Who ignores this particular F&P's experiment, can't consider any other one.
You leave me no other choice than laughing at your fallacy. Keep living in your parallel world.
-
-
The Schneider photo again..
.
-
Many journals reject substantial proportion of submissions without referees ever being assigned (Elsevier says 30-50%, https://www.elsevier.com/conne…s-i-rejected-your-article). It's not a reason to stop expecting researchers to publish.
Exactly my point. The team submitted to the wrong journal, were rejected, then found a home for their paper.
10 months wasted in a review for final rejection is not at all a normal behavior.
-
10 months wasted in a review for final rejection is not at all a normal behavior.
My goodness. Of course it is. Where have you been living?
-
My goodness. Of course it is. Where have you been living?
Not at all for a final rejection, for a final agreement for publication I would agree it’s possible (some journals are quite faster anyway, others even slower to accept to publish, but to reject, 10 months is an eternity). Bear in mind that I have been invited to review (in my conventional field) and keep being invited ti review papers at least 1
to 3 times per year for the past 10 years.
-
@Bruce-H just loves to air his petty prejudices. That hobby horse he rides has obviously given him piles.
-
Enough with the insults. Arguments only please.
-
Arguments only please.
In your case that would be a good course to adopt instead of whining, you are not right all the time but fail to see it. Frankly I wonder why you bother with us.
-
None of this is a reason to stop requiring researchers to publish their findings before they can expect to be treated seriously. That was my original argument.
Seriously, if I was a LENR researcher I would not take seriously the expectation of any given spectator to have my work published in a journal in order for that spectator to take my work seriously. If I'm trustworthy enough, competent enough, and document my work enough, that should be enough for people to come to their own determination if they take my work seriously. If I feel not enough people are taking my work seriously I will step up my game. But I won't do it just because I don't meet the expectations of a certain few.
Everyone here should be expecting researchers with claims of unusual physics to publish their stuff. Yet few do raise that expectation. Current case in point (again) Russ George.
Publish where? In a 'respected' journal? On Researchgate? What is good enough for you?
Randell Mills has published often, most often in the International Journal of Hydrogen Energy. (I may be misremembering but I recall he personally knew the editor.) It isn't entirely clear if this has helped his cause much.
To be fair, I suspect that Alan Smith presses George privately. But in my opinion Smith should be more open about it if only to exhibit some leadership from a moderator regarding community expectations.
My expectation, and I assume the expectation of a significant majority of people here, is that LENR researchers will document their work for the public in a more formal and comprehensive form when they have plateaued in the optimization of their results, in their confidence of the results, and perhaps (as a bonus) by achieving a theoretical basis of their results. In the meantime, we enjoy any tidbits from their work that may be shown here and there.
BTW, a moderator's job should not have to do with fostering particular group expectations towards LENR researchers.
-
BTW, the more conventional chemistry work I undertake has recently been vetted by two different 3rd parties backed by serious academic experts and found to be good. But I raise funds externally for that. LENR work is mostly paid for by me, so as Mark U comments, I feel no obligation to publish except as and when I choose. If Bruce-H doesn't wish to take me (or my colleagues) seriously he has my permission to go laugh in a corner.
-
If I'm trustworthy enough, competent enough, and document my work enough, that should be enough for people to come to their own determination if they take my work seriously. If I feel not enough people are taking my work seriously I will step up my game.
This is pretty much exactly what I have been saying.
Publish where? In a 'respected' journal? On Researchgate? What is good enough for you?
Researchgate is not peer reviewed. Rossi uses that to his advantage. My argument over the past several days is that we should look back at the whole Rossi situation and ask what we can learn from it in terms of creating expectations by which we can judge ongoing claims of unusual physics. So, what we learn is that appearing in a preprint service like Researchgate isn't sufficient.
My expectation, and I assume the expectation of a significant majority of people here, is that LENR researchers will document their work for the public in a more formal and comprehensive form when they have plateaued in the optimization of their results, in their confidence of the results, and perhaps (as a bonus) by achieving a theoretical basis of their results. In the meantime, we enjoy any tidbits from their work that may be shown here and there
I agree. But then it should be regarded and valued as unproven work in progress.
BTW, a moderator's job should not have to do with fostering particular group expectations towards LENR researchers.
I think it should.
-
BTW, the more conventional chemistry work I undertake has recently been vetted by two different 3rd parties backed by serious academic experts and found to be good.
Good. Well done.
LENR work is mostly paid for by me, so as Mark U comments, I feel no obligation to publish except as and when I choose. If Bruce-H doesn't wish to take me (or my colleagues) seriously he has my permission to go laugh in a corner.
You are paying for it so it is absolutely your choice how you feel and act. My point, however, is that everyone hearing your claims should be a little sceptical and regard them as unproven until they are proven.
-
y point, however, is that everyone hearing your claims should be a little sceptical and regard them as unproven until they are proven.
As you have said 500 times. I get it, but don't care.
-
As you have said 500 times. I get it, but don't care.
Yes. Right. But as Mark U points out above (while putting himself in the shoes of the researcher) "If I feel not enough people are taking my work seriously I will step up my game". That is what I hope for. In the meantime I remark on the difference in standards between the two branches of your research. You seem hard-nosed and scientifically solid on the conventional side and much less so for LENR results.
-
You seem hard-nosed and scientifically solid on the conventional side and much less so for LENR results.
That's all you know. I suggest you disabuse yourself of the idea that a self proclaimed and anonymous expert on scientific matters and the desirability of publication on your terms is owed anything, least of all a detailed explanation of my work or my motives.
-
Yes. Right. But as Mark U points out above (while putting himself in the shoes of the researcher) "If I feel not enough people are taking my work seriously I will step up my game". That is what I hope for. In the meantime I remark on the difference in standards between the two branches of your research. You seem hard-nosed and scientifically solid on the conventional side and much less so for LENR results.
I always thought you were tough, but for the better good of your pro-LENR agenda. Lately though, I have come to wonder if I was wrong?
Hard to distinguish you from Ascoli now, who as we all know is an avowed anti-LENR crusader. He recently upped his public assault on the field both here on the forum, and elsewhere by tattling to Sylvie Coyaud (another LENR hater) about the HERMES, and CleannHME programs in a fruitless attempt to defund the programs, and shame the researchers.
So where do you stand? No problem either way you answer. It should be noted that skeptics like Ascoli have been welcome here alongside us believers.
-
Can we get back to just exposing/making fun of Rossi now? This is the Rossi thread you know. How about we make a new thread for speculation on individual LENR Forum members agendas.
-
Can we get back to just exposing/making fun of Rossi now? This is the Rossi thread you know. How about we make a new thread for speculation on individual LENR Forum members agendas.
An old Ascoli65 post that is worth reading carefully (in italian):
-
I always thought you were tough, but for the better good of your pro-LENR agenda. Lately though, I have come to wonder if I was wrong?
Hard to distinguish you from Ascoli now, who as we all know is an avowed anti-LENR crusader. He recently upped his public assault on the field both here on the forum, and elsewhere by tattling to Sylvie Coyaud (another LENR hater) about the HERMES, and CleannHME programs in a fruitless attempt to defund the programs, and shame the researchers.
So where do you stand? No problem either way you answer. It should be noted that skeptics like Ascoli have been welcome here alongside us believers.
"Pro-LENR agenda"? I don't think so. But then I do not have an anti-LENR agenda either. I am more just pro-knowledge. I want some clarity on whether LENR is real or not.
I would love it if LENR turned out to be real. But so far I just don't see it. And I am flummoxed that I run into such opposition for insisting that the LENR field expect the same standards of proof and disproof as the rest of science.
-
Can we get back to just exposing/making fun of Rossi now? This is the Rossi thread you know. How about we make a new thread for speculation on individual LENR Forum members agendas.
I think that this thread has recently become more useful and interesting than in a long time. It was a comment of Curbina's set me to thinking. Curbina (and others) expressed frustration with this thread and said that after following Rossi for a while he had had now washed his hands of Rossi and hoped to never have to think of him again.
It struck me that this is the wrong attitude. Should we not, instead, learn from the whole Rossi adventure. How did Rossi manage to pull so many people over to his side in the first place? What can we do to be more properly sceptical in the first place? Are we doing those things now with issues before us today?
My answer to the last question is "no". Lessons have apparently not been learned and standards have not changed. I see people extending inappropriate credulity right now to some claims. I have mentioned claims of Russ George in this regard and pointed out the similarities between where we are with George's work right now and where people were early on in Rossi's evolution.
Can we really learn nothing from Rossi? Isn't trying to learn something a good way to use this thread?
