17 May 2005
---------------


Subject: RE: Hybrid Numbers
From: James S Warniak 
Date: Wed, 18 May 2005 13:10:05 -0700 
To: "'Robert V. Kline'" , 
James S Warniak 
CC:
"'MDZuteck@aol.com'" , pamela.r.linn@boeing.com, 
john.c.ebert@boeing.com, JBSmitherman@aol.com

Let's split the difference: hybrids of all types will be 8% of the total 
US passenger car market, defined as 8% of the average of reported CY 2010 
sales, to be judged as soon as complete 2010 sales data show up somewhere 
on the web.
 
Jim


Judge Johnny will verify the numbers.  The loser will write a check for 
$100 to the winner's choice of charities, and retain any tax deduction.


-Bob


31 December 2009
---------------

Subject:
Fwd: The Nuke Nobody Knows
From:
Bob Kline 
Date:
Thu, 31 Dec 2009 14:42:03 -0500
To:
"Ebert, John C" , John Smitherman , James S Warniak , "Zuteck, Mike" 

Here's the essential e-mail.  The only
modification made was that the wager
is for $200, given the time scale involved.

I'll enter this in to the wager web page.

Hope to see you all in 2029.......

    -- Bob


---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: 
Date: Tue, May 5, 2009 at 11:21 AM
Subject: Re: The Nuke Nobody Knows
To: bob.kline@gmail.com
Cc: john.c.ebert@boeing.com, pamela.r.zuteck@boeing.com, James.Warniak@aero.org, JBSmitherman@aol.com



   I believe the essence of the preceding reply, copied below, can be distilled to something like: "There isn't much point in discussing the technology, because the pols, rubes, and others have their heads so firmly wedged nothing will happen anyway".

   This has certainly been the case for the last few decades, and could easily remain so.  I think its not too likely, because the need to generate more electricity will soon become acute, and the desire to do so without CO2 will force attention onto nuclear.  Renewables probably can't come online fast enough, with transmission & storage, so there aren't many other good options.  So I'd propose a wager.  $100 says the obstructionists will cave, and there'll be new nukes feeding the US grid within 20 years.  This would include new cores at existing sites.  If we build nothing new, continuing the reality of the last 3 decades, you win.  If we start building again, I win.  There's a further difficulty I'd cite, namely that the US is going so rapidly and deeply in debt that we may not be able to afford major capital projects with long payback times, like nuke plants.  I accept that risk, along with possible backlash from a meltdown somewhere, and other risks.  We build more nukes or we don't - clean bet.

   I'd like to propose a wager on the waste burning reactor too.  Utilities have long accumulated small percentage (and fractional percentage) gains, to squeeze more power from each unit of fuel.  I think the attraction of squeezing an order of magnitude or two more energy from uranium, while beginning to reduce the waste they must store, is going to drive someone to demonstrate this technology on a commercial scale.  I'm not at all confident the USA has the leadership to do this anymore, so I'd say the wager would be that somewhere there will be a commercial demonstration of a waste burning reactor of at least 100 MW capacity, again within 20 years.  If the technology is fatally flawed, too expensive, or otherwise held back from reaching this level, you win.  If it has enough potential to reach this level, I win.

   With the above wagers, we can cease to debate the issue, place our bets where our beliefs are, and sit back and see what happens.  I don't know if anyone else would wish to join us, but I think these are interesting, clear wagers.

MDZ


31 December 2009
---------------

From: 
Date: Thu, Dec 31, 2009 at 3:27 PM
Subject: Prediction or Bet Page
To: bob.kline@gmail.com, john.c.ebert@boeing.com, JBSmitherman@aol.com, James.S.Warniak@aero.org


   Here's one for the prediction page: By or before the end 2025, the Arctic Sea will hit a minimum free of pack ice.

   Note: warming may produce a lot of extra icebergs as glaciers increase their speed, and these do not count.  Its the large pack ice, being tracked by satellite and submarines, that is the subject.
   Background: the current pack ice reduction rate does not support this prediction.  Extrapolating current trends would indicate it should easily take twice as long, to sometime out in the 2040s, clearly not of too much interest to any of us.  My belief is that the rate of decay will accelerate substantially, as open water absorbs much more sunlight than pack ice.

   If anyone wants to make a bet of this, I'd be happy to consider terms.  Its a reach beyond existing trends, and I know it, but have stated why I think it will happen.

MDZ


23 June 2011
---------------

Jim - BO is a one term president.

Bob - BO is a two term president.

Wager: $100, payable to the McKinzee no-kill animal shelter.

14 March 2015
---------------

Wager:  $100, to go to the winner's specified charity.

Bob says Ambri battery company will not exist by
April 1, 2020.  

Pam says it will.


29 January 2017
---------------

Bob says HRC will make some kind of announcment in 2019
that she is running for president again. e.g., "I'm announcing
my candidacy for president in 2020."

The wager is for $100 for charity.

Pam's winning would go to Planned Parenthood.

Bob's would go to the ASPCA or the Human Society.

Judge Johnny will make the final ruling.


29 January 2017
---------------

Jim suggests that by 2050 some states will no
longer accept DC as the ultimate authority on
some issues.

Since 2030 is too far out for many of us, the
wager is that by 2030 this will be the case 
for one or more states.

Bob says that won't be the case.

The wager is $100 for charity.

Jim's or Bob's winnings would go to the MacKenzie no 
kill animal sanctuary, in Lake Odessa, MI.

Judge Johnny will make the final ruling.