The odds are not so clear, if we integrate a time factor. as explained the problem is not to prove that LENr is real, it have been done since long, and mainstream media will never admit it without a gun on their head. No evidence will work.
The rest is betting on an industrial application. It takes time, much more time that what the authors imagine. standard process is the planning says 6 month to market, and 5 years in reality,with reduced ambitions, and the possibilities that the cowardliness of big industrialists and the defense on their economic rent (no conspiracy, just passive defense), ruin all hope of a revolution... betting on a startup like leonardo corporation, is venture capitalism... 95% of those companies will die of be bought in 5 years. all that is for standard innovation. LENR is an outlier, a blackswan... even more that Internet, steam engine, farming... It is a huge revolution in quality, but very conservative in fact since it is compatible with existing technology, yet allow many more organizations, and reduce many disadvantages and costs... It will kill many lobbies, benefit many people and industry who suffer from todays situation (pollution, monopolies, geopolitic, centralization)... Incentive to support it and to repress it are HUGE. It is desperate losers against hopeful winners. 2013/7/9 Kevin O'Malley <[email protected]> > So, Blaze.... on another thread you've reduced the odds down to 3:1. Does > this mean that you aren't as confident betting against Rossi any more? > Just spending some time on Vortex seems to have brought you from 10:1 > skepticism down to 3:1. Eventually you'll go down to 2:1, then 1:1, and > soon after that you'll be on the side betting FOR Rossi... ;-) > > Re: [Vo]:Interview with Professor Bo Hoistad regarding eCat report - > please respond > here<http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]&q=subject:%22Re%3A+%5BVo%5D%3AInterview+with+Professor+Bo+Hoistad+regarding+eCat+report+-+please+respond+here%22> > > blaze > spinnaker<http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]&q=from:%22blaze+spinnaker%22> > Mon, > 08 Jul 2013 18:56:47 > -0700<http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]&q=date:20130708> > > Ah, good to know. > > Its good to see a full-throated defense from the co-authors. > > Between this and the Pekka patent, very encouraging. I'd still give odds > the ecat doesn't exist, though. Maybe 3 to 1 and I'd take 10 to 1 > > On Monday, July 8, 2013, Jed Rothwell <[email protected]> wrote: > > This thread title had a character that is not part of the U.S. ASCII > system: ö > > > > The thread will run amok with multiple appearances. Please respond to > this message if you wish to comment on it. > > - Jed > > > > > > > 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. >>>> >>> >>> >> >
