> From: "Peter Gluck" <[email protected]> > 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 being asserted that the principles used are standard, not, in themselves, controversial or not established or accepted. >we propose the physical-chemical-nuclear multistage chain reaction theory An awful name as to the "physical-chemical-nuclear" part. Might as well say "phenomenal." I.e., is there something other than "physical," "chemical," and "nuclear"? Essentially, the title conveys nothing that we wouldn't already expect from *any theory*. I haven't yet read the article. I'll get to that. At this point, though, I discriminate that "multistage chain reaction," as distinct from an ordinary chain reaction, involves distinct steps that are different. I.e., Widom-Larsen theory is multistage. But it really isn't a chain reaction. Chain reactions produce their own triggers that maintain the reaction. I.e., slow neutron capture produces fission of fissile isotopes, which then produces multiple neutrons. The multiple neutrons are necessary in order to create a chain reaction, because otherwise, the reaction would die down, not maintain itself, because some neutrons would escape or be trapped in various ways. >,which may explain cold fusion. "We propose a multistage reaction to 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. That's going to be interesting to examine. > 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. This is incoherent and poor English. We'll see what the paper actually proposes. >------------------ >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 I would encourage Peter to get his hands dirty with real work with physical substance. He's synthesizing imaginary goat poop, thinking it is gold. >Eppur si muove - it is progress in Cold Fusion- marching away from its Cradle! More theory is highly unlikely to produce the stronger results that Peter is actually longing for. Yiannis has apparently suggested this paper, but we don't accept Yiannis as expert on cold fusion theory, he has far too little time in this field for that to be likely. He *may* have some generally sound intutions, but the real advantage that Yiannis has is that he has gotten his hands dirty, he has actually performed real experiments and has "explored the parameter space," which generally produces progress *even if the theory on which it might be based is equivalent to goat poop.*
