Your flippant attitude to this is a disappointment. It may be that you don't realize the importance of genuine peer review for this sort of thing.
I hope you were smiling when you typed that. I'm afraid I am a believer in the total failure of the peer review system .
I hope you were smiling when you typed that. I'm afraid I am a believer in the total failure of the peer review system .
Alan I think it makes sense in this case. I am trying to get a better handle on the math but I am not equipped. I think the predictions are impressive and deserve more exposure in a mainstream journal. Being a skeptic of the peer review process doesn't serve much purpose. Shall we brand you a skeptopath? 
I hope you were smiling when you typed that. I'm afraid I am a believer in the total failure of the peer review system .
I realise that, and think it is one of the problems more generally with the LENR field. Peer review is about getting criticism. Constructive, yes, but not socialist "all papers are equal". Without that there is no push to get writers to do the necessary hard graft to tighten up their work.
Perhaps there is little LENR work that would withstand such pressure and remain publishable: if so then LENR as a scientific field is much more likely to be taken seriously with a small umber of acknowledged high quality publications than a large number of low quality.
Also, a more rigorous bar for what was published would allow research to concentrate on the stuff more likely to be fruitful. As it is anything from biology doing LENR to gas/liquid/solid systems makes the whole area look like pseudoscience, even if there is a real FPHE.
I'm afraid I am a believer in the total failure of the peer review system .
It is my impression that you have little experience with peer reviewed publication. So I don't expect you to have a sound opinion on it.
To repeat a previous argument ... If Wyttenbach submits his work to a good journal, the editor may send it out 2 or more top experts for detailed scrutiny. These experts, people who really do have the knowledge base required to comprehend Wyttenbach's theory, will then have to sit down and spend a solid chunk of time engaging with his ideas. They will then report back to the editor with detailed reactions which will then be sent to Wyttenbach. It is unlikely that such a thing will ever happen on Researchgate.
You have no idea if Wyttenbach's SO(4) stuff is legitimate. Wyttenbach himself may be deluded and turn out to be a small-time hack. Or his work could be golden. You don't know, I don't know, probably no one here is even capable of finding out. So until Wyttenbach puts his stuff before knowledgeable people and seeks a serious reply, no one should suppose that his ideas are anything more than vapourware.
Alan I think it makes sense in this case. I am trying to get a better handle on the math but I am not equipped. I think the predictions are impressive and deserve more exposure in a mainstream journal. Being a skeptic of the peer review process doesn't serve much purpose. Shall we brand you a skeptopath?
PfD - just one point. AFAIK there are no definite predictions. There is a world of difference between claiming in some hand-waving way to calculate some already known value, and predicting it ab initio.
I think one simple way to test W's work, without even needing peer review, is this.
Get, from him, a list of predictions, with error bars, on numerical quantities that are currently known to a lower precision than he can provide.
Wait 2 years, and check whether the predictions have merit.
That is surprisingly powerful, and would fit the claims here providing positive or negative evidence.
The predictions must be made clearly: with prediction error bars, and timestamped. We would need to check carefully what is "best" accuracy for current values of the predicted quantities.
If this data was archived in some public way (say, Researchgate) it would provide definite evidence at some time in the future if the predictions have merit.
Alternatively... retrospective "predictions" only have value if others agree that the methodology for the prediction is coherent and part of some theory that can make other useful predictions. Numerology is remarkably good at finding coincidental close values.
For example: 9 sig figs is roughly 30 bits. You could therefore obtain a good match to within 9 sig figs from a process that makes 30 distinct binary decisions as to how to derive the value, 9 distinct 1 of 10 decisions as to what to use to derive it, etc. The space is large.
In some cases there may be classical approximations that are well motivated and give you quite a lot of the needed accuracy.
The process here is one of successive approximation. You take your theory's best attempt so far, look at how it is wrong, try to find some tweak that homes in on the wanted value. Legitimate, but also a process that makes such "prediction" of known values much less valuable than it seems.
I realise that, and think it is one of the problems more generally with the LENR field.
I don't think that Wyttenbach's SO(4) theory would be perceived by reviewer as being about LENR.
I don't think that Wyttenbach's SO(4) theory would be perceived by reviewer as being about LENR.
You are probably right on that idea.
Through the years I have had the opportunity of reading and trying to understand many theories of everything. I remember one in particular that was in constant development by his proponent, Frank Grimer Who is (was?) a member here but I knew since my glorious days as a Steorn follower. He developed his “Beta Atmosphere” theory based on his experimental work in the resistance of concrete, he was researcher of structural strength of public funded bridges. I found his ideas very interesting, and I found fascinating that some could derive an entire theoretical frame for the universe from concrete stress failure experiments. His interest in what is generally called “free energy” was that his theory allowed for this to be possible, so he found in these claims a potential to validate his own model. He was a very polite and intellectually sharp gentleman, always up for interesting conversation.
I don't think that Wyttenbach's SO(4) theory would be perceived by reviewer as being about LENR.
Agreed, but it appears to share a reluctance (or inability?) to submit for mainstream peer review.
Frankly, most LENR work could be written up as non-LENR if it represents real unexpected experimental anomalies. You don't need to mention nuclear, just an unexplainably high enthalpy.
I will miss your input...
ah Yet another swan song..possibly
I'm awaiting others to agree with you...
I have already said that having someone around to keep a constant sanity check, albeit annoying it’s an absolute necessity. Hence I value THHuxleynew participation in this forum even if I disagree with him often. I always value different opinions and given the chance to hear them is an opportunity and not a burden. So THH, I for one welcome your attention and willingness to keep debating and disagreeing with us.
robert bryant you should learn to value THH’s input if anything as a permanent challenge to your own bias. It’s always better to be able to look at things from a completely different perspective, at worst you might see something you had overlooked and at best you might be able to reaffirm what you already know. We are here to advance in our understanding of LENR, not “to win” over LENR dismissals.
you should learn to value THH’s input if anything
Learning is reciprocal
THHnew has learned something about calculating heat transfer btw two
bodies from a chemical engineer in the last hour or so.
This perhaps is valuable for erroneous bias.
The accepted method is to calculate Q12 using A2,A1,E1,E2
Using this method I get a wall temperature of around 40-42C for 300W output from the reactor
It is my impression that you have little experience with peer reviewed publication. So I don't expect you to have a sound opinion on it.
Bitchy!
Could it be that in particullar those people reject the peer review procedures, whose “great work / brilliant ideas“ have been ripped apart by peer reviewers before?
The continual use of the terms fringe science and pseudoscience with regard to LENR is poor behaviour,
Damn, believe or not: I named the folder in which I keep all the bookmarks for Rossi/LENR/CF related website-links FRINGE...
Mea culpa - Wasn’t aware that this is poor behaviour.
Could it be that in particullar those people reject the peer review procedures, whose “great work / brilliant ideas“ have been ripped apart by peer reviewers before?
I don't think so. That would entail them submitting their work for peer review and it is my impression that neither Alan Smith nor Wyttenbach have much, if any, of that. If am wrong then they can say so ... but it seems to me that the most cynical people here about peer review are the ones with the least experience.
Well my experience is that if the result is against the view of the one doing the peer, the peer can stall the process and ask for more detail and in the end
although the result is proven still reject it because it is against their intuition. LENR is against most peer reviewers intuition.
When it comes to theory, what is the point of trying to get it peer reviewed in a high impact journal? If the author claims outright that it is about LENR, it is DOA. Say he/she hides that fact and it is accepted...somewhere in the process the reviewers will figure it out and then reject it. All that time and effort for naught.
When it comes to theory, what is the point of trying to get it peer reviewed in a high impact journal? If the author claims outright that it is about LENR, it is DOA. Say he/she hides that fact and it is accepted...somewhere in the process the reviewers will figure it out and then reject it. All that time and effort for naught.
Wyttenbach's SO(4) theory has nothing to do with LENR as far as I know.
Their background search would take them here, where they would see he is a big believer in LENR, therefore his paper must have something to do with it. That would be the end of that.
I am not proposing an aspiring LENR theorist decide to never try for a peer review for fear of rejection. If they have the time and energy, I say go for it. But IMO, there have been many others who have gone down that rigorous path, only to be met with a door closed in their face. Could be wrong though.
Peer review would involve 6 months gathering data, three months writing a paper, and at least a year arguing points with reviewers. For me there is no point. I have no academic career to nurture, no depagtment to answer to. I just want to do the science and make things happen.
