FotoDave@aol.com
Tue, 23 Mar 1999 19:12:21 -0500 (EST)
In a message dated 3/23/99 3:22:02 PM Pacific Standard Time,
erbesj@milwaukee.tec.wi.us writes:
> Of those of you out there with a close familiarity with this book, is the
> majority of what he presents "non-controversial"?
In general this is a very good book. I would have bought it if I didn't live
so close to a university library. :)
> i.e. Will I be led down a path of ruin and destruction if I place too
much faith in
> his teachings? Mr. Henry certainly can shoot from the hip, and is not
afraid
> to name names, or to speak The Truth as he has researched it.
I think the truth "as he researched it" is a good description. It might not be
absolute true truth but are data that he obtained. You can use the factual
information, charts, diagrams, etc. as a start to your own tests. However,
when one jumps into some conclusion based on data, sometimes the conclusion
might not be right, so you need to clearly differentiate his data from his
conclusion.
I don't have the book by me, but I remember reading a section on agitation
(and/or dilution) where he "names name." The person whom he names (I forgot
who it is but it is also a familiar name) talks about the effect of slow
agitation and/or dilution and describes how chemical reaction slows down. Mr.
Henry says something bold like if the person knows anything about chemistry,
he would have known that he is completely wrong because that is not how
chemical reaction works. He says chemical reaction will continue at the same
rate regardless of dilution. What he has missed is that that assumes that the
reactants can always be replenished once used up. In film development, for
example, if agitation is low, the developing agents can be locally depleted if
agitation is not enough.
But I still consider it a very good book.
Dave S
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Sat Nov 06 1999 - 10:09:04