OT Scientific American dropped "amateur scientist"-what year?

The post about the 1905 telescope-making manual got me to reflecting on the
decline of Scientific American and especially the "amateur scientist"
column. When I was in high school in the early '70's I spent many lunch
hours in the school library pouring over back issues. One day in the late
'70's when I was kicking around NYC I stopped by their office and bought a
copy of Vol. One of Amateur Telescope Making. This was before they sold
the publishing rights. So with all of that as an introduction, here is my
question-

Does anyone know when Scientific American dropped the "amateur scientist"
column and more-or-less simultaneously began their slide into today's
relative mediocrity?

By the way, am I alone in this opinion?

thanks-

Dan Rea
Casper Wyoming
lots of clear nights, but how do you anchor your Meade tripod to withstand
60-mph gusts?

"DB Rea" wrote in message
...
The post about the 1905 telescope-making manual got me to reflecting on
the
decline of Scientific American and especially the "amateur scientist"
column. When I was in high school in the early '70's I spent many lunch
hours in the school library pouring over back issues. One day in the late
'70's when I was kicking around NYC I stopped by their office and bought a
copy of Vol. One of Amateur Telescope Making. This was before they sold
the publishing rights. So with all of that as an introduction, here is my
question-

Does anyone know when Scientific American dropped the "amateur scientist"
column and more-or-less simultaneously began their slide into today's
relative mediocrity?

By the way, am I alone in this opinion?

thanks-

Dan Rea
Casper Wyoming
lots of clear nights, but how do you anchor your Meade tripod to withstand
60-mph gusts?

Can't answer the question, but did you know that every column since it began
is available on CD?

DB Rea wrote:

Does anyone know when Scientific American dropped the "amateur scientist"
column and more-or-less simultaneously began their slide into today's
relative mediocrity?


There can be only one reason: Circulation. Did it work? Dunno!

Or ad revenue, of course.

It is now a paphlet, like Time. Some mags (In a feeble attempt to
appear normal) have
taken to reducing the width and height of the magazine so they can
maintain thickness.
Magazines are untimely and they are dying.

DB Rea wrote:

The post about the 1905 telescope-making manual got me to reflecting on the
decline of Scientific American and especially the "amateur scientist"
column. When I was in high school in the early '70's I spent many lunch
hours in the school library pouring over back issues. One day in the late
'70's when I was kicking around NYC I stopped by their office and bought a
copy of Vol. One of Amateur Telescope Making. This was before they sold
the publishing rights. So with all of that as an introduction, here is my
question-

Does anyone know when Scientific American dropped the "amateur scientist"
column and more-or-less simultaneously began their slide into today's
relative mediocrity?

By the way, am I alone in this opinion?

thanks-

Dan Rea
Casper Wyoming
lots of clear nights, but how do you anchor your Meade tripod to withstand
60-mph gusts?

The final column was March 2001.

The discontinuation of the Amateur Scientist column was one of the
great disasters of the 20th century.

If you doubt my opinion, show me what other resources to inspire and
nuture math and science in literature replaced it?

The answer : None.

I still mourn its passing.

TMT

DB Rea wrote:

Does anyone know when Scientific American dropped the "amateur scientist"
column and more-or-less simultaneously began their slide into today's
relative mediocrity?

I think it was sometime in the late 80's. Considering how good (at
least from the POV of a young nerd) the magazine was, it's drop to
'PopScience' status is all the more distressing.


By the way, am I alone in this opinion?

Not at all. I'm not clear on the exact year the magazine started it's
downward plunge, but I remember a good 1984 article on tornadoes. Other
memorable articles included Hans Bethe (!) writing about supernova
theory. From the early 90s on, the rag has been worthless, although it
seems to have improved slightly over the last year or so.

-Greg


--
"Stop throwing the Constitution in my face, it’s just a goddamned piece
of paper!" - George W. Bush.

On Sat, 14 Jan 2006 02:46:31 GMT, Phil Wheeler
wrote, in part:

There can be only one reason: Circulation. Did it work? Dunno!

They dropped their "Mathematical Games" column when Martin Gardner
retired.

As for "The Amateur Scientist", the author of that column has passed
away. If they could have found even a *near* replacement for him, they
would perhaps have had a new column with a similar title.

John Savard
http://www.quadibloc.com/index.html
_________________________________________
Usenet Zone Free Binaries Usenet Server
More than 140,000 groups
Unlimited download
http://www.usenetzone.com to open account

"Too_Many_Tools" wrote in message ups.com...
The discontinuation of the Amateur Scientist column was one of the
great disasters of the 20th century.
According to TMT the column was dropped
in the 21st Century.

--

Hilton Evans
---------------------------------------------------------------
Lon -71° 04' 35.3"
Lat +42° 11' 06.7"
---------------------------------------------------------------
Webcam Astroimaging
http://mysite.verizon.net/hiltonevan...troimaging.htm
---------------------------------------------------------------
ChemPen Chemical Structure Software
http://www.chempensoftware.com