Ok, I posted it at the forum Intrade Gateway. We'll see if anyone is willing.
http://intrade.freeforums.org/re-anyone-willing-to-make-a-bet-the-ecat-is-not-real-t31.html How would we come to an agreement on which publications are acceptable? I can see why you wouldn't want Journal of Nuclear Physics. But throwing out American Chemical Society? Where's the legitimate cutoff point? On Fri, Jun 28, 2013 at 5:03 PM, blaze spinnaker <[email protected]>wrote: > Ahhh, action. I love it! > > A peer reviewed publication, that's very interesting. I think we'll need > to define which publications that might be, but other than that I'm in if > you are. > > As for someone to hold it, maybe we can post on intrade.freeforums.orgfor > someone to hold it. Or who knows, maybe someone here might hold it > (Paypal?) > > Glad to see you around! Really really miss intrade (obviously!) > > > > > > On Fri, Jun 28, 2013 at 4:55 PM, Kevin O'Malley <[email protected]>wrote: > >> Hello Blaze. I'm very pleased to see you posting here on Vortex. You >> may remember me on Intrade as ko, the guy who kept posting Cold Fusion >> articles. And I won quite a bit of money when the contract I posted was >> verified by Carl. >> >> So, yes. I'm very interested in such a bet. In particular I like the >> 10:1 odds. But we need to find an unbiased 3rd party to hold the money >> and make the decision. Who would that be, now that Intrade is defunct? >> >> Also, the parameters of the decision are different than I would settle >> upon. I don't hold Gibbs all that high in esteem. >> >> Perhaps something like, the 7 scientists who verified the energy density >> of the Ecat get their paper published in a peer reviewed publication? >> >> >> >> How I Made Money from Cold Fusion >> Saturday, January 23, 2010 12:28:49 PM · by Kevmo · 28 replies · 1,013+ >> views >> Exclusive Article for Free Republic | 1/23/10 | Kevmo >> http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/2435697/posts >> >> >> On Fri, Jun 28, 2013 at 4:37 PM, blaze spinnaker < >> [email protected]> wrote: >> >>> As a possible set of parameters to this bet: >>> >>> I'm willing to bet my 5000 against anyone's 500 that Mark Gibbs doesn't >>> publish an article in Forbes this year that states he personally believes >>> without a doubt that LENR+ is real and has a power density matching what >>> Levi/Essen published (within some reasonable margin of error). >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On Fri, Jun 28, 2013 at 3:27 PM, blaze spinnaker < >>> [email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> Is anyone willing here to bet me $$$ that the eCat will not be proven >>>> this year? >>>> >>>> I'm open to discussing the parameters of this bet. Ideally we'd >>>> mutually agree on a 3rd party to hold our money and be an impartial judge >>>> as to who wins by EOY. >>>> >>>> Let me know. >>>> >>>> Cheers, >>>> >>>> Blaze. >>>> >>> >>> >> >
