It appears that in the early 1940's the general classroom treatment of accelerations was at a level well below the existing knowledge of the subject, for in a series of articles by two teachers at Purdue attention was called to the serious consequences of errors in acceleration analysis occasioned by omitting the Coriolis component.[116] These authors were reversing a trend that had been given impetus by an article written in 1920 by one of their predecessors, Henry N. Bonis. The earlier article, appearing in a practical-and-proud-of-it technical magazine, demonstrated how the acceleration of a point on a flywheel governor might be determined "without the use of the fictitious acceleration of Coriolis." The author's analysis was right enough, and he closed his article with the unimpeachable statement that "it is better psychologically for the student and practically for the engineer to understand the fundamentals thoroughly than to use a complex formula that may be misapplied." However, many readers undoubtedly read only the lead paragraph, sagely nodded their heads when they reached the word "fictitious," which confirmed their half-formed conviction that anything as abstruse as the Coriolis component could have no bearing upon a practical problem, and turned the page to the "practical kinks" section.[117] [Footnote 116: A. S. Hall and E. S. Ault, "How Acceleration Analysis Can Be Improved," _Machine Design_, February 1943, vol. 15, pp. 100-102, 162, 164; and March 1943, vol. 15, pp. 90-92, 168, 170. See also A. S. Hall, "Teaching Coriolis' Law," _Journal of Engineering Education_, June 1948, vol. 38, pp. 757-765.] [Footnote 117: Henry N. Bonis, "The Law of Coriolis," _American Machinist_, November 18, 1920, vol. 53, pp. 928-930. See also "Acceleration Determinations," _American Machinist_, November 25 and December 2, 1920, vol. 53, pp. 977-981 and 1027-1029.] Less than 20 years ago one might have read in _Mechanical Engineering_ that "Practical machinery does not originate in mathematical formulas nor in beautiful vector diagrams." While this remark was in a letter evoked by an article, and was not a reflection of editorial policy, it was nevertheless representative of an element in the American tradition of engineering. The unconscious arrogance that is displayed in this statement of the "practical" designer's creed is giving way to recognition of the value of scholarly work. Lest the scholar develop arrogance of another sort, however, it is well to hear the author of the statement out. "A drafting machine is a useful tool," he wrote. "It is not a substitute for a draftsman."[118] [Footnote 118: _Mechanical Engineering_, October 1942, vol. 64, p. 746.]