So you say you have giving up on Hot Fusion?

So let's first define some terms:

Hot fusion is a somewhat vague collection of technologies.
Tokamak is a particular containment technology designed for a hot fusion reaction.
ITER is a project to investigate a number of technologies concerning hot fusion inside a Toamak reactor.  Not the least of which is implementing a 500MW reactor.
Osamu Motojima is the Director General of the ITER project.

Each one of those is logically independent in one direction.  I can give up on Osamu Motojima as capable of delivering ITER without giving up on ITER as being deliverable.  I can give up on ITER as being deliverable without giving up on Tokamak as being a feasible technology to implement and of course I can give up on Tokamak as a feasible design without giving up on hot fusion in general.

Quenco is constently missing it's self-set deadlines, including it's self-set international product launch.  Now that has to be caused by something.  If your mind can't possibly believe that it's 2LOT, "electrostatic Maxwell's Demon" or Quenco.   Then the problem must be Philip.  Put another way, if still think it's reasonable that the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics has been broken, that electrostatics can create a functional Maxwell's Demon and that Quenco implements all these...then you have to believe that Philip sucks as a manager.
Speaking of the so-called product launch.  This was supposed to be an event that people could attend.  What happened to those people?  Did nobody want to see the incredible Quenco? If they did Philip either informed them well ahead of time in which case he's been fibbing to everyone else or they had to cancel their flights to his little shindig.

it is proven to work

Again the term "work" means different things depending on which one of those terms you are using.

Hot fusion works in the sense that the theory is sound and experimentally validated.
Tokamak works if it can be scaled to useful power generation levels.
ITER works when it delivers the goals set by them.  Including creating a test reactor by 2020.
Osamu Motojima "works" when he delivers the things he set out to do.

we just need another 10 years or about that to get it to work

What ITER will produce, if they keep to their schedule is a 500MW plant in 8 years sitting in the south of france.  It will give us an idea of how much it costs to replicate this technology.  That doesn't mean that funding should continue.  Hot fusion is an immensely expensive project which was planned not to be realized until 2020.   In 2020 we may decide that it is simply not worth it.

I will wait a few more months to see if Philip and his team provide some results on something

...and you keep avoiding and avoiding and avoiding the question.  Which is "When he fails in February then what?" is your confidence for him to deliver in June 2013 just as strong as it is now that he will deliver in Feb 2013?  Please answer the question instead of droning on about irrelevant things.

Given what I believe to understand of how the Quenco should operate and being an engineer for 30 years, I would expect the Quenco development from theory to product to easily exceed a year.

So you agree that Philip who constantly says "next week" or "next month" is either incompetent or lying? (if he knows better he isn't saying and if he doesn't he shouldn't be saying)

If you do not have any concept of how Quenco could operate or what may be required to construct the device and the issues that crop up, then I agree that one of little knowledge would dispair easily and give up after a few statements of one showing their optimisim, that did not work out well.

LOL. So when someone has the expectation that Quenco should have been delivered last Feb or last Dec.   They are doing so because "they don't have any concept of how Quenco could operate or what maybe requried to construct the device".

Good.  So far the only person who's saying that is Philip J. Hardcastle....and that folks is what we call Q.E.D.

This is not a demand of Philip since I have no right to demand anything of him.

Not even honesty? You think it's okay for him to lie to people here? How about competency?  If someone knows they can't do a job shouldn't they step down?  What about someone who can't do a job (such as manage timelines) shouldn't they get someone else to do it?  If you can't manage timelines and you know it but you keep making earnest statements about how there is zero doubt that you won't deliver on day X?  Isn't that being dishonest?

Not even honesty? You think it's okay for him to lie to people here? How about competency?  If someone knows they can't do a job shouldn't they step down?  What about someone who can't do a job (such as manage timelines) shouldn't they get someone else to do it?  If you can't manage timelines and you know it but you keep making earnest statements about how there is zero doubt that you won't deliver on day X?  Isn't that being dishonest?

Even you know that you're only a liar if you know it isn't true.


If someone continues to make statements about timelines and they miss those timelines, the responsibility falls on whoever has an expectation that the timeline will be met to adjust their expectation accordingly. That adjustment is your responsibility, not his.


But let's baldly accept that PJH is a poor manager and / or poor at estimating contingency?. And? How thrilled should I be at the prospect of a competent manager. My blood fair sings with the thrill.

If your preacher believes it is the truth, he doesn't lie. I don't have to accept that what he tells me is true (and don't) but that alone wouldn't alter my opinion of how honest he is.


PJH claims to have performed an experiment several times that supports his contention. He also believes that he's been sufficiently careful in his experiment to rule out other explanations for measurements he claims to get. And he claims that the experiment that would settle it once and for all has been subject to several delays for other practical reasons. I'm perfectly happy to believe all of those claims. YMMV.


As far as his proposed experiment is concerned, it's fine to claim "there must be a mistake, here are some of the possibilities" Would it be a lie to say you were absolutely certain it was one of your suggestions without performing the experiment?

As a member of the so called peanut gallery my observation is that there is an elephant in the room, it is the ego of sarkeizen. He posts here with the deliberate intent of offending, we have all seen this sort of person before who craves attention in order to feel important, they do not reveal any truths except that they are a very sick and counter productive person. In ordinary life we call them bullies or psychopaths.

forums should be about respectful dialogue

Even arguments involving information theory propose that there is an energy cost in observation that is greater than the benefit of the particle energy partition, though it is oft expressed as an increase in entropy caused by lost information, incredulously one widely accepted argument is that the Demon runs out of paper upon which to write down observations and so must reuse the paper for new entries, I must say it is from such tripe and silly arguments that I always felt there was a reason and justification to doubt Lord Kelvin and search for a viable Demon, so here I am.............. and it only took me 34 years.

LOL.  Philip is very concerned about what I say but tries not to appear so.

Yet again, Phillip begs the question.  Running out of paper is talking about storage.  If you decide something you must be deciding it FROM some piece of information.   Running out of "paper" or however you're storing something means that you eventually have to reuse your storage.

I also think he's kind of lying a bit.  Last post he seemed to have no knowledge at all of how the arguments from information theory work.  Now these have somehow informed his belief from day one.

Is there a moderator for this board, or almost ANY board?  We should change the name of our forum perhaps to "Overpester.com".
 
If you too are getting sick and tired of the badgering, and pestering of and by the trolls, both former and recent ones, please comment until we can get some moderation back on this forum, please, for the love of God.

LOL - good one Bruce.    I'm not sure why this forum has such a low level of moderation - less than any where I've been in 25 + years on the Internet.   We can hope it will change but I don't expect it to happen any time soon. 

In other words you have an expectation.  A probability that in February that Philip's prediction is correct  P(Feb2013) = ? (probably .99999 for you) ;-)

Again, and again, and again, and again.  What happens to that value when you are now looking at P(June2013)? or P(Dec2013) or P(Dec2020)?  Presumably it goes down.  Right?

Why does everyone here squirm at this question?

The squirming is in your imagination, and the insistence that a probability should be assigned in this way is your fetish.

As it stands your question is impossible to answer (for me) because you aren't defining it with enough precision.

Prediction of what event?

a) Prediction of PJH manufacturing the nanofilm he claims he needs to demonstrate that his theory is correct, to his specification ?

b) Prediction that the nanonfilm will demonstrate the effect

c) Prediction that the target will change from the nanofilm to something else?

d) Prediction that he'll accept he was mistaken if it doesn't work?

e) Something else?


I wouldn't assign a numeric probability to any of them. I suppose I could put an arbitrary description against them. Or the direction I'd revise one or more of them in depending on what happens when Feb 2013 rolls round,. Or what direction they've already travelled in, or if more information or change of plan comes to light before that.


But why would I bother? What would it achieve?

So much typing for so little effect.

I'm familiar with numbers and the notion of probability. You say I assign P(Feb2003) > 0 - how do you come to this conclusion, particularly given that I've offered several ways I interpret "deliver" ? I consider P > 0 to be sufficient for any decision I choose to make on this subject.

For more important decisions - those where I have some control over the eventual outcome - I might be inclined to quantify the various probabilities a bit more carefully.

But in this case, I don't need to, so I haven't.

I am still unable to answer your question, because you aren't being precise enough. It depends.