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.

 

Rossi’s E-Cat Cold Fusion Reactor Validated by Third-Party Tests

page: 3
23
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 22 2013 @ 06:14 PM
link   
To be clear the OP was about what Cornel University said about this research.




posted on May, 22 2013 @ 06:19 PM
link   
reply to post by bbracken677


I work in the energy industry, the above is so misleading as to be called bogus. That is like taking the cost of gas and using your average mileage declaring that the total cost of traveling is x cents/mile. This does not take into account the cost of the vehicle, the cost of maintenance etc.

Do you think powerlines maintain themselves? How about transformers? What about the costs associated with building a new natural gas powered plant to replace the coal fired plants that are being phased out? How much does it cost to pay the employees etc etc etc etc...

Terribly misleading...disingenuous bordering on outright lie or abject stupidity.

 


And you contested what I said where? Oh you didn't! Good for you, you can throw names around, call people stupid, make claims without sourcing them. Congratulations. You ought to try to get into politics.

The point being made was simply on cost creation of energy at the energy production facility. Many of which are paid in full, as there are a number of infrastructure projects completed years and years ago.

We are not talking deliver, or maintenance of the grid, or anything of the like. We are talking about power generation.

And while yes, Rossi's ecat,hypothetically if it worked, it would be cheaper with less initial cost in creating power plants, it absolutely does nothing to change the overall economics of power generation and delivery.

(Besides give company XYZ ((the purchases of his patent)) a means to make much more in their margin than they already are)

Also, he claims his reaction is nuclear, see the little incident he had in Florida with the nuclear commission and he was caught in a bold face lie; in any case, hypothetical, if it worked and because he says it's a nuclear reaction, it would still have to be centralized. So it would still be the exact same power and distribution economics we see now, except that it would be a lower cost at the generation facility.

You are not eliminating anything here. You would be (if it worked, which it doesn't) give the power generation companies the ability to break up their generation facilities and disperse them, demanding less stress be put on the grid (while cutting down the energy losses in long range energy transfer from inefficiency and heat/resistance loss). Yet, that too would have infrastructure costs.

If you care to debate with me, try to form an actual point, instead of eluding to your grand intelligence we all ought to be in awe of.
edit on 22-5-2013 by boncho because: (no reason given)

edit on 22-5-2013 by boncho because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 22 2013 @ 07:08 PM
link   
reply to post by boncho
 


Excuse me but you are making no sense whatsoever at this point the topic is really about what Cornel University confirmed in its independent research.

Other Universities will no look into the issue and the data will be compared so as far as the initial research being preformed by a person who's credentials you feel need to be questioned that is irrelevant.

Any thoughts?







edit on 22-5-2013 by Kashai because: Modifed content



posted on May, 22 2013 @ 07:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by Kashai
Excuse me but you are making no sense whatsoever at this point the topic is really about what Cornel University confirmed in its independent research.
Your link says nothing about Cornell's confirming anything about Rossi's device. I never found where they did anything with Rossi's e-cat, but if you have a better link, post it.

OP's claim about Cornell was mistaken as far as I can tell, which I explained here.
edit on 22-5-2013 by Arbitrageur because: clarification



posted on May, 22 2013 @ 08:02 PM
link   
That is an independent test report....

Further



posted on May, 22 2013 @ 08:06 PM
link   
Once Google starts buying em or something I'll listen.

Honestly, guilty until proven innocent. Why? Because it requires money to get a genius idea into production and ready for buyers. You don't give someone money without strong evidence.

Peer review or just sell a working product without strings attached.

Here's a link someone else posted in another place (a solar power invention):
www.kansas.com - Ron Ace’s path from invention to invention...
edit on 22-5-2013 by jonnywhite because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 22 2013 @ 08:19 PM
link   
reply to post by Kashai
 



Disclaimer: Papers will be entered in the listings in order of receipt on an impartial basis and appearance of a paper is not intended in any way to convey tacit approval of its assumptions, methods, or conclusions by any agent (electronic, mechanical, or other). We reserve the right to reject any inappropriate submissions.


arxiv.org...



posted on May, 22 2013 @ 08:23 PM
link   
reply to post by DenyObfuscation
 


Dude it was submitted and tested Cornel has confirmed the results this is prima fascia evidence of a Third Party Test Report. I mean seriously anyone can submit a paper to "Nature" that does not mean they will confirm the data in this case Cornel did and confirmed it works.

Get over it.

Any thoughts?


edit on 22-5-2013 by Kashai because: Added content



posted on May, 22 2013 @ 08:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by Kashai
reply to post by DenyObfuscation
 


Dude it was submitted and tested Cornel has confirmed the results this is prima fascia evidence of a Third Party Test Report.

Get over it.

Any thoughts?



Show where Cornell has done this.



posted on May, 22 2013 @ 08:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by Kashai
Cornel has confirmed the results this is prima fascia evidence of a Third Party Test Report.


Of course you can show us where Cornel has confirmed this?
Who exactly at Cornel stated it was evidence?



posted on May, 22 2013 @ 08:34 PM
link   
reply to post by DenyObfuscation
 




An independent test report of Andrea Rossi’s E-Cat HT2 is available at the Cornell University Library archive. The team, seemingly led by Hanno Essén of the Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm, Sweden included four collaborators from Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden with Mr. Rossi’s old friend Giuseppe Levi of Bologna University and Evelyn Foschi of Bologna Italy.


From the link identified as "Further" in one of my more recent responses


Look if you submit a paper to nature that explains how frogs can turn into princes, you can do so but unless "Nature" verifies your data and independently verifies that you are right? There is no way in hell
they are going to publish your data and neither with Cornel.

Cornel agreed to publish the data that means they confirmed and verified the results, otherwise they would not publish the data.


edit on 22-5-2013 by Kashai because: Added content



posted on May, 22 2013 @ 08:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by Kashai
Cornel agreed to publish the data that means they confirmed and verified the results, otherwise they would not publish the data.


So who reviewed this "data" at Cornel?

Why ignore this "

and appearance of a paper is not intended in any way to convey tacit approval of its assumptions, methods, or conclusions by any agent (electronic, mechanical, or other).

edit on 22-5-2013 by hellobruce because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 22 2013 @ 08:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by Kashai
Dude it was submitted and tested Cornel has confirmed the results this is prima fascia evidence of a Third Party Test Report. I mean seriously anyone can submit a paper to "Nature" that does not mean they will confirm the data in this case Cornel did and confirmed it works.
You've highlighted a big difference. Nature doesn't publish everything that's submitted, as they have a screening process and require peer review be done to certain standards. So the editors of Nature can to some degree be held accountable for what they publish, but only to a degree.

Papers published in the Cornell database like the preprint in question may have no peer review at all, so almost anything that gets submitted can appear, even if there's no peer review or confirmation of any kind. Cornell can't be held accountable to any degree for what is published in its archive. They make no attempt to do the kind of screening of submissions that Nature does.



posted on May, 22 2013 @ 08:44 PM
link   
Excuse me but any idiot can submit anything for scientific review. The only reason they are published is because of a third party independent review that confirms they know what they are talking about.

What reason do you have to think that Cornel is any different?

I mean honestly you all really do not know what you are talking about.

As the link I provided makes clear. As to how, what and where I recommend you contact Cornel.


edit on 22-5-2013 by Kashai because: modifed content



posted on May, 22 2013 @ 08:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by Kashai
reply to post by boncho
 


Excuse me but you are making no sense whatsoever at this point the topic is really about what Cornel University confirmed in its independent research.

Other Universities will no look into the issue and the data will be compared so as far as the initial research being preformed by a person who's credentials you feel need to be questioned that is irrelevant.

Any thoughts?



edit on 22-5-2013 by Kashai because: Modifed content


Yes! Posting a link to Cornell, is not posting a link to Cornell validating any work.

Dear lord. Are you still in high school?

The Cornell submission is only a submission and it is not peer reviewed.


The new system will ensure that arXiv content is relevant to current research at much lower cost than conventional peer-reviewed journals, so we can continue to offer free access to the scientific community and the general public



The endorsement process is not peer review.


arxiv.org...


Rossi has a habit of trying to link big names to his work. He did it with the dead professor in the past, he did it with NASA.

He used the name of a dead Uni professor, listed on his board of reviewers for his blog, that is misleadingly represented like a peer review journal.

Then, he invited himself to NASA. He set up a meeting, he paid for everything, but then claimed it was NASA who was interested in his work, and he tried to pass the whole trip off like an endorsement.

NASA was willing to validate his work (only that it would have to be able to be validated -not a fraud- ) to which, Rossi refused and went on his merry way.

Which has been the case everytime someone legit offers up to help him out.


On July 14, 2011, Rossi asked staff members at NASA Marshall to test and evaluate his device. Marshall staff accepted Rossi's offer. The two parties began negotiating details of the test protocol. NASA asked for a test that avoided phase change of water into steam because steam would introduce unnecessary confusion to the test. A few days later, Rossi withdrew his offer.


newenergytimes.com...


Now....

U have any "thoughts" ??
edit on 22-5-2013 by boncho because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 22 2013 @ 08:47 PM
link   
reply to post by Kashai
 





Cornel agreed to publish the data that means they confirmed and verified the results, otherwise they would not publish the data.


No it does not. Did you not read this post? Cornell disagrees with you.



posted on May, 22 2013 @ 08:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by Kashai
Excuse me but any idiot can submit anything for scientific review. The only reason they are published is because of a third party independent review that confirms they know what they are talking about.

What reason do you have to think that Cornel is any different?


Why are you refusing to accept at what Cornel actually say?

and appearance of a paper is not intended in any way to convey tacit approval of its assumptions, methods, or conclusions by any agent (electronic, mechanical, or other).


You keep ignoring that......



posted on May, 22 2013 @ 08:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by Kashai
Excuse me but any idiot can submit anything for scientific review. The only reason they are published is because of a third party independent review that confirms they know what they are talking about.

What reason do you have to think that Cornel is any different?

I mean honestly you all really do not know what you are talking about.

As the link I provided makes clear. As to how, what and where I recommend you contact Cornel.


edit on 22-5-2013 by Kashai because: modifed content


Cornell states on their library that the section Rossi submitted to, is not peer reviewed in any shape or form. There was no legitimate third party testing done, as the people who supposedly did the third party testing, have been involved in this project from day one.

I said before, it's no different than you putting a brothers name on a business, signing a contact with your business, claiming some grand claim.

"XYZ Inc. just sign a contract for 1 million dollars!"


Rossi had legitimate third party offers to review and test his apparatus, he chose not to go that route. Simple as that. You can't jump into this story 2 years behind the curve and expect people to be picking it up the same time as you. We've watched the whole thing unfold...



posted on May, 22 2013 @ 08:54 PM
link   
reply to post by hellobruce
 


Not ignoring a standard disclaimer just pointing out that if Cornel University decided to publish it and it stays at there site, it means they conducted a third party review.

I mean given the controversy regarding this matter had they not conducted a third party review they would have dropped the link.

You guys are engaged in semantic arguments that are actually irrelevant to major universities deciding to agree to publish data.

Again the fact that Cornel Published the Data means that conducted a third party review and confirm the data.

Get over it...

Any thoughts?



posted on May, 22 2013 @ 09:00 PM
link   
reply to post by boncho
 


Prove that????

Look guys Cornel put its name on it so that means they are claiming they verified it is correct.

That is what it means when a University publishes data.

Get over it.




top topics



 
23
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join