Those show that when the Bertrand Russell Professor at Trinity College Cambridge reported Rossi's specious claims as fact and even now as a 50% probability,
I see you’re still struggling with reading comprehension Mary. He says nothing of the sort.
Those show that when the Bertrand Russell Professor at Trinity College Cambridge reported Rossi's specious claims as fact and even now as a 50% probability,
I see you’re still struggling with reading comprehension Mary. He says nothing of the sort.
I’m completely sure that the following Huw Price (single-author) papers have absolutely nothing to do with Bayes Theorem:
Against causal decision theory. Synthese 67(1986) 195—212. [PDF]
Conditional credence. Mind 95(1986) 18—36. [JSTOR]
Agency and probabilistic causality. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 42(1991) 157—176. [PDF][JSTOR]
(NB. Yanks, that’s sarcasm).
Dr. Price is not a very critical thinker.
I bet he can understand those simple graphs in the Roulette paper though.
Unlike some people...
Should be self sustaining any day now... oh....
I remember when 100W was enough to satisfy you.
...Perhaps if you ask nicely, the groundsman will lend you a spade?
Fascinating fact: 25% of the 100,000 or so posts here are about Rossi.
Can you link where MY or anyone said or wrote that a kilowatt is the minimum standard for accepting LENR as real? I don't recall ever seeing it and I suspect, like a lot of things, you are making it up to suit your narrative.
Talking of Mary’s famous 100W challenge...
Mary, how are you getting on with that Roulette paper, that you were asking Jed for a link to last week?
Better than the last time, hopefully?
Back then Jed reckoned you were doomed to go through life without ever understanding it...
... I wouldn’t call it moving the goalposts. It’s more like, not knowing anything about football in the first place, but running around and trying to explain the offside rule to everyone.
“It is what one billionaire did“
Surreptitious Dick Smith Mention #2 there Mary... Logged.
I can’t argue with that, I was just noting your apparent solidification of ‘opinions’ into ‘facts’.
“Anyway, I hope that this thread will be preserved from any topic other than F&P experiments and their scientific and factual aspects.“
And your opinions, based on a fragmented video of dubious provenance, of course.
Ask the typical nuclear physicist about it. Or nuclear engineer.
Anything to avoid having to do some reading, eh Mary?
Bash them with a pot, then a kettle?
So despite all the evidence, including a rather obvious and badly-hidden signature, SOT is still skeptical that Bill Gates has funded LENR research.
That figures. It is a pathology of his after all...
And then he wonders why Gates might not want to deal with the media furore that would surely ensue from being associated what the uninformed masses consider to be a pseudoscience.
Just one more item on the increasingly long* list of things SOT doesn’t understand, I guess.
Poor chap.
* Which so far includes: Flow calorimeters, Graphs, Email, and Footnotes. Oh dear.
Analogy not an insult...
He is deliberately polluting the thread.
This thread is an open sewer that pollutes LENR forum...
And you are currently the main rectum!
Come on Huxley, stop piddling around in The First & Second Dumbest Threads In The World, and wrap your intellect around the above conundrum: Why your RFI issue doesn’t also show up on Brillouin’s control reactors?
I mean, it seems a little odd to repeatedly castigate the Swedish crew for refusing to revisit their Lugano efforts, then doing the very same, albeit on a smaller scale, here...
Or some food for thought: Even Mary managed his first ever Mea Culpa recently (admittedly after much prompting and laughter). So really... How hard can it be?
are still embellishing their claims.
Which implies they are also currently embellishing their claims.
Evidence please.
Brillouin are using a system with high power high frequency pulses in, which has the potential for making errors both due to RFI rectification on TCs, and due to mis-measurement of input
Really Huxley? Thought you were better than that...
Can you explain why this mysterious RFI effect only show up on the fuelled reactors and not the control ones?
I'm with THHuxleynew on this one.
Then perhaps you can have a go at answering the same question too?
80w measurement error? You really are a plonker Yugo. Sure you didn’t misread it?... Again.
Or maybe you just want some attention? I mean, anyone who’d bother to read either of the SRI report would understand it’s not them claiming it. Saaad.
Newton’s 4th Law: There’s no such thing as a perfectly inelastic object, so take the first three laws with a pinch of salt.
Since the 50’s it’s been thought that if you “jerk” something fast enough, the supposed rules don’t apply.
Chapter 5.2:
Gotta ride that gravy train as long as possible, Casey.