h-Addict

The h index of G. W. Bruhn

April 4, 2017

This appears to be three, i.e. three papers cited three or more times. How is it possible for an emeritus professor to have an h index of three in fifty years on the staff? They have all been refuted, notably in UFT89. They are as follows:

1) G. W. Bruhn, “No Energy to be Extracted from the Vacuum”, Phys. Scripta 2006, cited by nine, two of whom are Hehl and Rodrigues, the rest is in Chinese.
2) G. W. Bruhn, “On the Lorentz Invariance of M. W. Evans’ O(3) Symmetry Law” cited by 5,”

It is simple, Ron. Only you suffer from the delusion that the h-index is the prime factor determining who gets a professorship. University syndics are much more interested in organisational and leadership skills. It is generally accepted that most original research is done by post-graduates, readers and lecturers, and that professors soon get bogged down in arguing about budgets, etc., leaving little time for new work. It is also important for a professor to be able to get on with people and not to be a complete pain.  Professor or not, it is also important not to inflict olfactory warfare on the student body and, when some student complains about the smell, it is important not to try to persecute him. It must also be pointed out that chemists in particular are notorious for publishing hundreds of very  short papers. To the layman this makes their CV look good ,  even though the papers are often just tweaks of the same old idea or routine applications of the same method to different chemicals. It is no coincidence that the print version of Chemical Abstracts was the largest publication in the world. Mathematicians instead tend to write fewer, but near book-length, papers. Look at Alan Turing: with just a few lengthy papers, he revolutionized several fields. As for those Bruhn papers being little-cited, you have rather shot yourself in the  foot there: they are little-cited because they are refuting your papers  … and those are of no account in the first place.   

“and one other paper, which has again been refuted years ago. The Wikipedia entry made this nonsense the basis of its distortion of ECE theory. ”

The Wiki entry on ECE is still going strong, and is added to on an almost weekly basis. 

“Bruhn disappeared on medical advice in 2008 after years of harassment of my group and myself. ”

Who was it who got Fucilla’s lawyer to send a threatening letter to Bruhn? That would be you … and THAT is harassment! It is a pretty weak scientific argument that cannot stand on its own two feet. 

“By now there are patented circuits taking energy from spacetime (UFT311, UFT321, replicated in UFT364). ”

They may be patented, but they do not ‘take energy from spacetime’. That is a crackpot idea, and the patents in fact make no such claim. 

“There should be an enquiry into this Wikipedia scandal. ”

There should be an enquiry into why someone who considers himself to be an employee of Her Majesty is associated with all sorts of energy scams, and has even used the address of Her Treasury while supporting pseudoscience-based confidence tricks. Did they retain the death penalty for treason? We cannot recall.

“After a long battle I got Wikipedia to remove its grossly pejorative and defamatory article on my career. ”

And now you are mentioned only in connection with E-Crap-E theory. What a fitting tribute.

“It began with the ethnically prejudiced words “Welsh chemist”.

That was naughty: the wording should have been “Welsh pseudoscientist”.

“Lakhtakia sent several ethnically prejudiced e mails before being caught by our feedback software. ”

Good for him!

“He was severely reprimanded and reported to the police by University Park administration. ”

No he wasn’t: why would an American university take the side of a Welsh pseudoscientist?

“He also impersonated arXiv staff at Cornell. He was not sacked for academic misconduct as he should have been.”

Again, well done. It should be an academic duty to expose members of the lunatic fringe. And here are some h results just in. According to Scopus, Elsevier’s more up-market version of Scolar, Ron’s h-index for the period, 1973 to 2017, is given by:

RON1

 But, if one ignores his self-citations (and these often account for over 90% of the total), one gets:

RON3

And, if one restricts attention to the period, 2007-2017 (supposedly his  decennium mirabilis), one finds:

RON2

Look at that: lower than Bruhn’s!

Advertisements

One Response to “h-Addict”

  1. Harry Hab Says:

    It’s true what you say about chemists. The slang is “salami slicing” as in “yeah he published 20 papers last year but it was mostly salami”. They often gather around coffee and cupcakes, making sanctimonious faces and deploring loudly that their culture should be this way, and tomorrow will be different.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: