Re: [Vo]:Passerini's Prediction
2011/8/4 Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.com: Now, if you assessed the probability at 70%, rationally you would bet 40 euros against a lesser amount from me. Suppose my bet is X euros. Forget the charity thing, it complicates it. It is impossible to assess probabilities for one time events, such as for the reality of Rossi's cold fusion. They are black swans and probabilities associated to them are meaningless. But it is not impossible to invest money on that one time event, because it does not require rationality to justify human intuition. By the way, it is true that people continuously does that mistake that they are assessing probabilities for one time events. This can cause lots of harm in financial sector, because they continuously underestimate the power of black swans, and result is financial crisis like in 2008. Therefore your game theory calculations are just unscientific, and you really do not understand well game theory, if you try to apply it here. However, my position, and you have to understand that I'm not willing to bet on Rossi unreal, there are way to many unknowns, and I've never claimed that the E-cat is unreal. In this subject, even partial success for Rossi is greatest success since invention of fire. Therefore there is only two possible outcomes, either E-Cat is 100% real or 100% unreal. Nothing in between. If you try to see such gray shades between, you are mistaken. Here only black and white are possible outcomes. What I've been claiming is that Rossi has fraudulently exaggerated the tests (mostly by allowing others to make assumptions that favor him, and he obviously encouraged that), and that, further, he appears not to have solved the reliability problem -- assuming he has anything at all. If you get 2 kilowatts of power from cold fusion experiment in every 10 000 demonstrations it is reliable enough to invest few teraeuros for cold fusion research. I remind you that financial value of cold fusion device that can produce net energy, is few gigadollars per hour! Therefore if we have even slightest hint that there is any anomalous nuclear fusion events at low temperature, ALL available global resources would be diverted to cold fusion research. Because global economy is depended on energy and it suffers chronic lack of energy. With free or almost free energy, global economy could quadruple in matter of few years. Nuclear energy is so valuable, that even if we need some precious metal to do the job, then we would go to asteroids and dig it from there. People often forget how valuable energy is, because we are surrounded by energy. So what I'd bet on would be that he fails to deliver by a certain deadline. Natural deadline for scientific validation of E-Cat is the end of this year. He put himself in a position where he must complete development under the gun, and he claims to be working 18-hour days. He may well be! These are the conditions that lead me to expect he is likely to fail. He cannot fail, because it takes just few weeks to build working 1MW plant, if not just few days. What Rossi is doing is making it better, i.e. doing research. Few weeks ago Rossi stated, that he started again all over from the beginning, because he found more efficient solution. There is no indications that he lags with the schedule. More problematic is whether Defkalion is ready to start manufacturing at November. If they are going to, they really should start heavy investments for building a factory very soon. Rational bets (also called investments) balance expected reward times probability of success with expected loss. In 1989 and the ensuing years, a lot of people and companies bet that cold fusion could be commercialized. They lost the bet, but that doesn't mean it was a foolish bet. It was not rational bet, because there is no such thing as probability for one-time-event. It's been said that perhaps he was just turning down the power because it had started to overheat. Here's the problem with that: Lewan had turned away to go look at the hose. Lewan's video shows no obvious steam coming from the hose. Then there is steam, much more. Lewan turns back to Rossi, who is seeing nonchalantly withdrawing his hand from the heat controls, gazing at the camera like there is absolutely nothing on his mind. I could imagine him whistling. Nothing going on here? Lewan doesn't ask him. That would be rude, eh? However, the sounds of boiling apparently stop. Lewan goes over and videos the input current. The same as before. It had only been a couple of minutes. This kind of foolish speculation and accusation is outright insulting! Mats checked steam several times during the 7 hours what he was there present besides the working E-Cat. You are a fool that if you think that 5 min video does capture it all! The whole point of Rossi, the reason why everyone got so excited, was the level of the claims and the implied reliability. If Rossi's device
Re: [Vo]:Passerini's Prediction
2011/8/4 Abd ul-Rahman Lomaxa...@lomaxdesign.com: Now, if you assessed the probability at 70%, rationally you would bet 40 euros against a lesser amount from me. Suppose my bet is X euros. Forget the charity thing, it complicates it. It is impossible to assess probabilities for one time events, Nonsense. At the end of Dark Star one of the astronauts stands on a piece of debris and attempts to surf down to the surface of the planet. If he does everything just right, and if he's really lucky, it's conceivable that he could survive. Would you say it's really impossible to say anything about the *probability* of that occuring? Yet, it's a one-time event. The mistake you are making is thinking that because an event is apparently different in some way from other events, you can't lump them together when figuring expected returns. If you really only ever did one thing in your life, the expected return on that thing would have little meaning, but that's not the case.
Re: [Vo]:Passerini's Prediction
From Terry: I came to a conclusion of fraud, defined as wilful deception, after seeing a lot of evidence for it, which I was always explaining away, as did others. If I thought there could be the slightest possibility that Rossi and Defkalion were not committing fraud, I think I'd keep my mouth shut. After all, this is one of the definitive forums for cold fusion; and, if you are wrong and the company is worth billions in a few years, they might seek damages if not retribution for those who judged poorly and defamed their name. Just a little advice. Seems to me that if it turns out Defkalion never committed fraud, why would they care what Abd suspected, or any critic might have said for that matter. As far as retribution is concerned, perhaps getting even would entail nothing more satisfying than generating a well publicized list of all the meticulous things nay-sayers had proclaimed. Leave it at that. Punishment would entail nothing more disgraceful than having their skeptical arguments prominently plastered as additional advertisement fodder. They said it couldn't be done... that it was a fraud! and off to the races they go. Regards Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]:Passerini's Prediction
At 08:38 PM 8/3/2011, Terry Blanton wrote: On Wed, Aug 3, 2011 at 8:08 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.com wrote: I came to a conclusion of fraud, defined as wilful deception, after seeing a lot of evidence for it, which I was always explaining away, as did others. If I thought there could be the slightest possibility that Rossi and Defkalion were not committing fraud, I think I'd keep my mouth shut. Not I. If it's even possible that it's fraud, I'd warn my friends, and I'd do so publically, providing the evidence. I warned about the possibility of fraud back in February, because it was possible (and it will remain possible until there are fully idependent validations). What flipped was that I now conclude that fraud is *probable.* Therefore I state it that way. Rossi is a public figure now, and there isn't a snowball's chance in hell he'd prevail on a libel claim. I don't intend to damage him by this claim, and an intention of damage is essential to actionable libel, anyway. After all, this is one of the definitive forums for cold fusion; and, if you are wrong and the company is worth billions in a few years, they might seek damages if not retribution for those who judged poorly and defamed their name. Just a little advice. Their lawyer would advise them differently. I don't have a lawyer, can't afford one. I'm essentially judgment-proof, they could stand in line behind the IRS if they want to. They wouldn't see any money. No, what I have at stake is my own reputation. That cuts both ways.
Re: [Vo]:Passerini's Prediction
On Thu, Aug 4, 2011 at 11:45 AM, OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson svj.orionwo...@gmail.com wrote: As far as retribution is concerned, perhaps getting even would entail nothing more satisfying than generating a well publicized list of all the meticulous things nay-sayers had proclaimed. Some of these people are Italian, maybe Sicilian. 'Nuff said. T
Re: [Vo]:Passerini's Prediction
Accoriding Steven Krivit (#3 report and some earlier writing), Daniele was also present at 18 hour test (i have not seen other sources). Therefore he is within the greates fraud of cold fusion or tells truth that world is saved, because he knows with certainty whether E-Cat is for real or a hoax. I guess that indeed he is right, because impact will enormous, both mental and economical. Not least because people ask why this was not 'discovered' earlier? Why we have poured so many gigadollars and several kiloscientists to ridiculous hot fusion research what is at it's best something that we definetely do not want (expensive and polluting). —Jouni
Re: [Vo]:Passerini's Prediction
On Wed, Aug 3, 2011 at 3:42 AM, Jouni Valkonen jounivalko...@gmail.com wrote: Accoriding Steven Krivit (#3 report and some earlier writing), Daniele was also present at 18 hour test (i have not seen other sources). Indeed he was; and, Daniele has more insider knowledge than Krivit since Daniele has known Levi for decades. T
Re: [Vo]:Passerini's Prediction
At 03:42 AM 8/3/2011, Jouni Valkonen wrote: Accoriding Steven Krivit (#3 report and some earlier writing), Daniele was also present at 18 hour test (i have not seen other sources). Therefore he is within the greates fraud of cold fusion or tells truth that world is saved, because he knows with certainty whether E-Cat is for real or a hoax. Passerini doesn't know for certain, period. The 18 hour test was, very likely, flawed, i.e., while the approach would seem to be more reliable, the way it was done damaged that reliability. I get an image from the old Keystone Cop movies, of clowns falling all over each other. I won't list the problems with that test, but conclusive, it was not. Further, I now strongly suspect Rossi of a type of fraud. He's quite capable of deception, and once that possibility exists with support, it's impossible to trust any demonstration that he controls. If he's for real, he could still arrange conclusive testing, but he's been adamant in opposition to it, consider Jed Rothwell's offer. From what I understand, the 18-hour test would have been operating out of control. When power allegedly hit 130 kW, the reaction chamber would have melted down. Even if this thing didn't melt for some reason, control by heat would obviously not be possible any more, that control depends on remaining below optimal operating temperature (and that's a reason why Rossi downgraded his COP claims, if we want to continue postulating that he's for real), and control by cooling would also not be possible, because they were already running the most possible water available through the device, 1 liter per second. If I'd have seen that power level, I'd have immediately flooded the thing with nitrogen, if I didn't just run! We don't have data on that test. Sure, Passerini might have been convinced. That does not mean that he's on on the fraud. It could mean that he's been fooled just like everyone else. (What could be wrong with that test? My comment above about 130 kW is a how come argument, and these are never conclusive. This one just indicates a reason to be suspicious. More to the point would be that we don't have data; but if we extrapolate from what Levi told Nyteknik about this test, the temperature rise from the heating was about 5 degrees or so. The heating was measured inside the E-cat, instead of in the hose. So temperature differentials inside the E-cat could explain this. Without detailed data, no way to tell.) I guess that indeed he is right, because impact will enormous, both mental and economical. Not least because people ask why this was not 'discovered' earlier? Why we have poured so many gigadollars and several kiloscientists to ridiculous hot fusion research what is at it's best something that we definetely do not want (expensive and polluting). That error stands even if Rossi is as phoney as a wooden nickel. However, if Rossi fails to deliver in October -- no matter what the reason! -- the entire field of cold fusion takes a black eye, and the researchers and supporters who jumped on the bandwagon without adequate evidence (or naively believing that there was adequate evidence) will have been responsible, by default if nothing else. Some researchers have been assiduous in pointing out the problems, but others have supported Rossi, particularly by deflecting the bogus impossibility arguments without making it clear that just because Ni-H reactions are possible doesn't mean that Rossi actually has done what he claimed. And I'd now bet that Rossi will fail to deliver. Rossi's recent comments indicate that he is still struggling with reliability. That's almost the whole banana! Getting occasionally strong results is a classic cold fusion phenomenon, and addressing this, finding strong evidence, required using statistical techniques and correlated results, and strong controls. Rossi has denied the value of controls. Since he has *not* solved the reliability problem, and while it's not impossible that he will, the strong indication is that without major funding and without plenty of time, he won't make it. He's got to pull a rabbit out of a hat. Only he knows how close he is, so I could be wrong. But I wouldn't bet on it. If he's working 18-hour days to meet the deadline, he's on the edge. Or over it. Rossi's fraud is about the strength and reliability of his results, and I find that evidence of deliberate deception there is overwhelming, that's a very recent conclusion, just yesterday. He knows what he's doing. The end game: if he delivers by the end of October, obviously the demonstration fraud becomes almost completely irrelevant. If he does not deliver, he's probably going to have to arrange real demonstrations to continue. Those demonstrations will no longer be naive, and conclusive techniques will be used to deal with his black box. They do not require him to disclose his secret, at all. They can address
Re: [Vo]:Passerini's Prediction
Consider how futile it should be to make a prediction six months out, as Rossi did regarding October, if reliability was still being addressed the entire time. That does not smell right. One can only predict confidently about well controlled processes. Why arbitrarily box oneself in like that? Sent from my iPhone. On Aug 3, 2011, at 11:17, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.com wrote: However, if Rossi fails to deliver in October… And I'd now bet that Rossi will fail to deliver. Rossi's recent comments indicate that he is still struggling with reliability.
Re: [Vo]:Passerini's Prediction
I don't see any problem with 130KW, given it was just a spike in power with a base at 18KW, which is measured by the amount of steam poured. That means a 7 time increase in speed of the steam for some seconds. It probably blew as strong as a vacuum cleaner.
Re: [Vo]:Passerini's Prediction
2011/8/3 Charles Hope lookslikeiwasri...@gmail.com: Consider how futile it should be to make a prediction six months out, as Rossi did regarding October, if reliability was still being addressed the entire time. That does not smell right. One can only predict confidently about well controlled processes. Why arbitrarily box oneself in like that? There has not been anything that prevents technology to not work. Only thing what Rossi has fixed is reliabilty and control power efficiency. This means that technology is getting cheaper than he previously estimated. Abd ul-Rahman, you are free to express your opinion, but it is just speculation. There is absolutely nothing in your criticism that has any factual content. Question is how much money you are willing to bet for your opinion? I will challenge you for 40 euros that Rossi does not do a fraud. If E-Cat is true, you pay 40 euros to charity, and if not I pay 40 euros for charity. - Jouni
Re: [Vo]:Passerini's Prediction
Considering Jouni's recent challenge: ...I will challenge you for 40 euros that Rossi does not do a fraud. If E-Cat is true, you pay 40 euros to charity, and if not I pay 40 euros for charity. This strikes me as a civilized bet, one that could be formalized between two reasonable individuals who respectfully differ on certain opinions. The only problem with this wager, as I perceive it, is how does one determine fraud? Granted, if Rossi's dog and pony show gets off the ground in October Abd would be obliged to generously pay 40 euros to his favorite charity. But if October comes and goes, does that automatically mean Rossi is a fraud, and Charles needs to reciprocate? Of course not, particularly if technical difficulties become more apparent as the deadline approaches. My own predilections pertaining to the fascinating Rossi enigma is that technical difficulties may delay the October show - or perhaps it will be significantly downgraded into a less impressive demo. Of course, I hope I'm wrong. Perhaps Charles and Hope should set a realistic time-table or deadline for when fraud should be officially declared. Regards Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]:Passerini's Prediction
2011/8/3 OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson svj.orionwo...@gmail.com: Considering Jouni's recent challenge: ...I will challenge you for 40 euros that Rossi does not do a fraud. If E-Cat is true, you pay 40 euros to charity, and if not I pay 40 euros for charity. Perhaps Charles and Hope should set a realistic time-table or deadline for when fraud should be officially declared. End of the year 2011 is reasonable deadline for scientific validation of Rossi's Cold Fusion technology. I think that Rossi is reasonable enough person that even if he fails with commercialization with his own efforts, he does not keep partially working technology only by himself in order to perfect it in unforeseeable future. This is why Randell Mills is a ethical criminal, because he has had so long time working cold fusion device and he has refused to bring it to public even though his commercialization efforts has not borne any fruits for several years. Of course there is that possible explanation that Mills does not have any new and ground breaking scientific evidence, but we should not condemn people as fraudsters without proper evidence. - Jouni Ps. However, I will condemn Mills crack pot theory as false, because he is explaining cold fusion effect by dark matter. This is very feeble argument, because there is no such thing as dark matter or at least, we do not have any evidence that supports that hypothesis!
Re: [Vo]:Passerini's Prediction
At 11:58 AM 8/3/2011, Charles Hope wrote: At 11:58 AM 8/3/2011, you wrote: Consider how futile it should be to make a prediction six months out, as Rossi did regarding October, if reliability was still being addressed the entire time. That does not smell right. One can only predict confidently about well controlled processes. Why arbitrarily box oneself in like that? It's just one more example of how Rossi's behavior doesn't make sense, if we assume him to be rational. However, human beings are often not rational. Some will, for example, boast of what they haven't actually got in hand, believing that they *will* have it in hand. This is the picture as it has developed, with some extrapolations by me. Aspects of this could be completely wrong. Focardi is aging, and wanted a public demonstration. Rossi wasn't ready, but wanted to please Focardi. So he held a demo. The demo was of a device that wasn't working really reliably, and the demonstration method left a great deal to be desired. Criticism started to appear. Bottom line, though, Rossi wasn't ready. He had, or at least believed he had, occasional results that were large. Was he fooling himself? I don't know. I do know that the assumption of full vaporization was seductive, and could be very wrong. Rossi was divided. Part of him wished he'd never done a demo. The demo tipped off competition and fired it up. It also drew a great deal of attention to his checkered past. But he did respond to requests for more demonstrations, but he needed to cover up the problems. He'd managed to create an *impression* of a lot of heat, and he absolutely wasn't interested in negating that. So he dismissed all criticisms with his standard refrain, I'll be ready in October. October seemed, then, so far away. Surely he could solve the problems by then! And he manipulated the demos to make them more impressive. He was trapped by his secrecy and by his ego. He could have simply said, no comment. He could have stopped all demos after the first. Or he could have allowed a conclusive demo. However, a conclusive demo risks the E-cat involved being a dud. And Rossi, again, has mixed motives.
Re: [Vo]:Passerini's Prediction
At 12:00 PM 8/3/2011, Daniel Rocha wrote: I don't see any problem with 130KW, given it was just a spike in power with a base at 18KW, which is measured by the amount of steam poured. That means a 7 time increase in speed of the steam for some seconds. It probably blew as strong as a vacuum cleaner. No, the water flow was so high that 130 kW only increased the temperature by 33 degrees. There was no steam in this demonstration. (More accurately, the measured temperature, according to Levi, increased by 33 degrees. However, in the steam tests, the velocity at 18 kW would be tornado velocity, I think, or more than that. 130 kW would probably rip up the hoses, etc.)
Re: [Vo]:Passerini's Prediction
Yeah, I saw that later and acknowledged that in the other thread about 18 hour test. Answer me there :)
Re: [Vo]:Passerini's Prediction
I was thinking about a thick hose, anyway :)
Re: [Vo]:Passerini's Prediction
At 01:34 PM 8/3/2011, Jouni Valkonen wrote: Abd ul-Rahman, you are free to express your opinion, but it is just speculation. There is absolutely nothing in your criticism that has any factual content. Question is how much money you are willing to bet for your opinion? I will challenge you for 40 euros that Rossi does not do a fraud. If E-Cat is true, you pay 40 euros to charity, and if not I pay 40 euros for charity. I'm willing to make an investment of a kind, but at this point I consider the possibility of *delivery on-time* to be less than fifty percent. You are offering even odds, and, further, I'd be taking a risk for no real gain. Rossi did that. I won't. Remember, I've concluded that Rossi is a fraud, but that does not mean that his reactors never work, nor that he will fail to make them work. Somehow the subtle distinctions evade some people. He's a fraud because he has presented deceptive evidence. People sometimes do this even to support what they believe is true, and even to support what is actually true. Happens all the time! Tell me, Jouni, what do you think the odds are for Rossi delivering by the end of October? I could then consider a rational investment in the future of this thing. The test is not whether or not Rossi is real because there is no way to prove that reliably under all conditions. Perhas the test would be Rossi making the end of October dealine he's mentioned. He delivers and Defkalion pays him, as a demonstration of satisfaction with the delivery. Jouni, I've done a great deal of research on this topic. What I write is not mere speculation. You commented that absolutely nothing in your criticism has any factual content. So the links I've provided to steam calculators, to manufacturer web pages, to the evidence published by Nyteknik, and so forth, don't exist? Jouni, you are incautious about what you write. I'll make that equivalent to deluded.
Re: [Vo]:Passerini's Prediction
2011/8/4 Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.com: I've done a great deal of research on this topic. Problem is that mere research is not enough, because you need to be able to do your own conclusions from data and that includes reading other people's mind from between the lines. This is very difficult, because we have always only partial knowledge from other people's mind and there is not much visible words in between lines, but this is also the most difficult and most advanced task what human brain can perform, so that it can phenomenally well construct good working theory of other people's mind and real intentions although data is grossly insufficient. There is no facts that support your opinion. I am also done my research and I can say that there is nothing that contradicts the grand scheme (Isotopic ratios are the strongest argument, but I have not seen results of final analysis by Swedish scientists. Krivit also stated in his #3 report that Nickel-62 enrichment is extremely expensive, but I think that he does not know what he is saying), but I admit that I need to dig perhaps too deep into Rossi's mind. Therefore I am only €40 sure that E-Cat is part of reality! It is unscientific to say that I am 70% sure that E-Cat is real. It is better to say that I am €40 sure that E-Cat is real!, what means that I am ready to bet for 40 euros that E-Cat is real. It is sad that I do not have confidence to bet 400 euros, because several people would take the bet, because they are absolutely sure that cold fusion was debunked in 1989 by MIT hot fusion researchers. Several people has already promised to eat their hat and if it is not a straw hat, it is not very healthy for you. But of course it is frustrating that I have no other evidence to support my claim than my opinion. However I have made a slight contribution, that I showed a method how it is possible to calculate accurately enough the real output of E-Cat demonstrations and thus remove the most presented critical arguments. It is not Rossi's fault that he exaggerated the power output, but wrong doers are those scientist, who were unable to do appropriate power output calculations from temperature value. For example, several people ignored completely such a basic experimental protocol as calibrating thermometer. This is unforgivable mistake to do! - Jouni
Re: [Vo]:Passerini's Prediction
At 05:57 PM 8/3/2011, Jouni Valkonen wrote: 2011/8/4 Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.com: I've done a great deal of research on this topic. Problem is that mere research is not enough, because you need to be able to do your own conclusions from data and that includes reading other people's mind from between the lines. This is very difficult, because we have always only partial knowledge from other people's mind and there is not much visible words in between lines, but this is also the most difficult and most advanced task what human brain can perform, so that it can phenomenally well construct good working theory of other people's mind and real intentions although data is grossly insufficient. It's what normal people do all the time, Jouni. Sure, it can easily be flawed. It takes experience. Most of what I've written, though, is not about other people's minds. I came to a conclusion of fraud, defined as wilful deception, after seeing a lot of evidence for it, which I was always explaining away, as did others. There is no facts that support your opinion. Jouni, you say what you do not know. I am also done my research and I can say that there is nothing that contradicts the grand scheme (Isotopic ratios are the strongest argument, but I have not seen results of final analysis by Swedish scientists. We have two pieces of evidence on this. We have the results from the Swedish scientists, a preliminary report, showing no isotopic anomalies. And we have Rossi's claim, backed now by some charts with no explanation that Krivit carried away. Strongest argument? Strongest argument for what? I'm focusing on heat. Period. Large amounts of heat. Small amounts, you must be aware, could have chemical explanations. Krivit also stated in his #3 report that Nickel-62 enrichment is extremely expensive, but I think that he does not know what he is saying), but I admit that I need to dig perhaps too deep into Rossi's mind. He knows what he's saying. More likely, though, Rossi wasn't careful and made yet another mistake. Jouni, what was your education? Therefore I am only 40 sure that E-Cat is part of reality! It is unscientific to say that I am 70% sure that E-Cat is real. It is better to say that I am 40 sure that E-Cat is real!, what meaans that I am ready to bet for 40 euros that E-Cat is real. You bet 40 euros, I bet 1. Okay? Jouni, you don't know how to read what I've been writing, much less understand what's going on with the Rossi reactor, and you are not careful about what you write. 40 sure doesn't express any particular level of surety. But if the payoff were 1, it would express a highly level of confidence. How sure? 40 sure. Right? Now, if you assessed the probability at 70%, rationally you would bet 40 euros against a lesser amount from me. Suppose my bet is X euros. Forget the charity thing, it complicates it. Game theory for 40 at stake. Expected position: Rossi real: 0.7 (40 + X) Rosse unreal: 0.3 (0) Overall expectation: 28 + 0.7 X. It's even to make the bet if X = $17.14. However, my position, and you have to understand that I'm not willing to bet on Rossi unreal, there are way to many unknowns, and I've never claimed that the E-cat is unreal. What I've been claiming is that Rossi has fraudulently exaggerated the tests (mostly by allowing others to make assumptions that favor him, and he obviously encouraged that), and that, further, he appears not to have solved the reliability problem -- assuming he has anything at all. So what I'd bet on would be that he fails to deliver by a certain deadline. Notice, as well, that fraud does not mean that he fails to deliver. It's not surprising, I suppose, that some people aren't able to parse this. Fraud only means that he misrepresented the demonstrations, or deliberately conducted them in a certain way. He put himself in a position where he must complete development under the gun, and he claims to be working 18-hour days. He may well be! These are the conditions that lead me to expect he is likely to fail. It's not exactly the fraud. The fraud indicates a kind of desperation, if it's not just a habit of exaggeration. (This fraud is a kind of exaggeration. It's not even necessarily illegal, in business it's called puffery. But it can be illegal under some conditions, where the false claim is a crucial element of the transaction.) It is sad that I do not have confidence to bet 400 euros, because several people would take the bet, because they are absolutely sure that cold fusion was debunked in 1989 by MIT hot fusion researchers. Several people has already promised to eat their hat and if it is not a straw hat, it is not very healthy for you. Look, I know that case, extremely well. They are wrong, but that's not the point. A bet must be based on a specific outcome, or it's a formula for endless and regressive argument. Rational bets (also called investments)
Re: [Vo]:Passerini's Prediction
“Ps. However, I will condemn Mills crack pot theory as false, because he is explaining cold fusion effect by dark matter. This is very feeble argument, because there is no such thing as dark matter or at least, we do not have any evidence that supports that hypothesis! http://pubs.rsc.org/en/Content/ArticleLanding/2004/CP/b400402g Leif Holmlid : snipRydberg Matter has recently been proposed to be part of the dark matter in the Universe, to be the source of the so called UIR emission bands from interstellar space and to give rise to the Faraday rotation in intergalactic space.snip Mills crack pot theory may be correct. On Wed, Aug 3, 2011 at 2:18 PM, Jouni Valkonen jounivalko...@gmail.comwrote: 2011/8/3 OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson svj.orionwo...@gmail.com: Considering Jouni's recent challenge: ...I will challenge you for 40 euros that Rossi does not do a fraud. If E-Cat is true, you pay 40 euros to charity, and if not I pay 40 euros for charity. Perhaps Charles and Hope should set a realistic time-table or deadline for when fraud should be officially declared. End of the year 2011 is reasonable deadline for scientific validation of Rossi's Cold Fusion technology. I think that Rossi is reasonable enough person that even if he fails with commercialization with his own efforts, he does not keep partially working technology only by himself in order to perfect it in unforeseeable future. This is why Randell Mills is a ethical criminal, because he has had so long time working cold fusion device and he has refused to bring it to public even though his commercialization efforts has not borne any fruits for several years. Of course there is that possible explanation that Mills does not have any new and ground breaking scientific evidence, but we should not condemn people as fraudsters without proper evidence. - Jouni Ps. However, I will condemn Mills crack pot theory as false, because he is explaining cold fusion effect by dark matter. This is very feeble argument, because there is no such thing as dark matter or at least, we do not have any evidence that supports that hypothesis!
Re: [Vo]:Passerini's Prediction
On Wed, Aug 3, 2011 at 8:08 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.com wrote: I came to a conclusion of fraud, defined as wilful deception, after seeing a lot of evidence for it, which I was always explaining away, as did others. If I thought there could be the slightest possibility that Rossi and Defkalion were not committing fraud, I think I'd keep my mouth shut. After all, this is one of the definitive forums for cold fusion; and, if you are wrong and the company is worth billions in a few years, they might seek damages if not retribution for those who judged poorly and defamed their name. Just a little advice. T
[Vo]:Passerini's Prediction
You *know* it! From today's blog: In a few months I predict a peak in the world, not oil, but requests for psychotherapy by skeptics, deniers, scientist, following the collapse of their granite certainties. You rock, Daniele! T
Re: [Vo]:Passerini's Prediction
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-Y0c8llMBHCk/TjdF3Ye-TiI/FYg/1NltRQDNJ-E/s640/stevenpotter.jpg
Re: [Vo]:Passerini's Prediction
On 2011-08-02 14:55, Terry Blanton wrote: You *know* it! From today's blog: In a few months I predict a peak in the world, not oil, but requests for psychotherapy by skeptics, deniers, scientist, following the collapse of their granite certainties. You rock, Daniele! He must have read quite revealing emails, as he says. Too bad we'll probably have to wait until the end of October to see for ourselves the conclusive pieces of evidence, but that's not too far away in time after all. Cheers, S.A.
Re: [Vo]:Passerini's Prediction
On Tue, Aug 2, 2011 at 9:10 AM, Akira Shirakawa shirakawa.ak...@gmail.com wrote: He must have read quite revealing emails, as he says. Too bad we'll probably have to wait until the end of October to see for ourselves the conclusive pieces of evidence, but that's not too far away in time after all. It is very strange that the years teach us patience - that the shorter our time, the greater our capacity for waiting. -Elizabeth Taylor
