Excellent news! Rossi's technology is spreading on his terms, with his
contracts, apparently without a US or European patent.
Craig
On 07/09/2013 01:31 PM, Alan Fletcher wrote:
Andrea Rossi
July 8th, 2013 at 10:25 PM
http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=810cpage=2#comment-734612
Or, conversely, he's setting it all up for someone else to be responsible
for this massive fraud as he tries to detach himself from the entire
enterprise.
I wouldn't be surprised if we start hearing things like well, the timeline
is up to my partner CEO.I'm not sure what my partner CEO is
To be clear, obviously I do not know which. However, until the eCat is
fully in the public eye I don't think anyone can authoritatively say either
way, and I think it's a bit irresponsible trying to do so (negative or
positive).
On Tue, Jul 9, 2013 at 10:59 AM, blaze spinnaker
blaze spinnaker blazespinna...@gmail.com wrote:
Or, conversely, he's setting it all up for someone else to be responsible
for this massive fraud as he tries to detach himself from the entire
enterprise.
Do you know of any evidence for this? Or are you merely speculating?
I wouldn't be
blaze spinnaker blazespinna...@gmail.com wrote:
To be clear, obviously I do not know which. However, until the eCat is
fully in the public eye I don't think anyone can authoritatively say either
way, and I think it's a bit irresponsible trying to do so (negative or
positive).
My point
Rossi has a history of less than forthright dealings. Given his past and
the secretive approach he's taken, it's not hard to conclude that something
fishy might be going on.
Personally, I think he'd probably be able to get patents much easier if he
disclosed everything.
He may find that his
You are beating a dead horse. I get sick of it.
No, what you are sick of is the cognitive dissonance. The lack of clear,
decisive proof that the eCat is real.
You are unable to embrace the ambiguity and feel that the world must be
black or white. The fact that it isn't is clearly upsetting
On Tue, Jul 9, 2013 at 11:48 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:
But I find it disagreeable, because I have been hearing over and over and
OVER for 20 years about every cold fusion scientist is a fraud. I get sick
of it. You are beating a dead horse. We know you think that. We don't
Come on Kevin, you know how this works.
In the face of new evidence (Pekka Patent, full throated defense from
co-author) we need to update our priors.
The universe is not static. What's interesting really is not whether or
not the eCat is real, but rather getting an accurate estimate of the
blaze spinnaker blazespinna...@gmail.com wrote:
No, what you are sick of is the cognitive dissonance. The lack of clear,
decisive proof that the eCat is real.
You are unable to embrace the ambiguity and feel that the world must be
black or white. The fact that it isn't is clearly
On Tue, Jul 9, 2013 at 12:09 PM, blaze spinnaker
blazespinna...@gmail.comwrote:
Come on Kevin, you know how this works.
In the face of new evidence (Pekka Patent, full throated defense from
co-author) we need to update our priors.
***The Pekka patent has nothing to do with Rossi. And a
My odds have changed from around 0% (before the report) to ~5% to ~17% of
the eCat being true.You need go to from the middle of the spread.
Also, you're doing a somewhat linear analysis based on 2 data points. I
could already be on an asymptote.
I don't think the Pekka patent is
On Tue, Jul 9, 2013 at 12:47 PM, blaze spinnaker
blazespinna...@gmail.comwrote:
My odds have changed from around 0% (before the report) to ~5% to ~17% of
the eCat being true.
***Nonsense statement. 0% would represent astronomically high odds of a
thousand or million to one.
You need go
ok.Btw, how'd that bet on Romney winning in '12 work out for you?
(speaking of track records)
On Tue, Jul 9, 2013 at 1:07 PM, Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Jul 9, 2013 at 12:47 PM, blaze spinnaker blazespinna...@gmail.com
wrote:
My odds have changed from
blaze spinnaker blazespinna...@gmail.com wrote:
Never underestimate the value of track records. Bayesian probabilities
rely upon this. The specific problem with Rossi is that, from a bayesian
point of view, it seemed improbable that he had created anything useful.
Rossi made millions of
Now you're just trying to change the subject. If ya wanna talk politics,
click on that link I gave you. Vortex is for science subjects.
(speaking of track records)
***Now, it appears yours is one of strong backtracking, here on Vortex.
The End of *Snide Remarks* Against *Cold Fusion* - Free
These arguments are based on the notion that a wire capable of conducting
enough electricity to melt steel and ceramic is so thin you can't see it.
That is nonsense. Even a wire capable of conducting the electricity
measured in the second and third tests would be readily visible to anyone.
-
Well, I am discussing probabilities and the ability to estimate them.
Perhaps we could take this off list though.
Maybe not everyone finds it as fascinating as you and I :)
Honestly, I'm not the enemy here btw. I'm a big believer in LENR. I just
think the probability of Rossi doing something
On Tue, Jul 9, 2013 at 1:07 PM, Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.com wrote:
Another powerful thing that's been demonstrated is just how on target
Vortex is.You have benefited.
Vortex is everything to everyone. Benefitting from the threads here is
like having someone read tea leaves. There
19 matches
Mail list logo
