Research papers

This is where there are basically no rules about topics, or off-topics. Discuss things here of fleeting interest.
Forum rules
Here, you can discuss anything (well, anything legal and not offensive) you want to. Use this for gassing about any half-baked theories, general getting to know one another, and other things that as someone once said, should be forgotten after awhile. This sub forum is set to auto-remove threads that haven't been posted on for a couple weeks, emptied like the office trash can. Almost anything goes here, the idea being to keep the other forums and threads more on topic but in a maximally friendly way. If anything actually worthwhile should wind up here, let me know and I will make it immune from being removed.

Research papers

Postby johnf » Wed Jul 12, 2017 6:03 am

Doug
some help when you get round to writing it all up



They write... They mean...
It has long been known that... I haven't bothered to look up the original reference.
...of great theoretical and practical importance ... interesting to me.
While it has not been possible to provide definite answers to these questions... The experiments didn't work out, but I figured I could at least get a publication out of it.
Typical results are shown... The best results are shown...
Three of the samples were chosen for detailed study... The results of the others didn't make sense and were ignored.
...handled with extreme care during the experiments....not dropped on the floor.
It is to be hoped that this work will stimulate further work in the field. This paper isn't very good but neither are any of the others on this miserable subject.
Although some detail has been lost in reproduction, it is clear from the original micrograph that... It is impossible to tell from the micrograph.
Presumably at longer times... I didn't take the time to find out.
The agreement with the predicted curve is.. excellent
good
satisfactory
fair
as good as could be expected ..
fair
poor
doubtful
imaginary
non-existent
These results will be reported at a later date. I might get around to this sometime.
The most reliable values are those of Jones. He was a student of mine.
It is suggested that...
It is believed that...
It may be that... I think...
It is generally believed that... I have such a good objection to this answer that I shall now raise it.
It is clear that much additional work will be required before a complete understanding... I don't understand it...
Unfortunately, a quantitative theory to account for these effects has not been formulated. ... neither does anybody else.
Correct within an order of magnitude. Wrong
High purity...
Very high purity...
Extremely high purity...
Super-purity...
Spectroscopically pure... Composition unknown except for the exaggerated claims of the supplier.
The W-Pb system was chosen as especially suitable to show the predicted behavior... The fellow in the next lab had some already made up.
Thanks are due to Joe Glotz for assistance with the experiments and to John Doe for valuable discussions. Glotz did the work and Doe explained what it meant.
Attributed to C.D. Graham Jr. (1957). Metal Progress 71: 75.



Phases of a Project
1. Exaltation
2. Confusion
3. Disenchantment
4. Search for the guilty
5. Punishment of the innocent
6. Distinction for the uninvolved

Anonymous/apocryphal?



Metallurgist
A pseudo scientist, who uses undetermined suppositions, indefinite theories, and inexpressible hypotheses; which are based on unreliable information uncertain quantities, and incomplete data; derived from non-reproducible experiments and incomplete investigations; using equipment and instruments of questionable accuracy, insufficient resolution, and inadequate sensitivity, to arrive at timid, tentative cloudy, abstruse, and non-committed conclusions prefaced by the phrase, "it depends".

Attributed to Douglas J Robinson "robinson at syspac.com"
johnf
 
Posts: 372
Joined: Sun Aug 08, 2010 4:51 pm
Location: Wellington New Zealand

Re: Research papers

Postby johnf » Wed Jul 12, 2017 6:08 am

Some of the above stolen from http://www.nolledge.com/index.html
A parody of my work place put on the web by some scientists @ work with far to much time on their hands
Under pure nolledge check out the biosphere, geosphere, atmosphere, and the other sub forums
johnf
 
Posts: 372
Joined: Sun Aug 08, 2010 4:51 pm
Location: Wellington New Zealand

Re: Research papers

Postby Doug Coulter » Wed Jul 12, 2017 12:34 pm

I'll have to check that out, but of course anyone who reads papers at all gets an excellent education in bull.
Rule:
If your title contains a question that can be answered by "no", or
if there's an if or a could:

Don't even write it.

But you know, someone's gotta make others pay $35/page to read it, or sue that outfit that way outdid me making that stuff we already paid for with taxes free again. How will those poor parasites get by if they can't make more money than the guys who did the work?

If you read a science press release site like Phys.org you'll see plenty of that - "we might almost have somthing, but don't have enough grant money or tenure (implied), so buy into this crap and give us what we want and it'll change the world..." Honest - though batteries are already doing almost as well as the periodic table allows, and the light elements are pretty well filled in, we think we can find a trick if you'll let us turn a trick (for your money). I guess the standards for "how can you sleep at night" have gone down considerably. Or they are really just that stupid and uninformed on top. I constantly see 'inventions" there that are in books i own with 195x date copyright pages too - maybe they really are just uninformed.

How about "solar cell efficiency doubled" - and if you're lucky and they mention it at all, it's for a type that doubling now means 2% efficient (the ones on my house are > 20% and they're not new).

And so on. It's like what we used to call specsmanship in EE. If an opamp is say, noisy - every other spec will be bolded, and the noise spec might not even be in the sheet at all.. Ditto any other opamp spec (bias current...offset, speed). This isn't just opamps, back when a/d and d/a were relativeky new it was nonlinearity, monotonicity and so forth.

Why have I not written my stuff up yet?...Though I've had some interesting events here, and even caught them on video and in database, the replication is dodgy so far - I need to do more to make it happen every time and explain why better than I can right now. I plan to rule the world by going rogue and just telling the truth and revealing things that really work for everyone. Novel concept in these times, I know.
It's a somewhat higher bar.
Posting as just me, not as the forum owner. Everything I say is "in my opinion" and YMMV -- which should go for everyone without saying.
User avatar
Doug Coulter
 
Posts: 2908
Joined: Wed Jul 14, 2010 8:05 pm
Location: Floyd county, VA, USA

Re: Research papers

Postby Bob Reite » Thu Jul 13, 2017 11:51 pm

Ah! So that big burst of neutrons that made you sick for a couple of weeks was probably some sort of parasitic oscillation that you can't make happen again, now that you took the rig apart. Been there, done that (in other fields). That's why if cost is no object, you don't change the working machine, but build a duplicate to verify, then tinker with to make "better".
The more reactive the materials, the more spectacular the failures.
The testing isn't over until the prototype is destroyed.
User avatar
Bob Reite
 
Posts: 26
Joined: Wed Nov 11, 2015 2:02 pm

Re: Research papers

Postby Doug Coulter » Fri Jul 14, 2017 2:35 am

See private message, Bob...
Posting as just me, not as the forum owner. Everything I say is "in my opinion" and YMMV -- which should go for everyone without saying.
User avatar
Doug Coulter
 
Posts: 2908
Joined: Wed Jul 14, 2010 8:05 pm
Location: Floyd county, VA, USA


Return to The water cooler -- disscusions about anything

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest