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.
How am I supposed to get that Cornell did anything based on that quote? It doesn't even mention Cornell.
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.
I have books in my library I haven't verified. So does Cornell.
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.
Yes getting science published in a peer-reviewed journal can be challenging.
Originally posted by Kashai
Getting Published in the Scientific arena is way different than getting published for Moby Dick
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.
Originally posted by Kashai
reply to post by Arbitrageur
Cornell research results are so your point is??
Apparently you don't understand any of it.
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...
Originally posted by Kashai
presents they did an independent review.
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
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
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.
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.
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?)
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
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.)
Here is the list of about 140 moderators:
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.
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.
Originally posted by boncho
Again, Cornell didn't verify anything, so why are you lying/trolling?
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.
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.
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.
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.