Just to be clear, I'm offering to put up 1000 British pounds, not dollars.tomclarke wrote:CKay, on the skeptic side, is prepared to wager $1000.
10KW LENR demonstrator (new thread)
And if Rossi or Defkalion's devices do what they claim, it really should be a trivial matter to prove, and concomitantly very difficult for me or anyone to deny.
Least ways, I'm happy to agree to any reasonable stipulations that would ensure my having to pay up if a genuine working device is demonstrated.
Least ways, I'm happy to agree to any reasonable stipulations that would ensure my having to pay up if a genuine working device is demonstrated.
To repeat, you make it difficult to prove.CKay
PostPosted: Wed Jan 04, 2012 10:54 pm Post subject: Reply with quote
parallel wrote:
How about any of the following:
1. Independently verified performance of a device sold to a customer, at the customer's site.
2. A report from a university that has tested the device.
3. A report from a government agency confirming the performance.
So long as in each case the verification came from a source with an absolutely impeccable, gold plate, AAA+ reputation.
For 2. and 3. that may be easy to agree upon, but I can see 1. causing difficulties.
CKay
PostPosted: Thu Jan 05, 2012 12:09 pm Post subject: Reply with quote
tomclarke wrote:
1) would need to be independent organisation doing the testing with reputation to lose, not paid research. Difficult.
2) would need to be a report which unambiguously verifies performance with no wiggle-room. For example, BLP will claim that Rowan reports demonstrate their stuff works but a) they do not, b) Rowan has no research reputation to lose and the academic doing the research has an uncomfortably close relationship with BLP.
3) is not a problem.
I would add similar caveats for 3) as for 2). The report should come from a relevant govt. department within a major democracy.
And I think I'd want a 4 month verification period from the time of publication.
1. A customer of a 1 MW plant is unlikely to let an independent group set up shop to verify the output. You say that something as obvious as 1 MW heat being used is not proof.
2. The university most likely to test the device is Bologna. This apparently can be dismissed, like Rowan U. & BLP because they are "associated."
The other problem is that Bologna says it will take up to 2 years to do the tests and Rossi says the results will be confidential. He doesn't have to prove anything. Not only that, he is paying for the research.
3. Thinking about it, the government reports will just be certification that it is safe and will probably not certify the output. THey don't for anything else.
I thought the domestic units might supply the answer as Rossi says he "hopes" they will be for sale in September. Talking to AmpEnergo, I'm advised that may be optimistic and the more likely date is the end of the year. Actually it is very difficult to plan when waiting on a government agency to do anything, particularly with something novel.
Possibly Defkalion will come up with something sooner. They say they will demonstrate a Hyperion after it has been certified and expect that to be "in a few months." The problem is Defkalion has never held any demonstration and I know nothing about them.
Add a "four month verification" and I doubt we will see proof that would satisfy you by the end of the year.
I agree - I don't believe any customers exist.A customer of a 1 MW plant is unlikely to let an independent group set up shop to verify the output.
You say that something as obvious as 1 MW heat being used is not proof.
Where did I say that? And besides, without context the figure 1MW is kind of meaningless (1MW from what, for how long, what are the inputs?).
If you mean, do I accept Rossi's demo of the 1MW unit as sufficient evidence? - of course not. That was far from an independent, or rigorous scientific demonstration.
For me, indisputable proof for anomalous heat would be a two fold gain in (heat) outputs over (electrical energy) inputs measured by standard, rigorous calorimetry over a sufficiently long time period so as to completely rule out any chemical energy source, all performed by a reputable third party.
And going on Rossi's claims, a two fold gain should be well within the capabilities of one of his devices. If and when a home ecat becomes available this will be easily testable - in fact, if they work as claimed, the evidence would surely be undeniable?
The four month verification period - well there needs to be some period for assessing the credibility of a report. I would be happy to abide by the adjudication of a mutually pre-agreed referee. I'm also happy to put the money into escrow.
As for the rest of your post - I rather get the feeling that you're just making excuses. Not prepared to put money where your mouth is?
Anyway, the offer still stands for any who are interested.
It's not like I'm asking for the moon - just credible, objective evidence. You'd hardly expect me to accept questionable evidence, hearsay, or Rossi's word on it, would you?parallel wrote: I doubt we will see proof that would satisfy you by the end of the year.
And, though I strongly suspect Rossi to be a con artist, I'm certainly not anti LENR - I'm somewhat agnostic on the whole matter.
In fact, my reasoning behind offering the bet has been based upon the lack of a downside for me in either outcome - in all honesty, I would love to be proven wrong.
hmm.. I thought that Bologna had gone to some lengths to stress that Rossi's various demos were not endorsed by them.parallel wrote:The university most likely to test the device is Bologna. This apparently can be dismissed, like Rowan U. & BLP because they are "associated."
Isn't there a suggestion that Rossi has played them along regarding some promised ecat research programme that never materializes?
What's the general view regarding Bologna's reputation?
You know very well what I meant. After Rossi sells a plant to a customer who doesn't wish to remain anonymous.parallel: A customer of a 1 MW plant is unlikely to let an independent group set up shop to verify the output.
CKay: I agree - I don't believe any customers exist.
Bologna University is one of the oldest in the world and well regarded.
It looks like the only way of proving one of Rossi's E-Cats will be the domestic ones and they will probably not be available for a year.
Still £1000parallel wrote:I'll make it easy for you.
How much are you prepared to bet against "that a device using nickel & H2 will be proven to generate kWhs of anomalous heat (by the FPE, cold fusion or LENR) by the end of 2012?"
Edit: removed what was meant to be a tongue in cheek comment
Last edited by CKay on Sun Jan 08, 2012 9:27 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Betting is irrational. I already explained that too you.CKay wrote:I'll say it again - £1000parallel wrote:I'll make it easy for you.
How much are you prepared to bet against "that a device using nickel & H2 will be proven to generate kWhs of anomalous heat (by the FPE, cold fusion or LENR) by the end of 2012?"
How about you? Cold feet? Come to you senses? Has the prospect of losing real money led you to an appreciation of the merits of rational scepticism?
I submit that your arguments are illogical. Why would a person who is unwilling to bet with you at 1:1 not appreaciate rational skepticism. That is nonsensical.
A further nail in your silly notion is that you freely admit that you rate the possibility of you losing the bet as being astronomically low. A rational person would never take a 1:1 bet with a person who is certain of winning. That person should give odds. Can you imagine a horse race where are the odds were all 2:1? The fact that you are not willing to give odds is a reflection of your own uncertainty. If you are certain of winning you should be willing to give 100:1 odds.
True rational skeptic who was certain rossi was a fraud would offer a prize for a demonstration of a working cold fusion device. Much like the james randi foundation does for psychics.
Offering to bet someone at odds which you believe strongly favor you is not a display of rational skepticism it is absurd, irrational and cowardly. Why don't you offer to pay a prize of 1000pounds to the first person to demonstrate a working cold fusion device, then we can all stand around and admire the massive rational mind.
Rational scepticism is a method for evaluating evidence - not a moral position.Crawdaddy wrote:True rational skeptic who was certain rossi was a fraud would offer a prize for a demonstration of a working cold fusion device. Much like the james randi foundation does for psychics.
The purpose of my bet is not to make some point about the truth or otherwise of Rossi's claims, or as a model of rational thought - apologies, but I really am just interested in the money.
Not where the odds favour one side.Betting is irrational.[...]
You really didn't.[...]I already explained that too you.
If I thought that that really was the true probability, offering a bet with those odds would indeed be irrational. I would be at no advantage. And I can't anyway offer a big enough stake to make the bet worthwhile at those odds (£10 return on £1000 over 12 months, where's the fun in that?).If you are certain of winning you should be willing to give 100:1 odds.
And I submit that your post is chock full of logical fallacies.I submit that your arguments are illogical.
-
stefanbanev
- Posts: 183
- Joined: Tue Jul 12, 2011 3:12 am
What the level of your confidence is that in 2 year the LENR home heater 5KW...50KW will not be available on market? Would you still bet if ratio is 1/100 ...... 1/1000000? Which ratio you pickup?CKay wrote:I'll say it again - £1000parallel wrote:I'll make it easy for you.
How much are you prepared to bet against "that a device using nickel & H2 will be proven to generate kWhs of anomalous heat (by the FPE, cold fusion or LENR) by the end of 2012?"
How about you? Cold feet? Come to you senses? Has the prospect of losing real money led you to an appreciation of the merits of rational scepticism?
What the level of your confidence is that in 2 year the LENR home heater from Rossi or from Defkalion 5KW...50KW will not be available on market? Is the ratio different?
A Rossi/Defkalion device - I think it highly unlikely. I'm not a bookmaker, so can't give you a figure. Would I take a straight bet on it? If I'm around this time next year, I would think so.What the level of your confidence is that in 2 year the LENR home heater 5KW...50KW will not be available on market?
Why would a private individual take on any bet at those odds? The incentive is far too small.stefanbanev wrote:Would you still bet if ratio is 1/100 ...... 1/1000000? Which ratio you pickup?
In fact, I've never been party to a private bet in which odds were offered one way or the other.
Um, people place simple 1:1 personal bets on such things all the time.Crawdaddy wrote:Betting is irrational. I already explained that too you.CKay wrote:I'll say it again - £1000parallel wrote:I'll make it easy for you.
How much are you prepared to bet against "that a device using nickel & H2 will be proven to generate kWhs of anomalous heat (by the FPE, cold fusion or LENR) by the end of 2012?"
How about you? Cold feet? Come to you senses? Has the prospect of losing real money led you to an appreciation of the merits of rational scepticism?
I submit that your arguments are illogical. Why would a person who is unwilling to bet with you at 1:1 not appreaciate rational skepticism. That is nonsensical.
A further nail in your silly notion is that you freely admit that you rate the possibility of you losing the bet as being astronomically low. A rational person would never take a 1:1 bet with a person who is certain of winning. That person should give odds. Can you imagine a horse race where are the odds were all 2:1? The fact that you are not willing to give odds is a reflection of your own uncertainty. If you are certain of winning you should be willing to give 100:1 odds.
True rational skeptic who was certain rossi was a fraud would offer a prize for a demonstration of a working cold fusion device. Much like the james randi foundation does for psychics.
Offering to bet someone at odds which you believe strongly favor you is not a display of rational skepticism it is absurd, irrational and cowardly. Why don't you offer to pay a prize of 1000pounds to the first person to demonstrate a working cold fusion device, then we can all stand around and admire the massive rational mind.
Anyway, you guys should make it a Gentleman's bet and leave it at that.
There is a small, but nevertheless greater chance of Rossi having something real than any of the psychic crap that Randi's million dollar challenge is set against.
Since he's putting up a fixed sum of money, you can pick whatever odds you desire. If you'd like 2:1, bet half his amount. If you'd prefer 3:1, bet a third as much.Crawdaddy wrote:The fact that you are not willing to give odds is a reflection of your own uncertainty.
EDIT: Fixed my odds calculations.