You make a excellent point, Jed. I have heard accusations that some of these markets may have been manipulated by certain political election campaigns. It probably doesn't require a huge investment to move the odds.
However, these markets are probably too small for a major corporation to make much profit in. I think it would be much more expensive to suppress a new energy technology than it would take to move these markets. And, having odds makers following LENR might generate a lot of public interest. Jed Rothwell wrote: > I do not know much about prediction markets but this seems like a bad idea > because the game is rigged. Whether a Fortune 500 company will announce a > product or not is entirely a matter of politics. There are no technical > reasons to prevent this from happening. In a sane world, every Fortune 500 > company would already be frantically developing cold fusion. > > In the 1980s the television program Dallas had a season during which > everyone was asking "who shot JR?" (Everyone but me. I had no idea this > was > happening.) In the UK, there are betting shops where you can bet on just > about anything: sports, politics, whether tourists will travel to the > moon. > However they did not allow people to bet on who shot JR because the answer > was known to someone. It was up to the scriptwriters. The scriptwriters > themselves might have secretly placed bets in favor of one character or > another, making a fortune. > > The decision to develop cold fusion or not has never been bounded by > technical problems. It has always been a matter of choice. It has always > been about academic politics and funding. Any time in the last 23 years, > any major industrial company might have invested $100 million or so, and > very likely they would have developed a workable prototype. At least they > would've shown beyond any doubt that the effect is real and worth spending > hundreds of millions more on. > > I suppose it may take approximately $1 billion to develop industrial > prototypes. I think it will be far more expensive than Defkalion now > anticipates. This may seem like a lot of money but it is approximately how > much the world spends every day on fossil fuel. Compared to the savings > brought by cold fusion this is a microscopic sum of money. It like > investing a dollar in the lottery and winning $500 million (as someone is > likely to do tonight). > > Many skeptics over the years have argued that we should not do cold fusion > research because we cannot be sure it will pan out. That's ridiculous. > First, because by that standard no one would get out of bed in the morning > because you might be struck by lightning. Second, because there is every > indication that cold fusion will work out, and not a single valid > technical > reason to doubt that. By 1990 it had already achieved temperatures and > power density. There has never been any doubt that once it is understood > and controlled, it will be a viable source of energy far cheaper than any > other. > > Some skeptics have argued that we cannot afford to do cold fusion > research. > That goes way beyond ridiculous into deepest cloud cuckoo land. imagine a > $500 million lottery in which there are only 10 tickets for sale, one is > certain to win, and you have the opportunity to buy nine of them for $9. > Would you say you can't afford that? > > Cold fusion will be by far the most cost-effective R&D in the recorded > history of our species. > > - Jed >
