[Vo]:a fine Cold Fusion paper:
Dear Readers, Yiannis Hadjichristos has just called my attention to the following paper, a real double rara avis: - it is published in a peer reviewed journal; - it clearly opts for a multi-stage theory, interdisciplinar approach. It is Potential Exploration of Cold Fusion and Its Quantitative Theory of Physical-Chemical-Nuclear Multistage Chain Reaction Mechanism Yi-Fang Chang, Department of Physics, Yunnan University, Kunming, 650091, China International Journal of Modern Chemistry, 2013, 5(1): 29-43 Link: http://modernscientificpress.com/Journals/ViewArticle.aspx?H86Z5Noa2iKDNvH/0wRKWsOkhiUQ7RBfa/R/b49cNQN2PlFJKdv27fx5aFa7XQKO ** Abstract: Abstract: Cold fusion is very important and complex. One of main difficulties of cold fusion is the explanation on appearance of nuclear reaction. Based on the standard quantum mechanics, we propose the physical-chemical-nuclear multistage chain reaction theory,which may explain cold fusion. Since cold fusion is an open system, synergetics and laser theory can be applied, and the Fokker-Planck equation is obtained. Using the corresponding Schrödinger equation and the nonlinear Dirac equation, and combining the multistage chain reaction theory, the quantitative results agree completely with some experiments on cold fusion. Finally, we discuss some new researches, for example, the nonlinear quantum theory, catalyzer and nanomaterial, etc., and propose the three laws of cold fusion: (1) The time accumulate law, (2) The area direct ratio law, and (3) The multistage chain reaction law. -- There are some striking similarities with the DGT-AXIL approach to understand LENR+/HENI as: 1. Open system definition of the NAE 2. Complexity of multistage fusion fission process 3. The 3 laws, indicating a path to plasmonics Eppur si muove - it is progress in Cold Fusion- marching away from its Cradle! Peter -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
Re: [Vo]:a fine Cold Fusion paper:
From: Peter Gluck peter.gl...@gmail.com Sent: Friday, August 16, 2013 12:08:01 AM Dear Readers, Yiannis Hadjichristos has just called my attention to the following paper, a real double rara avis: - it is published in a peer reviewed journal; - it clearly opts for a multi-stage theory, interdisciplinar approach. It is Potential Exploration of Cold Fusion and Its Quantitative Theory of Physical-Chemical-Nuclear Multistage Chain Reaction Mechanism Yi-Fang Chang, Department of Physics, Yunnan University, Kunming, 650091, China International Journal of Modern Chemistry, 2013, 5(1): 29-43 Link: http://modernscientificpress.com/Journals/ViewArticle.aspx?H86Z5Noa2iKDNvH/0wRKWsOkhiUQ7RBfa/R/b49cNQN2PlFJKdv27fx5aFa7XQKO Lomax isn't so sure : http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/newvortex/message/598 I had a bad feeling when I read this. Peer-reviewed journal. The journal is an on-line publication. Authors pay to have their papers published. See http://modernscientificpress.com/About.aspx For the article in context in the journal, see http://modernscientificpress.com/Journals/IJMChem.aspx -- this currently displays Current Issue: Vol. 5 No. 1. Just before this article, in the current issue of The International Journal of Modern Chemistry, is an article titled Analysis of the Chemical Constituents of Dried Faeces of Goats for Their Potential Use as Manure. So the article being published in this journal means that it's classified with goat feces. Not promising. Here is the editorial board for IJMC: http://modernscientificpress.com/Journals/IJMChem.aspx I don't have specific information on the standards and practice of IJMC. However, that this paper has been published in such a peer-reviewed journal is essentially meaningless. The publisher is Modern Scientific Press. Weston, Florida. I found this discussion of Modern Scientific Press: http://ask.metafilter.com/220971/Is-Modern-Scientific-Press-legit There is a general article on the open access problem at http://www.nature.com/news/predatory-publishers-are-corrupting-open-access-1.11385 We saw, earlier, that Dr. Takahashi had a paper published by an open access publisher in Canada, that appeared more legitimate than this journal, though not much more! Essentially published by a fake institution. This Canadian journal apparently does publish print copies, which makes it useful for getting a paper into certain libraries. Maybe. I wouldn't count on it. (The Canadian journal did have an office in Canada, but operations seemed to be based elsewhere.) More: http://scholarlyoa.com/publishers/ This page lists Potential, possible, or probable predatory scholarly open-access publishers. It does list Modern Scientific Press. Now, looking at the paper. One of the signs of a legitimately published paper would be good grammar and spelling, it shows that there was careful proofreading. This is especially important for articles published in English with authors who aren't fluent in English (and ordinary verbal fluency isn't enough for professional-quality English.) So the first problem is the title itself: Potential Exploration of Cold Fusion and Its Quantitative Theory of Physical-Chemical-Nuclear Multistage Chain Reaction Mechanism Very poor title. Any theory article will be an exploration of theory, and a potential explanation. So that's totally redundant. Physical-Chemical-Nuclear says *nothing. This is an article about Multistage Chain Reaction Mechanism for Cold Fusion. But why use only seven words when seventeen will do? My comments here have *nothing to do*, so far, with the substance of Chang's theory. I'll get to that later. This is *just* about the claim of significance for this paper from having been published under peer review. What is being shown, here, is that there wasn't even normal proofreading done by the publication. Legitimate publishers have high concern about the appearance of their publications. So they will pay for editing. This publisher probably doesn't seriously care, and much of the customer base may not be in a position to carefully judge such things as grammar and common usage, the linguistic customs that make language colloquial. If you don't care about the English-speaking audience, why pay good money to satisfy its standards? Abstract: Cold fusion is very important and complex. That belongs in an abstract? One of main difficulties of cold fusion is the explanation on appearance of nuclear reaction. Atrocious grammar. What is being said is utterly obvious: Cold fusion was difficult to explain. Based on the standard quantum mechanics, The the here is non-colloquial, telegraphing a non-English writer or editor. To explain this, there is no specific entity, the standard quantum mechanics. There is a general consensus, not specific, and what is intened here would simply be written as based on standard quantum mechanics, i.e., it is
RE: [Vo]:a fine Cold Fusion paper:
-Original Message- From: Alan Fletcher PG: International Journal of Modern Chemistry, 2013, 5(1): 29-43 AF: I had a bad feeling when I read this; Peer-reviewed journal. The journal is an on-line publication. Authors pay to have their papers published So true. This is as far (or further) from Peer-reviewed science as is Rossi's JONP ... or as is Hustler from a Photographic Art Journal. It is basically a step-up from cyber-trash ... porno-sci shall we say? ... or maybe it is a step back - in that the ruse seems to have fooled a number of commentators. As least with Hustler (is it still in publication?) one may logically suspect that that what one sees is what one gets (plus a few STDs... making it an apt analogy) Jones
Re: [Vo]:a fine Cold Fusion paper:
*but we don't accept Yiannis as expert on cold fusion theory,* Mark Twain defined an expert as an ordinary fellow from another town Will Rogers described an expert as A man fifty miles from home with a briefcase. Danish scientist and Nobel laureate Niels Bohr defined an expert as A person that has made every possible mistake within his or her field. On Fri, Aug 16, 2013 at 7:01 PM, Alan Fletcher a...@well.com wrote: From: Peter Gluck peter.gl...@gmail.com Sent: Friday, August 16, 2013 12:08:01 AM Dear Readers, Yiannis Hadjichristos has just called my attention to the following paper, a real double rara avis: - it is published in a peer reviewed journal; - it clearly opts for a multi-stage theory, interdisciplinar approach. It is Potential Exploration of Cold Fusion and Its Quantitative Theory of Physical-Chemical-Nuclear Multistage Chain Reaction Mechanism Yi-Fang Chang, Department of Physics, Yunnan University, Kunming, 650091, China International Journal of Modern Chemistry, 2013, 5(1): 29-43 Link: http://modernscientificpress.com/Journals/ViewArticle.aspx?H86Z5Noa2iKDNvH/0wRKWsOkhiUQ7RBfa/R/b49cNQN2PlFJKdv27fx5aFa7XQKO Lomax isn't so sure : http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/newvortex/message/598 I had a bad feeling when I read this. Peer-reviewed journal. The journal is an on-line publication. Authors pay to have their papers published. See http://modernscientificpress.com/About.aspx For the article in context in the journal, see http://modernscientificpress.com/Journals/IJMChem.aspx -- this currently displays Current Issue: Vol. 5 No. 1. Just before this article, in the current issue of The International Journal of Modern Chemistry, is an article titled Analysis of the Chemical Constituents of Dried Faeces of Goats for Their Potential Use as Manure. So the article being published in this journal means that it's classified with goat feces. Not promising. Here is the editorial board for IJMC: http://modernscientificpress.com/Journals/IJMChem.aspx I don't have specific information on the standards and practice of IJMC. However, that this paper has been published in such a peer-reviewed journal is essentially meaningless. The publisher is Modern Scientific Press. Weston, Florida. I found this discussion of Modern Scientific Press: http://ask.metafilter.com/220971/Is-Modern-Scientific-Press-legit There is a general article on the open access problem at http://www.nature.com/news/predatory-publishers-are-corrupting-open-access-1.11385 We saw, earlier, that Dr. Takahashi had a paper published by an open access publisher in Canada, that appeared more legitimate than this journal, though not much more! Essentially published by a fake institution. This Canadian journal apparently does publish print copies, which makes it useful for getting a paper into certain libraries. Maybe. I wouldn't count on it. (The Canadian journal did have an office in Canada, but operations seemed to be based elsewhere.) More: http://scholarlyoa.com/publishers/ This page lists Potential, possible, or probable predatory scholarly open-access publishers. It does list Modern Scientific Press. Now, looking at the paper. One of the signs of a legitimately published paper would be good grammar and spelling, it shows that there was careful proofreading. This is especially important for articles published in English with authors who aren't fluent in English (and ordinary verbal fluency isn't enough for professional-quality English.) So the first problem is the title itself: Potential Exploration of Cold Fusion and Its Quantitative Theory of Physical-Chemical-Nuclear Multistage Chain Reaction Mechanism Very poor title. Any theory article will be an exploration of theory, and a potential explanation. So that's totally redundant. Physical-Chemical-Nuclear says *nothing. This is an article about Multistage Chain Reaction Mechanism for Cold Fusion. But why use only seven words when seventeen will do? My comments here have *nothing to do*, so far, with the substance of Chang's theory. I'll get to that later. This is *just* about the claim of significance for this paper from having been published under peer review. What is being shown, here, is that there wasn't even normal proofreading done by the publication. Legitimate publishers have high concern about the appearance of their publications. So they will pay for editing. This publisher probably doesn't seriously care, and much of the customer base may not be in a position to carefully judge such things as grammar and common usage, the linguistic customs that make language colloquial. If you don't care about the English-speaking audience, why pay good money to satisfy its standards? Abstract: Cold fusion is very important and complex. That belongs in an abstract? One of main difficulties of cold fusion is the explanation on appearance
Re: [Vo]:a fine Cold Fusion paper:
Yiannis has considered seriously LENR (not more genuine Cold Fusion) for the first time in 2009 and has rejected many of our most valuable memes. Young expert is an oxymoron. He also has shown lack of respect for our tradition to build delicate, weak, unmanageable evanescent, almost non-cognoscible processes. He uses deep degassing - clearly non-scientific. He uses inquisitorial sadistic methods when asking Mother Nature! Unable to see simplicity in LENR. Not an expert indeed. We have our experts united by a common scientific cultural experience and this will be obvious when you will answer to the following question: *WHO ARE THE GREATEST 5 ACCEPTED* *COLD FUSION THEORY EXPERTS TODAY? and* *WHAT IS COMMON IN THE THINKING RE C.F. OF THESE 5 GREAT PERSONALITIES?* * * *Viribus unitis!* Peter * * On Sat, Aug 17, 2013 at 3:11 AM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: *but we don't accept Yiannis as expert on cold fusion theory,* Mark Twain defined an expert as an ordinary fellow from another town Will Rogers described an expert as A man fifty miles from home with a briefcase. Danish scientist and Nobel laureate Niels Bohr defined an expert as A person that has made every possible mistake within his or her field. On Fri, Aug 16, 2013 at 7:01 PM, Alan Fletcher a...@well.com wrote: From: Peter Gluck peter.gl...@gmail.com Sent: Friday, August 16, 2013 12:08:01 AM Dear Readers, Yiannis Hadjichristos has just called my attention to the following paper, a real double rara avis: - it is published in a peer reviewed journal; - it clearly opts for a multi-stage theory, interdisciplinar approach. It is Potential Exploration of Cold Fusion and Its Quantitative Theory of Physical-Chemical-Nuclear Multistage Chain Reaction Mechanism Yi-Fang Chang, Department of Physics, Yunnan University, Kunming, 650091, China International Journal of Modern Chemistry, 2013, 5(1): 29-43 Link: http://modernscientificpress.com/Journals/ViewArticle.aspx?H86Z5Noa2iKDNvH/0wRKWsOkhiUQ7RBfa/R/b49cNQN2PlFJKdv27fx5aFa7XQKO Lomax isn't so sure : http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/newvortex/message/598 I had a bad feeling when I read this. Peer-reviewed journal. The journal is an on-line publication. Authors pay to have their papers published. See http://modernscientificpress.com/About.aspx For the article in context in the journal, see http://modernscientificpress.com/Journals/IJMChem.aspx -- this currently displays Current Issue: Vol. 5 No. 1. Just before this article, in the current issue of The International Journal of Modern Chemistry, is an article titled Analysis of the Chemical Constituents of Dried Faeces of Goats for Their Potential Use as Manure. So the article being published in this journal means that it's classified with goat feces. Not promising. Here is the editorial board for IJMC: http://modernscientificpress.com/Journals/IJMChem.aspx I don't have specific information on the standards and practice of IJMC. However, that this paper has been published in such a peer-reviewed journal is essentially meaningless. The publisher is Modern Scientific Press. Weston, Florida. I found this discussion of Modern Scientific Press: http://ask.metafilter.com/220971/Is-Modern-Scientific-Press-legit There is a general article on the open access problem at http://www.nature.com/news/predatory-publishers-are-corrupting-open-access-1.11385 We saw, earlier, that Dr. Takahashi had a paper published by an open access publisher in Canada, that appeared more legitimate than this journal, though not much more! Essentially published by a fake institution. This Canadian journal apparently does publish print copies, which makes it useful for getting a paper into certain libraries. Maybe. I wouldn't count on it. (The Canadian journal did have an office in Canada, but operations seemed to be based elsewhere.) More: http://scholarlyoa.com/publishers/ This page lists Potential, possible, or probable predatory scholarly open-access publishers. It does list Modern Scientific Press. Now, looking at the paper. One of the signs of a legitimately published paper would be good grammar and spelling, it shows that there was careful proofreading. This is especially important for articles published in English with authors who aren't fluent in English (and ordinary verbal fluency isn't enough for professional-quality English.) So the first problem is the title itself: Potential Exploration of Cold Fusion and Its Quantitative Theory of Physical-Chemical-Nuclear Multistage Chain Reaction Mechanism Very poor title. Any theory article will be an exploration of theory, and a potential explanation. So that's totally redundant. Physical-Chemical-Nuclear says *nothing. This is an article about Multistage Chain Reaction Mechanism for Cold Fusion. But why use only seven words when seventeen will do? My comments here have *nothing to
