1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7

Prentice-Hall Science, Prentice-Hall Science Explorer, Prentice-Hall Exploring Physical Science, Prentice-Hall (Now Pearson) (Many dates and many variations.)

Several years ago my colleague, Donald Holcomb of Cornell University and past president of the American Association of Physics Teachers, knowing of my interest in the science being taught in elementary school, passed on a letter from Howard P. Lyon (HPL) that had questions about the science in his daughter's Middle School text. The book was published by Prentice-Hall. I contacted Mr. Lyon and we have been corresponding ever since. The following notes come out of that correspondence.

If we were to comment only on the merits of the books generally available at the Middle School level, our report would be extremely negative. We have made many side comments that reflect on the publisher's response to criticism. To JLH this has been rather eye opening as previous experience with Prentice-Hall (and many other publishers) at the college/university level has been mostly positive. Publishers at this level seem hungry for reactions to their texts and welcome suggestions for correction and improvement. While it may seem that Prentice-Hall/Pearson has been unduly picked upon, this only reflects a long history of advertising suggesting that they set the standard and have now gone beyond and we do not find that to be the case. Instead we find a poorer product than what was available in the early 1980s from the same company.

In addition we present references to the work of others with similar goals such as The Textbook League (TTL, P.O. Box 51, Sausalito CA 94966) and the American Association of Physics Teachers' Pre-High School Committee.

Middle School students are curious, but not necessarily skeptical. They believe the material in a book is TRUE! A colleague of mine, using a text that he had authored, was challenged by a student when he suggested that perhaps there might be an error in his own book! Slight errors become rooted in students' minds for life, if not strongly corrected. In the sixth grade, I (JLH) read that the helicopter had been invented by Igor Sikorsky and 'the U.S. Atmy.' I knew that it was a misprint, but I wonder how much was written that was not true. It is very important that we root out errors of all sorts.

PH SCIENCE EXPLORER (2000) shows in each volume (on 4th page of skills handbook in the back) the 'weighing' of a 0.1 kg red apple on an "electronic balance". At this level perhaps a scale of a type most likely to be found in a Middle School classroom would be more appropriate.

Reading in the text that an apple has a mass of 0.1 kg our student may go through life believing that that is a typical value for the mass of an apple. Remember that an appreciation and feeling for the SI system of units is important in all science classes, this should be a realistic value. HPL thought that it wasn't and did a simple experiment (a practice that should be encouraged in all students) to find out. His results using four each of 13 different types of apples indicated that there were no apples that had a mass as small as 0.1 kg. Another reviewer (HHG) in a different state found some apples that were actually less massive. In a third state JLH found some 'crab' apples that were less than 0.1 kg. This exercise would be an excellent one for students. They could practice converting from English units to SI, for example. Apples come in 5lb and 10lb bags leading to ideas about 'averages' and 'most likely.' They could make a histogram of all the apples that fell within particular mass groupings that students brought to class. They would also see for themselves that the apple in the text

CONCLUSION (HPL): It is contrary to my experience here, and to any student observing these apples, that a red apple should be less than 4 ounces. Even the littler green apples (the bagged Granny Smiths) here are over 4 ounces. Note also that I chose the smallest apples from each bin.

Citing an "apple" outside the bell curve of the varieties at the store (and at half the median range) in explaining the SI misleads the student. It would be like referring to a 28 kg Miss America* (That's under 62 pounds folks!) Clearly, the apple on the scale should be more likely 0.2 kilograms. Miss America, between 1921 and 1970 averaged 123 pounds with 106 the lightest in 1949 and 143 the heaviest in 1943 per Appendix 14, THERE SHE IS, The Life and Times of Miss America, Frank Deford, Viking Press, NY, 1971, SBN 670-69858-x

The same apple resides in FOCUS ON PHYSICAL SCIENCE (P. 827), FOCUS ON LIFE SCIENCE (p. 761) and FOCUS ON EARTH SCIENCE (p. 715) all copyrighted 2001 and voted in by California on January 21st, 2000 (lunar eclipse date -- partial lunar eclipse is wrong in the book as adopted).

We have found lots of errors. The number is overwhelming. What could possibly be wrong with the authors? Don't they know anything about science? This question necessitated our looking into the qualifications of the authors. The investigation into the background of the 'authors' for these books was much more thorough than the other books reviewed. Conclusion: The 'authors' for the most part admitted that they did not write the book. A few reviewed and made suggestions, a few contributed essays, and a few did some other types of work.

A September 6, 1999, transcript of 20/20 Book Report (re-run) (call 212 456-2324 to get a copy) has Sam Donaldson say of the authors, "the publisher admitted to us that none of them had written the book." Pearson/Prentice-Hall had ample time after the April 2nd first airing to request a correction if this were not so.

North Carolina's price list of adopted texts following adoptions proceedings in the summer of 1999 lists the author for Exploring Physical Science as "editorial".

Most of the people whose names appear in the title pages of Exploring Physical Science lack credentials in physical science. Prentice-Hall has taken steps that obscure that fact. The title pages i - xiv (i and ii lack page numbers) of Exploring Physical Science 1997 Second Edition, 3rd printing, ISBN 0-13-418716-4 (EPS) do not indicate anywhere that this book is part of a "set" of books. The other members of the "set" are Exploring Life Science and Exploring Earth Science. It is specifically NOT a part of a sequence because the reading and math levels are geared to a "generic" middle school standard. This allows schools to present these courses in any order. Five of the six listed authors had credentials in life or earth sciences and the sixth did not have time to write the book. None of the listed authors should or could have written the book.

Page ii of EPS lists a National Science Consultant named Kathy French. She may be the "contributing writer." Kathy French is listed in Biology 1991 First Edition, 4th printing, ISBN 0-13-081241-2 (BIO) as a Biology Teacher at Hurst-Euless-Bedford Independent School District, Bedford, Texas. A number of editorial people are common among these texts. Except for Ms. Christine Caputo, who wrote that she had a degree in physics, we know of no particular credentials for those people who have broad responsibilities and are also the last who could have caught the spectacular goofs in earlier editions such as the flopped photo of the Statue of Liberty in 1993, 1994, 1995 and 1997, or the picture of Linda Ronstadt described in 1997 as a silicon crystal doped with an arsenic impurity.

Prentice-Hall knows very well that most of the people listed as 'authors' are primarily grounded in biological sciences. PH has published their biological credentials in Biology. Calling them generic "Science Instructors" in Exploring Physical Science leads administrators and teachers to believe that this text has had its contents reviewed by these thirty-six people who are out in the field now in the listed subject. "Thirty-Six Content Reviewers. Wow! I should be safe choosing this book" would be a reasonable response. Of the content reviewers that we were able to reach, only one had a physical science background. He admitted to reviewing nothing since 1992.

Twelve of the EPS Content Reviewers shown as "Science Instructors" are credited as Biology Teachers in other PH texts or personally told us of their biological background. The thirteenth is in math education. In the best case scenario one third of the listed content reviewers could actually have had training in Physical Science.

Listing thirty-six content reviewers in the front of EPS must reassure (and intimidate) students, parents and teachers who are fuzzy on the difference between momentum and kinetic energy, inertia and gravity or even about the metric system. Intimidation may not be the goal, but why list as content reviewers people who did not review the content of the book and why obscure their actual credentials making it appear that they are competent to review

By April 1997 Prentice-Hall Science, 1997, 3rd edition listed in each of the nineteen books the same thirty-six content reviewers plus five more, but by the 7th printing (Fall 1998) these five were no longer listed. How can these five have reviewed it in April 1997 and not be listed as reviewers in October of the next year? It's the same stuff!

One reviewer admitted that he found 25 errors in Chemistry of Matter (the only volume that he reviewed.)

As of the 2nd printing of EPS, 1999, 3rd edition, teacher version, which is a photographically reduced EPS, 1999, 3rd edition, student version, there are still only the "original" thirty-six content reviewers. One can readily make up a page concordance between Exploring Physical Science and Prentice-Hall Science noting only minor differences.

The page layouts have remained constant throughout. PHS is available in editions of 1993, 1994 and 1997, and EPS in editions of 1995 and 1997. When a new edition comes out there is a new ISBN number. There is no reference in EPS to the pre-existence of PHS. Therefore a purchaser may not determine whether or not a review of PHS is pertinent to an evaluation of EPS.

"Tear sheets" sent to Millcreek in summer 1996 to show tentative fixes were longhand fixes on PHS page copies, and some were on EPS page copies. Changes on student pages were not always accompanied by changes on the teacher pages.

A history of the interaction among a concerned parent, a school district, and the publisher in an attempt to clear up the large number of errors in these books eventually led to the 20/20 show.

One Parent's Experience

(An unpublished letter of HPL describes the frustration of a parent with this publisher.)

My seventh grade daughter brought home the brand new Exploring Physical Science; copyright 1995, in the fall of 1994 and within weeks had found gravity goofed up. Before Christmas we had found eighty some mistakes, and I had spoken to her teacher and her principal and to administrators downtown. With frustrating and agonizing slowness (my opinion then) the administrators set up a faculty committee to review my findings and the text and write corrective measures where appropriate. With excessive courtesy and attention to protocol (again -- my opinion then) the district contacted the publisher.

With 20/20 hindsight it is obvious that the school district did absolutely everything as perfectly as could have been done. The 34 page booklet of corrective measures has been available to students ever since. The publisher paid for the printing. The school district tried to work with the publisher rather than to just simply get the deal undone. And the saga developed bizarre and Byzantine complexities.

The publisher sent out a group of executives to explore possible remedies on May 8th, 1996. That morning the district received a 2nd edition, 1st printing of Exploring Physical Science -- 1997 copyright. My one-hour pre-meeting examination of the book with a mathematics professor found most errors checked continued intact into that printing. After the meeting the publisher offered a "corrected" 2nd edition 2nd printing as a free pilot for the district. Before printing that, the publisher sent the corrective measures and the text to an outside expert chosen by Publisher's Resource Group for evaluation.

In July 1996 the publisher also gave the district an opportunity to review 118 pages or "tear sheets" of proposed fixes before printing. Most of the fixes seemed reasonable, though some were so garbled as to make no sense, which the district duly noted in its response. The Publisher's Resource Group sent its four pages recommending a few specific fixes along with suggestions for careful editing.

In August 1996 the publisher sent a 2nd edition TEXAS edition 1997 (which has a 32 page Texas supplement just in front of the first title page of the student text) as evidence of progress.

In September 1996 the publisher sent the 2nd printing of the 2nd generic 1997 (non-TEXAS) edition to Millcreek School District. (This is the first time since 1993 that the full-page photograph of the Statue of Liberty was not flopped left to right. Now a photo of Linda Ronstadt has a description calling her a silicon crystal doped with an arsenic impurity. Ronstadt's photo had been involved in one of the garbled tear sheets. Most errors stayed in place and the publisher offered a corrected 3rd printing.)

In November 1996 the publisher sent the 3rd printing to Millcreek. (This is the first time since the 1988 predecessor text Prentice-Hall Physical Science there was no time/temperature graph of freezing water that omitted the heat of fusion plateau in the chapter introducing the scientific method. It is replaced by a time/distance graph and a chart headed "Distance a Train Traveled". The first entries on the chart show the train traveled 2 kilometers in 0 minutes. "How long would it take to travel 4 kilometers?" comes to mind.)

By April of 1997 Simon and Schuster's Director of Science, Julie Levin Alexander, assured Dr. G. Kip Bollinger, Science Education Adviser for the Pennsylvania Department of Education (who had been part of the good manners and agonizing slowness as he worked with the District and with Prentice-Hall) that all corrections would be made in the 5th printing of the 2nd edition.

By November 1997 the 5th printing was complete and a sample forwarded to the district, and again some fixes had been made and new errors had been made, and most errors noted earlier were still in place.

I have no idea where the errors really came from or why they cannot be removed from the book, but I suspect that the fact that the listed authors did not write it (or are trained in subjects other than physical science) and the fact that most of the 36 listed content reviewers did not review the content (or are trained or employed in subjects other than physical science) may have something to do with it.

Research finds that authors Johnson, LaHart and Wright have PhDs in Education involving Biology. Two of those PhDs are not listed on the title pages of Exploring Physical Science. Author LaHart is the only author with an article in ERIC 1992 - 6/97 and his article is about rabbits. Hopkins has a listing in OCLC database as author of the life science curriculum for her school district. Authors Hopkins, and Maton and Wright told me they did not write the text. Writing a best-selling text should be an occasion of pride, however, Author LaHart, when I spoke with him, would neither confirm nor deny that he wrote any part of the physical science material. Author Warner's school told me in '96 she taught earth science, and in '98 life science. Hopkins and Warner are shown as "Science Instructors" on the title page that does not show which science they instruct. This is curious! Six out of six of the listed authors are either A) trained or employed in fields other than physical science OR B) did not write it OR C) BOTH A and B above.

If I have a personal plumbing problem beyond the scope of a general practitioner, I would consult a urologist rather than a dermatologist. If my child has a rash on her face I would find her a dermatologist rather than a proctologist. Why not use physical science people to write a physical science text?

I have watched 5 "new and improved" versions of Exploring Physical Science come to Millcreek. The book is beginning its fifth year and will confuse and intimidate yet another class.

Page 53 of Exploring Physical Science says, "The density of water increases with depth. So the density of water increases as you go deeper under the surface of the water. So the density of deep water is greater than 1 g/ml. At a certain depth, the SCUBA diver's density is equal to the water's density. The diver will not be able to sink below this depth." This is not a discussion of water temperature and how water density decreases as the temperature goes up or down from 3.98o C. It is not a discussion of how pressure increases with depth. It is a continuation of a discussion about investigating the warship Mary Rose where she sank off of Portsmouth Harbor, England. Page 39 says, "Some of the divers wore heavy weights on their belts so that they could hover above the sandy ocean bottom."

This misconception could have fatal applications. Prentice-Hall is saying that water's density increases with depth. That is true. Its coefficient of compressibility is usually quoted as 4.51 X 10-6 atm.-1. That means that if you take a liter of water down to about 10 meters where the pressure is twice what it is at the surface the water will no longer take up 1 liter of volume. It will lose 4.51 millionths of its volume. If you take it down 10 kilometers (about 6.25 miles) to where the pressure is 1,000 times higher than at the surface, water will lose 4.51% of its original volume at the surface. Students are led to believe that (beginning from a depth of neutral buoyancy) without adding weight, the diver cannot go deeper because water's density increases with depth. The diver's coefficient of compressibility is higher than that of water because the volume of air in the lungs will halve each time the pressure doubles unless the diver inhales or exhales. Youthful divers risk drowning if they think that denser water under them will prevent them from going too deep. If a budding SCUBA diver adds weight from a depth of neutral buoyancy that diver will go all the way to the bottom faster and faster unless the weight is dropped and air is regulated in the buoyancy compensator until the previous position of neutral buoyancy is regained ... OR THE DIVER MUST ACTIVELY SWIM TO REGAIN the position of neutral buoyancy. The position of neutral buoyancy is not a stable place because the diver's overall density increases with each exhalation and decreases with each inhalation. There is also what sport divers call the neoprene factor. A wetsuit made of thicker neoprene foam requires the diver to wear more weight than one made of thinner foam.

Try to "park" p. 366's Cartesian Diver at a position of neutral buoyancy to see if the inherent instability of such a place can be fixed by adjusting weights on the diver and without changing external pressure. No one can. It would require the same accuracy as balancing a needle on its tip on a china saucer. Presumably if the center of gravity of the needle were directly above its tip it could balance, but "pin-point" accuracy is impossible. On p. 366 the medicine dropper Cartesian Diver with air inside it and with an appropriate weight of wire wrapped outside it is a perfect analogy to a real SCUBA Diver.

The rubber "head" of the medicine dropper has air in it. When the sealed outer container holding the liquid and some air and the diver is then squeezed, the rubber head is also squeezed, compressing the air in it a bit so that the overall density of the diver is above that of the surrounding water, so it sinks.

Re: p. 53 of EPS, as of 5/30/99, Prentice-Hall/Pearson Education treats this on their website as a "correction for clarification" and offers new language to point out that the density of water increases as the temperature decreases. (Be careful how you read this from the net because the new language is erroneously under "Original Text" and the old language is erroneously under "Revision"). Yes, indeed the density increases. American Chemical Society reference work shows how much. For instance, if you drop the temperature 1oC from 25oC you will lose .00025705 of the water's volume (that's about 1/40th of one percent). If you drop the temperature 1oC from 20oC you will lose .00020661 of the water's volume. (That's 1/50th of one percent). If you drop the temperature 1oC from 10oC you will lose .00008790 of the water's volume. (That's less than 1/100th of one percent). If you drop the temperature 1oC from 8oC you will lose .00006037 of the water's volume. (That's less than 2/3rds of 1/100th of one percent). A temperature change of 20 degrees Celsius would be extreme (it would equal 36 degrees Fahrenheit -- from 70 degrees F you would go down to 34 degrees F or up to 106 degrees Fahrenheit), and would result in a volume change in the water of quite a bit less than 1/2 of one percent. Obviously, these increments are extremely small when you realize that the weights divers purchase are sold in increments of two pounds. To deal with that 20 degree Celsius increment of temperature change the fully equipped diver would weigh 400 pounds to provide a proportional increment of buoyancy compensation!

The Mary Rose sank in the Solent, at 45 feet. That depth increases the pressure by a factor of more than 2 and less than 3. (You can read about it in the National Geographic of May 1983 among other places.) The temperature differential is somewhat less than 20 degrees. The diver's lungs have a 5-6 liter air capacity. The diver's intestines have an unknown and variable amount of gas. These gases and the bubbles of his neoprene suit will be compressed to less than half of their volume at the surface (basic gas law relationship between pressure and volume). He will therefore displace at least 3 liters less water at 45 feet and that would be equivalent to adding about 3 kilograms of lead to his weight belt. (To avoid an uncontrolled and possibly fatal descent to the bottom if he were in deeper water he must add about 3 liters of air to his Buoyancy Compensation Device)

What does this mean? PH does not know about SCUBA diving or about the density/temperature/pressure relationships of seawater and should not use the one to explain the other. To add insult to injury, it says that the Mary Rose sank because its density exceeded 1 g/mL. All of the seawater in the Solent is ocean water, and it all exceeds 1 g/mL, regardless of depth or temperature because of the dissolved salts.

The person who wrote this page probably miscopied material that said that as you go deeper the pressure of the water increases.    

More from p. 53: Even with the proper amount of air in its swim bladder (in part a sensory organ) a fish must swim continuously to maintain a preferred depth/pressure. At death, the fish's body will not find and stay at a position of neutral buoyancy as would be expected with a constantly increasing depth-dependent gradation of densities toward the bottom. See pages 74-76 of The Life of Fishes, N.B. Marshall, 1966. A definitive experiment would be to inject a dead fish with the exact amount of air to make it float between the top and the bottom. It won't. See the Cartesian Diver. In other words, fish do NOT "maintain their position in the water by emptying or filling an air bladder in their body." In order to maintain their position the fish has to swim! Experimentally: Goldfish need 5-7 days to fill their swim bladders with air. Freshwater eels need 12 hours. Minnows swim down in response to a decrease in pressure, and up in response to an increase (Marshall, op. cit.).

It is true on page 64 that liquids "do have a definite volume". Gases expand to fill the space available. Liquids don't. Gases compress under pressure. Liquids don't, at least not very much. The dramatic proof is illustrated by taking a jug, filling it with water as full as possible (no air), corking it, and then hitting the cork one last time, exploding the jug.

Consider the story of Archimedes and King Hieron's "gold" crown p. 52. Notice that with a density/depth relationship noticeable by Middle School students one must show how deep the crown is to be sunk beneath the surface to get a good answer. Obviously when first under the surface of the water the crown will displace its own volume at one gram per milliliter for the density of the water. As it goes down farther and farther it will continue to displace its own volume (let us assume the gold is incompressible) but as the water it displaces is more and more dense then more and more mass of water will be displaced. Not true! It would be of far more value to have students figure out what exactly Archimedes MIGHT HAVE DONE to solve the gold crown riddle. THAT would be good science!

Prentice-Hall's density disaster "photograph" floats solids of various densities in liquids of various densities. If it is a photograph, the densities are never right. If the densities are ever right it is not a photograph. This has been goofed up since 1986 in multiple series, editions and printings:

Exploring Physical Science 1995, 1997, 1999 p.54; PH Science, Matter, Building Block of the Universe 1993, 1994, 1997 p. 26; PH Physical Science 1988, 1991, 1993 p. 38; and PH General Science, A Voyage of Adventure 1986, 1989, 1992 p. 322.

When I (HPL) questioned the illustration, editor Caputo wrote me Feb. 3rd, 1995 that they had "performed the experiment" and that "The source of the photograph has been confirmed". On April 3rd, 1995, I sent a challenge by registered mail offering to pay $1,000 if they could do another photo using the densities as shown. I know of no response until the third printing of EPS-97 which is "corrected" to show rubber with a density of 1.19 gm/cm3 SUNK TO THE BOTTOM of glycerine with a density of 1.26 gm/cm3. It cannot happen!

Science Explorer (2000), (a new Prentice-Hall product in distribution in 1999) Volume M, page 95 has similar liquids and solids in a container to demonstrate buoyancy and density. In this case the rubber has a density of 1.34 grams per cubic centimeter, and it has sunk into the boundary between the glycerin at 1.26 and the corn syrup at 1.38. Go back and check on the density disaster which has been demonstrably wrong since 1986 in Prentice-Hall publications, is uncorrected on the corrections website, and which is finally (if not covertly) repaired in the 2000 copyrighted material.

The Periodic Table of the Elements is always of interest to check out. In 1953 scientists had synthesized element number 100, named Fermium. Of course, elements have been and are being added. Apparently in an attempt to be 'up-to-date' the number has been changing up and down with various printings and editions. Not one was correct at the time of publication. The safest bet is to simply present a table, list confirmed elements and leave appropriate spaces to add new ones.

For example, there are 109 elements in the 1997 Prentice-Hall Exploring Physical Science pp. 142-143, and two elements are listed as liquids: Bromine and Mercury, which is correct. (This is the 2nd printing of the 2nd edition.) The annotated teacher edition asks how many are liquid and says 4!) The 1995 Prentice-Hall Exploring Physical Science pp. 142-143 has 4 liquid elements listed: Bromine, Mercury, Cesium and Gallium. Similarly for the 1998 Prentice-Hall Biology. The 1983 Hubbard Scientific Chart lists 5 liquid elements: Br, Hg, Cs, & Ga plus Francium which melts at a higher temperature than Br or Hg and freezes at a lower temperature than Cs or Ga. The Chart is correct at body temperature. Whether an element is liquid depends on factors such as temperature and pressure. Where liquid elements are identified there is usually a phrase indicating that the identification is made at either Standard Temperature and Pressure or at "room temperature." Inasmuch as some of the higher numbered elements have been synthesized in numbers of atoms fewer than say 10, it is difficult to say whether they should be listed as solids. Since phase is a characteristic of a large number of atoms, this is an ambiguity, which is avoided by some publishers by not indicating the phase of synthetic elements.

Using the pseudo-Latin temporary names is silly and inappropriate. CXI would have worked for 111. The un un un ium seems silly. The un un bi um is nearly equally so. The un nil sept ium was laughable as Roman Numerals are not a decimal system and here the nil is obviously a naught in the 10s place. What does this teach?

Another practice is that some publishers indicate which elements occur naturally and which are necessarily synthesized. The line is blurred sometimes with careless language (Sentences like, "Seaborg found Plutonium in Uranium." Did Seaborg synthesize plutonium from uranium, or did he find plutonium in uranium ore?) My Britannica does this well, and shows plutonium existing naturally, though greater amounts are more easily found as a by-product of fission reactions. Now then, the publisher indicating elements occurring naturally or as synthesized has a problem. How does one handle these? Some use a code placing a whole number atomic weight in parentheses indicating that this is the longest-lived isotope of a synthetic element. An atomic weight, usually to three decimal places, and with no parentheses codes the element, as naturally occurring and the average atomic weight of the various naturally occurring isotopes is the atomic weight listed.

The best chart might be free. Volkswagen's 1999 beetle campaign puts out a periodic table with the VW in the place for atomic #150 - Turbonium. That's fanciful, but the rest of the table PH Facets on...series, 2001, which California just adopted, lists 112 elements, and the body of the text says "about a hundred elements".

Science Links has a paragraph referring to 108 and a different number

Most texts present the Periodic Table as carved in stone. Placing dates on the Table would solve the problem and let the reader know that it is still in flux as is all science. Better yet, a reference to a web site that belongs to the Department of Chemistry, University of Liverpool, with links to IUPAC and to the Royal Society of Chemistry. The address is: http://www.liv.ac.uk/Chemistry/Links/links.html

Integrated Science from Carolina Academic Press has Book One on page 111 and Book Two on pages 54-55 include periodic tables of the elements. The 1990 book lists 107 elements and pledges allegiance to IUPAC in referring to elements 104 through 107. 1990 on p. 51 has an alternative table showing 103 elements. Enigmatically hydrogen is discussed as an alkali metal on page 46 and as a non-metal on p. 48. Perhaps that's because each periodic table in the 1990 book lists hydrogen twice ... once on the top-most left and again next to the farthest right (adjacent to helium) again on the top row. The 1995 book (presumably more up-to-date) lists 106 elements, and also uses the IUPAC names for elements 104 through 106. Fortunately, the doubled hydrogen is gone.

Interactions and Limits, 2000, ISBN 0-89089-778-6 lists 112 elements on periodic table on pages 186-187. There is a note that says, "Element names conform to the current usage of the International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry at the date of publication." Page 181 says, "Scientists are now experimenting to create ... a new element 114." From this evidence it becomes apparent that this material was written before element 114 was synthesized in January 1999. Inasmuch as elements 118 and 116 were synthesized later in 1999, none of this material will ever be true in 2000. Many science text publishers have been caught by their own copyright inflation.

Where do all these errors come from? There are publishers who would have you believe that we will have errors with us always. Some errors may be unavoidable it is true, but, many textbook errors suggest that the producers of Middle School science texts are cutting corners.

Typically the title pages list several people in the position of "authors", "project directors", "program authors", etc. Buyers are led to conclude these people were active in the production of the book. Their credentials or affiliations are listed in such a way to indicate they were trained in the subject matter.

Listed editors are presumably experienced with the subject at hand and have basic general knowledge. Illustrators, artists, photo editors and image bank librarians may not perhaps have specific knowledge of the subject, but, presumably have expert status in finding or creating appropriate images, and presumably have adequate supervision by knowledgeable editors or authors to ascertain the accuracy of the science involved.

Several dozen people will be listed as "content reviewers", "classroom reviewers", "field evaluators", etc. Their credentials or affiliations allow the buyer to think they were qualified to have an active role in the review of the material. The buyer is led to conclude the whole book was carefully checked.

With errors such as: listing the points of the directional compass (clockwise) as North, West, South and East (Prentice-Hall, 2000, and 2001); placing the equator around the globe on Tijuana, Tucson, Texas and Tallahassee (South Western Publishing, 2000); having a prism bend light the wrong way (Prentice-Hall, 1993, 1994, 1995, 1997, 2000; South Western Publishing, 2000); having a periodic table showing 112 elements in books copyrighted in 2000 and 2001 (elements 114, 118 and 116 were synthesized in the first half of 1999); categorizing infrasound frequencies as those around 400 Hz (South-Western Publishing, 2000); having the Statue of Liberty pictured with her left arm raised (Prentice-Hall, '93, '94, '95, '97; Holt, '97); and Linda Ronstadt described as a silicon crystal doped with an arsenic impurity (Prentice-Hall, '97), you are forced to conclude that the trained author, the experienced editor (and illustrator), and the qualified reviewer were ALL either absent in the development of the fact or concept in question, or (for inestimable reasons) were unable to do their job properly that day.

In high school, perhaps 95% is equivalent to an A. In the professional world let's define 99% professional. School bus drivers stop for the red light at least 99% of the time. Mechanics get the brake job right at least 99% of the time. The surgeon cuts appropriately at least 99% of the time.

The chance of an error getting into print past the team outlined above and listed in the title pages of most Middle School science books should be extremely small. If the author has a lapse, it is to be hoped the editor will catch it. If the editor does not, it is to be hoped the content reviewer will catch it. Realize how many errors there are in the text. (Millcreek PA school district wrote 34 pages of corrective measures on the errors found by a professional musician who had been away from physics and mathematics for most of his life in Exploring Physical Science, 1995, Prentice-Hall. In the same book's constituent units (published separately by PH in '93, '94 and '97, reviewed separately by 'The Textbook Letter') it is clear there are hundreds of errors. Prentice-Hall's initial response in print to charges of hundreds of errors was that 5 or 6 errors in a book of this scope is par for the course. The spin-doctor who provided that pie in the sky number was Andrew Giangola. A later spin-doctor, Ms. Nancy Taylor, said for the Baltimore Sun that the errors had been removed. A later spin-doctor is Wendy Spiegel who also has the responsibility of administering Prentice-Hall's Open Book Publishing that allegedly corrects on line what is wrong in the book. It is indeed amazing how many errors remained in Exploring Physical Science 1999 edition and were not fixed in the new Science Explorer series of 2000. The 15 constituent members of this series are reassembled to make the 2001 series just voted in by California in January 2000. "Spiegel" means, "mirror" in German. Concave and Convex mirrors are goofed up in PH 1988, 1993, 1994, 1995, 1997 and 1999, (focal point is confused with center of curvature in every case, so that the angle of incidence does NOT equal the angle of reflection - basic optics). These mirrors are fixed in 2000 and 2001, but not on the website.

Realize that often the "authors" listed on the title pages did not write the book. ABC's 20/20 broadcast on the Prentice-Hall text showed that none of the listed authors wrote anything in the book. Sam Donaldson interviewed Anthea Maton whom PH had identified as the head author and she told him she'd never seen the book until he showed it to her. North Carolina lists the PH authors as "editorial" in their 1999 adoptions price list. This is a small early step toward honesty.

Realize that the editorial/illustrational staff and the content-reviewing staff are not necessarily trained in the subject. About ten of the listed content reviewers in Exploring Physical Science were biology teachers in Biology, but became "science instructors" in the title pages of EPS. (1995, 1997, and 1999).

Unfortunately, most State and School District committees are not aware that the publisher(s) may take the short cut of not using real experts to prepare the book. They look for curriculum fit, for gender equity, for racial balance, and assume the content matter itself will be accurate. That assumption gets our children and us into trouble.

States and School Districts should not have to provide quality control measures for private enterprise publishers whose own procedure is so poor. However, only those prospective buyers who now check the content have a chance of avoiding the really dumb errors.

What can we do? Errata sheets, web sites, replacement texts, and cash back are all remedies. It is preposterous that a publisher should reverse a full-page photo of the Statue of Liberty for five years with impunity (PH, 1993, 1994, 1995 and 1997), or spell 'piezoelectric' incorrectly five times on the same page (PH, 1999).

Prentice-Hall, in Exploring Physical Science 1995 and 1997, on page 308 and in Motion, Forces and Energy, 1993, 1994, and 1997, on p. 20, in word-for-word explications of velocity vectors makes the suggestion that students read The Adventures of Tom Sawyer to learn more about rafting and "the motion of the Mississippi River." If students are to learn about rafting on the Mississippi River, it would appear that The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn would be the better choice to recommend. Tom rafts only a little more than 5 miles total in the two books and Huck about two hundred times as far.

Prentice-Hall advertises its responsiveness to suggestions and criticism. This material was criticized in print in 'The Textbook Letter' of Jan-Feb 1993. The responsiveness is not evident. It was not fixed in the 1999 edition or on web page.

The Scientific Method is introduced in '95 beginning on p. 11. The same material begins on 18 A in l994's Nature of Science. It's similar set-up as in '88 PHYSICAL SCIENCE except that in '88, '91 and '93 instead of salt water the experiment is set up with antifreeze and water. P. 14 & 15 of '95 are spectacular in presenting science fiction. A beaker of water was induced to freeze instantaneously in a laboratory refrigeration unit at exactly minute 25. A beaker of salt water was induced to freeze at 30 minutes. The results are graphed with the temperatures on the vertical axis. The higher temperatures are listed toward the bottom of the page, and go lower in temperature toward the top of the page. Ignored are the heat of fusion plateau, the heat transfer curve, and the difference in specific heat between fresh water and salt water. The Scientific Method introduction continues that after the results are written up other scientists will do the experiment and will duplicate your results. It won't happen. Kids' eyes will glaze over and they'll wonder if Prentice-Hall used special "scientific water". In addition, the text tells students to make "Each interval of temperature equal to every other interval of temperature" as it is graphed. Prentice-Hall prints the graph with some intervals of 5 degrees Celsius and the last interval of l0 degrees Celsius. This allows a continuous straight line at the same slope when the fresh water becomes ice (which has a specific heat half that of liquid water). The same straight line is reflected on the salt-water graph that is flat out wrong there.

Prentice-Hall defended the graph in a letter dated December 29th, l994, and signed by Christine A. Caputo. She says they "oversimplified a complex concept in order to introduce the Scientific Method". She says this was "not an error but a decision". She says the "graph was not intended to show true slopes and values, but rather to give students who have never explored a scientific question an example of how to do so." She points out that students are "never asked to perform the experiment and reproduce the results." We do not contest that, but any student who has ever tried to pull an ice cube tray out of the refrigerator 25 minutes after it went in will have to wonder if science has anything to do with fact.

In the 1988 Physical Science this material is graphed on page 13, and involves water compared to a water/antifreeze mixture. The vertical axis is not inverted here as in the nineteen books in '93-'94 or in '95. Here the higher temperatures are higher on the vertical axis and lower toward the bottom of the page. What is special to the 199l Teacher's Edition is that the freezing point of water is not shown, although a footnote says it is indicated by an asterisk. There

Page 21, EPS - 1995 illustrates a cubic centimeter...so too does page 49...describing how to compute volume. A natural sequence of things would suggest a discussion of length, then area, and volume last, each topic once, revisited as necessary.

Page 22 in '95 says, "The basic unit of mass in the metric system is the kilogram (kg)." Linguistically and historically, the un-prefixed 'gram' is the basic unit. We know very well that there is an "official" kilogram in Washington, D.C. The students need to know WHY the kilogram has become the basic unit of mass or they'll see science as capricious and beyond understanding.

The teacher's edition for 1991 Physical Science on page 15 in the wrap-around says that metric mass is measured using units called grams and kilograms. "...other units of metric measure...are derived from the base units." There is no discussion of "mks" (meter, kilogram, second) or SI as a system. Isaac Newton did not discover the force of gravity. He invented a theory to explain the observation.

P. 25 in EPS 1995 asks students to convert data from experiments into the same units. Representative values include 20 kg, 700 gm, 0.004 kg and 300 mg. There are several orders of magnitude here. Why not pick some real life data?

P. 26, EPS 1995 shows a metric ruler in Figure l-20 and says, "Keep in mind that this ruler is not drawn to scale. You cannot use it to make calculations." In fact, on checking it IS drawn to scale.

P. 28 EPS 95 says when using paper on a balance pan "The mass of the filter paper must first be determined." The usual practice is to use the zero adjustment of the balance scale after putting on the paper.

P. 28 says, "A rectangular solid is often called a regular solid." It may be, but incorrectly.

P. 29 suggests students use metric units to make measurement of automobile "speed limit on your street". Speed limits are legislated or set by appropriate bodies. Speeds may be measured.

P. 32 in EPS '95 is same as p. 32A in EPS '94 and p. 26 of Prentice-Hall Physical Science of '88, '9l and '93. It appears that the left hand photo is swapped left to right and the right hand photo really has two left-handed students.

P. 33 EPS '95 under Eye and Face Safety has improved Prentice-Hall Physical Science by suggesting under #l that when students see the "Eye" symbol they must take precautions to protect their eyes by wearing safety goggles. Prentice-Hall Physical Science of '88 says that too but also includes #3, which says 'Always wear safety goggles when you see this symbol," (showing the "Eye" symbol). On the other hand, EPS of '95 has three recommendations for working with live animals, and '88 does not. Neither text uses live animals for anything.

P. 37 asks students to devise an experiment to distinguish between pure gold and "fool's" gold and suggests that they use the concept of density in the experiment. Eventually the texts all (p. 35 in PH Physical Science, ‘88, ‘9l & ‘93, p. A6l in The Nature of Science, ‘93 & ‘94) suggest trying to float the sample in mercury, suggesting the pyrite will float and the gold will sink. A more useful way (and one that won't get the safety people after you) to determine which is which: malleability, streak tests, try to ignite a sample (gold won't burn, pyrite has strong distinctive stench that gold does not) etc. etc. etc.

P. 43 EPS - 95, figure 2-4 shows a scientist doing a demonstration of inertia. He has a dinner set on a table that is connected to a mechanism that can pull the tablecloth out from under the meal. Photographs are both flopped L/R and you can tell it easily because his lab coat emblem is on his right front pocket, his buttons are backward, he really parts his hair on the other side, and he usually holds his knife in his right hand, and uses the conventional table setting. Photos are flopped L/R also in Voyage of Adventure on page 3l6 in '92, '89, & '86. On page 36, it is NOT flopped in Prentice-Hall Physical Science of '88, '9l & '93.

P. 43 presents the concept of the relationship of mass and inertia, which are, of course, related. The section confuses inertia with gravity.

Page 35 of Prentice-Hall Physical Science '88, '9l and '93 does this differently, but still incorrectly. The text defines mass as a "measure of the inertia of an object".

Page 44 has photo of a bobsled which "can reach high speeds. However to overcome its inertia and to get the bobsled moving requires the strength of four strong people." Yes, to ACCELERATE the sled to competitive speeds requires the full effort of four strong people. Without too much initial static friction (runners frozen in place) one person can start the sled and get it moving. The acceleration is the key word here, and PH fails to use it.

Page 46 of EPS '95 under Figure 2-7 asks, "Why would a person weigh more in a mine than on a mountaintop?" This error is not quickly evident to some people. As Ms. Jill Wright said in her letter to of December 9th, l994, it is not necessarily incorrect, "However, it is not always the case." She is of the opinion that "a good teacher would present this statement and encourage students to explain why it was true. Then present the reverse and get students to explain how and when this could also be true." In reality you weigh less and less as you go farther and farther up the mountain. You also weigh less and less as you go deeper into the mine. (Gravity is a mutual attraction between masses. As you go beneath the surface of the Earth the material above you is pulling you up. This is the premise of Jules Verne's Journey to the Center of the Earth (where you'd be 'weightless'...because the northern hemisphere would pull you north and the southern hemisphere would pull you south.) Airy and Bouguer did the experiments in mines and on mountains, and their results are written up in the Britannica.

Ms. Christine Caputo, Science Project Editor, told us we wouldn't need to check with the works of Jules Verne. (Remember this preceding sentence...no need to check with Jules Verne) She agreed there had been an error made. She said that they wanted to get across the concept that gravitational pull exerted by the Earth decreases as distance increases. She said that, "in an attempt to employ a more creative and less conventional example, an error was introduced." She then went into an accurate discussion of gravity, leaving the impression that this was a rare occurrence.

Prentice-Hall Physical Science, '93, '9l, & '88 on page 37 asks the student "How would an object's weight at the bottom of a deep mine compare with its weight on the Earth's surface?" The answer in the teacher's edition is "Weight would be greater."

Page 47 in EPS - '95 has in Figure 2-9 an illustration "from a book written by the great French writer Jules Verne" and a photo of an astronaut "floating untethered high above the Earth's surface." Page 8l7 ascribes the Verne illustration to the Bettman Archive, and the astronaut to NASA. The chickens are flying from right to left.

The Verne illustration actually has the chickens flying from left to right and is titled "A GROUP A LA JARDIN MABILLE" in "ALL AROUND THE MOON" opposite page l44 in a copy of ALL AROUND THE MOON, from the French of Jules Verne, under the Edward Roth translation. Why should Prentice-Hall reverse left to right on this illustration? It is not the Bettman Archive making the left/right swap because Prentice-Hall has it presented correctly in the Voyage of Adventure, '92, '89, & '86 on p. 3l7. The artwork is by Emile Antoine Bayard 1837-1891, and his name is at the bottom of the illustration as is the printer's name, Hildebrand,

Page 53 of EPS says, "The density of water increases with depth." Yes, the density of water does increase very slightly with depth. I.e. about 4.5l times 10 to the negative 5th power per atmosphere. You'll lose l/200,000 of your volume for every 30 feet you go down.

P. 54 Density Disaster suggests students look closely "at the accompanying photograph." This is the same illustration as in the Nineteen. It's also in Prentice-Hall Physical Science of '93, '9l and '88 on p. 38. It's also in Prentice-Hall General Science A Voyage of Adventure, '86,'89, & '92 on p. 322. It is NOT a photo, plastic and rubber of these densities float at different places in liquids of these densities. The beaker graduations don't work from any perspective. The optical characteristics of the liquids are not drawn correctly. Ms. Caputo wrote me Feb. 3rd, '95 that they did the experiment, and that "The source of the photograph has been confirmed' in response to my comment. I did the experiment. I did the Algebra. I took some photographs too. Twice I sent supporting documentation to Prentice-Hall in response to Ms. Caputo's letter. Then I bet Prentice-Hall a thousand dollars they cannot duplicate it and I sent the challenge by registered mail. They haven't taken me up on it.

P. 59, EPS '95 more gold/pyrite foolishness.

Page 56 EPS shows an attractive girl ready to do a good experiment about inertia. Why does she get turned around left to right in Voyage of Adventure on page 324, '92, '89 & '86?

The most serious issue is what is and what is not. Scientists must deal with what is there whether or not they understand it. If they don't understand it they are not allowed to fudge the data to make it fit any scheme of any type. Creativity comes into play in choosing hypotheses to explain the phenomena, and experiments to test the hypotheses.

Specific factual errors introduced by Prentice-Hall in these first two chapters include Heat of Fusion Plateau, Heat Transfer Curves, and Specific Heat of Fresh Water versus Specific Heat of Salt Water. Several illustrations are swapped left/right. Does this make any difference? The illustrations represent observations...not decorations. If the photograph is swapped left to right then the observations have not been properly reported. The "photograph" of the floating objects and liquids is proven to not be a photograph. Buoyancy, specific density, refraction in liquids, rules of perspective and, not least, what is truth, are proven to be misunderstood by Prentice-Hall.

Concepts relating to gravity, inertia and acceleration have been demonstrably messed up. Just because Jupiter is 2.5 times the mass of the Earth does not mean that your weight would be 2.5 times more massive on Jupiter. Acceleration is the rate of change of velocity with respect to time. The units are properly m/s2 and not m/sec/sec.

The Jules Verne illustration is intended to show results after a breakfast, which included French wine. The passengers become very merry, the tunes of the Marseillaise and Yankee Doodle are sung very loudly, everyone dances, the dog is excited and the chickens are awakened. As drawn here, everyone's feet are off of the floor. {Le Jardin Mabille was a Parisian Dance Hall (like Le Moulin Rouge, Le Folies Bergere) where Verne learned the polka.} Everyone collapses unconscious. Part of the stupor was caused by a defect in the oxygen production equipment that was later fixed.

In some editions of the Verne book the illustration is used to illustrate the moment of absolute weightlessness, which Verne supposed the passengers, would experience at a certain point in the journey when the pull of the Moon would exactly match the pull of the Earth. As they approached that point he thought they would weigh less and less until zero gravitational pull happened. As narrated here the spacecraft turns over and falls heavy end toward the Moon. The heavy end first orientation would happen by itself only with an atmosphere to make it happen. Without an atmosphere to decelerate the craft's outside, the passengers would have been weightless in the spacecraft from the moment their gunpowder fuel was through accelerating them. This is known as The Verne Fallacy. A purist might recommend that Verne should be represented by one of his imaginings that had mathematical or scientific interest and accuracy. Check out his computation of the velocity needed to leave an Earth orbit to land on the Moon.

Pages 60-6l of EPS 1995 begin with a full-page photo of ice-encased oranges. This is the start of chapter 3. Wraparound on pages 32-33 of Teachers edition of PH Physical Science asks teachers to direct students' attention to "the photograph of frozen oranges." The whole point of these pages is that the oranges are NOT frozen. EPS 1995 avoids that. A Voyage of Adventure also avoids it, but does have the same general material. Another interesting thing is that in 1995 Prentice-Hall re-writes the page a wee bit and omits the commentary about the freeze threatening "unusual Florida weather". A Voyage of Adventure (pages 328-329) says, "Only a few people working in the orange grove could remember a day as cold in that area of Florida." Prentice-Hall is probably trying to sell the book to Californians. At least two of Ms. Caputo's letters came in envelopes canceled in Jacksonville, Florida.

P. 66, Figure 3-8 is an improvement over Fig 2-11 in '88, p. 44. Improvements can be made.

P. 69 Fig 3-12 photo of an ice cube is swapped L/R if compared with PH Physical Science Fig 2-14 on P. 47 or with Voyage of Adventure on p. 337.

P. 71 Fig 3-15 of the "ice-bomb" is swapped L/R with Fig 14-13 of A Voyage of Adventure, p. 339, and Fig 2-16 of PH Physical Science 1988, p. 48.

Prentice-Hall Physical Science of 1988 has a photo on the cover showing the pattern of concentric circles formed when an object is dropped into a pool of water. The small drop above the pool is actually a drop of water that was forced upward following impact. The '91 edition is substantially the same on the inside, same material, same pagination. Except for the missing asterisk for freezing fresh water on p. 13, which happens only in '91, the errors remain from the '88 version. The cover shows what is described as a "magnetic disc levitating over a superconducting material". These books are so entirely similar that the Cranberry district, for instance, uses '88 and '9l at the same time in the same classroom. They bought more books when faced with more students.

Prentice-Hall Physical Science of 1993 is also the same. There are no real additional distinguishing features from 199l except that the cover has the words "NEW EDITION" above the magnetic disc.

Exploring Physical Science of 1995 has a blurb in the Teacher's Edition, Prentice-Hall Science. There is a picture of the '93 with the "NEW EDITION" tag. "With this book Prentice-Hall set an entirely new standard for physical science education. It quickly became the most popular text in its category." Farther down on the same page it says in letters 3/8's inches high, "Now, we're setting the standard once again."

Exploring Physical Science of 1995 has most of the same errors as the pertinent nineteen books. It has perhaps 75% of the same errors as Prentice-Hall Physical Science of '88, '9l and '93. The Prentice-Hall General Science series . . . A Voyage of Adventure, A Voyage of Discovery, and A Voyage of Exploration, copyrighted in 1992, 1989 & 1986 have about 60% of the errors, and in general, seems targeted at a slightly less prepared student.

Prentice-Hall Physical Science of 1984 and 1981 is refreshing with far fewer errors, although the water phase change graph gets the wrong slope for steam on p. 353, and curved mirrors are drawn without correct focal points. This is a substantially different book, and the product of what must have been a more competent group of writers and a more capable editorial staff.

Exploring Physical Science of 1977 is a product of Allyn and Bacon, Inc. and is another refreshing and competent text in which we found few errors of significance.

P. 74 EPS 1995 has a phase-change diagram to show the heat energy-temperature relationships, as an ice cube becomes steam. The slope of the diagram is the same in each phase...solid, liquid & gas. There should be one slope for water as a liquid and another twice as steep for water as a solid and for water as a gas to represent the differing specific heats that water has in these phases. The freezing-melting and condensing-boiling plateaus bear some relationship to what they should be as the former is shorter than the latter. This is the second time ice to water has been shown in the book. This time at least the higher temperatures are toward the top of the page regardless of the other problems.

P. 75 Figure 3-18 has two illustrations. At the top of the page we allegedly "see dry ice becoming gaseous carbon dioxide." We don't. We see water vapor condensing or even freezing as the dry ice becomes gaseous...that's the fog, and on the surface of the solid we see condensed and frozen water vapor. Miss Caputo wrote on February 3rd, 1995, that she understands "that one can only observe this process thanks to the presence of water vapor. Otherwise, the sublimation process would not be observable." This should be re-written to reflect that what is seen in the picture is "what is seen when dry ice becomes gaseous carbon dioxide."

The second illustration on this page shows iodine crystals becoming gaseous iodine. This photo has been swapped L/R from its appearance as figure 2-l9, p. 50, 1988, 1991, & 1993.

Page 75-76 make the transition from studying physical characteristics to learning of chemical characteristics by asking students to suppose that they "have to distinguish between two gases: oxygen and hydrogen. Both are colorless, odorless and tasteless. Since they are gases, they have no definite shape or volume. And although each has a specific density, you cannot determine that density by dropping the gases into water to see what happens. In this particular case, physical properties are not very helpful in identifying the gases." Physical properties can be DEFINITIVE in making the identification. Inflate identical balloons to identical dimensions. See which one floats. Blow bubbles with the gases and see which bubbles float. If you want to find another way other than using physical characteristics then do the chemical tests. Don't tell students "physical properties are not very helpful in identifying the gases".

P. 82 indicates that color, odor, and density are all physical characteristics (see teacher's manual). Molecules react with various nerves and chemicals in nose, tongue and throat to make it possible for people to identify sour acids, delicious chocolate, and so on. Ms. Caputo in a December 29th, l994, letter points out that that's true at higher levels in chemistry, but that this is "pedagogically appropriate for students." On this one she may be correct.

P. 83 asks students to explain why it is good advice to check your tire pressure after the car has been moving for a while. My tire manual, car manual, gas station and my brother who taught driver training all agree that pressures should be checked "cold". If tire pressure is restored to the "correct" figure after the tire is warm then the tire will be softer than it should be, the sidewalls will flex more than they should and internal friction will increase and tires will get warmer - an unstable and dangerous condition. The "correct" figure is computed by the tire manufacturer for "cold" checking. A few manufacturers have double tables to include "warm" checking but that is rare. Ms. Wright suggested that the teacher ask the parallel question - Why is it poor advice to check your tires warm?

P. 84 and 85 begin the section on Mixtures, Elements and Compounds with an illustration of Sherlock Holmes. Same illustration and write-up occurs in A Voyage of Adventure on pages 366-367.

P. 86 has a photo of yarn which occurs in '88, '9l, & '93 PH Physical Science. Trimmed differently here however, and swapped L/R.

Pages 92 - 94 discuss solutions and what their characteristics are. A solution is defined as "a type of homogeneous mixture formed when one substance dissolves in another." As word stems of solution and dissolve are technically the same word more work needs to be done on this. Examples given include lemonade (made from lemon juice and sugar added to water), blood (illustrated with solid red blood cells going single file through a capillary), and "soot in air."

P. 97 miner photo is swapped L/R compared with Voyage of Adventure on page 378. Last paragraph says for many years scientists had to spell out the full names of elements when writing about them. Then in 1813, a system of representing the elements with symbols was introduced. Prior to 1813, for instance in the 1770's when my facsimile first Britannica was published, there were four elements: earth, water, fire, and air. (Volume II, page 66.) Dalton had symbols circa 1803.

P. 100 figure 4-18 is almost the same as Fig 3-13, p. 73, '88 PH Physical Science, except center picture is swapped L/R.

P. 101 says, "Most compounds are made up of molecules." I (HPL) asked Ms. Caputo about this (and about p. 107 which says the same). She wrote Feb. 3rd that I was perhaps unaware that "ionic compounds are made up of formula units" and "not made up of molecules". Britannica says ionic compounds are different, and that some scientists say crystals are very large molecules, and others say the ions aren't exactly connected. But Prentice-Hall Physical Science, l984 & l98l page l84 says, "Salts are a common class of compounds whose molecules consist of a metal ion and a nonmetal ion."

P. 107 says, "The amount of a solute that can completely dissolve in a given solvent at a specific temperature is called its solubility." One should know the amount of the given solvent.

P. 112, Figure 5-1 is to support material concerning indirect evidence. There are Before-After pictures showing a house with full garbage cans, mailbox flag up, and bottles (milk) on the porch. Later the garbage cans are empty, the mailbox flag is down, and the bottles are gone. The shadows in the illustrations are drawn at random. A few pages later, on p. 119, it points out that computer programs can show the effects of light and shadow. Ms. Caputo answered December 29th, l994, that the illustration is clear and accurate, and that the length of time elapsed is not an issue nor is the artistic representation of the Sun's shadow. This same illustration (almost) is Figure 4-l on p. 90 of PH Physical Science of 1988. How old it actually is one cannot guess. How many children in the l990's are familiar with (milk) bottles on the porch? How many of their PARENTS remember them? How many Contributing Writers? How many Editors admit to ever seeing (milk) bottles on the porch?

P. 113 dates Democritus at "more than 2000 years ago." It says it "took almost 2100 years before an atomic model of matter was accepted" (presumably meaning Dalton - l803 who is described in the text) and p. 131 dates Democritus at more than 2400 years ago. See page 131 also. Why not use B.C.? On Feb. 3rd, l995, Ms. Caputo conceded that there was an inconsistency in the Study Guide at the end of the chapter. Reviewers had brought it to their attention, and she said that it had been submitted for reprint "several months ago".

P. 114 has a picture of the Rosetta Stone. Imagine the value of that wonderful artifact if each surface actually told a different story? Think about it. How useful is a book in which the written word is not substantiated by the illustrations?

P. 118, Fig 5-11 is Fig 4-9, p. 97, 1988. It is Fig 15-6 in A Voyage of Adventure. A special feature for 1995 is that it has been rotated one hundred eighty degrees.

Page 124 asks students to imagine locating a friend on a sunny Saturday afternoon, and suggests that they estimate the chance of finding the friend in various places based on past experience. They are asked to list at least seven possible or most likely places, and express those possibilities in percentages. They are cautioned that the "total probability for the seven events should equal 100 percent". The seven most likely probabilities cannot add up to 100 percent. It is possible that the friend could have been hit by a bus and consequently hospitalized, or kidnapped, or … ?

P. 125, Fig 5-l7 is slightly redrawn from Fig 4-16 in 1988. It's a silly diagram with too many errors to try and correct. The Activity Calculating on this page puts out busy work to familiarize students with the Periodic Table. It's called Atomic Math on p. 101 in '88.

P. 126, Fig 5-l8 lists mass of the proton as l amu, neutron as l amu, and electron as l/l836 amu. P. 273 shows that in beta decay a neutron breaks down into a proton plus an electron and in addition releases energy. With these figures Prentice-Hall has created both mass and energy. Ms. Caputo on December 29th, l994, says that actual mass of Proton is 1.00728 amu, and neutron is 1.00866 amu and does not give a mass to the electron. She shortens off both to 3 significant digits "as customary" and comes up with 1.00. If she'll be discussing electrons of 1/1836 or 0.0005446 amu then the customary significant digits will extend to the same orders of magnitude. Rounding off to same 3 significant digits her electron would have to be 0.00 amu.

P. 133 Critical Thinking says Einsteinium has an atomic mass of 252. "Einsteinium is a synthetic element." The student edition asks, "How does this fact explain why the atomic mass of Einsteinium is a whole number?" I wonder if the answer will be consistent with Ms. Caputo's letter of 2-3-95 or the Periodic Chart as printed.

P. 139 Fig 6-5 has a photo of H.G.J. Moseley. It shows up as Fig 5-6 on p. 115 of 1988 Prentice-Hall Physical Science. 1988 includes his middle name of "Gwyn-Jeffries" and mentions the name of the "famous battle" (Gallipoli).

P. 142 & 143 (and also pages 792 & 793) present a periodic chart of the elements that lists Cesium and Gallium as liquids (and Francium as a solid). There is no temperature where this works. Cesium melts at 28.6o C per Prentice-Hall EPS p. 151, and Gallium at 29.78 C per my Britannica, and Francium at 27 C per p. 151. Rubidium melts at 39 C and one could survive a fever of that level. This is higher than STP and normal room temperature. The error persists later in the text. Ms. Caputo acknowledged this error in her letter of February 3rd, l995 and says that the correction has been "submitted for reprint". Further, she defends omitting STP from EPS because it would "simply be another fact for students to memorize' I would recommend that writers at PH memorize STP as it applies to common states of matter.

EPS 1995 teacher's edition wraparound talks about the Latin derivations of elements l04 - l09 and asks students to compare other words with similar stems...including hexagons; however, by '95 Unnilhexium has become Seaborgium.

P. 147 the men in the photo in Fig 6-12 are swapped L/R. Look at the buttons of the standing man.

P. 158 discusses the rare-earth elements and identifies the second row as the elements of the actinoid (sic) series. ('Actinoid' (sic) and 'Lanthanoid' (sic) are used consistently throughout for 'actinide' and 'lanthanide.) It says, (as does Prentice-Hall PHYSICAL SCIENCE on p. l47), "With the exception of the first three elements, all the actinoids (sic) are synthetic, or made in the laboratory." We MINE uranium! Ms. Caputo in her Feb 3, l995 letter says that the sentence referred to is "simply to point out to students that, with the exception of the first three elements in the actinoid (sic) series, all of the others can be produced in the laboratory. It does not state that these elements do not exist in nature." "Can be produced" is not how these books work. Wraparound of Periodic Table of Discovery teacher edition is clear; there are 92 natural elements, and l7 more have been produced synthetically. Total l09. This is the same in PH Physical Science in wraparound on table of elements. Either/or is how it is for PH and it should be as Ms. Caputo says, that Uranium CAN BE produced in the laboratory, and Uranium exists abundantly in nature. She is emphatic however that "The sentence is correct." and PH "will consider editing the sentence so that others will not have" our confusion.

What has happened is that there are some other ways of printing these tables of the elements. Some texts list the actinide series that are set out of the bottom row and begin with actinium, and others with thorium. Apparently an 'author' was working with the "thorium" type as the text was written, and another editor supplied the "actinium" type of Periodic Table that was put in the book.

P. 167 Critical Thinking...4-c asks students to identify a highly active liquid metal with l valence electron. This would be any of the Alkali metals at the right temperature so there are six answers. PH wants only cesium, and will need to fix this in the teacher's edition. (Because cesium is a solid at STP.)

P. 169 has a photo of the particle-accelerator generator at Fermilab. The photo is reversed L/R from Voyage of Exploration l992, p. l46.

P. 199 has four paragraphs concerning the Statue of Liberty, which are l00%, the same words as PH Physical Science of 1991. It says that the "bronze of her outer structure..." has turned a dull gray-green. She has a copper skin! (As Ms. Caputo conceded Feb 3rd '95) P. 190 of PH Physical Science reiterates the bronze skin. She is copper on p. 203 of EPS -1995.

P. 198 All of the Authors, and all of the Editorial Staff, and all thirty-six of the Content Reviewers missed this. On page l98 the Statue of Liberty is given a full-page photograph, and Prentice-Hall has put her torch IN HER LEFT HAND. To add insult to injury the photo is copied again, smaller, on p. l99.

P. 203 places the torch in her right hand as it is and properly should be. The sculptor probably considered this iconographically and esthetically correct.

P. 223 says that in galvanizing, iron is covered with the "more active metal zinc" to protect iron from corroding. What is the significance of "more active metal"? Generally pure zinc oxidizes in the air slower than ungalvanized iron.

P. 233, figure 9-7 concerning carbon, says "Here you see three different forms of the pure element: diamond, graphite, and coal" and pictures diamonds, pencil leads and lumps of coal. A pencil lead is not a form of the pure element. Pencil leads also include Kaolin or clay as the binder that contributes hardness. More clay and the harder, scratchier, lead produces a fainter line. Less clay and the softer lead produce a darker line.

P. 245 computer-generated model of a human protein molecule has had its picture rotated 90 degrees clockwise when compared with PH Physical Science of 1988 - '9l p. 25l.

P. 257 lists aspirin as one of the applications of synthetic polymers. The aspirin tablet is pictured with rubber tires and plastic raincoats and an umbrella. The aspirin is the only one that breaks down in water (I did the experiment). I (HPL) asked my daughter Kathy who is getting a PhD in Organic Chemistry, and her response was "No, Dad!!!" My pharmacist said 'No.' Suggested I try l-900-4200-ASK, which is Ask The Pharmacist. They said 'No.' Also, Merck catalog never mentions polymer, and molecule as shown has no repeating monomers. I asked Ms. Caputo. Ms. Caputo of Feb. 3rd, l995, tells me that my confusion with the use of aspirin as an example "comes from semantics". She then gives me a long explanation that aspirin tablets do not occur in nature. "Furthermore, commercial aspirin is composed of acetylsalicylic acid which is prepared from acetic and salicylic acid. It is the salicylic acid that actually counters the pain, but unfortunately salicylic acid is irritating to most stomachs. Chemically combining it with acetic acid makes aspirin much gentler on the stomach." Maybe she confuses a buffering chemical with acetic acid. I doubt acetic acid helps a stomach much.

P. 63l of PH Physical Science of '93, '9l and '88 says aspirin is an ethylene product. I haven't asked Ms. Caputo to explain that. Perhaps the original material suggested that a plastic aspirin CONTAINER was an example of an ethylene product.

P. 259 Scientist is reversed L/R from '92 Voyage of Exploration p. 197.

P. 265 reads "energy levels" at bunches and bunches of watts. A watt is a unit of power, not energy.

P. 277 says, "Transuranium elements (also known as synthetic elements) are those with more than 92 protons in their nuclei." There are synthetic elements with fewer than 92 protons in their nuclei.

P. 277 has another Fermilab photo, also reversed L/R from Voyage of Exploration, '92, p. l46.

P. 279 does not have the radon percentage drawn to same scale as the rest of the graph. Ms. Caputo defends it as sufficient inasmuch as the percentage is written on the graph. A common means for propaganda is to distort graphical data

P. 285 electroscope photo is reversed L/R. Read the warning. It is correctly shown in PH Physical Science of '88 & '9l on p. 272.

P. 286 Spiderwort is described as nature's radiation detector. "The stamens of the spiderwort flower are usually blue. In the presence of radiation the stamens turn pink." In the included picture the only portion of the stamens on which color can be discerned reliably are yellow. What does that mean? Same photo is in PH Physical Science of '9l on p. 273, and in Voyage of Exploration of '92 on p. 145 it is rotated 90 degrees counterclockwise.

P. 290 discusses the Half-Life of a Sugar Cube. It should be the Half-Life of a lot of Sugar. (250 sugar cubes have one face colored; students spill them onto the table and remove each cube that has colored face up. Spill and remove again. The spills are each called tosses. (Each cube lives or dies...and cannot be half alive). Students are asked to balance 40 cubes (plus or minus) in a vertical column (this classroom will be active!) Dice will work much better; they will last longer, and will not make a mess.

P. 29l discusses binding energy as a force. Energy is not a force. "The decay of a radioactive element occurs at a fixed rate called the half-life." Half-life is a period of time and not a rate. "The Geiger counter can also measure radioactivity." (So can an electroscope, a cloud chamber and a bubble chamber.) (Ms. Caputo says this has already been fixed for reprint)

Teacher's wraparound says shape of sugar cube graph here will be a "hyperbolic curve in the first quadrant, asymptotic with respect to the X-axis". No, it is an exponential curve asymptotic only to the X-axis. It begins at the point 250 on the Y-axis. A hyperbola is asymptotic to two lines and is not related.

Wraparound further asks students how this would work with tetrahedral, dodecahedral or icosahedral regular solids instead of the cubic regular solids. What side comes up when you toss a tetrahedral?

P. 292 multiple-choice question 8 asks what an artificially produced radioactive isotope of an element is called, and lists two partially correct answers: A. Synthetic isotope and C. Radioisotope. Ms. Caputo on Feb. 3, 1994, says, "A radioisotope is simply an isotope with an unstable nucleus that spontaneously emits particles and electromagnetic radiation. A synthetic isotope is one created from nuclear transmutation." The synthetic isotope is the answer she says. Is it not possible to produce a stable isotope of something or other? That would NOT be the answer.

P. 293 asks why it is more dangerous for a woman of childbearing age to be exposed to nuclear radiation than it is for a younger or an older woman to be exposed. To an actuary of our acquaintance the statistics look like it might be a cumulative effect as far as the women go. He wonders if the danger being questioned is danger to the woman, or danger to the woman and her possible unborn child(ren). Ms. Caputo explains that women of childbearing age are more at risk because of the hereditary material inside her eggs. Not true. Girl children under childbearing age already have the hereditary material in their eggs. It is a function instead of the faster growing tissues in women of child-bearing age...things like endometrial tissue, ripening eggs, etc. Things that grow faster are more susceptible to damage from radiation. That's why radiation is used on tumors. That's why hair loss often occurs to patients undergoing nuclear therapy.

P. 300 See Motion, Forces, and Energy l993. The material is the same there on page l2. Navy Fighter Jet's relative speed with respect to each other is irrelevant. It is necessary that they have same velocity as the re-fueling tanker. EPS 1997 replaces this scenario (correctly) with Mir and Atlantis.

P. 30l See TTL May/June '93 re: Fred Astaire in Motion etc. on page l3 there, teacher's manual. Figure l2-3 asks students how Fred Astaire can dance on the ceiling in the movies. Teacher's manual says the "actor stays in one place, but the background is slowly rotated. When the film is shown, it is turned upside down so that the actor appears to be on the ceiling." TTL spoke with the studio. The set...AND THE CAMERA were rotated AS A UNIT and Astaire danced on whatever was down at the time including the walls. Good thing to discuss in teaching "frames of reference" but PH fails to do it.

P. 30l student text asks, "How is it possible that an actress can be shown dancing on the ceiling in a movie?" and the teacher's manual answers it, "The actress stays in one place, but the background is slowly rotated. When the film is shown it is turned upside down so that the actress appears to be skating on the ceiling." Changing Fred Astaire's sex doesn't fix this question. Rotation has nothing to do with it. Build the set with a chandelier on the down side of the room on a welded chain. Camera goes upside down. Actress dances. Develop and show the film. Or shoot the dancing against an "invisible blue" background and electronically manipulate the image onto whatever background fits. Students can understand the Royal Wedding tricks, but not if they're "helped" by this text.

P. 303 Figure 12-5 is NOT a scale of any type contrary to its labeling. It is only an ordering. Ms. Caputo says equal increments are not needed. Voyage of Discovery, p. 536, omits the cyclist, and is therefore much closer to a real scale...a log scale. The log scale used for showing electromagnetic waves covers 50 octaves. There it is successful, and thoroughly appropriate. It should be here as well.

P. 307-308 has one rowing a boat at l6 km/hr. This is not a realistic rowing speed for the rowboats familiar to most of us. The same material is found in PH Physical Science of 1991, p. 294.

P. 309. Sonar on the ship could not 'see' the treasure chest; it's too small. PH Physical Science 199l uses a ship on the ocean floor which is more appropriate.

P. 3l0 asks students what is needed to calculate final acceleration of a roller coaster. They have no basis to figure this out. The rate of change in velocity with respect to time is known as acceleration.

P. 3ll, "When a roller coaster climbs a hill, it decelerates because it is slowing down'! Circular.

Figure l2-l3 has a 'professional drag-strip race' described. It is totally fictional. Students are asked to compute the acceleration of the Race Car. The acceleration answer is wrong in the teacher's manual (5 m/sec/sec (sic)). In addition, the units should be expressed as 'm/s2'. Furthermore, students have no basis to compute this figure. This same error occurs in PH Physical Science of 199l on p. 296.

P. 3l2 Circular Motion. This discussion bunches together rotating and revolving objects with silly results. A spinning flywheel for instance has a net velocity of zero for instance (regardless of what PH says.)

P. 315 'The stopping distance of a car is directly related to its momentum.' The stopping distance depends on the kinetic energy that is proportional to the velocity squared. "Momentum is always conserved." This is true only in an isolated system as indicated earlier on the same page.

P. 3l5 in teacher's manual has an activity about "Jerry's large cart." Another cart that looks "exactly like Jerry's" passes it. Students are to conclude that the "second cart has more momentum, and so it must also have more mass or velocity or both than Jerry's cart."

P. 320 "If a motorboat travels 25 km/hr down a river whose velocity is 4 km/hr..."

P. 321 Critical Thinking #3 has a 10 kg train car moving 14 m/s (over 30 miles per hour!), toward an approaching 10 kg train car moving 10 m/s. Not only that but these cars are too massive for model train cars, and too tiny for real ones. This is similar to that given in PH Physical Science of '9l which has lesser values on page 303.

P. 323 repeats common mistakes in the Newton biography. In PH Physical Science of '88,'9l and '93 p. 305 for instance Newton was "a student and teacher at Trinity College in London" when he was forced to return to his mother's farmhouse in Woolsthorpe. In EPS 1995 it says that the year was l665. "Throughout London, schools and businesses had closed. The deadly bubonic plague raged through the city, causing twenty-two-year old Isaac Newton to return to his mother's... ." Trinity College is part of Cambridge University, and is still located at Cambridge about a hundred miles away from London.

P. 328 "Automobiles are able to stop because the action of the brakes increases friction between the tires and the road." Not true. On the same page we read 'Cyclists rely on friction to hold their bicycles on the ground during turns' which is also not true. It's the banked track that is important. Continuing on the same page we read, "Cars often skid on icy streets because the smooth surface of the ice reduces the friction between the tires and the road." The tires do not even touch the road, which is the real problem.

Ms. Caputo in Feb 3, l995, points out that the "caption does not even refer to a banked track." This is true, yet the illustration IS a banked track.

P. 38 of Motion, etc., Teacher Edition, has the question, "Why would rolling objects produce less friction than objects?" The sliding answer given is that "Student responses might include that the wheels are round and move better and that there is less surface touching another surface." This is wrong. In the teacher's manual of EPS p. 326 the same question is asked and the student response sought appears to be that the sliding of surfaces is "converted to rolling."

P. 329 says Isaac Newton "recognized that if friction was not present, an object in motion would continue to move forever". Prentice-Hall Physical Science of '9l says the same. Actually we are indebted to Galileo for this.

P. 330, Figure l3-l0 says, "Sled dogs join together to exert a force great enough to overcome the inertia of the sled. What would happen if the team stopped or started suddenly?" Friction is the main reason for all those dogs. Static friction is the toughest. One dog, Buck, in Jack London's Call of the Wild is enough to overcome the static friction of the sled and move it the distance to win a bar bet. Without friction a single Chihuahua can accelerate the sled. After the inertia is overcome and the sled has obtained cruising speed will the dogs be able to ride from Nome to Fairbanks? No, they must overcome friction most of the way, and they must lift the sled up hills, etc. The term "overcome inertia" is used several times in the Prentice-Hall literature. How does one know when one has "overcome inertia" and finished the job? When the sled is going 2 km/hr, 6 km/hr, or 20 km/hr?

In Janice VanCleave's Physics for Every Kid, copyright l99l, John Wiley & Sons, Inc. with ISBN 0-471-52505-7 for the paperback, and 0-471-54284-9 for the library binding we have Experiment #56 on page l32 - l33 which has a 2-liter pop bottle pulled across the table with a rubber band "To demonstrate the effect of weight on inertia." The stretching of the band is compared when the bottle is filled with water with when the bottle is empty. The band stretches more when the bottle is filled with water. The explanation is as follows.

"WHY? Inertia is the resistance to motion. The rubber band stretched very little when moving the empty bottle because the bottle has very little resistance to being moved. The water-filled bottle is heavier and resists movement more than does the empty bottle. As a result, the rubber band stretched more when moving the heavier, water-filled bottle. As weight increases, INERTIA increases."

Inertia increases proportional to mass of course. The smaller mass has less inertia, and therefore less resistance to being accelerated. Friction is a real problem here. Why isn't this result an indication of the increased frictional resistance?

P. 33l has a clear and cogent explanation of Newton's Second Law of Motion. The grocery cart is still here, empty or full, but the hill is not, and the explanation is much better than that on page 43. How do the students learn which explanation to refer to?

P. 333 Fig. 13-14 Canoe and Paddler move FARTHER than the Jumper. It should be proportionately less motion, in fact, inversely proportional to the masses involved. Walt Disney Studios does this better as early as Snow White when the Chipmunk sneezes in the Bier stein as the animals help to clean up the cottage.

P. 337. What is the terminal velocity of a dime? Terminal velocity of skydivers will be discussed later. Surface to mass ratios will be discussed. Throughout this material on falling objects PH will turn air resistance on and off without notice. Be careful.

P. 338 asks how "insects can fall from tremendous heights, yet walk away unharmed" and suggests comparing their masses to their surface areas. This is good.

P. 340 Speeding snowball. What is the terminal velocity of a speeding snowball?

P. 34l says, in the teacher's edition that gravity differs in different places. It is the acceleration due to gravitation that differs. "Gravity' is the name of the phenomenon to be investigated.

P. 344, laboratory investigation, "Will an Elephant Fall Faster Than a Mouse?" includes dropping an uncrumpled piece of paper from shoulder height to see how fast it drops in comparison to a crumpled piece of paper. Starting posture of paper makes a big difference. One can manage both faster and slower descents with flat paper. Tightness of crumpling makes a difference. It would be informative to the students to include a taped-shut pad of notebook paper the same size as the wood block and the Styrofoam pad that are dropped. What is missed here is that there is a difference between velocity and acceleration and taking into consideration the effect of air resistance.

P. 347 has a series of questions that include #7 Concept Mastery, "Why does a raindrop fall to the ground at exactly the same rate as a boulder?" It could when it has the same area to mass ratio...depending upon its size. It cannot if they're the same size because the raindrop has higher area to mass ratio, and this makes a difference in air. In a vacuum the raindrop will immediately turn to gas...subliming if necessary. If that sublimation is ignored then they fall at the same acceleration only in a vacuum, although vacuum is not stated.

Critical Thinking #3 says, "Suppose a l2-N force is required to push a crate across a floor when friction is not present. In reality, friction exerts a force of 3 N. If you exert a force of 7 N, what size force must your friend exert so that you can move the crate together? 8 Newtons. But why do I need a friend to exert a total force of l5 Newtons? That's less than the weight of a half-gallon of milk. Why exactly l2 Newtons? How much acceleration does this crate require? Ms. Caputo says PH will consider changing values to more realistic ones in the future, but points out that "the force is required to move the box because of its mass."

Critical Thinking #5 says, "A heavy object is dropped from the top of a cliff. What is its velocity just before it hits the ground after l2 seconds?" 117.6 m/s, but this is more than twice the terminal velocity of the skydiver discussed on pages 338-339. (The skydiver must be in a vacuum). I (HPL) did the math for my refrigerator that qualifies as a 'heavy object' and I dressed it in an aviator's brown leather jacket before dropping it mathematically. Because my refrigerator has a higher area/mass ratio than a similarly dressed human it will be slower than the human. PH has turned off air resistance again without telling us. That's not critical thinking.

P. 350 Pressure is NOT a force, which is a point not clearly made although the equation does get it right.

P. 35l Fig l4-3 metal can has had photo swapped L/R. Compare it with p. 33l PH Physical Science of '9l & '88. Or look at your own gas can...there are manufacturing standards that are unfair to left-handed people.

P. 352 The girl in Fig l4-4 has been swapped L/R. Compare with p. 33l of PH Physical Science of '9l & '88.

P. 354 Elephant diagram, the mouse's piston has too big an area to balance an elephant. The Way Things Work of Macauley does this better by a factor of ten. An artist could interpose a magnifying glass to "enlarge" the mouse.

P. 355 Fig l4-9 Versus Text. Text says master cylinder piston area is smaller than slave piston area. The illustration shows the master cylinder piston area as larger than the slave piston area. Real life pistons go both ways. Maybe a waterbed would be a better illustration.

P. 356 Fig l4-l0 shows a pool sketch with 5 different levels. Top level has weight of l. Next level down has weight of l plus 2. Next level down has weight of l plus 2 plus 3. Next level down has weight of l plus 2 plus 3 plus 4. Bottom level, the fifth, has weight of l plus 2 plus 3 plus 4 plus 5. A PhD School Administrator concluded therefore that weight of the bottom level was l5. The weight of the bottom level is actually l. Cardinals and Ordinals have been put into precarious positions in the illustration and invite confusion. Ms. Caputo says that they've been commended by various teachers for providing students with a visual method of comprehending the concept. Those teachers probably came up with l5 also.

P. 358 says Archimedes lived more than 2000 years ago. His dates are typically given as 287? - 2l2 B.C. Ms. Caputo points out that many students are unfamiliar with working with B.C. dates. Maybe this is the place to introduce them to the concept.

P. 359, Figure l4-l3 illustrates an ice cube floating with one corner high. Concerning an iceberg it says that because it floats we know its "weight must be less than or equal to the weight of the salt water it displaces." (Pick one!)

P. 361 Plate tectonics and continental drift has nothing to do with buoyancy.

Pp. 362-3 has a poor and incomplete description of how planes fly and the shower curtain problem solution can't be made with only the material provided in the chapter.

P. 365 has a multiple exposure shot of a tennis ball hitting a racquet. It's not clear that the racquet is moving and it should be.

P. 367 says, "Buoyancy is the phenomenon caused by the upward force of fluid pressure."

P. 368 says, "The weight and motion of fluid particles creates...' Ms. Caputo in Feb 3, 1995, letter says that a student had brought this to their attention earlier, and that the correction had been submitted for reprint.

Multiple Choice #9 says, "When compared with the air that travels under an airplane wing, the air that travels over the wing a. is more dense.     b. is less dense. c. moves more slowly. or d. moves faster." Ms. Caputo says d only. However, if students remember the gas laws from earlier in the book then due to Bernoulli there must be a lower pressure above the wing and therefore a lower density.

P. 369 Critical Thinking #l is talking about air pressure and asks "What would be the force if the tabletop were twice as large?" Does this mean the tabletop goes from a 2-foot square to a 4-foot square? Alternatively, does it mean that the tabletop goes from 2 square feet to 4 square feet?

P. 369 Critical Thinking #2 suggests floating a mystery material (gold or pyrite) on mercury to determine which it is. Because gold dissolves in mercury this procedure is as intelligent as using a hammer to determine whether or not a sample is antique Venetian glass or modern American Plexiglas. PH Physical Science of '93,'9l & '88 suggests the same experiment on p. 345.

P. 369 Critical Thinking #4 asks students to, "Describe how you could make a sheet of aluminum foil float in water. How could you change its shape to make it sink?" And the teacher's edition wraparound says when there is a higher ratio of area to mass it will float better. Try this experiment: Submerge a sheet of foil, and crumple it tightly so that it will sink. Staying underwater un-crumple it until it floats. Do this on videotape and send it to Prentice-Hall because they need to prove their hypothesis about the area/mass ratio.

P. 369 Critical Thinking #5 says, "A barge filled to overflowing with sand approaches a bridge over the river and cannot quite pass under it. Should sand be added to or removed from the barge?" Teacher's manual says to add sand. If it is already filled to overflowing just how will that work?

P. 373 Calculating. The teacher's edition asks students to calculate how much work a woman does if she lifts her suitcase, and carries it for 25 meters, and how much work she does if she drags it. The teacher's edition says, "The total work in both lifting and dragging is 2550 joules." Work is done only in lifting.

P. 378 "For example, when you use a shovel to move a rock, your effort is opposed by the rock's weight." Not true, the shovel opposes your effort.

P. 379 says, "work is conserved." It's not. Energy is conserved. See also page 410. The teacher's manual has a multicultural note on Elijah McCoy that is mostly false.

P. 384 gets into mathematical trouble. Discussions concerning which lever "multiplies the effort force" or "which lever multiplies the distance of the effort force" seems to require that multiplication always INCREASES things, and this is not always true.

P. 407, Fig l6-l4, is a stylized coal fired electrical generator l940's art-deco-reminiscent form of industrial painting.

P. 427 tells students to "Set up a battery, a light bulb, wires, and alligator clips as shown" ... and omits the illustration. Ms. Caputo in Feb. 3, 1995, letter says that they discovered this themselves shortly after the textbook was printed, and that they "have since corrected the problem." In 1997 the instructions are changed to '… according to your teacher's instructions.' This will present problems, as the teacher's are likely not to know how.

P. 428 has some hot molecules (red) and some cold molecules (blue) impersonating convection. Unfortunately there is a silly traffic jam. The convection currents on p. 455 are much better illustrations.

P. 428 Discovery has a scenario where students are to determine how to open the window "from the top or the bottom" in order to let air into the stuffy room depending on the outside temperatures. The answer must be "both". A convection current must of necessity include a "loop" for circulation.

P. 432 The banana illustration has been swapped L/R. It is a right-handed banana on p. 40l of PH Physical Science of '88 & '9l and '93. It is also a right-handed banana in the Voyage of Exploration OF '92, '89 & '86 on P. 39. These changes are not necessarily a function of esthetics. EPS - 95 and Voyage etc. both have banana illustration on left hand page...and EPS chooses the left hand banana and Voyage etc. chooses the right hand banana.

P. 437 the calorimeter illustration and procedures have been simplified. Perhaps necessarily, but is this topic appropriate at this level.

P. 442 has another heating curve, or phase-change diagram of water. Here heat of fusion and heat of vaporization plateaus are more carefully drawn. Specific heat of steam and ice is given as 0.5 calories per gram degree Celsius and for liquid water is given as l.0. These two values are given three different slopes on the diagram. PH Physical Science does a similar 3 color illustration on p. 407 in '93, '9l and '88 and uses one slope for each of the specific heat values. It's difficult to read the phase change graph of PH Physical Science of '84 and '8l because the length of the vapor form is so short, however, regardless of the correct number value, the slope appears to be less than the slope of the water.

P. 444 says most liquids expand when they are heated, but (on p. 445) "There is one exception to this rule, however" and lists water. Gallium expands as it freezes.

P. 458 says, "Black absorbs sunlight better than any other color." But black is the absence of color.

P. 466 shows a steam engine. Unfortunately the slide valve is drawn OPEN when the piston is on the left, and CLOSED when the piston is on the right. The slide valve SHOULD BE OPEN feeding the cylinder to the LEFT of the piston when the piston is to the left. It SHOULD BE again OPEN feeding the cylinder TO THE RIGHT of the piston when the piston is to the right. This is drawn incorrectly also in PH Physical Science of '93, '9l, & '88 on p. 426. It is drawn correctly in Prentice-Hall Physical Science of '84 & '8l on p. 277. Same colors even.

All of the engines as illustrated lack a shaft passer to allow the connecting rod between the slide valve mechanism that connects to the flywheel to pass the axle shaft on the far side of the flywheel.

P. 468's gasoline engine is correctly drawn in the intake stroke. The compression stroke is drawn with the piston ALL THE WAY UP at top dead center, and a directional arrow drawn on the piston (when it is momentarily still). At this time in a real engine the spark would have just fired due to the spark advance. Ignition takes only a short amount of time, however, it is not instantaneous and therefore must begin so combustion is fully initiated as the power stroke begins. The power stroke is shown with the piston ALL THE WAY DOWN at bottom dead center. The diagram also shows the combustion and the firing of the spark plug although that was more than l80 degrees earlier as the crankshaft turns. The exhaust stroke is shown properly. This same drawing is in PH Physical Science of '93, '9l & '88 on p. 427. Ms. Caputo, Dec. 29, l994 told me that they CHOSE to show the completion of each cycle rather than at some point in between. This was "so that students could gain a better understanding of the material." She claims the artist's rendering was "based on reliable technical resource material."

Prentice-Hall Physical Science of '84 & '8l gets this right on p. 278. Allyn and Bacon, Inc, Exploring Physical Science gets this right on page l78. These books do show the plug firing during the power stroke it is true, however, it is so close to the start of the power stroke that I have no complaint. EPS-'95 however has the spark drawn when the crankshaft is over l80 degrees away from correct position.

Hot Rod Magazine did this in '95, and Scientific American in '94, Americana, Britannica, Collier's, Grolier's, etc., etc. to more than 20 other print references, several mechanics and all agree. All incidentally show the crankshaft turning clockwise (probably as early motorists saw the crank when they started the car). Only Prentice-Hall of '86 - '95 goes counterclockwise and showed the engine between cycles "so that students could gain a better understanding of the material."

P. 488 defines static electricity as "the buildup of electric charges on an object." Compare this with the glossary, which says it is the "movement of charges from one object to another without further movement." Movement?

P. 49l discusses lightning storms and mentions that tall objects such as trees "also act as grounders". In my Webster's Third "grounder" is a baseball term. The electrical noun is a "ground".

p. 494 teacher's edition says a coulomb is 6.25 times ten to the eighth electrons. The correct value is larger by ten orders of magnitude. It should be 6.25 times ten to the eighteenth.

Also on p. 494 is a sentence that says, "The difference in charge is called a potential difference". Actually, charge is not defined. Also, the "greater the potential difference, the faster the charge will flow" is on this page, but p. 497 shows no apparent difference in the speed of a charge under varying conditions.

P. 495 says "The ampere...is the amount of current that flows past a point per second." This is not correct. This is the same in Prentice-Hall Physical Science of '9l for instance.

P. 497 The American Association of Physics Teachers has an issue using pneumatic and hydraulic analogies that look beautiful. 'The Physics Teacher' 34 (3) l88-189 (1996) has an article entitled 'Basic Electricity ' A Novel Analogy' by Richard Grant a