Rules of thumb for physical scientists Book

Don't let the title fool you. This is 95% chemistry, and maybe 10% physics (5% where the two overlap). Still, it's sort of useful for a (condensed matter) physicist, though not as useful as a number of other standard resources, and practically useless in general for most physicists. I'd imagine if I were a chemist this would be a very important resource. But as a particle physicist this pales in comparison to something like the PDG I get in the mail every 2 years for free. On one hand, I probably wouldn't be so harsh on this if "Physics" wasn't in the title. On the other hand, I wouldn't even own it if "Physics" wasn't in the title. So since this shit cost me well over a hundred bucks I'm not about to baby it with some kind of even-handed review from a non-physicist perspective. As its title demands, it requires the perspective of chemists and physicists both. Don't put physics in the title of your book if it doesn't make up a bulk of the contents. I got this probably seven or so years ago, so I'm not bothered by its useless contents any longer. I just look at it on the shelf every now and then, frowning and shaking my head every time I see "Physics" in the title. If you're a physicist you'll find this useless, unless you're in the field of condensed matter or molecular physics. And then, only if your work heavily overlaps with chemistry.