Embedded Systems Conference
Breaking News
Comments
Newest First | Oldest First | Threaded View
Page 1 / 2   >   >>
krisi
User Rank
Author
re: PCM Progress Report No 4: Brains
krisi   8/2/2011 10:35:42 PM
NO RATINGS
Could you let us know where the report is published/posted? Kris

R G.Neale
User Rank
Author
re: PCM Progress Report No 4: Brains
R G.Neale   7/26/2011 4:01:14 PM
NO RATINGS
Solster- On the subject of peer group review there is an interesting article "Putting Peer Review on Trial", by Raoul Franklin,in PhysicsWorld, December 2010,p17.Published by the Institute of Physics (IoP) Key quote "The system we use to judge our peers work must be made more transparent" He points out a number of problems and defects with the present method and offers some possible changes. If you read it it may shake your faith a little in the present system.I will try and assess if it is on the web.

R G.Neale
User Rank
Author
re: PCM Progress Report No 4: Brains
R G.Neale   7/26/2011 2:57:13 PM
NO RATINGS
Solster: Outside of the subject of this paper, and your comment""The fact remains that this is an academic paper peer-reviewed by credentialed research scientists and a professor. Constructive dialogue is the cornerstone of academic research, while "commentators" to web-articles expressing opinions with no apparent personal credibility whatsoever, don't contribute much to the debate, really."" I think as the web takes over paper publishing peer group review will change and become web based with an opportunity for peer group review to come quickly from all quarters, including your professors etc. With the editors responsible for the removal of any offensive material. I am convinced that is the future of peer group review. Also would you care to explain your words regarding myself and my reputation in parenthesis and quotes.

Volatile Memory
User Rank
Author
re: PCM Progress Report No 4: Brains
Volatile Memory   7/26/2011 1:05:42 AM
NO RATINGS
Solster: Care to explain how exactly Mr. Ovshinsky managed to publish a fraudulent paper, describing the 16-level magic neuron device, on the pages of the peer-reviewed Japanese Journal of Applied Physics in 2004: http://jjap.jsap.jp/link?JJAP/43/4695/ I wonder what Mr. Neale has to say about it.

Solster
User Rank
Author
re: PCM Progress Report No 4: Brains
Solster   7/25/2011 9:55:40 PM
NO RATINGS
The fact remains that this is an academic paper peer-reviewed by credentialed research scientists and a professor. Constructive dialogue is the cornerstone of academic research, while "commentators" to web-articles expressing opinions with no apparent personal credibility whatsoever, don't contribute much to the debate, really. There's hopefully a reason why R.G. Neale (and not a certain "commentator") was invited to write this review article and any real constructive debate on this paper could really just be a rebuttal paper in Nano Letters. Anything less, especially those without any technical discussions and instead full of dubious accusations, is worth little more than idle chit-chat for mere entertainment.

JanineLove
User Rank
Author
re: PCM Progress Report No 4: Brains
JanineLove   7/25/2011 5:18:04 PM
NO RATINGS
Debate and conversation is welcome. In fact, it is the intent of the comments section. As long as you refrain from name calling, I'm happy to let the comments stand and the debate ensue.

Volatile Memory
User Rank
Author
re: PCM Progress Report No 4: Brains
Volatile Memory   7/25/2011 3:10:14 PM
NO RATINGS
Here is the 10x Microsofts quote, accompanied with the "results:" http://goo.gl/WCxQm The document was created in December of 2004 (and published in early 2005) when Mr. Ovshinsky was still at the helm of Ovonic Cognitive Computer and its parent.

Volatile Memory
User Rank
Author
re: PCM Progress Report No 4: Brains
Volatile Memory   7/25/2011 2:58:32 PM
NO RATINGS
Dear RF/Memory Editor: Yes, let's keep it professional! When pseudo-research is touted as some kind of breakthrough in a respected publication, the duty of the editor is to notice, not to silence the whistleblower. The fact is, Mr. Neale dropped the ball on this one. He knew or should have known that Mr. Ovshinsky has claimed similar "results" for at least 25 years. Those claims and results turned out to be fraudulent. As will the latest "results" from the "researchers" at Stanford University.

R G.Neale
User Rank
Author
re: PCM Progress Report No 4: Brains
R G.Neale   7/25/2011 9:23:51 AM
NO RATINGS
rbtbob-I was careful to put the precedence claim in quotes in case I had missed a paper. My brief was to explore what the Stanford team had been able to get the PCM to do based on their real experimental data, not to research the whole field of bio-science for claims and counter claims. The word "promising" in the title of the paper you recommend gives cause for concern. I think to date the whole field of phase change memory has been beset and damaged by too many unfulfilled promises.

rbtbob
User Rank
Author
re: PCM Progress Report No 4: Brains
rbtbob   7/25/2011 4:44:11 AM
NO RATINGS
Some of the readers that are not current on the research being done on phase change materials and devices in the last few years might like to read some of the papers presented at the European Phase Change and Ovonics Science Symposium. Regarding the subject of Mr. Neale's analysis, I recommend the paper presented by Stan Ovshinsky at the 2004 Symposium. http://www.epcos.org/library/library2010.htm

Page 1 / 2   >   >>


Radio
NEXT UPCOMING BROADCAST
In conjunction with unveiling of EE Times’ Silicon 60 list, journalist & Silicon 60 researcher Peter Clarke hosts a conversation on startups in the electronics industry. One of Silicon Valley's great contributions to the world has been the demonstration of how the application of entrepreneurship and venture capital to electronics and semiconductor hardware can create wealth with developments in semiconductors, displays, design automation, MEMS and across the breadth of hardware developments. But in recent years concerns have been raised that traditional venture capital has turned its back on hardware-related startups in favor of software and Internet applications and services. Panelists from incubators join Peter Clarke in debate.
Most Recent Comments
BratGoesTech
 
truekop
 
R_Colin_Johnson
 
R_Colin_Johnson
 
sranje
 
GeoffBoyd
 
javier ruiz
 
Garcia-Lasheras
 
R_Colin_Johnson
Flash Poll
Top Comments of the Week
Like Us on Facebook

Datasheets.com Parts Search

185 million searchable parts
(please enter a part number or hit search to begin)
Special Video Section
The LTC®4015 is a complete synchronous buck controller/ ...
10:35
The LT®3042 is a high performance low dropout linear ...
Chwan-Jye Foo (C.J Foo), product marketing manager for ...
The LT®3752/LT3752-1 are current mode PWM controllers ...
LED lighting is an important feature in today’s and future ...
Active balancing of series connected battery stacks exists ...
After a four-year absence, Infineon returns to Mobile World ...
A laptop’s 65-watt adapter can be made 6 times smaller and ...
An industry network should have device and data security at ...
The LTC2975 is a four-channel PMBus Power System Manager ...
In this video, a new high speed CMOS output comparator ...
The LT8640 is a 42V, 5A synchronous step-down regulator ...
The LTC2000 high-speed DAC has low noise and excellent ...
How do you protect the load and ensure output continues to ...
General-purpose DACs have applications in instrumentation, ...
Linear Technology demonstrates its latest measurement ...
10:29
Demos from Maxim Integrated at Electronica 2014 show ...
Bosch CEO Stefan Finkbeiner shows off latest combo and ...
STMicroelectronics demoed this simple gesture control ...
Keysight shows you what signals lurk in real-time at 510MHz ...