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: 5
23
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 22 2013 @ 10:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by Kashai
"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.
How am I supposed to get that Cornell did anything based on that quote? It doesn't even mention Cornell.




posted on May, 22 2013 @ 11:03 PM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


Dude they provide a link to the Cornell Library in relation to the research item in the first sentence of the link so please tell me why you are interrupting my pizza feast.


I mean seriously and posted on page three of this conversation on 22-5-2013 @ 09:02 PM

Any thoughts?


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



posted on May, 22 2013 @ 11:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by Kashai
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


Dude they provide a link to the Cornell Library in relation to the research item in the first sentence of the link so please tell me why you are interrupting my pizza feast.
I have books in my library I haven't verified. So does Cornell.



posted on May, 22 2013 @ 11:37 PM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


The fact that you have books that have not been verified scientifically has nothing to do with Cornell Publishing Scientific Data.

You know this pizza does not only have mozzarella, it also has Provolone and Parmesan as well as in I tossed in some Ricotta.

I mean easily we are talking $50 American in the retail market.
at the least.

Getting Published in the Scientific arena is way different than getting published for Moby Dick



posted on May, 23 2013 @ 12:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by Kashai
Getting Published in the Scientific arena is way different than getting published for Moby Dick
Yes getting science published in a peer-reviewed journal can be challenging.

arXiv is not peer-reviewed.



posted on May, 23 2013 @ 12:10 AM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


Cornell research results are so your point is??
edit on 23-5-2013 by Kashai because: changed content



posted on May, 23 2013 @ 12:13 AM
link   
Here is a point this in interesting and worthy of further research.
edit on 23-5-2013 by Kashai because: Just felt like adding a period



posted on May, 23 2013 @ 12:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by Kashai
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


Cornell research results are so your point is??
You still haven't said who at Cornell did any research. You keep making this claim so you need to back it up. And the answer is, nobody at Cornell did any research on Rossi's device, that's why you're eating pizza instead of providing the name of the Cornell researcher. There is no Cornell researcher.
edit on 23-5-2013 by Arbitrageur because: clarification



posted on May, 23 2013 @ 12:21 AM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


I do not work for Cornell.

As far as the issue of Cornell publishing the results, that in a factual way presents they did an independent review.

Perhaps the reason my side really hurts is because that part escapes you.

Perhaps its because I have eaten to much pizza.

No it is not because of the Pizza.
edit on 23-5-2013 by Kashai because: just felt like adding a comma and period



posted on May, 23 2013 @ 12:24 AM
link   
reply to post by Kashai
 


So, what part of this do you not understand?


Originally posted by DenyObfuscation
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...
Apparently you don't understand any of it.



posted on May, 23 2013 @ 12:26 AM
link   
You are back into semantics and again Grow up.

You guys are hilarious so have a good night

edit on 23-5-2013 by Kashai because: added content



posted on May, 23 2013 @ 01:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by Kashai
presents they did an independent review.


Once again, whom at Cornel did an independent review? Remember, Rossi has refused to allow independent testing of his scam....

I wonder why you refuse to answer this simple question....
edit on 23-5-2013 by hellobruce because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 23 2013 @ 01:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by Kashai
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


Cornell research results are so your point is??
edit on 23-5-2013 by Kashai because: changed content


Cornell didn't do any research. People that are members of Cornell, are allowed to sponsor authors to post work into a separate data collection service they have, so amateurs who haven't peer reviewed can disseminate their papers easily.

In most cases, I would assume this is for students that haven't got to the point of getting their stuff peer reviewed. I have a friend, 27 years old, finally got their first paper accepted in a journal. That's not to say their work before this wasn't worthy. It was just tough to get up to that point. Very demanding, and very tedious. Because there was little room for error.

In the case of the virtual library at Cornell, the papers submitted do not go through any review, it's simply and older person sponsoring a younger person to get their work available to people.

In the case of Rossi though, it seems it's just another attempt by him to make it appear like his work has legitimacy.

If he was 23 years old, and he posted it to Cornell's unreviewed virtual library, I'd say it would have far more legitimacy. Given that actual peer reviewed journals and people like NASA, have shown interest, but only if he do proper testing, or allow them to do proper testing, and he balked... It just shows how he has a bag of tricks and he doesn't want his bag exposed.



posted on May, 23 2013 @ 01:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by Kashai
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


I do not work for Cornell.

As far as the issue of Cornell publishing the results, that in a factual way presents they did an independent review.

Perhaps the reason my side really hurts is because that part escapes you.

Perhaps its because I have eaten to much pizza.

No it is not because of the Pizza.
edit on 23-5-2013 by Kashai because: just felt like adding a comma and period


Are you just purposely trolling here? Do you not understand the English language, or are you academically illiterate?

Here is Cornell's words:


Started in August 1991, arXiv.org (formerly xxx.lanl.gov) is a highly-automated electronic archive and distribution server for research articles. Covered areas include physics, mathematics, computer science, nonlinear sciences, quantitative biology and statistics.



arXiv is maintained and operated .... with the help of numerous subject moderators.


Essentially, there are mods to the database, like a mod in this forum. The mods check that the paper was written in a scientific way only. you can see the requirements on the primer page.


There is absolutely nothing there stating that anyone at Cornell is doing anything to validate the work. Cornell itself says that the papers posted are simply to make it easy access for people to get, and as long as the topic is science, or the other topics that are allowed, it's eligible.

Again, Cornell didn't verify anything, so why are you lying/trolling?



posted on May, 23 2013 @ 02:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by Kashai
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


I do not work for Cornell.

As far as the issue of Cornell publishing the results, that in a factual way presents they did an independent review.



By the way, Cornell is simply disseminating the paper through their archive system. I just set up an account for statistics. Essentially, I can write a paper (involved in statistics) and publish them the same on the Cornell site where the Rossi paper is.

You will see the paper is sponsored and endorsed by:


Hanno Essen is qualified to endorse.

Indication of anomalous heat energy production in a reactor device

Evelyn Foschi M.Sc.: Is registered as an author of this paper.
Not currently an endorser. (why?)
Hanno Essen: Is registered as an author of this paper.
Can endorse for cond-mat.supr-con, physics.class-ph, physics.plasm-ph. (why?)
Giuseppe Levi, Torbjörn Hartman, Bo Höistad, Roland Pettersson and Lars Tegnér are not registered as owners of this paper. (why?)



arxiv.org...

Hanno Essen is "qualified" as an endorser, simply because he worked with a university. I am supposedly "qualified" now too, because I set up an account as well.

This completely rips apart any idea you had that Cornell was involved in the Rossi paper in any way beyond posting it on their online database, which, people like me can use. (If we so choose.)


Somebody (probably you) has tried to create an account for you at
arXiv.org. We're sending you this message so we can check that we were
given a correct E-mail address. If you really have an account with us,
visit the following URL to verify your address:

arxiv.org...█████████████████

If clicking on the above doesn't work for you, go to the URL

arxiv.org...

and enter the following information

Email: ███████@███████.com
Verification Code: ███GRP-███NN4


Source: My personal email.

And, I received another email from the database, which explains it better in detail:


The arXiv.org e-print archive is fully automated.

It processes over 200 new submissions per day.

This is only possible if YOU as author or submitter take responsibility:
always carefully check and verify your submissions, pay close attention
to diagnostic messages sent to you, and take corrective action if
necessary.

There is no secretarial staff to manually correct mistakes, fix typos,
amend layout, or perform other remedial tasks. In particular, there is
no one to guide submitters step-by-step through simple submission
procedures explained at length in the help texts, nor are there
resources to assist with generic problems of word processing software or
packaging of submissions. Use of the e-print archive is free of charge,
and this is feasible with a skeletal staff here only insofar as users
take full responsibility for their submissions.

Staff time here is dedicated to improving the software and adding
features, and tuning the server and mirror network, rather than
assisting individual users with minor problems that can be solved
entirely at the user end. It is frequently more efficient to consult a
colleague first before sending email to the server admins, so please
only email questions which are

- not explained in the online help
- cannot be solved with a little trial and error
- remain mysterious even after consulting with a computer savvy
colleague

Note that on the day of submission, before the 16:00 US Eastern time
(EDT/EST) deadline, you can replace as often as necessary to debug
layout problems interactively and to make editorial changes. There is no
penalty for multiple same day replacements and no new version number as
long as the replacements arrive here before the above daily deadline.

If despite your best efforts you cannot resolve problems with your
submission, send a concise description of the problem to
████@arXiv.org, always remembering to mention the archive/papernum
or temporary identifier, and someone here will reply, typically (but not
always) within 1 working day.

DO NOT under any circumstances send your submission or any unsolicited
file attachments to ████. This is a group address only for
communicating e-print server related problems and suggestions. Regular
submission attempts are cached with a few day latency and we need only
the identifier you've received in order to inspect your attempted or
successful submission.

Always contact █████@arXiv.org if you think you have found a genuine
bug which can be reliably reproduced, and you have verified that your
web browser and display software is up to date. If a page appears not to
have been updated properly, make sure you are not looking at a page
cached by your browser or some misconfigured intermediate proxy. (Many
browsers require a SHIFT-reload to properly reload a locally cached
page.)



Source: My personal email.



posted on May, 23 2013 @ 02:40 AM
link   
I just realized I can now post a paper on arXiv.org, that states Rossi is completely full of ████ and by default, everyone will have to believe the paper because it will be disseminated on the Cornell website.

Heck, I can even tell people I was validated by Cornell.




posted on May, 23 2013 @ 03:31 AM
link   
Scammer can't stop scamming!

If anything, the facts that

a) Giuseppi Levi is "a good old friend of Rossi"



posted on May, 23 2013 @ 07:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by boncho
Essentially, there are mods to the database, like a mod in this forum. The mods check that the paper was written in a scientific way only. you can see the requirements on the primer page.
Here is the list of about 140 moderators:
arxiv.org...
Only 4 of them are affiliated with Cornell so chances are better than 97% that nobody at Cornell has even looked at a paper as a moderator, and even the 2.8% affiliated with Cornell are certainly not looking at papers in a research or verification role, as you suggest.


Originally posted by boncho
Again, Cornell didn't verify anything, so why are you lying/trolling?
It does seem kind of like trolling to me. I find it hard to believe he's not getting the concept with so many different people explaining it to him in different words, and also citing Cornell's own explanation about what they do and do not do regarding arXiv submissions. Maybe your additional explanation will help. Let's hope so.



posted on May, 23 2013 @ 07:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by boncho

 


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.


What I was contesting was your implication that the difference between cost of energy production and what is charged is profit. This is quite clearly your allusion in your previous post.
Disingenuous and misleading at the least.
Your allusion to the excessive profits based on the meager facts (cost to generate electricity vs what one pays) you provided was clear and misleading. I corrected and expanded upon what the actual costs to provide energy to your home and business. Energy available at the plant without a means to transmit it to the end user is pointless.
If you want to discuss energy costs in terms of profitability then you have to include transmission and maintenance costs. Transmission and maintenance costs represent almost 2/3 of what you pay for energy for your home or business.

Oh, and stating that many energy plants have been paid in full without addressing the need to build more to replace the obsolete coal fired plants being phased out is ridiculous. You might as well make the same point that "many cars on the road are paid for", which earns you nothing but the title of "Captain Obvious". Obviously plants that are "paid for", as you put it, are "paid for" but new construction has to be factored in.
Without new construction the supply of energy shrinks...what happens when supply shrinks and demand remains constant or increases?
Or is that concept some sort of conspiracy fomented by greedy corporations that are cursed at for making a profit, and then when they move operations overseas into a more favorable operating climate they are again cursed by the ignorant? Can't have it both ways...Remove the ability to profit and you remove the reason and means for a corporation to exist.



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.


Alluding? I was not trying to elude or escape from anything.

I made my point. I made it again in more detail above.

Here in Texas where energy has been deregulated, we have some of the lowest electric energy costs in the Nation. There is no fat involved. EFH has filed for bankruptcy due to carrying debt over from before deregulation and the inability to compete with that debt load. One doesn't get to bankruptcy if making the kind of profit you alluded to in your previous post.

How's this for making a point?: I love it when people have a superficial knowledge of a subject and then make sweeping remarks implying something totally inaccurate. Sarcasm and being a smart-ass are poor substitutes for knowledge.

Nuff said.
edit on 23-5-2013 by bbracken677 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 23 2013 @ 08:58 AM
link   
reply to post by bbracken677


If you want to discuss energy costs in terms of profitability then you have to include transmission and maintenance costs. Transmission and maintenance costs represent almost 2/3 of what you pay for energy for your home or business.


 


Yes well, I was talking about the costs and the margins that Rossi's device would put into question. Beyond that is of absolutely no relevance.

Yes, normally I bring everything you are mentioning into discussion, but as I said, no point in this topic. The production cost (Not delivery et al.) is the only thing changed by Rossi's machine. My point, was simply that there is no reason for the energy industry to try and subversively destroy or suppress or kill off Rossi, literally or metaphorically.

It really doesn't matter, because if the energy industry is in such dire need of lower cost production, again that supports the fact that a system like what is being discussed in the OP would be of great benefit.

In fact, anything based on reality would support that a system such as described in the OP (One that is not a hoax) would be of great benefit to the energy industry.


Unless you think Rossi's hoax is real, by all means defend him. Explain how the energy industry is not interested in something that provides lower cost energy production.




How's this for making a point?: I love it when people have a superficial knowledge of a subject and then make sweeping remarks implying something totally inaccurate. Sarcasm and being a smart-ass are poor substitutes for knowledge.


Ah, and with your jabs at my misuse of a homophone, that's not sarcasm at all right?


You've completely failed to point out where your blabbering relates to the OP, or what I was saying at all. Do you just enjoy making yourself seem knowledgable about something? Is that the benefit to your time on the forum? Do you have a point where you are going with this?

Are you actually going to speak about the OP, or are you going to niggle a strawman argument, arguing a point that I made (which I didn't make) because you saw an opportunity to make yourself look intelligent?

I know you can do bed her than that. (



new topics

top topics



 
23
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join