It does not sync automatically. Use this science-only backup; this checkout's older all-subject export does not include science.

A legacy file is available only when the complete snapshot fits the 36 MB limit. For larger snapshots, prepare a complete file set below; never discard notebooks to make a smaller file.

Matching imported notebook drafts replace their current drafts. Omitted lessons and known first attempts remain. Export your current work first if you want to retain both drafts.

Complete file sets and course backups

A file set can hold more work than one science file. Keep its manifest and every part together. Each file is limited to 36 MB. This format needs this version of LearnAI or a compatible newer version; older versions can use only the legacy single-file backup above.

The set includes every saved science course and global continuation at this moment. Later edits need a new export. A conflicting tab exports its own visible work, which may differ from saved work in another tab.

0 file(s) selected. File order and filenames do not determine identity. Missing, changed or conflicting parts block the entire restore; no good part is applied by itself.

Science storage: loading. No account or remote computation is required.