Re: [Vo]:Rossi says -- 1st ecat untouched by him
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 Eugenio Mieli: I already answered to your questions: please see my answers on July 3rd and July 4th 2013. Please read carefully those answers: 1- The E-Cat technology is undergoing rigorous testing and the results- positive, negative, or inconclusive- will provide further guidance about its potential 2- We have great hopes for the E-Cat and what it can accomplish, and I am pleased about the findings of the other scientists who have participated in evaluating it so far. As this technology is still in the development stage and undergoing rigorous review, I want to allow the continued process of testing our technology to determine its potential and its uses. I am pleased with our progress to date and I will share more as our work continues. AND HERE IS AN UPDATE OF TODAY, JULY 8TH: The past three days have been holidays for most, but for us have been a tremendous period of work during which we made a historic page for what concerns our tech: for the first time, an E-Cat module, entirely produced by our USA Partner in the new factory ( a magnificence), charged with the charge made by the Partner’s CEO, using the materials we teached to buy, prepare,manipulate, treat, to make the charges, assembled , insulated, has started its operation, and the results are the same of the E-Cats built by us. This event means that for the first time an E-Cat not built by me, not controlled by me and not charged by me, not tested in my factory, but manufactured from third parties upon our instructions and know how has worked properly. This is the first unit of the plant that will give to the factory of our USA Partner all its necessary thermal energy, and is also the school ship for the employees. It is very important that it has been completely made by the Customer, not by me: it is the first of millions, but the first is always special. We celebrated with Coca Cola ( alcohol is forbidden in that factory). All the former plants, even if built in the USA, had been supplied with reactors cores made by me, so this is a very important step. 3- Technological development can require a long process, involving many changes as a technology moves forward. E-Cat is undergoing that process now. This process will continue as long as needed, until such time as the team believes the technology is able to fulfill its promise in commercial settings. 4- E-Cat is still also in a phase of RD, as I continue this work more findings will be released and additional technical information will be provided once practicable. As I focus on continuing my research, I will not be able to respond to each specific question. Warm Regards, A.R. - - - Arthur B.: You are right: the Factory will be totally supplied by the E-Cats for all the necessary thermal energy, starting this year. Warm Regards, A.R. [ Note : If he's The Chief Scientist and the charge made by the Partner’s CEO ... it seems unlikely that the USA Partner is a big or well-known company. ]
Re: [Vo]:Rossi says -- 1st ecat untouched by him
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 doing. You'd have to ask him what's going on, unfortunately, I can't share his information with you. etc etc On Tue, Jul 9, 2013 at 10:36 AM, Craig cchayniepub...@gmail.com wrote: 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 Eugenio Mieli: I already answered to your questions: please see my answers on July 3rd and July 4th 2013. Please read carefully those answers: 1- The E-Cat technology is undergoing rigorous testing and the results- positive, negative, or inconclusive- will provide further guidance about its potential 2- We have great hopes for the E-Cat and what it can accomplish, and I am pleased about the findings of the other scientists who have participated in evaluating it so far. As this technology is still in the development stage and undergoing rigorous review, I want to allow the continued process of testing our technology to determine its potential and its uses. I am pleased with our progress to date and I will share more as our work continues. AND HERE IS AN UPDATE OF TODAY, JULY 8TH: The past three days have been holidays for most, but for us have been a tremendous period of work during which we made a historic page for what concerns our tech: for the first time, an E-Cat module, entirely produced by our USA Partner in the new factory ( a magnificence), charged with the charge made by the Partner’s CEO, using the materials we teached to buy, prepare,manipulate, treat, to make the charges, assembled , insulated, has started its operation, and the results are the same of the E-Cats built by us. This event means that for the first time an E-Cat not built by me, not controlled by me and not charged by me, not tested in my factory, but manufactured from third parties upon our instructions and know how has worked properly. This is the first unit of the plant that will give to the factory of our USA Partner all its necessary thermal energy, and is also the school ship for the employees. It is very important that it has been completely made by the Customer, not by me: it is the first of millions, but the first is always special. We celebrated with Coca Cola ( alcohol is forbidden in that factory). All the former plants, even if built in the USA, had been supplied with reactors cores made by me, so this is a very important step. 3- Technological development can require a long process, involving many changes as a technology moves forward. E-Cat is undergoing that process now. This process will continue as long as needed, until such time as the team believes the technology is able to fulfill its promise in commercial settings. 4- E-Cat is still also in a phase of RD, as I continue this work more findings will be released and additional technical information will be provided once practicable. As I focus on continuing my research, I will not be able to respond to each specific question. Warm Regards, A.R. - - - Arthur B.: You are right: the Factory will be totally supplied by the E-Cats for all the necessary thermal energy, starting this year. Warm Regards, A.R. [ Note : If he's The Chief Scientist and the charge made by the Partner’s CEO ... it seems unlikely that the USA Partner is a big or well-known company. ]
Re: [Vo]:Rossi says -- 1st ecat untouched by him
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 blazespinna...@gmail.comwrote: 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 doing.You'd have to ask him what's going on, unfortunately, I can't share his information with you. etc etc On Tue, Jul 9, 2013 at 10:36 AM, Craig cchayniepub...@gmail.com wrote: 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 Eugenio Mieli: I already answered to your questions: please see my answers on July 3rd and July 4th 2013. Please read carefully those answers: 1- The E-Cat technology is undergoing rigorous testing and the results- positive, negative, or inconclusive- will provide further guidance about its potential 2- We have great hopes for the E-Cat and what it can accomplish, and I am pleased about the findings of the other scientists who have participated in evaluating it so far. As this technology is still in the development stage and undergoing rigorous review, I want to allow the continued process of testing our technology to determine its potential and its uses. I am pleased with our progress to date and I will share more as our work continues. AND HERE IS AN UPDATE OF TODAY, JULY 8TH: The past three days have been holidays for most, but for us have been a tremendous period of work during which we made a historic page for what concerns our tech: for the first time, an E-Cat module, entirely produced by our USA Partner in the new factory ( a magnificence), charged with the charge made by the Partner’s CEO, using the materials we teached to buy, prepare,manipulate, treat, to make the charges, assembled , insulated, has started its operation, and the results are the same of the E-Cats built by us. This event means that for the first time an E-Cat not built by me, not controlled by me and not charged by me, not tested in my factory, but manufactured from third parties upon our instructions and know how has worked properly. This is the first unit of the plant that will give to the factory of our USA Partner all its necessary thermal energy, and is also the school ship for the employees. It is very important that it has been completely made by the Customer, not by me: it is the first of millions, but the first is always special. We celebrated with Coca Cola ( alcohol is forbidden in that factory). All the former plants, even if built in the USA, had been supplied with reactors cores made by me, so this is a very important step. 3- Technological development can require a long process, involving many changes as a technology moves forward. E-Cat is undergoing that process now. This process will continue as long as needed, until such time as the team believes the technology is able to fulfill its promise in commercial settings. 4- E-Cat is still also in a phase of RD, as I continue this work more findings will be released and additional technical information will be provided once practicable. As I focus on continuing my research, I will not be able to respond to each specific question. Warm Regards, A.R. - - - Arthur B.: You are right: the Factory will be totally supplied by the E-Cats for all the necessary thermal energy, starting this year. Warm Regards, A.R. [ Note : If he's The Chief Scientist and the charge made by the Partner’s CEO ... it seems unlikely that the USA Partner is a big or well-known company. ]
Re: [Vo]:Rossi says -- 1st ecat untouched by him
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 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 doing.You'd have to ask him what's going on, unfortunately, I can't share his information with you. etc etc Why wouldn't that be true? If he were to say this, in what sense would it be suspicious? That sounds like a normal business arrangement. When you license someone to manufacture your technology, you do not get the right to run their business or set their schedule. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Rossi says -- 1st ecat untouched by him
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 exactly. It is a bit irresponsible when you write: . . . 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. This is not a big deal. There are hundreds of people out there saying bad things about Rossi. Heck, there is a web site devoted to it. Plus that wacky paper by Ericsson and Pomp. Rossi invites that kind of attack by acting squirrely. Still . . . unless you have evidence of fraud maybe you should follow your own advice here. What you wrote causes no harm. 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 care, and we don't want to hear it. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Rossi says -- 1st ecat untouched by him
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 secretive approach is going to screw him and is partners if someone files patents for all of this first. On Tue, Jul 9, 2013 at 11:32 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: 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 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 doing.You'd have to ask him what's going on, unfortunately, I can't share his information with you. etc etc Why wouldn't that be true? If he were to say this, in what sense would it be suspicious? That sounds like a normal business arrangement. When you license someone to manufacture your technology, you do not get the right to run their business or set their schedule. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Rossi says -- 1st ecat untouched by him
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 you. Unfortunately, in the absence of inescapable proof either way, there is an ambiguity. A cognitive dissonance that our brains need to deal with. And yeah, it's sickening for sure, and some people deal with it better than others. Those who deal with it best I find make the best predictors of what's really about to happen next. While you are a very smart guy and well informed, your lack of ability to embace the dissonance here makes me wonder about your ability to estimate the probability of the eCat being real or not. MaryYugo is a pretty bright person as well. However, she is also someone that obviously can not embrace the ambiguity. On Tue, Jul 9, 2013 at 11:48 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: 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 exactly. It is a bit irresponsible when you write: . . . 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. This is not a big deal. There are hundreds of people out there saying bad things about Rossi. Heck, there is a web site devoted to it. Plus that wacky paper by Ericsson and Pomp. Rossi invites that kind of attack by acting squirrely. Still . . . unless you have evidence of fraud maybe you should follow your own advice here. What you wrote causes no harm. 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 care, and we don't want to hear it. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Rossi says -- 1st ecat untouched by him
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 care, and we don't want to hear it. - Jed ***I don't mind hearing it from someone like Blaze because he's someone who will put his money where his mouth is... at least he used to be. He might even be willing to bet on what he just wrote, if we had a contract that said something like, Andrea Rossi to be charged with fraud in connection with the Ecat within 1 year. But I detect that Blaze is learning a thing or 2 while he spends time on Vortex, and that's reflected in his initial offer of 10:1 odds going down to 3:1 odds that the Ecat isn't real or Rossi != Wright Brothers. When money is on the table, the game tightens. Someone like Joshua Cude can just be blithely off by 4 THOUSAND orders of magnitude and nothing holds him accountable. But if Joshua were to put his money where his mouth was, a penny bet would generate more money than he could ever pay back in a hundred lifetimes. So when someone is willing to put their money where their mouth is, I consider them to be a small-s skeptic.
Re: [Vo]:Rossi says -- 1st ecat untouched by him
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 probability of it being real at any point in time. On Tue, Jul 9, 2013 at 12:06 PM, Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Jul 9, 2013 at 11:48 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.comwrote: 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 care, and we don't want to hear it. - Jed ***I don't mind hearing it from someone like Blaze because he's someone who will put his money where his mouth is... at least he used to be. He might even be willing to bet on what he just wrote, if we had a contract that said something like, Andrea Rossi to be charged with fraud in connection with the Ecat within 1 year. But I detect that Blaze is learning a thing or 2 while he spends time on Vortex, and that's reflected in his initial offer of 10:1 odds going down to 3:1 odds that the Ecat isn't real or Rossi != Wright Brothers. When money is on the table, the game tightens. Someone like Joshua Cude can just be blithely off by 4 THOUSAND orders of magnitude and nothing holds him accountable. But if Joshua were to put his money where his mouth was, a penny bet would generate more money than he could ever pay back in a hundred lifetimes. So when someone is willing to put their money where their mouth is, I consider them to be a small-s skeptic.
Re: [Vo]:Rossi says -- 1st ecat untouched by him
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 upsetting you. That is not even a little bit true. I have been dealing with Rossi, in person, for years. And I just wrote here: [Skeptics] will say -- with some justification -- that he is the only source of this news, and that he is unreliable. I say some justification because he has said inexplicable things about his business plans in the past, and he has abruptly changed his plans, for example with Defkalion. . . . I believe this report. But I can understand why other people may have doubts about it. It is a matter of emphasis. I say doubts -- you say massive fraud. Unfortunately, in the absence of inescapable proof either way, there is an ambiguity. Inescapable proof? There is practically no such thing. People don't believe the moon landings. There is a lot of evidence in favor of Ross and *none whatever* against him. You statement that Rossi has a history of less than forthright dealings is not evidence. It is your gut feeling, supported by no personal knowledge and no published evidence as far as I know. It isn't true. I know several people who have dealt with him. They find him aggravating but forthright. So do I. Altogether too forthright at times. In-your-face forthright. He is mercurial. He changes his mind and his business strategy often. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Rossi says -- 1st ecat untouched by him
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 co-author full throated defense should have been baked into your oddsmaking. But by going from 10:1 down to 3:1 over this flimsy level of development, you've change the odds by 700%. That would mean if you stick around another week or two, your odds will be 1:1 or even 2:1 FOR Rossi. Only now are you doing your due diligence. 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 probability of it being real at any point in time. ***That was the beauty of Intrade. The odds were agreed upon between buyer and seller.
Re: [Vo]:Rossi says -- 1st ecat untouched by him
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 particularly flimsy. I think it's detailed and well thought out by someone with a *track record* in the industry of building functional, useful things. That being said, the patent doesn't actually declare (from what I saw) any significant generation of heat for long periods of time. 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. We didn't get a lot of context from the original paper as to exactly how strongly its authors supported their results. Also, a lot of arguments about wires have secretly provided unmeasured electricity was made. The fact that after all these arguments have been made, a co-author comes out and hits back hard, means that likely those wires were checked thoroughly by all involved. On Tue, Jul 9, 2013 at 12:31 PM, Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Jul 9, 2013 at 12:09 PM, blaze spinnaker blazespinna...@gmail.com wrote: 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 co-author full throated defense should have been baked into your oddsmaking. But by going from 10:1 down to 3:1 over this flimsy level of development, you've change the odds by 700%. That would mean if you stick around another week or two, your odds will be 1:1 or even 2:1 FOR Rossi. Only now are you doing your due diligence. 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 probability of it being real at any point in time. ***That was the beauty of Intrade. The odds were agreed upon between buyer and seller.
Re: [Vo]:Rossi says -- 1st ecat untouched by him
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 to from the middle of the spread. ***I tried for the 10:1 odds, but now your story is changing. Mine hasn't. Also, you're doing a somewhat linear analysis based on 2 data points. I could already be on an asymptote. ***Which is why I think that within a year you'll be betting 2:1 FOR Rossi. You simply did not do your homework. I don't think the Pekka patent is particularly flimsy. ***It has nothing to do with Rossi. So, taking it into account for oddsmaking on Rossi is very, VERY flimsy. I think it's detailed and well thought out by someone with a *track record* in the industry of building functional, useful things. That being said, the patent doesn't actually declare (from what I saw) any significant generation of heat for long periods of time. ***It's nice to see someone doing their homework, but unfortunately for me I didn't get the fish before he started changing his tune. 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. ***Then your odds should not have changed.Your backtracking has nothing to do with Bayesian analysis, it has to do with knowing that what you said was indefensible at the level you were saying it. We didn't get a lot of context from the original paper as to exactly how strongly its authors supported their results. Also, a lot of arguments about wires have secretly provided unmeasured electricity was made. ***And Dr. Essen said they directly looked at that possibility. If you had been an informed bettor, you'd have already known this. This paper is just a relatively basic defense, nothing special. Certainly wouldn't move my opinion by 700%. The fact that after all these arguments have been made, a co-author comes out and hits back hard, means that likely those wires were checked thoroughly by all involved. ***You're just backtracking, Blaze. In a way, I like what I see because it represents the intellectual light going on above your head. But in another way, you've taken 700% odds off the table, money out of my pocket. So I'm ambivalent. One thing that's been demonstrated is just how powerful the money aspect of debating can sharpen your thinking skills. Another powerful thing that's been demonstrated is just how on target Vortex is. You have benefited.
Re: [Vo]:Rossi says -- 1st ecat untouched by him
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 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 to from the middle of the spread. ***I tried for the 10:1 odds, but now your story is changing. Mine hasn't. Also, you're doing a somewhat linear analysis based on 2 data points. I could already be on an asymptote. ***Which is why I think that within a year you'll be betting 2:1 FOR Rossi. You simply did not do your homework. I don't think the Pekka patent is particularly flimsy. ***It has nothing to do with Rossi. So, taking it into account for oddsmaking on Rossi is very, VERY flimsy. I think it's detailed and well thought out by someone with a *track record* in the industry of building functional, useful things. That being said, the patent doesn't actually declare (from what I saw) any significant generation of heat for long periods of time. ***It's nice to see someone doing their homework, but unfortunately for me I didn't get the fish before he started changing his tune. 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. ***Then your odds should not have changed.Your backtracking has nothing to do with Bayesian analysis, it has to do with knowing that what you said was indefensible at the level you were saying it. We didn't get a lot of context from the original paper as to exactly how strongly its authors supported their results. Also, a lot of arguments about wires have secretly provided unmeasured electricity was made. ***And Dr. Essen said they directly looked at that possibility. If you had been an informed bettor, you'd have already known this. This paper is just a relatively basic defense, nothing special. Certainly wouldn't move my opinion by 700%. The fact that after all these arguments have been made, a co-author comes out and hits back hard, means that likely those wires were checked thoroughly by all involved. ***You're just backtracking, Blaze. In a way, I like what I see because it represents the intellectual light going on above your head. But in another way, you've taken 700% odds off the table, money out of my pocket. So I'm ambivalent. One thing that's been demonstrated is just how powerful the money aspect of debating can sharpen your thinking skills. Another powerful thing that's been demonstrated is just how on target Vortex is. You have benefited.
Re: [Vo]:Rossi says -- 1st ecat untouched by him
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 dollars inventing Diesel engines that run on biofuel. This calls for detailed knowledge of catalysis, which is widely considered the kind of knowledge relevant to solving the cold fusion problem. So, you have this completely wrong. It is not improbable that Rossi has created anything useful; it is a matter of public record that he has. It was both useful and lucrative. And it was directly related to the cold fusion devices he is now working on. Also, a lot of arguments about wires have secretly provided unmeasured electricity was made. 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. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Rossi says -- 1st ecat untouched by him
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 Republichttp://www.freerepublic.com/focus/bloggers/2265914/posts 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 On Tue, Jul 9, 2013 at 1:12 PM, blaze spinnaker blazespinna...@gmail.comwrote: 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.comwrote: On Tue, Jul 9, 2013 at 12:47 PM, blaze spinnaker blazespinna...@gmail.com wrote: 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 to from the middle of the spread. ***I tried for the 10:1 odds, but now your story is changing. Mine hasn't. Also, you're doing a somewhat linear analysis based on 2 data points. I could already be on an asymptote. ***Which is why I think that within a year you'll be betting 2:1 FOR Rossi. You simply did not do your homework. I don't think the Pekka patent is particularly flimsy. ***It has nothing to do with Rossi. So, taking it into account for oddsmaking on Rossi is very, VERY flimsy. I think it's detailed and well thought out by someone with a *track record* in the industry of building functional, useful things. That being said, the patent doesn't actually declare (from what I saw) any significant generation of heat for long periods of time. ***It's nice to see someone doing their homework, but unfortunately for me I didn't get the fish before he started changing his tune. 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. ***Then your odds should not have changed.Your backtracking has nothing to do with Bayesian analysis, it has to do with knowing that what you said was indefensible at the level you were saying it. We didn't get a lot of context from the original paper as to exactly how strongly its authors supported their results. Also, a lot of arguments about wires have secretly provided unmeasured electricity was made. ***And Dr. Essen said they directly looked at that possibility. If you had been an informed bettor, you'd have already known this. This paper is just a relatively basic defense, nothing special. Certainly wouldn't move my opinion by 700%. The fact that after all these arguments have been made, a co-author comes out and hits back hard, means that likely those wires were checked thoroughly by all involved. ***You're just backtracking, Blaze. In a way, I like what I see because it represents the intellectual light going on above your head. But in another way, you've taken 700% odds off the table, money out of my pocket. So I'm ambivalent. One thing that's been demonstrated is just how powerful the money aspect of debating can sharpen your thinking skills. Another powerful thing that's been demonstrated is just how on target Vortex is. You have benefited.
Re: [Vo]:Rossi says -- 1st ecat untouched by him
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. - Jed Well, we're all speculating as to how much or how little the investigators examined things. Unless they videotape the actual inspection (and even then) - we weren't there, and can only go by 3rd party reports. I think the full throated defense by the co-author shows that they probably went to town on these things.
Re: [Vo]:Rossi says -- 1st ecat untouched by him
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 worthwhile seems low. Plus I despise his desire to be secretive, since I am pretty sure public testing would result in patents (the whole point of patents). He must realize that he risks losing control over this someone else writes a better patent and demonstrates his device before he does. On Tue, Jul 9, 2013 at 1:22 PM, Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.com wrote: 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 Republichttp://www.freerepublic.com/focus/bloggers/2265914/posts 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 On Tue, Jul 9, 2013 at 1:12 PM, blaze spinnaker blazespinna...@gmail.comwrote: 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.comwrote: On Tue, Jul 9, 2013 at 12:47 PM, blaze spinnaker blazespinna...@gmail.com wrote: 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 to from the middle of the spread. ***I tried for the 10:1 odds, but now your story is changing. Mine hasn't. Also, you're doing a somewhat linear analysis based on 2 data points. I could already be on an asymptote. ***Which is why I think that within a year you'll be betting 2:1 FOR Rossi. You simply did not do your homework. I don't think the Pekka patent is particularly flimsy. ***It has nothing to do with Rossi. So, taking it into account for oddsmaking on Rossi is very, VERY flimsy. I think it's detailed and well thought out by someone with a *track record* in the industry of building functional, useful things. That being said, the patent doesn't actually declare (from what I saw) any significant generation of heat for long periods of time. ***It's nice to see someone doing their homework, but unfortunately for me I didn't get the fish before he started changing his tune. 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. ***Then your odds should not have changed.Your backtracking has nothing to do with Bayesian analysis, it has to do with knowing that what you said was indefensible at the level you were saying it. We didn't get a lot of context from the original paper as to exactly how strongly its authors supported their results. Also, a lot of arguments about wires have secretly provided unmeasured electricity was made. ***And Dr. Essen said they directly looked at that possibility. If you had been an informed bettor, you'd have already known this. This paper is just a relatively basic defense, nothing special. Certainly wouldn't move my opinion by 700%. The fact that after all these arguments have been made, a co-author comes out and hits back hard, means that likely those wires were checked thoroughly by all involved. ***You're just backtracking, Blaze. In a way, I like what I see because it represents the intellectual light going on above your head. But in another way, you've taken 700% odds off the table, money out of my pocket. So I'm ambivalent. One thing that's been demonstrated is just how powerful the money aspect of debating can sharpen your thinking skills. Another powerful thing that's been demonstrated is just how on target Vortex is. You have benefited.
Re: [Vo]:Rossi says -- 1st ecat untouched by him
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 is a lot of interesting news and many interesting ideas, but also much to lead nearly everyone astray, each in his or her own direction. Eric
