Archive for November, 2015

We Can All See What You Are Doing, Ron

November 28, 2015

Summary to Date of Some E Indices

November 28, 2015

I devised the E index to be AB, where A is the average number of citations per paper of the h index papers, and B the total number of publications of a scientist. So E is a measure of the life output of an imaginative and productive scientist. The Hirsch or h index is the number n of papers cited n or more times.”

Ron has clearly acknowledged that we are correct concerning the meaningless of his website-hit ‘scientometrics’ and has now devised an even more dubious benchmark. This is to take the average number of citations of the papers of his which were properly refereed and published in real journals, and to multiply that average by the total number of papers; even though the many later papers were never published because they would have been rejected by a sane editor. This is rather like a keen runner, who always rejoiced in keeping track of the total number of miles covered, carrying on totaling the miles, even though he has been paralyzed for the past twenty years, by multiplying his previous average by the number of days since he was struck down. It is, like website-hit statistics, totally meaningless and calculatingly contrived to make a no-hoper look good.  

Advertisements

Call for Anti-Crackpot Laws

November 27, 2015

New Anti Hacking Laws

November 27, 2015

It has been brought to my attention that hackers who have been in prison are often hired by companies to do their hacking work for them, and paid very highly. I think that both Congress and Parliament should bring in sweeping anti terrorist legislation to make sure that any hacker with a criminal record be banned from the internet for life. Similarly sweeping new anti terrorist legislation is needed against troll sites and their carriers. This would allow a troll site to be removed entirely and both trolls and carriers charged.”

We live in a technology-based, and therefore science-based, society. It is important that young students should be ‘brought up to speed’ as quickly as possible, ‘lest the machine stop’, and inculcated with the best-established laws of physics. The internet was expected to help with that, but it has turned out to be a disaster: even before starting formal education, young people are prey to thousands of cranks and their worthless ideas via seductive sites such as YouTube. Even the bright child who can ‘see though’ the twaddle of the ‘free energy’ and UFO-style levitation sites, will be helpless when ‘groomed’ by those having genuine academic qualifications and who are perhaps even employees of bona fide high-tech companies. We therefore call for the immediate removal of the Telesio-Galilei, Searl, Cheniere and AIAS websites; just for starters. It would be nice to start a petition to that effect, but it has already been demonstrated that the internet is so loony-friendly that it is easy to suppress anyone who questions it.

Whose Point are you Trying to Prove?

November 27, 2015

E Index of Louis de Broglie

November 27, 2015

His E index is 24,937.2, A = 138.54, B = 180, h = 37. This compares with my E = 213,235, A = 130.18, B = 1638, h = 39. He was Prince Louis Victor Pierre Raymond, 7th Duke de Broglie, with whom my co author Vigier worked for many years in the Institut Henri Poincare in Paris. Louis de Broglie and Vigier are obvious influences on my work, the former from undergraduate days (wave particle dualism), the latter from 1993 onwards.”

What is the point of belaboring the scientometrics (of any type) with regard to famous scientists? It is clear that there is little connection between any of these ratings and fame. Look at the top-rated ‘scientist’, Freud, whose reputation is built entirely upon the collection of anecdotes and unsubstantiated waffle. Did you know that he was also a crank (and drug-addict)? His view of the universe was based upon numerology and prime numbers and he often holed-up with Merck (of the great German chemical company) for drug-taking sessions. Are you not going to mention Tesla; ‘the Einstein for loonies’? The morons of the ‘disinformation superhighway’ have made him very famous, but he never wrote a single scientific paper that was worthy of the term.  We can certainly see the influence of Vigier on your ‘work’; whatever he did that was worthwhile earlier in life, it is clear that he succumbed to some sort of dementia and ended up attending crackpot conferences on an equal footing with your friend, the perpetual-motion fraudster  John Searl. 

Built-In Bias

November 27, 2015

Invitation to Peer Review

November 27, 2015

Thank you very much, I will be glad to peer review papers as the author of over 1,600 publications.”

You did not read the small print did you Ron: they are not asking you to review papers for them, they are asking you to divulge referee-reports which you have already written for real journals. It is unlikely that they will be interested in your out-of-date pre-breakdown reviews, and no sane journal-editor is ever going to ask you to act as a referee again. According to you, all of relativity and quantum mechanics is wrong. That means, although it does not seem to occur to you, that most modern chemistry must also be wrong. Who on Earth would use, as a referee, someone who would be against a paper just because it did not agree with his own crackpot theory? It is quite touching that you think yourself to be a ‘force in the World’, but you are not. 

More Index-Fiddling

November 25, 2015

Accurate Calculation of my E index

November 25, 2015

The index is just something I devised in order to take account both of most cited work and the total number of publications for any author. It also allows comparison of my work with the great scientists whose work I admire, for example Paul Dirac. The E index is E = AB, where A is the average number of citations per paper of the Hirsch h index, and B is the total number of publications (not necessarily confined to Google Scholar). My total number of publications is calculated from 651 Omnia Opera papers, 321 UFT papers of which I am author or co author, 202 translations of UFT papers by Alex Hill, and 464 essays, essay translations, broadcasts and Spanish language broadcsts. This is a total of 1,638 publications and broadcasts all on www.aias.us and all archived onwww.webarchive.org.uk.”

So, you are not only using the index for your cited work and multiplying it by the never-cited work, but you are also counting some papers twice (doubly-lost in translation) plus the efforts of others. Did you not point out recently that only disreputable department-heads do that sort of thing? It is all moot anyway, as nobody takes the slightest interest in your post-breakdown pseudoscientific work. There is another defect in your usual brand of scientometrics. You say that hits on websites are a more reliable guide. But how many real scientists have to post their papers on a personal website? That strategy is almost unique to the lunatic fringe: look at your friends, Searl and Bearden, they have to put their ‘publications’ on their websites. So how can your form of scientometrics be applied to real scientists, who publish in proper journals? Well, it can of course because bona fide journals now keep track of how many times a given paper has been downloaded from the online version. Sometimes the number of downloads is openly displayed. Counting downloads would indeed be a good system because perhaps not every paper will actually be cited. In fact, the ratio of citations to downloads would be a good guide to the worth of a paper; only good ones will be mentioned. Sadly , such a scheme would not help you Ron; you cannot get your outlandish ideas into a reputable journal in the first place. 

Big Deal

November 24, 2015

Patents on LENR Both Sides of the Atlantic

November 24, 2015

Many thanks indeed to Alex Hill! This is indeed a historic occasion, so Doug Lindstrom can apply his latest theory with information from these patents. ECE is the only theory that can explain LENR within the framework of a unified field theory.”

So what? The ludicrous Emdrive reactionless propulsion device is based upon a granted patent. It still will not work. Oh, are you suffering under the misapprehension that Patent-Office examiners are scientific experts? Then how do you explain the fact that the notorious crackpots, Thomas Valone and Paul LaViolette have been PO examiners? Not to mention Harold Aspden, who was IBM’s ‘head of patents’ for Europe but had a finger in every loony pie and conned at least £75000 out of HM Government to ‘develop’ a motor which supposedly produced more energy than it used. And why is Hill-of-Beans so pleased? If he is already successfully selling another form of perpetual motion machine (LOL), why would he welcome competition?   

No Such Thing as Bad Publicity

November 24, 2015

Dear Ron, please thank your new loony friend, Mr Ucar, for spreading the word!:

http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg106055.html

He and you have obviously never heard of the Streisand Effect.

 

Sleazy Scientometrics

November 23, 2015

Suggestion of a New Citation Index

November 23, 2015

Ideally people should construct the type of scientometrics that I have devised. Failing that, and in the old system, I would suggest an E index as follows: the ratio of the total number of citations to the total number of papers making up the h index. This means that the best papers and books of a scientist’s output are selected. I think that the total number of publications is in itself an important index, so multiply these two indices. Website publication is now on equal footing with paper publishing. The best refereeing system is to throw open a paper to the colleagues, and let them all referee it for years. In so doing they would obviously have studied it in depth at their leisure. Many citations take place without the cited material ever having been read at all. Being “officially” retired, I have no hidden motivation like trying to get promotion and so on. In my case at present the indices are 103.86 and over a thousand. So these two indices are multiplied together to give a good accurate measure of both quality and quantity for a good, imaginative and hard working scientist. So in my case E is greater than 100,000. Very very few would rival that, even using the obsolete old measuring stick.”

You will not know this, Ron, being out-of-touch with real science and, indeed, out-of-touch with reality, but there is at least one entire journal that is devoted to the topic of scientometrics. None of the hundreds of papers, published in Scientometrics, have ever proposed the ridiculous and underhand concept of counting hits on a website.  The basic idea, of course, is to judge the impact of a paper by counting how many times it (and presumably the results and concepts contained therein) are cited by others. The main complication is of course that disreputable, over-ambitious and social-climbing authors pack the introduction to the paper with as many references to their own work as possible. You fail to mention, for instance, that – of the average 103 citations of your work – a very high proportion of the references are due to yourself, or to others having a vested interest. In the case of your crackpot output, the proportion reaches 100%. 

Worthless Then, Worthless Now

November 22, 2015

Update on My conventional h index and total citations

November 22, 2015

This is the old system, now made thoroughly obsolete by my new and well known scientometrics method. My h index has to be calculated manually from Google Scholar because there are many people called M. W. Evans, and I have published as M. W. Evans, Myron Evans and Myron W Evans. My h index is currently 35, with an estimated seven or eight thousand total citations.”

It is now clear that your ‘conventional’ scientometrics were just as contrived as the current ridiculous web-hit method. You have always padded your papers with an inordinate number of references to earlier work by yourself. We are gradually wading through the hundreds of papers in your ‘opera’ and our analysis does not make good reading.   We noted long ago that the paper which you consider to be the most ‘influential’ has hardly been cited at all. Your crackpot, post-breakdown, ‘work’ is not referenced by anybody at all who counts.

Ron Finds Another Antigravity Crank

November 22, 2015

Magnetic Levitation Experiments by Hamdi Ucar

November 22, 2015

Many thanks. I think that this area could be very interesting if the experiments are reproducible and repeatable. I am forwarding to the engineers of AIAS / UPITEC for their input.”

Ron is now a fan of three goofballs who confuse magnetic levitation with UFO levitation: the petty thief and investment-fraudster, John Searl, AIAS fellow, Charles Kellum … and now Hamdi Ucar.  Do you actually know any real scientists, Ron?