Red Pen: finished reviewed

Page 11 of the quicksilver run. An honest marking of pages 1–10: what holds, what doesn't, what's sourced and what's invented.

READINGThe critique below is my judgement. The counts and the meter are computed from the table on this page.

next red marksort by severityshow every mark

Across the run

Works. Every number in the LIT boxes was checked this run against a fetched source (NIST, Calvo et al. 2013, Wikipedia/Mendeleev 1871, McCrone 2009, Royal Mint/Oxford, the Chymistry project, mathpages/IOP for the anagram). The pages compute their claims live (letter recount, anagram test, capillary length, Sellmeier n_d, the 42.98″ formula) rather than asserting them. The anagram page found a real flaw in a famous string (9 t's vs 8), and the Jeova page found a transcribed phrase that is not an exact anagram.

Weak. The relativistic melt is the softest: its toy crystal is not calibrated to melt at 250 K or 355 K; only the well-depth ratio is real. The hair assay leans on a secondary summary (S. Afr. J. Sci. 1979), not the paywalled tables of the original paper. The star regulus uses DLA, which looks right but is not how antimony crystallises. The Mint and Bucket dynamics (clipping rates, coupling time) are invented parameters. Two pages (Experimentum Crucis, the Bucket) put mercury where Newton didn't: a Hg lamp and a quicksilver bucket are anachronisms, and they are flagged.

Unverified. The author and year of the later reply "Newton's illness of 1692-3" was not confirmed; the exact per-sample ppm in Spargo & Pounds was not read from the original; the Babson MS 1006 phrases were taken from the Chymistry project's web transcription, not the manuscript image.

Next time. Read the Spargo & Pounds tables at source; a Trial of the Pyx assay page; the liquid-mercury telescope (a rotating paraboloid mirror, linking the bucket page to astronomy); Newton's Opticks Queries 31; real antimony crystal habits instead of DLA.