It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

"Peer reviewed paper" oops.

page: 2
4
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 5 2012 @ 10:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by boncho
No, he is listed as a active member of Rossi's project, and supposed reviewing Rossi's work. So no. You don't lose track of those people.


Funny how with Rossi being caught making things up once again some people still believe his lies!




posted on Apr, 5 2012 @ 11:55 PM
link   
reply to post by boncho
 




Ever heard of guilty in absentia?


Yep, and experienced it but that is another story. Generally it applies to small cases so the fees can build up as the court system has trouble in keeping up with society. In larger cases an adjournment is called so the facts can be assessed before incorrectly jumping to conclusions.

There is a bit going around the net about this, not sure what to make of it but some lies, rumours and inconsistencies are going around. Anyone can start up a peer review journal and as long as there is some peer reviews it the publication is accurate. This does not mean the contents of the paper are proven and accurate, but there is some scientific merit and proper format with its field of study and reporting.

Over time as more scientists review and reference the papers and journal, the integrity and reputation of both increase or decrease over time. There are some pretty advanced and deep papers contained within the publications. I am not sure of the funding arrangements, but it is free to access compared to many other journal databases that provide charges for storage, distribution and measuring reputation.

As a low cost operation it is not surprising that there maybe some administration shortfalls. Considering the potential implications from this field of study there maybe other sources trying to attack its reputation. The peer review process is what makes or breaks a publication in the end. If bad journals are continually published then the website will eventually die, if a strong community can be established to discuss the issues then solutions and progress can be made as the website grows.



posted on Apr, 6 2012 @ 12:22 PM
link   
reply to post by kwakakev
 


He isn't trying to create a peer reviewed journal, he was trying to market something akin to "cold fusion". No matter what, you don't have a peer reviewed journal without detailing everyone involved in it. Ever heard of a citation? Rossi may as well cite the tooth fairy or easter bunny.

He created his "journal" because no one would accept the work related to the ecat, which he claims is the revolution in energy production. Unfortunately, he's been down this road twice. Once leading to around 50 charges and jail time and environmental pollution, and the other producing another device which supposedly was sabotaged
by the manufacturer, which never produced anything once sold to clients....



posted on Apr, 6 2012 @ 12:36 PM
link   
reply to post by kwakakev
 


This was all done for the purpose of advertisment...

I hope this fool is ready for all the missplaced agression from a raped society



posted on Apr, 7 2012 @ 01:01 AM
link   
reply to post by kwakakev
 


Let me make it clear for you. Rossi is a scammer, people complain his work is not Peer Reviewed. He created a "peer reviewed" journal of his own. This now allows him to claim his work is Peer Reviewed when it is not. He was caught lying about a member of the team who does the peer review work. When directly asked, he was unable to say who George Kelly was. Not being 100% sure is fine, the appropriate answer is I will get back to you with all his credentials as I can not remember right now. Rossi wants the matter dropped as it's a scam. It is not up to us to go digging for who George Kelly is, it's up to Rossi to supply that information.

Glad I could help.



posted on Apr, 7 2012 @ 06:31 AM
link   
There have been a lot of test results to indicate that their is something going on with cold fusion and other similar technology. Much of this science is still unexplained by conventional physics, but it is still exploring the boundaries that define our existence. Overall it receiving similar treatment to the pseudo sciences, the numbers are strong enough to indicate that something is going on, but what it is exactly gets covered up, ridiculed and banished from traditional funding sources.

If you are not interested in this branch of science and think it is junk, why such harsh and belligerent treatment of it?



posted on Apr, 7 2012 @ 06:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by kwakakev
There have been a lot of test results to indicate that their is something going on with cold fusion


The e-cat has nothing to do with cold fusion - remember:

Andrea Rossi, the inventor of the Energy Catalyzer, told an inspector from the Florida Bureau of Radiation Control that he has no factory in the United States and that no nuclear reactions occur in his devices.


pesn.com...

And he lied about having a factory in the USA... so all we actually have from rossi are lies!



posted on Apr, 7 2012 @ 07:03 AM
link   
reply to post by spoor
 


Was it transforming nickel into copper or something similar? The science is quite clear that there is a lot of energy tied up in the atom. If people want to work on how to get that energy out without destroying the universe, great and good luck to them.

Using more stable elements it does not have the problems that come with unstable ones like uranium and plutonium.



posted on Apr, 10 2012 @ 01:40 AM
link   
reply to post by kwakakev
 


I completely agree, I would love for someone to discover this and make it happen. Wanting something to be true will not make it true, there is no animoisty towards this field, only towards Rossi. He has been caught in outright lies time and time again.

All we have are his claims, he refuses any independent verification. That is why this is such a topic of interest. Rossi is faking independent verification, he is trying to make it appear that it exists when it doesn't. More indications of fraud.




top topics



 
4
<< 1   >>

log in

join