Stephen A. Lawrence <sa...@pobox.com> wrote:
> Consequently, using Occam's razor, it seems to me that the objectively > correct statement, based solely on information known to Vortex members and > general denizens of the Internet, is that Jed is *very probably* correct > in his assertions about Rossi, and Rossi's devices *very probably* do not > work. (And a high probability of truth is the best we can hope for in any > case.) > Thanks. That is a bayesian analysis. That method can work well. It is recommended by Nate Silver in his book, "The Signal and the Noise." Silver has a good explanation for the layman about how to use this method. You should also weigh I.H.'s credibility versus Rossi's in your analysis. Here is a bayesian analysis of cold fusion evidence in general: http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/JohnsonRweightofev.pdf > I said "do not work" rather than "failed in this instance" because to > assume they failed in this instance . . . > That is the correct form of the assertion. There is evidence that previous reactors might have worked. I can't tell. In their motion to dismiss, I.H. mentioned multiple "reactors" that apparently all failed. I did not know there were multiple reactors. I know nothing about the others, but if you take their word for it, there were multiple failures, and no recent success. I do take their word for these other claims. I don't have to take their word for my analysis of the 1-year test. I need only assume that Rossi's numbers and description are reasonably accurate. Of course, my analysis might be wrong. I do not know how far back the I.H. assessment reaches, or whether it includes the first Levi tests or Lugano, or that strange 1 MW test in Italy. To be brief, I don't know a darn thing except about the calorimetry in this one test. - Jed
