> From: "Eric Walker" <[email protected]> > Sent: Thursday, May 23, 2013 12:16:55 AM > I wrote:
> Lubos Motl does not appear to be drawing a distinction between TeX > and LaTeX; he is drawing a distinction between TeX/LaTeX, on one > hand, and a simple PDF typed up in a normal word processor, on the > other. Presumably the former would be the expected form of > submission to a mainstream physics journal. This is one of the > details that makes me think there is no intention to submit for > publication. http://www.investorvillage.com/mbthread.asp?mb=476&tid=12816817&showall=1 Posted 5/23/2013 4:00:15 AM by Gustav It is not written in Latin so I am afraid isn't legit > Another reason to think they do not intend to submit for publication > in a reputable scientific journal -- they cite Wikipedia (ref. 8, at > the end). Lordy, lordy -- it's firgin diagram -- a compilation of generally available information, and not really central to the paper. > Another point worth mentioning -- this paper has followed the > approach of the August 7, 2012, paper cited elsewhere very closely > [2]. In that paper there was the Ragone diagram, the infrared > camera, the radiation measurements by David Bianchini, the > Stefan-Boltzmann equation, etc. One gets the distinct impression > that the May 2013 paper used the August 2012 paper as a template. > This is not a problem in and of itself, but it makes plausible > suspicions to the effect that a less than objective observer (Levi) > led a possibly flawed effort modeled closely on an earlier one and > that the Swedish members of the team might have allowed their names > to be added to the paper without doing sufficient due diligence. We don't know who suggested the radiometric calorimetry method and the use of the Ragone plot. Chicken? Egg? And even if Levi et al DID follow he previous methodology, is that bad?
