Well, I am discussing probabilities and the ability to estimate them. Perhaps we could take this off list though.
Maybe not everyone finds it as fascinating as you and I :) Honestly, I'm not the enemy here btw. I'm a big believer in LENR. I just think the probability of Rossi doing something worthwhile seems low. Plus I despise his desire to be secretive, since I am pretty sure public testing would result in patents (the whole point of patents). He must realize that he risks losing control over this someone else writes a better patent and demonstrates his device before he does. On Tue, Jul 9, 2013 at 1:22 PM, Kevin O'Malley <[email protected]> wrote: > Now you're just trying to change the subject. If ya wanna talk politics, > click on that link I gave you. Vortex is for science subjects. > > (speaking of track records) > ***Now, it appears yours is one of strong backtracking, here on Vortex. > > > The End of *Snide Remarks* Against *Cold Fusion* - Free > Republic<http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/bloggers/2265914/posts> > http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/bloggers/2265914/posts > Free Republic, Gravitronics.net and Intrade ^ | 6/5/09 | *kevmo*, et al. > Posted on 06/05/2009 5:56:08 PM PDT > > > > > On Tue, Jul 9, 2013 at 1:12 PM, blaze spinnaker > <[email protected]>wrote: > >> oooook. Btw, how'd that bet on Romney winning in '12 work out for you? >> >> >> (speaking of track records) >> >> >> On Tue, Jul 9, 2013 at 1:07 PM, Kevin O'Malley <[email protected]>wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> >>> On Tue, Jul 9, 2013 at 12:47 PM, blaze spinnaker < >>> [email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> My odds have changed from around 0% (before the report) to ~5% to ~17% >>>> of the eCat being true. >>> >>> ***Nonsense statement. 0% would represent astronomically high odds of a >>> thousand or million to one. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>> You need go to from the middle of the spread. >>> >>> ***I tried for the 10:1 odds, but now your story is changing. Mine >>> hasn't. >>> >>> >>> >>>> Also, you're doing a somewhat linear analysis based on 2 data points. >>>> I could already be on an asymptote. >>> >>> ***Which is why I think that within a year you'll be betting 2:1 FOR >>> Rossi. You simply did not do your homework. >>> >>> >>> >>>> >>>> I don't think the Pekka patent is particularly flimsy. >>>> >>> ***It has nothing to do with Rossi. So, taking it into account for >>> oddsmaking on Rossi is very, VERY 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. >>>> >>> ***It's nice to see someone doing their homework, but unfortunately for >>> me I didn't get the fish before he started changing his tune. >>> >>> >>>> >>>> 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. >>>> >>> ***Then your odds should not have changed. Your backtracking has >>> nothing to do with Bayesian analysis, it has to do with knowing that what >>> you said was indefensible at the level you were saying it. >>> >>> >>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>>> 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. >>>> >>> ***And Dr. Essen said they directly looked at that possibility. If you >>> had been an informed bettor, you'd have already known this. This paper is >>> just a relatively basic defense, nothing special. Certainly wouldn't move >>> my opinion by 700%. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>> 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. >>>> >>> ***You're just backtracking, Blaze. In a way, I like what I see because >>> it represents the intellectual light going on above your head. But in >>> another way, you've taken 700% odds off the table, money out of my pocket. >>> So I'm ambivalent. One thing that's been demonstrated is just how powerful >>> the money aspect of debating can sharpen your thinking skills. Another >>> powerful thing that's been demonstrated is just how on target Vortex is. >>> You have benefited. >>> >> >> >
