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 <[email protected]> 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 <[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.* >> >> > -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
