Comment on "Resistance of a digital voltmeter: teaching creative thinking through an inquiry-based lab"

Robert Mingesz; Zoltan gingl

arxiv: 1906.09397 · v1 · pith:DWMDYVZHnew · submitted 2019-06-22 · ⚛️ physics.ed-ph

Comment on "Resistance of a digital voltmeter: teaching creative thinking through an inquiry-based lab"

Zoltan gingl , Robert Mingesz This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-25 18:18 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification ⚛️ physics.ed-ph

keywords physics educationdigital multimeterinput impedanceinquiry-based labnon-ideal behaviormeasurement teachingeducational demonstration

0 comments

The pith

The 2018 digital voltmeter lab demonstration requires additional discussion to be complete.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The authors comment on a 2018 paper that uses inquiry-based investigation of digital multimeter input impedance to teach non-ideal instrument behavior. They note that instruments like these are accessible, precise, and represent modern technology, making the topic suitable for physics education. The comment states that the original demonstration needs more discussion to reach completeness. A sympathetic reader would care because complete materials help students develop accurate views of real measurements and creative problem-solving.

Core claim

The 2018 paper demonstrates how the investigation of the input impedance of a digital multimeter can be used in education. However, some more discussion is needed to make it more complete.

What carries the argument

Inquiry-based lab on digital multimeter input impedance for teaching non-ideal measurement behavior.

Load-bearing premise

The original 2018 paper's educational demonstration on digital voltmeter resistance is incomplete without unspecified additional discussion.

What would settle it

A side-by-side review of the 2018 paper that checks whether its existing text already supplies sufficient discussion on all aspects of the input impedance lab.

read the original abstract

Teaching about measurements and showing examples of instruments' non-ideal behaviour are important in physics education. Digital multimeter input impedance analysis is perfect for this, since these instruments are easily available, precise enough, have good value/price ratio and represent modern technology. A recent paper (2018 Phys. Educ. 53 053005) demonstrates how the investigation of the input impedance of a digital multimeter can be used in education. However, we think that some more discussion is needed to make it more complete.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Desk Editor's Note private letter to a colleague

This short comment says a 2018 lab demo on digital multimeter impedance needs more discussion but names no specific gaps or offers any analysis.

read the letter

The main point to take away is that this is a brief comment claiming the 2018 paper on using digital voltmeter resistance measurements for teaching can be used in education but requires additional discussion to be complete. No new data, methods, or concrete examples appear anywhere in the text. The authors correctly note that showing non-ideal instrument behavior matters for students, and that digital multimeters are accessible for such labs. That acknowledgment is fair as far as it goes. The soft spot is the central assertion itself. It stands as an unsupported opinion without identifying any particular omission, such as unaddressed capacitance effects, student analysis errors, or missing comparisons to other instruments. Without those details the suggestion for more discussion does not carry weight or help readers improve the original activity. The work is aimed at physics education researchers who develop or adapt lab exercises. A reader already familiar with the 2018 paper might skim it for any overlooked angle, but the lack of substance means most will get little from it. I would not send this to peer review. It is too thin to justify referee time.

Referee Report

1 major / 0 minor

Summary. The manuscript is a brief comment on the 2018 Physics Education paper that demonstrates an inquiry-based lab using digital multimeter input impedance to teach creative thinking and non-ideal instrument behavior. It affirms that the approach is suitable for education but asserts without elaboration that 'some more discussion is needed to make it more complete.'

Significance. If substantiated, the comment could usefully flag opportunities to strengthen educational treatments of measurement instruments, but as written it provides no new analysis, data, or concrete suggestions and therefore adds little to the literature on physics education.

major comments (1)

The central claim that additional discussion is required is presented as self-evident in the abstract and full text but is unsupported by any named omissions (e.g., treatment of input capacitance, uncertainty propagation, or comparison with analog meters), student-learning evidence, or analysis of how the 2018 demonstration is educationally incomplete. No section, equation, or table is referenced because none exist in the manuscript.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

1 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their review. We recognize that our comment is brief and that the suggestion for additional discussion requires more specific support to be useful. We will revise the manuscript to address this.

read point-by-point responses

Referee: The central claim that additional discussion is required is presented as self-evident in the abstract and full text but is unsupported by any named omissions (e.g., treatment of input capacitance, uncertainty propagation, or comparison with analog meters), student-learning evidence, or analysis of how the 2018 demonstration is educationally incomplete. No section, equation, or table is referenced because none exist in the manuscript.

Authors: We agree that the current manuscript does not name specific omissions or provide analysis to support why more discussion would strengthen the original work. In revision we will add concrete examples of topics (such as input capacitance, uncertainty considerations, and analog meter comparisons) that could usefully be addressed in an educational treatment of digital multimeter impedance, thereby making the comment more substantive while remaining within the scope of a short comment. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No derivations or load-bearing claims; purely opinion-based comment

full rationale

This short comment paper contains no equations, no predictions, no fitted parameters, and no derivation chain of any kind. Its sole substantive statement is the opinion that 'some more discussion is needed to make it more complete,' which is not supported by or reduced to any self-referential construction, self-citation, or input data. No patterns from the enumerated circularity kinds apply. The paper is self-contained as an editorial remark and receives the default non-circularity outcome.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 0 axioms · 0 invented entities

Abstract-only content provides no technical elements; no free parameters, axioms, or invented entities are introduced or relied upon.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5608 in / 877 out tokens · 25363 ms · 2026-05-25T18:18:09.509826+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

3 extracted references · 3 canonical work pages

[1]

Stojilovic N and Isaacs D E 2018 Resistance of a digital voltmeter: teaching creative thinking through an inquiry-based lab Phys. Educ. 53 053005

work page 2018
[2]

Makan G, Mingesz R and Gingl Z 2019 How accurate is an Arduino Ohmmeter? Phys. Educ. 54 033001

work page 2019
[3]

Kinchin J 2018 Arduino and cheap thermistor to make a simple temperature sensor Phys. Educ. 53 063008

work page 2018

[1] [1]

Stojilovic N and Isaacs D E 2018 Resistance of a digital voltmeter: teaching creative thinking through an inquiry-based lab Phys. Educ. 53 053005

work page 2018

[2] [2]

Makan G, Mingesz R and Gingl Z 2019 How accurate is an Arduino Ohmmeter? Phys. Educ. 54 033001

work page 2019

[3] [3]

Kinchin J 2018 Arduino and cheap thermistor to make a simple temperature sensor Phys. Educ. 53 063008

work page 2018