Create an account Home  ·  Topics  ·  Downloads  ·  Your Account  ·  Submit News  ·  Top 10  
Mission Statement

· Home
· Forum
· Special Sections
· Advertising
· AvantGo
· Books
· Downloads
· Events
· Feedback
· Link to us
· Private Messages
· Search
· Stories Archive
· Submit News
· Surveys
· Top 10
· Topics
· Web Links
· Your Account

Who's Online
There are currently, 53 guest(s) and 0 member(s) that are online.

You are Anonymous user. You can register for free by clicking here

  • (August 8, 2018 - August 12, 2018) COFE10 + TeslaTech Conference

  • Hot Links

    American Antigravity

    Chava Energy

    Closeminded Science


    Energy Science



    Integrity Research Institute

    Interstellar Technologies

    JLN Labs


    New Energy Movement

    New Energy Times

    The Orion Proj.




    Science Hobbyist

    Tom Bearden's Page

    Unlimited electric energy


    Want to Know

    Other Info-Sources
    NE News Sites
    Alternative Energy News
    NE Discussion Groups
    Energetic Forum
    Magazine Sites
    Distributed Energy
    Electrifying Times
    ExtraOrdinary Technology
    IE Magazine
    New Energy Times

    Interesting Links

    Click Here for the DISCLOSURE PROJECT
    SciTech Daily Review
    NEXUS Magazine

    PLAGIARISM: law suit against Nature, European Physical Journal, Argonne Nat Lab
    Posted on Saturday, January 11, 2014 @ 10:00:13 EST by vlad

    Science WGUGLINSKI writes: Dear Andrea Rossi

    I decided to suit in Law the journals Nature and European Physical Journal by plagiarism of my QRT, because I had warned the two editors of the plagiarism commited by their journals, and I had asked to them to quote my theory in the papers, and they did not attend my request. So they are colluding with plagiarism, and that’s why I decided to suit the two journals in law.

    I also decided to suit in law the Argonne National Laboratory, and I explain the reason ahead.

    Along several years I had discussion with physicists in many foruns of physics, and they used to call me crackpot, charlatan, and they claimed that my theory is pseudoscientific, as you may realize by looking at some reviews in the site Amazon.com:
    Not even a theory March 2, 2009
    By Daniel Lopes
    This book is a great example of pseudoscience.

    It is not a scientific book March 2, 2009
    By C. A. Bonin
    In other words, this is not a scientific book

    However now, after the two plagiarisms by the Nature and the EPJ they use to be silent (after all, a serious journal would never do a plagiarism of a theory without scientific merit).

    Unfortunatelly Mr. JR (here in this blog) tried to suggest that I am an idiot, as we realize from his latest two comments:
    December 15th, 2013 at 12:33 AM
    Actually, Martin Freer and I gave the same argument, you just didn’t understand it. And it’s not exactly an argument, it’s part of the definition of the quadrupole moment, which is taken as the measure of the deviation from spherical symmetry. That is why I was explaining that the nucleus is spherical, in the standard meaning of the phrase, even though it has structures as shown in Freer’s work.

    December 14th, 2013 at 6:50 PM

    I think that most nuclear physicists would disagree with the idea that there is no physical picture of what’s going on in low energy nuclear physics.
    Whether or not a nobel prize winner said something is not the way one establishes truth, it focuses on the people and not the physics questions. Also, these nuclei are spherically symmetric, in the conventional meaning of that phrase, because they are spin zero and one typically talks about non-spherical structures relative to the spin axis. The type of non-spherical structure you’re talking about has a specific and different meaning, but the nucleus is still spherically symmetric in the traditional sense. So ‘non-spherical’ means to different things when you say that conventional theory requires spherical symmetry and when you say that the clustering structure shown in the paper you cite yields non-spherical components.

    So, we have the following situation:

    1- The experiments had detected that light even-even nuclei with Z=N have non-spherical shape.

    2- By considering the principles of the Standard Nuclear Physics, the nuclear theorists used along 60 years to consider that light even-even nuclei with Z=N must have spherical shape.

    3- That’s why the journal Nature had published the paper How atomic nuclei cluster, where we see in the Figure 1 the non-spherical shape of the nucleus 10Ne20:

    4- However, Mr. JR continues insisting that light even-even nuclei with Z=N have spherical shape, as we see in his comment of December 15th.

    As I already said in this blog, I suspect that Mr. JR is a fake name of Dr. John Arrington, a researcher of the Argonne National Laboratory.

    So, dear Andrea Rossi,
    I would like you help me, in order to identify the IP of the computer used by Mr. JR, in order to discover if it realy comes from the Argonne National Laboratory.

    I would say that I very much regret this decision. However I hope you and the readers of the JoNP may understand my frustration.

    1- Along 20 years I was hearing the physicists calling me charlatan, crackpot, and claiming that my theory is pseudoscientific.

    2- Now, when finally the experiments are corroborating my QRT , and two the most important journals of Physics had published plagiarisms of my theory in 2012 and 2013, I would like the physicists would recognize the merit of my work.

    3- However, instead of to accept scientific facts detected by experiments, unlike Mr. JR actually continues trying to suggest to everybody that I am a charlatan, and he uses a dishonest way of argumentation, by rejecting the results of the experiments which detected the non-spherical shape of the even-even nuclei with Z=N, and suggesting to be idiots the autors of the paper How atomic nuclei cluster and also the editor of the journal Nature, suggesting that they did not understand the results of the experiments (also suggesting that I did not understand), because he insists to claim that those light nuclei have actually spherical shape.

    So, I hope you and the readers may undersand my reasons and why I decided to suit in Law the Argonne National Laboratory.




    Security Code: Security Code
    Type Security Code

    Don't have an account yet? You can create one. As a registered user you have some advantages like theme manager, comments configuration and post comments with your name.

    Related Links
    · More about Science
    · News by vlad

    Most read story about Science:
    100 miles on 4 ounces of water?

    Article Rating
    Average Score: 0
    Votes: 0

    Please take a second and vote for this article:

    Very Good


     Printer Friendly Printer Friendly

    "PLAGIARISM: law suit against Nature, European Physical Journal, Argonne Nat Lab" | Login/Create an Account | 4 comments | Search Discussion
    The comments are owned by the poster. We aren't responsible for their content.

    No Comments Allowed for Anonymous, please register

    Get used to it - it's a Madoff world. (Score: 1)
    by Kadamose on Saturday, January 11, 2014 @ 15:17:54 EST
    (User Info | Send a Message)
    If you haven't realized by now that this world is completely ass backwards, then you haven't been paying attention.   Education makes people stupid instead of smart; health care kills instead of restoring health; no good deed goes unpunished.  The list goes on and on.   The only way any of this will ever change, sadly, is, if by some great miracle, the majority of mankind gets wiped out. (With how much radiation Fukushima is dumping into the ocean, the chances of that scenario are very likely.   And that, in my humble opinion, is a good thing -- humans have proven, time and time again, that they are not worthy to live on this planet or any other for that matter.   Mankind, in general, needs an enema.)

    The only way you're going to get the justice you seek is if the above scenario happens.   Sorry.

    Re: PLAGIARISM: law suit against Nature, European Physical Journal, Argonne Nat Lab (Score: 1)
    by ElectroDynaCat on Monday, January 20, 2014 @ 06:04:11 EST
    (User Info | Send a Message)
    Poor Vlad, making an attempt to create serious dialog on the scientiifc basis for energy generation and all he gets for the most part is a platform for fraudsters.

    Most of the stuff posted on this site is baloney by people that think they can fool investigators and make a fast buck.


    All logos and trademarks in this site are property of their respective owner. The comments are property of their posters, all the rest © 2002-2016 by ZPEnergy. Disclaimer: No content, on or affiliated with ZPEnergy should be construed as or relied upon as investment advice. While every effort is made to ensure that the information contained on ZPEnergy is correct, the operators of ZPEnergy make no warranties as to its accuracy. In all respects visitors should seek independent verification and investment advice.
    Keywords: ZPE, ZPF, Zero Point Energy, Zero Point Fluctuations, ZPEnergy, New Energy Technology, Small Scale Implementation, Energy Storage Technology, Space-Energy, Space Energy, Natural Potential, Investors, Investing, Vacuum Energy, Electromagnetic, Over Unity, Overunity, Over-Unity, Free Energy, Free-Energy, Ether, Aether, Cold Fusion, Cold-Fusion, Fuel Cell, Quantum Mechanics, Van der Waals, Casimir, Advanced Physics, Vibrations, Advanced Energy Conversion, Rotational Magnetics, Vortex Mechanics, Rotational Electromagnetics, Earth Electromagnetics, Gyroscopes, Gyroscopic Effects

    PHP-Nuke Copyright © 2005 by Francisco Burzi. This is free software, and you may redistribute it under the GPL. PHP-Nuke comes with absolutely no warranty, for details, see the license.