Warning each of us urgently need to know that

There are no words powerful enough to emphasize how important basic scientific  knowledge has been,  is,  and will be in each and everyone's future.

  • We take for granted the development of our modern world and we know so little about how much is owed by so many of us to so few basic researchers who over the eons have found out how some of the bits and pieces of  how nature work.

  • It has given us the most precious thing we quest to   through applied research and engineering the most pres

  • Basic research science  is the least understood human activity, even among scientific community, it is the most fragile of disciplines, and  it has the least  funding of all the sciences. It is fair to say that it is  negligently neglected.

  • Basic Research in the Natural Sciences is Critically Underfunded & Confined.

    We pivotally need your help We must champion through our government officials more funding for basic research especially at the university level . We need to educate, encourage our leaders to support this most important work.

    A short essay supporting this point of view

    A living document.  Jim Morris 08/29/2005 07:55 PM

     Applied science is what we hear so much about.

    Homo sapiens were born with a thirst for knowledge. It's part of the DNA which makes us different from other living things. Modern man calls this quest for basic knowledge Basic research in natural sciences. Basic and applied research are very different in their goals and visiability.  Basic science has very low public visibility it  deals with the study  of how all things in nature, at their most basic and fundamental level, work. Basic researches puts together all the pieces of natures puzzle letting us be  partners with nature, living safely together in between natures big and  little treasures tsunami and viruses.  It is a search and find activity never knowing what will be discovered  until it is discovered.  It is a risk taking job bordering on acquiring  knowledge for knowledge sake.  Some have felt in the past and feel today that paying money for basic research with such an  uncertain return and so technically obscured is a  foolish a waste of  money and time. this fear has always kept the funding of basic research small in comparison to it value.  If this fear of risk had prevailed throughout the ages the funding would have been stopped  and we would be without even the simplest tools. Tools that today we take for granted every second of our life. Basic research is the seed for all discoveries big and little.

    By comparison
    applied science and engineering are specifically goal driven using the fundamental discoveries of the basic research scientist, to  invent, design, and build  all the things we use from a tooth pick to a Mars rover taking 3d pictures of Martian rocks.  
    Fundamental basic research
      with its thirst for knowledge is enormously valuable because it gives us  the starting point of all  the things we do, use, and have.  But it is also the least understood, it is the most fragile of disciplines, and  has a  funding that is almost negligently  neglected.

    What is basic research? Here are some examples of basic research and where it has lead us.
    1 :
    The earliest basic research scientist was most likely a cave man at best, asking questions like which woods float best in water or make the hottest fires ?  Today and probably even then these questions  would probably have seemed frivolous and a waste of time but the answers to these questions ultimately lead to boats that improved our access to food and transportation, and  heating of iron ore with charcoal thus removing the oxygen  from the ore (smelting) and getting iron metal. Going further  mixing the metal with the black stuff (carbon) applying heat   hardening  and strengthening the  metal to steel.

    2 : By direct comparison  today's basic research scientist are still asking questions about everything. For example they're still interested in carbon (that black stuff on a half burnt stick from the cave man's fire).  They're asking what kind of shapes on a molecular scale can carbon atoms be made into? They found a
    hollow cluster of 60 carbon atoms shaped like a soccer ball with  very unique physical, electrical, and chemical properties   These question seem complex beyond most of our understanding - giving some of us a  "who cares" attitude, but the answers  will  probably give us major break throughs in delivering medicines for our ills,  providing us cheaper electric power, stronger and lighter construction materials  for our homes and businesses.

    What has basic research done for those who use it?
    One only has to compare the quality of life of  citizens in nations and religions that support Hi Tech with those that don't.

    Specific examples of how it helps those who embrace basic research.
    1 :Life expectancy  has been increased to  seventy seven or more years.
    2 : Farmers are getting substantial increase in food productions per acre.
    3 : There are organ transplants and medicines to cure many diseases that used to kill hundreds of thousands in plagues.
    4 : We have found ways to harness energy to run machinery and systems that have decreased the backbreaking manual labor of making a living.
    5 : Basic research scientists can tell us if we are damaging our environment and how to fix it. If we listen! 
    6 : We have found ways of communicating and traveling all over the world at speeds and in ways never thought of before science showed us the way. This has accelerated the growth of  scientific discoveries, education,  business opportunities, and quality of life around the world.

    What about those who don't have the products of basic research. What are some of the misery of those who have been denied the benefits of basic research,
    1 :
    One of the most important spin offs of the latest hi tech communication is that we the average citizen and our leaders can see together,  hear together, and measure together, in virtually real time radio and TV, the terrible tragedies of those innocent lives that have been denied access to technology. These poor people don't even have the simplest communications with accurate relevant technical information that could be used to solve the simplest problems clean water, .jobs, modern medicines, energy, etc..

    Question :  While we have these real time images clearly before us, why can't we recognize the urgent need for informed forward looking leadership with the technical vision to help us support more basic research in the natural sciences?

    What about the benefit to businesses when governments increase funding for the basic research sciences. Why doesn't business do more funding of basic research.
    All of us should or have to clearly see that increasing our basic scientific research efforts will help in reducing  the  suffering from poverty, plague, and tyranny. But not everyone will understand that it will also give technical  and commercial  benefits to the business community. Some large companies may spend seemingly large sums of money on applied research but they can only afford to spend only tiny amounts on basic research and even that has to be focused on their product line to keep the business costs down. So with this in mind,    business across the line will benefit  in at least two ways  if governments increase the funding in basic research in the natural science.
    First : Many of the discoveries can lead to improvements in existing products and generate new products thus  new businesses and  economic growth.
    Second: It can grow the economy by creating more jobs, employing more people, and building the customer base.

    What is the relative cost of this basic research : By comparison to other expenses an infinitesimal fraction of our population and money resources goes into basic research. There are only about 100,000 members of the American physical society approximately 140,000 members in the  American chemical society with only a few in either society engaged in basic research   Mature cost benefit calculations would show us an overwhelmingly large pay back. So we need to have an  increase in support to basic research It  would beonly  a small percent of  overall spending, giving an enormous payback. We must remember that never in our development of our modern world has so much been owed by so many to so few.
    The monies for basic research is for our future. Even in the nations enjoying high tech there is much to be done : Most of this increased research work would not be done in government laboratories but  rather  would be awarded  in the traditional form of contracts to universities and research institutes where most of this work is carried on to begin with. A place where there is a better chance of people benefits  being a  higher priority  than the restrictive business profit requirements.(??)  This funding path gives us our research and at the same time teaches our new scientists for the next generation.

    What are the obstacles to doing this basic research and applying it? There are many, some of the more important examples are listed below.  In spite of the  gains in people's lives as described above, there has been poor to miserable recognition  by leadership across all fronts, even in science, for the value of basic research in the natural sciences to help  make changes for the better.  The leadership has provided only a fraction of the funding needed for the basic sciences to help solve our common problems. Instead our leaders put more and more of our tax monies  into military and police weapons to protect ourselves from these very problems that will not go away using these tactics. At times it almost  seems that we are encouraged indirectly and directly by the political and religious leaders to carry out or condone major ethnic cleansing, economic and cultural wars. We tend to  permit plagues that ravage the poorest of the poor, The propaganda thru our hi tech media plays upon our greed, using prophesies of doomsday unless we kill the doomers.  The neglect of  "proper government funding in basic research in the natural sciences, its education and application is a colossal  leadership failure, especially if one counts the total loss of life  in tons of flesh per  year because of premature death by diseases and violence

    The basic
    problem stopping the funding for basic research is our political leaders.  In our quest to achieve this  higher quality of life for better jobs and less suffering,  not enough of us realize, especially our political leaders, that we can't do it with out  understanding the basic science of things where most all of the solutions in the past have been found.

    It is very important to recognize  that  in the beginning at each new discovery there are even more new and  vital questions  opened that need answers. We must not be beguiled by some success but continue our obligations for  steady funding.  At this early place in our history of understanding nature there has  to be a  budget growth with each discovery. Like all curves of growth the funding will increase level out and be reduced as we go through the normal curve of growth.

    Again In Summary There are Six Axioms That Stand Out;

    1 : There are no words powerful enough to emphasize how important basic scientific  knowledge  has been and will be in each and everyone's future

    2 :
    asic research in natural science is the starting point of all technical knowledge.  It is the study of how all things in nature work, at their most basic and fundamental level.

    3 : Applied sciences and engineering cannot grow to new heights in building new things to benefit us all with out the foundation of new discoveries  by the basic researches of the natural scientist.

    4 :  Although  basic research  is the starting point of all progress , it is the least understood, it is the most fragile, with a  funding that is the most neglected.

    must not take for forget the development of our modern world and how much is owed by so many to so few.

    6:Every day the suffering and injustices goes on for those denied the golden gems of  of Basic Research.

    We Must Act Now.

    1: Humanity pivotally, urgently needs our help to champion through our government officials more funding for basic research.

    2:We need to educate ourselves and others to  encourage our leaders to support for this most important work.

    Read on for detailed information
  • Below outlines the  things  we need to know and do to  revitalize basic research in the natural sciences.

    1: We need to know who what and why is standing in the way of doing the necessary basic research in the natural sciences.

    2: We need to know who the controlling forces are , not the check signers but the ones controlling the check signers, the remote controllers and educate, encourage these forces to support this most important work.

    3: We need to know the number of ways that advances in basic research in science is being slowed and stopped.

    Below is outlined how  basic research is being slowed down or stopped:

    VOL 427, 19 Feb. 2004 and follow some of the trails of how basic research is slowed or in some cases temporarily stopped and by whom.

    2: Read on further to see how scientist work and how and why they make significant break throughs  using the  testable Accuracy / Honesty rules in doing  and reporting there research. See if they are really different in their motivations and aspirations.

    3: See what good & bad scientific papers (including cold fusion) look like.

    Here is a list of those who directly or indirectly control the funding of basic research.

    Political Control::: A country our size that has contributed and used technology more than any other major nation in the  world,  which gave us a standard of living at the top of the list, is now stopping science & technology at its borders, See Article  in  Nature above. 

    Business Control: 
    The IEEE, electronic and electrical engineers,  generally employees of  business,  have accepted this political control.    A typical  example of the type of control in the business community  is the recent hiding of research data conducted in the tobacco industry labs showing the dangers and addiction from smoking and how to make it more addicting.

    Religious' Control:
    Note  the small picture at the top left of the Nature article above.  South Koreans, (not the U.S. because "religious" influence  are making significant advances in health science at its most fundamental level. Is our physical health  the province of the  Church (if so which one), Temple (if so which one), or Mosque (if so which one), etc.?

    Media Control  discussed below: more direct yet harder to measure its affect on basic research.  Maybe  more important than most people think. The only connection we have with the  basic research scientist is through the Media. See below for some of the details, .

    Basic Research Anti-Control: The basic research scientists of physics have objected to the Treasury departments ban on publishing research papers in journals published in the U.S.. The product of  basic research is knowledge. The knowledge or  basic understanding of energy and matter belongs to everyone. History has shown that no government, business, or religion  can permanently shut down the distribution of the basic knowledge of how nature works.     Some one once said "You can hide knowledge from some of the public some of the time  but not all of the public all of the time. and those that try will be ultimately be left behind."  Do we want this to happen to The U.S.?.

    Definition of Control    tv.v.To exercise authoritative or dominating influence

    The media shares in the blame for the poor funding for basic research through the unreal images of scientist they project to the public.

    The very nature of the work of science  builds our knowledge of nature and ultimately a better quality of life.  The media at best entertains the worst of our nature and at the very worst propagandizes and marginalizing the role and value of sciences contribution to improving our nature.


    What is going on here? Why is the media distorting the information coming from scientists and distorting scientists images?  A rough analysis of the why follows in the  paragraphs below.

    The question is can  the media become more responsible in matters so important to all of us or is the Mary Shelly's 1818 Frankenstein science fiction story coming true? Has the basic science research community through its breakthroughs in science and technology made a civilization eating monster called the Media  A Monster with a voice so strong that it can be heard around the world at the speed of light.

    If so will it become a monster even worse than Mr. Government's technical war machines. A virtual propaganda machine funded by business for simple advertisement purposes but becoming , as some believe, a weapon of mass destruction capable of being more destructive than our nuclear weapons.

    Has the Media become a match ready to light  triggers of weapons of mass destructions.  Certainly the media is used by governments as a propaganda tool that justifies such actions.  If  this is true should we be asking who controls or will control the Media Monster in the future?  Look at the information flow diagram or map below and see which power base that has the moneys that controls the Media. Follow the arrow coming from scientist carrying valuable information to the media and the arrows out to public, government, business and religion with a less than flattering picture of Einstein etc.. What is the media gaining from these distortions?

    Could it be because their sole source of income is from advertising. and the media will lose the ad business if they lose the public attention between the ads?
    The public has just one source of information and that's the media. This raises the question :  Is this the best control system for the Homo Sapiens future? Basic science research work will be making enormous changes in our future to some both good and bad. Some would say stop or control the gathering and spreading of natures knowledge. No culture or society has been successful at this approach it's in mans DNA and can't be stopped.

    The first and basic question is it possible to separate the news from the entertainment..  If we have an accurately informed public will the average citizen be a good enough citizen to make a difference giving  us  a better chance for a better future then our past?


    Below is a flow diagram of the spread of scientific knowledge through the Homo Sapiens world...
    Note the Media edits (translates)
    all scientific news releases even choses which news release that will be released.
    Note who and what controls (even unintentially controls) the Media editors Follow the money. It is important.
    Roll the curser over  the image to see the other connections and the money details.

    And Now The New Media?????

    How much impact on public opinion do the internet reporters / journalist have? Web reporters amateurs and professional recognized and take advantage of the new inexpensive communication technology to express their views on any topic to the world. All of us have seen  ambiguous claims on web news letters. Do most of web publishers apply the successful basic Testable Accuracy/Honesty rule of the basic research scientist?  Do they have advertisement on their sites? Again, Edward Bulwer-Lytton reminds us that the pen/web site is mightier and (more dangerous*) than the sword.


    The public's view of  scientist and how they do their basic research is mostly science fiction.
    So how does a  real basic research scientist really work?

    The engine that drives the basic research scientist  is competition and  the principal reason for their success is testable accuracy / honesty.

    This community  of  basic researchers is small, inclusive, & exclusive. It's a challenge to become a citizen, break the rules of honesty, and you  permanently lose your citizenship. The work is  fiercely completive.  To win the race in making  the discovery first,  researchers are  forced to  work closely  with their  competition, because the competition is furnishing ideas and data that you and others are building on. Basic researchers depend on each other's work. They are the  team of all teams simply out of unmitigated necessity.  Everyone's research work has to be done correctly with testable accuracy/honesty because other are building on it. It is a disaster and visible to all if the rule is broken.

    The very successful progress that basic research in the natural sciences has enjoyed over the centuries has been through the way research is judged, tested and reported. Before modern  mathematics physical models or processes were required to demonstrate and replicate the discovery (taming  fire, stone for tools, etc.).  In most of the research today the reporting structure uses  the language of  mathematics which has a fixed grammar and where everything ultimately is reduced to just three testables:  length, mass, and time. In both instances the work has to  be repeatable by other laboratories. This is  where basic research uses its testable accuracy/honesty rule.  Vague wordage or poetry are not helpful in the  utilitarianism of basic research.

    Basic Research is thus truly a remarkable island of truth in a world filled with misrepresentation. Scientists like all other citizens have the same self serving interest, greed, selfishness, etc. etc. as all homo sapiens but the  basic research scientists uses testable accuracy/honesty   in their work.  Bad  research surfaces quickly, and  its authors disfranchised  from the community (Ref, a5).

    The discoveries gained through basic research have made a larger impact on the physical quality of human life than any other activity  Compare nations, cultures and wealth, with and without the benefits of technology. compare earlier times with today. On the average humans live longer and freer derived from the basic researcher discoveries.

    There has been and continues to be great value in using the model  that basic research scientist use to test their work.  There might be even greater value if the testable honesty criteria were incorporate into the  rest of Homo Sapiens enterprises.

    Because of the confusional nature of our written and spoken use of words I've taken the America Heritage Dictionary definitions of the various pertinent terms as my working reference.


    How well is basic research viewed  and supported today in  the U.S.? The examples in the introduction show the weak support that the basic research scientists are getting from  the  Governments, Media, and various religious  factions.
    The public's view of  basic research,  &  how scientist do it is mostly science fiction. i.e. not real.   This is getting to be a very serious problem for us in the U,S. and only the researchers know this is happening, This group whose discoveries are so important for our future is getting a bad guy image with a voice too small  to stop this dangerous downward spiral.  The schism  between the basic research scientists and the public In the U.S.  is growing at an alarming rate.

    The public's image of  the basic research scientist and how he does his  work, has been steadily dropping since the seventies and so has the  funding for basic research( don't forget real inflation) While India and China have been steady increasing their funding of the sciences (ref.1a), the U.S. has been steadily  decreased it . The U.S. is supporting a "Wall  Mart" strategy for  basic research.  This blind sighted  funding lets the other  guy get the patents, the budding scientist, and  the businesses that  go with them.

    Testable  Accuracy/Honesty are the keynote passwords of the natural  scientist in doing  their work.  Advertising, Business, Politics, and Media seldom, for what ever the reason, are comfortable sharing   these passwords.

    A Concern About Funding Basic Research in the Natural Sciences
    There are no words powerful enough to emphasize how important scientific  knowledge  has been and will be in each and everyone's future .. It is poorly funded and a political foot ball !

    Money for research is scarce and is getting scarcer in the U.S. accept for the anti terrorist research developing search programs that look at each and everyone of us testing to see if we fit a profile..  Priorities to be funded are being  assigned by  everyone but scientist doing the work. Even religious leaders are getting into the act of when, where and if, to spend monies on research, and even what to teach in our children in our  education system. There are few if  any scientist or engineers in our Congress. There is simply no voices with power for the basic research community and many against it. We have fewer youngsters going into  chemistry and physics while in China most of the highest members in government are engineers and scientist  and they are going into everything, and  they know where they're going.


    A rough draft of examples of good and not so good projects done by experienced and amateur scientist demonstrating good and less than good reporting styles.
    1:Comments on The Slow Death of Basic Research & Basic Research Scientists in the U.S.
    2::A Review of a Paper On  Low Power Nuclear Transmutations  :    How it doesn't work.
    3:Oppenheimer May 1928 paper Autoelectric Field Currents  :         How it does work!.
    4:Summary of the Attributes of a Peer Reviewed Scientific Paper :   How it does work.
    5:Definitions of Terms and Their Synonym  : An important section we have to agree on definitions

    Here are three examples of the testable accuracy/honesty at work highlighting good and poor work in basic research.

    1st example: Lying falsifying data

    Ref, 5a   Physicist Schon stripped of doctorate.
    Munich The University of Constance in Germany has withdrawn the PhD of Jan Hendrik Schon, the German physicist who fabricated data in 16 high-profile papers produced during his stay at Bell Laboratories in Murray Hill, New Jersey.

    The university awarded Schon his PhD in 1997 for his work on semiconductor systems for use as solar cells. After he was found guilty of scientific fraud in 2002 (see Nature4l9,419-421 : 2002), the university carried out an investigation of his earlier research in Germany, which was found to be free of misconduct.

    But the university has now used a law that allows a PhD to be withdrawn if its holder behaves in an "undignified" manner. "Schon has violated the dignity of the doctorate, and thus damaged the credibility of science in public," says Wolfgang Dieterich, a physicist in charge of PhD awards at the university. Schon has one month to appeal the decision.


    Cold Fusion
    2nd example, Not following the traditions of reporting their work

    Some scientist give the rest of their community and their field of science a bad image by not using the time tested methods of checking and reporting their work. This bad image helped to reduce the short supply of government funds for basic research work in the natural sciences.

    In this example sometimes both scientist and politicians work together  to shoot themselves in the foot and create good  examples to the public on how not to do politics or basic research. One example is  cold fusion. Two respectable scientist working with comparatively simple laboratory equipment (that was available to most first year college chemistry students). conducted an experiment on fusion using the metal palladium known to  absorb seemingly  extraordinarily  amounts of hydrogen and its isotopes. Their preliminary  data (showed  excess heat from their experiments) indicating (to them) that they had created a cold thermal fusion reaction.

    This discovery would been one of  the most extraordinary and  important scientific breakthroughs  for the public in the history of man. They bowed under great pressure to tell the world of their  discovery. Unfortunately they announced it prematurely. That is without the usual time honored checking and cross checking of their data, that the scientific community traditionally expects before releasing a report. Some how congress got wind of the work and called the research workers  to report their experiment before them and the world at large. Unfortunately the experiments had flaws which showed up very early in the presentation and continued to haunt them and the scientific community to this day.

    But the search goes on for the Holy Grail and because the equipment is of modest cost and proportions many amateur  as well a few  professional continue this research. Unfortunately some  of their  reports especially those of the amateur scientists have flaws, such as incompleteness and reproducibility,  and because of this they are quickly ignored. Funding for basic research work is in short supply. The funds are not keeping up with the  work that needs to be done.  Basic research funding in almost all areas comes principally from our government. Universities and similar research facilities do most of the basic research not government laboratories. Funding for Basic Research in general and Cold Fusion in particular is in short supply as compared to war and protection from terrorist programs. Why is this?  Can it be that our political leaders education is  to old and has not kept up with what research basic science is doing in the world especially in China and India. Think of this our leaders were out of school before the web was given to the world and  the DNA was unlocked. There is a good chance that they don't have a clue of what's going on with the dizzying speed of  scientific discoveries being made today, Much of it going over seas along with the jobs and the U.S. future.


    3rd example Lacking   sufficient  information concerning the data used to reach the conclusions. Inadequate critiquing of alternate explanations.
    here is a comparison of  two papers roughly dealing with the same experiment
    Please note the difference in the quality of the 2 papers.

    The first paper looks at  nuclear reactions on and in electrodes  it was published in 2005. 
    The second, on  electrode phenomenon reported by a young scientist Dr. Robert Oppenheimer in 1928. giving the same experimental appearances of electrodes as the first paper with an alternate explanation for this appearance.

    Low input energy nuclear transformation,  If fission occurred can  fusion be far behind?  For this example I picked  a paper from  a rather extensive list of sites. This one because it looks super scientific with all its equations and very impressive pictures .  One should go visit the site to  judge for your self.  The url http://jlnlabs.online.fr/cfr/lorio/index2.htm.

    I looked over this paper for a few hours  looking up data etc.  I did not do the traditional  professional reviewing task that,  lets say,  Physical Review expects.


    The first paper represent little or inadquate refreeing.
    I'm uncomfortable with this paper because it doesn't do justice to alternate explanations and it does not give enough detail to make a  judgment of the validity of their data or conclusions. 

    1st. issue appearance of electrodes.

    Oppenheimer suggest in his paper   that electrodes have hot spots which are  due to the microscopic differences of the  work functions on the surface. From my experience and his remarks  they also may be  partly due to  microscopic irregularities on the surface which is one of the crystalline natures of tungsten.  Irregularities especially  if they have sharp edges  sharp in the (nano sense) promote breakdown ( the field strength is proportional to the charge and inversely proportional to the radius  squared at a bulge. Example  a radius of 12" will resist a break down of 500,000  volts at 1 atm in air) For nano radii a few volts or less. If one or more of these edges establish a place for the discharge to start the chances  are that it will continue to  run in this spot  forming holes that get deeper as the discharge runs (these are called  hollow cathode electrodes,  another strange  electrode  phenomenon ),  The arc at its contact point chases the impurity along a boundary layer.  If you take  a s.e.m. of a   tungsten lamp filament after it has been running few hundred hours or an electrode in an arc discharge light bulb, they  looks very much like the photos in Domenico Cirillo, Alessandro Dattilo, Vincenzo Iorio paper above.

    2nd issue In the voltage or power  measurement  did they use  true rms meters that are designed for use up into and including the rf frequencies. Arc discharges  tend to have negative resistances and the voltage  wave forms that are not sine waves but almost  square waves. Cirilli discuses the irregularity of the arc current.  Their power measurements could have  serious errors if not measured with the appropriate meters.

     3nd. issue. Its about  "impurities" giving signals that they conclude would only come from a nuclear event. Is there other explanation for their presence. Every basic researcher knows that there are always impurities present in the system  The world is very dirty. The question is what are the  levels before and after the test?  Often the impurities are down in the boundaries of the crystal  lattices structures .  There is almost always little surface contamination from handling and  storage   These would  be  released as the electrodes were eaten away. There are lots of  ways these elements show up besides transmutations! It would have been helpful if  authors  had  listed most of the ways that these elements could have gotten into the soup and list  along with them the  limit of directivity of each instrument making the measurements..

    4th  issue How many times did they repeat the experiment. Where are the statistics? What is  the level of repeatability on all the facets that are relevant to the experiment? The readers deserve and want to know these details . These are only a few of the many relevant questions that have not been discussed with the kind of detail that the basic research scientist community needs and  that  all have agreed to live up to when they publish a paper in a peer reviewed journal. The burden of proof is always up to the authors. There is a lot of tiresome detail work that has to go into every basic research paper, and  the devil is in these details

    A summary of the attributes of a peer reviewed scientific paper.
    I've have repeatedly argued that every explanation of how nature works  has to be and is  treated as possibility. There are many explanations about how nature works in every field of science.


    A   important  thing  to remember is about timing A new discovery takes time to be accepted. Other researchers have to repeat the discovery, debate the results, perhaps even to  check it out  by other methods to get further confirmation. This takes time and money.

    Summary : Cold Fusion,
    Cirilli's  paper, On the surface it looks like the authors  have some work to do to make their note publishable in a time tested  peer reviewed journal or conference dealing with this topic. If  they are just thinking aloud on the web and  looking for  an open discussion and want out side help thinking  through the issues  than that's great.   I believe this is just what the web was originally designed for where the research scientists  exchanges information on government projects. The discussion were professional and polite.  Everyone knows? that getting into personalities or gut feeling issues, or  distorting the truth for personal gain bears bitter fruit. (the shadow knows) but some do it anyways.



    The Oppenheimer paper : In this Oppenheimer paper I don't expect one to follow the details of the science but it is easy to read and its not just about electrodes. It is also shows the struggle of classic versus quantum physics. This was a struggle even by those proposing the quantum theory. 

    I invite you  to follow the discussions, the level and amount of detail covered, the counter arguments almost like the author is thinking aloud. Here is a fair and complete discussion   leading to a testable conclusion. It  is typical example of how basic research scientist work and how they publish their results. I believe that most people would find it satisfactory.

    I chose Oppenheimer paper for 3 reasons.
    1st It's  relevant to the subject of electrodes and arc discharges that was covered in the Cirillo/Lorio paper.
    2nd, it's short, and deals with  a single issue.  It is not an outstanding paper but just one of those run of the mill piece of work that all research scientists publish as part of their job.
     I chose this because it's a typical refereed peer reviewed paper  and  represents what  such a paper should look like. I also was motivated to believe one  might take it more seriously because Oppenheimer wrote it.
      One of the most famous scientist of the last century,

    Its a valuable  paper showing  the style of how the content is organized, see the detail of the analysis, the comparisons against other explanations, and the references including a personal  communications from a competitor


    Definition of terms  abstracted from the American  Heritage Dictionary.
    There is  more than enough confusion in any language about the definition of words that the  author felt it necessary to give the reader the definitions and their source that was used..


    Definition of  Natural Science n.
    A science, such as biology, chemistry, or physics, that deals with the objects, phenomena, or laws of nature and the physical world. --natural scientist n.

    Definition of  science 1.a. The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena. b. Such activities restricted to a class of natural phenomena. c. Such activities applied to an object of inquiry or study. 2. Methodological activity, discipline, or study: I've got packing a suitcase down to a science. 3. An activity that appears to require study and method: the science of purchasing. 4. Knowledge, especially that gained through experience.

    Synonyms of  science

    1. (n.) Knowledge acquired through study:
    body of knowledge
    know-how (colloquial)

    Definition of Basic
    1. Of, relating to, or forming a base : fundamental:

    Synonyms of Basic
    basic idea

    Definition of  nature
     1. The material world and its phenomena. 2. The forces and processes that produce and control all the phenomena of the material world: the laws of nature. 3. The world of living things and the outdoors: the beauties of nature. 4. A primitive state of existence, untouched and uninfluenced by civilization or artificiality: couldn't tolerate city life anymore and went back to nature. 5. Theology. Humankind's natural state as distinguished from the state of


    Synonyms of nature

    Definition of scientist 1. A person having expert knowledge of one or more sciences, especially a natural or physical science.

    Definition of Physics
    1. The science of matter and energy and of interactions between the two, grouped in traditional fields such as acoustics, optics, mechanics, thermodynamics, and electromagnetism, as well as in modern extensions including atomic and nuclear physics, cryogenics, solid-state physics, particle physics, and plasma physics. 2. (used with a pl. verb). Physical properties, interactions, processes, or laws: the physics of supersonic flight. 3. The study of the natural or material world and phenomena : natural philosophy. ]
    To study (something) thoroughly so as to present in a detailed, accurate manner.
    The products of physics research is naturaly found in all other branches of science.


    Definition of engineering  
    1.a. The application of scientific and mathematical principles to practical ends such as the design, manufacture, and operation of efficient and economical structures, machines, processes, and systems. b. The profession of or the work performed by an engineer. 2. Skillful maneuvering or direction: geopolitical engineering : social engineering.

    Definition of Research
    1. Scholarly or scientific investigation or inquiry. Close careful study, To study (something) thoroughly.
    1. Often used to modify another noun: a research grant : research assistants. --reキsearch v. reキsearched, reキsearchキing, reキsearchキes. --intr. 1. To engage in or perform research. --tr. so as to present in a detailed, accurate manner: researching the effects of acid rain.

    Synonyms of Research

    1. (n.) A search for the facts or truth about something:

    Definition of Peer
     n. 1. A person who has equal standing with another or others, as in rank, class, or age: children who are easily influenced by their peers.

    1. (n.) One who is similar to another in rank or position:

    definition of Laws
    12.a. A formulation describing a relationship observed to be invariable between or among phenomena for all cases in which the specified conditions are met: the law of gravity.

    Synonyms of  Laws
    basic idea

    Definition Frankenstein
     n. 1. An agency or a creation that slips from the control of and ultimately destroys its creator. 2. A monster having the appearance of a man. [From Frankenstein, the creator of the artificial monster in Frankenstein by Mary Wollstonecraft Shelley.]
    WORD HISTORY: The word Frankenstein has taken on a life of its own, somewhat like the monster created from parts of corpses by the Swiss student Frankenstein, whose name serves as the title of Mary Shelley's novel, published in 1818. People have persisted in calling the monster Frankenstein : in fact, the first recorded use of the name as a common noun in 1838 refers to mules as 擢rankensteins. The word has gone on to refer to 殿 monster having the appearance of a man and 殿n agency that slips from the control of and ultimately destroys its creator. Since most people have given the name of the novel's protagonist to his creation, Frankenstein's monster has, in a sense, destroyed its creator.

    Definition propaganda
     n. 1. The systematic propagation of a doctrine or cause or of information reflecting the views and interests of those people advocating such a doctrine or cause. 2. Material disseminated by the advocates of a doctrine or cause: the selected truths, exaggerations, and lies of wartime propaganda.



    ref. 1a Nature vol.410  8 march  2001 p13434
    ref. 2a Nature vol 430 12 august 2004 p720
    ref. 3a Nature vol 430 12 august 2004 p 729
    ref, 4a Nature vol 430 12 august 2004 p 720
    ref. 5a Nature vol 429 17 June    2004  p692

    (some still betting on Freudian solutions)


    Author's bits, pieces, scribbles,  notes and things to do for this project.

    Science has made it possible to see what we can't see. hear what we cant hear, feel what we cant feel. We can pickup and  look at individual atoms, molecules, in the labortory or catch sundry high energy particles coming from  stars at the edge of our universe . we see the interiors of the earth with seismic waves. we can see the inside of our brains playing chess while the drug addict is experiencing a highest and lowest. We can hear molecules pick up and move individual atoms around.

    Remember the curve of growth  of products, composition of the sun, there has to be one for the level of funding of basic research describe it to show there limit for the costs.

    Basic research example : man has been around carbon for ever half burnt stick from his fire were pure form of carbon. he probably used burnt sticks as pencils to make marking and drawing on his face and in his caves in his caves. He uses if the reduce iron ore to iron metal,  more modern times as a filler for the tires on his automobile first light bulbs davey arc lamps 1800's bucky palls nano tubes electric diamonds for his jewelry and it may soon give us better wire to distribute electricity. resistors for electrical circuits.  lubricant key locks, its a product of power plants global warming . I wonder if the progress of computer animation for movies has led to better use of the computer for doing colloidal chemistry, electric field modeling of the shape of molecules  etc.

    Adjective and adverbs the least descriptive parts of speech in our inventory of words. As  the 911 towers came tumbling down the news man looked into the camera and said  "what can I say" --- He had already used all the adjectives and superlatives without leaving  any for the final tragedy.

    Basic science,  applied science, engineering,  business,  and government are a  team. that will  not function  for long without working together.

    Data ---  populations  issues;  how many are in basic research?  Take a ratio of the worlds population to the number of  scientist there are roughly 100,000 member in the American Physical Society, 140,000 in the America chemical Society, With only a fraction in basic research.

    Like 1 out of 7000 are killed in a car every year in the usa

    big and little: The smaller something is  the bigger the instrument needed to see it.



    Which tool has the most power to do good or evil?

    Some would say the pen/pencil is more powerful than the sword (spear head) It's like  a loose cannon rolling around a pitching deck if it doesn't use the Scientist Accuracy/Honesty Rule.

     It's a valuable tool if it uses with Accuracy/Honesty rule


    Two Views to the Future

    Here is  a collage with Dr Einstein peering over  at some tools, some ancient, some recent that are sign posts on the road to the our future. Some travelers will look at them as weapons of evil. Some like our young lady see them as valuable tools helping us on our path to a bright future.

    Petrouchka is a doll, a puppet-like man. He is the superfluous one, and the helpless victim of a brutality he cannot combat.

    from http://www.oldandsold.com/articles06/sy57.shtml

    Stravinskys Petrouchka is a doll, a puppet-like man. He is the superfluous one, and the helpless victim of a brutality he cannot combat. Paul Rosenfeld ("Musical Portraits") finds this figure to be "the man-machine seen from without, unsympathetically, in its comic as pece. Countless poets before Stravinskys have attempted to portray the puppet-like activities of the human being, and Petrouchka is but one of the recent innumerable stage-shows that expose the automaton in the human soul. But the puppet-show of Stravinsky is singular because of its musical accompaniment. For, more than even the mimes on the stage, the orchestra is full of the spirit of the autotmato. The angular, wooden gestures of the dolls, their smudged faces, their entrails of sawdust, are in the music ten, times as intensely as they are upon the stage. The score is full of revolutions of wheels, of delicate clock-work movements, of screws and turbines.

    And what is not purely mechanistic, nevertheless completes the picture of, the world as it appears to one who has seen the man-machine in all its comedy. The stage pictures, the trumpery little fair, the tinsel and pathetic finery of the crowds, the dancing of the human ephemerida moment before the snow begins to fall, are stained marvelously deeply by the music.... It has indeed a servant-girl grace, a coach, manador, a barrel-organ, tin-type, popcorn, fortune-teller flavor."

    Leonid Sabaneyeff, in his "Modern Russian Composer" (International Publishers, New York), says, somewhat devastatingly, that "the brightest place among Stravinsky's compositions belongs to 'Petrouchka.' Both his opponents and those whom he subsequently alienated were unanimous in admiration of this composition. Perhaps this very woodenness of the theme itself gave him an advantage, for one does not ever sense Stravinsky's soul in his music : he hides it painstakingly : perhaps he is a sort of Petrouchka him-self, and instead of a life of the soul, he has only tricks and tin-foil magic. Perhaps, like Petrouchka, instead of blood he has klyukva (variety of cranberry juice), and instead of entrails, sawdust. This magician can occasionally make one believe that he is a great musician and make one overlook the inner chill of his creations, which have not been composed by thought and heart but by cold calculation and a hellish technic and the inventiveness of its inventor.

    Another comment of a communistically inspired hue: "The ballet depicts the life of the lower classes in Russia, with all its dissoluteness, barbarity, tragedy, and misery. Petrouchka is a sort of Polichinello, a poor hero always suffering from the cruelty of the police and every kind of wrong and unjust persecution. This represents symbolically the whole tragedy in the existence of the Russian people, a suffering from despotism and injustice. The scene is laid in the midst of the Russian carnival, and the streets are lined with booths in which Petrouchka plays a kind of humorous role. He is killed, but he appears again as a ghost on the roof of the booth to frighten his enemy, his old employer, an allusion to the despotic rulers in Russia."


    Relative funding for basic research is going down hill  in U.S. and Europe the so called technical leaders of the world why?

    You can hide knowledge from some of the public some of the time  but not all of the public all of the time and those who  try are left behind. Science with out measurements is no science at all. Like nature abhorrers a vacuum philosophy abhors measurements.

    Support Basic research in the natural sciences. Call and write not e-mail your government representatives today.

    Life expectancy over human history

    Copied from       http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_expectancy

    Timeline for humans

    Homo sapiens sapiens live on average 37 years in Zambia and on average 81 years in Japan. The oldest age (legitimately) recorded for any human is 122 years, though some people in Asia are reported to have lived over 150 years. The following information is derived from the Encyclopaedia Britannica, 1961:

    Humans by Era, Average Lifespan (in years)

    • Neanderthal, 20
    • Neolithic, 20
    • Classical Greece, 28
    • Classical Rome, 28
    • Medieval England, 33
    • End of 18th Century, 37
    • Early 20th Century, 50
    • Circa 1940, 65
    • Current (in the West), 77-81

    Life expectancy increased dramatically in the 20th century, especially in developed nations. Life expectancy at birth in the United States in 1901 was 49 years. At the end of the century it was 77 years, an increase of greater than 50%. Similar gains have been enjoyed throughout the world. Life expectancy in India and The People's Republic of China was around 40 years at midcentury. At century's close it had risen to around 63 years. These gains were due largely to the eradication and control of numerous infectious diseases and to advances in agricultural technology (such as chemical fertilizers).

    Basic life expectancy numbers tend to exaggerate this growth, however. The low level of pre-modern life expectancy is distorted by the previous extremely high infant and childhood mortality. If a person did make it to the age of forty they had an average of another twenty years to live. Improvements in medicine, public health, and nutrition have therefore mainly increased the numbers of people living beyond childhood, with less effect on overall average lifespan.

    These improvements continue to confound the predictions of Thomas Malthus, who predicted what is now known as the Malthusian catastrophe which would occur when population growth exceeded the capacity of the world to sustain that population.

    The major exception to this general pattern of improvement has been in those countries worst hit by AIDS, principally in Sub-Saharan Africa, which have seen significant falls in life expectancy due to the disease in recent years. European socialist countries (such as the Soviet Union, Poland, Czechoslovakia and Hungary) were characterized by decreasing life expectancy and increasing mortality (especially among adult men) in the late 1960s, 1970s and 1980s. Another exception is Russia and other former USSR republics after the collapse of the Soviet Union. Life expectancy of men dropped to 59.9 years (below the official retirement age), of women to 72.43 years (1999).

    In recent years, obesity-correlated diseases have become a major public health issue in many countries. The prevalence of obesity is thought to have reduced a potential for longer life expectancy by contributing to the rise of cancers, heart disease and diabetes in the developed world.

    Throughout human history most of the increase in life expectancy arose from preventing early deaths. However, many scientists believe this will not stay true in the future as medical advancements aimed at halting or even reverting aspects of the aging process become widely available.


    Timeline for humans

    Homo sapiens sapiens live on average 37 years in Zambia and on average 81 years in Japan. The oldest age (legitimately) recorded for any human is 122 years, though some people in Asia are reported to have lived over 150 years. The following information is derived from the Encyclopaedia Britannica, 1961:

    Humans by Era, Average Lifespan (in years)

    • Neanderthal, 20
    • Neolithic, 20
    • Classical Greece, 28
    • Classical Rome, 28
    • Medieval England, 33
    • End of 18th Century, 37
    • Early 20th Century, 50
    • Circa 1940, 65
    • Current (in the West), 77-81

    Variations in life expectancy in the world today

    There are great variations in life expectancy worldwide, mostly caused by differences in public health, medicine and nutrition from country to country.

    There are also variations between groups within single countries. For example, in the US in the early 20th century there were very large differences in life expectancy between people of different races, which have since lessened. There remain significant differences in life expectancy between men and women in the US and other developed countries, with women outliving men. These differences by sex have been reducing in recent years, with men's life expectancy improving at a faster rate than women's.


    Copyright by Jim & Rhoda Morris 3/21/05