Blaze Spinnaker blazespinna...@gmail.com wrote:
http://bettigue.blogspot.de/
This guy has very cool stirling engines. I wonder how much heat energy
you need to run these, though perhaps they could be optimized for a Nanor
device.
A thermoelectric chip would probably be more practical. A
Eric Walker wrote:
The research has been driven so far underground that if Rossi or DGT
or one of the others does not succeed in sparking widespread interest,
and much more time goes by, the whole field could remain latent for
generations. They are taking a gamble with the whole trade secret
There are many things about Swartz's techniques that I do not understand.
My biggest question is: Why doesn't he gang up a number of these Nanor
devices? If one puts out 100 mW, why not gang up 20 of them to put out 2 W?
That is much easier to measure with confidence than 100 mW. The input power
'The people at Cherokee have time.
I don't think so. If nanor goes out, it will be the big splash. Rossi
will just be a johnny come lately and it will be known as the Swartz
Effect
On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 8:01 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:
Eric Walker wrote:
The research
On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 11:51 AM, Blaze Spinnaker
blazespinna...@gmail.comwrote:
Note there could be a problem with heat between nanors interfering with
one another. Perhaps the devices only work well at near ambient
temperature.
Just like people.
Harry
Blaze Spinnaker blazespinna...@gmail.com wrote:
Perhaps there is a reason he has not ganged them up. Maybe he does not
have 20, and it is difficult to fabricate them? I don't know, but it
mystifies me.
THis is precisely what he's doing. He says it takes about a month to
build each
You left out my implicit request for a response from you:
Sound criteria would include an experimental protocol is submitted to Dick
Smith that, when followed by independent scientists, reliably generates
excess energy.
Other details of the criteria need to be established but it seems entirely
James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote:
Sound criteria would include an experimental protocol is submitted to Dick
Smith that, when followed by independent scientists, reliably generates
excess energy.
If we had that, why would we need Dick Smith, or an X-prize?
- Jed
if by it you mean the experimental protocol, the point of the prize is to
get it.
If by it you mean the criteria by which a given experimental protocol is
judged to be worthy of a prize award, then I don't understand your question.
On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 2:07 PM, Jed Rothwell
Erratum: it - that
On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 2:27 PM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote:
if by it you mean the experimental protocol, the point of the prize is
to get it.
If by it you mean the criteria by which a given experimental protocol is
judged to be worthy of a prize award, then I
On 2/11/2014 9:32 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
Blaze Spinnaker blazespinna...@gmail.com
mailto:blazespinna...@gmail.com wrote:
http://bettigue.blogspot.de/
This guy has very cool stirling engines. I wonder how much heat
energy you need to run these, though perhaps they could be
It's 27:1 .. it might work!
On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 3:40 PM, David L Babcock olb...@gmail.com wrote:
On 2/11/2014 9:32 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
Blaze Spinnaker blazespinna...@gmail.com wrote:
http://bettigue.blogspot.de/
This guy has very cool stirling engines. I wonder how much heat
David L Babcock olb...@gmail.com wrote:
http://bettigue.blogspot.de/
This guy has very cool stirling engines. I wonder how much heat energy
you need to run these, though perhaps they could be optimized for a Nanor
device.
A thermoelectric chip would probably be more practical. A
yes
2014-02-10 2:02 GMT+01:00 Blaze Spinnaker blazespinna...@gmail.com:
If cold fusion is real, you can be assured that the smart money knows a
lot more about it than you do.These people get paid millions of dollars
a year to be on top of things like this.
On Sun, Feb 9, 2014 at 2:59
James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote:
I bet the Israelis could pull it off without word getting out.
I do not think so. They have never been able to keep their nuclear weapons
programs secret. People have known about these programs since 1957 when
they began.
To make a practical cold fusion
I just asked bill gates on the AMA about cold fusion:
http://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/1xj56q/hello_reddit_im_bill_gates_cochair_of_the_bill/cfbvi10
On Mon, Feb 10, 2014 at 10:51 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.comwrote:
James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote:
I bet the Israelis
The Iranians could develop it secretly. No one would believe them as the
Israeli-influenced media - especially in the US - would deny all of it. Hide
in plain sight.
Which has absolutely NOTHING to do with Rossi. Your entire assessment is
littered with irrelevant items.
On Sun, Feb 9, 2014 at 11:25 AM, Blaze Spinnaker
blazespinna...@gmail.comwrote:
Increasing the probability to 47% on the basis on Nanor / MIT videos.
On Fri, Jan 24, 2014 at 3:42 PM,
Blaze Spinnaker blazespinna...@gmail.com wrote:
I just asked bill gates on the AMA about cold fusion:
If that really is Bill Gates please rephrase your question with a little
more info. and ask again, or add information. At least, please say: You
can many peer-reviewed scientific papers from
If someone asked me what kind of research can I do with $50,000? I would
say go to the racetrack and bet the money. You will have more chance of
making a profit than you would putting the money in cold fusion.
***The LENR corner-turn is getting to that level. I am in correspondence
with the
I think the idea is that it's supposed to be a question, not an
advertisement for Cold Fusion.
On Mon, Feb 10, 2014 at 12:00 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.comwrote:
Blaze Spinnaker blazespinna...@gmail.com wrote:
I just asked bill gates on the AMA about cold fusion:
If that really is
If someone had 50K I'd say try to buy a Nanor from Michael Swartz of Jet
Energy and test that.
On Mon, Feb 10, 2014 at 12:05 PM, Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.comwrote:
If someone asked me what kind of research can I do with $50,000? I would
say go to the racetrack and bet the money. You
Watch the videos before commenting - they actually say that Rossi shouldn't
be dismissed. They seemed very credible to me, like someone who had been
working on the same problem and making slow progress over the years.
Nanor is also LENR+ if you scale it up properly.
It also felt they were peer
The approach expressed here is very depressing. We know that LENR is
real. Buying and testing a Nanor would gain a person nothing. Unless a
person knows how and why it works, which is not known, the information
is worthless. The important investment is in acquiring information
about how
Edmund - there are two problems. Solving the problem, which should
definitely be done. I applaud the work here. I think it's brilliant and
frankly, way beyond my understanding.
But there is another, perhaps far more important problem - attracting
massive investment and recognition from labs
Blaze, you assume Swartz knows what he is doing. If he does, then this
is a good approach. Unfortunately, very little collaboration exists in
the field to resolve the problems in the various theories. People
simply go their own way regardless of the obvious problems and
conflicts with
On Mon, Feb 10, 2014 at 12:51 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.comwrote:
James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote:
I bet the Israelis could pull it off without word getting out.
I do not think so. They have never been able to keep their nuclear weapons
programs secret. People have known
Edmund - your thesis is that it's impossible to produce experimental
results without theoretical understanding. I'm not sure that thesis is
correct.
On Mon, Feb 10, 2014 at 12:46 PM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.comwrote:
Blaze, you assume Swartz knows what he is doing. If he does, then
On Feb 10, 2014, at 2:09 PM, Blaze Spinnaker wrote:
Edmund - your thesis is that it's impossible to produce experimental
results without theoretical understanding. I'm not sure that
thesis is correct.
]
No that is NOT what I said. I said that successful application
reqires knowledge
So your premise then that not only is his theoretical understanding wrong,
but he doesn't know how to measure energy / heat as well?
From what I can see:
- an MIT professor is vouching for Swartz by association
- Swartz has optimized his nanor device to produce consistent, high
lenr+
Blaze, why do you keep jumping to conclusions having no relationship
to what I say?
I did not say Swartz does not know how to measure energy. I have no
doubt he can make the effect work. I question whether he understands
HOW it works, not THAT it works. Do you understand the difference?
I've noticed a pathology in this discourse that boils down to a conflation,
hence confusion, of research with development. This conflation has two
main historic sources:
1) Government funded technology development often times will conflate
research with development because there is a lot more
James, you describe the basic problem very well. In addition, the
idea of basic science has a bad rap in the US because it is called
playing in the sand box. This kind of study was once done by
graduate students or in government laboratories, but this source is
now very much diminished.
'
- Swartz has optimized his nanor device to produce consistent, high
lenr+ cop
That is news to me. What is the COP and what conditions is the value based
on?
'
Have you watched this video?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Al7NMQLvATo
So Swartz is not unique. The question is, Is his understanding correct?
As you admit, you are not qualified to judge. So, how do you decide?
***The same way that Science has decided for centuries. Your theory has
implications, so do others. We test according to those implications. I've
seen
Watch at 2:38:00
He's reporting 27x gain and 4mW
On Mon, Feb 10, 2014 at 2:25 PM, Blaze Spinnaker
blazespinna...@gmail.comwrote:
'
- Swartz has optimized his nanor device to produce consistent, high
lenr+ cop
That is news to me. What is the COP and what conditions is the value
On Feb 10, 2014, at 3:44 PM, Kevin O'Malley wrote:
So Swartz is not unique. The question is, Is his understanding
correct? As you admit, you are not qualified to judge. So, how do
you decide?
***The same way that Science has decided for centuries. Your theory
has implications, so do
Braze, you accept this claim based on a lecture by someone else and on
only 4 mW of excess power?? This is not a credible claim by any
standard.
Ed Storms
On Feb 10, 2014, at 3:50 PM, Blaze Spinnaker wrote:
Watch at 2:38:00
He's reporting 27x gain and 4mW
On Mon, Feb 10, 2014 at 2:25
Watch the videos before commenting - they actually say that Rossi shouldn't
be dismissed.
***That still doesn't make for any kind of connection between Rossi and
these other developments. You're obviously confused. What you MEAN is
that you're giving odds that LENR is Real, not necessarily that
The approach expressed here is very depressing. We know that LENR is real.
***Yes, WE do. But someone who was looking to take advantage of 'true
believers' would first offer outlandish odds, and then offer surprisingly
rational odds in order to draw them in.
On Mon, Feb 10, 2014 at 12:26 PM,
Buying and testing a Nanor would gain a person nothing. Unless a person
knows how and why it works, which is not known, the information is
worthless.
***No, not worthless. As an example, the private sector had the ability
for 2 decades to go into space but didn't bother even trying until the
Yes, that is the way science works. However doing the tests requires money.
***Then for the time being we need to focus on attracting MONEY, like the
X-Prize.
On Mon, Feb 10, 2014 at 2:59 PM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.comwrote:
On Feb 10, 2014, at 3:44 PM, Kevin O'Malley wrote:
So
On Feb 10, 2014, at 4:23 PM, Kevin O'Malley wrote:
Buying and testing a Nanor would gain a person nothing. Unless a
person knows how and why it works, which is not known, the
information is worthless.
***No, not worthless. As an example, the private sector had the
ability for 2 decades
On Feb 10, 2014, at 4:30 PM, Kevin O'Malley wrote:
Yes, that is the way science works. However doing the tests requires
money.
***Then for the time being we need to focus on attracting MONEY,
like the X-Prize.
I agree. How do you suggest this be done?
Ed Storms
On Mon, Feb 10, 2014 at
'Braze, you accept this claim based on a lecture by someone else and on
only 4 mW of excess power?? *This is not a credible claim by any standard.
'*
OK, Thank you. You do not think Swartz is credible. Gotcha. Your input
is useful, truly. It undermines my faith in him as well. But then
***Then for the time being we need to focus on attracting MONEY, like the
X-Prize.
I agree. How do you suggest this be done?
***Ummm, did I not mention the X-Prize, which generated 50X more interest
and investment than the original prize offered? Or am I missing
something?
On Mon, Feb 10, 2014
Woah, wait. It's not 4 mW of excess power .. It's 4mW of INPUT power.
Watch the video before commenting, please!
On Mon, Feb 10, 2014 at 3:50 PM, Blaze Spinnaker
blazespinna...@gmail.comwrote:
'Braze, you accept this claim based on a lecture by someone else and on
only 4 mW of excess
But we have hundreds of examples of heat production and now companies claim
they will provide generators. What more do we need to get massive support?
What benefit would a device producing 4 mW of power add?
***4 mW will generate a TON of benefit as long as 4microWatts is the input.
Think
Swartz is credible! However, such a small effect is not a credible
support for investment in a working devoice. I did not make this
clear. I hope it is clear now. If Swartz supplies devices that
survive testing, this would be useful to basic research but not to a
development study. My
My response will be embedded in the email with 3 asterisks *** as the flag.
On Mon, Feb 10, 2014 at 4:09 PM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.comwrote:
Swartz is credible! However, such a small effect is not a credible support
for investment
***Investment is different than research. Surely you
Edmund, you really need to watch the video. Swartz is claiming this is
exactly what he needs to do. Produce the Nanor so other people can use it
to scale up.
My point is - emphasis will not be placed on basic research until something
is shown which excites people. Perhaps this is chicken and
emphasis will not be placed on basic research until something is shown
which excites people.
***As much as I dislike agreeing with Blaze, he is right. The LENR MFMP
gamma ray X-Prize proposal would spur research, excitement, industrial
level investment, and much more.
On Mon, Feb 10, 2014 at
Blaze Spinnaker blazespinna...@gmail.com wrote:
'Braze, you accept this claim based on a lecture by someone else and on
only 4 mW of excess power?? *This is not a credible claim by any
standard. '*
OK, Thank you. You do not think Swartz is credible. Gotcha.
Swartz is credible, but a 4 mW
AGAIN, it's not 4mW excess, it's 4mW * 27 excess. IT was 4mW input, which
is obviously easy to measure.
Swartz is doing one better than publishing a paper or giving a lecture.
He's selling the experimental devices so people can replicate in their own
labs.
Please, people, watch the video
I believe you are underestimating the value of a small and efficient LENR
device. I spoke with Mitchell about this on the bus at ICCF-18. I believe
small is beautiful and I have a perfect application. Today 2-way public
safety radios use lithium batteries that only work to about -10C, but the
What I want to see is this thing hooked up to a minature sized sterling
engine
On Mon, Feb 10, 2014 at 5:55 PM, Bob Higgins rj.bob.higg...@gmail.comwrote:
I believe you are underestimating the value of a small and efficient LENR
device. I spoke with Mitchell about this on the bus at ICCF-18.
Blaze Spinnaker blazespinna...@gmail.com wrote:
AGAIN, it's not 4mW excess, it's 4mW * 27 excess. IT was 4mW input, which
is obviously easy to measure.
Ah, this is a new claim. That would be 100 mW output, which is easier to
measure than his previous claims of 20 to 50 mW.
Swartz is doing
Bob Higgins rj.bob.higg...@gmail.com wrote:
I believe you are underestimating the value of a small and efficient LENR
device.
The commercial value would be great. However, it is difficult to believe
results on a such a small scale. If the scale has now increased from 20 to
50 mW up to about
http://bettigue.blogspot.de/
This guy has very cool stirling engines. I wonder how much heat energy you
need to run these, though perhaps they could be optimized for a Nanor
device.
On Mon, Feb 10, 2014 at 6:03 PM, Blaze Spinnaker
blazespinna...@gmail.comwrote:
What I want to see is this
- Original Message -
From: Blaze Spinnaker
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Monday, February 10, 2014 6:21 PM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Increasing probability of Rossi being real upwards, to 35%
http://bettigue.blogspot.de/
This guy has very cool stirling engines. I wonder how much heat
On Mon, Feb 10, 2014 at 8:25 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:
Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.com wrote:
***Then for the time being we need to focus on attracting MONEY, like the
X-Prize.
I agree. How do you suggest this be done?
***Ummm, did I not mention the X-Prize, which
with a
portable long-life energy source.
Bob
- Original Message -
From: Jed Rothwell
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Monday, February 10, 2014 6:11 PM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Increasing probability of Rossi being real upwards, to 35%
Blaze Spinnaker blazespinna...@gmail.com wrote
On Mon, Feb 10, 2014 at 2:14 PM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote:
2) The cold fusion fiasco of the century has resulted in such a vicious
attack on research that the ordinary product of research -- which is
pursuit of reproducible experiments -- has been driven underground so
deeply that
Increasing the probability to 47% on the basis on Nanor / MIT videos.
On Fri, Jan 24, 2014 at 3:42 PM, Blaze Spinnaker
blazespinna...@gmail.comwrote:
Put that back to 43%:
Mr. Darden earned an MRP in environmental planning from the University of
North Carolina at Chapel Hill,* a JD from
Also, anyone notice that XOM/Chevron are down 10% YTD?
On Sun, Feb 9, 2014 at 11:25 AM, Blaze Spinnaker
blazespinna...@gmail.comwrote:
Increasing the probability to 47% on the basis on Nanor / MIT videos.
On Fri, Jan 24, 2014 at 3:42 PM, Blaze Spinnaker blazespinna...@gmail.com
wrote:
How much of their valuation is in the ground reserves?
On Sun, Feb 9, 2014 at 1:29 PM, Blaze Spinnaker blazespinna...@gmail.comwrote:
Also, anyone notice that XOM/Chevron are down 10% YTD?
On Sun, Feb 9, 2014 at 11:25 AM, Blaze Spinnaker blazespinna...@gmail.com
wrote:
Increasing the
A lot of their valuation is also the tribal knowledge, infrastructure,
relationships, brand, and good will.If LENR really takes off quickly,
much of that will quickly go to zero.
It's also not hard to imagine Saudia Arabia and others panic dumping onto
the market in order to get out while the
I'm not sure where I stored Jed's book on my computer but I presume he
analyzed the critical point in EROEI where it no longer makes sense to use
various grades of the in-the-ground reserves even as chemical feedstocks.
As long as a given grade of reserve remains valuable as chemical
feedstock,
Blaze--
I would not touch big oil with a 10 foot pole.
Bob
- Original Message -
From: Blaze Spinnaker
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Sunday, February 09, 2014 11:29 AM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Increasing probability of Rossi being real upwards, to 35%
Also, anyone notice
Blaze Spinnaker blazespinna...@gmail.com wrote:
It's also not hard to imagine Saudia Arabia and others panic dumping onto
the market in order to get out while the getting is good, thus driving the
price of oil down quickly.
An economist told me that is sure to happen with cold fusion. Even
How about coal? BTU is down 15% YTD and Arch COal is down 12% YTD
On Sun, Feb 9, 2014 at 1:30 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:
Blaze Spinnaker blazespinna...@gmail.com wrote:
It's also not hard to imagine Saudia Arabia and others panic dumping onto
the market in order to get
Blaze--Bob here--
I would not touch coal with a 20 foot pole.
What about natural gas--does it have any future?
Bob
- Original Message -
From: Blaze Spinnaker
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Sunday, February 09, 2014 2:38 PM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Increasing probability of Rossi
Blaze Spinnaker blazespinna...@gmail.com wrote:
How about coal? BTU is down 15% YTD and Arch COal is down 12% YTD
Coal is being clobbered by natural gas and wind. Coal is only used for
electric power generation and in steel production.
- Jed
On Sun, Feb 9, 2014 at 2:38 PM, Blaze Spinnaker blazespinna...@gmail.comwrote:
How about coal? BTU is down 15% YTD and Arch COal is down 12% YTD
It seems to me that it is too early for there to be any price movements in
connection with cold fusion. If we're early adopters of sorts, I'm
Why is it too early? I think the smart money (a very large chunk of the
money) gets out before word gets around.
On Sun, Feb 9, 2014 at 2:48 PM, Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Feb 9, 2014 at 2:38 PM, Blaze Spinnaker
blazespinna...@gmail.comwrote:
How about coal? BTU is
Blaze Spinnaker blazespinna...@gmail.com wrote:
Why is it too early?
It is too early because practically no one believes cold fusion is real,
despite all those papers downloaded from LENR-CANR.org. The people who
attended ICCF18 and the people in North Carolina are about the only ones in
the
On Sun, Feb 9, 2014 at 4:59 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:
if an extremely wealthy person such as Bill Gates believed that cold
fusion is real, he would be crazy no to invest in it.
Assuming he was not doing it for philanthropic purposes, wouldn't he be
crazy to let anyone know
Sent: Sun, Feb 9, 2014 5:54 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Increasing probability of Rossi being real upwards, to 35%
Why is it too early? I think the smart money (a very large chunk of the
money) gets out before word gets around.
On Sun, Feb 9, 2014 at 2:48 PM, Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com wrote
Thinking further along these lines:
The Israelis are up there with the Italians in tolerance of cold fusion
research among their ranks. Moreover, they are _very_ adept at covert
activity -- particularly relating to geopolitics regarding the middle east
such as oil.
What I would look for as an
James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote:
if an extremely wealthy person such as Bill Gates believed that cold
fusion is real, he would be crazy no to invest in it.
Assuming he was not doing it for philanthropic purposes, wouldn't he be
crazy to let anyone know he was investing in it?
I
If cold fusion is real, you can be assured that the smart money knows a lot
more about it than you do.These people get paid millions of dollars a
year to be on top of things like this.
On Sun, Feb 9, 2014 at 2:59 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:
Blaze Spinnaker
I bet the Israelis could pull it off without word getting out.
On Sun, Feb 9, 2014 at 6:52 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:
James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote:
if an extremely wealthy person such as Bill Gates believed that cold
fusion is real, he would be crazy no to
Ahh, cheers.
On Fri, Jan 24, 2014 at 5:14 PM, Craig cchayniepub...@gmail.com wrote:
On 01/24/2014 06:22 PM, Blaze Spinnaker wrote:
Correction, make that 41%. It's not Cherokee but rather Tom Darden
(investor, co founder of Cherokee) and Mr. Vaughn (senior analyst at
Cherokee, BA
On Fri, Jan 24, 2014 at 6:40 PM, Lennart Thornros lenn...@thornros.comwrote:
I think the validation should be more in this style
10 up to minus 7 is stupid
1% is next to stupid
20% a hard call
50% a good chance and with some support very likely
80% JUST DO IT A SURE THING
The last two just
Blaze Spinnaker blazespinna...@gmail.com wrote:
It's like crowd sourcing a group of people guessing jellybeans in a
jellybean jar.
This conversation is not like that because you are not a crowd of people.
You are only one person, and no one else here is hazarding a guess.
The crowdsourced
This conversation is not like that because you are not a crowd of people.
You are only one person, and no one else here is hazarding a guess.
Oh, lots of people have hazard guesses. You don't know everything, Jed. :)
Cold fusion claims are at 1% to 3% at Idea Futures Exchange.Claim NiLENR -
Nickel Hydrogen Nuclear EnergyCategory: *Science Technology:Physics*bid
1, ask 3, last 2Owner:45, Baldrson (jim_bow...@hotmail.com)Judge:2, Chris
Hibbert (c...@pancrit.org)created:2011/06/13due date:2015/01/01The Claim
Great link James, my concern is that the expiry date on that is getting a
bit close.
Not sure this will be out in the public knowledge before 2015.
That market is also thinly traded (probably because it's play money) which
leads to speculation by actors without compensation to spend real time
Kevin, you're very very confused about reality. I tend to avoid
discussions with such people.
On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 4:34 PM, Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.com wrote:
STMicro has nothing to do with Rossi.
Cherokee stuff is all rumor, but at least it has something to do with
Rossi.
3rd
Increasing the probability to 44% on the basis of Cherokee PR release.
Big big BIG news. Now this is no longer about Rossi, but about Cherokee.
I know you guys think I'm a git for my doubt, but hey, my model is wy
ahead of the curve than the vast majority of the investing universe.XOM
Correction, make that 41%. It's not Cherokee but rather Tom Darden
(investor, co founder of Cherokee) and Mr. Vaughn (senior analyst at
Cherokee, BA Economics) who are the players here.
It'd be good to find out who those other investors are.
On Fri, Jan 24, 2014 at 2:35 PM, Blaze Spinnaker
Yeah, right. You first come onto Vortex-L giving 10:1 odds and then
quickly pull back. You're the one disconnected to reality. I wouldn't
care except for the fact that you took money off the table.
On Fri, Jan 24, 2014 at 2:30 PM, Blaze Spinnaker
blazespinna...@gmail.comwrote:
Kevin, you're
We both used Intrade, Kevin. This is how it works.
Changing news requires updating your priors constantly.
On Fri, Jan 24, 2014 at 3:32 PM, Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.com wrote:
Yeah, right. You first come onto Vortex-L giving 10:1 odds and then
quickly pull back. You're the one
Put that back to 43%:
Mr. Darden earned an MRP in environmental planning from the University of
North Carolina at Chapel Hill,* a JD from Yale Law School* and a BA from
the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, where he was a Morehead
Scholar.
On Fri, Jan 24, 2014 at 3:22 PM, Blaze
Horse shit. You didn't change your views in those few days based upon
news. You changed it based upon your interactions here, during a time at
which there was no news.
On Fri, Jan 24, 2014 at 3:36 PM, Blaze Spinnaker
blazespinna...@gmail.comwrote:
We both used Intrade, Kevin. This is how it
Well, it was news to me.
On Fri, Jan 24, 2014 at 3:49 PM, Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.com wrote:
Horse shit. You didn't change your views in those few days based upon
news. You changed it based upon your interactions here, during a time at
which there was no news.
On Fri, Jan 24,
There was NO news between the time you went from 10:1 down to 2:1. ZERO.
You've disconnected from reality yet again, because you seem to be thinking
that the latest news about Rossi is what's being discussed. Bullshit. The
news took you from 35% to 41%, a rise of 6 points. Back in the NO NEWS
Blaze Spinnaker blazespinna...@gmail.com wrote:
Put that back to 43%:
Mr. Darden earned an MRP in environmental planning from the University of
North Carolina at Chapel Hill,* a JD from Yale Law School* and a BA . . .
43%? Are you sure? I think it should be 51.8%. Then again, depending on
On 01/24/2014 06:22 PM, Blaze Spinnaker wrote:
Correction, make that 41%. It's not Cherokee but rather Tom Darden
(investor, co founder of Cherokee) and Mr. Vaughn (senior analyst at
Cherokee, BA Economics) who are the players here.
It'd be good to find out who those other investors are.
This is just his internal measuring stick. Basically if he were buying a
contract at Intrade, he'd be willing to pay $4.30 to bet for Rossi being
real, which is a bullshit metric to begin with. So it's a guy who isn't
being real talking about some other guy who might be real. Bullshit upon
101 - 200 of 245 matches
Mail list logo
