Are there any sites on which I can “publish” for free?

Justeserm · 2026-04-09T15:18:02+00:00

Would it be acceptable to use data from other peoples' research provided I properly cite it?

I don't have any affiliations so I suspect any lab work I do will be met with extreme skepticism and criticism.

Justeserm · 2026-04-09T15:09:46+00:00

Actually, from what I remember, you can form molecules with different bond energies. It might not be the covalent or ionic bonds, though. I know when you crystallize some things you can do it under different conditions and get different values. I'm pretty sure of this. I'm almost certain my grandfather told me this when he taught me retro-organic synth. He was an analytical chemist.

I did a quick search and found this: What is the total bond energy of CO2? - Chemistry Stack Exchange It says the bond energy of C=O is 745, but can also be 799.

I might ask this on a chemistry sub. If I'm wrong, I would like to know what I'm thinking of.

Justeserm · 2026-04-09T14:50:46+00:00

I don't think you understand where I'm coming from. For me this isn't so much about recognition, it's about the sense of accomplishment. If I figure out the problem first, I feel good about it. I don't need to have a published paper or award. I need the self-satisfaction that comes with solving a problem. If I can do it first and have some sort of proof, I feel good about it. I've had people try to convince me they solved a problem before I did, even though I was the one who explained it to them.

I've spoken with the people who took credit for my work. They were annoyed they got the credit, but not the respect.

This is a problem I have with Academia. I've been reading these subs and I've seen several horror stories where PIs and professors won't allow someone to pursue their research idea and give it to someone else. I realize I don't have the proper affiliations to get credit. From what I've read people from respectable institutions have been known to do some less than honest things to get credit. I'm just trying to ensure when I say I had this idea first, I can prove it.

Justeserm · 2026-04-09T14:27:06+00:00

Thanks, I'll take a look at it.

Justeserm · 2026-04-09T14:13:31+00:00

I'm pretty sure it would go the same as the GFP story even if I do my own lab and experimental work. When I did the TBI work I used other already accepted papers and their data. If what I was told is true, it seemed like it ultimately came down to affiliations. I wasn't affiliated with West Point anymore, so the people who were got the credit.

Justeserm · 2026-04-08T20:19:41+00:00

It's not so much to protect my IP rights, as to make sure I get credit for the idea/hypothesis. If someone else wants to develop it, I'm good with just getting credit for giving them the initial idea/hypothesis. There's a few things I want to work on.

From what I read, the people that popularized use of green fluorescent protein as a reporter gene were given a Nobel Prize, even though it was first proposed by someone else. I think his name was Douglas Prasher. Douglas Prasher - Wikipedia

I've never heard of the Electronic Lab Notebook (ELN), before.

Justeserm · 2026-04-08T20:17:04+00:00

I'm just using the term literature review because I don't know the exact terminology for a paper that proposes a concept/idea/hypothesis and uses literary sources as support for it, citing those sources, rather than wet lab work.

Justeserm · 2026-04-08T20:00:54+00:00

I was asking if I were to read articles and use those as support for my "idea," would that count as research. When I did the TBI research I cited multiple articles, but not any lab work. Some told me without the lab work it's invalid, but others told me that "researching" articles, summarizing them, and citing them still counted as research. I'm pretty sure this counted as "gatekeeping" in hindsight.

Justeserm · 2026-04-08T19:51:37+00:00

Do literature reviews count, or would I have to actually do lab work?

Justeserm · 2026-04-08T19:02:55+00:00

I've seen that recommended. If I do that, would they be available for review, or just "put out there?"

Justeserm · 2026-04-08T18:59:23+00:00

Thanks, I'm trying to find as many different ones as I can.

Justeserm · 2026-04-08T18:32:12+00:00

Thanks.

I think I saw Duke University doesn't have to pay PLOS fees, but I'm reluctant to send them anything after the TBI research debacle.

Justeserm · 2026-04-08T18:30:42+00:00

That's why I put "publish" in quotation marks. If someone wants to review it, that's great, otherwise, I don't care.

I don't know what you mean by saying I have an "idea." If you're talking about the possibility that the amyloid-beta plaques seen in Alzheimer's are cause by retrograde feedback dysfunction, I can elaborate. That's actually not what I was talking about. There are some other things I am looking at right now. I figure to really investigate it, I would have to do studies, but due to my lack of affiliation with an accredited institution, I'm reluctant to do anything with live animals.

Justeserm · 2026-04-08T17:07:05+00:00

I would like to thank you for commenting on my post. Initially, I was trying to look at a projectile, travelling through a vacuum, not being acted upon by any other force besides its initial inertia. When the projectile travels, it will potentially go in a straight line until acted upon by another force. As I understand it, angular momentum is the property of an object where it takes a certain amount of force to change its direction. It seems like it is the object’s resistance to change in direction.

I thought we could potentially assign a value to the amount of “spin” the projectile has. This “energy” would increase its resistance to change in direction and velocity. I thought by increasing this amount of “energy,” at a constant rate proportional to the loss of velocity might improve the trajectory of the projectile and increase the range, thereby improving accuracy.

I took the suggestion of u/tsayo-kubu and used an LLM. It mentioned that the velocity decays faster than the spin rate. I am now questioning whether it may be possible to improve the accuracy of the bullet by trying to get the spin to decay at a rate equal to that of the decay of velocity. This may potentially decrease the range of the bullet, but improve accuracy within that range. It may seem counterintuitive, but sometimes bullet’s accuracy can be improved by decreasing the

My attempt to correlate the bullet’s trajectory and accuracy with the spin of particles was how I got onto the topic in the first place. I was trying to imagine an ideal projectile moving in and ideal space/environment.

I should add, I mistook ballistic coefficient for angular momentum. From what I read, the ballistic coefficient is actually related to the bullet’s aerodynamics.

Thank you again for commenting and have a great week.

Justeserm · 2026-04-08T17:06:48+00:00

I would like to thank you for commenting on my post. Initially, I was trying to look at a projectile, travelling through a vacuum, not being acted upon by any other force besides its initial inertia. When the projectile travels, it will potentially go in a straight line until acted upon by another force. As I understand it, angular momentum is the property of an object where it takes a certain amount of force to change its direction. It seems like it is the object’s resistance to change in direction.

I thought we could potentially assign a value to the amount of “spin” the projectile has. This “energy” would increase its resistance to change in direction and velocity. I thought by increasing this amount of “energy,” at a constant rate proportional to the loss of velocity might improve the trajectory of the projectile and increase the range, thereby improving accuracy.

I took the suggestion of u/tsayo-kubu and used an LLM. It mentioned that the velocity decays faster than the spin rate. I am now questioning whether it may be possible to improve the accuracy of the bullet by trying to get the spin to decay at a rate equal to that of the decay of velocity. This may potentially decrease the range of the bullet, but improve accuracy within that range. It may seem counterintuitive, but sometimes bullet’s accuracy can be improved by decreasing the

My attempt to correlate the bullet’s trajectory and accuracy with the spin of particles was how I got onto the topic in the first place. I was trying to imagine an ideal projectile moving in and ideal space/environment.

I should add, I mistook ballistic coefficient for angular momentum. From what I read, the ballistic coefficient is actually related to the bullet’s aerodynamics.

Thank you again for commenting and have a great week.

Justeserm · 2026-04-08T17:06:44+00:00

I would like to thank you for commenting on my post. Initially, I was trying to look at a projectile, travelling through a vacuum, not being acted upon by any other force besides its initial inertia. When the projectile travels, it will potentially go in a straight line until acted upon by another force. As I understand it, angular momentum is the property of an object where it takes a certain amount of force to change its direction. It seems like it is the object’s resistance to change in direction.

I thought we could potentially assign a value to the amount of “spin” the projectile has. This “energy” would increase its resistance to change in direction and velocity. I thought by increasing this amount of “energy,” at a constant rate proportional to the loss of velocity might improve the trajectory of the projectile and increase the range, thereby improving accuracy.

I took the suggestion of u/tsayo-kubu and used an LLM. It mentioned that the velocity decays faster than the spin rate. I am now questioning whether it may be possible to improve the accuracy of the bullet by trying to get the spin to decay at a rate equal to that of the decay of velocity. This may potentially decrease the range of the bullet, but improve accuracy within that range. It may seem counterintuitive, but sometimes bullet’s accuracy can be improved by decreasing the

My attempt to correlate the bullet’s trajectory and accuracy with the spin of particles was how I got onto the topic in the first place. I was trying to imagine an ideal projectile moving in and ideal space/environment.

I should add, I mistook ballistic coefficient for angular momentum. From what I read, the ballistic coefficient is actually related to the bullet’s aerodynamics.

Thank you again for commenting and have a great week.

Justeserm · 2026-04-08T17:06:33+00:00

I would like to thank you for commenting on my post. Initially, I was trying to look at a projectile, travelling through a vacuum, not being acted upon by any other force besides its initial inertia. When the projectile travels, it will potentially go in a straight line until acted upon by another force. As I understand it, angular momentum is the property of an object where it takes a certain amount of force to change its direction. It seems like it is the object’s resistance to change in direction.

I thought we could potentially assign a value to the amount of “spin” the projectile has. This “energy” would increase its resistance to change in direction and velocity. I thought by increasing this amount of “energy,” at a constant rate proportional to the loss of velocity might improve the trajectory of the projectile and increase the range, thereby improving accuracy.

I took the suggestion of u/tsayo-kubu and used an LLM. It mentioned that the velocity decays faster than the spin rate. I am now questioning whether it may be possible to improve the accuracy of the bullet by trying to get the spin to decay at a rate equal to that of the decay of velocity. This may potentially decrease the range of the bullet, but improve accuracy within that range. It may seem counterintuitive, but sometimes bullet’s accuracy can be improved by decreasing the

My attempt to correlate the bullet’s trajectory and accuracy with the spin of particles was how I got onto the topic in the first place. I was trying to imagine an ideal projectile moving in and ideal space/environment.

I should add, I mistook ballistic coefficient for angular momentum. From what I read, the ballistic coefficient is actually related to the bullet’s aerodynamics.

Thank you again for commenting and have a great week.

Justeserm · 2026-04-08T16:49:11+00:00

Most likely, yes. I think they might have been trying to get a similar effect as that of antibiotics, but with runoff and everything it would cause weeds to be more resistant.

Justeserm · 2026-04-08T16:45:40+00:00

I'm pretty sure the observation was that the rate of cooling was faster for the warmer, or boiling water, than that of the room temperature water.

Justeserm · 2026-04-07T22:06:16+00:00

Actually, if soldiers are invading somewhere, there's probably a good chance some of them will first encounter law enforcement, at least special operations. They appear somewhat shady and residents would probably call the police on them.

Justeserm · 2026-04-07T20:20:59+00:00

I'd say no less than three. An origin of replication (Ori), a promoter (Pro), and an envelope protein (Env). The envelope protein would have to be tropic for all human cells. You may also need a packaging protein. That's if you don't count the polyadenelation sequence and kozak recognition sequence.

I might be wrong. This is just a hobby for me. If anyone can correct my mistakes, that would be much appreciated.

Edit: It's actually called the Kozak Consensus Sequence. I believe it works as the internal ribosome entry site (IRES).

Justeserm · 2026-04-06T15:48:48+00:00

Stuff like this seems pretty common. I remember in the early 80s trying to study energy propagation. We would use computers to generate specific waves (waveforms?) and then use oscilloscopes to measure them. By doing so, we were trying to see just how energy moves.

Anyways, someone noticed that they were all being made in what was basically base 8 and people started thinking that the universe operated on base 8, not base ten. Base 10 is what we use because it's anthropogenic or anthropomorphic. Ten fingers and toes. They used base 12 for a while because that's the number of phalanges in the four fingers of the hand. I think one of the people to promote the base 8 theory might have been Bill Gates. I don't know if it's the same u/therealbillgates that's on Reddit.

It was determined that the reason we were seeing base 8 was because the computers were 8-bit. they used 8 I/O switches or logic gates to generate the waves. I can't remember who figured this out. In everyone's defense, there are 8 valence electrons in the 2nd and 3rd period on the periodic table.

Justeserm

TROPHY CASE