Page talk:Experimental Determination of the Velocity of Light (1878 manuscript)/6

handwriting sloppier on this page
Michelson's very consistent, neat, legible, slightly ornate script deteriorates slightly in a few spots on this page, as if he were tiring (perhaps copying from a first draft?). It is still very clear on the whole. --Mike O&#39;D 04:17, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

unusual presentation of "d"
In the third line, the "d" at the end of "painted" is peculiar. It is slightly separated from the "e", and it has a complete loop at the lower right, which I have not seen in any other terminal "d". Many of the terminal "d"s have a flourish to the right at the top of the up stroke, and no down stroke on the stem. They look rather like greek delta. Several terminal "d"s on this page lack the flourish, and have a downward loop on the vertical instead. I can't see any sensible alternative to reading a "d" here. I see a slight possibility that Michelson started to write "painte of", then converted "of" to the terminal "d". --Mike O&#39;D 04:23, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

"Keith" is questionable
The name "Keith" at the end of the 10th line of text might be questioned. The stem of the "h" is crossed through in a single stroke with the "t", and the lower part of the "h", which is somewhat obscured by the tail of the "f" on the line above, closes on itself, so that one might read "Keitto". But Michelson's "t" crossings are quite variable in length, and typically placed too far to the right (often above the letter after the "t"). I'm pretty sure that "Keith" is the name of a physicist who could be credited for this design. In the end, I'm pretty confident that "Keith" represents both the intention and the execution better than any alternative. --Mike O&#39;D 04:27, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

obscure "o" in "on"
In the 2d last line, the first word, "on" has a sloppy and indistinct "o". My best judgement is that it is a correctly spelled "on", with a slip of the pen. --Mike O&#39;D 04:29, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Michelson may have changed spelling of "leveling"
In the 2d last line, just two words after the sloppy initial "on", the word "leveling" looks as though it may have been originally written "levelling", and then changed. My dictionary supports both spellings, but my spell checker likes the double "ll". Anyway, there is enough space between "l" and "i" to have a second "l", the connection is slightly broken and not colinear, and there is some scratching or smearing of the ink line at the end of the "l" and the beginning of the "i". I think I see a very faint loop that could have been a rubbed-out second "l", but it is closer to the "i" than other "li" pairs show. One possibility: Michelson wrote "levell", then scratched out the second "l", then added "ing". --Mike O&#39;D 04:35, 13 March 2008 (UTC)