Originally posted by DA Morgan:
What you are missing JB is that writing a paper in a peer reviewed journal is not a joust.
I do not understand the game you are trying to play. I have probably published more papers in peer reviewed journals than you have. Furthermore I have been a peer reviewer for many journals; including Physical Review. I know very well when a peer reviewer is incompetent. You are not in a position to lecture me on so-called "jousting".
[/QB] That one subject-matter expert, JAG in this case, would state concerns, is sufficient to demonstrate that your paper contains some serious gaps.[/QB] The fact that JAG decided to defend the BCS theory (that the Kaiser MUST wear clothes) does not show up any "serious" gaps in my manuscript. It only shows that Jag's understanding is a bit limited; he wants to see wqhat he wants to believe. Therefore I have tried to make the manuscript simpler so that he/she will have a opportunity to see that the BCS theory CANNOT model superconduction between two contacts to a superconductor. It is amazing (even shocking) that the "experts" did not pick it up for nearly 50 years. In addition Jag then claims that I have grabbed the one-dimensional concept out of the air. It is not the case. When you have N charge-carriers out of a number N(0) at temperature T; then for any sub-collection you will have the same ratio. If this sub-collection lies along one dimension, then the average distance between them along that direction will be inversely proportional to the subset of charge-carriers. It is just simple physics which JAG has been unable to follow. Furthermore he does not answer my questions based on his defective reasoning; for example, what must be the properties of a metal for Cooper Pairs to form?
[/QB] If you want to be successful you will need to put the pride-of-ownership into the closet and do a complete rewrite that addresses the issues.[/QB]
All relevant issues have been addressed. I have always thanked people who have pointed out ways to improve my manuscripts. Most of JaG's criticisms are, however, based on misconseptions and by deliberately ignoring relevant aspects in the manuscript.
[/QB] Arguing that there isn't a dead rhino in the middle of the living room doesn't make it go away.[/QB]
This is more applicable to you: Arguing that BCS can model supercponduction between two contacts doesn't make the fact go away that it cannot do so.
[/QB] Hate to be somewhat harsh here but the doubts are not petulant. You need to drop the attitude or find another profession. [/QB]
I have no "attitude". My manuscript has been read by better scoentists than JAG; and their analyses were positive. Maybe you should drop your pedantic attitude and discuss the physics in my manuscript. Are you able to do so?
