Improve the process of scientific method and peer review.

17 posts / 0 new

Mon, 2009-12-28 02:56

Brian White

The science as a religion people will freak but whatever. Thats what they do.

So who decides what gets funded? That is the giant loophole in the scientific method and peer review.

Ever since I thought of the pulser pump. (Which was probably thought of before) I have been on the wrong side of scientific indifference and malice.

First, they said it couldnt work. And that it was a fake.

Finally this year, an ordinary guy in Cornwall, England, made a model and put it on the internet. Finally proof that the pulser effect is not all in my imagination. Way back in the early 1990's a scientist did want to investigate it but he did not get funded. And there have been others who tried to get students to investigate it. Nada happened. It is also on the list of things to be investigated at appropedia (and I did not put it on the list). I have more than 40 crappy videos on youtube and my longish pulser pump video gets 40% of the views so obviously people like the idea.

Why have the scientific community failed to get their act together in 20 years and investigate the darn thing?

It is about 20 years since I put it in the public domain.

I am not the only person who wants the process improved.

Here is my peer review playlist. Some of it is "real" scientists who compete for grants for research.

One is me whining about the lack of curiosity among ordinary people and scientists.

Some of it is outsiders pointing out the flaws. One is comedy. Check it out and see for yourself if the process can be improved.

http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=5099F55F935FC8EB

Brian

Mon, 2009-12-28 16:42

MegB

The youtube video is very funny - especially the last line: Well, I suppose I can always get it published in Scientific American. I had a good laugh over that. I've heard the same rant from researchers, and it's nicely parodied in the vid.

Be that as it may, I googled your pulser pump and have noted that, as you say, you have dozens of vids and articles on the 'Net about your invention, and since you seem to be quite open about your attempts to be recognized, I'm sure you won't be too miffed if I point out that your post here on Rabble is more than a little self-serving, though cloaked in inquiry about scientific peer review and its validity.

I agree that scientific peer review is flawed, at best, and that funding opportunities and their processes are sketchy. However, that is the system within which academia "thrives", and I suggest that you dismiss them as they have you and look toward a more commercial venture that will promote your device. Better yet, set up a foundation for the promotion and use of the pump in developing regions, to promote its widespread use where it is most needed.

Mon, 2009-12-28 16:51

abnormal

I should also point out that you're confusing the question of funding with both the scientific method and peer review. The latter two have nothing to do with funding (although I agree that if your research isn't peer reviewed you're unlikely to get funding from any sort of governmental source).

On the subject of peer review, there are plenty of examples of researchers who have published papers that no-one will review - generally because the author is either universally disliked or has been wrong so many times before that no-one is willing to spend the time reviewing the science involved.

As Rebecca says, if you want to promote this thing try and find a commercial venture or try to set up a foundation that will promote it's use in developing regions - half the battle with respect to the latter is telling the right story so that funding will fall in place. There's a saying that applies to a completely different topic but the sentiments are relevant here.

Quote:
Ask for funding to study the mating habits of squirrels and you won't get it. Ask for funding to study the effects of climate change on the mating habits of squirrels and you'll get your funding.

The same thing applies here - find the right hot button and press it.

Mon, 2009-12-28 17:45

MegB

I agree. I've written enough grant applications to know that if you don't provide the right language, you won't get the funding, regardless of how meritous your project is.

It sucks, it may not be fair, but it's the reality of the thing. You either work within the system as it is, or you find a way to work outside the system productively, or you fail.

Mon, 2009-12-28 22:57

Brian White

I think it is fatalistic to work with the system as it is. And if we leave it as it is, the whole east anglia thing will raise its head again and again. (Whether the guys there did anything wrong or not.

And who GIVES the funding? Who is on the funding comittees? Who appoints them?

I do not want effing Harper to be deciding who gets funded and who doesn't.

(There are about 6 videos in the playlist now). The one from south africa asks some really good questions.

Rebecca, you are a science insider. Who is allowed to write grant applications?

All "my" stuff is public domain by the way. (and there is a whole lot more than the pump).

Anybody can investigate it. It does not have to be me.

The whole concept of peer review is that someone else should review it.

Why has it not happened automatically?

Brian

Rebecca West wrote:

I agree. I've written enough grant applications to know that if you don't provide the right language, you won't get the funding, regardless of how meritous your project is.

It sucks, it may not be fair, but it's the reality of the thing. You either work within the system as it is, or you find a way to work outside the system productively, or you fail.

Mon, 2009-12-28 23:50

G. Muffin

Brian White wrote:

The science as a religion people will freak but whatever. Thats what they do.

So who decides what gets funded? That is the giant loophole in the scientific method and peer review.

The scientific method isn't the problem; it's a thing of great beauty. It's the people who twist it to fit their agenda that screw us over. Not to belabour the point (as Katie Couric might say when talking to Ms. Palin), but mainstream psychiatry is a religion not a science. It shares every characteristic of a cult.

Tue, 2009-12-29 00:39

Brian White

Rebecca, I get emails every other week asking how much a pulser pump will pump in various different situations. Sometimes huge projects with half a tonne of water per second going past. I cannot answer because I cannot do that research (and the people just want to have a reasonable idea of how it will turn out before they start the projects).

" I'm sure you won't be too miffed if I point out that your post here on Rabble is more than a little self-serving, though cloaked in inquiry about scientific peer review and its validity".

Lets talk about you Rebecca, now why did you just go and write that? Why?

Were those the words of an objective curious scientist?

Are you not there just circling the wagons? Putting you hands over your ears and sneering about me being self serving all in one go?

I see you as a person of privilage who CAN apply for grants and CAN get them. But what did you do? You picked up a piece of "cloaked in inquiry about its validity" and threw it in my face. THATS one of the problems in science, right there.

Why are peple so effing mean spirited?

Who gives a crap who thought of it? It has been public domain since the late 1980's.

Probably someone else thought of it before me and said "screw it" after getting blank stares from everybody. Wikipedia said that it is based on very well established and well know processes (airlift and trompe) and also " too novel" so they will not put it in their publication. (This is why I put jimmy Wale of wikipedia in the playlist). The irony factor.

Why will the scientific community NOT investigate it?

They spend hundreds of thousands every year investigating non specific turbulent 2 phase flow and trying to put math to it. "Basic research"

Type in 2 phase fluid flow research and you will get thousands of lab projects trying to catigorise it without any practical applications!

How come they do not look at stuff that has worked for over 20 years on a farm and find out ITS working parameters?

Do you know why I put the videos up? Because "scientists" were telling me that it couldn't work! That the "spray from a half meter dam would pump more water than my pulser pump was pumping". Thats Insulting. (And incredibly arrogant and ignorant).

I put up the videos to spread knowelege.

But the "scientists" still refuse to budge. Why? Perhaps they are just as helpless as me?

They ONLY go where the funding committees send them, perhaps?

I HAVE met some who wanted to research it, by the way. They were going to more or less sneak it in as a side project on a decent sized low head hydroelectricity project but funding did not come for the main project. Why did he have to sneak it in? Perhaps because the funding comes from non scientists who wanted to glory in funding super duper high efficiency turbines and similar high tech stuff?

In my low tech solar research, i have found areas where there is NO science done at all!

Solar cooker reflectors for unattended solar cooking. Nothing! Seriously, there has been no research!

Carbon offsets are being used to pay for parabolic dishe solar cookers in India RIGHT NOW. A few minor problems, You got to mind the dish, every 10 or 15 minutes, you have to move it. (So potential sunburn and heatstroke as you cook your meal). + the parabolic dish can burn your arm badly in a few seconds or cause you severe eye pain if you accidently aim it badly. Makes me wonder why scientists and engineers are not designing reflectors for unattended use.

Anyway, to sidestep the scientists, I made a t-square with laser pointers attached, to help people understand and also to help people design their own reflectors. Hopefully, a bunch of greyhairs across the world will try out the solar design t-square and design nifty solar cookers that are powerful but also usable.

Tell me how that is self serving? It is just a hobby. If it succeeds, how will you explain the scientific failure to even identify the need?

Brian

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xXh-AI21pj8

Rebecca West wrote:

The youtube video is very funny - especially the last line: Well, I suppose I can always get it published in Scientific American. I had a good laugh over that. I've heard the same rant from researchers, and it's nicely parodied in the vid.

Be that as it may, I googled your pulser pump and have noted that, as you say, you have dozens of vids and articles on the 'Net about your invention, and since you seem to be quite open about your attempts to be recognized, I'm sure you won't be too miffed if I point out that your post here on Rabble is more than a little self-serving, though cloaked in inquiry about scientific peer review and its validity.

I agree that scientific peer review is flawed, at best, and that funding opportunities and their processes are sketchy. However, that is the system within which academia "thrives", and I suggest that you dismiss them as they have you and look toward a more commercial venture that will promote your device. Better yet, set up a foundation for the promotion and use of the pump in developing regions, to promote its widespread use where it is most needed.

Tue, 2009-12-29 03:39

Brian White

I am not confusing anything. Scientists do not do anything unless it gets funded. There is no science done unless someone pays for it upfront. I do not know how peer review is paid for. Presumably it is payed for upfront too. Everything is linked.

And the funding committees are the people who decide what direction science goes. More exactly, it is the people who appoint the funding committees who decide the direction of science. If peer review is decided by how many people read nature or science and how much profit they make, then clearly, peer review will be pushed in commercial directions. And what happens if murdock buys nature? Or if some holy joe, God fearing racist buys nature? What then for peer review? Why do so many people have an utopian view? Everything I have ever seen can be tweaked to make it more robust. Peer review is no exception. The whole process of science needs to be kicked out of its complacency.

abnormal wrote:

I should also point out that you're confusing the question of funding with both the scientific method and peer review. The latter two have nothing to do with funding (although I agree that if your research isn't peer reviewed you're unlikely to get funding from any sort of governmental source).

On the subject of peer review, there are plenty of examples of researchers who have published papers that no-one will review - generally because the author is either universally disliked or has been wrong so many times before that no-one is willing to spend the time reviewing the science involved.

As Rebecca says, if you want to promote this thing try and find a commercial venture or try to set up a foundation that will promote it's use in developing regions - half the battle with respect to the latter is telling the right story so that funding will fall in place. There's a saying that applies to a completely different topic but the sentiments are relevant here.

Quote:
Ask for funding to study the mating habits of squirrels and you won't get it. Ask for funding to study the effects of climate change on the mating habits of squirrels and you'll get your funding.

The same thing applies here - find the right hot button and press it.

Tue, 2009-12-29 10:05

G. Muffin

Thomas Szasz isn't peer reviewed because, like Shakespeare, Szasz has no peers.

Yet his work is brilliant and should be mandatory reading for anyone entering the mental illness industry.

Szasz, like Oliver Sacks, represents the very best that science has to offer.

Wed, 2009-12-30 20:49

#10

MegB

Brian White wrote:

Lets talk about you Rebecca, now why did you just go and write that?   Why?

Were those the words of an objective curious scientist?

Are you not there just circling the wagons? Putting you hands over your ears and sneering about me being self serving all in one go?

I see you as a person of privilage who CAN apply for grants and CAN get them.  But what did you do? You picked up a piece of "cloaked in inquiry about its validity" and threw it in my face.   THATS one of the problems in science, right there.

It's a shame that you chose to make a personal attack, at the outset of your post, as opposed to a reasoned argument against what I stated. It says far more about you and your character than it does me.

Be that as it may, I have no argument against your proposal, I have no credentials with which to argue. I have merely opinion.

Thu, 2009-12-31 04:27

#11

Brian White

I didn't make a personal attack, (unlike you) I made an observation. And I will make another one. I invented nothing.

All I did was used a trompe to power an airlift pump.

There is no glory in that, is there?

Both things have been known for hundreds of years. So, why not link them together? Nothing special..

A lecturer at the technical college where I studied said that I should collect figures. It turns out that low pressure trompes powering low pressure airlift pumps are more efficient than expected. Because? 2 phase fluid flow is involved, specifically plug flow and slug flow instead of the fizzy froth that occurs in the high pressure airlifters that they tested in the 1940's and 1950,s. They never checked out low pressure stuff and they never linked tromps and airlifters.

Now, in view of this, and with so many concerned environmentalists out there, and so many people collecting money to alleviate poverty in poor countries, and so much money to help them devellop, and money to substitute for fossil fuel use, how come nobody has checked to find the parameters of low pressure trompes and airlifters?

You need something cheap that takes damn all maintainance, right? Well here it is. What the hell is stiopping the scientific community?

And for all the idiots who keep telling me to investigate it further, have you not got it yet? It is public domain and no credibility is gained by me doing any more work on it. OTHERS must verify it. Thats what REAL peer review is. It means getting off their arses and actually making and testing a few pumps.

I have had guys in kenya, south africa, the phillipines, nigeria and other places contacting me and trying to wing it on their own. Why can the scientific community not bring itself to do what it does best (research) so that people can help themselves with greater certainty about the outcome?

So tell me, suppose I got sick and died in October, what happens to the pump? Do people say, "good, the fucker is gone, lets check out combined tromps and airlifters, The 3rd world needs simple technology like this!"

Concider what it does, pumps water=good oxygenates the river=good can be used to remove silt and sand=good. Removes smelly gasses from the water=good.

I am sick of stupid asses getting mental blockages because I happen to be an outsider and they have the power to say no.

You are not hurting me. You are hurting the people around the world who could have been using this to improve their lives for the past 15 years.

Wikipedia will not even TELL people that you can link an airlift and a tromp because it is "original research". (from 20 effing years ago).

Even if I never did any stupid pump, it is still totally plain that you can use a trompe to power an airlifter. It just is not obvious at first glance.

Come on folks, the system is totally fucked up. Admit it.

Thu, 2009-12-31 13:42

#12

Timebandit Timebandit's picture

Okay... Let me see if I've got this straight, Brian.

You've done some research yourself, but you're upset that no one in academia has picked up that research for further study.

Therefore, you want the system of research funding and peer review to be overhauled, but you don't know what funds are out there or how any of that system works.

I think you need to do some homework. There are both academic and industry research funds available from government and other sources. You should maybe look some of those up.

Grant writing is a bit of an art form, it's true. But there are people out there who consult on such things, and learning how the current system works lends a great deal of credibility to any call for change.

Thu, 2009-12-31 16:59

#13

Brian White

Okey... http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=5099F55F935FC8EB is a playlist. It includes real research scientist being interviewed after failing and after succeeding with grant applications.

They don't know how the system works either! They have no idea why one grant application (that they thought was super) failed while a so so one that they really did not care about won.

How about quitting with the put downs in the comments? Okey?

You ignore anything technical I said and try and insinuate that I am some dumb fuck who knows nothing.

I am not interested in researching it. It is not my job. I CANNOT peer review myself.

A respected professor tried to get money to research it and didnt get it.

WHO decides what gets researched and what gets ignored?

That was the big question. And it does not matter what I did. It is not about me. It is about how science and engineering and the bleeding heart environmentalists can ignore something quite useful for so long.

They are the ones in the system, in the know, probably with friends on the funding committees, who can do the stuff.

"Its like, there are no moving parts, thats boring. So what if it pumps water, boreng! Lets ignore it"

The system should be adaptable and not leave things hangind for that long.

The Naeve trough parabolic device is another example. Over 30 years with esentially nobody even looking at the thing.

So any of you who read the thread. Do you think the pulser pump needs more research?

Do you think the Naeve trough solar concentrator needs more info made public?

Basically I had a micky mouse little stream, 250 to 500 liters per minute of water flowing past and a half meter head and I got water power to work there for 20 years with no moving parts. I did not know what a trompe was and knew little about airlift pumps.

But I made it work.

How come scientists across the world are unwilling to replicate it on a bigger scale? (It might even work better on a bigger scale).

I gave the effing thing away cos it was too valuable to keep but numbnuts "science" has no system in place to research public domain stuff.

It is absolutely absurd.

Tue, 2010-05-25 15:04

#14

Brian White

Timebandit wrote:

Okay... Let me see if I've got this straight, Brian.

You've done some research yourself, but you're upset that no one in academia has picked up that research for further study.

Therefore, you want the system of research funding and peer review to be overhauled, but you don't know what funds are out there or how any of that system works.

I think you need to do some homework. There are both academic and industry research funds available from government and other sources. You should maybe look some of those up.

Grant writing is a bit of an art form, it's true. But there are people out there who consult on such things, and learning how the current system works lends a great deal of credibility to any call for change.

You didn't get it straight.

I cannot review myself. Me reviewing me cannot work. Someone else has to do it. And if the guys who fund this stuff do not direct funds towards them, it never gets done.

You are defending the system as is for no good reason. If it doesn't work properly, you tweak it.

Since we wrote this, Harper has appointed political wingnuts to the major funding bodies. He has appointed people who have stated that they do not believe climate change is happening to scientific bodies.

You see? Harper understands. If he can dry up all the funds for climate research, people will have no research figures to work with and he can waffle on an extra few years as spokesman for the tar sands. And if the funding committees do not DIRECT funding towards alt energy research of stuff like I did, it will never be known.

But you lot man the battlements for him and try to defend scientific research from me. "Grant writing is a bit of an artform, its true" is useless to the vast majority of people who invent stuff. We are not in that system. I have no idea where to get funding and nobody has ever told me where either. (And you havn't either)

The creativity did not get educated out of us .

http://www.youtube.com/user/denito9474#p/u/56/17Ye368aQVk

In africa, they have africagagit and in India they have the honeybee network to nurture people who invent stuff. Here we have a system designed to kill off their ideas. I have to go cap in hand to some arrogant pig and ask him to look at the thing. And the ignorant pig claims that ( in his limited experience) he has never seen this and does not believe it works. "Why not test it to see if you are right?" And the smug ahole switches off.

Because they do not test simple stuff unless it is on the school or college course. (So they already know the answer before they test anything).

How safe can you be?

But what I do, nobody knows the answer. I ask questions and keep asking until I find ones that nobody has asked or answered. There are probably thousands of people like me who just gave up and said fuck it.

I think many of the leaders of education and science get where they are by having big rigid memories and big social networks.

Anyway, the pump got initial research at Queens University ontario (around $100 of equipment was used) and I think field tests are being done in California.

Why did we have to wait 20 effing years if it only cost 100 dollars to check it out? By the way, it worked better than they expected.

http://www.appropedia.org/Pulser_pump

Wed, 2010-05-26 11:18

#15

Pants-of-dog

One of the reasons that you might not be getting any peer review is because you have to actually do an experiement before it is peer reviewed. Have you done an experiment? It seems like you are simply trying to get some money together to build a large prototype for practical purposes rather than strictly research purposes.

What, exactly, is your hypothesis?

Fri, 2012-07-06 16:20

#16

macktheknife

So? What has become of the pump? I'm on fuckin pins and needles over here.

Fri, 2012-07-06 21:22

#17

Brian White

Rebecca West wrote:

I agree. I've written enough grant applications to know that if you don't provide the right language, you won't get the funding, regardless of how meritous your project is.

It sucks, it may not be fair, but it's the reality of the thing. You either work within the system as it is, or you find a way to work outside the system productively, or you fail.

Pardon me? Dr. Norman Mcmillian at Carlow Institute of technology wrote a grant application that included the pump. He got nowhere. He is Canadian and he is a highly respected scientist over there in Ireland. (He has the most energy efficient house in the whole country). Just like here, politically minded jerk offs are appointed to the funding committees and they stop stuff from being done by not funding it.

By the way most people are so scientifically illiterate that they don't understand the pump until the 5th or 6th time that they see it.

If humans are so smart, how come in 25 years, humanity cannot tell poor people round the world how efficient or inefficient a scaled up version of the pump is? All it takes is one project in one university or pipe making company or ngo and the answer would be known. That is really fucked up. My video's about the pump get over a thousand views a day and I often get emails about it. It has been seen in every country in the world and someone put the pulser pump on wikipedia too. I don't know how it will work scaled up and I have to say " go ask a scientist". And they don't know the answer either! Dumb fuckers in a dumb fucking system. It's kinda funny that they spent $2,000, 000, 000 finding a tiny useless "god" particle but nobody can get their shit together to check this out.

People in piss poor countries have asked for the info. A kid in South Africa (about 15) was asking me questions about how big and how deep, all ready to do it himself. Why not find the answers and give it to them so people can do it efficiently and safely? Isn't that what 3rd world aid is all about? And by the way, this type of thing is ineligable for kickstarter, and my solar tracker idea (Pronounced "perfect for the mecatronics program at UVIC" is ineligable for that program). I see the "smart people" have returned to this thread. So just to rehash, I CANNOT peer review myself. Do any of you get that? And I put the thing out there as an open free project to make it easier for ANYBODY to test it. So some rich fuck with a swimming pool and a guilty conscience about poor starving people could test it. Or not. It is out of my hands. If people don't have something useful to contribute, screw off.