10KW LENR demonstrator (new thread)

Point out news stories, on the net or in mainstream media, related to polywell fusion.

Moderators: tonybarry, MSimon

Joseph Chikva
Posts: 2039
Joined: Sat Apr 02, 2011 4:30 am

Postby Joseph Chikva » Mon Jan 09, 2012 8:12 am

deane wrote:
Crawdaddy wrote:The fact that you are not willing to give odds is a reflection of your own uncertainty.

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.

EDIT: Fixed my odds calculations.
And how your or others betting rules belong to the fact that Rossi has not shown anything providing real evidence of his claims?
Bet even 1:1000000...00000
Dead-man never will alive again

Ivy Matt
Posts: 686
Joined: Sat May 01, 2010 6:43 am

Postby Ivy Matt » Mon Jan 09, 2012 11:14 am

tomclarke wrote:
Ivy Matt wrote:Er, 12 kilowatt-hours, then?

What do you mean no real consequences? If the E-Cat turns out to work, I get 12 free kW/h. :D


CKay, on the skeptic side, is prepared to wager $1000.

12kW-h is $1

see the difference?

Yes, well I don't think it would be terribly equitable to CKay for me to raise the stakes, on the off chance that Rossi actually has something. :wink:
Temperature, density, confinement time: pick any two.

Helius
Posts: 465
Joined: Sun Oct 21, 2007 9:48 pm
Location: Syracuse, New York

Postby Helius » Mon Jan 09, 2012 5:04 pm

How could you bet? Any and all results will be debatable.

tomclarke
Posts: 1683
Joined: Sun Oct 05, 2008 4:52 pm
Location: London
Contact:

Postby tomclarke » Mon Jan 09, 2012 5:50 pm

Helius wrote:How could you bet? Any and all results will be debatable.


Clearly not, in principle. Just all results so far are inconclusive. and the terms of the bet are that inconclusive means skeptics win.

Conclusive results, for example, would be a domestic heater sold to many that worked as billed with say power in < 300W, power out ~3kW over months. Trading standards here could quite simply determine if it did not work. And if what rossi is telling us is correct it would be an acheivable target.

Conclusive results would also be MIT concluding that the thing (in a single prototype) had anomalous heat out >100X any conceivable chemical power source. Again, trivial to get if Rossi is right.

The prototype could be black boxed & locked with electrical power in and heat out monitored, so no-one could reverse engineer the contents.

Were Rossi sane and able to acheive conclusive results, of course, he would already have done at very least the MIT verification. That would get him as much money as he wanted and more.

CKay
Posts: 282
Joined: Wed Nov 30, 2011 11:13 am

Postby CKay » Mon Jan 09, 2012 7:23 pm

tomclarke wrote:Were Rossi sane and able to acheive conclusive results, of course, he would already have done at very least the MIT verification. That would get him as much money as he wanted and more.

Exactly!

Just one simple black box demo (no need to risk his IP) verified by a credible third party and he would have venture capitalists, corporations, universities, govt. research bodies, all queueing up to throw money at him, not to mention the prestige, the gongs, the easy women...

Why on Earth would he choose not to do this?

The answer seems rather obvious.

TallDave
Posts: 3114
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2007 7:12 pm
Contact:

Postby TallDave » Mon Jan 09, 2012 7:45 pm

CKay wrote:Why would a private individual take on any bet at those odds?

Because you're really, really sure it won't happen. Options traders make a killing this way -- unless they're wrong, of course.

CKay wrote:The answer seems rather obvious.

The really obvious answer is that he has garnered more than enough interest based on his half-assed tests to build his E-cat factory, which is all he cares about.

The somewhat less obvious corollary is that the ideal level of interest for Rossi is that at which he can get funding, but the really big players don't have enough confidence in the concept to come in and steal it out from under him. (Of course, this is also compatible with him being a con artist.)

What I find most amusing in all this is that people keep confusing Rossi with a scientist. He's an entrepreneur. It's still somewhat likely the device doesn't work, and considerably more likely that Rossi is materially wrong about aspects of its operation, but this would hardly be the first time applied experiment overturned theory.
n*kBolt*Te = B**2/(2*mu0) and B^.25 loss scaling? Or not so much? Hopefully we'll know soon...

TallDave
Posts: 3114
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2007 7:12 pm
Contact:

Postby TallDave » Mon Jan 09, 2012 7:57 pm

Crawdaddy wrote:The article from the newenergytimes website is pure propaganda from proponents of Windom Larsen. Did you know that Steven Krivit is payed to report full time on Cold Fusion by an "anonymous benefactor" and that he has a pronounced and obvious bias in favor of Windom Larsen theory proponents? New energy times is a crank website, it is the fox news of cold fusion.


I would have called them the MSNBC of cold fusion, but YMMV :)

Anyways, this would have been a good time to have that graph:

'...and you can see, at this point in time, for the reaction to be chemical the reactants would need a density so great the machine would collapse into a black hole..."
n*kBolt*Te = B**2/(2*mu0) and B^.25 loss scaling? Or not so much? Hopefully we'll know soon...

CKay
Posts: 282
Joined: Wed Nov 30, 2011 11:13 am

Postby CKay » Mon Jan 09, 2012 8:09 pm

TallDave wrote:
CKay wrote:Why would a private individual take on any bet at those odds?


Because you're really, really sure it won't happen. Options traders make a killing this way -- unless they're wrong, of course.

They make their profits on the volume of trades.

There's no incentive for me, a private individual, to put £1000 into escrow for a year for a return of just £10, particularly when there seem to be some, who are as sure that Rossi's on the up-and-up as I am that he's a con artist, who might consider taking me up on the bet at 1:1.

People keep confusing Rossi with a scientist. He's an entrepreneur.

I don't think he's either.

The question regarding his reluctance to provide reasonable proofs for his claims (which should be a trivial matter) shows that he is either an extraordinarily incompetent entrepreneur (not at all interested in getting the best deal, the most financial support, the biggest backer), or a scammer. The weight of circumstantial evidence strongly points to the latter.
Last edited by CKay on Mon Jan 09, 2012 10:41 pm, edited 1 time in total.

parallel
Posts: 1131
Joined: Wed Aug 27, 2008 8:24 pm
Location: Philadelphia, PA

Postby parallel » Mon Jan 09, 2012 9:35 pm

Recap of the current scientific experiments.
http://www.22passi.it/downloads/WSEC2012%20Present.pdf

They are all measurement error/scams, right tomclarke?

tomclarke
Posts: 1683
Joined: Sun Oct 05, 2008 4:52 pm
Location: London
Contact:

Postby tomclarke » Mon Jan 09, 2012 10:26 pm

parallel wrote:Recap of the current scientific experiments.
http://www.22passi.it/downloads/WSEC2012%20Present.pdf

They are all measurement error/scams, right tomclarke?


The list here does rather prove my point:

(1) the summary columns do not indicate what is the total excess energy output, how it compares with possible lattice chemistry energy.

(2) the summary columns do not indicate the possible experimental error (which, I full know from looking at many of these papers, is never fully quantified)

As such the summary is scientifically useless. Surely in all these years of experiments there are some with quantified errors? And surely any summary worth even a gnats breath would be interested in the experimental errors?

The whole point about CF/LENR experiments is that there is no careful systematic investigation of errors, or, when there is, the results go away. Not surprising that no-one pays much attention to errors now...

TallDave
Posts: 3114
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2007 7:12 pm
Contact:

Postby TallDave » Mon Jan 09, 2012 11:19 pm

CKay wrote:
TallDave wrote:
CKay wrote:Why would a private individual take on any bet at those odds?


Because you're really, really sure it won't happen. Options traders make a killing this way -- unless they're wrong, of course.

They make their profits on the volume of trades.
Well, more accurately, they make their money on the risk spread -- if the risk of event X is, say 1000:1, and I can sell the bet at 100:1, if I've done my DD I should come out way ahead.

That's why, if you have faith in your estimate of the odds, you would you want to accept any bet that is well below your perceived odds, leverage notwithstanding.

So if you think odds of Rossi coming through are, say a million to one, this is a great moneymaking opportunity for you -- you can accept every bet that offers even a measly 100:1. Pop by the various Rossi outlets and spam your Intrade with the appropriate level of tauntiness and you could end up being the one person making money on the E-Cat!

The question regarding his reluctance to provide reasonable proofs for his claims (which should be a trivial matter) shows that he is either an extraordinarily incompetent entrepreneur (not at all interested in getting the best deal, the most financial support, the biggest backer),
I've already explained the gaping hole in that logic. The biggest players are (surprisingly enough!) not especially excited about making you a billionaire, the bigger they are the bigger piece of the profits they take, and they are even happier to just reverse engineer your IP and let you try to sue them for it while they steal all your market share. Given Rossi's demonstrated paranoia this probably seems to him like the appropriate level of uncertainty. Unless he's also lying about his operations he seems to not have financing problems.

VC is generally more about finding the right size, rather than biggest.

Hell, the Star-Lite guy died without ever going commercial. And everyone was pretty sure he actually had something. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starlite
Last edited by TallDave on Mon Jan 09, 2012 11:39 pm, edited 1 time in total.
n*kBolt*Te = B**2/(2*mu0) and B^.25 loss scaling? Or not so much? Hopefully we'll know soon...

CKay
Posts: 282
Joined: Wed Nov 30, 2011 11:13 am

Postby CKay » Mon Jan 09, 2012 11:37 pm

TallDave wrote:you can accept every bet that offers even a measly 10,000:1. Pop by the various Rossi outlets and spam your Intrade with the appropriate level of tauntiness and you could end up being the one person making money on the E-Cat!

To be above board I'd need to be able to show sufficient funds or assets to back every bet I made - neither of which I have.

And why go to all that hassle if I can find someone who'll take my £1000 bet at 1:1?

TallDave
Posts: 3114
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2007 7:12 pm
Contact:

Postby TallDave » Mon Jan 09, 2012 11:43 pm

Sufficient credit would suffice, I think.

I agree you would want to take all the 1:1 action you could get first, but you're going to have about 100x as much action at 10:1, and so forth.

Of course, if you really want to be slick about it, you set up multiple, ongoing expirations -- say, every three months. Then, each time, you can re-invest your profits until the whole Rossi craze blows over and no one wants to lose their money anymore.

Ah, finance.
n*kBolt*Te = B**2/(2*mu0) and B^.25 loss scaling? Or not so much? Hopefully we'll know soon...

CKay
Posts: 282
Joined: Wed Nov 30, 2011 11:13 am

Postby CKay » Mon Jan 09, 2012 11:43 pm

Edit: sorry, unintentionally grouchy
Last edited by CKay on Mon Jan 09, 2012 11:56 pm, edited 1 time in total.

TallDave
Posts: 3114
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2007 7:12 pm
Contact:

Postby TallDave » Mon Jan 09, 2012 11:46 pm

Ha, just in the limited context of mazimizing your returns on other people's misguided beliefs about Rossi fusion.
n*kBolt*Te = B**2/(2*mu0) and B^.25 loss scaling? Or not so much? Hopefully we'll know soon...


Return to “News”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 9 guests