-
#1460
by
Rodal
on 21 Apr, 2016 14:39
-
sorry for ruining your nice poll but...
you can't "release" a peer reviewed paper as long as the peer review process isn't over. Being it a dialogical process, it can takes months, years. My last peer-reviewed paper is in review (several stages of) sincefebruary 2015. I can't still say when, if ever, it will be published: it depends on the review's outcomes and on the amount of work you have to do to address the reviewers' concerns; there are no means to say it in advance.
Right on, correct.
Moreover, it is not unusual that if a paper runs into peer-review issues for journal "X", the author may choose to withdraw it from journal "X" and submit it to journal "Y" where it may pass peer-review faster.
This has actually happened in some famous cases, involving papers from Nobel Prizes in Physics.The whole process is opaque to people that are not the authors or the peer-reviewers of the paper, and its time duration, therefore, uncertain.
-
#1461
by
Vesc
on 21 Apr, 2016 14:53
-
-
#1462
by
Flyby
on 21 Apr, 2016 14:56
-
About that poll...
In all honesty...and without any blunt intend ( my apologies if someone is unintentionally offended)... but....
I cant find the point nor the "fun" in having such a poll
The only word that spontaneously pops up in my mind is..."annoying" ...sorry...
-
#1463
by
Rodal
on 21 Apr, 2016 15:01
-
About that poll...
In all honesty...and without any blunt intend ( my apologies if someone is unintentionally offended)... but....
I cant find the point nor the "fun" in having such a poll
The only word that spontaneously pops up in my mind is..."annoying" ...sorry...
I see your point. I have not personally answered the poll myself because I think the timing is uncertain in general.
Perhaps it is an exercise in assessing the "Wisdom of Crowds"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wisdom_of_the_crowdWisdom-of-the-crowds research routinely attributes the superiority of crowd averages over individual judgments to the elimination of individual noise, an explanation that assumes independence of the individual judgments from each other. Thus the crowd tends to make its best decisions if it is made up of diverse opinions and ideologies.
...
Crowds tend to work best when there is a correct answer to the question being posed, such as a question about geography or mathematics.
Will the crowd, the collective thinking of the readers, somehow be able to predict the unpredictable timing?
Time will tell
-
#1464
by
rfmwguy
on 21 Apr, 2016 15:03
-
About that poll...
In all honesty...and without any blunt intend ( my apologies if someone is unintentionally offended)... but....
I cant find the point nor the "fun" in having such a poll
The only word that spontaneously pops up in my mind is..."annoying" ...sorry...
OK, message received, thought it would be an interesting conversation starter, but not in a negative sense. For those of us who are not in the peer-review world, the whole process seemed secretive and black-magic...picking your peer review team, not picking your team, where to publish, what to publish, when to time it, how many revisions do you have to write, when is enough enough, etc.
Poll will close.
p.s. I've always been very open to respectful suggestions, even when they run contrary to my own way of thinking. This being the primary reason I've hung around this forum for a while and permanently left others.
-
#1465
by
JaimeZX
on 21 Apr, 2016 15:56
-
-
#1466
by
rfmwguy
on 21 Apr, 2016 16:13
-
For the record, I have requested an invitation to witness the cannae drive demonstration on behalf of myself and on behalf of NSF as a "journalistic reporter". If I receive a positive reply, I'll be glad to make the 4.5 hour drive and report here on what I witnessed.
http://cannae.com/new-superconducting-demo-scheduled/
-
#1467
by
rfmwguy
on 21 Apr, 2016 16:17
-
-
#1468
by
Star One
on 21 Apr, 2016 17:50
-
-
#1469
by
rfmwguy
on 21 Apr, 2016 17:54
-
-
#1470
by
rfmwguy
on 21 Apr, 2016 18:18
-
sorry for ruining your nice poll but...
you can't "release" a peer reviewed paper as long as the peer review process isn't over. Being it a dialogical process, it can takes months, years. My last peer-reviewed paper is in review (several stages of) sincefebruary 2015. I can't still say when, if ever, it will be published: it depends on the review's outcomes and on the amount of work you have to do to address the reviewers' concerns; there are no means to say it in advance.
No apologies needed, for those of us who are not familiar with the Peer Review process, it was a pure speculative adventure.
What may confuse people (it does me) is
if you enter into an agreement with anyone (individuals, team)
it is usually not standard operating procedure to leave timelines open. IOW, if a team of reviewers agree to review a paper, why is there nothing in the agreement (oral or written) that limits review time, even if there are questions.
In the commercial world the agreement without time expectations (usually well documented) would be risky as any member of the team could simply fail to perform their duties in a timely manner...OR...intentionally block progress for whatever reason that person wants.
Timeline milestones within business agreements are nothing new. In academia, there are always timelines...but it seems the Review Process is something completely different. It appears it is more of a Publishing House style of doing business...and I know these people fairly well from non-scientific publishing interactions (books).
I've written many tech articles for publication in trade journals, while far from peer-review journals, questions and answers seldom exceeded 90 days. So...my confusion.
http://www.tvtechnology.com/product-news/0095/high-power-attenuators/262796
-
#1471
by
Rodal
on 21 Apr, 2016 18:21
-
sorry for ruining your nice poll but...
you can't "release" a peer reviewed paper as long as the peer review process isn't over. Being it a dialogical process, it can takes months, years. My last peer-reviewed paper is in review (several stages of) sincefebruary 2015. I can't still say when, if ever, it will be published: it depends on the review's outcomes and on the amount of work you have to do to address the reviewers' concerns; there are no means to say it in advance.
No apologies needed, for those of us who are not familiar with the Peer Review process, it was a pure speculative adventure.
What may confuse people (it does me) is if you enter into an agreement with anyone (individuals, team) it is usually not standard operating procedure to leave timelines open. IOW, if a team of reviewers agree to review a paper, why is there nothing in the agreement (oral or written) that limits review time, even if there are questions.
In the commercial world the agreement without time expectations (usually well documented) would be risky as any member of the team could simply fail to perform their duties in a timely manner...OR...intentionally block progress for whatever reason that person wants.
Timeline milestones within business agreements are nothing new. In academia, there are always timelines...but it seems the Review Process is something completely different. It appears it is more of a Publishing House style of doing business...and I know these people fairly well from non-scientific publishing interactions (books).
I've written many tech articles for publication in trade journals, while far from peer-review journals, questions and answers seldom exceeded 90 days. So...my confusion.
http://www.tvtechnology.com/product-news/0095/high-power-attenuators/262796
Here is a peer-reviewed article on peer-review typical timelines for a scientific journal ( Angewandte Chemie):
How Long is the Peer Review Process for Journal Manuscripts?
A Case Study on Angewandte Chemie
Lutz Bornmann and Hans-Dieter Danielab
http://www.lutz-bornmann.de/icons/TimePeerReview5.pdfit contains some interesting information pertaining to the subject
See: Table 1. Number of weeks between receipt of manuscript at the editorial office and the editorial decision to accept or reject for publication
Number of weeks ranges from 3 to 62 weeksEach journal is different. Here are the standards for the well-known journal Science, for example:
http://www.sciencemag.org/authors/peer-review-science-publications
-
#1472
by
rfmwguy
on 21 Apr, 2016 18:39
-
Thanks Doc, this was more than enlightening! It is a Publishing House business model, I've seen versions of it many times before and witnessed it first-hand with trade journals and my own books. Looks like a bell curve around 6-8 weeks for a typical chem paper review. EW is in the latter part of the curve it appears.
Due to the secret nature of the publishing business in general, not many people fully understand the model. In Peer-Review Journals, it is non-employees performing the service for the journal's editorial board. That in itself makes it different from in-house manuscript reviews...and potentially can have unforeseen delays, especially if the publishing house has little influence over the reviewers (free gratis and they have their own jobs, etc).
Never fail to learn something here. And thanks for the link, which I read with a great deal of interest. The internet has not yet restructured the peer-review process as fast as it has the general publishing business.
-
#1473
by
Star One
on 21 Apr, 2016 18:52
-
-
#1474
by
rfmwguy
on 21 Apr, 2016 18:58
-
Houston Examiner 4/20/16 on-line article:
http://www.examiner.com/article/has-the-impossible-em-drive-being-tested-by-nasa-finally-been-explained
IBT 4/21/16 on-line article:
http://tinyurl.com/j4jkfmq
Just propagating incorrect conclusions it seems going from the criticism I've seen online of the original article.
Always good to give our kind readership any links to rebuttals, etc.,
I am going off the comments under the original article & on the EM Reddit.
The latter is not worth linking to IMHO. Those of us with first-hand experience communicating with the anonymous posters there found they're mostly off-topic, unsubstantiated opinions from dubious individuals, some claiming credentials they do not posses. That's a mouth-full for basically a lack of professional communications skills.
p.s. Quoting one of their more prolific users today "You're a charlatan, a dedicated crackpot, or both." I think this gives you the general idea on the level of discourse there...and it is permitted.
-
#1475
by
rfmwguy
on 21 Apr, 2016 19:05
-
Recent paper I've explored during my EMDrive working theory involving Ions (my bold emphasis):
A single-atom heat engine
Johannes Ronagel,1, Samuel Thomas Dawkins,1 Karl Nicolas Tolazzi,1
Obinna Abah,2 Eric Lutz,2 Ferdinand Schmidt-Kaler,1 and Kilian Singer1, 3
1Quantum, Institut fur Physik, Universitat Mainz, D-55128 Mainz, Germany
2Department of Physics, Friedrich-Alexander Universitat Erlangen-Nurnberg, D-91058 Erlangen, Germany
3Experimentalphysik I, Universitat Kassel, Heinrich-Plett-Str. 40, D-34132 Kassel, Germany
(Dated: October 14, 2015)
We report the experimental realization of a single-atom heat engine. An ion is confined in a
linear Paul trap with tapered geometry and driven thermally by coupling it alternately to hot and
cold reservoirs. The output power of the engine is used to drive a harmonic oscillation. From direct
measurements of the ion dynamics, we determine the thermodynamic cycles for various temperature
differences of the reservoirs. We use these cycles to evaluate power P and efficiency of the engine,
obtaining up to P = 342 yJ and = 2:8h, consistent with analytical estimations. Our results
demonstrate that thermal machines can be reduced to the ultimate limit of single atoms.http://arxiv.org/pdf/1510.03681v1.pdfNot sure about other experiments, but I measured a noticeable difference of endplate temperatures IF the Cu+ collect at the endplates. The frustum is a "closed" Ion system, so still doesn't make sense this is the root cause of the EMDrive effect.
-
#1476
by
rfmwguy
on 21 Apr, 2016 19:31
-
Nice of Mr Fetta to take the time to reply within the day:
Dave,
The next demo for our superconducting drive is not going to be open to a general audience so we will not be able to accommodate your desire to view the demo.
We will be publishing results and video from these tests though, and I will let you know where and when this information will be available.
Best regards,
Guido Fetta
Cannae Inc.
-
#1477
by
otlski
on 22 Apr, 2016 00:26
-
The wire hasn't been selected yet, need about 15 lbs total weight support (don't know exactly yet). Rather than a torsion estimate, was planning on actual weight displacement calibration for horizontal deflections measured by the laser displacement sensor...40 MM +/- 10 MM range with micrometer level accuracy, so don't want too much Z axis (horizontal) displacement which would push LDS out of range.
May i suggest that you think about music wire around 0.030" diameter. You would want to preload (stretch) it so that the lower section never comes out of tension at your expected payload. I did not do the math but it might be in the range of 0.020 inches of stretch. The wire should hold 75 lbs in tension overall.
-
#1478
by
rfmwguy
on 22 Apr, 2016 00:40
-
The wire hasn't been selected yet, need about 15 lbs total weight support (don't know exactly yet). Rather than a torsion estimate, was planning on actual weight displacement calibration for horizontal deflections measured by the laser displacement sensor...40 MM +/- 10 MM range with micrometer level accuracy, so don't want too much Z axis (horizontal) displacement which would push LDS out of range.
May i suggest that you think about music wire around 0.030" diameter. You would want to preload (stretch) it so that the lower section never comes out of tension at your expected payload. I did not do the math but it might be in the range of 0.020 inches of stretch. The wire should hold 75 lbs in tension overall.
Thank you. I've looked around for this type of wire, if you see something, I'd appreciate a link. So many welding wires to sort through.
-
#1479
by
Tellmeagain
on 22 Apr, 2016 00:43
-
The wire hasn't been selected yet, need about 15 lbs total weight support (don't know exactly yet). Rather than a torsion estimate, was planning on actual weight displacement calibration for horizontal deflections measured by the laser displacement sensor...40 MM +/- 10 MM range with micrometer level accuracy, so don't want too much Z axis (horizontal) displacement which would push LDS out of range.
May i suggest that you think about music wire around 0.030" diameter. You would want to preload (stretch) it so that the lower section never comes out of tension at your expected payload. I did not do the math but it might be in the range of 0.020 inches of stretch. The wire should hold 75 lbs in tension overall.
Thank you. I've looked around for this type of wire, if you see something, I'd appreciate a link. So many welding wires to sort through.
Just ebay piano wire. We bought ours there.
