My odds have changed from around 0% (before the report) to ~5% to ~17% of the eCat being true. You need go to from the middle of the spread. Also, you're doing a somewhat linear analysis based on 2 data points. I could already be on an asymptote.
I don't think the Pekka patent is particularly flimsy. I think it's detailed and well thought out by someone with a *track record* in the industry of building functional, useful things. That being said, the patent doesn't actually declare (from what I saw) any significant generation of heat for long periods of time. Never underestimate the value of track records. Bayesian probabilities rely upon this. The specific problem with Rossi is that, from a bayesian point of view, it seemed improbable that he had created anything useful. We didn't get a lot of context from the original paper as to exactly how strongly its authors supported their results. Also, a lot of arguments about wires have secretly provided unmeasured electricity was made. The fact that after all these arguments have been made, a co-author comes out and hits back hard, means that likely those wires were checked thoroughly by all involved. On Tue, Jul 9, 2013 at 12:31 PM, Kevin O'Malley <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > On Tue, Jul 9, 2013 at 12:09 PM, blaze spinnaker <[email protected] > > wrote: > >> Come on Kevin, you know how this works. >> >> In the face of new evidence (Pekka Patent, full throated defense from >> co-author) we need to update our priors. >> > ***The Pekka patent has nothing to do with Rossi. And a co-author full > throated defense should have been baked into your oddsmaking. But by going > from 10:1 down to 3:1 over this flimsy level of development, you've change > the odds by 700%. That would mean if you stick around another week or two, > your odds will be 1:1 or even 2:1 FOR Rossi. Only now are you doing your > due diligence. > > > >> >> The universe is not static. What's interesting really is not whether or >> not the eCat is real, but rather getting an accurate estimate of the >> probability of it being real at any point in time. >> > ***That was the beauty of Intrade. The odds were agreed upon between > buyer and seller. > > >> >> > >
