Maybe we could add 4- Reputable/rational organization use LENR practically.
but probably all will happen in a matter of month, with 1 being the last. I think also about a 3bis : China launching a great LENR investment... maybe they won't phase out anything, just be control the technology, and master decomissioning (and they migh have problems with internal lobbies). 2013/7/8 Edmund Storms <[email protected]> > Yes, I also would like to know when we can consider cold fusion to be > accepted. Three kinds of events seem to be relevant. > 1. Reviewers allow papers to be published in Science, Nature and > Scientific American. > 2. Large amounts of investment money becomes available so that finding > enough knowledgeable people to use the money becomes difficult. > 3. China announces they are phasing out their fission reactors and > replacing them with cold fusion reactors. > > Anything short of these events seems to be wishful thinking. > > Ed > > On Jul 8, 2013, at 9:10 AM, Kevin O'Malley wrote: > > Well, it looks like this bet thingie isn't going anywhere. No one is > signing up to be the intermediary, and the Impact Factor lacks openness. > > > On Fri, Jun 28, 2013 at 10:53 PM, Kevin O'Malley <[email protected]>wrote: > >> So far I can't get a handle on what Impact Factor really is. Reuters >> charges for their information. I need to see where various journals are in >> this ranking, such as Naturewieessen, American Chemical Society, Journal of >> Analytical Chemistry, Physics Letters A, Journal of Nuclear Physics,Nature, >> Journal of Electrochemistry and various other journals. In particular, I >> would like to know the rankings of the journals mentioned on page 18 in >> this paper from Jed Rothwell's LENR-CANR.org website: >> >> http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RothwellJtallyofcol.pdf >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On Fri, Jun 28, 2013 at 5:26 PM, blaze spinnaker < >> [email protected]> wrote: >> >>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Journal_ranking >>> >>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impact_factor >>> >>> How about using something like that? It has to have some minimum >>> impact factor? >>> >>> How about an impact factor of at least 15? >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On Fri, Jun 28, 2013 at 5:14 PM, Kevin O'Malley <[email protected]>wrote: >>> >>>> 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. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> >> > >
