tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13869903.post4888893258357249204..comments2024-03-29T02:45:10.096-05:00Comments on nanoscale views: Bad physics as a marker for tracking text recyclingDouglas Natelsonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13340091255404229559noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13869903.post-28801191530537421292014-06-11T10:39:40.153-05:002014-06-11T10:39:40.153-05:00No problem - I'd much rather that the paper wa...No problem - I'd much rather that the paper was read and questioned, than just cited. Actually, quite a few people have told me that they have used it as a sort of reference text, so I'd be more worried if there were errors in the substantive parts of the paper. Do please let me know if you spot anything.Quentin Pankhurstnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13869903.post-38347098756966427082014-06-10T19:05:30.396-05:002014-06-10T19:05:30.396-05:00Hello Quentin - thanks very much for posting! I&#...Hello Quentin - thanks very much for posting! I'm sorry if my wording sounded overly critical - like I said, I like the paper (and I'm clearly not alone, given how many citations it's received). Yeah, I figured that you were alluding to the analogy (modeling magnetic dipoles like fictitious magnetic charges, etc., as is often done for some magnetostatics calculations). It does make you wonder how many of the people from the chem side get the physics, though, and the bizarre propagation is a symptom of an illness within the publishing culture.Douglas Natelsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13340091255404229559noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13869903.post-44069251258257849342014-06-10T15:48:45.205-05:002014-06-10T15:48:45.205-05:00The bad physicist - Quentin Pankhurst - responds: ...The bad physicist - Quentin Pankhurst - responds: Thank you Douglas for pointing this out - it is clearly a mistake that I am sorry to say managed to get through the reviewing and proof checking, and wasn't spotted until you pointed it out just now .. mea culpa. My intent was to refer to a 'magnetic analogue', but somehow it was garbled. The sentence is best understood by just deleting the reference to Coulomb’s law. Sorry for the confusion. Sorry too to learn that the error has been propagating - that's strange indeed, given the basic absurdity of the text.Quentin Pankhurstnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13869903.post-48908278137234039452014-06-08T22:49:24.596-05:002014-06-08T22:49:24.596-05:00The physics in the Pankhurst et al. paper is corre...The physics in the Pankhurst et al. paper is correct, but the use of 'Coulomb's Law' for the interaction of magnetic moments with magnetic field gradients is strange indeed. Can't figure out where that could have come from.Gautam Menonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13380130705745922128noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13869903.post-64422075490807576042014-06-08T14:13:06.654-05:002014-06-08T14:13:06.654-05:00Top hit now: an obscure blog called "nanoscal...Top hit now: an obscure blog called "nanoscale views." Of course yours has proper attribution.Don Monroehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14057058447791467875noreply@blogger.com