The reason is to inject reality into the conversation. I am thinking of a new formation of a bet.
A generally accepted detailed description of a consistently reproducible experiment which can perform a COP of > 2 for over 24 hours (that is total energy in is 1/2 of total energy out). By generally accepted, I'm even willing to go with super majority consensus of veterans on Vortex rather than the 'delusional public'. On Wed, Aug 7, 2013 at 1:29 AM, Alain Sepeda <[email protected]> wrote: > when people want to make good decision they need good information. > > when people advise you but have no flesh in the game, they migh fall into > wishfull thinking, conformist vision, submission to consensus by fear. > > betting, like investing have been observing as less delusional, and > information from people who invest or bet, are better than from supporters > or tawkers (as says Taleb alias Fat Tony). > > anyway as shows Enron boss who keep his equities while he was > desperately trying to save his company from banckruptcy, people can have > flesh in the game and be delusional. > That is the basic of the Roland Benabou theory. > It happen typically in systems when the delusion of others hurts you, and > less when it gives you opportunities. It starts typically with position > that seems rational (even if they are errors, but initially legitimate), > but when bad news happen, to avoid to reconsider the choice, to admit huge > losses, people simply ignore the data... > > about LENR I have another fear. > It is an easy bet to claim LENR is real, and LENR+ will be industrial one > day. > > the problem is that this depend on the opinion of a huge mass of > delusional people, who can infinitely impede the recognition and > development of LENR. > > there is no guarantee that the LENR companies are not closed by decision > of all the government, avatar UNO decision, advised by MIT lords of science. > No guaranty that greenpeace does not lobby all governments to forbid LENR, > and LENR research, they the do on other technologies like shales. > No guaranty that politician does not push death-comando to destroy the > LENR companies like they do with GMO... > No guaranty that google try to dereference LENr sites like they tried to > do on some other heretic science, or as it is done in China, or in france > for copyright violation, revisionism or child-porn... > > no guaranty that heretic companies in Africa or Iran don't get bombed by > drone for such experiments... > > You don't bet on LENR being real, on Defkalion technology being real, on > Rossi E-cat COP>=6. > > you can only bet on > - LENR BEING *ACCEPTED* > - DEFKALION BEING *RECOGNIZED* AS REAL > - E-CAT COP *VALIDATED* AS >6 > > all that in mostly human delusion dependent... > > as peter gluck remind us , this look like a soviet trial, where logic and > evidence are not really the same as in the material world we know... > > just reading the arguments of the hardskeptics give me strong reason to be > afraid that ther will be no recognition by those naybelievers... > > > > 2013/8/7 Michael Hendrix <[email protected]> > >> Forgive me for asking this, but what, exactly, is the point in making >> bets as to whether LENR is real, will come to market, will be published in >> a reputable journal, etc? For me, this line of discussion is a childish >> distraction. Go to Vegas. (Maybe Laughlin,would be more to your style). >> >> best regards, >> >> Michael Hendrix >> >> On Aug 6, 2013, at 8:53 AM, blaze spinnaker wrote: >> >> Anyways. Talk is cheap. If you think it's such a low chance - bet me! >> >> On Tue, Aug 6, 2013 at 7:48 AM, blaze spinnaker <[email protected] >> > wrote: >> >>> "As things stand I think there is no chance that any article will be >>> published in a respectable journal or mass media newspaper or website." >>> >>> Well, unless things have changed in the last few years to make cold >>> fusion even more disreputable, this simply isn't true. I'll let Kevin fill >>> you in on the details.. >>> >>> >>> On Tue, Aug 6, 2013 at 7:16 AM, Jed Rothwell <[email protected]>wrote: >>> >>>> blaze spinnaker <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>>> >>>>> I was previously willing to give 4:1(20%) odds and take 1:1(50%) that >>>>> an article would be presented in a reputable journal >>>>> >>>> >>>> As things stand I think there is no chance that any article will be >>>> published in a respectable journal or mass media newspaper or website. I do >>>> not know anyone who thinking of writing an article, and I probably know >>>> most of the people capable of it. >>>> >>>> Mark Gibbs demonstrated what happens to mainstream reporters who talk >>>> about cold fusion. I realize that he denies he was fired for talking about >>>> cold fusion, but I think he is being diplomatic. His last article said he >>>> planned to talk more about it, so he did not see this coming. >>>> >>>> I doubt that a paper or mass media article would be helpful. >>>> >>>> Both sides oppose publicity. Defkalion and Rossi do not want an >>>> article, and no journal or newspaper wants to publish one. >>>> >>>> Generally speaking, in commerce, confidential information is worthless. >>>> Most secrets turn out to be mistakes. Anything with intellectual property >>>> value should be patented, which soon makes it open to the public. Many >>>> patent applications are also worthless. >>>> >>>> - Jed >>>> >>>> >>> >> >> >
