The journal reviewers to not accept the concept. The DOE does not
accept the concept. Most physicists do not accept the concept. As for
Rossi, his claims are totally consistent with how such an energy
source will behave based on simple engineering analysis. He could not
make up behavior that is so consistent.
Ed
On Jul 8, 2013, at 10:51 AM, blaze spinnaker wrote:
Well, I think everyone accepts some form of cold fusion. I don't
see that in doubt at all.
What's in doubt is that Rossi has created an eCat with an absurdly
high (and seemingly controllable) COP that is relying on cold
fusion / LENR.
On Mon, Jul 8, 2013 at 8:34 AM, Edmund Storms
<stor...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
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
<kevmol...@gmail.com> 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 <blazespinna...@gmail.com
> 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
<kevmol...@gmail.com> 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 <blazespinna...@gmail.com
> 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.org for 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
<kevmol...@gmail.com> 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 <blazespinna...@gmail.com
> 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 <blazespinna...@gmail.com
> 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.
