For the record, I wrote "The Amateur Scientist" column for over 5 years and I put this CD collection together, as well as several printed compendiums from the column. So, of course, my 5-star rating, while shared by many reviewers, is clearly biased. I am posting this note to rebut the false and defamatory charges made by an un-named reviewer in N. Easton, MA who insists that I secretly abridged the articles by leaving out key text and illustrations.
The reviewer's claims of missing information paint with broad strokes. However, he mentions only one column-- the November 1958 article (a favorite of mine, by the way) that describes a wonderful device known as the Hilsch vortex tube. He says "...the original article contained [the information on the CD] as well as building and testing instructions for an amateur built version, two detailed construction drawings, and two performance data graphs - including one for Rudolph Hilsch's original results."
As I write this, next to my left hand sits a photostatic copy of the original text of C. L. Stong's article as it appeared in Scientific American magazine. I have just completed a careful comparison of that text against the article on the CD-ROM and they are, as near as I can tell, absolutely identical. The original text contains one and only one illustration of the famed device, and every single paragraph that is present in the original is also present on the CD.
The reviewer no doubt owns a copy of Stong's much sought-after book that presents a small number of projects from "The Amateur Scientist". Magazines always impose restrictions on length that books do not. Just as I expanded and commented on articles in my own printed compendiums from the column (see, for instance "The Amateur Biologist", available on Amazon), so Stong also expanded on the columns he originally published. The N. Easton reviewer made the serious error of assuming that Stong's book contained only pristine reproductions of the original text. Had he gone to the library to check the original columns, he would have discovered this not to be the case. That error led him to a totally erroneous conclusion.
I want everyone to be clear on this point. The reason why I didn't use the word "abridged" on the CD is because it is not abridged in any way. To the very best of my knowledge the CD contains every single word and illustration of every single Amateur Scientist article that EVER appeared in Scientific American. (If someone ever discovers any omission, not matter how small, I will fix the master at once!) That's over 72 years worth of material. The CD also contains over 1,000 pages of additional technical how-to material that never appeared in Scientific American.
Why did I faithfully reproduce all this material? Because the reviewer is right about one thing. This material IS important. It is part of the heritage of scientific thought. I grew up with the column. And I added it to. That's why I stuck so religiously to the original text. I look at this compendium as a central part of my own legacy to science and science literacy.
You bet your life it's complete!
Shawn Carlson, PhD
The Amateur Scientist-- last columnist
