Methods of Analytical Dynamics / Edition 1

Hardcover (Print)
Used and New from Other Sellers
Used and New from Other Sellers
from $41.99
Usually ships in 1-2 business days
(Save 65%)
Other sellers (Hardcover)
  • All (5) from $41.99   
  • New (2) from $94.78   
  • Used (3) from $41.99   
Sort by
Page 1 of 1
Showing All
Note: Marketplace items are not eligible for any coupons and promotions
Seller since 2008

Feedback rating:



New — never opened or used in original packaging.

Like New — packaging may have been opened. A "Like New" item is suitable to give as a gift.

Very Good — may have minor signs of wear on packaging but item works perfectly and has no damage.

Good — item is in good condition but packaging may have signs of shelf wear/aging or torn packaging. All specific defects should be noted in the Comments section associated with each item.

Acceptable — item is in working order but may show signs of wear such as scratches or torn packaging. All specific defects should be noted in the Comments section associated with each item.

Used — An item that has been opened and may show signs of wear. All specific defects should be noted in the Comments section associated with each item.

Refurbished — A used item that has been renewed or updated and verified to be in proper working condition. Not necessarily completed by the original manufacturer.

0070414556 New. Looks like an interesting title!

Ships from: Naperville, IL

Usually ships in 1-2 business days

  • Standard, 48 States
  • Standard (AK, HI)
Seller since 2014

Feedback rating:


Condition: New
Brand New Item.

Ships from: Chatham, NJ

Usually ships in 1-2 business days

  • Canadian
  • International
  • Standard, 48 States
  • Standard (AK, HI)
  • Express, 48 States
  • Express (AK, HI)
Page 1 of 1
Showing All
Sort by


A balanced presentation that encompasses both formalism and structure in analytical dynamics, this text also addresses solution methods. Its remarkably broad and comprehensive exploration of the subject employs an approach as natural as it is logical. In addition to material usually covered in graduate courses in dynamics and nonlinear mechanics, Methods of Analytical Dynamics presents selected modern applications. Contents include discussions of fundamentals of Newtonian and analytical mechanics, motion relative to rotating reference frames, rigid body dynamics, behavior of dynamical systems, geometric theory, stability of multi-degree-of-freedom autonomous and nonautonomous systems, and analytical solutions by perturbation techniques. Later chapters cover transformation theory, the Hamilton-Jacobi equation, theory and applications of the gyroscope, and problems in celestial mechanics and spacecraft dynamics. Two helpful appendixes offer additional information on dyadics and elements of topology and modern analysis.
Read More Show Less

Product Details

  • ISBN-13: 9780070414556
  • Publisher: McGraw-Hill Higher Education
  • Publication date: 1/28/1970
  • Edition description: New Edition
  • Edition number: 1
  • Pages: 485

Read an Excerpt

Methods of Analytical Dynamics

By Leonard Meirovitch

Dover Publications, Inc.

Copyright © 1998 Leonard Meirovitch
All rights reserved.
ISBN: 978-0-486-13759-9


Fundamentals of Newtonian Mechanics

The oldest and most fundamental part of physics is concerned with the equilibrium and motion of material bodies. Problems of mechanics attracted the attention of such pioneers of physics as Aristotle and Archimedes. Although the field of classical mechanics is based on only a few fundamental ideas, it has inspired the creation of a large and elegant portion of mathematical analysis. The basic concepts of mechanics are space, time, and mass (or, alternately, force). These concepts are familiar from earlier encounters with the subject of dynamics, but we shall attempt to bring their meaning into sharper focus. To this end, a historical account of the development of mechanics will prove rewarding.


The development of mechanics can be traced to the development of geometry, kinematics, and dynamics. By far the simplest and most widely used geometry is the geometry of Euclid. A Euclidean space is a space in which the length of a vector is defined by the Pythagorean theorem, according to which the length of the vector squared is equal to the sum of the vector components squared. The parallel and congruence postulates hold, so that Euclidean geometry is ideally suited for the study of the motion of a rigid body. The metrical structure of Euclidean space is homogeneous and isotropic, hence independent of the distribution of matter in the space. As a result, there is complete relativity of position or orientation in that space. A more general geometry, still consistent with the congruence concept, is the geometry of Riemann, which represents an extension of the two-dimensional geometry of curved surfaces developed by Gauss. By contrast with Euclidean geometry, in Riemannian geometry the space properties, as reflected by the metric coefficients, can vary from point to point. In such a geometry there is no longer relativity of position. Euclidean geometry was generally accepted as the framework of Newtonian mechanics. By means of a certain transformation, the concepts of Euclidean geometry could be extended to accommodate Einstein's special relativity theory, and it was not until the development of Einstein's general relativity, or gravitational, theory that Euclidean geometry was abandoned in favor of the more general Riemannian geometry.

Kinematics is concerned with the motion of material bodies, and, for this reason, it is sometimes referred to as the geometry of motion. But motion has meaning only when measured relative to a system of reference, which requires a well-defined system of coordinates and a time-measuring device. In Newtonian mechanics it is assumed that there exists an absolute space which is Euclidean and an absolute time whose flow is independent of the space. Since Euclidean space is homogeneous and isotropic, we must conclude that there is no preferred position or orientation, hence no preferred coordinate system. To measure the time at a certain point, an observer may choose any periodic phenomenon, such as the vibration of a tuning fork. With what is generally referred to as a clock, the question of synchronizing the clock with observers at other points remains. The local time can be extended to other observers by means of signals possessing infinite speed, provided such signals exist.

The study of dynamics considers the motion of material bodies under the influence of the surroundings. The question can be posed whether in the absence of interacting surroundings there exists a natural state of motion for a body. Aristotle explored the idea that there exists a frame of reference such that the natural state for any body is a state of rest with respect to that frame. Indeed, he believed that there was a natural place, namely, the center of the earth, toward which each body was striving and which it approached if no obstacles were encountered. Motion was regarded as starting from rest under the influence of "efficient causes" and determined by "final causes," which implies that once the motion was initiated, the body had a tendency to reach the natural place. Aristotle believed that wherever there was motion there must be a force, with the exception of bodies that moved themselves. This seems to imply that the law of motion he considered can be expressed in terms of modern concepts in the form mass × velocity = force. However, he was still puzzled by the observation that the motion of a body continued even when the source of motion was no longer in contact with the body. Although the notion of a natural place may have had a certain intuitive appeal in ancient Greece, when the earth was believed to be the center of things with the planets moving in circular orbits around it, this idea became questionable when Copernicus showed that the planets were really moving around the sun and not the earth, thus placing the sun at the center. Of course, later it became apparent that the sun did not occupy such a preferred position either, as it could be regarded as but one star among many in the universe. At this point we should recall that the idea of a natural position is in conflict with the concept of a Euclidean space. Aristotle's researches concerning the motion of bodies must be considered a complete failure as no unique frame of reference for velocity is possible.

The first step toward placing the study of dynamics on a truly scientific foundation was taken by Galileo. He set the study of the motion of bodies on the right track by developing the concept of acceleration. Galileo's investigation of falling objects led him to the observation that it is a fallacy to assume that wherever there is motion there must be a force. Indeed he concluded that force causes a change in velocity but no force is necessary to maintain a motion in which the magnitude and direction of the velocity does not change. This is basically the statement of Galileo's law of inertia. The measure of the tendency of a body to resist a change in its uniform motion is known as the mass or inertia of the body. Galileo also observed that while the acceleration is constant, the velocity varies with time for freely falling bodies, so that deviations from a state of rest or uniform motion must be attributed to the influence of other bodies. He recognized that the laws of motion are not affected by uniform motion, so that not only was there no natural position in space but there was no favored velocity of the reference frame either. Thus Galileo showed that there indeed exist preferred reference systems in which a body will move with uniform velocity or remain in a state of rest unless acted upon by external forces. Such a homogeneous and isotropic reference frame is referred to as an inertial space or Galilean reference frame. The inertial system is either at rest or translates with uniform velocity relative to a fixed space. If two systems move uniformly relative to each other, and if one of the systems is inertial, then the other system is also inertial. In fact there is an infinity of inertial frames translating uniformly relative to one another. The properties of space and time are the same and the laws of mechanics are identical in all these frames. This is the essence of Galileo's principle of relativity. It is impossible from observations of mechanical phenomena to detect a uniform motion relative to an inertial space. The relations between the motions expressed in terms of two inertial systems are known as Galilean transformations.

Newton expanded on the ideas of Galileo and toward the end of the seventeenth century formulated what have come to be known as Newton's laws of motion. In fact Newton's first law is simply Galileo's law of inertia. Recognizing that Galileo's results reflected the fact that the gravity force is constant in the vicinity of the earth's surface, Newton generalized these results by admitting variable forces as well. Moreover, Newton applied his laws to the motion of celestial bodies. In the process, he developed his law of gravitation, helped by his correct interpretation of Kepler's planetary laws. Newton's laws of motion assume the simplest form when referred to an inertial system, and, to this end, Newton introduced the notion of absolute space relative to which every motion should be measured. He proposed as an absolute space a coordinate system attached to the distant "fixed stars." Newton's fundamental equations are invariant under Galilean transformations, but this invariance does not hold for transformations involving accelerated reference frames. If we insist on treating mechanical phenomena in accelerated systems, we must introduce fictitious forces, such as centrifugal and Coriolis forces. These fictitious forces are strictly of a kinematical nature and appear when the motion is expressed in terms of rotating coordinate systems. According to Newton, the time is absolute and independent of space, which is another way of saying that the time is the same in any two inertial systems. Moreover, if there are forces exerted by one body upon another which depend only on the relative positions of the bodies, these forces are assumed to propagate instantaneously. Because the time is the same for all inertial frames, the concept of simultaneity presents no difficulty; i.e., if two events are observed to occur simultaneously by one observer traveling with one inertial frame, then the events occur simultaneously for all other inertial observers.

If the principle of relativity is to be valid for all fields of physics, including electrodynamics, then, among other things, the velocity of propagation of light waves, which according to Maxwell's theory of light are special electromagnetic waves, should be the same for all inertial observers. This turns out to be in conflict with the results predicted by observers whose motion with respect to one another are related by means of Galilean transformations. To show this, let us consider two inertial frames translating uniformly with respect to one another and assume that at the origin of one of the systems there is a source emitting light waves in the form of spherical waves centered at the origin and propagating with the speed c. Denoting a unit vector in the radial direction by ur, we can write the velocity of light as seen by an observer traveling with the light source in the form cur. If a second inertial system is moving uniformly with velocity v with respect to the first, and if a Galilean transformation is used, we conclude that an observer on the second system will observe a light velocity curv, which is no longer equal in every direction. Hence for that observer the waves do not appear spherical. This, however, is in contradiction with the experimental evidence. Indeed the celebrated experiments performed by Michelson and Morley showed that the velocity of light is the same in all directions and does not depend on the relative motion of the observer and the source. Hence we must conclude that the Galilean transformation cannot be correct and should be replaced by a transformation preserving the constancy of the velocity of light in all systems. Such a transformation, known as the Lorentz transformation, is applicable to both mechanical and electromagnetic phenomena.

By the latter part of the nineteenth century the wave theory of light was set on a firm foundation by the researches of Faraday, Maxwell, and Hertz in electromagnetic field theory. According to this theory, light waves are simply electromagnetic waves propagating with constant velocity relative to an absolute space. But, in contrast with the equations of Newtonian mechanics, Maxwell's equations turned out not to be invariant under Galilean transformations. Indeed Maxwell insisted that the fundamental equations of electrodynamics were valid only in a unique privileged reference frame, known as the "luminiferous ether." By analogy with waves in gases and elastic solids, it was believed that the electromagnetic waves also needed a medium to propagate. The ether, imagined as an elastic medium permeating all transparent bodies, was assumed to be the carrier of all optical and electromagnetic phenomena. This elastic medium was supposed to provide an absolute reference frame for the electromagnetic phenomena in the same way that Newton's absolute space provided a reference frame for mechanical phenomena. As the ether was only a hypothesis, the need to produce conclusive proof of its existence remained. Because the earth was presumed to move relative to the ether at a certain velocity v, and since the speed of light c relative to the ether was supposed to be constant, it was anticipated that at least sometime during the year the speed of light relative to the earth should be different from c. If a ray of light is reflected from a mirror a distance L away from a light source, and if the source and the mirror are aligned with the direction of motion of the earth relative to the ether, then the time needed for the ray to return to the source has the value


Hence, in order to demonstrate the motion of the earth relative to the ether, an apparatus capable of detecting quantities of order (v/c)2 is necessary. In 1881 Michelson performed an experiment by means of an interferometer capable of detecting an effect much smaller than the anticipated one, but he could find no such effect. In 1887 Michelson and Morley repeated the experiment, using a more accurate apparatus, but the experiment again failed to detect the existence of the ether. However, it did demonstrate with a large degree of accuracy that the speed of light is the same in every direction, independent of the motion of the source. In an attempt to explain the experiment's failure to detect the motion of the earth relative to the ether, Fitzgerald advanced a hypothesis according to which a body contracts in the direction of motion. For a rod whose original length in the direction of motion is /0 the length contracts to l= l0 [1–(υ/c)2]|½ during motion. This contraction hypothesis was adopted by Lorentz, who generalized it by introducing a set of transformations rendering electromagnetic and optical phenomena independent of uniform motion of the system. In particular, he introduced a variable time, known as the local time because it differs from system to system. This amounted to a dilatation of the time scale. The difference between the Lorentzian and the Galilean transformations is of the order (υ/c)2. Although Lorentz realized that to account for the constancy of the light velocity a new kinematics, namely, the Lorentzian kinematics, was necessary, he did not question the validity of the classical principle of relativity, nor did he abandon the ether theory. In fact, the entire purpose of his transformations was to save the ether concept by providing an explanation for the failure of the experiments to detect uniform motion through the ether.

At about the same time, Poincaré also developed a set of transformations similar to the Lorentz transformation and achieving the same purpose, namely, rendering electromagnetic and optical phenomena independent of uniform motion of the reference frame. Both Lorentz and Poincaré realized that, as a result of these transformations, Maxwell's equations could be expressed in an infinite number of inertial systems, but Lorentz continued to believe that one of these systems represented the ether at rest. Poincaré, however, went one step further by recognizing that the mathematical equivalence of the inertial reference systems for the electromagnetic phenomena represented a new relativity principle. In fact, he proposed this principle as a general law of nature and suggested that the laws of mechanics be modified to conform to this law. However, he never understood the full physical implication of this relativity principle and regarded the transformation purely as a mathematical device. He did not take the important step of making the relativity principle independent of its derivation from the Maxwell equations.

Lorentz and Poincaré made a giant stride toward providing a new description of the physical world, basing that description on sound facts observed by means of reliable experiments rather than basing it on unproved hypotheses. However, they both failed to appreciate the far-reaching implications of their transformations. It remained for Einstein to demonstrate that the principle of relativity and the Lorentz transformation raised questions about the very fundamental concepts, such as the ether and absolute space, which were being assumed. Einstein proposed in 1905 to build new principles based on experimental evidence. He advanced two postulates:

1. The laws of nature (including the laws of mechanics and electrodynamics) are the same in all inertial frames.

2. The velocity of light has the same value for all inertial systems, independent of the velocity of the light source.

The two postulates form the basis of Einstein's special theory of relativity. Although the two postulates appear to be contradictory, Einstein showed that they can coexist if the concept of absolute time is discarded and time is added as a fourth coordinate to the three Euclidean spatial coordinates. Einstein did retain the Lorentz transformation, but it must be pointed out that he derived the corresponding equations from the general point of view of the principle of relativity. Later Minkowski concluded that the new Einsteinian kinematics, in which the space and time are inseparable, leads to a new geometrical structure consisting of a four-dimensional space formed by the ordinary space and time. This space-time world is referred to as world space or Minkowski space. It turns out that the Lorentz transformation is simply the orthogonal transformation of Minkowski space. The new relativity principle does not do away with Galilean inertial frames. On the other hand, by revising the time concept and relating the inertial reference frames by means of Lorentz transformations, Einstein succeeded in providing a common basis for the treatment of both mechanical and electromagnetic phenomena. Overwhelming experimental evidence corroborates the conclusions of special relativity.


Excerpted from Methods of Analytical Dynamics by Leonard Meirovitch. Copyright © 1998 Leonard Meirovitch. Excerpted by permission of Dover Publications, Inc..
All rights reserved. No part of this excerpt may be reproduced or reprinted without permission in writing from the publisher.
Excerpts are provided by Dial-A-Book Inc. solely for the personal use of visitors to this web site.

Read More Show Less

Table of Contents

Preface vii
Chapter 1 Fundamentals of Newtonian Mechanics 1
1.1 Historical Survey of Mechanics 1
1.2 Newton's Laws 9
1.3 Impulse and Momentum 12
1.4 Moment of a Force and Angular Momentum 12
1.5 Work and Energy 14
1.6 Energy Diagrams 17
1.7 Systems of Particles 21
1.8 The Two-Body Central Force Problem 25
1.9 The Inverse Square Law. Orbits of Planets and Satellites 30
1.10 Scattering by a Repulsive Central Force 37
Problems 40
Suggested References 44
Chapter 2 Fundamentals of Analytical Mechanics 45
2.1 Degrees of Freedom. Generalized Coordinates 46
2.2 Systems with Constraints 48
2.3 The Stationary Value of a Function 53
2.4 The Stationary Value of a Definite Integral 55
2.5 The Principle of Virtual Work 59
2.6 D'Alembert's Principle 65
2.7 Hamilton's Principle 66
2.8 Lagrange's Equations of Motion 72
2.9 Lagrange's Equations for Impulsive Forces 79
2.10 Conservation Laws 82
2.11 Routh's Method for the Ignoration of Coordinates 85
2.12 Rayleigh's Dissipation Function 88
2.13 Hamilton's Equations 91
Problems 97
Suggested References 100
Chapter 3 Motion Relative to Rotating Reference Frames 101
3.1 Transformation of Coordinates 102
3.2 Rotating Coordinate Systems 104
3.3 Expressions for the Motion in Terms of Moving Reference Frames 110
3.4 Motion Relative to the Rotating Earth 112
3.5 Motion of a Free Particle Relative to the Rotating Earth 114
3.6 Foucault's Pendulum 116
Problems 119
Suggested References 121
Chapter 4 Rigid Body Dynamics 122
4.1 Kinematics of a Rigid Body 123
4.2 The Linear and Angular Momentum of a Rigid Body 126
4.3 Translation Theorem for the Angular Momentum 130
4.4 The Kinetic Energy of a Rigid Body 132
4.5 Principal Axes 134
4.6 The Equations of Motion for a Rigid Body 137
4.7 Euler's Equations of Motion 138
4.8 Euler's Angles 140
4.9 Moment-Free Inertially Symmetric Body 143
4.10 General Case of a Moment-Free Body 147
4.11 Motion of a Symmetric Top 149
4.12 The Lagrangian Equations for Quasi-Coordinates 157
4.13 The Equations of Motion Referred to an Arbitrary System of Axes 160
4.14 The Rolling of a Coin 162
Problems 164
Suggested References 169
Chapter 5 Behavior of Dynamical Systems. Geometric Theory 170
5.1 Fundamental Concepts 171
5.2 Motion of Single-Degree-of-Freedom Autonomous Systems about Equilibrium Points 178
5.3 Conservative Systems. Motion in the Large 189
5.4 The Index of Poincare 195
5.5 Limit Cycles of Poincare 198
Problems 206
Suggested References 208
Chapter 6 Stability of Multi-Degree-of-Freedom Autonomous Systems 209
6.1 General Linear Systems 210
6.2 Linear Autonomous Systems 217
6.3 Stability of Linear Autonomous Systems. Routh-Hurwitz Criterion 222
6.4 The Variational Equations 225
6.5 Theorem on the First-Approximation Stability 226
6.6 Variation from Canonical Systems. Constant Coefficients 229
6.7 The Liapunov Direct Method 231
6.8 Geometric Interpretation of the Liapunov Direct Method 239
6.9 Stability of Canonical Systems 243
6.10 Stability in the Presence of Gyroscopic and Dissipative Forces 252
6.11 Construction of Liapunov Functions for Linear Autonomous Systems 258
Problems 260
Suggested References 262
Chapter 7 Nonautonomous Systems 263
7.1 Linear Systems with Periodic Coefficients. Floquet's Theory 264
7.2 Stability of Variational Equations with Periodic Coefficients 271
7.3 Orbital Stability 272
7.4 Variation from Canonical Systems. Periodic Coefficients 273
7.5 Second-Order Systems with Periodic Coefficients 277
7.6 Hill's Infinite Determinant 280
7.7 Mathieu's Equation 282
7.8 The Liapunov Direct Method 288
Suggested References 292
Chapter 8 Analytical Solutions by Perturbation Techniques 293
8.1 The Fundamental Perturbation Technique 294
8.2 Secular Terms 297
8.3 Lindstedt's Method 299
8.4 The Krylov-Bogoliubov-Mitropolsky (KBM) Method 302
8.5 A Perturbation Technique Based on Hill's Determinants 309
8.6 Periodic Solutions of Nonautonomous Systems. Duffing's Equation 313
8.7 The Method of Averaging 322
Problems 327
Suggested References 328
Chapter 9 Transformation Theory. The Hamilton-Jacobi Equation 329
9.1 The Principle of Least Action 330
9.2 Contact Transformations 334
9.3 Further Extensions of the Concept of Contact Transformations 339
9.4 Integral Invariants 346
9.5 The Lagrange and Poisson Brackets 349
9.6 Infinitesimal Contact Transformations 352
9.7 The Hamilton-Jacobi Equation 355
9.8 Separable Systems 361
9.9 Action and Angle Variables 365
9.10 Perturbation Theory 372
Problems 378
Suggested References 380
Chapter 10 The Gyroscope: Theory and Applications 381
10.1 Oscillations of a Symmetric Gyroscope 382
10.2 Effect of Gimbal Inertia on the Motion of a Free Gyroscope 386
10.3 Effect of Rotor Shaft Flexibility on the Frequency of Oscillation of a Free Gyroscope 389
10.4 The Gyrocompass 393
10.5 The Gyropendulum. Schuler Tuning 398
10.6 Rate and Integrating Gyroscopes 403
Problems 406
Suggested References 407
Chapter 11 Problems in Celestial Mechanics 408
11.1 Kepler's Equation. Orbit Determination 409
11.2 The Many-Body Problem 413
11.3 The Three-Body Problem 416
11.4 The Restricted Three-Body Problem 420
11.5 Stability of Motion Near the Lagrangian Points 425
11.6 The Equations of Relative Motion. Disturbing Function 428
11.7 Gravitational Potential and Torques for an Arbitrary Body 430
11.8 Precession and Nutation of the Earth's Polar Axis 438
11.9 Variation of the Orbital Elements 442
11.10 The Resolution of the Disturbing Function 447
Problems 450
Suggested References 451
Chapter 12 Problems in Spacecraft Dynamics 452
12.1 Transfer Orbits. Changes in the Orbital Elements Due to a Small Impulse 453
12.2 Perturbations of a Satellite Orbit in the Gravitational Field of an Oblate Planet 457
12.3 The Effect of Atmospheric Drag on Satellite Orbits 463
12.4 The Attitude Motion of Orbiting Satellites. General Considerations 466
12.5 The Attitude Stability of Earth-Pointing Satellites 470
12.6 The Attitude Stability of Spinning Symmetrical Satellites 475
12.7 Variable-Mass Systems 483
12.8 Rocket Dynamics 487
Problems 491
Suggested References 492
Appendix A Dyadics 494
Appendix B Elements of Topology and Modern Analysis 497
B.1 Sets and Functions 498
B.2 Metric Spaces 501
B.3 Topological Spaces 504
Suggested References 506
Name Index 507
Subject Index 511
Read More Show Less

Customer Reviews

Be the first to write a review
( 0 )
Rating Distribution

5 Star


4 Star


3 Star


2 Star


1 Star


Your Rating:

Your Name: Create a Pen Name or

Barnes & Review Rules

Our reader reviews allow you to share your comments on titles you liked, or didn't, with others. By submitting an online review, you are representing to Barnes & that all information contained in your review is original and accurate in all respects, and that the submission of such content by you and the posting of such content by Barnes & does not and will not violate the rights of any third party. Please follow the rules below to help ensure that your review can be posted.

Reviews by Our Customers Under the Age of 13

We highly value and respect everyone's opinion concerning the titles we offer. However, we cannot allow persons under the age of 13 to have accounts at or to post customer reviews. Please see our Terms of Use for more details.

What to exclude from your review:

Please do not write about reviews, commentary, or information posted on the product page. If you see any errors in the information on the product page, please send us an email.

Reviews should not contain any of the following:

  • - HTML tags, profanity, obscenities, vulgarities, or comments that defame anyone
  • - Time-sensitive information such as tour dates, signings, lectures, etc.
  • - Single-word reviews. Other people will read your review to discover why you liked or didn't like the title. Be descriptive.
  • - Comments focusing on the author or that may ruin the ending for others
  • - Phone numbers, addresses, URLs
  • - Pricing and availability information or alternative ordering information
  • - Advertisements or commercial solicitation


  • - By submitting a review, you grant to Barnes & and its sublicensees the royalty-free, perpetual, irrevocable right and license to use the review in accordance with the Barnes & Terms of Use.
  • - Barnes & reserves the right not to post any review -- particularly those that do not follow the terms and conditions of these Rules. Barnes & also reserves the right to remove any review at any time without notice.
  • - See Terms of Use for other conditions and disclaimers.
Search for Products You'd Like to Recommend

Recommend other products that relate to your review. Just search for them below and share!

Create a Pen Name

Your Pen Name is your unique identity on It will appear on the reviews you write and other website activities. Your Pen Name cannot be edited, changed or deleted once submitted.

Your Pen Name can be any combination of alphanumeric characters (plus - and _), and must be at least two characters long.

Continue Anonymously

    If you find inappropriate content, please report it to Barnes & Noble
    Why is this product inappropriate?
    Comments (optional)