[Phys-L] Re: SciAM goof

[Bernard Cleyet <anngeorg@PACBELL.NET>]

Yes.

Also, much as I appreciated the editor before it was bought by the
runaway capitalist, I'm disappointed he fired an editor of the amateur
scientist, because of his religion, so I've read.


This leads to a goof I just saw at the the Steinbeck Center.  John was a
chemist's helper between stints at Stanford.  One of his jobs was
finding the sugar concentration of sugar beets w/ a polarimiter.  On
view is an beautiful antique one, "like one John used".  In the
description the curator described it as if it were a refractometer.  One
more thing on my list.

bc, busy

p.s. I've forgiven my mother for throwing out the turn of the century
SciAms my elem. school principal gave me ca. 1946.

ludwik kowalski wrote:

> I think that Scientific American became much less scientific than it
> was when first I discovered it.  That was more than 40 years ago.
> Ludwik Kowalski
>
> On Dec 15, 2005, at 12:24 PM, John Clement wrote:
>
>
> > After a bit more searching, I think the original article has been
> > pulled,
> > possibly for the incorrect use of terminology.  Both journals should be
> > ashamed.
> >
> > I sent a letter to the editors.  Now if others do likewise the article
> > may
> > be pulled or corrected more quickly.  If anyone knows one of the
> > editors a
> > personal E-mail would be more effective because they already know the
> > source
> > is legitimate.
> >
> > It took a year for Information Please almanac to correct a bad formula
> > that
> > I reported.  I realize they get lots of crank letters, but surely it
> > should
> > not take that long to fix things.
> >
> > John M. Clement
> > Houston, TX
_______________________________________________
Phys-L mailing list
Phys-L@electron.physics.buffalo.edu
https://www.physics.buffalo.edu/mailman/listinfo/phys-l