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: 4
23
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 22 2013 @ 09:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by Kashai
it stays at there site, it means they conducted a third party review.


What nonsense, Cornel actually state

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).


So Cornel actually say they DO NOT conduct a review. Why do you keep claiming that they do?


had they not conducted a third party review they would have dropped the link.


Again, they state they do not do a review, so why claim that they do?


Again the fact that Cornel Published the Data means that conducted a third party review


You are so desperate to keep repeating a lie, you must work for Rossi or have invested money and are slowly becoming aware you have lost it!


Get over it...


Actually, you should get over the fact Rossi has refused to have a 3rd party test his scam.


Any thoughts?


Yes, how about you stop making crap up!




posted on May, 22 2013 @ 09:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by Kashai
Cornel put its name on it so that means they are claiming they verified it is correct.


Care to show us where Cornel's name is on the actual report....



posted on May, 22 2013 @ 09:02 PM
link   
I have not made anything up and you are obviously ignorant of what it takes to get published as a scientist.



posted on May, 22 2013 @ 09:06 PM
link   
reply to post by hellobruce
 


Sure just look at top in link


That means Cornel has verified the data and you have no idea how scientist get published



posted on May, 22 2013 @ 09:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by Kashai
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.


Did you ignore the following from Cornell which I linked back to their site in reference to the database that is holding Rossi's "paper".


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.


Its not peer review and Cornell is not lending credibility to it in the least. It was endorsed by a single person that is a member of their distribution system, arXiv, which isn't peer review and it's simply a place for people in the field to disseminate their work. Whether it's legitimate or bunk.

If it was legitimate, they would submit it to Cornell's peer review process, or a number of other universities... They didn't though. They are simply trying to confuse people like you that see a university name and think it means something.



posted on May, 22 2013 @ 09:10 PM
link   


Publication is the way that scientists communicate their findings with the rest of the world, but more importantly, the process of publication gives the scientist feedback on his or her work. There is a long process to get a paper published:

After doing several experiments, you write a paper covering all of the data collected and explaining your interpretations of the data. Then you send the final draft of your paper to the journal of your choice (where you send the paper has a big effect on whether your paper is published, and who reads it).

Soon after the paper arrives at the journal, the editors send copies of the paper out to two or more reviewers. It is the reviewers' job to carefully examine the paper for correct interpretation of the data, correct experimental procedure, and relevance of the data to your field (i.e. is this something new, or are you simply showing something that has already been shown by someone else). The reviewers summarize their comments and criticisms in letters which are sent back to the editors, who read the paper and the reviews and decide whether to publish the paper.

If the paper is very good, it is accepted for publication. Most papers that get published are "accepted with revisions", meaning that several points made by the reviewers had to be addressed by the author before the paper would be published. This often means doing a few extra experiments to prove an unclear point in the paper.
Many papers are rejected on the grounds of not having enough new data. When this happens, the scientist must either do much more work and resubmit the paper to the same journal, or try submitting the paper to another journal that may be more interested in the results. It is not easy getting into the more prestigious journals, so most scientific papers go to journals that are specific to the authors' field, having a much smaller readership.

Publication is vital to a scientist's career for two reasons: first, when Universities are looking for new professors, they base their decision on the amount of important papers the candidates have published; and second, research costs money, and the people who give a scientist the money to do his or her work rely on their publications as a measure of how much they have accomplished with the money they've been given (this is especially important if you want to continue to be funded by the same people year after year).

Publication is also vital to science as a whole. One of the cornerstones of the scientific process is the free exchange of information. As long as everyone publishes their results, Science progresses foreward: if someone publishes a new finding, other scientists can use that information to expand their own work and build upon the new findings, rather than every scientist having to do every experiment independently. Similarly, publication is essential for each scientist, because the review process gives the researcher a broader view of the work, and often suggests fruitful paths that the scientist may not have otherwise taken.


Source



Any thoughts?

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



posted on May, 22 2013 @ 09:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by Kashai
Sure just look at top in link

That means Cornel has verified the data


So according to your silly reasoning the USA Congress have verified that a superman comic is true....

catalog.loc.gov...,4&Search_Arg=superman%20comic&Search_Code=GKEY^*&CNT=100&type=quick&PID=egwuDvano2WO5PndvVfSbzu Ux8tNB&SEQ=20130522220820&SID=1

It must be, as it has the name Library of Congress up the top.
edit on 22-5-2013 by hellobruce because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 22 2013 @ 09:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by Kashai
Any thoughts?


yes, you never even bothered to read it, as if you had read it you would have seen

Then you send the final draft of your paper to the journal of your choice


So what journal was it sent to?



posted on May, 22 2013 @ 09:14 PM
link   
reply to post by hellobruce
 


Dude grow up the paper was published by a relevant scientific review as far as what you think is going on.



posted on May, 22 2013 @ 09:15 PM
link   
reply to post by Kashai
 


You left out an important part.


Re: Why do scientists publish results of their work in scientific journals?


Recreationally obtuse much?



posted on May, 22 2013 @ 09:20 PM
link   
reply to post by DenyObfuscation
 


Dude I like your Avatar so that means that if you want to claim the experiment is wrong you should repeat the experiment and submit the data to Cornel or Nature or anyone else you feel will listen.

The data could never have been published by Cornel if they did not independently test the data to verify it.

Those are facts.

Live long and prosper.



posted on May, 22 2013 @ 09:22 PM
link   
And please do not continue to tell me Cornel did not conduct and independent review before publishing the data my sides are starting to hurt from laughing



posted on May, 22 2013 @ 09:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by Kashai
The data could never have been published by Cornel if they did not independently test the data to verify it.

Those are facts.


So according to your stupid reasoning Superman is real, as the Library of Congress would not have "published" it if they had not independently tested the data to verify it....



posted on May, 22 2013 @ 09:25 PM
link   
reply to post by Kashai
 





The data could never have been published by Cornel if they did not independently test the data to verify it.


You've been shown several times that is not true. No more food for you.



posted on May, 22 2013 @ 09:28 PM
link   
reply to post by hellobruce
 


No, because of your stupid reasoning you seem to think that one can find Superman Comics in a scientific journal or publication.

The Bible is in the Library of Congress as well what does that have to do with this issue? The Library of Congress is not a scientific Journal.

It is a Library where you can find Dr. Seuss book that has nothing to do with an article being published in a scientific environment.

You should sign off and get some rest or do something about such a delusion.

I means seriously.

Any thoughts?


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



posted on May, 22 2013 @ 09:48 PM
link   
reply to post by DenyObfuscation
 


You have no really shown me anything the results were published and lots of our members are real scientists as well as some of our moderators.

What I am saying is common sense.

Sure if the reviewer was Miami-Dade Community College that would be questionable to an extreme but Cornel!!!

No food so what am I supposed to do with the 4 rib eye's, three slabs of ribs in the fridge and the gourmet pizza that is sitting on my table (sausage, mushrooms, peperoni, green peppers, onions and extra cheese)?

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



posted on May, 22 2013 @ 10:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by Kashai
And please do not continue to tell me Cornel did not conduct and independent review before publishing the data my sides are starting to hurt from laughing
Can you stop laughing long enough to give us the name of the person at Cornell who did the review?

I think you're trying to avoid the truth but if you really want to learn, this may help. In physicsforums.com you're only allowed to discuss professionally published results from peer reviewed journals.

The section of arXiv that hosts the test of Rossi's device is not among the 17,000 or so sources listed in thomsonreuters that physicsforums considers acceptable peer-reviewed sources.

Physics Forums Global Guidelines

Generally, discussion topics should be traceable to standard textbooks or to peer-reviewed scientific literature. Usually, we accept references from journals that are listed here:

ip-science.thomsonreuters.com...
.....
References that appear only on www.arxiv.org... (which is not peer-reviewed) are subject to review by the Mentors. We recognize that in some fields this is the accepted means of professional communication, but in other fields we prefer to wait until formal publication elsewhere.
Key words:

"References that appear only on www.arxiv.org... (which is not peer-reviewed)"



posted on May, 22 2013 @ 10:30 PM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


You are claiming that Cornel University published and scientific article without conducting a third party review when articles have made clear that they did and you want me to call Cornel and find out who did it?????

Forums are irrelevant the link I provided presented that an independent review was conducted so insofar me going beyond that don't quit your day job

Look guys there is a standard and in this case Cornel has made clear they conducted and independent review by publishing it. In so far as who did it might I suggest you pick up a phone and call them. I am eating gourmet pizza and wondering why I have to do your homework. I mean the article I present makes clear an independent study was conducted so what is the problem with the site I referred to???

No offence its just that this is silly.




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



posted on May, 22 2013 @ 10:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by Kashai
why I have to do your homework.
It's your homework. You're claiming Cornell verified the research and half a dozen people are pointing out Cornell's disclaimer that they don't do that on arXiv submissions.

So it's your homework to prove your claim.



posted on May, 22 2013 @ 10:55 PM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


Wrong I posted a relevant link that clearly offers the data was verified....

"It’s a pretty clean test. Of course lots of folks can poke holes, but the team, its financial backers and interested commercial interests got what they wanted."

Your point is mute.


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



new topics

top topics



 
23
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join