1627
Real problem there: What does this say about your published papers?
You cannot have it both ways: either the peer review process works in which case your papers are grain, or it does not in which case it is likely that some of your papers are chaff.
But maybe you have been publishing dogma all of these years
!
I have decided to jump to this post after I have read your intermediate long rambling posts above. The reason is that your arguments in the latter posts are mostly repetitions of aspects I have already treated in detail on this forum and the rest was the type of garbage one expects from a person who thinks he knows while not really knowing. You have learned how to look up standard dogma, to write a paper under supervision, and even got one citation; but unfortunately you have not learned to think for yourself. Even so, you believe that you can fight in the same league that I am in. Even if you live another 10 lives you will never be able to do so.
I do not mind if it is your opinion that I am wrong: This is your right. What I do mind is that a person with your limited ability in physics can claim that your authority is so impeccable that you can state without any proof or logic reasoning from your side that I must be a crackpot. This is why I chose to answer this present post of yours in order to set down information about myself which you think you know without knowing, as well as the corruption that anonymous peer reviewing has caused and is still causing in physics; and will cause as long as the system is not drastically revised.
I will not go back to my birth in 1942, but start off in 1958, when, while in grade 11, I decided to also write grade 12 in the same year; which I passed with four distinctions. The next year I enrolled at the University of Pretoria to do a BSc starting with Mathematics, Physics, Chemistry and Applied Mathematics. I aimed to do all four subjects until I completed the BSc. In the second year I dropped Chemistry since the practical skills they taught us would have been more appropriate in the 19th Century, and rather added Mathematical Statistics. During my third year, I was approached by the Physics Department and offered a job to help with the teaching of first year students. I accepted since I had an irresponsible older brother who spent twice as long at university than he should have had to obtain his degree. I wanted my parents rather to start saving their money for their old age. I could not teach while also doing four subjects, and I thus completed my BSc (cum laude) in Physics and Mathematics. After this I proceeded to do my MSc: The major portion of the work was in Theoretical Physics; followed by scription on experimental physics based on the magnetic properties of thin metal layers: Which I also obtained cum laude.
During my studies I did not like the way in which tensors were presented to us, and decided to develop my own notes. After writing an examination, our tutor Prof. J H van der Merwe gave me 115% and asked me if I would allow him to use my notes in future. I was seeing myself as becoming a Theoretical Physicist; but God intervened by being offered a scholarship at the University of Virginia to do my doctorate in Materials Science. When I accepted this, the head of the Physics Department, Prof. Heinz Verleger was very upset since he wanted to offer me a lectureship (In the USA it is probably called a Junior Professor). But I left for Charlottesville, Virginia and completed my degree under Profs. Heinz and Doris Wilsdorf. But I also saw to it all along that I did not neglect my reading within the field of Theoretical Physics. Already then I noticed that many physicists are complaining that they have problems to publish their manuscripts which are at variance with accepted dogma; and that if you persist in trying to do so, this can lead to derision and an end in obtaining funding.
I wanted to stay longer in the USA, but a new university in Port Elizabeth in South Africa pleaded with me to run their physics department during 1967. Unfortunately they succeeded to persuade me to return. The corruption I found there was too much for me to tolerate. At that stage the whole country was under the effective control of a secret organization having secret members called the “Broederbond”. During the 1930’s this organisation became infiltrated by Nazi’s and it is under their control that the Nationalist Party gained control in 1948 and subsequently enacted the strict laws of Apartheid. In fact, they were hoping that on my return to South Africa, I would join them and they had a whole career planned for me. The principal of the University of Port Elizabeth was Prof. Ernst Marais who was on the executive of the Broederbond. But when working there I found so much corruption that I could not even plan to become part of it. After resigning I pointed out this corruption in the press; and was informed through the grapevine that I do not have a future in South Africa anymore. I thus planned to look for a position overseas.
At that stage De Beers Industrial Diamond Division decided they need a Materials Scientist and a friend of mine informed them that I was at that stage the only person in South Africa who had a degree within that discipline. They offered me a position and I started to do research on the manufacturing of industrial diamonds using high pressures and temperatures, and on the applications of these diamonds. In 1972 my MSc tutor in Theoretical Physics, Prof. J H van der Merwe became chairman of the physics department at the University of Pretoria; and asked me to join him. Since my research at De Beers was more in engineering, I decided to accept his offer which he made even though he knew that my appointment would not be favourably looked upon by the Broederbond.
When the director of De Beers Industrial Diamond Division, Dr. Henry Dyer, heard about it, he tried to convince me to stay; which I should have done; but since Prof. Jan van der Merwe had such a big impact on my education in Theoretical Physics I felt that I could not renege on my acceptance of his offer. Dr. Dyer then appointed me as a consultant. Except for the extra income, it had the undesired result that all the time I should have spent to try and generate mediocre papers so that I can get them past the editors and peer reviewers, was spent on top-quality classified research for De Beers. This did not worry me unduly since by that time I already had a healthy disrespect for the corrupt anonymous peer review system.
I should have known that I would pick up political problems at the University of Pretoria. After I became active within a political party in opposition to the Apartheid government, and became publicly well known in the press for my stance, the Broederbond had to find a reason to get rid of my “bad influence” on the students. They finally found a loophole and I was fired at the end of 1977. So now I had no work except for my consultancy with De Beers which was also coming to an end since my work for them had been too successful in answering what they wanted to know.
To make a long story short, De Beers at that time bought an Ion Implanter and installed it at the University of the Witwatersrand in Johannesburg. The reason for this was that studies at Harwell at that time showed that you can enlarge the size of a diamond by implanting carbon ions into it. It was too horrible to think that a person can buy a small diamond at a low price and grow it to be larger so that he could flog it at a much higher price. Prof. Friedel Sellschop at the University of the Witwatersrand fanned these fears in order to get an Ion Implanter installed at his Institute. I have never met another person in my life that is more adept than Friedel Sellschop to obtain funding from Industry. Sadly he has passed away already.
Dr Dyer then offered me a contract until 1982 to study ion implantation into diamond since they wanted somebody at the University who will not just produce tons and tons of mediocre publications, but who will safeguard their interests. Thus I started on this problem in 1978. I soon found out that the threat to the diamond market had been greatly exaggerated by Friedel: Bless his soul, since if he had not, I would have had no income. Ion implanters were built to dope silicon in order to decrease the size of electronic chips. Thus after finding no threat from carbon ion implantation, I had some time left to play around.
That natural diamonds have p-type conduction owing to boron acceptors have been identified already in the 1950’s. The Hope Diamond is such a diamond. But there was no n-type diamond. However, I did note during my studies on carbon-ion implantation that I could generate conductive regions which respond from Seebeck measurements like n-type conduction. For the fun I masked out a base area using a thin wire, and treated the exposed areas to carbon ion treatment. If the latter areas turned out to really act n-type, the structure should switch like an n-p-n type bipolar transistor. And it did give beautiful transistor curves. Since at that stage, owing to the price of large diamonds, it would have been silly to even contemplate developing diamond electronics, De Beers allowed me to publish this result in Applied Physics Letters. And since this result did not threaten existing dogma in Solid State Electronics, it did not present much of a problem to publish it.
In the mean time the University of the Witwatersrand appointed me to their staff and I started to help with lectures within the Physics Department of the Witwatersrand. There was no problem with this since, fortunately, the University of the Witwatersrand was well known for their stance against apartheid. The Broederbond hated them and this even led to arrests of their students, some of whom died in detention, banning of some of their teachers, and a cold blooded murder of a professor when he was shot dead from a passing car while he entered his residence.
At the end of my contract with De Beers I would have seamlessly passed into academia. But God had other plans for me. Towards the end of 1982, the Japanese repeated experiments first claimed by the Russians (and of course poo-pooed by the equivalents of Sol Invictus, Ben m, and Ziggurat in the West) that showed that diamond layers can be grown chemically by plasma-assisted chemical vapour deposition. It is interesting that Prof. John Angus at Case Western University for years claimed that this must be possible but was of course blocked from widely publishing his ideas. It even happened that after he gave a lecture at a conference, the chairman of the session stood up and said that he is not going to allow questions since the presentation is clearly based on nonsense. Sounds like the mentality of Sol, Ben and Ziggurat, does it not?
So diamond electronics was on! And since I was the very first to have shown that bipolar transistor action is possible in diamond, I was suddenly internationally famous. De Beers decided not to terminate my contract but to keep on sponsoring me in order to keep them informed of developments. Thus my contract was renewed every year in a year-on-year basis until 2002. I could not have asked for better. I was suddenly positioned to publish within a brand new discipline within which there was not yet dogmatic knowledge that has to be protected by the “experts” at all cost. I could publish excellent manuscripts for the first time in my life and I used this opportunity to the fullest extent. But of course, this ideal situation could not last since our anonymous peer review process forbids this possibility.
Soon scientists within this new field were scurrying to obtain control of the field. Unhealthy alliances were arranged and back-stabbing became the order of the day. In the field of ion implantation into diamond, Prof. Rafael Kalish at the Technion in Israel was determined to rule the roost: And he eventually succeeded. He had facilities I could only drool to have, but I could not accept any of his invitations since I was not a “normal” academic even though I taught classes in Electrodynamics and Quantum Mechanics at the University, and supervised MSc and PhD students (mostly free of charge since my income came from my De Beers grant).
I was not in a position to form part of an academic research group, since this would dilute my attention to the needs of De Beers. I could only publish if the patent attorney’s of De Beers allowed me to publish; or else I would probably have had at least three times the number of publications I now have. This also mandated that most of my publications had to be solo publications. Soon I was branded as not being a “team player”, and resentment started to build up at the University of the Witwatersrand as well as other research institutes like the Technion.
It was absolutely astonishing to see how quickly this new field also became dogma ridden as the scientists within the field started to protect their own work instead of allowing new novel ideas to be published. If I have to go into detail, this thread will become too long. Suffice to say that by the middle of the 1990’s most referees would rather protect accepted dogma than allow fresh ideas to be published. I furthermore generated results which contradicted the cherished model that was developed by the Technion group to explain the generation of damage in diamond during ion implantation. So towards the year 2000 many excellent manuscripts written by me started to become routinely rejected.
Initially the main objective was to dope diamond n-type. The obvious candidate was phosphorous. It is, however, a large atom which created an enormous amount of damage when being ion implanted into diamond. Although, I succeeded to dope diamond with phosphorus, I could not get the residual damage low enough to have the quality that required. In 1996, the Japanese succeeded to grow in phosphorus atoms and this led to better quality n-type diamond.
One application that was foreseen for n-type diamond was to generate a cold cathode from which copious amounts of electrons can be extracted into a vacuum at room temperature. Experimental results indicated that electrons within the conduction band of diamond will be at a higher energy than the vacuum level energy outside. From this it was deduced that such electrons can then be easily extracted by means of an anode to have electrons within a vacuum. After the Japanese obtained good quality n-type diamond, attempts were made to extract these electrons, but with no success. So it was concluded that the previous results did not prove that the electrons were at a higher energy.
An alternative model was developed which is at present accepted as the correct dogma. But I realised that the reason might be different, since when you have electrons at a higher energy at one side of an interface than on the other side, they will flow out to form a dipole layer across the surface which eventually prevents further electrons from leaving; and when you then try and extract electrons this dipole layer increases in order to also cancel the applied electric-field until dielectric breakdown occurred. I realised that if you can increase the density of donors beneath the surface to a very high value, one should be able to extract electrons right up to the anode without causing dielectric breakdown, whence an electron current should start flowing from the diamond surface into the anode. But, it is not possible to increase phosphorus doping to reach such a high density.
I thus started to look for other dopants and found that I could generate n-type diamond by oxygen-ion implantation and low temperature annealing. I still had enough clout to get is past the referees, which is quite amazing since it has already became fairly well-established dogma that oxygen cannot form donors in diamond. But once they realised that this slipped through their net, the attacks became vicious even from public platforms. It is still the dogma that I could not have generated n-type diamond.
Years later I received a manuscript written by Chinese researchers in Beijing in which they repeated and expanded on my results for oxygen doping thus rubbishing all the inane criticism which I had to endure. I recommended publishing, but when I wanted to quote this publication a year later, I had to learn that it was not published since the second referee rejected it. Guess who this second referee was? A person who studied at the Technion: It was just too horrible for them to allow a publication to go through which proves that they have been wrong all along! The sad part is that a PhD student in China, who worked on this, was nominated for a National Prize, which he deserved but could not get since the referees have “objectively” rejected his work. To show you how strong this mafia is: This work has now been blocked from being published in Western Journals for 7 years.
Next I discovered how to have a very high oxygen-doping level below the surface of a diamond substrate and could thus extract electrons into an anode so that s current flowed. But the extraction of the electrons is caused by the electrons cancelling the applied electric field and if you have enough donors below the surface they keep on injecting electrons within the electron phase between the diamond and the anode until the field becomes zero, even when a current keeps on flowing. This is first really incontrovertible proof that a current is flowing without an electric-field being present: Thus it is the first incontrovertible proof that superconduction is occurring at room temperature.
Now I can answer you remarks above: So there is no real problem with my published papers since I was lucky to strike a new field before dogma started to rule it. At the moment I will not be able to get anything published anymore unless I pander to the accepted dogma in this 20 year old field; which I refuse to do since most of it is wrong. When I discovered superconduction I suddenly had to publish in a field within which the BCS dogma has so solidified that it stinks to high heaven. The results are clear: Even though I have been respected as a scientist of international repute, my publications on superconduction have all been blocked simply because they are at variance with accepted dogma. So, as I have repeatedly pointed out the anonymous peer review process does not, and can never work. It leads to stagnation. I have only been lucky to have been in a new field during the 1980’s and 1990’s.
So please do me a favour: Stop trying to be a wisecrack and arguing about matters you know nothing about. You are just displaying your enormous ignorance and making a colossal crater of yourself.
