Sorry, I have no idea what a decentralized Augur prediction market platform is. If you gave a link, please do it again-- I misplaced it. Also, if you don't mind, the link to your original post. I want to read it again.
I have no idea what a decentralized Augur prediction market platform is.
keV,
Patience, we'll have two good ones soon enough (Augur and Gnosis). Ethereum is about to shake up the world!
Augur is in beta. I can sign up and create a market. What do you think it should be? I would like to see multiple markets that pay out within the next few months rather than "Is Rossi gonna have a product within 5 years". It ties up the money too long.
How about we brainstorm?
Rossi will claim to have an investor on his JONP blog within 3 months.
Legal authorities in Florida will file fraud charges against Rossi by Dec 31 2017.
Gullstrom's paper is posted on a peer reviewed journal with an impact factor > X within 1 year.
Other LENR:
MFMP tests a researcher and verifies COP > 1.2 by Dec 31, 2017.
MFMP verifies Gamma Rays within 1 year.
Well, it's a start on brainstorming. Let us know your thoughts.
keV,
During the Augur beta, it is all just play money. Let's wait until they finish beta, and make it real. And I like your ideas: a bunch of different markets could be created.
If it's just play money then all you get is bragging rights. I'm surprised some of the participants on this blog haven't already done it. I'm not all that interested in play money.
Just moved the discussion about betting for or against LENR into this dedicated topic, because I guess it could become something of interest 
So please go on here.
barty Good idea, thanks.
QuoteDisplay MoreRossi will claim to have an investor on his JONP blog within 3 months.
Legal authorities in Florida will file fraud charges against Rossi by Dec 31 2017.
Gullstrom's paper is posted on a peer reviewed journal with an impact factor > X within 1 year.
Other LENR:
MFMP tests a researcher and verifies COP > 1.2 by Dec 31, 2017.
MFMP verifies Gamma Rays within 1 year.
None of those interest me. I couldn't care less about them. None means anything at all. How about: Rossi has a product on the open market within 2 years and that product makes commercially viable energy, he has sold at least 1000 units to individuals or companies known by name and unrelated to him in business in any way, and who can and have been interviewed by major newspapers and the majority of those customers claim the devices makes useful and economically viable energy.
Alternatively: Rossi has provided a device to at least two major testing organizations (we'd have to agree on a specific list of such entities as ORNL, CERN, Sandia, Cal Tech, MIT, UL, perhaps Boeing, etc.) and these companies have determined that a Rossi device makes a gross power output of at least 20 watts for at least several weeks without refueling (time depends on size-- have to agree on that too but NASA once published guidelines). COP has to be 6 or better or it has to be self-running without input power.
Those I would bet on but I am pretty sure the believers would not. Maybe the lawyers who were reading this forum would help word the agreements.
Mary, I'm afraid I bet on you behalf on another thread, I'm pretty sure you won't mind. If you do, I'll cover you.
QuoteI bet 10K (and I'm sure MY will bet another 10K) that none of those hundreds can replicate it on command.
QuoteMary, I'm afraid I bet on you behalf on another thread, I'm pretty sure you won't mind. If you do, I'll cover you.
You're going to have to. I'd never bet on a low power phenomenon because I really have no way to know if they are real or not. In addition, someone could replicate P&F in the sense that if P&F made errors, someone could make the same errors and get the same results, thus replicating them. I'd be careful wording real bets.
I prefer to bet on sure things such as Rossi and Defkalion are/were crooks. I will bet any amount I can cover that Rossi has nothing and never will. I would also cautiously take a more modest bet that Brillouin and BLP/Mills have nothing. There, there is a tiny chance that they do... extremely very supertiny.
when betting on something happening, never forget about who will decide it happened.
Especially today, many people have difficulties to accept reality.
I won't bet a cent on the opinion of someone, on a group, who is stuck in groupthink, and I'sure they will judge I'm stuck in groupthink.
only bet is on something undeniable like a thousands of industrial applications (Rossi have proven you cannot trust one), and this requires billions, and a minimum of recognition...
a catch 22
You're going to have to. I'd never bet on a low power phenomenon because I really have no way to know if they are real or not. In addition, someone could replicate P&F in the sense that if P&F made errors, someone could make the same errors and get the same results, thus replicating them. I'd be careful wording real bets.
I prefer to bet on sure things such as Rossi and Defkalion are/were crooks. I will bet any amount I can cover that Rossi has nothing and never will. I would also cautiously take a more modest bet that Brillouin and BLP/Mills have nothing. There, there is a tiny chance that they do... extremely very supertiny.
As you know, Mary, I'm a fervid follower of Rossi, so "In mercatu veritas" is also my motto. I won't pay until I can buy an E-cat .
Sherlock,
I would revise as noted below:
"I will pay when an Ecat produces more Energy Out > Energy In@
Yes, Roseland67, but proven how? And by who?
People often propose betting on various aspects of cold fusion. The idea never made sense to me. People often want to bet on two questions:
1. Is cold fusion real?
2. Will cold fusion be commercialized by a certain date?
Question 1 is easily resolved. To bet that cold fusion is not real is to bet that experimental science does not work, hundreds of experts can make elementary mistakes, and the laws of thermodynamics are inoperative. To disprove cold fusion you have to show that thermodynamics and calorimetry don't work and the textbooks going back to J. P. Joule and Faraday are wrong -- and yet no one other than Shanahan ever noticed this.
I suppose you could narrow the bet down by asking whether one particular study is real or not. I would select McKubre. This is one of the most well-known papers. It is one of the most well-funded, rigorous and careful studies. No skeptic has published a paper showing an error in this work. So I think it is safe to conclude it is correct. Critics here such as Yugo say they have not read it or they do not understand it. They have the notion that if you do not understand something it must be wrong.
It is unclear to me how you would settle a bet of this nature in any case. Some people who propose to bet on this would ask a panel of scientists to evaluate the work. The 2004 DoE panel showed that this is a fool's errand. See:
http://lenr-canr.org/wordpress/?page_id=455
You have to make sure the panel members have read and understood the literature. I am in contact with the reading public in my role as librarian at LENR-CANR.org. I am confident that nearly every scientist who has read and understood the literature agrees with it. I know of only two exceptions, both certified crackpots (Shanahan and one other). So the conclusion is forgone. Any scientist who studies the literature in depth and reads more than one or two papers will see it is correct. Other evidence for this is the fact that no skeptic has published a paper showing errors in any major experiment (not just McKubre). Unless you count Morrison. Judge for yourself whether you should count him:
http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/Fleischmanreplytothe.pdf
In the case of the DoE panel, 6 out of 18 were genuine experts who read the literature and agreed the effect is real. 2 were undecided. 10 others were wrong because they either read nothing or understood nothing. Their critiques were nonsense. They paid no attention to the experiments, claims, instruments and conclusions. Their only claim claim was that the results are theoretically impossible. They were wrong about that, but even if they had been right their statement amounts to an assertion that when theory and experiment conflict, theory wins. This violates the scientific method, to say the least.
In any case, the only way to evaluate a scientific claim is with reference to the laws of physics and logic. If you cannot do that, you cannot judge the issue. "Science by vote" is an absurdity.
Regarding question 2, "Will cold fusion be commercialized by a certain date?" -- That cannot be predicted. There is no basis to predict it. It depends upon politics and the emotions of a small number of wealthy people.
There are people who control great wealth (funding) at places like the DoE. We can be sure that no institution such as the DoE will support cold fusion R&D. There is far too much mainstream opposition. There is a slight chance some wealthy person such as Bill Gates will. Betting on his mental state is ridiculous. You are not a mind reader. This is not like a sporting event where you can look at data from previous games to make reasonable guess about who is likely to win. There is nothing to go on.
I probably have as much knowledge of cold fusion funding and of what it would take to develop cold fusion into a practical source of energy as anyone. I can tell you approximately how much money it would take and what steps would be needed. I might be wrong, but at least I can describe what experts believe, and why they believe it.
In other words, I can tell you how it would be developed in a parallel universe where such decisions are made on the basis of science and rationality, rather than politics, emotion and stupidity. Unfortunately, in situations like this here on planet Earth, politics and emotion rule, as you see from studying history.
I can see that there is little chance the research will be funded. Anyone can see that! That is an easy bet. Easy but pointless. I cannot read the mind of Bill Gates or other moguls, so I have no way to make a firm prediction about whether cold fusion will be developed or not.
1. Is cold fusion real?
2. Will cold fusion be commercialized by a certain date?
Question 1 is easily resolved.
ROFL!!
In a dream world maybe. The fact is that when well-founded objections were expressed regarding LENR claims, the LENR pundits circle the wagons and universally invoked denial. Science stopped, which of course wouldn't happen in our dream world.
This in fact makes it impossible to determine if the bet is 'won' or not. Anyone with any intelligence wouldn't trust a CFers opinion on the 'proof' because of their fanatic's bias. Conversely, no CFers would ever accept a non-believer's assessment of failure. Ergo, no conclusion will ever be reached in this world until all fanatics have died off. That's the basis of Plank's comments about new theories replacing old ones.
To bet that cold fusion is not real is to bet that experimental science does not work, hundreds of experts can make elementary mistakes, and the laws of thermodynamics are inoperative. To disprove cold fusion you have to show that thermodynamics and calorimetry don't work and the textbooks going back to J. P. Joule and Faraday are wrong -- and yet no one other than Shanahan ever noticed this.
You are definitely a member of the "If I say it 1000 times it become true" club. (hint: It doesn't work that way.)
"bet that experimental science does not work" - exaggeration, a garbage statement
"hundreds of experts can make elementary mistakes" - basic problem of systematic effects - fools lots of people for quite a while
"and the laws of thermodynamics are inoperative" - exaggeration, a garbage statement
"To disprove cold fusion you have to show that thermodynamics and calorimetry don't work" - no, just that an unrecognized systematic effect is active and present (or, as a critic, that such an effect is reasonably possible)
"the textbooks going back to J. P. Joule and Faraday are wrong" - exaggeration, a garbage statement
"and yet no one other than Shanahan ever noticed this" - no, "Shanahan" happened to be the guy who pointed it out. Examination of the proposal leads many others to noticing it, if they are not so biased they can't allow that to happen...
No skeptic has published a paper showing an error in this work. So I think it is safe to conclude it is correct.
Actually, McK's work is covered by my papers, so you are incorrect as usual.
I am confident that nearly every scientist who has read and understood the literature agrees with it.
That's just your fanatic's bias talking, you have no proof of this statement.
Actually, McK's work is covered by my papers, so you are incorrect as usual.
Didn't McKubre use a mass flow calorimeter?
Didn't McKubre use a mass flow calorimeter?
Shanahan's theory applies to all calorimeters, of all types, past, present, future, real and imaginary. The theory predicts behavior indistinguishable from the textbook behavior we would see if the theory is wrong, and the textbooks are right after all. So it cannot be tested, confirmed or falsified.
These are the hallmarks of a crackpot theory.
