Revolutionary Shift in Impedance Matching Theory for Microwave Absorption II

What is it about?

In a contemporary research domain, the previously accepted theories have been overturned in accordance with fundamental principles of physics. [00] 刘颖, 刘跃, 膜的微波吸收机理, 分子科学学报. 2023,39(06), 521 - 527 [0] Ying Liu, Michael. G.B. Drew, Yue Liu, Chapter 4: Fundamental Theory of Microwave Absorption for Films of Porous Nanocomposites: Role of Interfaces in Composite-Fillers, in Porous Nanocomposites for Electromagnetic Interference Shielding, Edited by: Avinash R. Pai, Claudio Paoloni, Sabu Thomas, 2023, Elsevier, in press, [978-0-323-90035-5_B978-0-323-90035-5.00013-1] [1] Ying Liu, Michael G. B. Drew, Yue Liu, A physics investigation on impedance matching theory in microwave absorption film—Part 1: Theory, Journal of Applied Physics, 2023, 134, 045303 https://doi.org/10.1063/5.0153608 [2] Ying Liu, Michael G. B. Drew, Yue Liu, A physics investigation on impedance matching theory in microwave absorption film—Part 2: Problem Analyses, Journal of Applied Physics, 2023, 134, 045304 https://doi.org/10.1063/5.0153612 [3] Ying Liu, Yi Ding, Yue Liu, Michael G. B. Drew. Unexpected Results in Microwave Absorption – Part 1: Different absorption mechanisms for metal-backed film and for material, Surfaces and Interfaces, 2023, 40, 103022 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.surfin.2023.103022 [4] Ying Liu, Yi Ding, Yue Liu, Michael G. B. Drew. Unexpected Results in Microwave Absorption – Part 2:. Angular effects and the wave cancellation theory, Surfaces and Interfaces, 2023, 40, 103024 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.surfin.2023.103024 [5] Ying Liu; Xiangbin Yin; M. G. B. Drew; Yue Liu, Microwave absorption of film explained accurately by wave cancellation theory, Physica B: Condensed Matter, 2023, 666, 415108 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physb.2023.415108 Microwave absorption of film explained accurately by wave cancellation theory, 2023-02-23 | Preprint, Research Square, DOI: 10.21203/rs.3.rs-2616469/v2, https://www.researchsquare.com/article/rs-2616469/v2 Supplementary information: Available comments and our responses https://assets.researchsquare.com/files/rs-2616469/v2/4158ec92f7bc53b6a7637ffc.pdf [6] Reflection Loss is a Parameter for Film, not Material, Non-Metallic Material Science, 2023, 5(1): 38-48. https://doi.org/10.30564/nmms.v5i1.5602 [7] A Re-evaluation of the Mechanism of Microwave Absorption in Film – Part 1: Energy Conservation, Materials Chemistry and Physics, 2022, 290, 126576 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matchemphys.2022.126576 [8] A Re-evaluation of the Mechanism of Microwave Absorption in Film – Part 2: The Real Mechanism, Materials Chemistry and Physics, 2022, 291, 126601 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matchemphys.2022.126601 [9] A re-evaluation of the Mechanism of Microwave Absorption in Film – Part 3: Inverse Relationship, Materials Chemistry and Physics, 2022, 290, 126521 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matchemphys.2022.126521 [10] A theoretical investigation of the quarter-wavelength model — part 2: verification and extension. Physica Scripta 2022, 97(1): 015806, has been downloaded 355 times. https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1402-4896/ac1eb1 The problems in the quarter-wavelength model and impedance matching theory in analysising microwave absorption material, 2021-08-30 | Preprint, Research Square, DOI: 10.21203/rs.3.rs-206241/v1 https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-206241/v1 [11] A theoretical investigation on the quarter-wavelength model — part 1: analysis. Physica Scripta 2021, 96(12): 125003, has been downloaded 322 times. https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1402-4896/ac1eb0 [12] A theoretical analysis of the relationships shown from the general experimental results of scattering parameters s11 and s21 – exemplified by the film of BaFe12-iCeiO19/polypyrene with i = 0.2, 0.4, 0.6. Journal of Microwave Power and Electromagnetic Energy 2021, 55(3): 197-218, has been downloaded 171 times https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/08327823.2021.1952835 [13] An experimental and theoretical investigation into methods concerned with “reflection loss” for microwave absorbing materials. Materials Chemistry and Physics 2020, 243: 122624 https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0254058420300067 [14] A theoretical and practical clarification on the calculation of reflection loss for microwave absorbing materials. AIP Advances 2018, 8(1): 015223, has viewed more than 5000 times. https://aip.scitation.org/doi/full/10.1063/1.4991448 [15] A systemized parameter set applicable to microwave absorption for ferrite based materials. Journal of Materials Science: Materials in Electronics 2017, 29(2): 1562-1575 https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10854-017-8066-0 [16] Microwave absorption properties of Ag/NiFe2-xCexO4 characterized by an alternative procedure rather than the main stream method using “reflection loss”. Materials Chemistry and Physics 2020, 243: 122615. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matchemphys.2019.122615 [17] Several Theoretical Perspectives of Ferrite-Based Materials—Part 1: Transmission Line Theory and Microwave Absorption. Journal of Superconductivity and Novel Magnetism 2017, 30(9): 2489-2504. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10948-017-4043-3 [18] Several Theoretical Perspectives of Ferrite-Based Materials—Part 2: Close Packing Model for Crystal Structure. Journal of Superconductivity and Novel Magnetism 2017, 30(10): 2777-2789. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10948-017-4042-4 [19] Several Theoretical Perspectives of Ferrite-Based Materials-Part 3: Crystal Structure and Synthesis. Journal of Superconductivity and Novel Magnetism 2017, 30(11): 3019-3025 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10948-017-4040-6 [20] Characterization microwave absorption from active carbon/BaSmxFe12−xO19/polypyrrole composites analyzed with a more rigorous method. Journal of Materials Science: Materials in Electronics 2019, 30(2): 1936-1956. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10854-018-0467-1 [21] Preparation and characterization of BaSmxFe12 – xO19/polypyrrole composites. Journal of Materials Science: Materials in Electronics 2018, 29(15): 13148-13160 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10854-018-9438-9

Featured Image

Why is it important?

arXiv Preprint The Shackles of Peer Review: Unveiling the Flaws in the Ivory Tower Ying Liu, Kaiqi Yang, Yue Liu, Michael G. B. Drew http://arxiv.org/abs/2310.05966 同行评审伦理：象牙塔中的缺陷 刘颖，杨凯奇，刘跃，DREW Michael G. B https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2310.05966 抛弃“同行评议”，获得“专家共识” https://blog.sciencenet.cn/blog-279293-1377383.html http://finance.sina.com.cn/hy/20131119/105717365753.shtml http://finance.sina.com.cn/hy/20131119/105717365756.shtml 张维迎：创新就是大部分人都不认同的想法 https://www.wenmi.com/article/puj98i03nn9k.html 多数人认同的不叫创新 https://www.yicai.com/news/5345088.html 许小年：创新没有风口，凡是追逐风口的行为都不是创新 https://www.sass.org.cn/_s3/_t31/2008/1229/c1201a26145/page.psp 但“创新”意味着与众不同，公认的东西往往是常识 https://news.ifeng.com/c/7fcJvZmKtue 学术评价与学术程序的质量都取决于学术共同体的质量 颠覆传统理论的创新会在高引论文中产生吗？有那么高共识的论文能是颠覆性创新吗？ https://mp.weixin.qq.com/s/AyrjTS71DImtO3HQy-irfw 受不了了！在论文修改了5次之后，作者终于“怒怼”了审稿人！没想到这篇回复竟发了SCI https://zhidao.baidu.com/question/1438671826557224739.html https://baijiahao.baidu.com/s?id=1669193669905192103&wfr=spider&for=pc https://baijiahao.baidu.com/s?id=1730445894371096545&wfr=spider&for=pc https://www.163.com/dy/article/EESVUABL053780N4.html https://baijiahao.baidu.com/s?id=1653433345458611991&wfr=spider&for=pc http://www.360doc.com/content/19/0320/16/60903167_822931855.shtml https://baijiahao.baidu.com/s?id=1702780539389791265&wfr=spider&for=pc 为何近几十年来，物理学已经没有重大突破或者发现了 原因是现代科学只重视依靠仪器的实验研究，不像牛顿时代重视用数学揭示实验现象背后的本质的理论研究。另外，同行评审制度打压，使突破传统理论的创新发表不出了。 “Beyond these considerations, the importance of many of the more recent developments cannot be evaluated objectively at this time. The history of mathematics teaches us that many subjects which aroused tremendous enthusiasm and engaged the attention of the best mathematicians ultimately faded into oblivion ... Indeed one of the interesting questions that the history answers is what survives in mathematics. History makes its own and sounder evaluations.” --Morris Kline, Mathematical Thought from Ancient to Modern Times, Oxford University Press, 1972, ISBN 0-19-506136-5 引申：历史是最公正的。历史反复证明，那些在当世喧嚣尘上的东西往往是主流学者刻意炒作的糟粕，而那些被当世打压的经常是真金白银。 Expansion: History serves as the ultimate arbiter. It consistently reveals that what is often overemphasized by the prominent scholars of an era is often merely the intentional promotion of mediocrity, while that which is suppressed by the prevailing contemporary scholars often reveals itself to be authentic and of true value. 梳理这段历史，会发现这些重大原始创新在刚面世时都遭到了业界的质疑和抵制，差点夭折。 这不是个例，浮栅晶体管、异质结、绝缘栅双极型晶体管（IGBT）、微机电系统（MEMS）、浸没式光刻等重大发明都遭到过抵制。 为什么这些发明一开始都不受待见呢？芯片的发展离不开持续的创新和超越，然而创新越大，对传统的叛逆和颠覆也越大，因而遭到传统势力的抵制就越大。 中国科学报，2023-09-16 第3版 读书 When delving into this historical period, it becomes apparent that these groundbreaking original innovations faced skepticism and opposition within the industry upon their initial emergence, nearly teetering on the brink of extinction. This phenomenon is not an isolated occurrence; major breakthroughs like floating-gate transistors, heterojunctions, insulated gate bipolar transistors (IGBTs), microelectromechanical systems (MEMS), immersion lithography, and others have also confronted resistance. What prompted this initial lack of acceptance for these inventions? The advancement of semiconductor technology hinges on ongoing innovation and breakthroughs. However, the greater the innovation, the more it challenges and disrupts established norms, resulting in heightened resistance from traditional forces. Published in China Science Daily, September 16, 2023, 3rd Edition, Book Review. https://news.sciencenet.cn/dz/dzzz_1.aspx?dzsbqkid=39253 https://news.sciencenet.cn/dz/upload/2023/9/20239156508226.pdf [Ref 14] https://www.peeref.com/hubs/218 Ethical problems in academic peer review https://www.peeref.com/hubs/219 The Accepted Theories Have Been Overturned https://www.peeref.com/roulette-hubs/1044 https://www.peeref.com/roulette-hubs/1037 https://www.peeref.com/roulette-hubs/1040 https://www.peeref.com/roulette-hubs/1036 https://www.peeref.com/roulette-hubs/1026 https://www.peeref.com/roulette-hubs/1046 https://www.peeref.com/roulette-hubs/1020 真正的同行评审是在你的论文发表之后才发生的 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U5sRYsMjiAQ The Problem with Peer Review - Eric Weinstein QUOTES FROM THIS VIDEO Peer review is a cancer from outer space. It came from the biomedical community. It invaded science. The old system because I have to say this because many people who are now professional scientists have an idea that peer review has always been in our literature and it absolutely motherfucking has not. Right? Okay. Used to be that the editor of a journal took responsibility for the quality of the journal, … because they had courageous, knowledgeable, forward-thinking editors. And so I just want to be very clear because there is a mind virus out there that says peer review is the Sine qua non of scientific excellence, yada yada yada, bullshit, bullshit, bullshit. And if you don't believe me, go back and learn that this is a recent invasive problem in the sciences. Recent invasive problem that has no justification for existing in light of the fact that not only does it have no justification for existing when Watson and Crick did the double helix, and this is the cleanest example we have, the paper was agreed should not be sent out for review because anyone who was competent would understand immediately what its implications were. There are reasons that great work cannot be peer reviewed. Furthermore, you have entire fields that are existing now with electronic archives that are not peer reviewed. Peer review is not peer review. It sounds like peer review. It is. Peer injunction is the ability for your peers to keep the world from learning about your work. Keep the world from learning about your work because peer review is what happens. Real peer review is what happens after you've passed the bullshit thing called peer review. Yes. Translation to Chinese: 同行评审是从反科学领域入侵的到科学界的癌症。它就像生物病原侵入科学领域。 现在很多专业科学家误以为同行评审理应存在于文献评审中，但事实绝对不是这样的。 过去，期刊的编辑对期刊的质量负有责任，因为他们有勇气、有知识、有前瞻性的编辑。 “同行评审是科学卓越的不可或缺的条件”的声称完全是胡说八道。所以我只想非常清楚地表明，这种说辞是在外面传播的思维病毒。 如果你不相信我的话，回去回顾一下，是同行评审侵入了科学领域、是完全没有正当存在理由的侵入，同行评审不仅在沃森和克里克做双螺旋结构的时候没有正当理由存在。沃森和克里克做双螺旋结构的案例是我们最清晰的一个例子，说明一篇优秀的论文，大家都同意不应该将这篇论文送去评审，因为任何有能力的人都会立刻理解它的意义。 伟大的工作是不能进行同行评审的，理由很充分。此外，现在已经有不经过同行评审的电子存档。 现行同行评审不是真正的同行评审。现行同行评审听起来像是同行评审，但实际上不是。 现行同行评审是你的同行有能力阻止世界了解你的工作。因为同行评审而能让同行阻止世界了解你的工作。真正的同行评审是在你的论文发表之后才发生的。 杨正瓴. 基础研究：“同行评议”加“短期考核”迫使谁也干不成正经事！ https://blog.sciencenet.cn/blog-107667-1310598.html 杨正瓴, 近两周的工作记录(2023-04-23 以来), https://blog.sciencenet.cn/blog-107667-1386904.html 杨正瓴, Zenas 公理：2023年汪波老师的《为什么芯片相关的发明最初总不受待见？》, https://blog.sciencenet.cn/home.php?mod=space&uid=107667&do=blog&id=1402929 吕喆, 科研的“主流”与“非主流” https://wap.sciencenet.cn/home.php?mod=space&do=blog&id=409496 张志东，培养和造就一大批非主流科学家 https://wap.sciencenet.cn/blog-2344-409295.html?mobile=1 赵涛, 非主流科学家为何取得大成果 https://blog.sciencenet.cn/blog-528016-979443.html 杨正瓴. 同行评议的局限性和改进之策[J]. 科技中国,2019(11):34-36, https://d.wanfangdata.com.cn/periodical/kjzg201911009 绝对真实,卢家人了挑战爱因斯坦,卢氏就是牛! https://baijiahao.baidu.com/s?id=1582700776632704690&wfr=spider&for=pc

Perspectives