It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable 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: 6
<< 3  4  5   >>

log in


posted on May, 23 2013 @ 09:07 AM

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

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:
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.

From what I read the moderators are essentially there only to make sure papers are presented in the right format. Basically, they don't want people dropping in a .xls document accompanied by a few pie charts showing how Conservatives live 7x times longer than Democrats. etc.

Actually, I'm not sure if they even check content at all. But from what I gather, yeah, centred simply around making sure proper formats are respected.

Submissions are reviewed by expert moderators to verify that they are topical and refereeable scientific contributions that follow accepted standards of scholarly communication (as exemplified by conventional journal articles).

It's not hard for people to fake a paper to make it look "scholarly". Just look at the number of people fooled by Rossi's original blog.

The first few months it was being touted as a peer reviewed journal, until someone finally pointed out it was a blog.

I still can't get over the names associated with the paper:

Giuseppe Levi
Bologna University, Bologna, Italy

Evelyn Foschi
Bologna, Italy

Torbjörn Hartman, Bo Höistad, Roland Pettersson and Lars Tegnér
Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden

Hanno Essén
Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm, Sweden

It takes me back to the first video with the two swedes acting dumbstruck. It's a who's who of Rossi's inner circle. What a face palm moment...

posted on May, 23 2013 @ 09:20 AM
reply to post by bbracken677

What I was contesting was your implication that the difference between cost of energy production and what is charged is profit.


You were talking out of your ass by the way. I didn't get into specifics. I gave a initial cost, and a retail cost. If you want to argue that the entire power industry (A trillion dollar market) is not profitable, so be it.

We are basing this all on you being "an industry professional" and the fact that in some way or another Texas managed to lose money in their power companies.

That happened locally too, when it was run by the state, then it was privatized and lo and behold, it made money. But since you only refer to Texas, and projects that are losing money, we should assume the entire industry worldwide is losing money maybe?

What point were you trying to prove besides you work in the industry, and we should all know that, and that makes you super knowledgable about something, so knowledgable that you failed to grasp what I was even saying in that post?

I was saying it costs X amount for energy to be produced (at the production level).

And with Rossi, his machine would cost Y.

But here's the important part. X and Y are very similar. It's not until you get out of the production level that taxes, costs, etc... get added on. (Remember the discussion is about Rossi and how conspiracy nuts claim energy industry giants will not let his device go to market.)

If you agree with them that's fine. You might offer a better explanation.

In any case, I said margins. And there is still a huge margin there.

Case in point, my friend was a COO for an energy company. They did not produce energy. They purchased energy. And then sold to customers.

The energy production facilities, made energy, sold for a few cents to this company. There's the margins I was talking about. The energy company itself, is relieved as soon as the energy goes out of their gates. As transmission is done by another company. So the company my friend worked for, purchased energy, for a set price, paid a set price to another company for distribution. (Or the grid may have been state run at the time, can't recall.)

It doesn't really matter though, because money is being made all the way down the line. The company that they were COO of, did something like 35 million in revenue. Their profit margins were high. I think they brought in somewhere close to 20 million. The individual agents selling were making 50,000 a week.

In any case, it was profitable all the way down the line.

So like I said earlier, show me an industry similar.

Or better yet, explain how the distributors, the sales companies, the production companies... explain how all of them would be hurt someway if they were running the OP contraption (if it were actually real).... Explain how 1/100 of a cent, instead of 1/10 of a cent per kWh would be detrimental to all the people down the line, and all the profit made in the energy industry. Whether or not it be from one company. You, since you're "in the industry" should be familiar.

Or maybe you just have superficial knowledge since you only know what's going on in Texas. And since Texas is one of the few places losing money, to you, you think the entire energy industry is a losing game.

In comparison by the way, take the restaurant industry. (The following are averages and do not apply to exceptions of the rule, obviously) A restaurant's food cost is usually 30% of revenue. 15-20% on fixed costs (insurance, rent, power, etc. 30-35% on salary. 10% on miscellaneous costs.

When you get down on it... You are looking at anywhere from 15 to the negatives for profit margin. But this isn't just the restaurant itself. The vendors associated with restaurants are similar too. Even equipment vendors, they get their stock/products at 50% of MSRP obviously, like most wholesaler/retailers do. Except, they sell for only a few percent over because of demand, and saturation in the market. There is such a great number of turnovers in the restaurant industry, that it's easy for new owners to find used equipment. To be competitive, the vendors have to sell at a fraction over cost, and well below MSRP. Consider the employees (sales) making absolutely squat at the majority of establishments. Rent? $50-150/square foot, in a decent size city. With about 50,000 walking traffic. Problem is, the property is so expensive to begin with, barely a profit for the landlord. We're talking a few percent. Real estate for the most part, is usually a 6% return. Even 6% is peanuts though, considering what kinds of returns companies in the energy industry are seeing.

Do you get my point now? Even if company XYZ is not producing energy, and bringing it directly to a customers home, all the companies in between are making profit as well.

Like I pointed out:

Take one industry like....

Restaurant industry is worth 1000 billion

and compare it to the energy industry.....

Global energy industry value, 6000 billion

So if it costs 1/10 of a cent, to produce a kWh, and customers are paying 8-15 cents at retail cost, there is a lot of money to be made along the way. Yes, of that goes to costs/expenses. I'm not even sure of your point about this though, because I was saying how unlikely it is, for an energy corporation to "off" Rossi, because they see him as a "threat".

Are you saying you see Rossi as a threat to the energy industry?


The most important part is that 1/10 of a cent that it costs to produce. Or even if it's 5/10 of a cent. let's say for a second that Rossi wasn't a convicted fraudster, and that this machine was not an elaborate hoax...

The money made in between is a bunch of other companies, lobbies, associations. (Entirely depending on the location though, as some places have state run, state sponsored, state subsidized energy programs.) In some places, one company may handle production and delivery and xyz. .. etc, etc.

But in any case, even with Rossis magical box, those companies all still want to make their portion. Nothing changes. The only difference is more money could be made at the low end of the industry. That's it. And energy producers would be looking to buy out Rossi. Buy his licenses... Buy the units, whatever...

It just means more profit at the low end. SO the guys producing at 1/10 cent, maybe now they can produce 1/50, and boost their profit margins. If they are not doing delivery and simply dumping at .0195 to energy sales companies, their margins would be huuuuge.

(1) - (2) - (3) - (4)
edit on 23-5-2013 by boncho because: (no reason given)

posted on May, 23 2013 @ 09:24 AM
Rossi is a lying fraudster. His little box of tricks is filled with pixie dust and moon cheese.

posted on May, 23 2013 @ 09:55 AM

Originally posted by Sankari
Rossi is a lying fraudster. His little box of tricks is filled with pixie dust and moon cheese.

Moon Cheese is what they used to power the Quadro Tracker isn't it? aka: Positive molecule locator.

I think I have one of the best posts on Rossi Here.

He claimed his machine was working, and it was nuclear.
Soooo..... Florida Bureau of Radiation Control, obviously got pretty damn interested seeing that he just set up his company in Florida.

Now, to scam entice new investors, he was claiming he had orders for his 1MW reactors. It's a little confusing because at one point he said he had a bunch of orders, one reactor got "sent back" supposedly when someone took a picture of it after he claimed it was delivered. (Convenient?) and he was saying he had a bunch of state-side operations, that he would be manufacturing stateside, etc. But wait, FBRC comes down on him and all of a sudden his story does a 180.
Go figure.

Rossi gets burned in a plethora of lies, including but not limited to:

Rossi’s statements contradict nearly everything he has said in the last year about his claims of a factory and his development of a low-energy nuclear reaction device.

Rossi told the bureau that his device produces thermal energy of six times the electrical energy input. However, for the last several years, Rossi claimed nuclear reactions occur in his device.

We also find out at that time that his new corporation in FL, (Which at one point I think was claimed to be a production facility), turned out to be a condo.

posted on May, 23 2013 @ 10:10 AM
Here's a quote from the paper:

Given the deliberately conservative choices made in performing the measurement, we can reasonably state that the E-Cat HT is a non-conventional source of energy which lies between conventional chemical sources of energy and nuclear ones.


E-Cat HT performance calculation At this point all that remains to be done, in order to get the performance (COP) of the E-Cat HT, is to add the radiated power to the power dispersed by convection, and relate the result to the - 12 - power supplied to the heating elements. Conservatively, we can associate to these values a percentage error of 10%, in order to comprise various sources of uncertainty: those relevant to the consumption measurements of the E-Cat HT, those inherent in the limited range of frequencies upon which the IR cameras operate, and those linked to the calculation of average temperatures.
From (8) and from (17) we have:
1568 + 466 = (2034 ± 203) [W] (18)
COP = 2034/360 = 5.6 ± 0.8

360W is the device's power consumption. 2034W is the output, which leads to a 5.6 factor, very close to the 6x energy production claimed by Rossi for so long.

posted on May, 23 2013 @ 10:18 AM

Originally posted by boncho

Originally posted by Sankari
Rossi is a lying fraudster. His little box of tricks is filled with pixie dust and moon cheese.

Moon Cheese is what they used to power the Quadro Tracker isn't it? aka: Positive molecule locator.

I think I have one of the best posts on Rossi Here.

That is top shelf comedy gold, nice one!

posted on May, 23 2013 @ 03:16 PM

Originally posted by boncho

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. (

posted on May, 23 2013 @ 03:32 PM
reply to post by boncho

I am not going to dignify most of your wall of text with a response other than the last paragraph. The part where the energy companies would just pocket the difference in profit. I guess that is why, in Texas, pricing fluctuates daily...oh wait. Since retail pricing fluctuates daily and is pretty much a slave to natural gas prices that means that they are NOT pocketing the change.
As to why I speak of Texas's industry...I do not claim any expertise in a regulated market. Personally, based on what I have seen, I am pretty sure that a regulated market is more likely to screw the customer than a competitive de-regulated market. My expertise, such as it is, resides strictly in the Texas market and no other. If that is a fault, that I do not make sweeping generalizations, but rather speak to the market I am familiar with, then I am guilty as charged.

Oh...and you play down my posts, but I will post your original statement which clearly makes the claims and alludes to the point I have been making all along.

Originally posted by boncho

I hate to break it to you guys, but energy is produced in mills. 1/10 of One cent, per kWh. That's damn near nothing. Not even a penny. It means you could run your microwave, for ten hours straight. And it only cost the energy companies a penny to do that. They charge you around 8-15 pennies for that though. (if I remember correctly.)

Find a profit margin like that in another industry, I dare you.

It's not that easy.

Energy is already ridiculous profitable, if they found something cheaper, they would simply use that, charge you the same price and boost their margins.

That's how making money works, hate to burst your bubble.

Simply put: The profit margin you quote here is wrong. Not by a little bit either. You are not even close.

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

posted on May, 23 2013 @ 04:16 PM
reply to post by bbracken677

Simply put: The profit margin you quote here is wrong. Not by a little bit either. You are not even close


So in other words, once that 1/10 of a cent cost is produced, is all losses down the line? I just posted an example of a COO I personally know, who's company made millions, simply signing contracts. The global energy industry is worth 6000 billion, you are telling me its all losses down the line?

posted on May, 23 2013 @ 04:40 PM
reply to post by boncho

Where do you get it's all losses down the line? Not once have I implied, stated or suggested that... Are you trolling?

If you are referring to the EFH bankruptcy, they are but one energy producer in the state, and they carried over debt from before deregulation. They were unable to survive in the new competitive environment carrying that load. There is a lot more involved than what you are trying to simplify that down to...I am reminded of someone flailing at a pinata with a stick.

Of course there is profit. Without profit how would the system continue, specially given the ongoing closures of coal fired plants removing supply from the system?

Either you are trolling or you are being intentionally obtuse.

As part of the deregulation, there are companies that produce energy, that compete. There are companies that are responsible for the infrastructure (the delivery of energy) and there are the retail providers. Not everyone is as successful as the next, but that is what competition is all about. Competition also assures lower prices, which is one reason why Texas has low energy prices compared to the rest of the nation, particularly regulated states without competition.

If there were no bankruptcies then I would tend to say that there is too much fat in the pricing, but with retail providers in a highly competitive mode there is not much fat at all.

Surely you would agree that a corporation should be entitled to a decent profit provided they are run efficiently? Surely you would agree that a profit of 5-8% is not unreasonable?

posted on May, 23 2013 @ 06:33 PM
reply to post by bbracken677

Either you are trolling or you are being intentionally obtuse.


Look, Mr. Energy Professional that only knows things related to Texas. I stated the cost of energy production, and what it retails to the customer. And I stated the profit margins are good throughout. Yes there is costs, but there is profit. Whether it is one company, or ten companies making money "down the line" (ie, from sales, transmission, etc.) it doesn't matter. Each company is turning a profit in most cases. Simply because the company you work for, or your state has regulatory issues, or something backwards where it's not making money, does not reflect the rest of the industry.

If you read my "wall of text" you would have seen it's a 6 trillion dollar industry. Simply because your state or your company doesn't make money doesn't mean others don't.

It's a 6 trillion dollar industry where profit is made, all the way up and down the line. From power plant to someone plugging their microwave in.

Just drop it. You didn't have a point to make besides clarifying that there are added costs in there. It still wasn't relevant to the point I was making.

Give it up already.

Go home.

You can find plenty of threads where I discuss the economics of energy production, transfer, sales, efficiency losses, etc. I didn't go into it, because it's not relevant.

You, and your discussion, is off topic, irrelevant.

posted on May, 23 2013 @ 07:46 PM
reply to post by boncho

There you go again flailing at the pinata and not understanding simple words. I quite clearly stated there were profits.

I also posted your exact quote alleging that the difference between energy cost production in mills and the retail price of energy was profit.

You, your words, wrong. Your understanding of my reply and my point, also wrong.

Off topic? Yes, you are right.

I am done with this particular troll.

posted on May, 23 2013 @ 09:57 PM
reply to post by Arbitrageur

Well I used quotes as for those people that have supposedly been killed for bringing forth worth inf o on energy that would effect those markets.

There are many that would say their deaths were just,accidents, hence the quotes.

posted on May, 25 2013 @ 08:24 PM

Originally posted by bbracken677
reply to post by boncho

There you go again flailing at the pinata and not understanding simple words. I quite clearly stated there were profits.

I also posted your exact quote alleging that the difference between energy cost production in mills and the retail price of energy was profit.

You, your words, wrong. Your understanding of my reply and my point, also wrong.

Off topic? Yes, you are right.

I am done with this particular troll.

So why did you go off topic? My point was there was profit to be made from the point of energy production, to the point it hits retail. That Rossi's contraption (if it worked) would not jeopardize those profits.

Either you disagree with me on that, and you think Rossi would put in jeopardy the energy industry as a whole, and you believe "big oil" is suppressing "free energy". Or you believe the entire energy industry to be a costly venture with no profit to be made.

Or you agree with me.

It's not my fault you jump on an argument you only took time to look at superficial, and you niggled invalid points that were not the structure of the argument to begin with.

Choose your battles wisely next time.

posted on May, 26 2013 @ 05:30 AM
I don't know if it's been said, but the 'Third Party' "verification" is only verification more heat is produced than should be. Rossi did not allow them to look at what was producing the heat.

This is equivalent to my saying I have a car running on Fairy Dust, and you can test drive it to prove it works, but you can't look under the hood.

Knowing there is heat without verification of that heat's source is meaningless.

new topics

top topics

<< 3  4  5   >>

log in