Author Topic: EEVblog 1466 - Stanford Solar Power at Nightime BUSTED  (Read 20404 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline Nominal Animal

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 6514
  • Country: fi
    • My home page and email address
Re: EEVblog 1466 - Stanford Solar Power at Nightime BUSTED
« Reply #75 on: April 15, 2022, 12:36:52 pm »
There is nothing in the paper or the hype to confirm they were hoping no-one notices or that readers should be delusional. Nor is there a hint of a claim that there exists further orders of magnitude improvement in the near term or at all. The paper states 50mW/m2. It states it in the heading in big print right up front.

In the abstract, it states
Quote
We achieve 50 mW/m² nighttime power generation with a clear night sky, with an open-circuit voltage of 100 mV, which is orders of magnitude higher as compared with previous demonstrations.
The "which is orders of magnitude higher as compared with previous demonstrations" refers to the open-circuit voltage of exactly one previous demonstration, B. Zhao, M. Hu, X. Ao, Q. Xuan, Z. Song, and G. Pei, Sol. Energy Mater. Sol. Cells 228, 111136 (2021), who only managed to obtain 9 mV open-circuit voltage, and didn't bother to compute the electric energy density.  Furthermore, they later refer to A. P. Raman, W. Li, and S. Fan, Joule 3, 2679–2686 (2019), a nighttime black emitter and a TEG, which demonstrated 25 mW/m² electric power density –– enough to power a LED, as they state in the abstract –– and describe how to increase that to 0.5 W/m² = 500 mW/m².

I do not know if you just glanced over the paper to see if you see anything odd/infuriating/unmeritorious, wilfred, but I certainly read it with very hopeful interest.  (Because regardless of my attitude towards this paper, I'm actually still hopeful and optimistic that real meritorious science is still being done, and whenever I start reading an interesting article, I am always hopeful/interested/glad and looking forward to learning something new; I never read articles to try and find something to put down.)  Instead, what I read, was very cleverly worded –– I'm not at all surprised that casual readers do not notice the insiduousness of the wording, because it passed even the seasoned reviewers and editors at Applied Physics Journal; I'm in awe of the scientific writing advisors these authors had at Stanford University! –– with zero scientific merit.

In particular, they chose a single experiment to compare the open-circuit voltage to (Raman et al. in Joule 3, 2019), and based on that, claim "orders of magnitude higher".  It is a SINGLE experiment they compare to, and a SINGLE order of magnitude (9 mV to 100 mV is a factor of 11).  So that alone is two demonstrable errors/misleading statements in the abstract.

They reach 20% of the potential electric power density described possible in an earlier paper (by Raman et al., linked above, where they mention "Pathways to performance > 0.5 W/m² using existing commodity components exist"), reaching twice the experimentally demonstrated electric power density in that paper, and yet are perfectly happy to mislead readers by a tricky sentence in their abstract, so that careless readers – as shown in this thread before I pointed it out! – believe that the 50 mW/m² is somehow "orders of magnitude better than before".  Hell, since they only used a 153 cm² = 0.0153 m² panel (with 0.765 mW = 765 µW output), the measurement error and accidental unaccounted for energy sources could easily explain all differences they had to the earlier 25 mW/m² paper.  It is actually more likely that the Stanford authors just used a slightly better TEG, as commercially available TEG efficiencies range from basically zero to 8% (depending on the temperature difference, with higher temperature differences yielding better efficiencies); it is estimated (including in this paper) that the radiative cooling power is in excess of 50 W/m², which means that the efficiency reached in this paper is 0.1% (one thousandth), at about 3 degree Celsius or Kelvin difference.

Because the earlier 2019 paper does mention that existing commodity components can reach 500 mW/m², the fact that "Nor is there a hint of a claim [in this paper] that there exists further orders of magnitude improvement in the near term or at all" is a deliberate, misleading omission: there is at least one order of magnitude improvement in the electric power density to be gained right now, using commodity components.  The authors of this paper clearly read the earlier paper carefully, and just chose to ignore that, in the hopes of elevating their own results.

I reiterate: after carefully reading the paper and at least the abstracts of the key papers this links to, with initially a very open and hopeful mind, all I found in this paper was crafty psychological manipulation of the readers, with basically zero scientific merit, zero improvement from or additional information to a two years previous experiment they themselves link to.  I believe the fact that this paper was selected as a featured article in Applied Physics Letters shows the decline of physical sciences.



wilfred, barycentric, bsfeechannel, and others: I respect you, I just believe you are horribly mislead in this particular case.  There is limited funding available for scientific research, and what is available, is almost exclusively dependent on articles published on journals like this one was, Applied Physics Letters.  My objection is that there is no scientific merit in this article; and because it was so well written that it became a featured article, it is a perfect example of exactly why the entire field of physical sciences is in steep decline.

You disagree.  Fine.  Please, point out something in what I've written in this thread that you disagree with, and explain why.  Your opinion is worth exactly as little as mine; basically nothing.  Only the reasoning and logic actually matters, because those can be argued and their merits compared fairly and in a useful manner.  We don't learn anything useful by comparing opinions, but we can learn a lot by comparing the reasoning and arguments our opinions are based on.  That is also how science is supposed to work.  Besides, even the best of us – like say Einstein with respect to the Cosmological Constant – change their opinions when presented with suitable counterarguments or experimental proof.  (I hope to emulate them, not because I am deluded to think I'm at their level – heh, I know I'm not, and freely admit it! –, but because it works.)

There is a reason for the old adage that for evil to prevail, good men only need do nothing.  Similarly, for the scientific domain to become filled with garbage, we only need to ignore the garbage.  We did that, still using it as the only reliable quantitative metric of scientific merit, and now we're knee deep in shit even in Physics.  (I'm using "knee deep" quite carefully, since approximately 25% of peer reviewed articles in Physics are garbage, either incorrect or just bullshit based on unrepeatable and unprovable claims.  In other fields, like in humanist sciences, they're drowning in shit, because there citations form disconnected clusters among groups of authors, and many already object to even trying to apply the scientific method in their own fields.  Decolonisation of science and all that.)

That is why I rail against this.  Dave does it for completely other reasons.  By claiming us "naysayers" and mischaracterising the reasons why I do this, you are only soothing your own personal feelings about this stuff.  If you did not care, you'd just skip this thread.  Because you do care, at least enough to respond, I believe that you are aware of this at the subconscious level, but because your chosen conscious beliefs of what science is today and what gets published are in disagreement, you suffer from cognitive dissonance; and instead of working out why, you attack those who caused the dissonance.
If there was merit in your disagreement, you would have pointed out where the error in my own posts were.  You pointed out none, though.

Because of that, I do ask you that you point out the specific parts in my posts you disagree with.  You see, if you cannot or will not, the most likely reason for that is indeed the cognitive dissonance.  I would also like to ask you too to read the abstracts (behind the links above), compare the linked articles to this article, and review the reasons behind your own opinions (as to why this article should indeed merit being featured in Applied Physics Letters).  To repeat, being published (or even featured) in a respected journal is not irrelevant; it is important, because it really is the only quantitative measure of scientific merit today that those who grant funds for furher research use.  (Although citations and per-author retractions and corrections give a much better overall picture, they do not yield a simple quantitative measure.)

If something I've written here offends you, I hope you take the time to actually pinpoint what I wrote that offended you, and let me know.  It wasn't intentional, I assure you: I am against your opinion because I believe they are based on faulty logic or assumptions and lead to less than desirable consequences in the field of science.  I am NOT against you personally.  If I didn't care about what you write here, I'd simply ignore you.
« Last Edit: April 15, 2022, 12:38:41 pm by Nominal Animal »
 
The following users thanked this post: 2N3055

Online nctnico

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 27328
  • Country: nl
    • NCT Developments
Re: EEVblog 1466 - Stanford Solar Power at Nightime BUSTED
« Reply #76 on: April 15, 2022, 06:10:04 pm »
@Nominal Animal: You need to seperate two things here:

1) Nobody is arguing that the article this thread is about is good science, shows spectular results and/or that it should be featured. Likely the editor doesn't know the difference between mW (milli-Watt) and MW (megaWatt) and found the article the best one to become the feature this month. IOW: you are barking up the wrong tree here.

2) What is being argued, is the value of superficial debunking videos. I hope you can agree though that the typical debunking videos which consist of handwaving, laughs, poorly controlled / biased experiments and hyperboles are crafty psychological manipulation of the watchers / listeners and thus are just as bad. You can't make shit go away by smearing more shit on it. Plus the negative sentiment that come with such videos.

If you really want to disprove a claim, you'll need to do / repeat experiments in a controlled manner, examine /process the results in the correct way and point out where the flaws are. This is very time consuming and doesn't result in a very entertaining video as well.
« Last Edit: April 15, 2022, 07:52:06 pm by nctnico »
There are small lies, big lies and then there is what is on the screen of your oscilloscope.
 
The following users thanked this post: bsfeechannel, barycentric

Offline Nominal Animal

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 6514
  • Country: fi
    • My home page and email address
Re: EEVblog 1466 - Stanford Solar Power at Nightime BUSTED
« Reply #77 on: April 15, 2022, 08:06:41 pm »
Likely the editor doesn't know the difference between mW (milli-Watt) and MW (megaWatt) and found the article the best one to become the feature this month.
No.  They're all PhDs in Physics, with very respectable credentials.

The target audience of Applied Physics Letters is Physics researchers with PhDs.  It is not like say Nature, the British scientific journal that highlights peer-reviewed articles in science and technology, that targets both researchers and non-researchers alike.

(It is my opinion and belief that it is not useful/right/correct to be angry or disappointed at stupid people for being stupid, but it is appropriate to be angry/disappointed/vocal against stupid stuff that very intelligent and capable people do.  It may not be exactly fair to require and expect more from capable people, but hey, if they don't drag our society and culture forwards, nobody will.)

What is being argued, is the value of superficial debunking videos. I hope you can agree though that the typical debunking videos which consist of handwaving, laughs, poorly controlled / biased experiments and hyperboles are crafty psychological manipulation of the watchers / listeners and thus are just as bad.
I don't usually watch the kind of debunking videos that have a preview image of the presenter open-mouthed, with a hand on their face, because they are usually based on the presenters' opinions, and do not actually go into the underlying reasons.  Currently, Dave and BigClive are the exceptions, because both treat it as a ridiculous meme (that nevertheless may boost the video publicity; see next point).

The thing I like about Dave's debunking videos, is that he shows exactly why he thinks the thing described is full of bullshit.  Sometimes that is based on his experience (for example, his PV installation), sometimes plain ("back of the envelope") estimates; stuff that I consider a mix of common sense, basic physics, and experience in the field.  I don't always agree with him, and we had a rather heated argument about whether videos (alone) make for good tutorials or not a year or two ago.

BigClive buys cheap lights and related stuff from eBay/AliExpress/Banggood and local dollar/pound stores, and takes them apart, describing exactly why they're shitty if they are, and why they're okay if they are.  I don't know if his videos can be called debunking, but they've certainly hugely changed my attitude as to what to expect when buying stuff from said sources, and why.

You can't make shit go away by smearing more shit on it. Plus the negative sentiment that come with such videos.
That I do disagree with.  Laughter, showing exactly how ridiculous a serious and sensitive some proposition is by smearing it with similar shit in a slightly different form (to highlight its shittyness) is actually an approach that works.  It is difficult to do it right, but some comedians are quite good at it.  Jon Stewart and Bill Maher come to mind.  Also, in the past – think old SNL, Spitting Image, et cetera – pompous politicians absurdities were highlighted via comedic means; today, such shows would not be funded at all.  Why?  Because that helps even the masses see how full of shit the politicians are.

I do believe that making a video that shows how ridiculous even respectable peer-reviewed journals can be, is useful.  It is unlikely to change what those with the purse strings do, but the videos might help the next generation of scientists develop a healthier attitude towards academia.  In particular, exactly because of the kind of shit the article at hand is, the quality of peer-reviewed science is dropping.  It is possible that open-access journals and researchers that somehow manage to bypass the entire quantity-over-quality issues (perhaps by funding their own research themselves) can change the direction of entire fields of science, and bring quality back to the forefront.  But, based on my own observations and experience, I believe it will take a new generation of professors before we see any change in the direction.

In the mean time, some shit-slinging is warranted, in my opinion, for the abovementioned reasons.
 
The following users thanked this post: EEVblog, 2N3055, SiliconWizard

Online nctnico

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 27328
  • Country: nl
    • NCT Developments
Re: EEVblog 1466 - Stanford Solar Power at Nightime BUSTED
« Reply #78 on: April 15, 2022, 08:56:20 pm »
You can't make shit go away by smearing more shit on it. Plus the negative sentiment that come with such videos.
That I do disagree with.  Laughter, showing exactly how ridiculous a serious and sensitive some proposition is by smearing it with similar shit in a slightly different form (to highlight its shittyness) is actually an approach that works.  It is difficult to do it right, but some comedians are quite good at it.  Jon Stewart and Bill Maher come to mind.  Also, in the past – think old SNL, Spitting Image, et cetera – pompous politicians absurdities were highlighted via comedic means; today, such shows would not be funded at all.  Why?  Because that helps even the masses see how full of shit the politicians are.
Or these shows -while funny- just cater to the nay-saying / conspiracy theorists crowd. For example: a lot of people complain about the NL's prime minister like he never does anything right. That makes you wonder how he managed to get the most personal votes of all politicians (by far!) during the elections in 2021. IMHO it is too easy to go around and call politicians idiots; if you go this route you lose all your credibility with me. It serves no purpose; vote for somebody else or do it better yourself. Get out of your armchair and do something that actually improves the world in a positive way.

IMHO uncredible mockery doesn't help at all. Fundamental change needs to come from within from people that can earn respect based on their knowledge and actions. From who are you going to accept critisism on your work? From some clown on Youtube or somebody that can explain precisely what that person thinks are the flaws in your work while having a meaningfull conversation?
« Last Edit: April 15, 2022, 10:39:19 pm by nctnico »
There are small lies, big lies and then there is what is on the screen of your oscilloscope.
 
The following users thanked this post: barycentric

Offline Nominal Animal

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 6514
  • Country: fi
    • My home page and email address
Re: EEVblog 1466 - Stanford Solar Power at Nightime BUSTED
« Reply #79 on: April 15, 2022, 10:54:27 pm »
IMHO it is too easy to go around and call politicians idiots
Agreed; that's why I wrote 'pompous' and 'full of shit' (although self-important or something like that might be more descriptive).

Another way to put this is that a bit of ridicule and "shit-slinging" forces humans to consider their own actions and words from more than one angle or viewpoint.  Politicians and people who believe themselves to be authorities, really don't like it.  Yet, it is effective.

IMHO uncredible mockery doesn't help at all. Fundamental change needs to come from within from people that can earn respect based on their knowledge and actions. From who are you going to accept critisism on your work? From some clown on Youtube or somebody that can explain precisely what that person thinks are the flaws in your work while having a meaningfull conversation?
I vehemently disagree, exactly because it is the arena of discussions that is at the core of the downwards spiral in science.

In the universities, students are increasingly reaching for authority: that is, the presenter of the message is more important than the content of said message.  You cannot have a meaningful discussion with such people; those people are lost.  However, show how ridiculous that position is via mockery, and others – those not as far nor as stuck in that stance – might still change their stance.

At the very core, the question "from who are you going to accept criticism" is improper (in the scientific or mathematical sense; inaccurate or erroneous): the person posing the criticism should not matter at all, because it is the contents of the criticism – we're talking about science and engineering here – that matter.  I must answer "from anyone and everyone; it is the contents of that criticism that matter to me, not the person who offers it".  I mentioned earlier that I have somewhat of a Popplerian stance, referring to critical rationalism and falsifiability.  Only accepting criticism from a "recognized authority" is quite horrible to me.
« Last Edit: April 15, 2022, 10:57:00 pm by Nominal Animal »
 

Online nctnico

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 27328
  • Country: nl
    • NCT Developments
Re: EEVblog 1466 - Stanford Solar Power at Nightime BUSTED
« Reply #80 on: April 18, 2022, 04:45:05 pm »
Quote
Only accepting criticism from a "recognized authority" is quite horrible to me.
I never suggested to listen only to a 'recognized authority'. The question is: do you accept criticism from someone with far less knowledge about a subject c.q. didn't study the subject as deeply as you have. I think not; you'd be educating such a person for the most part.
« Last Edit: April 18, 2022, 05:05:40 pm by nctnico »
There are small lies, big lies and then there is what is on the screen of your oscilloscope.
 

Offline Nominal Animal

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 6514
  • Country: fi
    • My home page and email address
Re: EEVblog 1466 - Stanford Solar Power at Nightime BUSTED
« Reply #81 on: April 18, 2022, 04:55:59 pm »
Quote
Only accepting criticism from a "recognized authority" is quite horrible to me.
That is not the point. The question is: do you accept criticism from someone with far less knowledge about a subject c.q. didn't study the subject as deeply as you have. That is something else than a recognized authority.
Again: it is improper to examine an argument based on the presenter.  Only the content of the argument itself matters.

Therefore, yes, I accept rational criticism from anyone and everyone.  This is a key point in "popplerian" falsifiability.  The person providing the criticism is irrelevant, as only the content of said criticism matters.  For a theory or argument to be useful in practice (predictive and testable), any rational argument or experiment that can falsify it is equally valuable, no matter who presents the argument.

I intensely dislike social manipulation, because that is the tool a manipulator can use to push forward an irrational argument.  Yours, that the "knowledge level" or "authority" of a person should somehow affect whether their argument should be worthy of being heard, does actually horrify me: it is the sort of social manipulation (or logical fallacy, take your pick) that irrational people use, instinctively, to counter rational thought.
 

Online nctnico

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 27328
  • Country: nl
    • NCT Developments
Re: EEVblog 1466 - Stanford Solar Power at Nightime BUSTED
« Reply #82 on: April 18, 2022, 11:35:01 pm »
Quote
Only accepting criticism from a "recognized authority" is quite horrible to me.
That is not the point. The question is: do you accept criticism from someone with far less knowledge about a subject c.q. didn't study the subject as deeply as you have. That is something else than a recognized authority.
Again: it is improper to examine an argument based on the presenter.  Only the content of the argument itself matters.
Which falls apart when the presenter doesn't know enough about the problem at hand to make a good argument in the first place. Actually it doesn't matter whether you dismiss the presenter or the argument; it is one and the same really as the argument is based on the knowledge level of the presenter.

You keep circling back at social manipulation but that isn't the issue here at all. Manipulation implies lies & deceit; a deliberately false argument.
« Last Edit: April 18, 2022, 11:50:56 pm by nctnico »
There are small lies, big lies and then there is what is on the screen of your oscilloscope.
 

Offline Nominal Animal

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 6514
  • Country: fi
    • My home page and email address
Re: EEVblog 1466 - Stanford Solar Power at Nightime BUSTED
« Reply #83 on: April 19, 2022, 01:12:00 am »
Quote
Only accepting criticism from a "recognized authority" is quite horrible to me.
That is not the point. The question is: do you accept criticism from someone with far less knowledge about a subject c.q. didn't study the subject as deeply as you have. That is something else than a recognized authority.
Again: it is improper to examine an argument based on the presenter.  Only the content of the argument itself matters.
Which falls apart when the presenter doesn't know enough about the problem at hand to make a good argument in the first place.
That is your unfounded assumption that has no basis in reality.

In reality, many good arguments have stemmed from someone not at all versed in the domain putting forward a suggestion, or shown an example that disproves the proposed argument.

Actually it doesn't matter whether you dismiss the presenter or the argument; it is one and the same really as the argument is based on the knowledge level of the presenter.
What? That is ridiculously incorrect.  You do not need the knowledge level of the person who constructed a theory or model, to prove it false.

Since rational arguments do not seem to matter to you, let me describe physically possible practical example.

Consider Goldbach's conjecture (that any even whole number greater than 2 is the sum of two primes).  A fledgeling programmer uses a 64-bit random number generator and a prime sieve implementation they implemented as a learning exercise, and by sheer luck, happens to discover a number that disproves Goldbach's conjecture.  All they need to do, is to present the number.

See?  They do not need any kind of background in number theory.  The worth of their contribution is not dependent on their knowledge "level" at all.

This may sound like nitpicking, but in reality, this is a big factor in how science is advanced: theorems often get falsified by accident, often when someone simply attempts to apply the theorem without having any deeper knowledge on the subject domain, and simply encounter a case that falsifies the theorem.  (This is often continued by someone with sufficient domain knowledge discovering the reason exactly why the theorem or model did not work, and developing a new one.  While the "domain experts" are needed to further science, not everybody positively contributing to science needs to be a "domain expert".)

You keep circling back at social manipulation but that isn't the issue here at all.
I disagree.  Looking at the abstract of the article in question, sentence by sentence, shows that it has been designed to evoke feelings and surprise in the reader, while using wording that can be understood in more than one way.  I've also already shown two cases in the abstract, where plural was deliberately used when the actual matter was singular: one earlier article, one order of magnitude.

This is not common in articles that have scientific merit.  The abstract is supposed to be clear and straightforward, unambiguous. The purpose of a scientific article is to show, reveal, express; not hide and subtly elevate their authors by using ambivalent language as to what is actually being described.  There are only two cases how ambivalent language may end up in a scientific article: by accident, because the author lacks sufficient language skills; and by design.  There is nothing in the article that indicates the authors have any issues with the English language, and being from Stanford, they most definitely have scientific writing classes and advisors to help them; therefore, the second possibility, this misleading being by design, is the likely one.

Have you noted that none of your arguments actually specify any basis for your beliefs?  You just state your opinions as if they were facts, without any kind of attempt to even consider the arguments I've presented.  It is becoming frustrating, like arguing with a brick wall.  (That said, I'm not posting these here for you, but for the other people now or later reading this thread.  I am trying to avoid posting my own opinion, and instead post the reasoning behind those opinions.  That way, those others can compare their own reasons, do their own research, and use rational thought instead of belief in authority to form their own opinions, and act accordingly.)

If I had to guess, you're just angry at me, and want to play some kind of a social game to "catch me" in some kind of an error, and the actual matter at hand is irrelevant to you.  That is what it looks like to me, anyway.  Unless there is some new rational argument instead of a list of assertions, I don't see any reason to participate in this kind of social game any further.
 

Offline EEVblogTopic starter

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 38019
  • Country: au
    • EEVblog
Re: EEVblog 1466 - Stanford Solar Power at Nightime BUSTED
« Reply #84 on: April 19, 2022, 06:14:13 am »
@Nominal Animal: You need to seperate two things here:

1) Nobody is arguing that the article this thread is about is good science, shows spectular results and/or that it should be featured. Likely the editor doesn't know the difference between mW (milli-Watt) and MW (megaWatt) and found the article the best one to become the feature this month. IOW: you are barking up the wrong tree here.

2) What is being argued, is the value of superficial debunking videos. I hope you can agree though that the typical debunking videos which consist of handwaving, laughs, poorly controlled / biased experiments and hyperboles are crafty psychological manipulation of the watchers / listeners and thus are just as bad. You can't make shit go away by smearing more shit on it. Plus the negative sentiment that come with such videos.

If you really want to disprove a claim, you'll need to do / repeat experiments in a controlled manner, examine /process the results in the correct way and point out where the flaws are. This is very time consuming and doesn't result in a very entertaining video as well.

In this case you can "disprove the claim" by simply reading the article headline. They claim it might reduce or eliminate the need the battery storage. You aint going to do that with 50mW. It's just laughable. Extra laughable that the media picked up on it.
You can not think there is value in just laughing at this kinda marketing wank, and that's fine, but it's demonstrably true that a lot of other people enjoyed it and found entertainment value in it, and maybe even some technical valu too. Currently 79,700 people in fact, with a 98.4% thumbs ratio, which BTW is on par with or even slightly better than my average thumbs ratio.
 

Offline Siwastaja

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 8291
  • Country: fi
Re: EEVblog 1466 - Stanford Solar Power at Nightime BUSTED
« Reply #85 on: April 19, 2022, 06:32:41 pm »
Actually it doesn't matter whether you dismiss the presenter or the argument; it is one and the same really as the argument is based on the knowledge level of the presenter.

The risk here is the mischaracterization of the "level". How do you know who is the "true expert"? Formal education, for example, greatly correlates with but does not guarantee the capability of being right in some technical question. Real world technical problems are also notoriously hard and multi-faceted. Some who think they are true experts on that field might just hastily give a quick answer without much thinking, and get it wrong by accident; if you had a good, lengthy discussion with them, the result would totally change.

And, if the question is truly easy for the expert, then it should not take long to educate others with actual technical arguments, no?

As an expert who is almost always right (the secret: I don't make shit up, I just don't post if I have no idea what I would talk about!), I do understand the frustration that goes into having to explain it over and over again. But if you can't do that, then you don't deserve the "expert" status, IMHO. The status is something you need to keep proving every day; and if you do that, then you will see the status itself is secondary, everything falls back to the actual facts being discussed.
 
The following users thanked this post: thm_w, 2N3055

Online nctnico

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 27328
  • Country: nl
    • NCT Developments
Re: EEVblog 1466 - Stanford Solar Power at Nightime BUSTED
« Reply #86 on: April 19, 2022, 09:34:01 pm »
Actually it doesn't matter whether you dismiss the presenter or the argument; it is one and the same really as the argument is based on the knowledge level of the presenter.
The risk here is the mischaracterization of the "level". How do you know who is the "true expert"? Formal education, for example, greatly correlates with but does not guarantee the capability of being right in some technical question. Real world technical problems are also notoriously hard and multi-faceted.
How do you know a true expert? That is a seriously though question to answer. Formal education is not the definitive answer. You just have to look how well a story holds up, how it is backed up and use common sense. In the end science is truth by majority (not just people but also repeatable experiments that provide irrefutable proof).

Example1:
A while ago somebody pointed me to a video about the benefits of no-carb diets. That video showed a neurologist as 'the expert doctor' and their proof was a bunch of people that ate & drank nothing else but cardboard-food & soda and suffered from several health issues. Ofcourse their health improved when they started eating vegetables. And a neurologist isn't a dietitian so what does this guy actually know about diets? With the WHO recommended diet in mind it is clear to me that this particular video is to be disregarded because it provides no conclusive evidence to back the claims made.

Example2:
Another video that got forwarded to me from a worried friend. This time about cleaning glasses in hotel rooms trying to convince people glasses in hotel rooms are dirty. At some point the lady narrating the video is exclaiming 'look, they are spraying something on the glasses from a bottle that says -do not drink-'. My immediate question: wouldn't that be soap in that bottle? At least they wash the glasses with soap so what is the deal here?

Example3:
Experts can overlook things as well or suffer from tunnelvision. Somebody had been working to test part of a PhD thesis which was found very interesting by various experts in the field for a couple of months but kept failing. Time was running out so I took it back to basics and -after a couple of days of pondering & analysing- I had to conclude the idea could never work. Much to my own surprise BTW.
« Last Edit: April 19, 2022, 11:05:22 pm by nctnico »
There are small lies, big lies and then there is what is on the screen of your oscilloscope.
 

Online nctnico

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 27328
  • Country: nl
    • NCT Developments
Re: EEVblog 1466 - Stanford Solar Power at Nightime BUSTED
« Reply #87 on: April 19, 2022, 09:47:47 pm »
If I had to guess, you're just angry at me, and want to play some kind of a social game to "catch me" in some kind of an error, and the actual matter at hand is irrelevant to you.  That is what it looks like to me, anyway.  Unless there is some new rational argument instead of a list of assertions, I don't see any reason to participate in this kind of social game any further.
I don't have to catch you because when you can't convince someone of your POV you always Pavlov into 'it must be a social game'. That is your blind spot.

Basically your point is that someone can stumble onto a scientific breakthrough. But ask yourself: how is this breakthrough acknowledged? The way I see it, this is always through validation by experts in the field through experiments / math that validate the discovery. And maybe with the person that did the discovery being recognised as an expert in the field. And I think that is also the point you are making but formulated differently. My additional point however is, that such a discovery will need to be presented in a way that it will be taken serious by the experts in the field. For a relatively simple problem like a numerical mystery, the numbers will speak for themselves (litterally) but how to disprove or prove something like a hyperloop system? You'll need to do a serious amount of work to put a compelling argument together and thus become very knowledgable in the process.

BTW: I have not been able to find that Goldbach's conjecture was disproven using Google. Either this was very recent or people are still working on validation and it has not been accepted by the scientific community.
« Last Edit: April 19, 2022, 11:08:12 pm by nctnico »
There are small lies, big lies and then there is what is on the screen of your oscilloscope.
 

Offline Nominal Animal

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 6514
  • Country: fi
    • My home page and email address
Re: EEVblog 1466 - Stanford Solar Power at Nightime BUSTED
« Reply #88 on: April 20, 2022, 05:05:20 pm »
If I had to guess, you're just angry at me, and want to play some kind of a social game to "catch me" in some kind of an error, and the actual matter at hand is irrelevant to you.  That is what it looks like to me, anyway.  Unless there is some new rational argument instead of a list of assertions, I don't see any reason to participate in this kind of social game any further.
I don't have to catch you because when you can't convince someone of your POV you always Pavlov into 'it must be a social game'. That is your blind spot.
Perhaps.  Or perhaps it is just that common; especially by members like yourself who counter rational arguments by restating their own beliefs as if they were facts, or mischaracterise others posts into something they can actually attack, instead of arguing rationally.

You still haven't stated any basis for your claims based purely on your own opinions, you just state them as if they were facts.

Have you ever considered that doing that might actually be a form of social manipulation?  I do not believe you do it knowingly, because a big part of being a social human is to play, effectively, such social games: people do it intuitively, and must consciously choose to not do so (which is a big part of technical and scientific writing).  Observe any group of humans interacting for any length of time, and you will see cases where "social gaming" occurs, and the whole group suffers from it.  This does not mean all social games are "wrong"; indeed, they are necessary for hierarchical social interactions.  What I do rail against, is these same – effective, and thus instinctively learned and applied – methods applied to avoid a rational discussion, degrading it into a simple social game, losing the rational content.

When I want to play social games (and I do, being a social human), I do it face-to-face.  The information bandwidth in online discussions is too low to make it worth it to me.  So, when I participate in discussions, I want that discussion to be rational; and a key part of that is ignoring the opinions themselves, and instead discuss and compare the reasons behind those opinions.

You do not, you simply state your opinion as if it was a fact.  Do you see how that makes me think you are not interested in a rational discussion, and instead want to play some kind of a social game?  All the evidence in your postings point that way.

Basically your point is that someone can stumble onto a scientific breakthrough.
No, it isn't.

The key is, to repeat this for the third time now, is falsifiability, a crucial tool in scientific work first described by Karl Popper in 1934.  (Ignore my typos when I write that as "poppler", the latter being a PDF library I've used so often my fingers insert the letter L automatically when I try to write "Popper".)

To simplify, making a discovery ("scientific breakthrough"), be it a theory or a model, is only a relatively small part of the whole.  Falsifying (attempting to falsify) theories and models is how they can be tested.  The former does require a lot of domain knowledge, but the latter does not; and because I have a Popperian bent, finding falsifiability an extremely useful tool in science, I consider the two roughly equally useful.

It is extremely rare for people to discuss their discoveries in online forums or mailing lists.  However, it is quite common for people to discuss possible falsifications of theories and models in online forums and mailing lists, and other informal contexts.  A common example in Physics would be the domain where Newtonian model is no longer applicable, and one needs either general relativity or quantum mechanics instead, to describe the phenomena accurately enough.  This is a practical example of why falsifiability is so useful, and why criticism does not necessarily require much domain knowledge at all.

You could also consider it one facet of why having practical experience is so useful.  That experience contains a lot of data points that can be used to falsify incorrect assumptions; with those data points rarely occurring to those who deal with the theoretical side only.
« Last Edit: April 20, 2022, 05:08:26 pm by Nominal Animal »
 

Offline wilfred

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1252
  • Country: au
Re: EEVblog 1466 - Stanford Solar Power at Nightime BUSTED
« Reply #89 on: May 17, 2022, 02:31:05 am »
The link to the article in Dave's initial post now requires payment to read the paper. I only noticed because I saw this article on the ABC online news website here in Australia.
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-05-17/australian-researchers-show-solar-power-can-be-generated-at-nigh/101070388

But this news item would lead the ignorant reader to think some breakthrough is possible that would lead to night "solar" becoming useful for large scale power generation. I wanted to take a second look at the Stanford paper because I didn't recall it mentioning a diode in the mix as this article does.

I wanted to point the writers of this "news" to the Stanford paper. I don't know why, but I'm still going to feedback to them I think it was poor journalism.
 

Offline vk6zgo

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 7652
  • Country: au
Re: EEVblog 1466 - Stanford Solar Power at Nightime BUSTED
« Reply #90 on: May 17, 2022, 03:54:00 am »
Not following on from the last reply, but more a comment on some others which seem to assert that this is something new, sinister, & somehow "green".

I remember reading articles quoting research into the possibility of Atomic powered cars & aircraft, back in the 1950s, (yes, I was a geeky kid), many predicated on the "imminent" development of lightweight shielding materials, which never happened.

One group wanted to make atomic powered watches----quite achievable, but again bedevilled by the "lightweight shielding" problem.
These things had serious money spent on them.

The continuing touting of various materials as "4 times stronger than steel" Yada , Yada, Yada, has been going on since that time period, too!

We have since had such delights as "Cold Fusion"!
 

Offline David Hess

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 16890
  • Country: us
  • DavidH
Re: EEVblog 1466 - Stanford Solar Power at Nightime BUSTED
« Reply #91 on: May 17, 2022, 04:27:56 am »
One group wanted to make atomic powered watches----quite achievable, but again bedevilled by the "lightweight shielding" problem.

An atomic wristwatch has been possible for a long time without any shielding problem.  Small atomic batteries which rely on alpha or beta particles have been used for decades in very special applications, like pacemakers.  No special shielding is required.  It is just not very practical compared to alternatives like lithium batteries.
 

Offline golden_labels

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1284
  • Country: pl
Re: EEVblog 1466 - Stanford Solar Power at Nightime BUSTED
« Reply #92 on: May 17, 2022, 01:41:36 pm »
One group wanted to make atomic powered watches----quite achievable, but again bedevilled by the "lightweight shielding" problem. These things had serious money spent on them.
Tritium batteries are not some alien technology. The problem is not in constructing such devices, but in usefulness of doing so: coin cells are cheaper per joule and may be stored for some time.
People imagine AI as T1000. What we got so far is glorified T9.
 

Offline vk6zgo

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 7652
  • Country: au
Re: EEVblog 1466 - Stanford Solar Power at Nightime BUSTED
« Reply #93 on: May 18, 2022, 01:14:26 am »
One group wanted to make atomic powered watches----quite achievable, but again bedevilled by the "lightweight shielding" problem. These things had serious money spent on them.
Tritium batteries are not some alien technology. The problem is not in constructing such devices, but in usefulness of doing so: coin cells are cheaper per joule and may be stored for some time.

This was the 1950s, so the radioactive sources may have been somewhat less refined.

The current draw certainly would have been higher than a modern version, so a somewhat more "macho" "nuclear" cell may have been necessary-----no ICs, no LCDs.

It would have been pretty much either a spring watch, with the cell driving a motor to rewind it, or something along the lines of 
Hamilton’s first electric watch movement, the Model 500, from 1951, that wasn't marketed in a watch till 1957.

 The option would have been attractive as there were no silver oxide, zinc-air or lithium button cells, (the first mercury button cells were developed for the Model 500)
 

Offline golden_labels

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1284
  • Country: pl
Re: EEVblog 1466 - Stanford Solar Power at Nightime BUSTED
« Reply #94 on: May 18, 2022, 09:45:35 am »
I consulted Wikipedia: and indeed I shifted the technology about 2 decades towards the past. So scratch that comment of mine.
People imagine AI as T1000. What we got so far is glorified T9.
 
The following users thanked this post: RJSV

Offline RJSV

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 2276
  • Country: us
Re: EEVblog 1466 - Stanford Solar Power at Nightime BUSTED
« Reply #95 on: May 31, 2022, 12:36:25 am »
bdunham7 has it right.  Parents know this method; You, (at age 15), tell your parents you've gotten a JOB, now, and so...You want them to buy you a NEW CAR, as, see, you've got this 'JOB', see...
   And if you talk long enough / fast enough, parents won't notice, (that you work 1 hour per week, at
$ 6 .50).
   Then...you call up the press, and announce:
   "Jack's parents are 'investigating' Jack's new job"...
...oh wait...
 

Offline Jeanne Solis

  • Newbie
  • !
  • Posts: 1
  • Country: us
Re: EEVblog 1466 - Stanford Solar Power at Nightime BUSTED
« Reply #96 on: May 16, 2023, 09:31:49 am »
There is nothing in the paper or the hype to confirm they were hoping no-one notices or that readers should be delusional. Nor is there a hint of a claim that there exists further orders of magnitude improvement in the near term or at all. The paper states 50mW/m2. It states it in the heading in big print right up front.

In the abstract, it states
Quote
We achieve 50 mW/m² nighttime power generation with a clear night sky, with an open-circuit voltage of 100 mV, which is orders of magnitude higher as compared with previous demonstrations.
The "which is orders of magnitude higher as compared with previous demonstrations" refers to the open-circuit voltage of exactly one previous demonstration, B. Zhao, M. Hu, X. Ao, Q. Xuan, Z. Song, and G. Pei, Sol. Energy Mater. Sol. Cells 228, 111136 (2021), who only managed to obtain 9 mV open-circuit voltage, and didn't bother to compute the electric energy density.  Furthermore, they later refer to A. P. Raman, W. Li, and S. Fan, Joule 3, 2679–2686 (2019), a nighttime black emitter and a TEG, which demonstrated 25 mW/m² electric power density –– enough to power a LED, as they state in the abstract –– and describe how to increase that to 0.5 W/m² = 500 mW/m².

I do not know if you just glanced over the paper to see if you see anything odd/infuriating/unmeritorious, wilfred, but I certainly read it with very hopeful interest.  (Because regardless of my attitude towards this paper, I'm actually still hopeful and optimistic that real meritorious science is still being done, and whenever I start reading an interesting article, I am always hopeful/interested/glad and looking forward to learning something new; I never read articles to try and find something to put down.)  Instead, what I read, was very cleverly worded –– I'm not at all surprised that casual readers do not notice the insiduousness of the wording, because it passed even the seasoned reviewers and editors at Applied Physics Journal; I'm in awe of the scientific writing advisors these authors had at Stanford University! –– with zero scientific merit.

In particular, they chose a single experiment to compare the open-circuit voltage to (Raman et al. in Joule 3, 2019), and based on that, claim "orders of magnitude higher".  It is a SINGLE experiment they compare to, and a SINGLE order of magnitude (9 mV to 100 mV is a factor of 11).  So that alone is two demonstrable errors/misleading statements in the abstract.

They reach 20% of the potential electric power density described possible in an earlier paper (by Raman et al., linked above, where they mention "Pathways to performance > 0.5 W/m² using existing commodity components exist"), reaching twice the experimentally demonstrated electric power density in that paper, and yet are perfectly happy to mislead readers by a tricky sentence in their abstract, so that careless readers – as shown in this thread before I pointed it out! – believe that the 50 mW/m² is somehow "orders of magnitude better than before".  Hell, since they only used a 153 cm² = 0.0153 m² panel (with 0.765 mW = 765 µW output), the measurement error and accidental unaccounted for energy sources could easily explain all differences they had to the earlier 25 mW/m² paper.  It is actually more likely that the Stanford authors just used a slightly better TEG, as commercially available TEG efficiencies range from basically zero to 8% (depending on the temperature difference, with higher temperature differences yielding better efficiencies); it is estimated (including in this paper) that the radiative cooling power is in excess of 50 W/m², which means that the efficiency reached in this paper is 0.1% (one thousandth), at about 3 degree Celsius or Kelvin difference.

Because the earlier 2019 paper does mention that existing commodity components can reach 500 mW/m², the fact that "Nor is there a hint of a claim [in this paper] that there exists further orders of magnitude improvement in the near term or at all" is a deliberate, misleading omission: there is at least one order of magnitude improvement in the electric power density to be gained right now, using commodity components.  The authors of this paper clearly read the earlier paper carefully, and just chose to ignore that, in the hopes of elevating their own results.

I reiterate: after carefully reading the paper and at least the abstracts of the key papers this links to, with initially a very open and hopeful mind, all I found in this paper was crafty psychological manipulation of the readers, with basically zero scientific merit, zero improvement from or additional information to a two years previous experiment they themselves link to.  I believe the fact that this paper was selected as a featured article in Applied Physics Letters shows the decline of physical sciences.



wilfred, barycentric, bsfeechannel, and others: I respect you, I just believe you are horribly mislead in this particular case.  There is limited funding available for scientific research, and what is available, is almost exclusively dependent on articles published on journals like this one was, Applied Physics Letters.  My objection is that there is no scientific merit in this article; and because it was so well written that it became a featured article, it is a perfect example of exactly why the entire field of physical sciences is in steep decline.

You disagree.  Fine.  Please, point out something in what I've written in this thread that you disagree with, and explain why.  Your opinion is worth exactly as little as mine; basically nothing.  Only the reasoning and logic actually matters, because those can be argued and their merits compared fairly and in a useful manner.  We don't learn anything useful by comparing opinions, but we can learn a lot by comparing the reasoning and arguments our opinions are based on.  That is also how science is supposed to work.  Besides, even the best of us – like say Einstein with respect to the Cosmological Constant – change their opinions when presented with suitable counterarguments or experimental proof.  (I hope to emulate them, not because I am deluded to think I'm at their level – heh, I know I'm not, and freely admit it! –, but because it works.)

There is a reason for the old adage that for evil to prevail, good men only need do nothing.  Similarly, for the scientific domain to become filled with garbage, we only need to ignore the garbage.  We did that, still using it as the only reliable quantitative metric of scientific merit, and now we're knee deep in shit even in Physics.  (I'm using "knee deep" quite carefully, since approximately 25% of peer reviewed articles in Physics are garbage, either incorrect or just bullshit based on unrepeatable and unprovable claims.  In other fields, like in humanist sciences, they're drowning in shit, because there citations form disconnected clusters among groups of authors, and many already object to even trying to apply the scientific method in their own fields.  Decolonisation of science and all that.)

That is why I rail against this.  Dave does it for completely other reasons.  By claiming us "naysayers" and mischaracterising the reasons why I do this, you are only soothing your own personal feelings about this stuff.  If you did not care, you'd just skip this thread.  Because you do care, at least enough to respond, I believe that you are aware of this at the subconscious level, but because your chosen conscious beliefs of what science is today and what gets published are in disagreement, you suffer from cognitive dissonance; and instead of working out why, you attack those who caused the dissonance.
If there was merit in your disagreement, you would have pointed out where the error in my own posts were.  You pointed out none, though.

Because of that, I do ask you that you point out the specific parts in my posts you disagree with.  You see, if you cannot or will not, the most likely reason for that is indeed the cognitive dissonance.  I would also like to ask you too to read the abstracts (behind the links above), compare the linked articles to this article, and review the reasons behind your own opinions (as to why this article should indeed merit being featured in Applied Physics Letters).  To repeat, being published (or even featured) in a respected journal is not irrelevant; it is important, because it really is the only quantitative measure of scientific merit today that those who grant funds for furher research use.  (Although citations and per-author retractions and corrections give a much better overall picture, they do not yield a simple quantitative measure.)

If something I've written here offends you, I hope you take the time to actually pinpoint what I wrote that offended you, and let me know.  It wasn't intentional, I assure you: I am against your opinion because I believe they are based on faulty logic or assumptions and lead to less than desirable consequences in the field of science.  I am NOT against you personally.  If I didn't care about what you write here, I'd simply ignore you.
I appreciate your thorough analysis and the effort you've put into examining the paper and its references. It's clear that you have some reservations about the scientific merit of the study and its featured status in Applied Physics Letters.
While I respect your viewpoint, it's important to remember that scientific progress relies on critical evaluation and open discussion. Peer review and constructive conversations are key in ensuring the quality and integrity of published research.
 

Offline EEVblogTopic starter

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 38019
  • Country: au
    • EEVblog
Re: EEVblog 1466 - Stanford Solar Power at Nightime BUSTED
« Reply #97 on: May 16, 2023, 10:57:25 am »
I appreciate your thorough analysis and the effort you've put into examining the paper and its references. It's clear that you have some reservations about the scientific merit of the study and its featured status in Applied Physics Letters.
While I respect your viewpoint, it's important to remember that scientific progress relies on critical evaluation and open discussion. Peer review and constructive conversations are key in ensuring the quality and integrity of published research.

AI. Chat. Bot. Response. Detected.
 
The following users thanked this post: thm_w, 2N3055

Offline Ed.Kloonk

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 4000
  • Country: au
  • Cat video aficionado
Re: EEVblog 1466 - Stanford Solar Power at Nightime BUSTED
« Reply #98 on: May 16, 2023, 11:41:27 am »
Chatbot has a lot of work to do before it's ready to go up against the Animal.

 :)
iratus parum formica
 

Offline Wasquez

  • Newbie
  • Posts: 2
  • Country: us
Re: EEVblog 1466 - Stanford Solar Power at Nightime BUSTED
« Reply #99 on: May 29, 2023, 10:06:35 am »
There is nothing in the paper or the hype to confirm they were hoping no-one notices or that readers should be delusional. Nor is there a hint of a claim that there exists further orders of magnitude improvement in the near term or at all. The paper states 50mW/m2. It states it in the heading in big print right up front.

In the abstract, it states
Quote
We achieve 50 mW/m² nighttime power generation with a clear night sky, with an open-circuit voltage of 100 mV, which is orders of magnitude higher as compared with previous demonstrations.
The "which is orders of magnitude higher as compared with previous demonstrations" refers to the open-circuit voltage of exactly one previous demonstration, B. Zhao, M. Hu, X. Ao, Q. Xuan, Z. Song, and G. Pei, Sol. Energy Mater. Sol. Cells 228, 111136 (2021), who only managed to obtain 9 mV open-circuit voltage, and didn't bother to compute the electric energy density.  Furthermore, they later refer to A. P. Raman, W. Li, and S. Fan, Joule 3, 2679–2686 (2019), a nighttime black emitter and a TEG, which demonstrated 25 mW/m² electric power density –– enough to power a LED, as they state in the abstract –– and describe how to increase that to 0.5 W/m² = 500 mW/m².

I do not know if you just glanced over the paper to see if you see anything odd/infuriating/unmeritorious, wilfred, but I certainly read it with very hopeful interest.  (Because regardless of my attitude towards this paper, I'm actually still hopeful and optimistic that real meritorious science is still being done, and whenever I start reading an interesting article, I am always hopeful/interested/glad and looking forward to learning something new; I never read articles to try and find something to put down.)  Instead, what I read, was very cleverly worded –– I'm not at all surprised that casual readers do not notice the insiduousness of the wording, because it passed even the seasoned reviewers and editors at Applied Physics Journal; I'm in awe of the scientific writing advisors these authors had at Stanford University! –– with zero scientific merit.

In particular, they chose a single experiment to compare the open-circuit voltage to (Raman et al. in Joule 3, 2019), and based on that, claim "orders of magnitude higher".  It is a SINGLE experiment they compare to, and a SINGLE order of magnitude (9 mV to 100 mV is a factor of 11).  So that alone is two demonstrable errors/misleading statements in the abstract.

They reach 20% of the potential electric power density described possible in an earlier paper (by Raman et al., linked above, where they mention "Pathways to performance > 0.5 W/m² using existing commodity components exist"), reaching twice the experimentally demonstrated electric power density in that paper, and yet are perfectly happy to mislead readers by a tricky sentence in their abstract, so that careless readers – as shown in this thread before I pointed it out! – believe that the 50 mW/m² is somehow "orders of magnitude better than before".  Hell, since they only used a 153 cm² = 0.0153 m² panel (with 0.765 mW = 765 µW output), the measurement error and accidental unaccounted for energy sources could easily explain all differences they had to the earlier 25 mW/m² paper.  It is actually more likely that the Stanford authors just used a slightly better TEG, as commercially available TEG efficiencies range from basically zero to 8% (depending on the temperature difference, with higher temperature differences yielding better efficiencies); it is estimated (including in this paper) that the radiative cooling power is in excess of 50 W/m², which means that the efficiency reached in this paper is 0.1% (one thousandth), at about 3 degree Celsius or Kelvin difference.

Because the earlier 2019 paper does mention that existing commodity components can reach 500 mW/m², the fact that "Nor is there a hint of a claim [in this paper] that there exists further orders of magnitude improvement in the near term or at all" is a deliberate, misleading omission: there is at least one order of magnitude improvement in the electric power density to be gained right now, using commodity components.  The authors of this paper clearly read the earlier paper carefully, and just chose to ignore that, in the hopes of elevating their own results.

I reiterate: after carefully reading the paper and at least the abstracts of the key papers this links to, with initially a very open and hopeful mind, all I found in this paper was crafty psychological manipulation of the readers, with basically zero scientific merit, zero improvement from or additional information to a two years previous experiment they themselves link to.  I believe the fact that this paper was selected as a featured article in Applied Physics Letters shows the decline of physical sciences.



wilfred, barycentric, bsfeechannel, and others: I respect you, I just believe you are horribly mislead in this particular case.  There is limited funding available for scientific research, and what is available, is almost exclusively dependent on articles published on journals like this one was, Applied Physics Letters.  My objection is that there is no scientific merit in this article; and because it was so well written that it became a featured article, it is a perfect example of exactly why the entire field of physical sciences is in steep decline.

You disagree.  Fine.  Please, point out something in what I've written in this thread that you disagree with, and explain why.  Your opinion is worth exactly as little as mine; basically nothing.  Only the reasoning and logic actually matters, because those can be argued and their merits compared fairly and in a useful manner.  We don't learn anything useful by comparing opinions, but we can learn a lot by comparing the reasoning and arguments our opinions are based on.  That is also how science is supposed to work.  Besides, even the best of us – like say Einstein with respect to the Cosmological Constant – change their opinions when presented with suitable counterarguments or experimental proof.  (I hope to emulate them, not because I am deluded to think I'm at their level – heh, I know I'm not, and freely admit it! –, but because it works.)

There is a reason for the old adage that for evil to prevail, good men only need do nothing.  Similarly, for the scientific domain to become filled with garbage, we only need to ignore the garbage.  We did that, still using it as the only reliable quantitative metric of scientific merit, and now we're knee deep in shit even in Physics.  (I'm using "knee deep" quite carefully, since approximately 25% of peer reviewed articles in Physics are garbage, either incorrect or just bullshit based on unrepeatable and unprovable claims.  In other fields, like in humanist sciences, they're drowning in shit, because there citations form disconnected clusters among groups of authors, and many already object to even trying to apply the scientific method in their own fields.  Decolonisation of science and all that.)
Reputable journals, such as the one mentioned in the forum post, serve as gatekeepers in the publication process. They employ rigorous peer-review systems to evaluate the scientific merit, methodology, and conclusions of the research. Being published in respected journals not only validates the quality of the work but also enhances its visibility and impact within the scientific community. Research papers also play a significant role in securing funding for further scientific investigations. Funding agencies often rely on published papers as a quantitative measure of scientific merit when making decisions about allocating resources. Therefore, the quality, clarity, and rigor of research papers directly impact the potential for continued funding and support. That's why is so important to have the opportunity to buy research papers with no plagiarism. Fortunately, this site https://essays.studymoose.com/buy-research-paper provides such services. In summary, research papers are vital vehicles for disseminating scientific findings, establishing credibility, and securing funding. Upholding rigorous standards throughout the publication process is key to maintaining the integrity and progress of scientific research.
That is why I rail against this.  Dave does it for completely other reasons.  By claiming us "naysayers" and mischaracterising the reasons why I do this, you are only soothing your own personal feelings about this stuff.  If you did not care, you'd just skip this thread.  Because you do care, at least enough to respond, I believe that you are aware of this at the subconscious level, but because your chosen conscious beliefs of what science is today and what gets published are in disagreement, you suffer from cognitive dissonance; and instead of working out why, you attack those who caused the dissonance.
If there was merit in your disagreement, you would have pointed out where the error in my own posts were.  You pointed out none, though.

Because of that, I do ask you that you point out the specific parts in my posts you disagree with.  You see, if you cannot or will not, the most likely reason for that is indeed the cognitive dissonance.  I would also like to ask you too to read the abstracts (behind the links above), compare the linked articles to this article, and review the reasons behind your own opinions (as to why this article should indeed merit being featured in Applied Physics Letters).  To repeat, being published (or even featured) in a respected journal is not irrelevant; it is important, because it really is the only quantitative measure of scientific merit today that those who grant funds for furher research use.  (Although citations and per-author retractions and corrections give a much better overall picture, they do not yield a simple quantitative measure.)

If something I've written here offends you, I hope you take the time to actually pinpoint what I wrote that offended you, and let me know.  It wasn't intentional, I assure you: I am against your opinion because I believe they are based on faulty logic or assumptions and lead to less than desirable consequences in the field of science.  I am NOT against you personally.  If I didn't care about what you write here, I'd simply ignore you.
Even though I agree with your arguments you need to make your tone less confrontational so it would look more like a discussion of a grown-ups
« Last Edit: May 29, 2023, 10:08:10 am by Wasquez »
 


Share me

Digg  Facebook  SlashDot  Delicious  Technorati  Twitter  Google  Yahoo
Smf