*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 <[email protected]> wrote: > > 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.* > >
