02/08/97

Dear Dr. Kittel,

I am an undergraduate student at Sam Houston State University in Huntsville, Texas. Last semester I took the department's course on solid state physics using your book Introduction to Solid State Physics, seventh edition. While the book was quite useful in helping me grasp some of the concepts of solid state, I found a few problems with it, that although I'm sure they have already been brought to your attention, I felt it necessary to write to you about them.

In chapter two on page 49 your summary should contain the following correction:

and not:

as your summary was misprinted.

On page 122 in equation 25 the final set of parenthesis in the integral for U should be:

in which both the numerator and the denominator have ħs.

There are also two parts of your book that I have questions over the validity of your statements.

The first is on page 92 in problem number two. You state that the answer is 0.956 but yet my class found a slightly different answer. We found that the answer should in fact be:

We then determined that in order to get the answer you got of 0.956 we would have to incorrectly round the answer of:

down to 0.93 and not leave it at 0.936.

The other question I have is found on page 187 in equation 34. You have the limits of the integral going from 0 to 1 for the boundary conditions. Should this be integrated instead over the limit of 0 to a seeing as how a would be the periodic length and not 1? I am wondering if this and the previous part I have stated are actual mistakes or if I am the one making a mistake somewhere instead. Could you possibly clear this up for me?

Also, while these are not mistakes, I thought that they should be brought to your attention.

On page 171, in problem 10, you remind the reader that "1k is 103 ohms." While this is obviously quite true, my classmates and I feel that one who has just successfully "cranked out" the static magnetoconductivity tensor in the previous problem should be far enough along in physics to realize your statement without having to be reminded that the prefix kilo is indeed 103.

It is almost insulting to our abilities that you continued along with this obviousness on page 177 when you reminded the reader that "A wave that travels neither to the right nor to the left is a standing wave: it doesn't go anywhere." Again, those who have made it far enough in their pursuit of a physics degree to take this course should not have to be reminded of the definition of a standing wave.

One other such statement I have noticed is on page 191 is where you state that "The mark over the K is called a tilde." While I will admit that the tilde is a lesser known symbol, it should not make a difference as to what the symbol is called, only what it represents.

Dr. Kittel, in no way am I trying to tell you how you should write your books, especially in the last few sections I have mentioned. Far be it from me to tell someone who can run circles around my knowledge what to do. I just hoped to point out a few suggestions to help make the eventual eighth edition or your book a bit better.

With much regard.

Sincerely,

Eric L. Roberts III

1235 Josey #282

Huntsville, TX 77340

stdelr01@unx1.shsu.eu