Re: [Vo]:Anyone willing to make a bet the eCat is not real?
Well, Blaze. You have ignored this twice now once I brought up the fact that Impact Factor looked meaningless. Yet you are posting on other threads, with the outward appearance of one who is coming up to speed on LENR. My first conclusion is that you are backtracking from your original challenge. And what an incredible backtrack it has been! From offering 10:1 odds against Rossi, you're now at 1:1 and even 1:2. All that happened within about a week, so my expectation would be that you're at 1:4 or so. Again, as I've posted before, it's good to see the intellectual light go on over your head. But it has been at my expense, pulling money from my pocket. So I'm ambivalent. Oh well. Welcome to the club. On Tue, Jul 9, 2013 at 5:08 PM, Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.com wrote: I posted that the Impact Factor looked meaningless. I can't see if reasonable journals have a factor of 1, or 10 , or 100 or XYZ. There was never an answer to my post. Kevin O'Malleyhttp://www.mail-archive.com/search?l=vortex-l@eskimo.comq=from:%22Kevin+O%27Malley%22 Fri, 28 Jun 2013 22:53:40 -0700http://www.mail-archive.com/search?l=vortex-l@eskimo.comq=date:20130628 So far I can't get a handle on what Impact Factor really is. Reuters charges for their information. I need to see where various journals are in this ranking, such as Naturewieessen, American Chemical Society, Journal of Analytical Chemistry, Physics Letters A, Journal of Nuclear Physics,Nature, Journal of Electrochemistry and various other journals. In particular, I would like to know the rankings of the journals mentioned on page 18 in this paper from Jed Rothwell's LENR-CANR.org website: http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RothwellJtallyofcol.pdf On Tue, Jul 9, 2013 at 1:54 PM, blaze spinnaker blazespinna...@gmail.comwrote: ***I accepted your original offer of 10:1. But you are not a man of your word. Dude, you and I both know those bets are not forever. New information arrives which forces us all to adjust our probabilities. BUT! If you still want to go with the original bet at 10:1 where the arvix report must be published in a journal of impact factor 15 (as I stated), I'll take your money though.
Re: [Vo]:Anyone willing to make a bet the eCat is not real?
What are you talking about? Let's recap in bullet point in case you're having a hard time reading: - I don't think impact factor is meaningless and don't care if you think it is. - This is why I stated impact factor 15, which I said I was willing to honor. - I am willing to bet someone at 20:1 odds that Rossi is not a fraud. - You and I both know there are two sides to a bet, the long and the short. I will go long and short at the right price, with some buffer for profit. - I am more than happy to bet that Rossi is a fraud at 1:1 odds. I'll go all day long on that one. Let's take this discussion off list. It's not really relevant to other people and I'm not going to change anything I've said above anytime soon. I will just repeat it.
Re: [Vo]:Anyone willing to make a bet the eCat is not real?
Well, yeah, I agree that it's an awesome thing but it took money out of my pocket. On another thread Re: [Vo]:MFMP on a possible independent report of DGT's Hyperionhttp://www.mail-archive.com/search?l=vortex-l@eskimo.comq=subject:%22Re%3A+%5BVo%5D%3AMFMP+on+a+possible+independent+report+of+DGT%27s+Hyperion%22 Joe Hugheshttp://www.mail-archive.com/search?l=vortex-l@eskimo.comq=from:%22Joe+Hughes%22 Fri, 26 Jul 2013 20:13:51 -0700http://www.mail-archive.com/search?l=vortex-l@eskimo.comq=date:20130726 i tried to explain this very thing to blaze over on the above top secret forums a little over a month ago and encouraged him to join this mailing list to hear from some real experts in the field which is how he wound up here. i agree his tune has changed incredibly from the beginning which is an awesome thing but still waiting for him to admit that there is a clear and direct line from Rossi to DGT and Rossi deserves to be recognized for that despite his character flaws. Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.com wrote: DGT stole a page from Rossi's book on the Ni-H scientific side, now they're stealing a page from his book on how to conduct business and promise undisclosed future promises of independent university testing. I think they were working with Rossi and decided for themselves that the guy was too mercurial and if a clown like him could find the secret, so could they. Like someone sidling up to the Wright Brothers like Selfridge (the first person to die in a Wright Brothers accident) and steal the IP. That same approach was tried by no less an aeronautical luminary than Langley when he finally realized how far behind he was in his research. http://books.google.com/books?id=XKaqfYxlsW8Cpg=PA96lpg=PA96dq=%22wright+brothers%22+++%22octave+chanute%22+smithsonian+langley+cheekysource=blots=uR3Rqkkfb9sig=Sffd3uvfLAlm28sdKgke1cA-g-0hl=ensa=Xei=ATDzUYC_HOffiAKCr4HgDAved=0CEUQ6AEwAw#v=onepageq=%22wright%20brothers%22%20%20%20%22octave%20chanute%22%20smithsonian%20langley%20cheekyf=false
Re: [Vo]:Anyone willing to make a bet the eCat is not real?
Let's take this discussion off list. ***NO!! It is utterly relevant to how your assessment of this technology evolved over just a couple of short weeks and some simple reading by you. On Fri, Jul 26, 2013 at 7:28 PM, blaze spinnaker blazespinna...@gmail.comwrote: What are you talking about? Let's recap in bullet point in case you're having a hard time reading: - I don't think impact factor is meaningless and don't care if you think it is. - This is why I stated impact factor 15, which I said I was willing to honor. - I am willing to bet someone at 20:1 odds that Rossi is not a fraud. - You and I both know there are two sides to a bet, the long and the short. I will go long and short at the right price, with some buffer for profit. - I am more than happy to bet that Rossi is a fraud at 1:1 odds. I'll go all day long on that one. Let's take this discussion off list. It's not really relevant to other people and I'm not going to change anything I've said above anytime soon. I will just repeat it.
Re: [Vo]:Anyone willing to make a bet the eCat is not real?
On Fri, Jul 26, 2013 at 7:28 PM, blaze spinnaker blazespinna...@gmail.comwrote: What are you talking about? Let's recap in bullet point in case you're having a hard time reading: ***In case you are having a hard time reading, I will answer each point. But why have you ignored my posts so far? - I don't think impact factor is meaningless and don't care if you think it is. ***Then show how it aint meaningless. I posted the various articles on LENR-CANR.org that I would like to find the Impact Factor for. I can't find it. You did not respond. - This is why I stated impact factor 15, which I said I was willing to honor. ***If you are willing to state an impact factor of XYZ then are you willing to honor it? Where can we find these various previous LENR publication journal Impact Factors? - I am willing to bet someone at 20:1 odds that Rossi is not a fraud. ***And I am willing to take that bet. But if it happens to be conditional to the stars aligning, then it's a stupid bet. If it happens to be conditional to an Impact Factor that doesn't really exist then it's a stupid bet. I'm willing to send $500 right now to a Vortex member who would take 1% commission and decide just on the basis of where we're at right now. Are you? If you're supposedly betting that Rossi is a fraud, then why not bet on a fraud conviction for E-cat technology within the next 18 months? If it's as obvious as you state, then it would be an easy win for you. - You and I both know there are two sides to a bet, the long and the short. I will go long and short at the right price, with some buffer for profit. ***And you I both know that you started with 10:1 odds, have gone down to 1:1 and then 1:2, and now I see you posting different odds without having established what Impact Factor is. How about this: If the peer reviewed report is one from a journal that has previously appeared in LENR-CANR.org, then that would be good enough. I'll take those 20:1 odds. - I am more than happy to bet that Rossi is a fraud at 1:1 odds. I'll go all day long on that one. ***I'm more interested in these slippery 10:1 and 20:1 odds that you keep hinting at. Let's take this discussion off list. ***NO. This is educational, regardless of how it turns out. It's not really relevant to other people and I'm not going to change anything I've said above anytime soon. I will just repeat it. ***You ARE changing it, with each post, and with each ignored post from me. Also, I notice the change in watching your behavior on other internet lists. So... I was interested in 10:1 and very interested in 20:1 odds. If you stop ignoring my posts, we might get to an understanding.
Re: [Vo]:Anyone willing to make a bet the eCat is not real?
Also pertinent to this thread. Re: [Vo]:MFMP on a possible independent report of DGT's Hyperionhttp://www.mail-archive.com/search?l=vortex-l@eskimo.comq=subject:%22Re%3A+%5BVo%5D%3AMFMP+on+a+possible+independent+report+of+DGT%27s+Hyperion%22 blaze spinnakerhttp://www.mail-archive.com/search?l=vortex-l@eskimo.comq=from:%22blaze+spinnaker%22 Fri, 26 Jul 2013 20:40:51 -0700http://www.mail-archive.com/search?l=vortex-l@eskimo.comq=date:20130726 i tried to explain this very thing to blaze over on the above top secret forums a little over a month ago and encouraged him to join this mailing Joe, that's not me. I thought you were referring to something else when you said above top secret forums. I didn't actually realize there was a website called that. :) I participate in some other forums which are kept pretty close. I thought you were referring to those. If you're particularly desperate to find out who I am, I'm sure you could search all over the web and google stalk me. It's not very exciting though, and I question the wisdom of getting obsessed with personalities like that who are bit players in all this. In terms of my credentials though, which might be more interesting, I spent about the last 8 years or so on Intrade making buckets of money on making big bets on highly improbable events like this which came true. The opportunities for profit there were incredible. Some examples, I made money on Obama on McCain winning their primaries by making early bets (admittedly though I had hedged a bit, but was over all long on them). Early on, they both were deemed highly improbable. (A black man? President? Now of course, it's all so obvious). I traded all manner of diverse opportunities, from movie contracts, to politics, to alien life being discovered. I specialized in the improbable bet. I wish I traded Cold Fusion like Kevin did, but hey, can't be everywhere. Time and time again though, it always came down to doing your research and doing on the ground / local investigations and not letting your prejudices get in the way. Finding something which the establishment hated or there was a public psychological bias against, worked well to. I generally use basic bayesian inference with subjective inputs (where I'm relatively confident) to determine an accurate probability for bets that need to be made and alter the weight of my investments as *any* new evidence (always on a bayesian basis, unless I'm very familiar with it) comes to light. Kevin, my good buddy, knows what I'm talking about. No idea if he was as successful as I was. His publicly announced Romney bets in '12 makes me wonder. My hopes are to do this again with LENR. I'm slowly ramping up put options on some already over priced alt energy contracts which I feel would be uneconomical if Rossi/DGT play out. I haven't got too crazy yet as I'm not entirely confident that they will play out - like I said, still willing to bet even odds that they are frauds. Now that I shared all that noise, I'll share one more tidbit of information with a bit of signal: George Neumann who gave a talk at the eCat Conf in Zurich (http://peswiki.com/index.php/Event:2012:E-Cat_Conference_in_Zurich ) has dropped the eCat from his website: http://www.nobletec.de/index.php/die-technologien/87-technologie It's still in Google Cache if you want to look: http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:vsoxRucqfMUJ:www.nobletec.de/index.php/die-technologien/79-technologie/e-cat/86-10-kw-home-unit+cd=1hl=enct=clnkgl=ca I wonder why. I've emailed him to ask. On Fri, Jul 26, 2013 at 8:27 PM, Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.com wrote: Well, yeah, I agree that it's an awesome thing but it took money out of my pocket. On another thread Re: [Vo]:MFMP on a possible independent report of DGT's Hyperionhttp://www.mail-archive.com/search?l=vortex-l@eskimo.comq=subject:%22Re%3A+%5BVo%5D%3AMFMP+on+a+possible+independent+report+of+DGT%27s+Hyperion%22 Joe Hugheshttp://www.mail-archive.com/search?l=vortex-l@eskimo.comq=from:%22Joe+Hughes%22 Fri, 26 Jul 2013 20:13:51 -0700http://www.mail-archive.com/search?l=vortex-l@eskimo.comq=date:20130726 i tried to explain this very thing to blaze over on the above top secret forums a little over a month ago and encouraged him to join this mailing list to hear from some real experts in the field which is how he wound up here. i agree his tune has changed incredibly from the beginning which is an awesome thing but still waiting for him to admit that there is a clear and direct line from Rossi to DGT and Rossi deserves to be recognized for that despite his character flaws. Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.com wrote: DGT stole a page from Rossi's book on the Ni-H scientific side, now they're stealing a page from his book on how to conduct business and promise undisclosed future promises of independent university testing. I think they were working with Rossi and decided
Re: [Vo]:Anyone willing to make a bet the eCat is not real?
- Take this off list. This is my last response on this thread. Enjoy the last word. - No. I don't have to convince you of anything. I believe Impact Factor is valid and that's all that matters to me. - Thomson Reuters is an accurate source of Impact Factors. Most journals will give you their factor if you ask. - You and I both know the devils are always in the details. We lived and breathed that on Intrade. Why are you quibbling? - To be clear - I will bet someone who thinks ~5% chance Rossi is real that they're wrong (assuming they give me ~20 to 1 odds because they're so confident he's a fraud) I also will bet someone who thinks 50% Rossi is not at fraud that they're wrong (at 1:1 odds). Let me rephrase this in Intrade terms, I will go long at 50 cents and short at $5 the contract that rossi is real. Got it? - Educational to you and I, absolutely, I really really doubt anyone else cares. Again, this is my last word on this. I'll engage you off list, but on list you will get the last word, whatever nonsense you dream up.
Re: [Vo]:Anyone willing to make a bet the eCat is not real?
On Fri, Jul 26, 2013 at 11:58 PM, blaze spinnaker blazespinna...@gmail.comwrote: Again, this is my last word on this. 2:1 it's not.
Re: [Vo]:Anyone willing to make a bet the eCat is not real?
On Fri, Jul 26, 2013 at 9:04 PM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote: On Fri, Jul 26, 2013 at 11:58 PM, blaze spinnaker blazespinna...@gmail.com wrote: Again, this is my last word on this. 2:1 it's not. Hah! Ok, you're on. I bet you $10 2:1 I don't reply to whatever Kevin posts on this subject. You can donate my winnings to a charity of your choice. Photographic evidence would be appreciated.
Re: [Vo]:Anyone willing to make a bet the eCat is not real?
On Sat, Jul 27, 2013 at 12:06 AM, blaze spinnaker blazespinna...@gmail.comwrote: On Fri, Jul 26, 2013 at 9:04 PM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote: On Fri, Jul 26, 2013 at 11:58 PM, blaze spinnaker blazespinna...@gmail.com wrote: Again, this is my last word on this. 2:1 it's not. Hah! Ok, you're on. I bet you $10 2:1 I don't reply to whatever Kevin posts on this subject. You can donate my winnings to a charity of your choice. Photographic evidence would be appreciated. More words on the subject. I win a bet of zero value!
Re: [Vo]:Anyone willing to make a bet the eCat is not real?
So, Blaze on another thread you've reduced the odds down to 3:1. Does this mean that you aren't as confident betting against Rossi any more? Just spending some time on Vortex seems to have brought you from 10:1 skepticism down to 3:1. Eventually you'll go down to 2:1, then 1:1, and soon after that you'll be on the side betting FOR Rossi... ;-) Re: [Vo]:Interview with Professor Bo Hoistad regarding eCat report - please respond herehttp://www.mail-archive.com/search?l=vortex-l@eskimo.comq=subject:%22Re%3A+%5BVo%5D%3AInterview+with+Professor+Bo+Hoistad+regarding+eCat+report+-+please+respond+here%22 blaze spinnakerhttp://www.mail-archive.com/search?l=vortex-l@eskimo.comq=from:%22blaze+spinnaker%22 Mon, 08 Jul 2013 18:56:47 -0700http://www.mail-archive.com/search?l=vortex-l@eskimo.comq=date:20130708 Ah, good to know. Its good to see a full-throated defense from the co-authors. Between this and the Pekka patent, very encouraging. I'd still give odds the ecat doesn't exist, though. Maybe 3 to 1 and I'd take 10 to 1 On Monday, July 8, 2013, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: This thread title had a character that is not part of the U.S. ASCII system: ö The thread will run amok with multiple appearances. Please respond to this message if you wish to comment on it. - Jed On Fri, Jun 28, 2013 at 4:55 PM, Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.com wrote: Hello Blaze. I'm very pleased to see you posting here on Vortex. You may remember me on Intrade as ko, the guy who kept posting Cold Fusion articles. And I won quite a bit of money when the contract I posted was verified by Carl. So, yes. I'm very interested in such a bet. In particular I like the 10:1 odds. But we need to find an unbiased 3rd party to hold the money and make the decision. Who would that be, now that Intrade is defunct? Also, the parameters of the decision are different than I would settle upon. I don't hold Gibbs all that high in esteem. Perhaps something like, the 7 scientists who verified the energy density of the Ecat get their paper published in a peer reviewed publication? How I Made Money from Cold Fusion Saturday, January 23, 2010 12:28:49 PM · by Kevmo · 28 replies · 1,013+ views Exclusive Article for Free Republic | 1/23/10 | Kevmo http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/2435697/posts On Fri, Jun 28, 2013 at 4:37 PM, blaze spinnaker blazespinna...@gmail.com wrote: As a possible set of parameters to this bet: I'm willing to bet my 5000 against anyone's 500 that Mark Gibbs doesn't publish an article in Forbes this year that states he personally believes without a doubt that LENR+ is real and has a power density matching what Levi/Essen published (within some reasonable margin of error). On Fri, Jun 28, 2013 at 3:27 PM, blaze spinnaker blazespinna...@gmail.com wrote: Is anyone willing here to bet me $$$ that the eCat will not be proven this year? I'm open to discussing the parameters of this bet. Ideally we'd mutually agree on a 3rd party to hold our money and be an impartial judge as to who wins by EOY. Let me know. Cheers, Blaze.
Re: [Vo]:Anyone willing to make a bet the eCat is not real?
The odds are not so clear, if we integrate a time factor. as explained the problem is not to prove that LENr is real, it have been done since long, and mainstream media will never admit it without a gun on their head. No evidence will work. The rest is betting on an industrial application. It takes time, much more time that what the authors imagine. standard process is the planning says 6 month to market, and 5 years in reality,with reduced ambitions, and the possibilities that the cowardliness of big industrialists and the defense on their economic rent (no conspiracy, just passive defense), ruin all hope of a revolution... betting on a startup like leonardo corporation, is venture capitalism... 95% of those companies will die of be bought in 5 years. all that is for standard innovation. LENR is an outlier, a blackswan... even more that Internet, steam engine, farming... It is a huge revolution in quality, but very conservative in fact since it is compatible with existing technology, yet allow many more organizations, and reduce many disadvantages and costs... It will kill many lobbies, benefit many people and industry who suffer from todays situation (pollution, monopolies, geopolitic, centralization)... Incentive to support it and to repress it are HUGE. It is desperate losers against hopeful winners. 2013/7/9 Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.com So, Blaze on another thread you've reduced the odds down to 3:1. Does this mean that you aren't as confident betting against Rossi any more? Just spending some time on Vortex seems to have brought you from 10:1 skepticism down to 3:1. Eventually you'll go down to 2:1, then 1:1, and soon after that you'll be on the side betting FOR Rossi... ;-) Re: [Vo]:Interview with Professor Bo Hoistad regarding eCat report - please respond herehttp://www.mail-archive.com/search?l=vortex-l@eskimo.comq=subject:%22Re%3A+%5BVo%5D%3AInterview+with+Professor+Bo+Hoistad+regarding+eCat+report+-+please+respond+here%22 blaze spinnakerhttp://www.mail-archive.com/search?l=vortex-l@eskimo.comq=from:%22blaze+spinnaker%22 Mon, 08 Jul 2013 18:56:47 -0700http://www.mail-archive.com/search?l=vortex-l@eskimo.comq=date:20130708 Ah, good to know. Its good to see a full-throated defense from the co-authors. Between this and the Pekka patent, very encouraging. I'd still give odds the ecat doesn't exist, though. Maybe 3 to 1 and I'd take 10 to 1 On Monday, July 8, 2013, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: This thread title had a character that is not part of the U.S. ASCII system: ö The thread will run amok with multiple appearances. Please respond to this message if you wish to comment on it. - Jed On Fri, Jun 28, 2013 at 4:55 PM, Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.comwrote: Hello Blaze. I'm very pleased to see you posting here on Vortex. You may remember me on Intrade as ko, the guy who kept posting Cold Fusion articles. And I won quite a bit of money when the contract I posted was verified by Carl. So, yes. I'm very interested in such a bet. In particular I like the 10:1 odds. But we need to find an unbiased 3rd party to hold the money and make the decision. Who would that be, now that Intrade is defunct? Also, the parameters of the decision are different than I would settle upon. I don't hold Gibbs all that high in esteem. Perhaps something like, the 7 scientists who verified the energy density of the Ecat get their paper published in a peer reviewed publication? How I Made Money from Cold Fusion Saturday, January 23, 2010 12:28:49 PM · by Kevmo · 28 replies · 1,013+ views Exclusive Article for Free Republic | 1/23/10 | Kevmo http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/2435697/posts On Fri, Jun 28, 2013 at 4:37 PM, blaze spinnaker blazespinna...@gmail.com wrote: As a possible set of parameters to this bet: I'm willing to bet my 5000 against anyone's 500 that Mark Gibbs doesn't publish an article in Forbes this year that states he personally believes without a doubt that LENR+ is real and has a power density matching what Levi/Essen published (within some reasonable margin of error). On Fri, Jun 28, 2013 at 3:27 PM, blaze spinnaker blazespinna...@gmail.com wrote: Is anyone willing here to bet me $$$ that the eCat will not be proven this year? I'm open to discussing the parameters of this bet. Ideally we'd mutually agree on a 3rd party to hold our money and be an impartial judge as to who wins by EOY. Let me know. Cheers, Blaze.
Re: [Vo]:Anyone willing to make a bet the eCat is not real?
blaze spinnakerhttp://www.mail-archive.com/search?l=vortex-l@eskimo.comq=from:%22blaze+spinnaker%22 Mon, 08 Jul 2013 18:56:47 -0700http://www.mail-archive.com/search?l=vortex-l@eskimo.comq=date:20130708 Between this and the Pekka patent, very encouraging. I'd still give odds the ecat doesn't exist, though. Maybe 3 to 1 and I'd take 10 to 1 ***So if I'm reading this right, and it isn't a typo... you've gone from OFFERING 10:1 against Rossi to wanting to take that bet yourself. In the short timespan of about a week.
Re: [Vo]:Anyone willing to make a bet the eCat is not real?
Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.com wrote: Maybe 3 to 1 and I'd take 10 to 1 ***So if I'm reading this right, and it isn't a typo... you've gone from OFFERING 10:1 against Rossi to wanting to take that bet yourself. In the short timespan of about a week. That's what I thought it meant. But I do not understand betting jargon. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Anyone willing to make a bet the eCat is not real?
I was always willing to take a bet that eCat existed. Didn't you ever make a market on Intrade? And, yes, I've gone from 5% to 17% probability of eCat existing. Things are moving quickly right now before ICCF / NI-WEEK.We live in exciting times. On Tue, Jul 9, 2013 at 12:44 PM, Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.com wrote: blaze spinnakerhttp://www.mail-archive.com/search?l=vortex-l@eskimo.comq=from:%22blaze+spinnaker%22 Mon, 08 Jul 2013 18:56:47 -0700http://www.mail-archive.com/search?l=vortex-l@eskimo.comq=date:20130708 Between this and the Pekka patent, very encouraging. I'd still give odds the ecat doesn't exist, though. Maybe 3 to 1 and I'd take 10 to 1 ***So if I'm reading this right, and it isn't a typo... you've gone from OFFERING 10:1 against Rossi to wanting to take that bet yourself. In the short timespan of about a week.
Re: [Vo]:Anyone willing to make a bet the eCat is not real?
On Tue, Jul 9, 2013 at 12:58 PM, blaze spinnaker blazespinna...@gmail.comwrote: I was always willing to take a bet that eCat existed. Didn't you ever make a market on Intrade? ***Yes. It had to do with Cold Fusion, as I posted earlier. But it was not me, the market maker, who changed his tune. It was all the naysayers on Intrade who talked big and loud, but didn't put their money down until it was barely worth it for me. Market makers are not supposed to change their tune by 700% within a week. The End of *Snide Remarks* Against *Cold Fusion* - Free Republic http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/bloggers/2265914/posts Free Republic, Gravitronics.net and Intrade ^ | 6/5/09 | *kevmo*, et al. Posted on 06/05/2009 5:56:08 PM PDT *.* And, yes, I've gone from 5% to 17% probability of eCat existing. ***You said 0%, now your tune changes again. You aren't making much sense as you backtrack. Things are moving quickly right now before ICCF / NI-WEEK.We live in exciting times. ***Again, backtracking. This time with a classic fallacy attached, which is the argument from silence (in this case the silence is from the future).At the rate you're currently going, you'll be taking 2:1 FOR Rossi within a month. On Tue, Jul 9, 2013 at 12:44 PM, Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.comwrote: blaze spinnakerhttp://www.mail-archive.com/search?l=vortex-l@eskimo.comq=from:%22blaze+spinnaker%22 Mon, 08 Jul 2013 18:56:47 -0700http://www.mail-archive.com/search?l=vortex-l@eskimo.comq=date:20130708 Between this and the Pekka patent, very encouraging. I'd still give odds the ecat doesn't exist, though. Maybe 3 to 1 and I'd take 10 to 1 ***So if I'm reading this right, and it isn't a typo... you've gone from OFFERING 10:1 against Rossi to wanting to take that bet yourself. In the short timespan of about a week.
Re: [Vo]:Anyone willing to make a bet the eCat is not real?
Sure, if an eCat is announced and publicly demonstrated, I certainly will be betting 2:1. Or better testing. I'm not a mary yugo. I don't start with a conclusion and work backwards. I'm merely trying to estimate the probability. BTW, I notice you haven't made a counter offer yet. Will you give me 2:1 that the eCat exists? Or, ick, let's use Intrade odds. Will you go long at 6.6 that eCat exists? On Tue, Jul 9, 2013 at 1:17 PM, Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Jul 9, 2013 at 12:58 PM, blaze spinnaker blazespinna...@gmail.com wrote: I was always willing to take a bet that eCat existed. Didn't you ever make a market on Intrade? ***Yes. It had to do with Cold Fusion, as I posted earlier. But it was not me, the market maker, who changed his tune. It was all the naysayers on Intrade who talked big and loud, but didn't put their money down until it was barely worth it for me. Market makers are not supposed to change their tune by 700% within a week. The End of *Snide Remarks* Against *Cold Fusion* - Free Republic http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/bloggers/2265914/posts Free Republic, Gravitronics.net and Intrade ^ | 6/5/09 | *kevmo*, et al. Posted on 06/05/2009 5:56:08 PM PDT *.* And, yes, I've gone from 5% to 17% probability of eCat existing. ***You said 0%, now your tune changes again. You aren't making much sense as you backtrack. Things are moving quickly right now before ICCF / NI-WEEK.We live in exciting times. ***Again, backtracking. This time with a classic fallacy attached, which is the argument from silence (in this case the silence is from the future).At the rate you're currently going, you'll be taking 2:1 FOR Rossi within a month. On Tue, Jul 9, 2013 at 12:44 PM, Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.comwrote: blaze spinnakerhttp://www.mail-archive.com/search?l=vortex-l@eskimo.comq=from:%22blaze+spinnaker%22 Mon, 08 Jul 2013 18:56:47 -0700http://www.mail-archive.com/search?l=vortex-l@eskimo.comq=date:20130708 Between this and the Pekka patent, very encouraging. I'd still give odds the ecat doesn't exist, though. Maybe 3 to 1 and I'd take 10 to 1 ***So if I'm reading this right, and it isn't a typo... you've gone from OFFERING 10:1 against Rossi to wanting to take that bet yourself. In the short timespan of about a week.
Re: [Vo]:Anyone willing to make a bet the eCat is not real?
Taking this convo off list, email me if you'd like to be CC'd / included. On Tue, Jul 9, 2013 at 1:23 PM, blaze spinnaker blazespinna...@gmail.comwrote: Sure, if an eCat is announced and publicly demonstrated, I certainly will be betting 2:1. Or better testing. I'm not a mary yugo. I don't start with a conclusion and work backwards. I'm merely trying to estimate the probability. BTW, I notice you haven't made a counter offer yet. Will you give me 2:1 that the eCat exists? Or, ick, let's use Intrade odds. Will you go long at 6.6 that eCat exists? On Tue, Jul 9, 2013 at 1:17 PM, Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.comwrote: On Tue, Jul 9, 2013 at 12:58 PM, blaze spinnaker blazespinna...@gmail.com wrote: I was always willing to take a bet that eCat existed. Didn't you ever make a market on Intrade? ***Yes. It had to do with Cold Fusion, as I posted earlier. But it was not me, the market maker, who changed his tune. It was all the naysayers on Intrade who talked big and loud, but didn't put their money down until it was barely worth it for me. Market makers are not supposed to change their tune by 700% within a week. The End of *Snide Remarks* Against *Cold Fusion* - Free Republic http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/bloggers/2265914/posts Free Republic, Gravitronics.net and Intrade ^ | 6/5/09 | *kevmo*, et al. Posted on 06/05/2009 5:56:08 PM PDT *.* And, yes, I've gone from 5% to 17% probability of eCat existing. ***You said 0%, now your tune changes again. You aren't making much sense as you backtrack. Things are moving quickly right now before ICCF / NI-WEEK.We live in exciting times. ***Again, backtracking. This time with a classic fallacy attached, which is the argument from silence (in this case the silence is from the future).At the rate you're currently going, you'll be taking 2:1 FOR Rossi within a month. On Tue, Jul 9, 2013 at 12:44 PM, Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.comwrote: blaze spinnakerhttp://www.mail-archive.com/search?l=vortex-l@eskimo.comq=from:%22blaze+spinnaker%22 Mon, 08 Jul 2013 18:56:47 -0700http://www.mail-archive.com/search?l=vortex-l@eskimo.comq=date:20130708 Between this and the Pekka patent, very encouraging. I'd still give odds the ecat doesn't exist, though. Maybe 3 to 1 and I'd take 10 to 1 ***So if I'm reading this right, and it isn't a typo... you've gone from OFFERING 10:1 against Rossi to wanting to take that bet yourself. In the short timespan of about a week.
Re: [Vo]:Anyone willing to make a bet the eCat is not real?
On Tue, Jul 9, 2013 at 1:23 PM, blaze spinnaker blazespinna...@gmail.comwrote: BTW, I notice you haven't made a counter offer yet. Will you give me 2:1 that the eCat exists? ***I accepted your original offer of 10:1. But you are not a man of your word. Or, ick, let's use Intrade odds. Will you go long at 6.6 that eCat exists? ***Dude, that's backwards, you're now giving me 1:2 odds. I predicted upthread that you'd do it within a month, and here you've done it within a matter of minutes. I was willing to go long at 80cents (whatever corresponds to 10:1), and you've completely gone the other way, changing your tune from 80 cents (10:1) to $6.60 (1:2), all within about a week. Do you consider your ability to comprehend to be representative of the average LENR skeptic?
Re: [Vo]:Anyone willing to make a bet the eCat is not real?
On Tue, Jul 9, 2013 at 1:36 PM, blaze spinnaker blazespinna...@gmail.comwrote: Taking this convo off list, email me if you'd like to be CC'd / included. ***Why?
Re: [Vo]:Anyone willing to make a bet the eCat is not real?
I think the conversation is primarily of interest to a limited group and probably just noise for the rest of the list. It's usually a good idea to do this when threads get overly long and only certain people are participating. On Tue, Jul 9, 2013 at 1:50 PM, Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Jul 9, 2013 at 1:36 PM, blaze spinnaker blazespinna...@gmail.comwrote: Taking this convo off list, email me if you'd like to be CC'd / included. ***Why?
Re: [Vo]:Anyone willing to make a bet the eCat is not real?
***I accepted your original offer of 10:1. But you are not a man of your word. Dude, you and I both know those bets are not forever. New information arrives which forces us all to adjust our probabilities. BUT! If you still want to go with the original bet at 10:1 where the arvix report must be published in a journal of impact factor 15 (as I stated), I'll take your money though.
Re: [Vo]:Anyone willing to make a bet the eCat is not real?
Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.com wrote: The End of *Snide Remarks* Against *Cold Fusion* - Free Republic http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/bloggers/2265914/posts Free Republic, Gravitronics.net and Intrade ^ | 6/5/09 | *kevmo*, et al. Posted on 06/05/2009 5:56:08 PM PDT *.* This is from 2009 and it is regarding Arata. The snide remarks did not end, needless to say. They will not end until the reality of cold fusion is published in the headlines of every major mass media website from CNN to the Asahi Shimbun to the New York Times. Whether that will ever happen is impossible to say. I have devoted most of my working life to making it happen, but I have no confidence that it will. The outcome depends on politics, human nature and most of all, upon the will of the public. These things are unfathomable. The good news is that public opinion sometimes changes overnight. The horrendous air pollution in London, England continued for 700 years until the public demanded it be stopped in 1952. It abated within a generation. The expert H. E. C. Beaver said: . . . on public opinion, and on it alone, finally rests the issue. See the Introduction to my book. Here is what you must understand. The air pollution in London, Yokkaichi Japan, and Beijing this year were real. The air was filled with hideous filth that killed thousands of people. Global warming is also real, and it will kill millions of people if nothing is done to prevent it. But what is not real -- and never has been -- is the unavoidable need to live with these things. I mean the technical imperative. At any time after modern chemistry was in developed circa 1820, particulate air pollution might have been vastly reduced. It finally was after 1952, but it might have been in 1852. Any time after 1950 and the discovery of nuclear energy, photovoltaics, and modern wind turbines, the use of carbon-based fossil fuel might have been greatly reduced or eliminated. We have these problems because we *wish* to have them. Because we willfully ignorant. Not because we have no choice. We have always had a choice. The choice has been in front of us all along. The root of the problem is that most people despise science, change, and innovation. They fear these things. They prefer to live mired in poverty, filth, superstition and disease rather than allow their children to learn about nature. Rather than allow scientists to master nature. We have seen this over and over again, not only in places like Afghanistan, but to a lesser degree in India, South Korea and the U.S. This is a problem of human nature, not technology. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Anyone willing to make a bet the eCat is not real?
On Tue, Jul 9, 2013 at 1:52 PM, blaze spinnaker blazespinna...@gmail.comwrote: I think the conversation is primarily of interest to a limited group and probably just noise for the rest of the list. It's usually a good idea to do this when threads get overly long and only certain people are participating. You guys are funny. I'm reminded of the kind of banter that goes back and forth between fans of different sports teams. I think the idea that putting up actually money forces a sharpening of one's appraisal is an interesting one. I wish something other than money could be used. In the scientific world, I get the impression that it is reputation that is put on the line and that serves a similar purpose, for example, when publishing an article. Hence all of the importance attached to publishing. Eric
Re: [Vo]:Anyone willing to make a bet the eCat is not real?
I posted that the Impact Factor looked meaningless. I can't see if reasonable journals have a factor of 1, or 10 , or 100 or XYZ. There was never an answer to my post. Kevin O'Malleyhttp://www.mail-archive.com/search?l=vortex-l@eskimo.comq=from:%22Kevin+O%27Malley%22 Fri, 28 Jun 2013 22:53:40 -0700http://www.mail-archive.com/search?l=vortex-l@eskimo.comq=date:20130628 So far I can't get a handle on what Impact Factor really is. Reuters charges for their information. I need to see where various journals are in this ranking, such as Naturewieessen, American Chemical Society, Journal of Analytical Chemistry, Physics Letters A, Journal of Nuclear Physics,Nature, Journal of Electrochemistry and various other journals. In particular, I would like to know the rankings of the journals mentioned on page 18 in this paper from Jed Rothwell's LENR-CANR.org website: http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RothwellJtallyofcol.pdf On Tue, Jul 9, 2013 at 1:54 PM, blaze spinnaker blazespinna...@gmail.comwrote: ***I accepted your original offer of 10:1. But you are not a man of your word. Dude, you and I both know those bets are not forever. New information arrives which forces us all to adjust our probabilities. BUT! If you still want to go with the original bet at 10:1 where the arvix report must be published in a journal of impact factor 15 (as I stated), I'll take your money though.
Re: [Vo]:Anyone willing to make a bet the eCat is not real?
Well, it looks like this bet thingie isn't going anywhere. No one is signing up to be the intermediary, and the Impact Factor lacks openness. On Fri, Jun 28, 2013 at 10:53 PM, Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.comwrote: So far I can't get a handle on what Impact Factor really is. Reuters charges for their information. I need to see where various journals are in this ranking, such as Naturewieessen, American Chemical Society, Journal of Analytical Chemistry, Physics Letters A, Journal of Nuclear Physics,Nature, Journal of Electrochemistry and various other journals. In particular, I would like to know the rankings of the journals mentioned on page 18 in this paper from Jed Rothwell's LENR-CANR.org website: http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RothwellJtallyofcol.pdf On Fri, Jun 28, 2013 at 5:26 PM, blaze spinnaker blazespinna...@gmail.com wrote: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Journal_ranking http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impact_factor How about using something like that? It has to have some minimum impact factor? How about an impact factor of at least 15? On Fri, Jun 28, 2013 at 5:14 PM, Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.comwrote: Ok, I posted it at the forum Intrade Gateway. We'll see if anyone is willing. http://intrade.freeforums.org/re-anyone-willing-to-make-a-bet-the-ecat-is-not-real-t31.html How would we come to an agreement on which publications are acceptable? I can see why you wouldn't want Journal of Nuclear Physics. But throwing out American Chemical Society? Where's the legitimate cutoff point? On Fri, Jun 28, 2013 at 5:03 PM, blaze spinnaker blazespinna...@gmail.com wrote: Ahhh, action. I love it! A peer reviewed publication, that's very interesting. I think we'll need to define which publications that might be, but other than that I'm in if you are. As for someone to hold it, maybe we can post on intrade.freeforums.orgfor someone to hold it. Or who knows, maybe someone here might hold it (Paypal?) Glad to see you around! Really really miss intrade (obviously!) On Fri, Jun 28, 2013 at 4:55 PM, Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.comwrote: Hello Blaze. I'm very pleased to see you posting here on Vortex. You may remember me on Intrade as ko, the guy who kept posting Cold Fusion articles. And I won quite a bit of money when the contract I posted was verified by Carl. So, yes. I'm very interested in such a bet. In particular I like the 10:1 odds. But we need to find an unbiased 3rd party to hold the money and make the decision. Who would that be, now that Intrade is defunct? Also, the parameters of the decision are different than I would settle upon. I don't hold Gibbs all that high in esteem. Perhaps something like, the 7 scientists who verified the energy density of the Ecat get their paper published in a peer reviewed publication? How I Made Money from Cold Fusion Saturday, January 23, 2010 12:28:49 PM · by Kevmo · 28 replies · 1,013+ views Exclusive Article for Free Republic | 1/23/10 | Kevmo http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/2435697/posts On Fri, Jun 28, 2013 at 4:37 PM, blaze spinnaker blazespinna...@gmail.com wrote: As a possible set of parameters to this bet: I'm willing to bet my 5000 against anyone's 500 that Mark Gibbs doesn't publish an article in Forbes this year that states he personally believes without a doubt that LENR+ is real and has a power density matching what Levi/Essen published (within some reasonable margin of error). On Fri, Jun 28, 2013 at 3:27 PM, blaze spinnaker blazespinna...@gmail.com wrote: Is anyone willing here to bet me $$$ that the eCat will not be proven this year? I'm open to discussing the parameters of this bet. Ideally we'd mutually agree on a 3rd party to hold our money and be an impartial judge as to who wins by EOY. Let me know. Cheers, Blaze.
Re: [Vo]:Anyone willing to make a bet the eCat is not real?
Yes, I also would like to know when we can consider cold fusion to be accepted. Three kinds of events seem to be relevant. 1. Reviewers allow papers to be published in Science, Nature and Scientific American. 2. Large amounts of investment money becomes available so that finding enough knowledgeable people to use the money becomes difficult. 3. China announces they are phasing out their fission reactors and replacing them with cold fusion reactors. Anything short of these events seems to be wishful thinking. Ed On Jul 8, 2013, at 9:10 AM, Kevin O'Malley wrote: Well, it looks like this bet thingie isn't going anywhere. No one is signing up to be the intermediary, and the Impact Factor lacks openness. On Fri, Jun 28, 2013 at 10:53 PM, Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.com wrote: So far I can't get a handle on what Impact Factor really is. Reuters charges for their information. I need to see where various journals are in this ranking, such as Naturewieessen, American Chemical Society, Journal of Analytical Chemistry, Physics Letters A, Journal of Nuclear Physics,Nature, Journal of Electrochemistry and various other journals. In particular, I would like to know the rankings of the journals mentioned on page 18 in this paper from Jed Rothwell's LENR-CANR.org website: http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RothwellJtallyofcol.pdf On Fri, Jun 28, 2013 at 5:26 PM, blaze spinnaker blazespinna...@gmail.com wrote: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Journal_ranking http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impact_factor How about using something like that? It has to have some minimum impact factor? How about an impact factor of at least 15? On Fri, Jun 28, 2013 at 5:14 PM, Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.com wrote: Ok, I posted it at the forum Intrade Gateway. We'll see if anyone is willing. http://intrade.freeforums.org/re-anyone-willing-to-make-a-bet-the-ecat-is-not-real-t31.html How would we come to an agreement on which publications are acceptable? I can see why you wouldn't want Journal of Nuclear Physics. But throwing out American Chemical Society? Where's the legitimate cutoff point? On Fri, Jun 28, 2013 at 5:03 PM, blaze spinnaker blazespinna...@gmail.com wrote: Ahhh, action. I love it! A peer reviewed publication, that's very interesting. I think we'll need to define which publications that might be, but other than that I'm in if you are. As for someone to hold it, maybe we can post on intrade.freeforums.org for someone to hold it. Or who knows, maybe someone here might hold it (Paypal?) Glad to see you around! Really really miss intrade (obviously!) On Fri, Jun 28, 2013 at 4:55 PM, Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.com wrote: Hello Blaze. I'm very pleased to see you posting here on Vortex. You may remember me on Intrade as ko, the guy who kept posting Cold Fusion articles. And I won quite a bit of money when the contract I posted was verified by Carl. So, yes. I'm very interested in such a bet. In particular I like the 10:1 odds. But we need to find an unbiased 3rd party to hold the money and make the decision. Who would that be, now that Intrade is defunct? Also, the parameters of the decision are different than I would settle upon. I don't hold Gibbs all that high in esteem. Perhaps something like, the 7 scientists who verified the energy density of the Ecat get their paper published in a peer reviewed publication? How I Made Money from Cold Fusion Saturday, January 23, 2010 12:28:49 PM · by Kevmo · 28 replies · 1,013+ views Exclusive Article for Free Republic | 1/23/10 | Kevmo http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/2435697/posts On Fri, Jun 28, 2013 at 4:37 PM, blaze spinnaker blazespinna...@gmail.com wrote: As a possible set of parameters to this bet: I'm willing to bet my 5000 against anyone's 500 that Mark Gibbs doesn't publish an article in Forbes this year that states he personally believes without a doubt that LENR+ is real and has a power density matching what Levi/Essen published (within some reasonable margin of error). On Fri, Jun 28, 2013 at 3:27 PM, blaze spinnaker blazespinna...@gmail.com wrote: Is anyone willing here to bet me $$$ that the eCat will not be proven this year? I'm open to discussing the parameters of this bet. Ideally we'd mutually agree on a 3rd party to hold our money and be an impartial judge as to who wins by EOY. Let me know. Cheers, Blaze.
Re: [Vo]:Anyone willing to make a bet the eCat is not real?
Maybe we could add 4- Reputable/rational organization use LENR practically. but probably all will happen in a matter of month, with 1 being the last. I think also about a 3bis : China launching a great LENR investment... maybe they won't phase out anything, just be control the technology, and master decomissioning (and they migh have problems with internal lobbies). 2013/7/8 Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com Yes, I also would like to know when we can consider cold fusion to be accepted. Three kinds of events seem to be relevant. 1. Reviewers allow papers to be published in Science, Nature and Scientific American. 2. Large amounts of investment money becomes available so that finding enough knowledgeable people to use the money becomes difficult. 3. China announces they are phasing out their fission reactors and replacing them with cold fusion reactors. Anything short of these events seems to be wishful thinking. Ed On Jul 8, 2013, at 9:10 AM, Kevin O'Malley wrote: Well, it looks like this bet thingie isn't going anywhere. No one is signing up to be the intermediary, and the Impact Factor lacks openness. On Fri, Jun 28, 2013 at 10:53 PM, Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.comwrote: So far I can't get a handle on what Impact Factor really is. Reuters charges for their information. I need to see where various journals are in this ranking, such as Naturewieessen, American Chemical Society, Journal of Analytical Chemistry, Physics Letters A, Journal of Nuclear Physics,Nature, Journal of Electrochemistry and various other journals. In particular, I would like to know the rankings of the journals mentioned on page 18 in this paper from Jed Rothwell's LENR-CANR.org website: http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RothwellJtallyofcol.pdf On Fri, Jun 28, 2013 at 5:26 PM, blaze spinnaker blazespinna...@gmail.com wrote: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Journal_ranking http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impact_factor How about using something like that? It has to have some minimum impact factor? How about an impact factor of at least 15? On Fri, Jun 28, 2013 at 5:14 PM, Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.comwrote: Ok, I posted it at the forum Intrade Gateway. We'll see if anyone is willing. http://intrade.freeforums.org/re-anyone-willing-to-make-a-bet-the-ecat-is-not-real-t31.html How would we come to an agreement on which publications are acceptable? I can see why you wouldn't want Journal of Nuclear Physics. But throwing out American Chemical Society? Where's the legitimate cutoff point? On Fri, Jun 28, 2013 at 5:03 PM, blaze spinnaker blazespinna...@gmail.com wrote: Ahhh, action. I love it! A peer reviewed publication, that's very interesting. I think we'll need to define which publications that might be, but other than that I'm in if you are. As for someone to hold it, maybe we can post on intrade.freeforums.orgfor someone to hold it. Or who knows, maybe someone here might hold it (Paypal?) Glad to see you around! Really really miss intrade (obviously!) On Fri, Jun 28, 2013 at 4:55 PM, Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.comwrote: Hello Blaze. I'm very pleased to see you posting here on Vortex. You may remember me on Intrade as ko, the guy who kept posting Cold Fusion articles. And I won quite a bit of money when the contract I posted was verified by Carl. So, yes. I'm very interested in such a bet. In particular I like the 10:1 odds. But we need to find an unbiased 3rd party to hold the money and make the decision. Who would that be, now that Intrade is defunct? Also, the parameters of the decision are different than I would settle upon. I don't hold Gibbs all that high in esteem. Perhaps something like, the 7 scientists who verified the energy density of the Ecat get their paper published in a peer reviewed publication? How I Made Money from Cold Fusion Saturday, January 23, 2010 12:28:49 PM · by Kevmo · 28 replies · 1,013+ views Exclusive Article for Free Republic | 1/23/10 | Kevmo http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/2435697/posts On Fri, Jun 28, 2013 at 4:37 PM, blaze spinnaker blazespinna...@gmail.com wrote: As a possible set of parameters to this bet: I'm willing to bet my 5000 against anyone's 500 that Mark Gibbs doesn't publish an article in Forbes this year that states he personally believes without a doubt that LENR+ is real and has a power density matching what Levi/Essen published (within some reasonable margin of error). On Fri, Jun 28, 2013 at 3:27 PM, blaze spinnaker blazespinna...@gmail.com wrote: Is anyone willing here to bet me $$$ that the eCat will not be proven this year? I'm open to discussing the parameters of this bet. Ideally we'd mutually agree on a 3rd party to hold our money and be an impartial judge as to who wins by EOY. Let me know. Cheers, Blaze.
Re: [Vo]:Anyone willing to make a bet the eCat is not real?
Well, I think everyone accepts some form of cold fusion. I don't see that in doubt at all. What's in doubt is that Rossi has created an eCat with an absurdly high (and seemingly controllable) COP that is relying on cold fusion / LENR. On Mon, Jul 8, 2013 at 8:34 AM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com wrote: Yes, I also would like to know when we can consider cold fusion to be accepted. Three kinds of events seem to be relevant. 1. Reviewers allow papers to be published in Science, Nature and Scientific American. 2. Large amounts of investment money becomes available so that finding enough knowledgeable people to use the money becomes difficult. 3. China announces they are phasing out their fission reactors and replacing them with cold fusion reactors. Anything short of these events seems to be wishful thinking. Ed On Jul 8, 2013, at 9:10 AM, Kevin O'Malley wrote: Well, it looks like this bet thingie isn't going anywhere. No one is signing up to be the intermediary, and the Impact Factor lacks openness. On Fri, Jun 28, 2013 at 10:53 PM, Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.comwrote: So far I can't get a handle on what Impact Factor really is. Reuters charges for their information. I need to see where various journals are in this ranking, such as Naturewieessen, American Chemical Society, Journal of Analytical Chemistry, Physics Letters A, Journal of Nuclear Physics,Nature, Journal of Electrochemistry and various other journals. In particular, I would like to know the rankings of the journals mentioned on page 18 in this paper from Jed Rothwell's LENR-CANR.org website: http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RothwellJtallyofcol.pdf On Fri, Jun 28, 2013 at 5:26 PM, blaze spinnaker blazespinna...@gmail.com wrote: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Journal_ranking http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impact_factor How about using something like that? It has to have some minimum impact factor? How about an impact factor of at least 15? On Fri, Jun 28, 2013 at 5:14 PM, Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.comwrote: Ok, I posted it at the forum Intrade Gateway. We'll see if anyone is willing. http://intrade.freeforums.org/re-anyone-willing-to-make-a-bet-the-ecat-is-not-real-t31.html How would we come to an agreement on which publications are acceptable? I can see why you wouldn't want Journal of Nuclear Physics. But throwing out American Chemical Society? Where's the legitimate cutoff point? On Fri, Jun 28, 2013 at 5:03 PM, blaze spinnaker blazespinna...@gmail.com wrote: Ahhh, action. I love it! A peer reviewed publication, that's very interesting. I think we'll need to define which publications that might be, but other than that I'm in if you are. As for someone to hold it, maybe we can post on intrade.freeforums.orgfor someone to hold it. Or who knows, maybe someone here might hold it (Paypal?) Glad to see you around! Really really miss intrade (obviously!) On Fri, Jun 28, 2013 at 4:55 PM, Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.comwrote: Hello Blaze. I'm very pleased to see you posting here on Vortex. You may remember me on Intrade as ko, the guy who kept posting Cold Fusion articles. And I won quite a bit of money when the contract I posted was verified by Carl. So, yes. I'm very interested in such a bet. In particular I like the 10:1 odds. But we need to find an unbiased 3rd party to hold the money and make the decision. Who would that be, now that Intrade is defunct? Also, the parameters of the decision are different than I would settle upon. I don't hold Gibbs all that high in esteem. Perhaps something like, the 7 scientists who verified the energy density of the Ecat get their paper published in a peer reviewed publication? How I Made Money from Cold Fusion Saturday, January 23, 2010 12:28:49 PM · by Kevmo · 28 replies · 1,013+ views Exclusive Article for Free Republic | 1/23/10 | Kevmo http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/2435697/posts On Fri, Jun 28, 2013 at 4:37 PM, blaze spinnaker blazespinna...@gmail.com wrote: As a possible set of parameters to this bet: I'm willing to bet my 5000 against anyone's 500 that Mark Gibbs doesn't publish an article in Forbes this year that states he personally believes without a doubt that LENR+ is real and has a power density matching what Levi/Essen published (within some reasonable margin of error). On Fri, Jun 28, 2013 at 3:27 PM, blaze spinnaker blazespinna...@gmail.com wrote: Is anyone willing here to bet me $$$ that the eCat will not be proven this year? I'm open to discussing the parameters of this bet. Ideally we'd mutually agree on a 3rd party to hold our money and be an impartial judge as to who wins by EOY. Let me know. Cheers, Blaze.
Re: [Vo]:Anyone willing to make a bet the eCat is not real?
The journal reviewers to not accept the concept. The DOE does not accept the concept. Most physicists do not accept the concept. As for Rossi, his claims are totally consistent with how such an energy source will behave based on simple engineering analysis. He could not make up behavior that is so consistent. Ed On Jul 8, 2013, at 10:51 AM, blaze spinnaker wrote: Well, I think everyone accepts some form of cold fusion. I don't see that in doubt at all. What's in doubt is that Rossi has created an eCat with an absurdly high (and seemingly controllable) COP that is relying on cold fusion / LENR. On Mon, Jul 8, 2013 at 8:34 AM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com wrote: Yes, I also would like to know when we can consider cold fusion to be accepted. Three kinds of events seem to be relevant. 1. Reviewers allow papers to be published in Science, Nature and Scientific American. 2. Large amounts of investment money becomes available so that finding enough knowledgeable people to use the money becomes difficult. 3. China announces they are phasing out their fission reactors and replacing them with cold fusion reactors. Anything short of these events seems to be wishful thinking. Ed On Jul 8, 2013, at 9:10 AM, Kevin O'Malley wrote: Well, it looks like this bet thingie isn't going anywhere. No one is signing up to be the intermediary, and the Impact Factor lacks openness. On Fri, Jun 28, 2013 at 10:53 PM, Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.com wrote: So far I can't get a handle on what Impact Factor really is. Reuters charges for their information. I need to see where various journals are in this ranking, such as Naturewieessen, American Chemical Society, Journal of Analytical Chemistry, Physics Letters A, Journal of Nuclear Physics,Nature, Journal of Electrochemistry and various other journals. In particular, I would like to know the rankings of the journals mentioned on page 18 in this paper from Jed Rothwell's LENR-CANR.org website: http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RothwellJtallyofcol.pdf On Fri, Jun 28, 2013 at 5:26 PM, blaze spinnaker blazespinna...@gmail.com wrote: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Journal_ranking http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impact_factor How about using something like that? It has to have some minimum impact factor? How about an impact factor of at least 15? On Fri, Jun 28, 2013 at 5:14 PM, Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.com wrote: Ok, I posted it at the forum Intrade Gateway. We'll see if anyone is willing. http://intrade.freeforums.org/re-anyone-willing-to-make-a-bet-the-ecat-is-not-real-t31.html How would we come to an agreement on which publications are acceptable? I can see why you wouldn't want Journal of Nuclear Physics. But throwing out American Chemical Society? Where's the legitimate cutoff point? On Fri, Jun 28, 2013 at 5:03 PM, blaze spinnaker blazespinna...@gmail.com wrote: Ahhh, action. I love it! A peer reviewed publication, that's very interesting. I think we'll need to define which publications that might be, but other than that I'm in if you are. As for someone to hold it, maybe we can post on intrade.freeforums.org for someone to hold it. Or who knows, maybe someone here might hold it (Paypal?) Glad to see you around! Really really miss intrade (obviously!) On Fri, Jun 28, 2013 at 4:55 PM, Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.com wrote: Hello Blaze. I'm very pleased to see you posting here on Vortex. You may remember me on Intrade as ko, the guy who kept posting Cold Fusion articles. And I won quite a bit of money when the contract I posted was verified by Carl. So, yes. I'm very interested in such a bet. In particular I like the 10:1 odds. But we need to find an unbiased 3rd party to hold the money and make the decision. Who would that be, now that Intrade is defunct? Also, the parameters of the decision are different than I would settle upon. I don't hold Gibbs all that high in esteem. Perhaps something like, the 7 scientists who verified the energy density of the Ecat get their paper published in a peer reviewed publication? How I Made Money from Cold Fusion Saturday, January 23, 2010 12:28:49 PM · by Kevmo · 28 replies · 1,013+ views Exclusive Article for Free Republic | 1/23/10 | Kevmo http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/2435697/posts On Fri, Jun 28, 2013 at 4:37 PM, blaze spinnaker blazespinna...@gmail.com wrote: As a possible set of parameters to this bet: I'm willing to bet my 5000 against anyone's 500 that Mark Gibbs doesn't publish an article in Forbes this year that states he personally believes without a doubt that LENR+ is real and has a power density matching what Levi/Essen published (within some reasonable margin of error). On Fri, Jun 28, 2013 at 3:27 PM, blaze spinnaker blazespinna...@gmail.com wrote: Is anyone willing here to bet me $$$ that the eCat will not be
Re: [Vo]:Anyone willing to make a bet the eCat is not real?
blaze spinnaker blazespinna...@gmail.com wrote: Well, I think everyone accepts some form of cold fusion. I don't see that in doubt at all. I agree with Ed. Very very people accept any form of cold fusion. Most scientists and decision makers know nothing at all about cold fusion. Most of them say it was never replicated, and no peer reviewed papers on the subject were ever published, so obviously they know nothing. As for the bet that is the subject of this thread, it is a wager on how people will behave. On whether people will be rational or irrational, smart or stupid. History shows that you cannot predict such things. If this were a bet about the nature of cold fusion itself, I might take part (even though I do not approve of betting). However, this has nothing to do with the technical merits of cold fusion, so I have no insight into the matter. Except I do know that people have been terribly foolish about cold fusion, and many important people have gone out on a limb attacking it. So it is reasonable to predict they will continue to oppose it. I have been watching this year's weekly NHK Historical Drama Yae no sakura (http://wiki.d-addicts.com/Yae_no_Sakura) about the events surrounding the Meiji Restoration from 1860 to 1868 (so far). I am familiar with this history but it is still surprising to see how much opposition there was to opening the country. The die-hard opponents continued to fight long after it was clear they had lost, and even after the Tokugawa Shogun resigned and the new Meiji government was installed. People cling to illusions and delusions. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Anyone willing to make a bet the eCat is not real?
blaze spinnaker blazespinna...@gmail.com wrote: What's in doubt is that Rossi has created an eCat with an absurdly high (and seemingly controllable) COP that is relying on cold fusion / LENR. In what sense is the COP absurdly high? Many devices have no input at all, with an infinite COP. Many devices have achieved similarly high power density and temperatures. No else has done it on such a large scale, with so much reactant, but there is still nothing absurd about it. All along it has been our hope that someone would achieve this. It has been reasonable to assume someone would. Rossi is skilled person with a great deal of relevant expertise in catalysis. I am not surprised that someone with his background has solved the problem. There are no technical reasons to doubt Rossi's claims now that they have been confirmed by Levi et al. Rossi is flamboyant but you should not let that affect your judgement. It is irrelevant. Many flamboyant people are right, and many unpretentious people are wrong. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Anyone willing to make a bet the eCat is not real?
On Mon, Jul 8, 2013 at 2:20 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: I agree with Ed. Very very people accept any form of cold fusion. Most scientists and decision makers know nothing at all about cold fusion. I disagree. I work with a large number of professionals and everyone around me accepts cold fusion (although I suspect they just say so to shut me up :-).
Re: [Vo]:Anyone willing to make a bet the eCat is not real?
I tried. And it seems like I will lose. http://longbets.org/618/ On Sun, Jun 30, 2013 at 3:16 PM, Alain Sepeda alain.sep...@gmail.comwrote: I won't bet against you, because I know that nothing will convince you you are wrong. Despite any evidence you will refuse to pay... because if you were rational you won't bet that way. Fat Tony of taleb books explain that if you see a coin that fall 99 times on heads, the next throw don't have 50% head... but much more, because the coin is tricked. If you dare to bet against Rossi so sure of yourself you won't accept reality. However if you were rational you could easily bet that he won't be able to deliver. maybe is it what you try to do asking for evidence (accepted by mainstream, which is impossible unless huge industrial development) until end of 2013. the only thing that will make people accept e-cat is industrial application at large scale, and it will happen in 1-5years at best. It will take many years to be visible, and the denial we observe will slow down the development even more that with usual innovation. Usually it take 5 years and is deceiving compared to the initial ambition. since rossi started to have a working prototype in 2011/2012, you can expect a real delivery in 2016/2017... since it is a huge breakthrough, in a huge denial, the real delay is hard to guess... it can be earlier or later depending on who win, greed or conformism. I hope greed will help us. so you bet against (accepted) evidence, ie: asking for industrial diffusion, until end of 2013, is very smart. You will win. put the limit to 2017, and it will be fair. If you don't try to rationally abuse of our innocence in industrial question, I won't bet against you like it was stupid to have an CDS against AIG, unless it was backed by the federal bank (hopefully for the fool who bought them, AIG was bailed in)... It is as stupid as having an insurance against alien attack. my only bet, is betting my reputation (now everybody know who I am, and what I do, except the boss of my boss, who will fire me if he know). If one company wan't me to invest, why not a little, but i know that like on Internet 99% of startups will die, and the 1% will rule the world. Just see what Aldo Proia did, he have skin in the game, and unlike some clown who are fan of Rossi, he stopped a promising career in solar energy. Same for Xanthoulis. Essen also put his reputation in the game. remind that the first plane motorized flied in 1901, and was accepted by SciAm in 1906. 2013/6/29 blaze spinnaker blazespinna...@gmail.com Is anyone willing here to bet me $$$ that the eCat will not be proven this year? I'm open to discussing the parameters of this bet. Ideally we'd mutually agree on a 3rd party to hold our money and be an impartial judge as to who wins by EOY. Let me know. Cheers, Blaze. -- Patrick www.tRacePerfect.com The daily puzzle everyone can finish but not everyone can perfect! The quickest puzzle ever!
Re: [Vo]:Anyone willing to make a bet the eCat is not real?
I won't bet against you, because I know that nothing will convince you you are wrong. Despite any evidence you will refuse to pay... because if you were rational you won't bet that way. Fat Tony of taleb books explain that if you see a coin that fall 99 times on heads, the next throw don't have 50% head... but much more, because the coin is tricked. If you dare to bet against Rossi so sure of yourself you won't accept reality. However if you were rational you could easily bet that he won't be able to deliver. maybe is it what you try to do asking for evidence (accepted by mainstream, which is impossible unless huge industrial development) until end of 2013. the only thing that will make people accept e-cat is industrial application at large scale, and it will happen in 1-5years at best. It will take many years to be visible, and the denial we observe will slow down the development even more that with usual innovation. Usually it take 5 years and is deceiving compared to the initial ambition. since rossi started to have a working prototype in 2011/2012, you can expect a real delivery in 2016/2017... since it is a huge breakthrough, in a huge denial, the real delay is hard to guess... it can be earlier or later depending on who win, greed or conformism. I hope greed will help us. so you bet against (accepted) evidence, ie: asking for industrial diffusion, until end of 2013, is very smart. You will win. put the limit to 2017, and it will be fair. If you don't try to rationally abuse of our innocence in industrial question, I won't bet against you like it was stupid to have an CDS against AIG, unless it was backed by the federal bank (hopefully for the fool who bought them, AIG was bailed in)... It is as stupid as having an insurance against alien attack. my only bet, is betting my reputation (now everybody know who I am, and what I do, except the boss of my boss, who will fire me if he know). If one company wan't me to invest, why not a little, but i know that like on Internet 99% of startups will die, and the 1% will rule the world. Just see what Aldo Proia did, he have skin in the game, and unlike some clown who are fan of Rossi, he stopped a promising career in solar energy. Same for Xanthoulis. Essen also put his reputation in the game. remind that the first plane motorized flied in 1901, and was accepted by SciAm in 1906. 2013/6/29 blaze spinnaker blazespinna...@gmail.com Is anyone willing here to bet me $$$ that the eCat will not be proven this year? I'm open to discussing the parameters of this bet. Ideally we'd mutually agree on a 3rd party to hold our money and be an impartial judge as to who wins by EOY. Let me know. Cheers, Blaze.
Re: [Vo]:Anyone willing to make a bet the eCat is not real?
Hey weren't you the one who bet on Romney in '12? :D I think I have some forum archives here... Anyways, the goal here is (for those who haven't caught on yet) is to develop a crowd sourced probability (ideally with margin of error) using money as a motivating factor. Given the significant impact that eCat would have on portfolios, that probability is a pretty functional statistic. On Fri, Jun 28, 2013 at 10:23 PM, Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.comwrote: Jed: If you keep going on like this, I'll never be able to take this guy's money ;-] Maybe you could rag on the fish after the money is off the table? On Fri, Jun 28, 2013 at 6:49 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.comwrote: blaze spinnaker blazespinna...@gmail.com wrote: I believe that Essen and Levi were not skeptical, independent investigators . . . You have no basis for believing this. There is nothing in their report that might indicate it. They took every reasonable precaution, such as setting up a video camera and recording the entire test. and that Rossi had plenty of opportunity to rig the test or, No plausible method of doing this has been suggested by any skeptic. If the skeptics could think of a way to rig the test, they would have published it by now. Or do you buy the cheese hypothesis, that people cannot see ordinary wires? less likely, they made optimistic measurements. You can see for yourself that in every instance their measurements are conservative -- or pessimistic. In every case where they might have underestimated output, they did so. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Anyone willing to make a bet the eCat is not real?
there is still people not believing in 9/11 or in Apolo moon landing... so E-cat will never be proven. LENr is proven since 1991, and nobody accept it... Subprime crisins was described by Roubini in 2005, anticipated in 2003... all is public. the problem is not being proven, it is being accepted. 2013/6/29 blaze spinnaker blazespinna...@gmail.com Is anyone willing here to bet me $$$ that the eCat will not be proven this year? I'm open to discussing the parameters of this bet. Ideally we'd mutually agree on a 3rd party to hold our money and be an impartial judge as to who wins by EOY. Let me know. Cheers, Blaze.
Re: [Vo]:Anyone willing to make a bet the eCat is not real?
we agree 2013/6/29 blaze spinnaker blazespinna...@gmail.com It has already been proven. Clearly you and I have a different standard of proof. On Fri, Jun 28, 2013 at 3:51 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.comwrote: blaze spinnaker blazespinna...@gmail.com wrote: Is anyone willing here to bet me $$$ that the eCat will not be proven this year? It has already been proven. The best proof is this absurd paper by Ericsson Pomp. This is the best effort by skeptics to disprove the paper and it utterly fails. Such weak arguments are tantamount to admitting they have no case. This paper resembles Morrison's best attempt to disprove Fleischmann, which was so bad it proved beyond any doubt Morrison was completely wrong. See: http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/Fleischmanreplytothe.pdf The only bet would be: Will blaze spinnaker / Mary Yugo / Göran Ericsson, Stephan Pomp believe the data, or will they continue to spin absurd excuses to ignore it? I would bet that they will continue to spin excuses. The only way they will stop spinning excuses will be if the establishment agrees that Rossi's device is real. I mean the entire establishment, including the DoE and the New York Times. Not just ELFORSK. That is highly unlikely. I do not actually bet money. It is against my principles. I have devoted a large part of my life to this business so I do not think I need to establish my sincerity by betting. Or my bona fides. If Mr. Spinnaker would like to prove he is serious, he will address the technical issue about the model, raised here by Alan Fletcher. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Anyone willing to make a bet the eCat is not real?
From: blaze spinnaker blazespinna...@gmail.com Sent: Friday, June 28, 2013 3:27:41 PM Is anyone willing here to bet me $$$ that the eCat will not be proven this year? All my betting money is tied up in a pre-order for a domestic eCat. As soon as it is certified I'll confirm my order. (I think I'm in the first hundred or so to sign up).
Re: [Vo]:Anyone willing to make a bet the eCat is not real?
blaze spinnaker blazespinna...@gmail.com wrote: Is anyone willing here to bet me $$$ that the eCat will not be proven this year? It has already been proven. The best proof is this absurd paper by Ericsson Pomp. This is the best effort by skeptics to disprove the paper and it utterly fails. Such weak arguments are tantamount to admitting they have no case. This paper resembles Morrison's best attempt to disprove Fleischmann, which was so bad it proved beyond any doubt Morrison was completely wrong. See: http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/Fleischmanreplytothe.pdf The only bet would be: Will blaze spinnaker / Mary Yugo / Göran Ericsson, Stephan Pomp believe the data, or will they continue to spin absurd excuses to ignore it? I would bet that they will continue to spin excuses. The only way they will stop spinning excuses will be if the establishment agrees that Rossi's device is real. I mean the entire establishment, including the DoE and the New York Times. Not just ELFORSK. That is highly unlikely. I do not actually bet money. It is against my principles. I have devoted a large part of my life to this business so I do not think I need to establish my sincerity by betting. Or my bona fides. If Mr. Spinnaker would like to prove he is serious, he will address the technical issue about the model, raised here by Alan Fletcher. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Anyone willing to make a bet the eCat is not real?
It has already been proven. Clearly you and I have a different standard of proof. On Fri, Jun 28, 2013 at 3:51 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: blaze spinnaker blazespinna...@gmail.com wrote: Is anyone willing here to bet me $$$ that the eCat will not be proven this year? It has already been proven. The best proof is this absurd paper by Ericsson Pomp. This is the best effort by skeptics to disprove the paper and it utterly fails. Such weak arguments are tantamount to admitting they have no case. This paper resembles Morrison's best attempt to disprove Fleischmann, which was so bad it proved beyond any doubt Morrison was completely wrong. See: http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/Fleischmanreplytothe.pdf The only bet would be: Will blaze spinnaker / Mary Yugo / Göran Ericsson, Stephan Pomp believe the data, or will they continue to spin absurd excuses to ignore it? I would bet that they will continue to spin excuses. The only way they will stop spinning excuses will be if the establishment agrees that Rossi's device is real. I mean the entire establishment, including the DoE and the New York Times. Not just ELFORSK. That is highly unlikely. I do not actually bet money. It is against my principles. I have devoted a large part of my life to this business so I do not think I need to establish my sincerity by betting. Or my bona fides. If Mr. Spinnaker would like to prove he is serious, he will address the technical issue about the model, raised here by Alan Fletcher. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Anyone willing to make a bet the eCat is not real?
As a possible set of parameters to this bet: I'm willing to bet my 5000 against anyone's 500 that Mark Gibbs doesn't publish an article in Forbes this year that states he personally believes without a doubt that LENR+ is real and has a power density matching what Levi/Essen published (within some reasonable margin of error). On Fri, Jun 28, 2013 at 3:27 PM, blaze spinnaker blazespinna...@gmail.comwrote: Is anyone willing here to bet me $$$ that the eCat will not be proven this year? I'm open to discussing the parameters of this bet. Ideally we'd mutually agree on a 3rd party to hold our money and be an impartial judge as to who wins by EOY. Let me know. Cheers, Blaze.
Re: [Vo]:Anyone willing to make a bet the eCat is not real?
Hello Blaze. I'm very pleased to see you posting here on Vortex. You may remember me on Intrade as ko, the guy who kept posting Cold Fusion articles. And I won quite a bit of money when the contract I posted was verified by Carl. So, yes. I'm very interested in such a bet. In particular I like the 10:1 odds. But we need to find an unbiased 3rd party to hold the money and make the decision. Who would that be, now that Intrade is defunct? Also, the parameters of the decision are different than I would settle upon. I don't hold Gibbs all that high in esteem. Perhaps something like, the 7 scientists who verified the energy density of the Ecat get their paper published in a peer reviewed publication? How I Made Money from Cold Fusion Saturday, January 23, 2010 12:28:49 PM · by Kevmo · 28 replies · 1,013+ views Exclusive Article for Free Republic | 1/23/10 | Kevmo http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/2435697/posts On Fri, Jun 28, 2013 at 4:37 PM, blaze spinnaker blazespinna...@gmail.comwrote: As a possible set of parameters to this bet: I'm willing to bet my 5000 against anyone's 500 that Mark Gibbs doesn't publish an article in Forbes this year that states he personally believes without a doubt that LENR+ is real and has a power density matching what Levi/Essen published (within some reasonable margin of error). On Fri, Jun 28, 2013 at 3:27 PM, blaze spinnaker blazespinna...@gmail.com wrote: Is anyone willing here to bet me $$$ that the eCat will not be proven this year? I'm open to discussing the parameters of this bet. Ideally we'd mutually agree on a 3rd party to hold our money and be an impartial judge as to who wins by EOY. Let me know. Cheers, Blaze.
Re: [Vo]:Anyone willing to make a bet the eCat is not real?
Ahhh, action. I love it! A peer reviewed publication, that's very interesting. I think we'll need to define which publications that might be, but other than that I'm in if you are. As for someone to hold it, maybe we can post on intrade.freeforums.org for someone to hold it. Or who knows, maybe someone here might hold it (Paypal?) Glad to see you around! Really really miss intrade (obviously!) On Fri, Jun 28, 2013 at 4:55 PM, Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.com wrote: Hello Blaze. I'm very pleased to see you posting here on Vortex. You may remember me on Intrade as ko, the guy who kept posting Cold Fusion articles. And I won quite a bit of money when the contract I posted was verified by Carl. So, yes. I'm very interested in such a bet. In particular I like the 10:1 odds. But we need to find an unbiased 3rd party to hold the money and make the decision. Who would that be, now that Intrade is defunct? Also, the parameters of the decision are different than I would settle upon. I don't hold Gibbs all that high in esteem. Perhaps something like, the 7 scientists who verified the energy density of the Ecat get their paper published in a peer reviewed publication? How I Made Money from Cold Fusion Saturday, January 23, 2010 12:28:49 PM · by Kevmo · 28 replies · 1,013+ views Exclusive Article for Free Republic | 1/23/10 | Kevmo http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/2435697/posts On Fri, Jun 28, 2013 at 4:37 PM, blaze spinnaker blazespinna...@gmail.com wrote: As a possible set of parameters to this bet: I'm willing to bet my 5000 against anyone's 500 that Mark Gibbs doesn't publish an article in Forbes this year that states he personally believes without a doubt that LENR+ is real and has a power density matching what Levi/Essen published (within some reasonable margin of error). On Fri, Jun 28, 2013 at 3:27 PM, blaze spinnaker blazespinna...@gmail.com wrote: Is anyone willing here to bet me $$$ that the eCat will not be proven this year? I'm open to discussing the parameters of this bet. Ideally we'd mutually agree on a 3rd party to hold our money and be an impartial judge as to who wins by EOY. Let me know. Cheers, Blaze.
Re: [Vo]:Anyone willing to make a bet the eCat is not real?
Ok, I posted it at the forum Intrade Gateway. We'll see if anyone is willing. http://intrade.freeforums.org/re-anyone-willing-to-make-a-bet-the-ecat-is-not-real-t31.html How would we come to an agreement on which publications are acceptable? I can see why you wouldn't want Journal of Nuclear Physics. But throwing out American Chemical Society? Where's the legitimate cutoff point? On Fri, Jun 28, 2013 at 5:03 PM, blaze spinnaker blazespinna...@gmail.comwrote: Ahhh, action. I love it! A peer reviewed publication, that's very interesting. I think we'll need to define which publications that might be, but other than that I'm in if you are. As for someone to hold it, maybe we can post on intrade.freeforums.orgfor someone to hold it. Or who knows, maybe someone here might hold it (Paypal?) Glad to see you around! Really really miss intrade (obviously!) On Fri, Jun 28, 2013 at 4:55 PM, Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.comwrote: Hello Blaze. I'm very pleased to see you posting here on Vortex. You may remember me on Intrade as ko, the guy who kept posting Cold Fusion articles. And I won quite a bit of money when the contract I posted was verified by Carl. So, yes. I'm very interested in such a bet. In particular I like the 10:1 odds. But we need to find an unbiased 3rd party to hold the money and make the decision. Who would that be, now that Intrade is defunct? Also, the parameters of the decision are different than I would settle upon. I don't hold Gibbs all that high in esteem. Perhaps something like, the 7 scientists who verified the energy density of the Ecat get their paper published in a peer reviewed publication? How I Made Money from Cold Fusion Saturday, January 23, 2010 12:28:49 PM · by Kevmo · 28 replies · 1,013+ views Exclusive Article for Free Republic | 1/23/10 | Kevmo http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/2435697/posts On Fri, Jun 28, 2013 at 4:37 PM, blaze spinnaker blazespinna...@gmail.com wrote: As a possible set of parameters to this bet: I'm willing to bet my 5000 against anyone's 500 that Mark Gibbs doesn't publish an article in Forbes this year that states he personally believes without a doubt that LENR+ is real and has a power density matching what Levi/Essen published (within some reasonable margin of error). On Fri, Jun 28, 2013 at 3:27 PM, blaze spinnaker blazespinna...@gmail.com wrote: Is anyone willing here to bet me $$$ that the eCat will not be proven this year? I'm open to discussing the parameters of this bet. Ideally we'd mutually agree on a 3rd party to hold our money and be an impartial judge as to who wins by EOY. Let me know. Cheers, Blaze.
Re: [Vo]:Anyone willing to make a bet the eCat is not real?
What about a bet on Defkalion? 2013/6/28 blaze spinnaker blazespinna...@gmail.com http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Journal_ranking http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impact_factor How about using something like that? It has to have some minimum impact factor? How about an impact factor of at least 15? On Fri, Jun 28, 2013 at 5:14 PM, Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.comwrote: Ok, I posted it at the forum Intrade Gateway. We'll see if anyone is willing. http://intrade.freeforums.org/re-anyone-willing-to-make-a-bet-the-ecat-is-not-real-t31.html How would we come to an agreement on which publications are acceptable? I can see why you wouldn't want Journal of Nuclear Physics. But throwing out American Chemical Society? Where's the legitimate cutoff point? On Fri, Jun 28, 2013 at 5:03 PM, blaze spinnaker blazespinna...@gmail.com wrote: Ahhh, action. I love it! A peer reviewed publication, that's very interesting. I think we'll need to define which publications that might be, but other than that I'm in if you are. As for someone to hold it, maybe we can post on intrade.freeforums.orgfor someone to hold it. Or who knows, maybe someone here might hold it (Paypal?) Glad to see you around! Really really miss intrade (obviously!) On Fri, Jun 28, 2013 at 4:55 PM, Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.comwrote: Hello Blaze. I'm very pleased to see you posting here on Vortex. You may remember me on Intrade as ko, the guy who kept posting Cold Fusion articles. And I won quite a bit of money when the contract I posted was verified by Carl. So, yes. I'm very interested in such a bet. In particular I like the 10:1 odds. But we need to find an unbiased 3rd party to hold the money and make the decision. Who would that be, now that Intrade is defunct? Also, the parameters of the decision are different than I would settle upon. I don't hold Gibbs all that high in esteem. Perhaps something like, the 7 scientists who verified the energy density of the Ecat get their paper published in a peer reviewed publication? How I Made Money from Cold Fusion Saturday, January 23, 2010 12:28:49 PM · by Kevmo · 28 replies · 1,013+ views Exclusive Article for Free Republic | 1/23/10 | Kevmo http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/2435697/posts On Fri, Jun 28, 2013 at 4:37 PM, blaze spinnaker blazespinna...@gmail.com wrote: As a possible set of parameters to this bet: I'm willing to bet my 5000 against anyone's 500 that Mark Gibbs doesn't publish an article in Forbes this year that states he personally believes without a doubt that LENR+ is real and has a power density matching what Levi/Essen published (within some reasonable margin of error). On Fri, Jun 28, 2013 at 3:27 PM, blaze spinnaker blazespinna...@gmail.com wrote: Is anyone willing here to bet me $$$ that the eCat will not be proven this year? I'm open to discussing the parameters of this bet. Ideally we'd mutually agree on a 3rd party to hold our money and be an impartial judge as to who wins by EOY. Let me know. Cheers, Blaze. -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
Re: [Vo]:Anyone willing to make a bet the eCat is not real?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Journal_ranking http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impact_factor How about using something like that? It has to have some minimum impact factor? How about an impact factor of at least 15? On Fri, Jun 28, 2013 at 5:14 PM, Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.com wrote: Ok, I posted it at the forum Intrade Gateway. We'll see if anyone is willing. http://intrade.freeforums.org/re-anyone-willing-to-make-a-bet-the-ecat-is-not-real-t31.html How would we come to an agreement on which publications are acceptable? I can see why you wouldn't want Journal of Nuclear Physics. But throwing out American Chemical Society? Where's the legitimate cutoff point? On Fri, Jun 28, 2013 at 5:03 PM, blaze spinnaker blazespinna...@gmail.com wrote: Ahhh, action. I love it! A peer reviewed publication, that's very interesting. I think we'll need to define which publications that might be, but other than that I'm in if you are. As for someone to hold it, maybe we can post on intrade.freeforums.orgfor someone to hold it. Or who knows, maybe someone here might hold it (Paypal?) Glad to see you around! Really really miss intrade (obviously!) On Fri, Jun 28, 2013 at 4:55 PM, Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.comwrote: Hello Blaze. I'm very pleased to see you posting here on Vortex. You may remember me on Intrade as ko, the guy who kept posting Cold Fusion articles. And I won quite a bit of money when the contract I posted was verified by Carl. So, yes. I'm very interested in such a bet. In particular I like the 10:1 odds. But we need to find an unbiased 3rd party to hold the money and make the decision. Who would that be, now that Intrade is defunct? Also, the parameters of the decision are different than I would settle upon. I don't hold Gibbs all that high in esteem. Perhaps something like, the 7 scientists who verified the energy density of the Ecat get their paper published in a peer reviewed publication? How I Made Money from Cold Fusion Saturday, January 23, 2010 12:28:49 PM · by Kevmo · 28 replies · 1,013+ views Exclusive Article for Free Republic | 1/23/10 | Kevmo http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/2435697/posts On Fri, Jun 28, 2013 at 4:37 PM, blaze spinnaker blazespinna...@gmail.com wrote: As a possible set of parameters to this bet: I'm willing to bet my 5000 against anyone's 500 that Mark Gibbs doesn't publish an article in Forbes this year that states he personally believes without a doubt that LENR+ is real and has a power density matching what Levi/Essen published (within some reasonable margin of error). On Fri, Jun 28, 2013 at 3:27 PM, blaze spinnaker blazespinna...@gmail.com wrote: Is anyone willing here to bet me $$$ that the eCat will not be proven this year? I'm open to discussing the parameters of this bet. Ideally we'd mutually agree on a 3rd party to hold our money and be an impartial judge as to who wins by EOY. Let me know. Cheers, Blaze.
Re: [Vo]:Anyone willing to make a bet the eCat is not real?
blaze spinnaker blazespinna...@gmail.com wrote: It has already been proven. Clearly you and I have a different standard of proof. Yes. I look at physics and engineering for objective, replicated evidence. You make a bet that ignorant, foolish people will not change their minds about something they know nothing about and have no business discussing, never mind judging. These are two completely different things. If this were 1906 you would be safe betting that the Sci. Am. and the New York Times will attack aviation and declare the Wright brothers frauds. The thing is, in 1906 that only proved those were ignorant fools making mistakes. It had no bearing on the reality of aviation. You can probably find a 100,000 pundits and scientists in the U.S. who will denounce cold fusion. One reading from an IR camera proves they are wrong. The best arguments they come up with will be the kind of stream-of-consciousness free form blather that Ericsson Pomp presented. And that you will not address. There is nothing to bet on here. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Anyone willing to make a bet the eCat is not real?
Jed, you are a bonafide crank. You and Mary Yugo should get together. A clear ambiguity exists when it comes to cold fusion and whether or not it's true. If you can't see that, you're blind. On Fri, Jun 28, 2013 at 5:39 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: blaze spinnaker blazespinna...@gmail.com wrote: It has already been proven. Clearly you and I have a different standard of proof. Yes. I look at physics and engineering for objective, replicated evidence. You make a bet that ignorant, foolish people will not change their minds about something they know nothing about and have no business discussing, never mind judging. These are two completely different things. If this were 1906 you would be safe betting that the Sci. Am. and the New York Times will attack aviation and declare the Wright brothers frauds. The thing is, in 1906 that only proved those were ignorant fools making mistakes. It had no bearing on the reality of aviation. You can probably find a 100,000 pundits and scientists in the U.S. who will denounce cold fusion. One reading from an IR camera proves they are wrong. The best arguments they come up with will be the kind of stream-of-consciousness free form blather that Ericsson Pomp presented. And that you will not address. There is nothing to bet on here. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Anyone willing to make a bet the eCat is not real?
And by cold fusion, obviously I don't mean random small amounts of AHE. I mean what eCat / Rossi has done and some absurdly high COP. I fully believe in the random AHE and LENR. That has been replicated many times. But to imagine that there is some new magical power source discovered by a convict that will alter trillions of dollars in investments and derivatives and global geopolitical power structures that everyone is completely ignoring? Possible sure, but improbable. On Fri, Jun 28, 2013 at 5:48 PM, blaze spinnaker blazespinna...@gmail.comwrote: Jed, you are a bonafide crank. You and Mary Yugo should get together. A clear ambiguity exists when it comes to cold fusion and whether or not it's true. If you can't see that, you're blind. On Fri, Jun 28, 2013 at 5:39 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.comwrote: blaze spinnaker blazespinna...@gmail.com wrote: It has already been proven. Clearly you and I have a different standard of proof. Yes. I look at physics and engineering for objective, replicated evidence. You make a bet that ignorant, foolish people will not change their minds about something they know nothing about and have no business discussing, never mind judging. These are two completely different things. If this were 1906 you would be safe betting that the Sci. Am. and the New York Times will attack aviation and declare the Wright brothers frauds. The thing is, in 1906 that only proved those were ignorant fools making mistakes. It had no bearing on the reality of aviation. You can probably find a 100,000 pundits and scientists in the U.S. who will denounce cold fusion. One reading from an IR camera proves they are wrong. The best arguments they come up with will be the kind of stream-of-consciousness free form blather that Ericsson Pomp presented. And that you will not address. There is nothing to bet on here. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Anyone willing to make a bet the eCat is not real?
blaze spinnaker blazespinna...@gmail.com wrote: A clear ambiguity exists when it comes to cold fusion and whether or not it's true. Not if you believe in the scientific method. An effect that has been replicated thousands of time in hundreds of laboratories at high signal to noise ratios exists, by definition. There is no other standard of truth in experimental science. Experiments, peer-review, replication and the other mechanisms of science sometimes fail, but they would never fail on the scale necessary to make cold fusion a mistake, or even questionable. You might as well expect that every airline pilot in the sky will make a drastic mistake and crash every airplane in a single day. People make mistakes and institutions fail, but never on that scale. There are other standards in a court of law, or in the mass media. You might take a poll of scientists, for example. But science is not a popularity contest. It does not matter how many people believe something -- or don't believe it. Facts are facts, even if no one believes them or knows about them. Ohm's law was true before it was discovered, and it will remain true after our species goes extinct. If you can't see that, you're blind. I doubt you have read the experimental literature. I do not know any scientifically literate person who has and yet who disagrees with me, except Britz, Steve Jones and Shanahan. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Anyone willing to make a bet the eCat is not real?
We're talking past each other. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and suggest that perhaps it's my fault. I am referring to eCat / Rossi. I'm actually a big fan of LENR and the research done there. It is sad that it's being underfunded given all the AHE everyone is seeing and the opportunity that exists. Rossi, however, I am willing to bet is a dangerous fool that undermines the LENR community and its credibility. On Fri, Jun 28, 2013 at 6:10 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: blaze spinnaker blazespinna...@gmail.com wrote: A clear ambiguity exists when it comes to cold fusion and whether or not it's true. Not if you believe in the scientific method. An effect that has been replicated thousands of time in hundreds of laboratories at high signal to noise ratios exists, by definition. There is no other standard of truth in experimental science. Experiments, peer-review, replication and the other mechanisms of science sometimes fail, but they would never fail on the scale necessary to make cold fusion a mistake, or even questionable. You might as well expect that every airline pilot in the sky will make a drastic mistake and crash every airplane in a single day. People make mistakes and institutions fail, but never on that scale. There are other standards in a court of law, or in the mass media. You might take a poll of scientists, for example. But science is not a popularity contest. It does not matter how many people believe something -- or don't believe it. Facts are facts, even if no one believes them or knows about them. Ohm's law was true before it was discovered, and it will remain true after our species goes extinct. If you can't see that, you're blind. I doubt you have read the experimental literature. I do not know any scientifically literate person who has and yet who disagrees with me, except Britz, Steve Jones and Shanahan. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Anyone willing to make a bet the eCat is not real?
blaze spinnaker blazespinna...@gmail.com wrote: And by cold fusion, obviously I don't mean random small amounts of AHE. Cold fusion results are never random. The control factors are well understood. See McKubre. But to imagine that there is some new magical power source discovered by a convict that will alter trillions of dollars in investments and derivatives and global geopolitical power structures that everyone is completely ignoring? You cannot judge a scientific question by looking at the behavior or opinions of people who know nothing about the science. The people ignoring cold fusion have no basis to judge whether it is real, or whether it has any commercial potential. You might as well ask people the 14th century what they think of the germ theory and whether bacteria causes disease. Your argument seems to be verging on the notion that cold fusion is too good to be true, or if were true, people would magically know about it, even though the mass media has never published any technical details and most people would not have the slightest idea what those details mean. As for the too good argument, let me quote myself: Some skeptics feel that cold fusion must be too good to be true. They suspect that cold fusion researchers are guilty of wishful thinking. They should remember Michael Faraday’s dictum: “Nothing is too wonderful to be true if it be consistent with the laws of nature.” Mankind has discovered countless wonderful things that ancient people would have thought miraculous. . . . Many people have a sneaking suspicion that cold fusion must be too good to be true, because nature never does something for nothing. They think everything is difficult, and there is always a price to pay for the bounty of nature. Resources are now and always will be in short supply, and we must therefore compete with others to get our share. Such people are mired in a stone-age mentality. The only resources we lack are knowledge and science. Knowledge is power, and with it we can unlock the unthinkably vast material and energy resources of the earth, and ultimately of the entire solar system. . . . http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RothwellJcoldfusiona.pdf - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Anyone willing to make a bet the eCat is not real?
blaze spinnaker blazespinna...@gmail.com wrote: Rossi, however, I am willing to bet is a dangerous fool that undermines the LENR community and its credibility. Rossi is not the issue any more. You are betting that Focardi, Levi and the other six are gullible fools who know nothing about how to do experiments. You are wrong about that. Their paper proves they know what they are doing. The paper by Ericsson Pomp and the comments by people such as Shanahan at Forbes prove that the skeptics do not have a leg to stand on. They cannot think of a single valid objection to the Levi paper. If they could, they would. If YOU could, you would, instead of flailing around with these absurd arguments that people who know nothing about research should by magic ESP know all about. Ask yourself: What are EP saying? That Levi should have built his own IR camera from scratch instead of using a commercial one and comparing it to a thermocouple. Is that really the kind of argument you want to hang your hat on? Do you really believe those nitwits?!? Have you ever read more absurd arguments in you life? (Okay go read Morrison versus Fleischmann . . . and you will.) Or take Shanahan's argument that he will not believe the thermocouple tracked the IR camera until he sees every single data point. Being told it stayed within two degrees is somehow magically not informative enough for him. Don't you see that he is making excuses and evading the issue? And making a fool of himself! - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Anyone willing to make a bet the eCat is not real?
I believe that Essen and Levi were not skeptical, independent investigators and that Rossi had plenty of opportunity to rig the test or, less likely, they made optimistic measurements. That seems more probable to me then that this narcissistic fool has discovered the solution that will change the future for everyone on planet earth. That being said, I'd probably take the other side of the bet if someone gave me 30-1 odds On Fri, Jun 28, 2013 at 6:31 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: blaze spinnaker blazespinna...@gmail.com wrote: Rossi, however, I am willing to bet is a dangerous fool that undermines the LENR community and its credibility. Rossi is not the issue any more. You are betting that Focardi, Levi and the other six are gullible fools who know nothing about how to do experiments. You are wrong about that. Their paper proves they know what they are doing. The paper by Ericsson Pomp and the comments by people such as Shanahan at Forbes prove that the skeptics do not have a leg to stand on. They cannot think of a single valid objection to the Levi paper. If they could, they would. If YOU could, you would, instead of flailing around with these absurd arguments that people who know nothing about research should by magic ESP know all about. Ask yourself: What are EP saying? That Levi should have built his own IR camera from scratch instead of using a commercial one and comparing it to a thermocouple. Is that really the kind of argument you want to hang your hat on? Do you really believe those nitwits?!? Have you ever read more absurd arguments in you life? (Okay go read Morrison versus Fleischmann . . . and you will.) Or take Shanahan's argument that he will not believe the thermocouple tracked the IR camera until he sees every single data point. Being told it stayed within two degrees is somehow magically not informative enough for him. Don't you see that he is making excuses and evading the issue? And making a fool of himself! - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Anyone willing to make a bet the eCat is not real?
You go, girl! On Fri, Jun 28, 2013 at 9:41 PM, blaze spinnaker blazespinna...@gmail.com wrote: I believe that Essen and Levi were not skeptical, independent investigators and that Rossi had plenty of opportunity to rig the test or, less likely, they made optimistic measurements. That seems more probable to me then that this narcissistic fool has discovered the solution that will change the future for everyone on planet earth. That being said, I'd probably take the other side of the bet if someone gave me 30-1 odds On Fri, Jun 28, 2013 at 6:31 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: blaze spinnaker blazespinna...@gmail.com wrote: Rossi, however, I am willing to bet is a dangerous fool that undermines the LENR community and its credibility. Rossi is not the issue any more. You are betting that Focardi, Levi and the other six are gullible fools who know nothing about how to do experiments. You are wrong about that. Their paper proves they know what they are doing. The paper by Ericsson Pomp and the comments by people such as Shanahan at Forbes prove that the skeptics do not have a leg to stand on. They cannot think of a single valid objection to the Levi paper. If they could, they would. If YOU could, you would, instead of flailing around with these absurd arguments that people who know nothing about research should by magic ESP know all about. Ask yourself: What are EP saying? That Levi should have built his own IR camera from scratch instead of using a commercial one and comparing it to a thermocouple. Is that really the kind of argument you want to hang your hat on? Do you really believe those nitwits?!? Have you ever read more absurd arguments in you life? (Okay go read Morrison versus Fleischmann . . . and you will.) Or take Shanahan's argument that he will not believe the thermocouple tracked the IR camera until he sees every single data point. Being told it stayed within two degrees is somehow magically not informative enough for him. Don't you see that he is making excuses and evading the issue? And making a fool of himself! - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Anyone willing to make a bet the eCat is not real?
blaze spinnaker blazespinna...@gmail.com wrote: I believe that Essen and Levi were not skeptical, independent investigators . . . You have no basis for believing this. There is nothing in their report that might indicate it. They took every reasonable precaution, such as setting up a video camera and recording the entire test. and that Rossi had plenty of opportunity to rig the test or, No plausible method of doing this has been suggested by any skeptic. If the skeptics could think of a way to rig the test, they would have published it by now. Or do you buy the cheese hypothesis, that people cannot see ordinary wires? less likely, they made optimistic measurements. You can see for yourself that in every instance their measurements are conservative -- or pessimistic. In every case where they might have underestimated output, they did so. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Anyone willing to make a bet the eCat is not real?
Fair enough. I'm merely pointing out what I believe and what I'd bet at. You've already said you're not a betting man, so your participation in this thread is very hard to quantify objectively and so not particularly useful to me. I'd really like to hear from anyone who would be willing to bet, even if theoretically and what odds would they give? On Fri, Jun 28, 2013 at 6:49 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: blaze spinnaker blazespinna...@gmail.com wrote: I believe that Essen and Levi were not skeptical, independent investigators . . . You have no basis for believing this. There is nothing in their report that might indicate it. They took every reasonable precaution, such as setting up a video camera and recording the entire test. and that Rossi had plenty of opportunity to rig the test or, No plausible method of doing this has been suggested by any skeptic. If the skeptics could think of a way to rig the test, they would have published it by now. Or do you buy the cheese hypothesis, that people cannot see ordinary wires? less likely, they made optimistic measurements. You can see for yourself that in every instance their measurements are conservative -- or pessimistic. In every case where they might have underestimated output, they did so. - Jed
RE: [Vo]:Anyone willing to make a bet the eCat is not real?
From Blaze spinnaker Jed, you are a bonafide crank. You and Mary Yugo should get together. Mr. Spinaker, You have accused Mr. Rothwell of being a bonafide crank. While making such accusations may annoy me personally, I'm sure Mr. Rothwell could care less what your opinion of him might be. I also suspect most on the Vortex-l list would beg to differ with the absurd implication you have made that Yugo and Rothwell should get together, as if they have been made from the same mold. It seems to me that you have not acquired a very clear understanding of the differences between these two individuals. For one thing, Mary Yugo is a pseudo name. While we have a pretty good idea who the actual individual is who hides behind the Mary Yugo persona Mr. Rothwell has always been: Jed Rothwell. Mr. Rothwell has posted a phone number and an address. He is the author and manager of the lenr-canr.org/ website for which, he along with Ed Storms, have meticulously assembled the most accurate CF/LENR information one can get over the Internet. It seems to me that Jed has earned a great deal of respect for his tireless work to get the actual CF/LENR facts out particularly at a time when most of the traditional scientific publications and organizations were either too ignorant to bother to look into the matter themselves, or didn't have the guts to do so. Jed has always been out in the open. Meanwhile, who knows who Yugo really is. Why hide? Is it because the individual is in a sensitive position and needs to protect their true identity? Yeah, sure. give me a break. What are your credentials? Give us some good reasons why we should pay attention to anything you say? Inquiring minds want to know. Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson svjart.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/newvortex/
Re: [Vo]:Anyone willing to make a bet the eCat is not real?
blaze spinnaker blazespinna...@gmail.com wrote: I'd really like to hear from anyone who would be willing to bet, even if theoretically and what odds would they give? I think you need to define what it is you are betting on: Are you betting on the outcome of public opinion? That is hard to predict but you are betting that people are often willfully ignorant, stupid and self destructive. History is on your side. Are you betting that the laws of thermodynamics are inoperative? That calorimetry does not work? Because if it does work then cold fusion is a sure thing. I would give you 10,000 to 1 odds on that. If you are betting that Rossi has found a way to make 900 W look like 300 W with an off-the-shelf watt meter than you are brave person willing to take a risky bet. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Anyone willing to make a bet the eCat is not real?
Come on Jed, you're being purposely obtuse (at least I hope so). I'm betting that Rossi != Wright brothers. On Fri, Jun 28, 2013 at 7:09 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: blaze spinnaker blazespinna...@gmail.com wrote: I'd really like to hear from anyone who would be willing to bet, even if theoretically and what odds would they give? I think you need to define what it is you are betting on: Are you betting on the outcome of public opinion? That is hard to predict but you are betting that people are often willfully ignorant, stupid and self destructive. History is on your side. Are you betting that the laws of thermodynamics are inoperative? That calorimetry does not work? Because if it does work then cold fusion is a sure thing. I would give you 10,000 to 1 odds on that. If you are betting that Rossi has found a way to make 900 W look like 300 W with an off-the-shelf watt meter than you are brave person willing to take a risky bet. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Anyone willing to make a bet the eCat is not real?
blaze spinnaker blazespinna...@gmail.com wrote: Come on Jed, you're being purposely obtuse (at least I hope so). No, I am serious. What proposition are you betting on: Public opinion? Thermodynamics? Rossi knowing how to fool watt meters? Or something else I have not thought of? Define your terms. Describe what it is you are betting on. I'm betting that Rossi != Wright brothers. Well you have a point. The Wrights were a lot more squirrely. They did not trust people as much as Rossi does, which is why they ended up losing several potential fortunes. They spent a lifetime engaged in petty arguments, first on behalf of their father in his fights in the church, then against people they should have ignored. Then against their loving sister because she had the temerity to marry in middle age. Orville finally did forgive her when she was on her deathbed, and he spoke to her for the first time in years. It was Orville and Wilbur against Everyone In the World. That's why Wilbur worked himself to death in lawsuits at age 45, and why Orville never married. See: T. Crouch, The Bishop's Boys. People such as the Wrights are not often pretty when you look closely. Read their letters. Read Crouch. - Jed
RE: [Vo]:Anyone willing to make a bet the eCat is not real?
Just when we booted one troll out of the saloon, MY gets reincarnated as BS... which so aptly describes what she/he spews... -Mark -Original Message- From: Terry Blanton [mailto:hohlr...@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, June 28, 2013 6:48 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:Anyone willing to make a bet the eCat is not real? You go, girl! On Fri, Jun 28, 2013 at 9:41 PM, blaze spinnaker blazespinna...@gmail.com wrote: I believe that Essen and Levi were not skeptical, independent investigators and that Rossi had plenty of opportunity to rig the test or, less likely, they made optimistic measurements. That seems more probable to me then that this narcissistic fool has discovered the solution that will change the future for everyone on planet earth. That being said, I'd probably take the other side of the bet if someone gave me 30-1 odds On Fri, Jun 28, 2013 at 6:31 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: blaze spinnaker blazespinna...@gmail.com wrote: Rossi, however, I am willing to bet is a dangerous fool that undermines the LENR community and its credibility. Rossi is not the issue any more. You are betting that Focardi, Levi and the other six are gullible fools who know nothing about how to do experiments. You are wrong about that. Their paper proves they know what they are doing. The paper by Ericsson Pomp and the comments by people such as Shanahan at Forbes prove that the skeptics do not have a leg to stand on. They cannot think of a single valid objection to the Levi paper. If they could, they would. If YOU could, you would, instead of flailing around with these absurd arguments that people who know nothing about research should by magic ESP know all about. Ask yourself: What are EP saying? That Levi should have built his own IR camera from scratch instead of using a commercial one and comparing it to a thermocouple. Is that really the kind of argument you want to hang your hat on? Do you really believe those nitwits?!? Have you ever read more absurd arguments in you life? (Okay go read Morrison versus Fleischmann . . . and you will.) Or take Shanahan's argument that he will not believe the thermocouple tracked the IR camera until he sees every single data point. Being told it stayed within two degrees is somehow magically not informative enough for him. Don't you see that he is making excuses and evading the issue? And making a fool of himself! - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Anyone willing to make a bet the eCat is not real?
Well, I like how you think. Try to find something that's unbiased as an indicator. Unfortunately, that doesn't work so well for things like cold fusion. For instance, look at this comment http://phys.org/news/2012-11-reveals-declining-high-impact-factor.html natello http://phys.org/profile/user/natello/ - 1.4 / 5 (7) Nov 07, 2012 The high impact journals tend to be as rigorous and reliable, as possible. These journals are enforcing the deterministic approach in most stringent way. The high impact journals tend to specialize to most deterministic connections, models and phenomena. But just these observations are more and more rare. You can get a lotta more knowledge from experimentally oriented articles published in 2nd grade journals. This particularly applies to cold fusion, which has no theory developed yet. Therefore no article about cold fusion may appear in mainstream journal, because it wouldn't fit the criteria of mainstream journals rigor. This indeed slows down the progress in this research area, because the scientists are valued by their impact today. And just this new fundamental and very important research has a lowest amount of theory developed, so it cannot get high impact. The editors of high-impact journals are essentially saying with it: don't publish original findings and results there. The article itself is actually pretty interesting. Excerpt: Study reveals declining influence of high impact factor journals Nov 07, 2012 [image: Study reveals declining influence of high impact factor journals] Vincent Larivière The most prestigious peer-reviewed journals in the world, such as *Cell*, * Nature*, *Science*, and the *Journal of the American Medical Association* (* JAMA*), have less and less influence amongst scientists, according to a paper co-authored by Vincent Larivière, a professor at the University of Montreal's School of Library and Information Sciences. He questions the relationship between journal impact factor and number of citations subsequently received by papers. In 1990, 45% of the top 5% most cited articles were published in the top 5% highest impact factor journals. In 2009, this rate was only 36%, Larivière said. This means that the most cited articles are published less exclusively in high impact factor journals. The proportion of these articles published in major scholarly journals has sharply declined over the last twenty years. His study was based on a sample of more than 820 million citations and 25 million articles published between 1902 and 2009. The findings were published in the *Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology*. For each year analysed in the study, Larivière evaluated the strength of the relationship between article citations in the two years following publication against the journal http://phys.org/tags/journal/ impact factor. Then, he compared the proportion of the most cited articles published in the highest impact factor journals. Using various measures, the goal was to see whether the 'predictive' power of impact factor on citations received by articles has changed over the years, Larivière said. From 1902 to 1990, major findings were reported in the most prominent journals, notes Larivière. But this relationship is less true today. Larivière and his colleagues George Lozano and Yves Gingras of UQAM's Observatoire des sciences et des technologies also found that the decline in high impact factor journals began in the early 90s, when the Internet experienced rapid growth within the scientific community. Digital technology http://phys.org/tags/digital+technology/ has changed the way researchers are informed about scientific texts. Historically, we all subscribed to paper journals. Periodicals were the main source for articles, and we didn't have to look outside the major journals, Larivière noted. Since the advent of Google Scholar, for example, the process of searching information has completely changed. Search engines provide access to all articles, whether or not they are published in prestigious journals. Impact factor as a measure of a journal's influence was developed in the 1960s by Eugene Garfield, one of the founders of bibliometrics. It is basically the average number of times a journal's articles are cited over a two-year period, Larivière explained. Initially, this indicator was used to help libraries decide which journals to subscribe to. But over time, it began to be used to evaluate researchers and determine the value of their publications. The importance of impact factor is so ingrained in academia's collective consciousness that researchers themselves use impact factor to decide which journals they will submit their articles to. On Fri, Jun 28, 2013 at 5:26 PM, blaze spinnaker blazespinna...@gmail.comwrote: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Journal_ranking http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impact_factor How about using something like that? It has to have some minimum impact factor?
Re: [Vo]:Anyone willing to make a bet the eCat is not real?
Jed: If you keep going on like this, I'll never be able to take this guy's money ;-] Maybe you could rag on the fish after the money is off the table? On Fri, Jun 28, 2013 at 6:49 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: blaze spinnaker blazespinna...@gmail.com wrote: I believe that Essen and Levi were not skeptical, independent investigators . . . You have no basis for believing this. There is nothing in their report that might indicate it. They took every reasonable precaution, such as setting up a video camera and recording the entire test. and that Rossi had plenty of opportunity to rig the test or, No plausible method of doing this has been suggested by any skeptic. If the skeptics could think of a way to rig the test, they would have published it by now. Or do you buy the cheese hypothesis, that people cannot see ordinary wires? less likely, they made optimistic measurements. You can see for yourself that in every instance their measurements are conservative -- or pessimistic. In every case where they might have underestimated output, they did so. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Anyone willing to make a bet the eCat is not real?
So far I can't get a handle on what Impact Factor really is. Reuters charges for their information. I need to see where various journals are in this ranking, such as Naturewieessen, American Chemical Society, Journal of Analytical Chemistry, Physics Letters A, Journal of Nuclear Physics,Nature, Journal of Electrochemistry and various other journals. In particular, I would like to know the rankings of the journals mentioned on page 18 in this paper from Jed Rothwell's LENR-CANR.org website: http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RothwellJtallyofcol.pdf On Fri, Jun 28, 2013 at 5:26 PM, blaze spinnaker blazespinna...@gmail.comwrote: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Journal_ranking http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impact_factor How about using something like that? It has to have some minimum impact factor? How about an impact factor of at least 15? On Fri, Jun 28, 2013 at 5:14 PM, Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.comwrote: Ok, I posted it at the forum Intrade Gateway. We'll see if anyone is willing. http://intrade.freeforums.org/re-anyone-willing-to-make-a-bet-the-ecat-is-not-real-t31.html How would we come to an agreement on which publications are acceptable? I can see why you wouldn't want Journal of Nuclear Physics. But throwing out American Chemical Society? Where's the legitimate cutoff point? On Fri, Jun 28, 2013 at 5:03 PM, blaze spinnaker blazespinna...@gmail.com wrote: Ahhh, action. I love it! A peer reviewed publication, that's very interesting. I think we'll need to define which publications that might be, but other than that I'm in if you are. As for someone to hold it, maybe we can post on intrade.freeforums.orgfor someone to hold it. Or who knows, maybe someone here might hold it (Paypal?) Glad to see you around! Really really miss intrade (obviously!) On Fri, Jun 28, 2013 at 4:55 PM, Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.comwrote: Hello Blaze. I'm very pleased to see you posting here on Vortex. You may remember me on Intrade as ko, the guy who kept posting Cold Fusion articles. And I won quite a bit of money when the contract I posted was verified by Carl. So, yes. I'm very interested in such a bet. In particular I like the 10:1 odds. But we need to find an unbiased 3rd party to hold the money and make the decision. Who would that be, now that Intrade is defunct? Also, the parameters of the decision are different than I would settle upon. I don't hold Gibbs all that high in esteem. Perhaps something like, the 7 scientists who verified the energy density of the Ecat get their paper published in a peer reviewed publication? How I Made Money from Cold Fusion Saturday, January 23, 2010 12:28:49 PM · by Kevmo · 28 replies · 1,013+ views Exclusive Article for Free Republic | 1/23/10 | Kevmo http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/2435697/posts On Fri, Jun 28, 2013 at 4:37 PM, blaze spinnaker blazespinna...@gmail.com wrote: As a possible set of parameters to this bet: I'm willing to bet my 5000 against anyone's 500 that Mark Gibbs doesn't publish an article in Forbes this year that states he personally believes without a doubt that LENR+ is real and has a power density matching what Levi/Essen published (within some reasonable margin of error). On Fri, Jun 28, 2013 at 3:27 PM, blaze spinnaker blazespinna...@gmail.com wrote: Is anyone willing here to bet me $$$ that the eCat will not be proven this year? I'm open to discussing the parameters of this bet. Ideally we'd mutually agree on a 3rd party to hold our money and be an impartial judge as to who wins by EOY. Let me know. Cheers, Blaze.
Re: [Vo]:Anyone willing to make a bet the eCat is not real?
Ouch! You got me! On Fri, Jun 28, 2013 at 9:15 PM, MarkI-ZeroPoint zeropo...@charter.netwrote: Just when we booted one troll out of the saloon, MY gets reincarnated as BS... which so aptly describes what she/he spews... -Mark -Original Message- From: Terry Blanton [mailto:hohlr...@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, June 28, 2013 6:48 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:Anyone willing to make a bet the eCat is not real? You go, girl! On Fri, Jun 28, 2013 at 9:41 PM, blaze spinnaker blazespinna...@gmail.com wrote: I believe that Essen and Levi were not skeptical, independent investigators and that Rossi had plenty of opportunity to rig the test or, less likely, they made optimistic measurements. That seems more probable to me then that this narcissistic fool has discovered the solution that will change the future for everyone on planet earth. That being said, I'd probably take the other side of the bet if someone gave me 30-1 odds On Fri, Jun 28, 2013 at 6:31 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: blaze spinnaker blazespinna...@gmail.com wrote: Rossi, however, I am willing to bet is a dangerous fool that undermines the LENR community and its credibility. Rossi is not the issue any more. You are betting that Focardi, Levi and the other six are gullible fools who know nothing about how to do experiments. You are wrong about that. Their paper proves they know what they are doing. The paper by Ericsson Pomp and the comments by people such as Shanahan at Forbes prove that the skeptics do not have a leg to stand on. They cannot think of a single valid objection to the Levi paper. If they could, they would. If YOU could, you would, instead of flailing around with these absurd arguments that people who know nothing about research should by magic ESP know all about. Ask yourself: What are EP saying? That Levi should have built his own IR camera from scratch instead of using a commercial one and comparing it to a thermocouple. Is that really the kind of argument you want to hang your hat on? Do you really believe those nitwits?!? Have you ever read more absurd arguments in you life? (Okay go read Morrison versus Fleischmann . . . and you will.) Or take Shanahan's argument that he will not believe the thermocouple tracked the IR camera until he sees every single data point. Being told it stayed within two degrees is somehow magically not informative enough for him. Don't you see that he is making excuses and evading the issue? And making a fool of himself! - Jed
