View Single Post
Old 02-05-2010, 10:33 AM
witsend witsend is offline
Gold Member
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 1,881
Here's my offer and I'd be happy to lean across the Atlantic, the Indian and even the Pacific Oceans to shake hands on it.

Any excercise such as we've been involved in also involves gruelling hours of testing and counter testing, proving and retesting. That work was done - exhaustively - by Glen. The data was perfectly collated that it can be referenced in any context required. To get it to that high standard of completion we need to thank a variety of players. Topping that list is Poynty and MileHigh. Between them they systematically showed where the arguments' weaknesses lay and we duly addressed them. Harvey's contribution here was big. He knew his way around the required probe positioning and how to expose what was required and its significance. In the absence of Donovan's earlier active input - this was both welcome and required. He also knew the needed parameters to establish these facts conclusively.

But that side of the work is now done. What is now required is the careful collation of that data that the evidence can be put forward for the reviewers. Let me remind you. The reviewers DO NOT establish the veracity of the claims. Publication allows the broad field of mainstream academia to establish this. The reviewer states if the argument is contradictory, or weak, or if there needs to be more data included, or if there needs to be some emphasis enhanced or not, as required. That is part of the discussion process.

What needs to be established is 'which journal' to present this to. I think IEEE are quite frankly too scared to take this on. It's claims are profoundly disturbing to mainstream and the thesis is barely tested. But I have reason to believe that there are physics journals that may be more interested. Then the same argument needs to be presented but with an entirely different emphasis. I believe I may be able to solicit assistance here. Then we can restructure the paper and resubmit it and that will be that. Again, the input need not come from the collaborators. Any one of us can do it. But as I know the argument best, it is possibly better that I attend to this exercise.

Alternatively there are other journals that may consider the 'replication' without the support of a thesis. That's also doable, but it is possible that the respectability of such a journal may not be as high as the IEEE or the TIE division within it. I am happy to look into such for you and will be just as happy to write the paper with my name omitted. Just know that this offer is conditional to its being considered a replication.

Or I could do both papers the one for the electrical side and the one for the physics side. You choice.

I would add - there is nothing I can do about it if you promote this as a discovery. I will need to challenge it after the event which first presupposes that it is published. I can only record my intention to fight such a claim with every means at my disposal and will be sorry to have to do so. Notwithstanding which, I would earnestly remind you to find out which is preferable from a publishing preference. Anomalies are not, usually, published. That's how they've managed to discount the extraordinary progress of so many experimentalists throughout this forum. I suspect your advises in this regard are not what they should be.

Last edited by witsend; 02-05-2010 at 10:49 AM.