Edmund Storms Reading Room project at LENR-CANR.org

  • Ed Storms sent me ~1700 printed papers, in 9 boxes:




    It is quite a haul. I have scanned or downloaded ~800 of them. It will take another month, I think. I am doing this to preserve the papers, and to help Ed who is moving and cannot take his physical library. Since I am doing all this work, I would like other people to benefit from it. People should discuss this and let me know what you recommend.

    Plan A. The simplest way to share the library is to upload papers to LENR-CANR.org. I am doing that. I do not think I should upload all of them.

    Plan B. Open the library to individuals with a password in a restricted folder at LENR-CANR.org. You ask me for access, and I issue a password. Alan Smith likes this idea. He suggested I call this The Edmund Storms Reading Room. I like that!

    Plan C. I can change the program I use to generate the online index. I can add the Sci-Hub link to papers not on file. For example:

    A Google programme failed to detect cold fusion -- but is still a success. Nature, 2019. 569: p. 599-600. https://sci-hub.se/https://doi…0.1038/d41586-019-01675-9

    Tom Grimshaw is a by-the-book fellow who thinks I should not upload hundreds of papers without permission. I should not violate copyrights. I get that. In the past I have been very concerned about copyright violations. But it seems like a different world now that these papers are uploaded to Russia, Sweden and São Tomé and Príncipe. Sci-Hub has 88 million documents. The scientific publishers are having fits about this. I do not think they will trouble themselves about me uploading a thousand obscure papers, about a subject few people are interested in. The publishers are not going to make money selling reprints of these papers.

    Those 88 million documents are available instantly, anywhere in the world. Worrying about copyright violations of scientific papers seems almost silly. It is a 20th century concern. I have mixed feelings. Partly, I agree with the Sci-Hub motto that "knowledge belongs to all mankind." Much of this research was done with government money. My tax dollars. I have a right to see the results, at no cost. Many researchers nowadays agree. Some agency grants say the authors must put the results online, available for free.


    Anyway, I could use some help on this project. Especially from someone who knows about:


    bittorrent

    Crossref Metadata Search

    GitHub - ethanwillis/zotero-scihub: A plugin that will automatically download PDFs of zotero items from sci-hub
    A plugin that will automatically download PDFs of zotero items from sci-hub - GitHub - ethanwillis/zotero-scihub: A plugin that will automatically download…
    github.com

    New public data file: 120+ million metadata records - Crossref
    2020 wasn’t all bad. In April of last year, we released our first public data file. Though Crossref metadata is always openly available––and our board recently…
    www.crossref.org


    If you do not know what those things are, don't ask. You don't want to know. Yes, I am a programmer and yes I can read the instructions and figure these things out. Frankly, I am lazy. I would appreciate it if someone who already understands them would tell me how to use them.

  • Scihub mirrors seem to often go down, so there's no guarantee of your links remaining live. I'm guessing, but I wouldn't budget for them to last longer than a year.


    re: hosting them directly:


    I would tend to agree with Tom Grimshaw.


    Any provisioning of copyrighted materials opens the website to the risk of DMCA takedown requests.


    https://www.vultr.com/legal/copyright/


    The question is how your hosting provider would react.


    It probably wouldn't take much to cause a major nuisance, and possibly create hosting problems for the site. Presumably any author or publisher could file a notice.

  • I strongly recommend to keep backup of everything on a different location than your cloud provider. These providers are pretty fast in blocking access to your data nowadays. Especially when there is a risk of a legal issue.


    I went once through this when my 9 year old daughter was blocked from her Microsoft account because of not further detailed "violations of terms of usage" and could not play her beloved Minecraft anymore. Microsoft made Franz Kafka the responsible manager to design their support processes in these cases.


    I strongly recommend to everybody to have backups of everything important outside of your cloud service provider, either on a different cloud provider or at home. This is true for all cloud providers (Microsoft O365 or Onedrive or Google services etc).

  • I understood that JedRothwell plans to link to papers already available on Sci-hub, putting a link to Sci-hub is hardly an offense. And Sci-hub has remained available in the same mirrors for more than three years now, as they are now hosted in countries where they know they won’t be sacked down. I don’t know if Sci-hub is open to receive new documents as donation, as a way to make all the library available through them, I would have to look.

    I certainly Hope to see LENR helping humans to blossom, and I'm here to help it happen.

  • putting a link to Sci-hub is hardly an offense.

    Copyright infringement is not a criminal offence, per se, but it gives the copyright holder the ability to sue the infringer (and even bankrupt them) via a civil court. A few years ago Elsevier extended thier legal policy by also threatening anyone who simply links to sci-hub. See:


    Elsevier threatens others for linking to Sci-Hub but does so itself
    Sci-Hub is a copyright-violating site that provides infringing access to scholarly publications that are behind paywalls. Its ethics are problematic but it’s…
    eve.gd


    and:


    Elsevier threatens others for linking to Sci-Hub but does so itself | Hacker News

    "The most misleading assumptions are the ones you don't even know you're making" - Douglas Adams

  • Elsevier was reviving a policy that was pioneered by the record industry, a decade ago, when they started suing people who ran proxies (or even simply linked to proxies) that gave people access to the Pirate Bay database.


    BPI readies Pirate Party UK lawsuit over The Pirate Bay proxy
    The music industry body, which found its previous request for the proxy's closure rebuffed, is now preparing to take the matter to the courts.
    www.zdnet.com


    I knew a number of activists from the UK Pirate Party, at the time, including the leader of the party - who was personally sued by the BPI, along with the rest of the party leadership commitee. i.e. they didn't just sue the "party", as an entiity. The policy worked, as far as the BPI was concened, as none of these people had the funds to fight the legal action -so they closed their proxy.


    I know situations evolve - and things might be a bit different now - but I wouldn't like to see Jed becoming the subject of the next test case.

    "The most misleading assumptions are the ones you don't even know you're making" - Douglas Adams

  • It probably wouldn't take much to cause a major nuisance, and possibly create hosting problems for the site. Presumably any author or publisher could file a notice.

    A few authors asked me not to upload their papers. I always honor their wishes. It is fine with me if an author does not want his or her papers at LENR-CANR.org. A publisher once contacted me and asked me to remove a paper. I removed it immediately.


    A few authors prefer to have their papers at ResearchGate. Also fine with me.


    If we decide to upload this new batch of papers to a closed, password protected folder, I will refrain from uploading any papers by authors who asked me not to upload. The papers will still be listed in the database.


    I understood that JedRothwell plans to link to papers already available on Sci-hub, putting a link to Sci-hub is hardly an offense.

    That is Plan C. Right now we are leaning toward Plan B, listed above:


    "Plan B. Open the library to individuals with a password in a restricted folder at LENR-CANR.org. You ask me for access, and I issue a password. Alan Smith likes this idea. He suggested I call this The Edmund Storms Reading Room. I like that!"


    Ed thinks that as long as I share papers with a limited number of people in a closed group, I am not violating copyright laws. I don't know about that. My go-to expert in copyright law died a few years ago. I do not know who to ask. ChatGPT?


    If I put papers in a password restricted folder at LENR-CANR.org, and change Robots.txt, the publishers will not find them. Google and other search programs will not list the papers. Not at LENR-CANR.org. If you search for one with Google or search.crossref.org, you will be directed to the publisher's site. Which is what the publishers want.


    There are some advantages to uploading a paper to the publisher's website, or ResearchGate, and also to LENR-CANR.org --


    People who are interested in cold fusion are likely to look at LENR-CANR.org. They may not think to look at ResearchGate or arXiv.


    Many individuals, companies and universities have robot readers such as WebReaper that visit LENR-CANR.org from time to time and download new papers. That is easy for them. There are 160 million papers at ResearchGate! You can search for "cold fusion" but you find many unrelated things. I do not think you can run a program like WebReaper to automatically download papers of interest.

  • "Plan B. Open the library to individuals with a password in a restricted folder at LENR-CANR.org.

    Right now they are in a restricted folder on my Google drive. I wonder if leaving them off of LENR-CANR.org would help avoid legal problems?


    If anyone here knows an expert in copyright laws and fair-use provisions, please have the expert contact me.

  • I think I will consult with an Atlanta copyright lawyer. The problem is, they seem to be in the business of protecting copyrights. I don't know how they would cotton to me asking how I can violate copyrights and get away with it. It is like asking a criminal lawyer how to rob a bank. Here is the blub from one of them: "Belzer PC works closely with all of its clients on how best to secure, exploit and defend their intellectual property assets in the United States and throughout the world. Our vast experience in the intellectual property arena includes patent searches and patent prosecution, clearing, prosecuting and maintaining trademark portfolios, obtaining copyright registrations for traditional works of authorship as well as software and databases . . ." For now, I went ahead and asked my invisible friend about copyright laws. Here is what she said:


    ME: Describe the "fair use" provisions of copyright laws as they apply to academic journal papers.

    ChatGPT

    "Fair use" is a legal doctrine within copyright law that allows for the limited use of copyrighted material without the permission of the copyright owner. This doctrine is designed to balance the rights of copyright holders with the public interest in the free exchange of ideas, information, and creativity. While the concept of fair use is subjective and depends on the specific circumstances of each case, it generally encompasses certain purposes such as criticism, commentary, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research.


    In the context of academic journal papers, fair use may apply in several scenarios:


    Educational and Research Use: Scholars, students, and researchers may use portions of copyrighted academic journal papers for educational and research purposes. This could include quoting, paraphrasing, or reproducing sections of a paper in the course of analysis, criticism, or commentary.


    Criticism and Commentary: Fair use allows for the use of copyrighted material for purposes of criticism or commentary. This means that scholars and educators can use excerpts from academic journal papers to support their analysis or provide context in their own works.


    Transformative Use: If the use of a copyrighted academic journal paper transforms the original work by adding new meaning, expression, or purpose, it may be considered fair use. This often applies to activities such as creating derivative works, adaptations, or new research based on existing papers.


    Non-commercial Use: Courts may be more inclined to consider uses as fair if they are non-commercial in nature. Academic use, particularly in the context of teaching and research, is often viewed favorably under fair use.


    It's important to note that fair use is a complex and fact-specific doctrine, and each use must be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. The four factors typically considered in a fair use analysis are:


    The purpose and character of the use: Is it transformative? Is it for commercial or non-commercial purposes?


    The nature of the copyrighted work: Is the work primarily factual or creative in nature?


    The amount and substantiality of the portion used: How much of the original work is being used, and is it the "heart" of the work?


    The effect on the market for the original work: Does the new use negatively impact the market or value of the original work?


    Ultimately, individuals and institutions should exercise caution and seek legal advice if they have concerns about whether a particular use of academic journal papers falls within the bounds of fair use. Keep in mind that the interpretation of fair use can vary, and legal decisions often depend on the specific details of each case.


    User

    You say there is a distinction between factual and creative work. I assume a physics paper would be considered factual. Are factual works more open to "fair use"?

    ChatGPT

    Yes, you are correct in your assumption. Generally, works that are factual or informational in nature, such as physics papers, are often considered to be more open to fair use. This is because the underlying purpose of copyright law is to protect creative expression rather than facts or ideas.


    The "nature of the copyrighted work" is one of the factors considered in the fair use analysis. Factual works, which are primarily intended to convey information, are typically less protected under copyright compared to highly creative and original works. Copyright law aims to encourage the creation of new and original works, and it recognizes that facts and ideas are building blocks that should be available for use and dissemination.


    However, it's important to note that even within factual works, there can be creative elements, and the specific circumstances of each use will still be a crucial factor in determining fair use. For example, the way information is presented, the selection and arrangement of data, and any creative elements in the expression of facts could be considered in a fair use analysis.


    While factual works may be more open to fair use, it doesn't mean that any use is automatically considered fair. The other factors, such as the purpose and character of the use, the amount and substantiality of the portion used, and the effect on the market for the original work, are still important considerations in evaluating fair use for any specific case.


    ME:

    Very interesting. Thanks.

    ChatGPT

    You're welcome! I'm glad you found the information interesting. If you have any more questions or if there's anything else I can help you with, feel free to ask. Happy reading!


    User

    What are the rules for "open access" academic papers? Are copyright restrictions relaxed? Are there no restrictions?

    ChatGPT

    "Open access" refers to the practice of making academic research freely available to the public, with minimal or no restrictions on access, distribution, and use. While open access aims to promote the widespread dissemination of knowledge, it doesn't necessarily mean that there are no copyright restrictions. The copyright status of open access works depends on the specific terms under which they are made available.


    There are generally two main types of open access:


    Gold Open Access: In this model, the final published version of a work is made freely available online, often immediately upon publication. Authors may retain copyright, and the work is typically published under a license that allows for broad use, such as a Creative Commons license. This means that users may be able to copy, distribute, and reuse the work, often with minimal restrictions, as long as they provide proper attribution to the original author(s).


    Green Open Access (Self-Archiving): In this model, authors deposit a version of their work (often the preprint or postprint version) into a repository, making it freely accessible. The copyright terms can vary. Some publishers allow authors to retain certain rights, while others may place restrictions on self-archiving. Authors should carefully review the copyright agreements with publishers to understand what they are allowed to do with their work.


    It's important to note that open access does not mean a complete absence of copyright. Instead, it often involves the use of licenses that grant specific permissions while still respecting the rights of the original creators. Creative Commons licenses, for example, are commonly used in open access publishing to specify the permissions granted to users.


    Researchers and authors should be aware of the terms and conditions associated with open access publications and make sure they understand the specific rights they retain or relinquish when choosing open access options. Additionally, the landscape of open access is evolving, and policies can vary among publishers and academic institutions, so it's crucial to stay informed about the specific practices and requirements in a given context.


    User

    A repository would be a website such as arxiv.org. Right?

    ChatGPT

    Yes, that's correct! A repository in the context of academic publishing is a digital platform or website where researchers can deposit and access scholarly works. arXiv.org is a well-known example of such a repository. It's a preprint server that allows researchers to share their academic papers before formal peer review and publication.


    Repositories like arXiv.org play a crucial role in the open access movement by providing a platform for researchers to share their work freely with the global academic community. These repositories often host preprints, postprints, or other versions of research papers, making them openly accessible to anyone with an internet connection.


    Researchers may use repositories for various reasons, including:


    Early Sharing: Depositing preprints allows researchers to share their findings quickly with the community, even before formal peer review and publication.


    Increased Visibility: Openly accessible papers can reach a wider audience, increasing the visibility and impact of the research.


    Compliance with Funding Mandates: Some funding agencies require researchers to make their work openly accessible, and repositories provide a means to fulfill these mandates.


    Preservation: Repositories often provide a stable and permanent location for academic papers, ensuring long-term access to the scholarly record.


    It's important to note that while repositories facilitate open access, the copyright terms associated with deposited works can vary. Researchers should be aware of the policies of the specific repository and any licensing agreements involved when depositing their work. Additionally, some repositories may be discipline-specific, while others, like arXiv.org, cover a broad range of subjects.


    User

    What are some of the other leading repositories?

    ChatGPT

    There are several reputable repositories across various disciplines where researchers can share and access scholarly works. Here are some of the leading repositories:


    arXiv.org: As mentioned earlier, arXiv is a preprint server for physics, mathematics, computer science, quantitative biology, quantitative finance, statistics, electrical engineering systems science, and economics.


    PubMed Central (PMC): Managed by the National Institutes of Health (NIH), PMC is a free full-text archive of biomedical and life sciences journal literature.


    Social Science Research Network (SSRN): SSRN is a repository for research in the social sciences, including economics, law, finance, and more. It often includes working papers and preprints.


    bioRxiv: A preprint server for biology that allows researchers to share their findings before formal peer review and publication.


    ChemRxiv: A preprint server for the global chemistry community, providing a platform for researchers to share their research outputs.


    PubMed Central (PMC): A free full-text archive of biomedical and life sciences journal literature, managed by the National Institutes of Health (NIH).


    CORE (COnnecting REpositories): Aggregates open access content from repositories and journals worldwide, providing a single access point to a vast collection of research outputs.


    Zenodo: A general-purpose repository that accepts research outputs from all disciplines. It is operated by OpenAIRE and CERN.


    Europe PMC: Similar to PubMed Central, Europe PMC provides access to a wide range of life sciences and biomedical literature.


    IEEE Xplore: A digital library for electrical engineering, computer science, and electronics, providing access to IEEE journals, conferences, and standards.


    These repositories contribute to the open access movement by providing a platform for researchers to share their work openly with the global academic community. Researchers should be aware of the specific focus and policies of each repository when considering where to share their scholarly works. Additionally, many academic institutions have their own institutional repositories where researchers can deposit their publications.

  • Another paper from the Department of Yes We Know


    a.k.a. The Department of Tell Me Something I Did Not Know


    Cold Fusion: How Close Can Deuterium Atoms Come inside Palladium?


    Z. Sun and D. Tomanek

    Department of Physics and Astronomy and Center for Fundamental Afaterials Research,

    Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan 48824-1116


    (Received 10 May 1989)


    We use ab initio density-functional calculations to determine the structural and electronic properties of deuterium in bulk palladium. The focus of our study is the binding and the nearest-neighbor distance between D atoms in the very concentrated limit of a hypothetical PdD2 crystal. These results are compared to analogous calculations for bulk PdD and Pd. We find that even at very high D concentrations in the bulk, the equilibrium distance between two D atoms is increased by =0.2 A from the gas value of 0.74 A. This large internuclear distance makes a cold-fusion reaction of deuterium very improbable.


    PACS numbers: 71.45.Nt, 28.50.Re, 71.20.Cf, 82.20.Kh


    Sci-Hub | Cold fusion: How close can deuterium atoms come inside palladium? Physical Review Letters, 63(1), 59–61 | 10.1103/physrevlett.63.59



    Lam et al. responded:


    Comment on ‘‘Cold fusion: How close can deuterium atoms come inside palladium?’’


    Sci-Hub | Comment on “‘Cold fusion: How close can deuterium atoms come inside palladium?’” Physical Review Letters, 63(17), 1895–1895 | 10.1103/physrevlett.63.1895

  • I was kidding with this headline, "Yes We Know." Sun and Tomanek raised an important point. Many people realized this, but someone had to say it first.

    In 1989, many, MANY people said, "there cannot be that much heat because the neutrons would kill the observers." That was obvious, and important, and people were right to say it. The thing is, a year later the experiments proved it was not true. Yet people kept saying it, even to this day. As Schwinger put it: "have we forgotten that physics are empirical?"

  • I think I will consult with an Atlanta copyright lawyer. The problem is, they seem to be in the business of protecting copyrights. I don't know how they would cotton to me asking how I can violate copyrights and get away with it. It is like asking a criminal lawyer how to rob a bank.

    I don't think you'd have any problem, so long as you approach it as an exercise in receiving advice so that you remain compliant with the law.


    Would some variation of: "I run an online library of scientific material, and I've just received a large donation of physical papers. I want to scan and upload them, but I don't know whether or not it's legal for me to do so. They are copyrighted, but certain exemptions seem to exist in copyright law for fair use, etc. What are my options and potential liability?" work?


    I think that that's a perfectly reasonable thing to approach a lawyer for advice on.

  • >Ed thinks that as long as I share papers with a limited number of people in a closed group, I am not violating copyright laws.


    I'm not a lawyer, but I'm very confident that this is not correct. I imagine its quite small risk (and you talking about doing it here in public adds to that), but it's not me taking the risk.

  • Would some variation of: "I run an online library of scientific material, and I've just received a large donation of physical papers. I want to scan and upload them, but I don't know whether or not it's legal for me to do so. They are copyrighted, but certain exemptions seem to exist in copyright law for fair use, etc. What are my options and potential liability?" work?

    One problem is that even if you buy a physical printed paper, directly from the publisher, and you scan it - just for your own storage and reference purposes (not to share with anyone else) - then you have already infringed mechanical copyright. When purchasing a paper (or, back in the day, a piece of music on a vinyl record) you do not have the "rights" to copy and transform the text into another physical form.


    In practice, of course, most of us used to buy records to play at home, and then record them onto cassette tape to play in the car. We also made copies for friends. We also taped stuff off the radio. It was impossible to stop - and yet (in the UK, at least) the Record Industry tried...



    Note that under the UK version of copyright law, there is no such concept as "fair use", as there is in the US version. This complicates things when the information is transferred across national boundaries - as we now do every day, via the internet.


    The sharing of academic papers has always happened, and (arguably) science would grind to a halt if all researchers always had to comply with the letter of copyright law, and pay publishers whatever they demand for every single copy of every paper we wish to look at.


    (Anecdote time) About 25 years ago, when starting some part-time research at the University of Manchester, my supervisor thought nothing of running a large stack of papers through the photocopier for me to take away and peruse. This sort of thing happened everywhere, and I'm sure many people here will have experienced the same. A couple of years later, some academic publishers took the same University to court - and managed to impose a huge fine on them for photocopying papers without paying licence fees. It was done as a test case - to scare all the other universities into complying with the publishers' demands (and it worked).


    Nowadays, of course, university staff, researchers, and students access papers electronically - but copyright law, and legal threats, mean that each university has to pay eye-watering annual fees to publishers for the privilege.


    Sharing papers between friends still happens, but that is mostly because it either flies under the radar of the publishers, or they decide that it isn't worth pursuing some infringers - as long as it doesn't affect their profits too much.


    But if the infringement becomes too well known, they will not hesitate to use the courts to close it down. That happened with the Z-Library archive last year, which had been used, quietly, by many people for years - until Tik-Tok users heard about it and started making videos telling everyone. The publishers then made sure that the main domains got shut down.

    "The most misleading assumptions are the ones you don't even know you're making" - Douglas Adams

    Edited once, last by Frogfall ().

  • And, of course, the various "rights licensing agencies" are simply a protection racket. None of the money collected ever makes it into the pockets of anyone who created the "content" in the first place. But once they find you - you can never escape...


    I'm also uncomfortable about this thread being visible in the "fully public" area of the forum - as it will turn up in google searches.


    "The most misleading assumptions are the ones you don't even know you're making" - Douglas Adams

    Edited once, last by Frogfall ().

  • Hello, do you have infos about Ed's theory with hydrogen species aligned lineary in cracks ?

    What do you think of that ?

    And, of course, the various "rights licensing agencies" are simply a protection racket. None of the money collected ever makes it into the pockets of anyone who created the "content" in the first place. But once they find you - you can never escape...


    I'm also uncomfortable about this thread being visible in the "fully public" area of the forum - as it will turn up in google searches.


Subscribe to our newsletter

It's sent once a month, you can unsubscribe at anytime!

View archive of previous newsletters

* indicates required

Your email address will be used to send you email newsletters only. See our Privacy Policy for more information.

Our Partners

Want To Advertise or Sponsor Us?
CLICK HERE to contact us.