No Comparison

November 20, 2017

J .C. Young, h = 6, I10 = 5, n = 7, g = 7

November 20, 2017

J. C. Young lectured to me in the first and third years at the EDCL. His index record is very poor, seven publications in an entire career. He was educated at Cambridge and was clearly unhappy at the EDCL. When it became clear that the EDCL would be closed, he moved to Montpellier. His best cited work is with French workers in Montpellier. I do not know how he was appointed, he was one of two young lecturers at the EDCL when I arrived in 1968. The other was Cadman, who told me that it was all politics. I do not know how Cadman was appointed.”

Yes, but just one of those papers (Reactivity of penta- and hexacoordinate silicon compounds and their role as reaction intermediates) has been cited 1051 times. Your most cited papers do not approach that, even though over 90% of the citations are always by yourself. Young does not need to use that cheap trick. Success is not about volume, Ron, it is about quality.


Zero Point to It

November 19, 2017

393(4): Shivering Dipole Potential and Field due to the Vacuum

November 19, 2017

The basic law (11) for the effect of the vacuum on any equation of physics is applied to the well known dipole potential and field. The shivering potential in the presence of the vacuum is given by Eq. (22) and the shivering electric field strength due to the dipole is given by Eq. (24). A new fundamental law of physics is exemplified by Eq. (29), which shows that the effect of the vacuum is maximized by maximizing the ensemble averaged vector spin connection. Any measured electric field strength E in volts per metre always measures the spin connection vector according to Eq. (29), because all material matter such as a circuit is always in contact with the vacuum. Using binomial expansion the dipole potential and field are given by Eqs. (39) and (40). In the next note these will be ensemble averaged. it becomes as clear as a diamond that there is ubiquitous energy in the vacuum. ”

But that has been accepted since Dirac, and most perpetual-motion cranks pin their hopes on extracting ZPE (zero-point energy) from the vacuum; so you have achieved absolutely nothing new. It is also generally accepted that ZPE cannot be ‘normal’ energy, otherwise it would have a detectable associated gravitational field. It is an axiom that energy is usable only when it flows from one point to another. Think about it Ron, if the energy is ubiquitous, where is it going to flow to? It would be like trying to exploit the potential energy of the water in the Dead Sea; what lower level is it going to flow to? Another analogy: it would be like trying to extract energy from a thermopile placed in an isothermal lake. Current will not flow if both junction-temperatures are the same. Robert Forward proposed a device for extracting ZPE, but it was unconvincing. Feynman showed – with his ratchet thought-experiment – that quantum fluctuations can also not be exploited. 

“Circuits are being developed by AIAS / UPITEC to use this energy, initiating Bannister’s second industrial revolution (Steve Bannister, Ph. D. Thesis, University of Utah, on ”

One cannot ‘develop’ something that does not exist. And someone really should have a word with Bannister’s department head. It seems that one of the signatories to the approval sheet for the public defence of his thesis clearly did not even bother to read the thesis. Bannister’s second industrial revolution is everybody else’s first industrial revolution, you utter twat. 

“Note carefully that the fundamental law (11) is well tested in the theory of the Lamb shift in H. Now it is being applied to the whole of physics as part of ECE2 generally covariant unified field theory. The standard Maxwell Heaviside theory has no explanation for vacuum effects, and has no spin connection. So ECE2 is preferred to the standard theory on the basis of experimental data (Lamb shift and other effects listed on This is an example of Baconian science.”

The Lamb Shift, Casimir Effect, etc., are perfectly well explained in terms of ZPE. The essence of Baconian science is experiment, and the avoidance of self-deception. You do not do the first at all, and do nothing but deceive yourself. It is fortunate that you don’t really have any followers.


Bringing More Shame to Wales

November 18, 2017

FOR POSTING: The Genuine “Marquis Who’s Who” Life Achievement Award

November 17, 2017

This is as attached. It is a well crafted desk plaque. ”

Very best quality plastic?

“Tim Cook, The CEO of Apple, for example, was awarded one (my blog posting of April 19th). ”

Did he actually want it?

He took over when the legendary Steve Jobs died a few years ago. ”

And he might still be here, had he not been so keen on alternative (i.e. fake) cancer-cures of the type that you have been known to extol (quite contrary to criminal law)

“The award is accompanied by correspondence with a Branding Specialist to set up a networking system. ”

… and, no doubt, an invoice

“So this can be used for ECE theory and teaching / research. ”

Rip-off begets rip-off

“The cloning companies warned against by Marquis are a kind of scam aimed to get your credit card. Marquis asks that they be reported to the police. ”

No honour among …

“I think that I am the only recipient of a Marquis Life Achievement Award from Wales, the first Welsh speaker to receive one. ”

You should give it to Swansea Council, so that they can put it in their air-conditioned strongroom … next to that letter which Einstein sent to ‘Professor’ Viv Pope and which they treat as if it were a religious artefact.  It would all be a sad comment on the status of Wales, if it were not also so comical a mental image. 

“Marquis has been the preeminent publishers of biographical information for over 115 years, it is considered to be more representative and democratic than the British “Who’s Who”. To illustrate the quality of our staff at AIAS / UPITEC, about half are in “Marquis Who’s Who in the World”.

QED. Marquis is rubbish.

Clone Wars

November 18, 2017

FOR POSTING: Warning against clones issued by Marquis

November 17, 2017

The genuine “Marquis Who’s Who” is generally recognized as the world’s leading international reference vehicle, founded 1899 in Chicago. It has issued a warning against sixty six clone companies and this is attached. I am in about thirty five editions of the genuine Marquis Who’s Who in America, World, Science and Engineering. The original and flagship edition was and is “Marquis Who’s Who in America” and contains the President, Congress and Supreme Court, the three branches of government, plus many Nobel Laureates, Fields Medallists, Pulitzer Prize winners, Members of the National Academy, Oscar winners and so on. I am a British / U. S. dual citizen, naturalized at Cornell University in 2000, British by birthright.”

No, the rational world recognizes it as being a vanity publication which contains a lot of dubious people … such as yourself and other AIAS gang-members, John Searl the petty criminal and investment fraudster, ‘Dr’ Bearden, Thomas ‘integrity’ Valone and many other pseudoscientists. One also wonders whether the reputable people are in it by choice, or did Marquis simply clone their entries from real Who’s Who publications. According to the Telesio-Galilei gang you are also in many volumes of International Biographical Centre biographies. Why do you not crow about that? Is it because even you can recognize the IBC as being a vanity-publishing racket? We pointed out some time ago that you and other no-hopers were included in an IBC ‘hall-of-fame’ list … and that most of the list had been ripped-off by a fake university; thus making you look like a university staff-member. In your dreams, sunshine!

Making the World Safe for Perpetual Motion

November 17, 2017

Interest in UFT311 from Konica Minolta Japan

November 17, 2017

UFT311 is the pioneering paper in which the ECE theory was shown to give an exact explanation of the Ide circuit that takes energy from spacetime.”

One obvious reason for the interest may be that there is an Osamu Ide who is in the patent literature and who works for rival companies in the photographic field. Those rivals may be checking-up on him. It is presumed however that it is not our own Ideotic. There is also an Osamu Ide who patents ‘alternative heath’ electrical therapeutic devices … we would like to think that this is our Ideotic: after perpetual motion and antigravity, alternative health, telepathy and the authorship of Shakespeare’s plays come high on the must-do list of the career-loon. 

“The Ide circuit is internationally patented, and replicated in UFT364.”

But the patents (and occasional academic papers) make no claim to produce energy-from-nowhere, and replication by incompetent experimenters who make exactly the same mistakes (or simply lie) does not count as ‘replication’.

“Other circuits are developed in UFT382 and UFT383. These circuits should be developed into large scale power stations as quickly as possible. ”

Haha. You obviously missed the ‘scaling-theory’ section of your university course. How exactly does one scale-up one of Ideotic’s glorified transformers, with the core volumes scaling as L^3 and the cross-sections of the conductors scaling only as L^2? 

“That would make all forms of fossil power generation obsolete, and would also make wind turbines obsolete, bringing the second industrial revolution (Dr. Steve Bannister, AIAS Fellow, Ph. D. Thesis, University of Utah, on , assistant professor, department of economics, University of Utah). ”

If you had actually read his thesis (instead of just acting as some sort of official external observer of the viva), you would know that his second industrial revolution has already occurred. It was what most experts would call the first industrial revolution. He was perhaps a trifle confused; he is ‘getting on a bit’ after all.

“Currently, the Muenich experimental group of which Dr Horst Eckardt is a member, is working intensively on new circuits. These are expected to proliferate globally within a few years.”

We note with interest that the agent for Ideotic’s European patents is based in Munchen. Is that just a coincidence? As we pointed out recently, Siemens Stain is a leading-light of the German lunatic fringe. As Siemens did not act on our whistle-blowing letter, our author-friend feels free now to tar the company with the same crackpot brush. 

“ECE explains these circuits exactly, the obsolete standard model has no explanation for them. Any good corporation should become interested in this ultra important new technology.”

What better proof could there be, that your theories are wrong, than that they predict perpetual motion. But of course that was their point in the first place. The ‘standard model’ does not need to explain non-existent phenomena. On the other hand, it has plenty of explanations for why incompetent experimenters think that they are getting more out than they put in. Pot-boiling ‘science-writers’ think that it is ‘spooky’ that the measuring instrument interacts with the system being observed at the quantum-mechanical level. But that is true at the classical level as well: one cannot blindly connect a meter to some oscillatory circuit and expect to get a meaningful result. Similarly, one cannot weigh a moving object, such as a spinning-top, and expect to get a true figure. Our author-friend points out that one cannot even predict the weights on the legs of a static table without taking account of the properties of the weighing instruments. Try it: imagine a 50kg weight at the dead centre of a symmetrical 2m x 2m 100kg table. What is the weight on each leg? Easy, right? Now move the weight, say, 10cm along one of the diagonals. Now what is the weight on each of the legs? Baffled, eh?* Ron should start off with little, but fundamental, conundrums like this before daring to rearrange all of physics. As for ‘good corporations’, are there any? They are run by non-physicists, and that is why they (Boeing, NASA, Lockheed, Airbus, BAe, etc. etc.) have all been associated with unworkable pseudoscientific concepts. Oh dear, perhaps Ideotic is in with a chance after all. How is his attempt to deceive the UK Government going, Ron?

*NB: simply ‘taking moments’ will not work; there will be more unknowns than independent equations.


Compliment Not Returned

November 16, 2017

Prof Mauro Ferrario, h = 30, g ~60, I10 = 46, n = 3,770

November 14, 2017

This is good enough for a full professor by Hirsch’s definition (h > ~ 20), but these days h of about 35 or more is needed for full professor of physics in some good universities. The system has become h obsessed. It would do much better to use scientomertics. Mauro Ferrario was a student of Paolo Grigolini at Pisa and became my post doctoral in the Room 262 group, along with Gareth Evans. Colin Reid was a graduate student Ferrario was capable and competent and I was external examiner at his doctoral examination in a room in which Galileo used to lecture. As Jeremy Jones began his illegal harassment and abuse (Auto volume two) Ferrario stood his ground with the rest of my group and won a European Fellowship of the Italian Research Council in 1981 (attached). He left to work at Cambridge because it became obvious that Jones was out of control, and as his staff would say, out of his mind, and out to get me. He was certainly out of his depth as a head of department. Ferrario later became a Director of CECAM in Switzerland and a full professor in Italy. Mauro Ferrario’s performance is greatly superior to that of Jeremy Jones.”

Professor[sic] Ferrario recently (2014) co-edited a voluminous (628pp) special issue of the free-to-view journal, Entropy.  The theme of the issue was, ‘Molecular Dynamics Simulation’.  Was not that supposed to be your forte, Ron? Is that not the topic of most of your opera omnia?  Just imagine that, all of your life’s work available for your star pupil to draw upon. So how come you are not mentioned even once in all of those 628 pages. Could it be that your later crackpot efforts have made you a persona non grata in your own field? The same thing has happened to other cranks. Some years ago, someone at Sussex University completed a PhD thesis on the subject of maglev. It did not once mention Eric Laithwaite … which was odd, because Laithwaite is often (wrongly) credited with the invention of both maglev (first proposed by Maxwell) and the linear induction motor (first proposed by Wheatstone) and had worked on ‘his’ maglev space-launch project at Sussex  … for NASA (which loves cranks). Needless to say, the concept had been stolen from Tsiolkovski. So could there be a general trend towards airbrushing academic loonies out of history?

Embarrassing Partner

November 15, 2017

Continuing with UFT393

November 15, 2017

Good to hear from you, the circuit and gyro projects are important, and I would be grateful if you could keep me updated on progress. Have a good holiday.”

Because Siemens Stain is such a lackey when it comes to plotting Ron’s incorrect predictions, it is easy to forget that he is a much bigger name in the German lunatic fringe than Ron is in the British lunatic fringe.  So here is Ron, thanking SS for his ongoing experimental efforts in the (classic loony) fields of antigravity and perpetual motion. That these fields are non-starters as far as physicists are concerned does not deter mere engineers (especially electrical ones) from beating those dead donkeys. That is why silly ‘spinning-tops in boxes’ antigravity devices have been discussed by NATO, NASA, British Aerospace and Airbus senior personnel. So Ron, with all of his blustering about being a great ‘chemical physicist’, will never be taken seriously while he has SS in tow. Ditch the krautpot Ron!

Well, We Know That

November 13, 2017

Sean Carroll gets a few things right!

November 13, 2017

Good to hear from Steve Bannister. Sean Carroll accepted ECE theory some years ago, in a communication to the late Prof. John B. Hart, one of the international referees for my Civil List Pension. The referees were Alwyn van der Merwe, Bo Lehnert and John B. Hart, and the nominator was the Royal Society of Chemistry, possibly also the Royal Society. ECE is based directly on the geometry in Carroll’s chapters one to three of “Spacetime and Geometry: an Introduction to General Relativity” (online, based on graduate lectures at Harvard, Chicago and Caltech). ECE gives a new geometrical basis for quantum mechanics as you know. Indeterminacy (The Uncertainty Principle) has been thoroughly refuted in the classic UFT175. The Dirac equation’s negative energy problem has been removed, and the equation has been extended to the fermion equation. The necessity for the Dirac sea has been removed. The proofs given by Carroll have been greatly expanded and written out in all detail. The wave equations of physics have been derived from the tetrad postulate of Cartan geometry. The Schroedinger equation has been derived from geometry, and so has the Pauli exclusion principle. A new force equation of quantum mechanics has been given in UFT177, another classic paper. So the foundations of quantum mechanics are now known, and accepted, to be geometrical. This means that quantum mechanics can be unified with ECE and ECE2 general relativity. The way in which these advances are accepted directly by a vast and highly competent readership, without reference to a transient academic establishment, means that the dogmatism of the old quantum mechanics has collapsed. It still receives propagandist attention from a rag such as wikipedia, but its ideas are thoroughly obsolete. One cannot stop the march of ideas.”

You have pointed out many times that you agree with Carroll up to his chapter 5(?) but then, when that mathematical expert on the topic disagrees with your calculations (which are well known to be faulty), you claim that he (and every other competent mathematician) is wrong. It is funny that the Dismal Scientist is shocked/surprised to learn that not all scientists are on the same page. That is well known. The huge gulf between the views of electrical engineers and physicists is notorious and the schism can be accurately dated to the late 19th century when ‘the mathematics passed beyond the ken of meter-wielders’. That is why electrical engineers (Tesla, Laithwaite, Aspden, Puthoff, etc.) have always been in the vanguard of the lunatic fringe. It is less well known that there is a big divide between experimental physicists and theoretical ones. The former perform the ‘boring’ experiments upon which science depends and which journalists struggle to make interesting to the lay public. The theoretical physicists are always in the limelight because they are the ones who come up almost weekly with new theories of the cosmos: and that plays well with laymen, whose claimed  ‘interest in science’ is usually religiously motivated. The theoreticians also like to wow the public with the supposedly spooky aspects of quantum mechanics. Meanwhile it is the experimentalists who come up with new workable quantum-based gadgets without being at all fazed by the spookiness. Much of the supposed spookiness is, at base, illusory: there exist various puzzles in pure logic which also cry out for a spooky resolution. In those cases it is clearly not needed. So is it really needed in physics?       

Snowflakes Falling on Fruitcakes

November 13, 2017

Analysis of Impact

November 13, 2017

This is a good idea, I can add some explanation of the various citation indices: h, g, I10 and I5. Compared with our well known scientometrics they are primitive, but for some obscure reason fashionable. Careers, promotions and funding, prizes and kudos depend on these indices, but it would be far more accurate to base assessment on our type of scientometrics plus conventional citation indices. My conventional citation indices compare well with any scientist, but the scientometrics show an impact which is unique in the history of science. Put together they make me one of the scientists who have made a large and sustained impact in the history of science. The contribution of co authors is always important of course. They also make a huge impact. Many thanks for setting up and maintaining the feed back programs. The indices do not mean very much in industry or local government, they are meant for scholars in universities and institutes. The final document will give indices for the golden era physicists such as Planck, Einstein, Bianchi, Lorentz, Sommerfeld, Pauli, Schroedinger, Heisenberg, Compton, Rutherford, Dirac, de Broglie, Pierre Curie, Marie Curie, Langevin, Cartan and so on. At present university appointments are random, often they are smoky “arrangements” and the indices and scientometrics put together show this very clearly. It is fair to claim that AIAS / UPITEC Institute is among the best small institutes in the world.”

… that is the measure of your ‘impact’. First there was the pedestrian pre-breakdown work which was – as it is for all chemists – copious, but each  item has rarely been cited by other scientists since it appeared. Those indices were always artificially inflated by your relentless self-referencing; what a cheap trick!  Your post-breakdown perpetual-motion defence (yes, that is its ultimate purpose) work is not cited by any but cranks; and most of them belong to your gang. Even a passing layman must think it very suspicious that the only proof of your ‘success’ is provided by … yourself. By the way, if you really ‘work from 4 to 8am on analyzing the scientometrics’, how come the results are usually posted by 6am each day; sometimes earlier? As for your amusing belief that those indices are very important: the evidence is clearly against it. Professors, for instance, are chosen for their other skills: the ability to handle people and budgets being foremost. Most of the geniuses whom you admire would have been incapable of managing even a sweetshop, and their ‘professor’ title was often just a courtesy one which did not entail actual administrative duties. Psychiatrists agree that most famous scientists were sub-clinically insane. You, of course, have an undated letter from a clinic saying that you are not insane. Isn’t that somehow worse?     

Bad Example All Round

November 7, 2017

Continuing with UFT392

November 6, 2017

The final note will deal with the magnetostatic limit. I have been spending some time updating my h and g indices and adding I10 and I5 indices. I found that Google scholar has only 1020 of my 2000 publications and so on and its citations misse some important items such as volume 119(3) of Advances in Chemical Physics. , cited almost four hundred times. So the conventional index system is very imperfect. The daily usage file is much more accurate and records actual readings. In October 2017 over 3,200 items were read, including all the UFT papers. I just wanted to emphasize that my personal impact and that of AIAS / UPITEC is far larger than the local colleges here. So I would recommend against paying the huge fees that they charge. The new system we have developed charges nothing. The general public could educate itself in teh medium of teh Welsh language without setting foot on the gold plated campi.”

But Ron, that was one of those occasions upon which you abused your position as editor and ruined the reputation of Advances in Chemical Physics by smuggling in your perpetual-motion friends; notably Terence Barrett and Hal Fox, promoter of cold-fusion and other drivel ,

In another volume of ACP, you allowed fake academic, ‘Dr’ Bearden, to write about his Motionless Electromagnetic Generator. You remember? That was the gadget which AIAS gang-members all wrote about in Foundations of Physics Letters … and got Van der Merde sacked. Don’t you remember? You proved that it extracted energy from nowhere. So why have you dropped it in favour of Ideotic and Hill-of-Beans? How many perpetual-motion machines does the world need? So, yes, that volume has been cited nearly 400 times, but well over 90% of those citations are accounted for by yourself, by AIAS gang-members and by other loony-tunes.  You are an academic fraud and a disgrace to the UK education system. Oh, and your Latin is as rubbish as your physics.