BTW, "Too the few souls in the world who follow this?" is total crap. Bill Gates, the richest man in the world, himself is obviously following this with interest.
On Sun, Dec 28, 2014 at 6:46 AM, Blaze Spinnaker <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 <[email protected] > > 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 < >> [email protected]> 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 <[email protected]> >>> 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 >>>> > <[email protected]> >>>> > wrote: >>>> > >>>> >> http://www.researchgate.net/profile/A_Parkhomov/publications >>>> >> >>>> >> On Sun, Dec 28, 2014 at 5:44 AM, Blaze Spinnaker >>>> >> <[email protected] >>>> >> > 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 < >>>> [email protected]> >>>> >>> 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/ >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>>> >> >>>> > >>>> >>>> >>> >> >
