The internet has become a useful tool to search for information; however, its value depends on the quality of the offered material and the background of the seeker. In the JMPEE scope: ‘microwave’, ‘power’ and ‘energy’ are among the most frequent keywords used for conducting searches in the internet, which usually take to remarkably interesting sites. Journal papers, sustained comments and discussions about novelties are among them, but also, more often than we would like to admit, material that is not accurate, based on myths or plain wrong. Just an example of this kind of material is the demonstration of devices for obtaining free energy, like perpetual motion machines in violation of the laws of thermodynamics. These propositions have a high rate of visitors, and probably, favourable reception, so that it is not rare to find several justifications to their impossible operation. They are not patentable, just because they do not work, and certainly, the claims of feasibility of these machines are not coming from engineers, scientists or other educated people, because thermodynamics is within their common knowledge scope. Although it would be more desirable that scientific papers are as welcomed as other popular materials in the internet, that depends more on the impression of the readers according to their knowledge level than on the quality of the papers themselves. Most of the readers with the proper background and experience would find value in the published papers, being able to express criticism. It does not mean that they will accept their discussion and conclusion just because the papers are peer-reviewed, since science is correcting itself because results are continuously tested and criticized, either in favour or against, by the scientists and engineers, who consider them as references for their current or future research. For this reason, a science paper must present a detailed description of the materials and methods, as well as extensive analysis and discussion of the results that lead to the conclusion. Enough background must be provided, without pretending to be a text book, because it is addressed to people that are familiar with the subject. These papers provide enough information to reproduce the experiments and results that help solving technological problems or are useful dealing with controversial issues in science. It is necessary to popularize science to increase appreciation of the material presented in those papers, not in the sense of making it cheaper, but showing its value. Technology is somehow popularized by the devices themselves regardless of users not understanding the science behind them. Reader’s real valuation is related to good understanding, and popularity helps to have a better chance to weight it, so that non-sense materials can be recognized and questioned. In terms of reaching the public, the science papers are in disadvantage because the background for understanding science is a lot higher than for believing myths, but it is not possible to decrease the rugosity level of these papers to make them accessible to

中文翻译：

---

编者按：促进科学

互联网已成为搜索信息的有用工具；然而，它的价值取决于所提供材料的质量和寻求者的背景。在 JMPEE 范围内：“微波”、“功率”和“能源”是在 Internet 中进行搜索最常用的关键字，这些关键字通常会访问非常有趣的站点。期刊论文、关于新奇事物的持续评论和讨论都在其中，但也比我们愿意承认的更常见的是，基于神话或明显错误的不准确材料。这种材料的一个例子是获得自由能的装置的演示，例如违反热力学定律的永动机。这些提议有很高的访客率，而且很可能受到好评，因此，为他们不可能的操作找到几个理由并不罕见。它们不可申请专利，仅仅因为它们不起作用，当然，这些机器的可行性声明并非来自工程师、科学家或其他受过教育的人，因为热力学属于他们的常识范围。尽管科学论文像互联网上的其他流行材料一样受到欢迎会更受欢迎，但这更多地取决于读者根据他们的知识水平给他们留下的印象，而不是论文本身的质量。大多数具有适当背景和经验的读者会在发表的论文中找到价值，能够发表批评。这并不意味着他们会仅仅因为论文经过同行评审就接受他们的讨论和结论，因为科学正在自我纠正，因为科学家和工程师们不断地测试和批评结果，无论是赞成还是反对，他们认为这些结果是他们当前或未来研究的参考。因此，一篇科学论文必须详细描述材料和方法，以及对得出结论的结果进行广泛的分析和讨论。必须提供足够的背景，不要假装是一本教科书，因为它是写给熟悉这个主题的人的。这些论文提供了足够的信息来重现有助于解决技术问题或有助于处理科学中争议性问题的实验和结果。有必要普及科学以增加对这些论文中提供的材料的欣赏，不是让它更便宜，而是展示它的价值。不管用户不了解它们背​​后的科学，技术都以某种方式被设备本身普及。读者的真实估价关系到好的理解，流行度有助于有更好的机会对其进行加权，让无意义的材料得到认可和质疑。就大众而言，科学论文处于劣势，因为理解科学的背景比相信神话的背景要高得多，但不可能降低这些论文的粗鲁程度，使其易于理解。而人气有助于有更好的机会对其进行加权，让无意义的材料得到认可和质疑。就大众而言，科学论文处于劣势，因为理解科学的背景比相信神话的背景要高得多，但不可能降低这些论文的粗鲁程度，使其易于理解。而人气有助于有更好的机会对其进行加权，让无意义的材料得到认可和质疑。就大众而言，科学论文处于劣势，因为理解科学的背景比相信神话的背景要高得多，但不可能降低这些论文的粗鲁程度，使其易于理解。