Compressible Flow credits Logo credits
Potto Home Contact Us

Potto Home

About Potto


  Dr. Resnick
  Dr. Marshall
  Dr. Toker
  Are you right?
  Scott Anderson
  Dr. Philipp Epple
  Dr. Wygnanski
  Milton Beychok
  another EMBaero

Other things:
Download Area
Other Books

Potto Statistics

next up previous contents
Next: 9 EMBaero, I have Up: Reactions To Potto Project Previous: 7 Wygnanski, Dec 6,

8 Milton Beychok, Newport Beach - California, 19 October 2007

This post was made in Wikipodia by user name "mbeychok" (which later was found out to be Mr. Milton Beychok).

For it is worth, some many months ago, I exchanged a number of emails with Genick in which I asked if his book had been published anywhere other than online and had it ever been peer reviewed. As I recall, he admitted that it had not been published anywhere but online and that he doesn't plan to do so. As I also recall, he could not name any peer reviewers of his book. I also did a search of Google Scholar to see if he has published any peer reviewed work of any kind and anywhere ... and found there was little or none. I came to the personal conclusion that the credibility of his online book was not very good. Regards, - 05:14, 19 October 2007 (UTC)


Dear Mr. Beychok,

You are confusing between open content peer review and no review. The content in this web site was reviewed by thousands of people. The difference between the open content peer review and the closed content peer review is that in an open content, the review must be done in the open and by thousands of individuals while a closed content peer review is done in the dark and with very, very few individuals. The differences between these processes are enormous. Personally, I know that there are many people like E.R.G. Eckert who are looking for any valuable scientific information in anything they review. Yet, in closed content, in too many cases, the conflicting interests determine the outcome. However, as opposed to closed content review, in an open content, an unfair criticism can be easily answered and spotted (see here this example). Even your remarks raise many questions!

The content of any book or article should be based on its merit (regardless of any committee). Einstein had his committee (1000 scientists disproving his theory as a Jewish science). However, his work stands on its merit regardless to these committees. There have been many famous people, aside from Einstein, whom these closed committees claimed were completely wrong. Let me tell you about the moving plates (moving contents) which was invented by a German geologist Alfred Wegener in the 1930s. The committee of 'scientists' rejected him and his ideas and he suffered as a nobody.

Let me tell you a personal story. Dr. Brevick from Ohio State University is associated with a model dealing with the process design for die casting (pQ2 diagram). I have submitted a paper dealing with a model that showed that the previous model (Brevick's Model) violates the basic physical principles. Apparently, one 'anonymous' reference claimed that my paper was worthless. It was at a court case that this 'anonymous' reference was revealed as none other than Dr. Brevick himself! Of course, as the researchers in die casting accepted my theory, he attempted to help the North American Die Casting Association to claim that my theory was exactly his/theirs. You can read more in my book on ``Fundamentals of Die Casting Design'' (in the end of the book and many new details will be coming soon). In fact, I am not alone. Many scientists can tell you their horror stories about these closed review committees.

After my experience with closed content peer review, I am convinced that the best way is to put my work for the entire world to judge. While other closed committee approved books on compressible flow sit idle in libraries, many individuals (250,000 users and 70,000 downloads in two years) prefer to use my book. Yet, it doesn't prove that my book is good. If you find a mistake, it doesn't matter if the book was approved by a closed or open committee. You are the one that should judge and not a third party. In summary, judging a book if a closed committee review the book is not a wise thing to do.

Thank you very much for your time.

Genick Bar-Meir.

next up previous contents
Next: 9 EMBaero, I have Up: Reactions To Potto Project Previous: 7 Wygnanski, Dec 6,   Contents
Genick Bar-Meir |||
copyright , 2007

download area is

About Potto Project

Potto Project has been created by Dr. Genick Bar-Meir and friends to build free software and textbooks for college students.

Potto Project is under open content licenses, which means that you will always have the freedom to use it, make copies of it, and improve it. You are encouraged to make use of these freedoms and share the textbooks and program with your family and friends!

Copyright (C) 2007, 2006, 2005, 2004, 2003 Dr. Genick Bar-Meir.
Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this document under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 or later or Potto license.
Site feedback please mail to barmeir at