To be even more clear, I'm waiting for MFMP to release their results. You can read through all their reports and see their reputation of falsification. They've done it *over and over again*, a perfect example of bayesian analysis where the priors will provide all the confidence we need to believe their results. If they were to do sustained replication (they've had a few false starts) over a few tests I'd immediately change my % to > 50%
On Sun, Dec 28, 2014 at 6:40 AM, Blaze Spinnaker <blazespinna...@gmail.com> wrote: > "As to the significance of the replication, it really > depends on how well the test was performed, not the credentials of the > tester. I suggest that be your method of evaluating the quality of the > results." > > This is not how I do my analysis. Anyone can write reports and fudge > numbers intelligently. > > I have a long history of being very successful on Intrade of taking a > bayesian approach to winning bets. The inflection point for me in the > Rossi saga was the first independent report. The next was the acquisition > by IH. Having Darden and Magnus release positive statements was a good > sign as they are credible individuals. > > This claim is not an inflection point using my approach, though I will > submit that it is a small, positive step forward. > > > > On Sun, Dec 28, 2014 at 6:32 AM, Blaze Spinnaker <blazespinna...@gmail.com > > wrote: > >> I didn't say it was a negative development. You are clearly purposely >> misunderstanding my statements because you take an attack on this as an >> attack on you. You're just like a pseudo skeptic, only on the flip side. >> You're being a crank. >> >> My % evaluation is only silly because I'm the only one doing it. If we >> had a group of credible people (more credible than I with real track >> records of estimating this sort of thing) doing it, than the numbers would >> amount to something interesting. >> >> I refuse to let the fact that I'm the first stop me from continuing to >> estimate. I'd think LENR scientists would appreciate that. >> >> >> >> On Sun, Dec 28, 2014 at 6:22 AM, Ransom Wuller <rwul...@peaknet.net> >> wrote: >> >>> Serious, explosive document? Too who? Too the few souls in the world who >>> follow this? >>> >>> Replications will need to come from multiple sources before they are >>> considered significant in any overall evaluation, but any positive >>> replication is in essence positive. >>> >>> Further, so far I haven't seen any failed replication. In 1989 those >>> added >>> to the negative publicity and consensus attitude. >>> >>> So if you are just commenting about your silly % evaluation, it is >>> nonsense to begin with, so your evaluation of this fellow is also >>> meaningless, if you are suggesting that a positive replication, >>> regardless >>> of the source is not a positive development, than what would a failed >>> replication be? As to the significance of the replication, it really >>> depends on how well the test was performed, not the credentials of the >>> tester. I suggest that be your method of evaluating the quality of the >>> results. >>> >>> Frankly, your comment smacks of the pseudo skeptic curmudgeons who post >>> on >>> E-Cat News. >>> >>> Ransom >>> >>> > I honestly believe a serious scientist (even an unpublished one such as >>> > this guy) would never publish a serious, explosive document like this >>> > without massive caveats. If the caveats are in the paper, than I >>> > apologize, I don't read russian and there has been no good translation >>> as >>> > of yet that I could find. >>> > >>> > The lack of a control run is frightening in itself. >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > On Sun, Dec 28, 2014 at 5:46 AM, Blaze Spinnaker >>> > <blazespinna...@gmail.com> >>> > wrote: >>> > >>> >> http://www.researchgate.net/profile/A_Parkhomov/publications >>> >> >>> >> On Sun, Dec 28, 2014 at 5:44 AM, Blaze Spinnaker >>> >> <blazespinna...@gmail.com >>> >> > wrote: >>> >> >>> >>> Unfortunately, I don't think you can say 'scientist' without >>> providing >>> >>> context. >>> >>> >>> >>> There is a wide gap between someone who has been primary author on >>> peer >>> >>> reviewed papers in credible journals that have been cited by other >>> peer >>> >>> reviewed scientists and someone who has not. >>> >>> >>> >>> Unfortunately, looking at Research Gate, this fellow falls in the >>> >>> latter >>> >>> category. >>> >>> >>> >>> I hope this turns out to be real and I hope the reason why Rossi >>> >>> editted >>> >>> his comment from "I do not know the particulars, therefore cannot >>> >>> comment, but it is normal that the so called “Rossi Effect”" to "I >>> >>> do >>> >>> not know the particulars, therefore cannot comment, but it is >>> possible >>> >>> that >>> >>> the so called “Rossi Effect” is replicable after the data published >>> >>> in the >>> >>> Report of Lugano." was because he realized this guy doesn't appear to >>> >>> be >>> >>> credible. >>> >>> >>> >>> Anyways, I want to believe like everyone else, but I just don't find >>> >>> this >>> >>> guy credible at all. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On Sat, Dec 27, 2014 at 6:23 AM, Jed Rothwell <jedrothw...@gmail.com >>> > >>> >>> wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>>> See: >>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> http://www.e-catworld.com/2014/12/27/lugano-confirmed-replication-report-published-of-hot-cat-device-by-russian-researcher-alexander-g-parkhomov/ >>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >>> > >>> >>> >> >
