Re: [Vo]:Migrant Workers in China Face Competition from Robots
MarkI-ZeroPoint zeropo...@charter.net wrote: FYI, I was just using Franklin and the Royal Society as an example… not literally. You can use it literally. He was a member of the Society. They awarded him the Copley Medal in 1753, and made him a Fellow in 1756, when he was still living in Philadelphia, before he moved to London. You can gauge the speed of communication by reading the correspondence between Franklin and Peter Collinson, FRS, who I think was his main correspondent and friend at the Society. Here is part of a famous letter he wrote to Collinson describing how he was trying to electrocute a turkey and he nearly electrocuted himself instead: I inadvertently took the Stroke of two of those [Leyden] Jars thro' my Arms and Body, when they were very near full charg'd. It seem'd an universal Blow from head to foot throughout the Body, and was follow'd by a violent quick Trembling in the Trunk, which wore gradually off in a few seconds. It was some Moments before I could collect my Thoughts so as to know what was the Matter; for I did not see the Flash tho' my Eye was on the Spot of the Prime Conductor from whence it struck the Back of my Hand, nor did I hear the Crack tho' the By-standers say it was a loud one; nor did I particularly feel the Stroke on my Hand, tho' I afterwards found it had rais'd a Swelling there the bigness of half a Swan Shot or pistol Bullet. My Arms and Back of my Neck felt somewhat numb the remainder of the Evening, and my Breastbone was sore for a Week after, [as] if it had been bruiz'd. What the Consequence would be, if such a Shock were taken thro' the Head, I know not. - February 4, 1751 . . . so two scientists debating their ideas on theories, or two engineers discussing the design of a dam, consumed YEARS of time; now it happens in SECONDS! The theoretical physicists I know -- and have known -- such as Schwinger, Kim and Hagelstein, work as slowly as people did in the 18th century. It takes them months or years to answer a question. They do not communicate much. For the most part they ignore one another. And finally, this is probably a pointless discussion since it’s a foolish idea to even try to compare the times when things are so much more complex today… It is never foolish to study history. Things are not so complex today as they appear, and they were not so simple in times gone by. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Migrant Workers in China Face Competition from Robots
In corporate engineering you notice that relative regression. Data can be exchanged in seconds, designs can be simulated in days, however the regulation has became so complex, the workflow so long, involving so many fearful executives, so higher executives, that things get slow, until all is technical and planed. then it take 18 month. . IT is a good way to allow more complex work-flow, introduce intractable regulation, so you can maintain the delay and workload. what is slowing science today is also the aging of people, that make generation longer, thus have to wait longer for powerful stupidity to die. 2012/7/22 Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com MarkI-ZeroPoint zeropo...@charter.net wrote: FYI, I was just using Franklin and the Royal Society as an example… not literally. You can use it literally. He was a member of the Society. They awarded him the Copley Medal in 1753, and made him a Fellow in 1756, when he was still living in Philadelphia, before he moved to London. You can gauge the speed of communication by reading the correspondence between Franklin and Peter Collinson, FRS, who I think was his main correspondent and friend at the Society. Here is part of a famous letter he wrote to Collinson describing how he was trying to electrocute a turkey and he nearly electrocuted himself instead: I inadvertently took the Stroke of two of those [Leyden] Jars thro' my Arms and Body, when they were very near full charg'd. It seem'd an universal Blow from head to foot throughout the Body, and was follow'd by a violent quick Trembling in the Trunk, which wore gradually off in a few seconds. It was some Moments before I could collect my Thoughts so as to know what was the Matter; for I did not see the Flash tho' my Eye was on the Spot of the Prime Conductor from whence it struck the Back of my Hand, nor did I hear the Crack tho' the By-standers say it was a loud one; nor did I particularly feel the Stroke on my Hand, tho' I afterwards found it had rais'd a Swelling there the bigness of half a Swan Shot or pistol Bullet. My Arms and Back of my Neck felt somewhat numb the remainder of the Evening, and my Breastbone was sore for a Week after, [as] if it had been bruiz'd. What the Consequence would be, if such a Shock were taken thro' the Head, I know not. - February 4, 1751 . . . so two scientists debating their ideas on theories, or two engineers discussing the design of a dam, consumed YEARS of time; now it happens in SECONDS! The theoretical physicists I know -- and have known -- such as Schwinger, Kim and Hagelstein, work as slowly as people did in the 18th century. It takes them months or years to answer a question. They do not communicate much. For the most part they ignore one another. And finally, this is probably a pointless discussion since it’s a foolish idea to even try to compare the times when things are so much more complex today… It is never foolish to study history. Things are not so complex today as they appear, and they were not so simple in times gone by. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Migrant Workers in China Face Competition from Robots
Alain Sepeda alain.sep...@gmail.com wrote: In corporate engineering you notice that relative regression. Data can be exchanged in seconds, designs can be simulated in days, however the regulation has became so complex, the workflow so long, involving so many fearful executives, so higher executives, that things get slow, until all is technical and planed. then it take 18 month. That is a big problem. In the 1940s and 50s when the Air Force was flying the X-series aircraft, they implemented design changes in a matter of weeks that would take years nowadays. That was partly the lingering effect of WWII, when people made decisions rapidly. During the invasion of Iraq I saw a Pentagon schedule for a project to train people in Middle Eastern languages. They were holding preliminary meetings, circulating plans and so on. It was going to take years before the first person sat in the first classroom. In comparison, after the attack on Pearl Harbor, the U.S. Army set up Japanese-language classes within a matter of weeks. Thirty years later I learned Japanese from some the people who set up those courses or learned from them. Regarding Franklin and the speed of communication, I wonder if the Proceedings of the Royal Society for 1750s are on line? Franklin wrote to Collinson on Feb. 4, 1751. It would be interesting to see how long it took Collinson to report it to the Society in their regular correspondence. I am pretty sure Collinson found this news important enough to report. It was probably the first time anyone was nearly killed by artificially produced electricity, as opposed to lightning. In those days the Society proceedings resembled this forum rather than a modern journal. They were a catch-all discussion group for anything of interest to Natural Philosophy (science). - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Migrant Workers in China Face Competition from Robots
...During the invasion of Iraq I saw a Pentagon schedule for a project to train people in Middle Eastern languages Well, as far as I can remember, in the early pre-attack phase there were about 7 people in the US who understood the Iraqi arab dialect. But to UNDERSTAND, was not the agenda. What it was: Your guess. Say: Project YOUR imagined way into difficult territory. (Even if -- as the saying in my small environment is: THEY(!) speak five languages, but do not know the way) This ofcourse is a metaphor for understanding anything of deep complexity, as I suppose You imply. In the proper context, the complex can be quite simple, even trivial. Guenter Von: Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com An: vortex-l@eskimo.com Gesendet: 20:07 Sonntag, 22.Juli 2012 Betreff: Re: [Vo]:Migrant Workers in China Face Competition from Robots Alain Sepeda alain.sep...@gmail.com wrote: In corporate engineering you notice that relative regression. Data can be exchanged in seconds, designs can be simulated in days, however the regulation has became so complex, the workflow so long, involving so many fearful executives, so higher executives, that things get slow, until all is technical and planed. then it take 18 month. That is a big problem. In the 1940s and 50s when the Air Force was flying the X-series aircraft, they implemented design changes in a matter of weeks that would take years nowadays. That was partly the lingering effect of WWII, when people made decisions rapidly. During the invasion of Iraq I saw a Pentagon schedule for a project to train people in Middle Eastern languages. They were holding preliminary meetings, circulating plans and so on. It was going to take years before the first person sat in the first classroom. In comparison, after the attack on Pearl Harbor, the U.S. Army set up Japanese-language classes within a matter of weeks. Thirty years later I learned Japanese from some the people who set up those courses or learned from them. Regarding Franklin and the speed of communication, I wonder if the Proceedings of the Royal Society for 1750s are on line? Franklin wrote to Collinson on Feb. 4, 1751. It would be interesting to see how long it took Collinson to report it to the Society in their regular correspondence. I am pretty sure Collinson found this news important enough to report. It was probably the first time anyone was nearly killed by artificially produced electricity, as opposed to lightning. In those days the Society proceedings resembled this forum rather than a modern journal. They were a catch-all discussion group for anything of interest to Natural Philosophy (science). - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Migrant Workers in China Face Competition from Robots
On Sun, Jul 22, 2012 at 11:07 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.comwrote: In those days the Society proceedings resembled this forum rather than a modern journal. They were a catch-all discussion group for anything of interest to Natural Philosophy (science). Nice observation. I love the freewheeling character of the scientific discussions you see from those days. I think science has lost something in its present degree of technical specialization. It's easy to imagine that specialists in various subfields are too narrowly focused on what they're doing, and this can lead them to overlook things that are going on in related fields that would have a big impact if they were to follow them. The accumulated body of scientific knowledge is now obviously too large by far for any one person to become a Renaissance man (or woman) anymore. When one starts to become familiar with the language and concepts of a highly specialized subfield, it becomes clear that the dense language used in the journal articles is simply intended to effectively communicate something very specific, and there would be a diminishing return on the value of the article if you tried to dilute it for a wider audience. I think the point I'm trying to make is that it would be good for science as a whole if specialists were to also follow the summaries of developments in other fields of the kinds published in Science News, phys.org and Scientific American (editorial biases aside). Eric
RE: [Vo]:Migrant Workers in China Face Competition from Robots
The aerospace is an example of how today's regulations limit execution. It can take 12 years or more to build a satellite with costs as high as $10 B. Some have estimated that the regulations make it impossible for NASA to put a man on the moon. The process has stretched the timelines to make regulations and politics a limiting factor. Ron From: Jed Rothwell [mailto:jedrothw...@gmail.com] Sent: Sunday, July 22, 2012 11:07 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:Migrant Workers in China Face Competition from Robots Alain Sepeda alain.sep...@gmail.com wrote: In corporate engineering you notice that relative regression. Data can be exchanged in seconds, designs can be simulated in days, however the regulation has became so complex, the workflow so long, involving so many fearful executives, so higher executives, that things get slow, until all is technical and planed. then it take 18 month. That is a big problem. In the 1940s and 50s when the Air Force was flying the X-series aircraft, they implemented design changes in a matter of weeks that would take years nowadays. That was partly the lingering effect of WWII, when people made decisions rapidly. During the invasion of Iraq I saw a Pentagon schedule for a project to train people in Middle Eastern languages. They were holding preliminary meetings, circulating plans and so on. It was going to take years before the first person sat in the first classroom. In comparison, after the attack on Pearl Harbor, the U.S. Army set up Japanese-language classes within a matter of weeks. Thirty years later I learned Japanese from some the people who set up those courses or learned from them. Regarding Franklin and the speed of communication, I wonder if the Proceedings of the Royal Society for 1750s are on line? Franklin wrote to Collinson on Feb. 4, 1751. It would be interesting to see how long it took Collinson to report it to the Society in their regular correspondence. I am pretty sure Collinson found this news important enough to report. It was probably the first time anyone was nearly killed by artificially produced electricity, as opposed to lightning. In those days the Society proceedings resembled this forum rather than a modern journal. They were a catch-all discussion group for anything of interest to Natural Philosophy (science). - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Migrant Workers in China Face Competition from Robots
Jed said: Regarding Franklin and the speed of communication, I wonder if the Proceedings of the Royal Society for 1750s are on line? Axil replies: The difference between then and now is that the words streaming forth from the “Proceedings of the Royal Society” would now be available to thousands of the interested as each one rolled out of Franken’s articulate mouth. These priceless words of Franklin would be available to throngs of interested co-inventors in real time, chiseled into their brains in their turn one by one; and after Franklin said his piece and he laid aside his parchment where his notes were kept, and his glasses perched on the bridge of his nose are placed back in his pocket, hundreds would rush out onto their own fields far and wide across the land with the kite and the string and the key; their souls in flight with the kite lifted on the roiling winds of the storm. Yes some would die, but in that small price, many would see the results of Franklins experiment played out with their own eyes and by their own hands before the sun had set on that day. And those grateful few who held thanks in their heart to Franklin for giving them the precious chance to participate in his noble endeavor and to see firsthand the universe laid bare before their very eyes; the selfless pursuit of pure knowledge, would post back to him to generously share their results and express the joy in their new discoveries. But as there always is in every age, a few would hold back their findings to gain a foothold in the nascent lightning rod market, but they would be left in the stagnant backwaters of proprietary selfishness by the headlong altruistic scramble of the open sourced majority to uncover this sparkling truth about that tiny flashing jewel in the crown of our world. Cheers:Axil On Sun, Jul 22, 2012 at 2:07 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Alain Sepeda alain.sep...@gmail.com wrote: In corporate engineering you notice that relative regression. Data can be exchanged in seconds, designs can be simulated in days, however the regulation has became so complex, the workflow so long, involving so many fearful executives, so higher executives, that things get slow, until all is technical and planed. then it take 18 month. That is a big problem. In the 1940s and 50s when the Air Force was flying the X-series aircraft, they implemented design changes in a matter of weeks that would take years nowadays. That was partly the lingering effect of WWII, when people made decisions rapidly. During the invasion of Iraq I saw a Pentagon schedule for a project to train people in Middle Eastern languages. They were holding preliminary meetings, circulating plans and so on. It was going to take years before the first person sat in the first classroom. In comparison, after the attack on Pearl Harbor, the U.S. Army set up Japanese-language classes within a matter of weeks. Thirty years later I learned Japanese from some the people who set up those courses or learned from them. Regarding Franklin and the speed of communication, I wonder if the Proceedings of the Royal Society for 1750s are on line? Franklin wrote to Collinson on Feb. 4, 1751. It would be interesting to see how long it took Collinson to report it to the Society in their regular correspondence. I am pretty sure Collinson found this news important enough to report. It was probably the first time anyone was nearly killed by artificially produced electricity, as opposed to lightning. In those days the Society proceedings resembled this forum rather than a modern journal. They were a catch-all discussion group for anything of interest to Natural Philosophy (science). - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Migrant Workers in China Face Competition from Robots
Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: The difference between then and now is that the words streaming forth from the “Proceedings of the Royal Society” would now be available to thousands of the interested as each one rolled out of Franken’s articulate mouth. That is exactly what happened in 1752. Franklin published an account, and it was all over America and Europe within months. Every scientist knew about it. Several people replicated, and at least one was killed. Joseph Priestley called it a capital discovery, the greatest, perhaps, since the time of Sir Isaac Newton. The word spread nearly as quickly as it did with cold fusion. Replications were as quick, because it takes time to replicate both. Accurate and complete information spread more quickly, because there was no opposition. With cold fusion, there was a great deal of noise, propaganda, misinformation and disinformation. The extra bandwidth was useless because it was overwhelmed with noise. To this day, the Wikipedia article and the Scientific American publish only nonsense and disinformation about cold fusion. The lightning experiments were rather complicated, involving a Leyden jar (capacitor) and so on. Yes some would die, but in that small price, many would see the results of Franklins experiment played out with their own eyes and by their own hands before the sun had set on that day. That would not be possible. It took preparation, and then you had to wait for the right kind of weather. Several people did it wrong and reported no results. As I said, at least one person did die. I see no evidence that the slow speed of communication or the high cost of printing slowed down the propagation speed for this or the other important 18th and 19th century discoveries such as electromagnetism by Oersted, nitrous oxide, hot air and hydrogen balloons, or Davy's safety lamp for miners (1815). The lamp was in use by miners all over Europe and America within months. This was before the telegraph. For more on this era, see the book The Age of Wonder by R. Holmes. Overall, I would say the scientific community back then did a better and swifter job communicating and replicating discoveries than they did replicating cold fusion after 1989. Many of the experiments back then were as difficult for them to replicate as cold fusion was in 1989. I think they were better scientists. Academic politics were as bad as they are today, but dispute over funding were not as destructive. I think cold fusion has mainly been held by inept fools such as Lindley, political animals such as Park, and by funding disputes. Interesting footnote: King George III was a pretty good scientist in his own right. He got involved quickly and made some claims that conflicted with Franklin's, about the best shape and size of a lightning rod. People made fun of the dispute. Much later -- I think in the 20th century -- experts determined that the King was right and Franklin was wrong. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Migrant Workers in China Face Competition from Robots
MarkI-ZeroPoint zeropo...@charter.net wrote: I couldn’t disagree more… seriously, hundreds or thousands of years? *** * ** ** Once the scientific community (both academic and corporate) realizes that a whole new field of science is being born, they will dive in to understand it and engineer it in ways we can’t even imagine . . . Probably they will, but people do not think or learn any faster today than they did in the past. The pace of progress is no faster than it ever was. It is still governed mainly by funerals. The serious study of chemistry began around 1650. It did not reach fruition with chemical engineering until the late 19th century. Transmutation with cold fusion is still at the stage chemistry was when Robert Boyle published a book saying there are more than four elements, The Skeptical Chemist (1661): http://www.gutenberg.org/files/22914/22914-h/22914-h.htm People nowadays have the notion that technology, society and the world in general are changing at a faster pace than ever before. People who believe this have not read enough history. They do not realize how quickly things changed in earlier eras such as: England after colonization in America began; England during the industrial revolution; The U.S. from 1850 to 1870; Japan during the Meiji era. People such as my parents or Julian Schwinger, who lived from around 1914 to around 2000, saw much more fundamental change than people born in the mid-20th century have seen. That is why they were more open minded and willing to believe in claims such as cold fusion. The present era is one of technical and scientific stagnation, not progress. Even popular culture such as fashion and music have stagnated. See: You Say You Want a Devolution (great title!): http://www.vanityfair.com/style/2012/01/prisoners-of-style-201201 - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Migrant Workers in China Face Competition from Robots
I agree with Mark,
People will not have to learn LENR, they will just replace/upgrade their
existing HVAC equipment with a device that happens to produce electricity
also and reduces their bill - no brainer.
Information access is much easier today with the internet and will aid in
the proliferation of the technology.
LENR requires less infrastructure than cell phones and there are already 6
billion of them in the world, all within the last 30 years or so.
On Saturday, July 21, 2012, Jed Rothwell wrote:
MarkI-ZeroPoint zeropo...@charter.net javascript:_e({}, 'cvml',
'zeropo...@charter.net'); wrote:
I couldn’t disagree more… seriously, hundreds or thousands of years? **
**
** **
Once the scientific community (both academic and corporate) realizes that
a whole new field of science is being born, they will dive in to understand
it and engineer it in ways we can’t even imagine . . .
Probably they will, but people do not think or learn any faster today than
they did in the past. The pace of progress is no faster than it ever was.
It is still governed mainly by funerals.
The serious study of chemistry began around 1650. It did not reach
fruition with chemical engineering until the late 19th century.
Transmutation with cold fusion is still at the stage chemistry was when
Robert Boyle published a book saying there are more than four elements,
The Skeptical Chemist (1661):
http://www.gutenberg.org/files/22914/22914-h/22914-h.htm
People nowadays have the notion that technology, society and the world in
general are changing at a faster pace than ever before. People who believe
this have not read enough history. They do not realize how quickly things
changed in earlier eras such as:
England after colonization in America began;
England during the industrial revolution;
The U.S. from 1850 to 1870;
Japan during the Meiji era.
People such as my parents or Julian Schwinger, who lived from around 1914
to around 2000, saw much more fundamental change than people born in the
mid-20th century have seen. That is why they were more open minded and
willing to believe in claims such as cold fusion. The present era is one of
technical and scientific stagnation, not progress.
Even popular culture such as fashion and music have stagnated. See: You
Say You Want a Devolution (great title!):
http://www.vanityfair.com/style/2012/01/prisoners-of-style-201201
- Jed
Re: [Vo]:Migrant Workers in China Face Competition from Robots
Chemical Engineer cheme...@gmail.com wrote: I agree with Mark, People will not have to learn LENR, they will just replace/upgrade their existing HVAC equipment with a device that happens to produce electricity also and reduces their bill - no brainer. That would be the energy application of cold fusion. I meant that the transmutation will take longer. I expect that will take a lot more knowledge. Naturally, I hope things go faster. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Migrant Workers in China Face Competition from Robots
Da Vinci knew that man would someday have flying machines. I wonder how long he thought it would take. ;-) Harry On Sat, Jul 21, 2012 at 1:25 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Chemical Engineer cheme...@gmail.com wrote: I agree with Mark, People will not have to learn LENR, they will just replace/upgrade their existing HVAC equipment with a device that happens to produce electricity also and reduces their bill - no brainer. That would be the energy application of cold fusion. I meant that the transmutation will take longer. I expect that will take a lot more knowledge. Naturally, I hope things go faster. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Migrant Workers in China Face Competition from Robots
I agree, but it is the minimum. However ther is no limit to stupidity, and some zone might forbid it... (For example, France, Germany, Europe). Not as a conspiracy, but for quasi-religious reason, like it is done in EU. add that the lobbying of old monopolies (think about Russian supporting anti-Shales in EY). if you remove that stupidity hypothesis, LENR can at least reduce 10% of energy cost, and many % of induced cost of negawatts. as Jed said, the there will be chain effect of productivity gain. another gain will be unemployment reduction, because LENR is work intensive investment only. Transient effect that will restore social peace and efficiency. then ther will be productivity gain because of the second characteristic of LENR : the huge autonomy. maintenance saving, transport costs saving, grid connection... then there will be new applications that we cannot even imagine. but until the new application, the road can be anticipated and many dozen of % of productivity will be gained, allowing developped country to reduce work need, and poor country to afford basic need, health, and comfort, starting a new economy like the one of us today. if EU zone decide to forbid LENR, we will become the last Papuah. And chinese, african tourist will came to see the indigenous. Not impossible for north-western europe. 8( 2012/7/21 Chemical Engineer cheme...@gmail.com I agree with Mark, People will not have to learn LENR, they will just replace/upgrade their existing HVAC equipment with a device that happens to produce electricity also and reduces their bill - no brainer. Information access is much easier today with the internet and will aid in the proliferation of the technology. LENR requires less infrastructure than cell phones and there are already 6 billion of them in the world, all within the last 30 years or so.
RE: [Vo]:Migrant Workers in China Face Competition from Robots
Jed, I still disagree for several reasons: - 200 years ago a medical doctor only had to read a few books to assimilate all the knowledge there was at the time; that is impossible today. Science has generated such a wealth of knowledge in ALL areas that specializations in each field of science are now too numerous to list. Those kinds of advancements are not as 'visible' so the perception is that we're not advancing any faster than hundreds of years ago. The advancement that has occurred has been in how quickly we expanded our KNOWLEDGE in all fields and about more and more detail in those fields. not so much in how that knowledge is applied to everyday life and the average person. - The process of evolution, whether occurring in nature or religions or societies, is NOT a gradual, smooth process. There are long periods of stability interrupted by short periods of major changes. And I think your example of chemistry/chemical engineering proves my point. the field of chemistry went thru a revolution with the discovery of the elements and atoms, and then it was a gradual refinement and extension of those basic tenets for hundreds of years. That knowledge has resulted in chemical engineering occurring in only the last 50 years), and material science and nanotech in the last 20 years. - LENR is about to escalate that rate of change by an order of magnitude. LENR will be the next revolution that will cause major changes in all aspects of physics/chemistry and society, whether we like it or not. - One of the determinants as to how advancement progresses is how centralized the new thing is. can the average person implement it themselves, or is the new thing inherently suited to a more 'centralized' implementation. If the latter (centralized), then its adoption will be much slower since there is a dampening effect from the entrenched power structure being resistant to change; however, if it is able to be implemented by even a small portion of the average population, and it provides significant advantages (economic, environment, political, etc) to the centralized alternative, so there is the incentive to the average person to bother with it, then it will be adopted much faster and change will come about much sooner. - Until the advent of the telegraph and radio, the spread of knowledge was EXTREMELY SLOW. Communications across the Atlantic took months, so two scientists debating their ideas on theories, or two engineers discussing the design of a dam, consumed YEARS of time; now it happens in SECONDS! The question is: Does LENR have significant advantages, and is it easily implemented by a modestly technical person??? I think the answer to the first part is a no-brainer, but the answer to the second part is uncertain, but the possibility is definitely there. How much of a dampening affect the entrenched power centers will have in the adoption of LENR will be determined mainly by how easily it is implemented by a modestly techy person. If I can do it, then I would build units for my extended family, and show my neighbors how to build theirs. So long as I'm not selling it (i.e., engaging in commerce), I'm not violating patents. I am free to buy the equipment and build my own intel-clone processor if I want, and use it for my PC, and I am not violating any patent rights. But the cost of the equipment is too large, and the regulatory burdens I would need to go thru to not be violating any laws are so extreme, that it would be foolish to do so when I can buy a processor for $200. -Mark From: Jed Rothwell [mailto:jedrothw...@gmail.com] Sent: Saturday, July 21, 2012 9:21 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:Migrant Workers in China Face Competition from Robots MarkI-ZeroPoint zeropo...@charter.net wrote: I couldn't disagree more. seriously, hundreds or thousands of years? Once the scientific community (both academic and corporate) realizes that a whole new field of science is being born, they will dive in to understand it and engineer it in ways we can't even imagine . . . Probably they will, but people do not think or learn any faster today than they did in the past. The pace of progress is no faster than it ever was. It is still governed mainly by funerals. The serious study of chemistry began around 1650. It did not reach fruition with chemical engineering until the late 19th century. Transmutation with cold fusion is still at the stage chemistry was when Robert Boyle published a book saying there are more than four elements, The Skeptical Chemist (1661): http://www.gutenberg.org/files/22914/22914-h/22914-h.htm People nowadays have the notion that technology, society and the world in general are changing at a faster pace than ever before. People who believe this have not read enough history. They do not realize how quickly things changed in earlier eras such as: England after
RE: [Vo]:Migrant Workers in China Face Competition from Robots
Excellent question Harry... Da Vinci is one of the people I've wanted to go back in time to talk to, if that was possible... -m -Original Message- From: Harry Veeder [mailto:hveeder...@gmail.com] Sent: Saturday, July 21, 2012 10:36 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:Migrant Workers in China Face Competition from Robots Da Vinci knew that man would someday have flying machines. I wonder how long he thought it would take. ;-) Harry On Sat, Jul 21, 2012 at 1:25 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Chemical Engineer cheme...@gmail.com wrote: I agree with Mark, People will not have to learn LENR, they will just replace/upgrade their existing HVAC equipment with a device that happens to produce electricity also and reduces their bill - no brainer. That would be the energy application of cold fusion. I meant that the transmutation will take longer. I expect that will take a lot more knowledge. Naturally, I hope things go faster. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Migrant Workers in China Face Competition from Robots
Remember that Da Vinci wrote his notes upside down and backwards to keep them secret. It would be ironic if Da Vinci ranted about “snakes and clowns” during your conversation and that they did not understanding him and were trying to steal his stuff. The more things change, the more they stay the same: Axil On Sat, Jul 21, 2012 at 1:52 PM, MarkI-ZeroPoint zeropo...@charter.netwrote: Excellent question Harry... Da Vinci is one of the people I've wanted to go back in time to talk to, if that was possible... -m -Original Message- From: Harry Veeder [mailto:hveeder...@gmail.com] Sent: Saturday, July 21, 2012 10:36 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:Migrant Workers in China Face Competition from Robots Da Vinci knew that man would someday have flying machines. I wonder how long he thought it would take. ;-) Harry On Sat, Jul 21, 2012 at 1:25 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Chemical Engineer cheme...@gmail.com wrote: I agree with Mark, People will not have to learn LENR, they will just replace/upgrade their existing HVAC equipment with a device that happens to produce electricity also and reduces their bill - no brainer. That would be the energy application of cold fusion. I meant that the transmutation will take longer. I expect that will take a lot more knowledge. Naturally, I hope things go faster. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Migrant Workers in China Face Competition from Robots
MarkI-ZeroPoint zeropo...@charter.net wrote: - **Until the advent of the telegraph and radio, the spread of knowledge was EXTREMELY SLOW. Communications across the Atlantic took months, so two scientists debating their ideas on theories, or two engineers discussing the design of a dam, consumed YEARS of time; now it happens in SECONDS! Discussions took time, but the flow of information was faster than you might thing. There was 6-week latency. When Franklin published new experiments on electricity, for example, news crossed the Atlantic in about 6 weeks and the experiments were replicated within months. It was no slower than replications today, because researchers do not work any faster. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Migrant Workers in China Face Competition from Robots
In only a few more years, a LENR developer will be able to run quantum mechanical nuclear system simulations on his quantum computer app using his iPhone 10. All while he attends a meeting in persons at least virtually as a hologram. In a short time, we have come a long way from the heady days of programing on punch cards with a three week compilation turnaround time or getting real time same day response by toggling in binary coded programs into the front panel of a 10 ton computer. Remember… Cheers: Axil On Sat, Jul 21, 2012 at 2:34 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: MarkI-ZeroPoint zeropo...@charter.net wrote: - **Until the advent of the telegraph and radio, the spread of knowledge was EXTREMELY SLOW. Communications across the Atlantic took months, so two scientists debating their ideas on theories, or two engineers discussing the design of a dam, consumed YEARS of time; now it happens in SECONDS! Discussions took time, but the flow of information was faster than you might thing. There was 6-week latency. When Franklin published new experiments on electricity, for example, news crossed the Atlantic in about 6 weeks and the experiments were replicated within months. It was no slower than replications today, because researchers do not work any faster. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Migrant Workers in China Face Competition from Robots
Yes, I agree, Nowadys it is nicely packaged in a photoshopped depiction of whatever, an can be preordered there: http://www.e-cataustralia.com/order-and-buy/domestic-10kw/ 'Pre-Order your unit here.' No obligation, no prepayment Fill in the form below, and we will list you in our database with your date of application, for our first-come-first-served policy 10KW Home E-Cat Heating Unit Estimated Price $2000-2500.00 Estimated 6 months re-fill cartridge cost $150 Estimated Lifetime 20 years Easy to retrofit into existing water heaters and heating and cooling systems to seriously reduce customers’ electricity and gas bills. The price has gone up a bit, from 500$ and 10$ fillup, but we do not care about bean-counters anyway. The inventor (Rossi) managed to raise temperature output from 123.9degC as of oct 2011 to some stable 600degC as of Q2/2012. ( http://www.nyteknik.se/incoming/article3284968.ece/BINARY/Temp+data+Ecat_6_10_11+%28xls%29 ) Quite a feat, right? Don't know what about all those early adopters, who preordered a 150degC e-cat for 500$. That is progress, right? And progress is costly. Meanwhille Rossi managed to memetise said photoshopped image of his creation, and even sell it to some Australian licensee. Will be interesting how this plays out. Guenter Von: Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com An: vortex-l@eskimo.com Gesendet: 3:55 Samstag, 21.Juli 2012 Betreff: Re: [Vo]:Migrant Workers in China Face Competition from Robots LENR is a black swan. Assuming it can be commercialized, we have only the vaguest sense of what it portends Eric
RE: [Vo]:Migrant Workers in China Face Competition from Robots
Sorry, still not convinced! Your example is too narrow/simplistic, and doesn't capture the actual process of how scientific knowledge advances. Science does NOT happen with a simple, scientist#1 publishes paper; scientist#2 reproduces. that is only a small part. You state: It was no slower than replications today, because researchers do not work any faster. If you ONLY look at the later part of the process, namely, dissemination of your results and reproduction attempts, then that might be a valid statement. however, that is only a part of the process. Let's take you example of Franklin publishing a new experiment and that experiment being replicated. according to your estimate, that process alone would have taken at least 3 to 4 months; I think that is way too short an estimate for these reasons: - How did Franklin come up with this new experiment??? How long has he been thinking about it, and how many colleagues did he discuss his ideas with to refine his thinking and even conceive of the new experiment??? Just sending a letter from Boston to Virginia (500 miles) to run his ideas past Jefferson would have taken two weeks there and two weeks back. how many letters went back and forth before Franklin's thinking had vetted the idea sufficiently and he feels ready to perform the new experiment??? (1 to 6 months?) - So now he performs the experiment and something doesn't go right; he doesn't get the expected result. He sends another letter to colleagues to discuss possible reasons why the experiment failed. They send their suggestions back to Boston. - Franklin eventually refines the experiment, repeats it a few times, and gets consistent results that he feels are rigorous, and now wants to publish. Now we have another process to go thru in order to publish: - he takes a week or two to write it up and sends it to the editor in England (6 weeks) - the editor then sends copies to peers who have the expertise to critique the paper (days (if local) to weeks) - the reviewers send their comments/criticisms/recommendations back to the editor (days to weeks) - the editor sends the suggestions/criticisms back to Franklin; he revises his paper; sends it back to the editor (2 to 3 months) - editor has some discretion as to whether another review is necessary, or the revised paper deals with all the criticisms adequately - paper gets published and disseminated - people try to replicate; damn, my replication didn't work, so I write a letter to Franklin explaining how I did it and can he see what I may have done wrong (another 3 months). What if I need to obtain some chemicals or other supplies which come from far away? - .you get the idea. How long the process took depends on two things: - The distance between you and your colleagues, and the publisher and reviewing scientists; - the time required for conveying information across distances Bottom line, in Franklin's time, the complete process of how a scientist thinks of an idea, runs it past colleagues, refines it, publishes it, others attempt reproduction and communication of those results, could easily take a year or more; less if the colleagues are all within a few hundred miles. For Franklin to go thru this entire process today might take a few weeks; two months at most. Today, distance is no longer an issue since dissemination of information and data are nearly instantaneous. And after further thought, I don't know if you can even make a comparison. the experiments in Franklin's time only needed some bottles, string, a metal object and a kite. today we have to build superconducting magnets and underground tunnels 17 miles in circumference! J How does one compare then to now? -Mark From: Jed Rothwell [mailto:jedrothw...@gmail.com] Sent: Saturday, July 21, 2012 11:35 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:Migrant Workers in China Face Competition from Robots MarkI-ZeroPoint zeropo...@charter.net wrote: - Until the advent of the telegraph and radio, the spread of knowledge was EXTREMELY SLOW. Communications across the Atlantic took months, so two scientists debating their ideas on theories, or two engineers discussing the design of a dam, consumed YEARS of time; now it happens in SECONDS! Discussions took time, but the flow of information was faster than you might think. There was 6-week latency. When Franklin published new experiments on electricity, for example, news crossed the Atlantic in about 6 weeks and the experiments were replicated within months. It was no slower than replications today, because researchers do not work any faster. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Migrant Workers in China Face Competition from Robots
MarkI-ZeroPoint zeropo...@charter.net wrote: Now we have another process to go thru in order to publish: **- **he takes a week or two to write it up and sends it to the editor in England (6 weeks) **- **the editor then sends copies to peers who have the expertise to critique the paper (days (if local) to weeks) **- **the reviewers send their comments/criticisms/recommendations back to the editor (days to weeks) **- **the editor sends the suggestions/criticisms back to Franklin; he revises his paper; sends it back to the editor (2 to 3 months) They did not do that stuff back then, for the obvious reason that it would take too long. The Royal Society got letters from their members and published them verbatim. There was nothing like modern peer-review. That's a good thing, too. It might have taken an extra 200 years to launch the industrial revolution, with the dead weight of peer-review holding back progress. The Royal Soc. published his first batch of letters between 1747 and 1750. I do not recall when he became a member. It is true that long distance discussions took a lot longer. You should see the letters between Franklin and various others. You can see how they managed it. Now that we have e-mail the techniques of long-distance, long duration communication is being lost. It will not be revived for some time, because the longest distance in the solar system is several light-hours I think. I suppose it will be revised if people begin interstellar colonization. I do not recall that he corresponded with Jefferson. - Jed
RE: [Vo]:Migrant Workers in China Face Competition from Robots
Jed points out: They did not do that stuff back then, for the obvious reason that it would take too long. The Royal Society got letters from their members and published them verbatim. There was nothing like modern peer-review. Yes, I understand, but that means that the paper was not even vetted and may very well have had some obvious errors when it left Boston Harbor and sailed across the Atlantic; then more time to be published and distributed to colleagues who could review the experiment; some Fellow of the Royal Society sees a flaw in the experiment or the math and writes up his critique which eventually gets published in the next issue; then that issue has to sail back across the Atlantic to Franklin before he can read the criticism It was the same process except that the 'peer review' occurred in subsequent publications instead of between peers *prior* to any publication. So a single iteration of 'review' in Franklin's time might be the same amount of time as the modern submit/review/revise/publish process we have today, but in Franklin's case, there could be one or *more* iterations of experiment, publish, criticism, before his idea was fully vetted, reproduced and established as valid. FYI, I was just using Franklin and the Royal Society as an example. not literally. But so we don't lose sight of the point: MarkI-ZeroPoint zeropo...@charter.net wrote: -Until the advent of the telegraph and radio, the spread of knowledge was EXTREMELY SLOW. Communications across the Atlantic took months, so two scientists debating their ideas on theories, or two engineers discussing the design of a dam, consumed YEARS of time; now it happens in SECONDS! Jed rebutted with: Discussions took time, but the flow of information was faster than you might thing. There was 6-week latency. When Franklin published new experiments on electricity, for example, news crossed the Atlantic in about 6 weeks and the experiments were replicated within months. It was no slower than replications today, because researchers do not work any faster. Well, perhaps my use of the term, seconds was a bit of an exaggeration, but the point is that: The vetting of scientific ideas and reviews to establish sound (as error-free as possible?) conclusions about those ideas (theoretical) or experiments took much longer back then than now.. And finally, this is probably a pointless discussion since it's a foolish idea to even try to compare the times when things are so much more complex today. Truth is, I have some 'work' to do and am really not feeling much like doing it, so looking for diversions! J -Mark From: Jed Rothwell [mailto:jedrothw...@gmail.com] Sent: Saturday, July 21, 2012 2:55 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:Migrant Workers in China Face Competition from Robots MarkI-ZeroPoint zeropo...@charter.net wrote: Now we have another process to go thru in order to publish: - he takes a week or two to write it up and sends it to the editor in England (6 weeks) - the editor then sends copies to peers who have the expertise to critique the paper (days (if local) to weeks) - the reviewers send their comments/criticisms/recommendations back to the editor (days to weeks) - the editor sends the suggestions/criticisms back to Franklin; he revises his paper; sends it back to the editor (2 to 3 months) They did not do that stuff back then, for the obvious reason that it would take too long. The Royal Society got letters from their members and published them verbatim. There was nothing like modern peer-review. That's a good thing, too. It might have taken an extra 200 years to launch the industrial revolution, with the dead weight of peer-review holding back progress. The Royal Soc. published his first batch of letters between 1747 and 1750. I do not recall when he became a member. It is true that long distance discussions took a lot longer. You should see the letters between Franklin and various others. You can see how they managed it. Now that we have e-mail the techniques of long-distance, long duration communication is being lost. It will not be revived for some time, because the longest distance in the solar system is several light-hours I think. I suppose it will be revised if people begin interstellar colonization. I do not recall that he corresponded with Jefferson. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Migrant Workers in China Face Competition from Robots
Hi! What most people seem to not consider while assessing LENR's impact on world's economy is energy's major role in our financial system. With very, very few exceptions (most notably, Japan and South Korea) large energy companies are the backbones of our stock markets. Everywhere, oil, gas, grid, electricity and such companies are not only the largest companies, but also the most reliable in terms of financial safety, aka blue chips. Just make a short list in your heads, no matter where you are from. Energy = big company, stock market makers. Even in some pretty big and diverse economies like France, UK and Brazil these companies are not only important, they ARE the market. What would happen to London Stock Exchange if both British Petroleum and Royal-Dutch Shell went out of business? Even though Shell is located in The Netherlands, most of it's shares are traded in London. In France, Total (oil) and EDF (Eletricitè de France) would collapse. In Brazil, it would be chaos. Petrobras (oil) and Eletrobras (electricity) are major players, perhaps more than 1/3 of all daily business involves either one of these companies. Make no mistakes, even the strongholds of world's economy would know chaos. These are the 3 largest chinese companies (by revenue): 1 - Sinopec (oil) 2 - China National Petroleum 3 - State Grid In USA, names like Chevron and Exxon come to mind. But here is the catch-22. In all those countries, banks are major players as well. And if oil fails, banks would just go mad, precisely because oil is the safe bet for banks, they are certainly attached. Many banks would have dramatic losses if all oil companies fail at the same time, as it seems plausible in this scenario. The whole economy depends on banks and credit. If the system fails, the whole economy fails together. What about taxes? Taxes on oil, fuels and electricity are a huge amount of money. And they are very hard to avoid, too. Safe, big revenue for governments and GONE. What about countries that rely on oil as humans rely on air? Russia, Saudi Arabia, Nigeria, Venezuela, Iran, Irak, Angola... put all of them together in economic chaos and I can tell one thing: pretty big MESS! How would citizens of rich countries like Canada, Norway and United Arab Emirates, to name a few, react to a sudden loss of wealth? Energy plays a vital role in these economies. What about all that money that countries like USA, Germany, Denmark and China lent to companies developing green technologies? They could have just as well tossed that money in the trash can. Not likely to see that money back. The impact of LENR would be WAY, WAY, beyond those 10 to 15% percent that energy seems to have in our society. Cheers! World revolution is coming. 2012/7/19 Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com On Thu, Jul 19, 2012 at 9:42 PM, David L Babcock ol...@rochester.rr.com wrote: Lacking -at this moment- your book, I plunge ahead anyway... It's a quick, free download: http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RothwellJcoldfusiona.pdf T
Re: [Vo]:Migrant Workers in China Face Competition from Robots
some interesting analysis. however about taxes, the analysis is short sighted. if you save 10% of cost for all the economy, the tax on fuel will be no problems. tax on sales, work, incomes, can replace that. tax on fuel are ther not to get money, but to pay the externalities of foreign resources. this is why it is low in US, and high in europe. the big saving will also be the break of renewable energy plan, thate will save trillions of waste cash. negawatt (energy saving) are also very expensive, even if often less than oil (in fact I'm not so sure seeing that on my own house). with cheaper electric powerplant (less expensive turbine, because efficiency is less critical), cheaper house (less insulation), no energy cost, the cost of living will be very much reduced, above the 10% of energy cost that I quote here... most of the cost of housing in France is because of increasing regulation, including insulation. one third of electricity price increase is renewable (second third is nuclear safety, third third is oil price) 2012/7/20 Bruno Santos besantos1...@gmail.com Hi! What most people seem to not consider while assessing LENR's impact on world's economy is energy's major role in our financial system. With very, very few exceptions (most notably, Japan and South Korea) large energy companies are the backbones of our stock markets. Everywhere, oil, gas, grid, electricity and such companies are not only the largest companies, but also the most reliable in terms of financial safety, aka blue chips. Just make a short list in your heads, no matter where you are from. Energy = big company, stock market makers. Even in some pretty big and diverse economies like France, UK and Brazil these companies are not only important, they ARE the market. What would happen to London Stock Exchange if both British Petroleum and Royal-Dutch Shell went out of business? Even though Shell is located in The Netherlands, most of it's shares are traded in London. In France, Total (oil) and EDF (Eletricitè de France) would collapse. In Brazil, it would be chaos. Petrobras (oil) and Eletrobras (electricity) are major players, perhaps more than 1/3 of all daily business involves either one of these companies. Make no mistakes, even the strongholds of world's economy would know chaos. These are the 3 largest chinese companies (by revenue): 1 - Sinopec (oil) 2 - China National Petroleum 3 - State Grid In USA, names like Chevron and Exxon come to mind. But here is the catch-22. In all those countries, banks are major players as well. And if oil fails, banks would just go mad, precisely because oil is the safe bet for banks, they are certainly attached. Many banks would have dramatic losses if all oil companies fail at the same time, as it seems plausible in this scenario. The whole economy depends on banks and credit. If the system fails, the whole economy fails together. What about taxes? Taxes on oil, fuels and electricity are a huge amount of money. And they are very hard to avoid, too. Safe, big revenue for governments and GONE. What about countries that rely on oil as humans rely on air? Russia, Saudi Arabia, Nigeria, Venezuela, Iran, Irak, Angola... put all of them together in economic chaos and I can tell one thing: pretty big MESS! How would citizens of rich countries like Canada, Norway and United Arab Emirates, to name a few, react to a sudden loss of wealth? Energy plays a vital role in these economies. What about all that money that countries like USA, Germany, Denmark and China lent to companies developing green technologies? They could have just as well tossed that money in the trash can. Not likely to see that money back. The impact of LENR would be WAY, WAY, beyond those 10 to 15% percent that energy seems to have in our society. Cheers! World revolution is coming. 2012/7/19 Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com On Thu, Jul 19, 2012 at 9:42 PM, David L Babcock ol...@rochester.rr.com wrote: Lacking -at this moment- your book, I plunge ahead anyway... It's a quick, free download: http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RothwellJcoldfusiona.pdf T
Re: [Vo]:Migrant Workers in China Face Competition from Robots
On 7/19/2012 9:48 PM, Terry Blanton wrote: On Thu, Jul 19, 2012 at 9:42 PM, David L Babcock ol...@rochester.rr.com wrote: Lacking -at this moment- your book, I plunge ahead anyway... It's a quick, free download: http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RothwellJcoldfusiona.pdf T Thank you !! I was kind'a counting on a response like this. Ol' Bab
Re: [Vo]:Migrant Workers in China Face Competition from Robots
Bruno, appreciate Your argument. Commercial LENR would change the concept of 'value' big time. But we live in a dialectical world. (sort of) To abuse Hegel: Force-Counterforce-Resultant. (These-Antithese-Synthese) Now consider: The force (A) would be LENR The counterforce (B) would be the status quo of power and value. Now (B) would try to neutralize (A), which it probably does, by carefully watching and acting behind the courtain. But (A) is a midget,lacking funding, and can eventually easily bought off. Consider a couple of billionaires, who buy up licenses from DGTG, if they prove to have a workable technology. Things would not improve -- they would get WORSE on a middle/long-range perspective! A a possible solution to prevent the worst, I see in: LENR being an open technology. THIS would be the challenge! In the hands of the (B)-'elite', nothing good would come out of that, I am afraid. This is not about Your low cost water-boiler. They soon would convince everybody to travel to Moon or Mars and other silly enterprises, just to keep their dominant share of the sudden abundance. A lot more to ponder on that. Guenter Von: Bruno Santos besantos1...@gmail.com An: vortex-l@eskimo.com Gesendet: 10:31 Freitag, 20.Juli 2012 Betreff: Re: [Vo]:Migrant Workers in China Face Competition from Robots Hi!Cheers! World revolution is coming.
Re: [Vo]:Migrant Workers in China Face Competition from Robots
I've rethough about my simple rough analysis of Energy being 10% of all cost in economy. in fact situation is much worse, I see it at Home (I try a micro economic reasoning). not only I pay more than 1 thousands euro a year to warm house and water, but to avoid paying 3 thousands, I, and the previous owner, have already invested 6 thousands euro for windows, and probably more to insulate the wall of the bedrooms... my gaz furnace is also very expensive compared to a brutal one. to save few hundred a year... and so on. If I can save the wast of having to invest in those efficient decices, without polluting, not wasting, it will be benefit. it is the price of negawatt power-plant that I refer in another post. LENR is chepaer that most negarwatt; cheaper in cash;cheaper in pollution. and gone also all the enrgy needed to build those negawatt... the productivity gain will be much above the cost of energy, but more about the cost of all energy produced and all expensive negawatt produced... in those negawatt ther will be the green negawatt called renewable, except maybe hydoelectric which are usefull (flood control, and irrigation) and whose electricity is nearly as cheap as LENR... so yes the impact will be huge maybe 20%, maybe more... the negative point is that it will block many innovation, led by energy saving, that are good for else, or for small externalities like noise, gadgets heating ... some engineering will be more simple... probably turbines technology will got toward cheap and rough, and no more to efficient... 2012/7/18 Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com Alain Sepeda alain.sep...@gmail.com wrote: It will be important shock, but not so huge. at most 10% of course you can expect that the technology will become even cheaper, but even if LENR get to zero, the turbines, cooling and alike will stay as expensive (and I have under estimated their cost). I suggest you read my book, chapters 14 and 15 especially. I show why cold fusion will probably reduce electric power costs by two-thirds quickly, and why eventually it will reduce all energy costs -- including equipment costs -- by orders of magnitude. To summarize: when one component in a system falls in price, the other components also soon become cheaper. Cheap microcomputers spurred the development of cheap hard disks and printers. I may be wrong about that, but I consulted with experts and thought about it carefully. I did not reach that conclusion in week or two. More like several years after reading lots of books. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Migrant Workers in China Face Competition from Robots
Alain Sepeda alain.sep...@gmail.com wrote: I've rethough about my simple rough analysis of Energy being 10% of all cost in economy. I have talked about the potential economic effects with many experts. I conclude that it is darn near impossible to estimate the impact or likely course of development because -- 1. Much of the outcome will depend on politics and what people chose to do. In the past, we have often failed to use a technology effectively. We have let many problems fester that could easily be fixed. We fail to take advantage of technical opportunities. That is why, for example, pollution was not reduced in Japan until after the disasters at Minamata and Yokkaichi. They might have done it earlier. It would have saved lots of money and thousands of lives. But they didn't. We might not make effective use of cold fusion. Capitalism is not perfect. People are not perfect. They are often irrational and self-destructive. 2. At the level of energy, the economy and technology are so complex no expert can sort out the inputs and outputs, or the effect of change. You might estimate the impact of an improved washing machine. You might even predict the impact of an effective vaccine for AIDS. But when you get to something as big as cold fusion, the effect is too big to predict. 3. In the past, experts have often examined nascent technology and guessed wrong about what will have an impact, and to what extent. I mean real experts, not self-appointed ones. A classic example was in the late 1940s when people looked at two products from WWII: nuclear power and computers. They guessed that nuclear power would have a wide-ranging, profound, and direct effect on people's lives, whereas computers were likely to remain laboratory curiosities for a long time. They imagined isolated, giant computers, like the ones in the sci. fi. stories by Asimov. Computers seemed fragile and useless for the ordinary tasks of daily life, whereas everyone needs electricity. By 1985 it was clear that computers would be in everyone's house and car, but nuclear power is a distant and not particularly important technology. Granted, it is easier to see how cold fusion can play a direct role in daily life, by powering automobiles, home generators and the like. It is much more viable than fission nuclear power. It is cheaper, and safer. For many reasons described in my book I expect it will have a profound effect, both direct, and indirectly by reshaping other technology. But the full extent of those changes and the course of events are impossible to predict in detail, or even imagine. Quoting a top expert (myself): I doubt that anyone now living can grasp all the ramifications of cold fusion, or imagine more than a small number of ways it will be used. We have no experience working with it, and no feel for it. Someday, product engineers who have dealt with cold fusion all their lives will take its capabilities for granted, and they will instinctively know how to apply it in ways that would never occur to us. In 1970, the most forward thinking computer engineer or futurist probably did not imagine that people in 1990 would be stuffing microscopic computers into automobile fuel injection systems, kitchen blenders, hotel guest room door locks, Jacuzzi bathtubs, cameras, “fuzzy logic” rice cookers, handheld radio-telephones (cell phones), and thousands of other machines. Computer experts were masters of arcane hardware and software, but they knew nothing about cooking rice. They thought of computers as accounting machines, or handy tools in the laboratory, not as gadgets to cook rice with. When microprocessors came along, the people who make rice cookers saw how to use them. Product engineers everywhere went to work, putting computers in new places and using them in new ways. In retrospect, most of these improvements were predictable. Any hotel manager or guest can see the advantages of computerized doors and access cards. What makes the future difficult to imagine is not any particular incremental improvement, but rather what happens when all sorts of different machines are improved simultaneously. When cold fusion power supplies become available in every size from a hearing aid battery to an aerospace engine, product designers everywhere will find novel ways to use them, and the cumulative changes will affect our lives and societies more profoundly than the microcomputer revolution did. As I said elsewhere, imagine telling a typical computer expert in 1960 that by the year 2000, a Jacuzzi bathtub would have computer control more sophisticated than a Vanguard Rocket computer. He would probably be more baffled than astounded. I imagine him asking: Why the hell does a bathtub need a control?!? What is there to control in a bathtub??? You turn the water on; you turn it off. A sophisticated, electronic control? For what? I would not even want to try to explain to our time-travelling engineer why some 21st century Japanese flush toilets
RE: [Vo]:Migrant Workers in China Face Competition from Robots
Jed wrote: 2. At the level of energy, the economy and technology are so complex no expert can sort out the inputs and outputs, or the effect of change. You might estimate the impact of an improved washing machine. You might even predict the impact of an effective vaccine for AIDS. But when you get to something as big as cold fusion, the effect is too big to predict. Yes, as I said on Wednesday in this thread: http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg67652.html Energy is to economies as physics is to science. It is FUNDAMENTAL, and everything is built on top of it. A significant change to a fundamental will propagate to anything built using that fundamental. snip But the ramifications of this are much more complex, and the reality of how this would affect different aspects of life are hard to predict... Continuing the point. So let's take a look at the use of energy in the production of a product: - Start with raw materials; if it isn't mined, it is grown. - Getting the iron ore out of the ground and to the smelter takes a lot of *energy*, - Processing the ore and making sheet steel or steel bars requires *energy*, - Transporting that raw material to my widget manufacturing plant takes *energy*, - Running the widget manufacturing plant is very *energy* intensive; even if there is a high degree of automation, those machines/computers/motors require *energy*, - Transporting my widgets to the distributor or retail outlet requires *energy*, - Heating/cooling all the manufacturing plants and offices requires *energy*, - Getting the consumer to/from the retail store to buy my widgets requires *energy*. To say energy is fundamental isn't really enough--- its ubiquitous; *it's used to make and/or operate everything we touch/use throughout the day*. A drastic reduction in the cost of energy will probably have a much stronger deflationary pressure on products, and less on services, since services primarily use human energy. When you consider all the political and economic power-centers in the world, and the alliances or lack thereof, and the dire financial circumstances all over the planet, trying to make any predictions with that level of uncertainty/complexity is foolish. Anyone who thinks they can provide a reasonable estimate as to how this revolution will unfold is deluded. Those who are aware, like on this collective, of what's transpiring will be in a much better position to respond. in a personal sense. I.e., put in sell orders on stocks which will take a big hit, like oil or power companies and precious metals (if transmutations also get a lot of press). Many will be caught off-guard, but that's life. -Mark
Re: [Vo]:Migrant Workers in China Face Competition from Robots
On Fri, Jul 20, 2012 at 5:51 PM, MarkI-ZeroPoint zeropo...@charter.netwrote: When you consider all the political and economic power-centers in the world, and the alliances or lack thereof, and the dire financial circumstances all over the planet, trying to make any predictions with that level of uncertainty/complexity is foolish. Anyone who thinks they can provide a reasonable estimate as to how this revolution will unfold is deluded… LENR is a black swan. Assuming it can be commercialized, we have only the vaguest sense of what it portends. I like the sober tone of some of the recent posts. Eventually one imagines that the sheer ability to move stuff around that LENR offers will bring a higher standard of living to within reach of a lot of people. But the prognosis for the short or medium term is less clear. I imagine it would be pretty easy to think up some fairly dystopian scenarios, although I haven't tried. Note that the modern world has gone through several other very disruptive transitions, which can give a sense of what might be expected. We've lived through the industrial revolution, for example, and more recently we've seen the development and wide-scale use of the Internet. Both of these developments have had profound effects on human society. And the scale of either probably was or is lost on us from day to day. I first started really using the Internet in 1994. After about five years, I completely took it for granted. Now I see how Twitter and Facebook are enabling people to organize in new ways and are having a destabilizing effect, but the novelty of the Internet as a technology has long worn off. Eric
Re: [Vo]:Migrant Workers in China Face Competition from Robots
Jed: you fully grasped the total implications of LENR. Even simple things such as spoons, which have not changed much in appearance for around 200 years, have changed profoundly in ways we cannot see, in the manufacturing phase. They will soon change again, with the introduction of 3-D replicator bot machines. With the mastery of the internal mechanisms of the atom: the nucleus, we will have ultimate control over matter itself. Because of transmutation, any element can be fabricated from water or air or waste or even form the vacuum energy of the void itself. In the not so distant future, water will enters a robotic custom product production plant as feedstock via a pipe and a purpose build custom product will roll off the production line of the local plant as a finalized manufactured article without ever needing or seeing a human. No railroads required, or air conditioning needed, just a pump to move the water. Elements like gold and platinum will be ubiquitous and will be used as anti-corrosion plating in lieu of paint based on the ascetics sensibilities of the customer. Creation from mere though is within our grasp. But there will be the mobsters from the Id to contend with: “the Beast, the Mindless Primitive.” U235 and Pu239 could be readily available for all those who would misuse and pervert this godlike power; for all those who would take their joy from destruction. It’s amazing how science fiction becomes reality… Cheers:Axil On Fri, Jul 20, 2012 at 4:31 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Alain Sepeda alain.sep...@gmail.com wrote: I've rethough about my simple rough analysis of Energy being 10% of all cost in economy. I have talked about the potential economic effects with many experts. I conclude that it is darn near impossible to estimate the impact or likely course of development because -- 1. Much of the outcome will depend on politics and what people chose to do. In the past, we have often failed to use a technology effectively. We have let many problems fester that could easily be fixed. We fail to take advantage of technical opportunities. That is why, for example, pollution was not reduced in Japan until after the disasters at Minamata and Yokkaichi. They might have done it earlier. It would have saved lots of money and thousands of lives. But they didn't. We might not make effective use of cold fusion. Capitalism is not perfect. People are not perfect. They are often irrational and self-destructive. 2. At the level of energy, the economy and technology are so complex no expert can sort out the inputs and outputs, or the effect of change. You might estimate the impact of an improved washing machine. You might even predict the impact of an effective vaccine for AIDS. But when you get to something as big as cold fusion, the effect is too big to predict. 3. In the past, experts have often examined nascent technology and guessed wrong about what will have an impact, and to what extent. I mean real experts, not self-appointed ones. A classic example was in the late 1940s when people looked at two products from WWII: nuclear power and computers. They guessed that nuclear power would have a wide-ranging, profound, and direct effect on people's lives, whereas computers were likely to remain laboratory curiosities for a long time. They imagined isolated, giant computers, like the ones in the sci. fi. stories by Asimov. Computers seemed fragile and useless for the ordinary tasks of daily life, whereas everyone needs electricity. By 1985 it was clear that computers would be in everyone's house and car, but nuclear power is a distant and not particularly important technology. Granted, it is easier to see how cold fusion can play a direct role in daily life, by powering automobiles, home generators and the like. It is much more viable than fission nuclear power. It is cheaper, and safer. For many reasons described in my book I expect it will have a profound effect, both direct, and indirectly by reshaping other technology. But the full extent of those changes and the course of events are impossible to predict in detail, or even imagine. Quoting a top expert (myself): I doubt that anyone now living can grasp all the ramifications of cold fusion, or imagine more than a small number of ways it will be used. We have no experience working with it, and no feel for it. Someday, product engineers who have dealt with cold fusion all their lives will take its capabilities for granted, and they will instinctively know how to apply it in ways that would never occur to us. In 1970, the most forward thinking computer engineer or futurist probably did not imagine that people in 1990 would be stuffing microscopic computers into automobile fuel injection systems, kitchen blenders, hotel guest room door locks, Jacuzzi bathtubs, cameras, “fuzzy logic” rice cookers, handheld radio-telephones (cell phones), and thousands of other
Re: [Vo]:Migrant Workers in China Face Competition from Robots
Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: In the not so distant future, water will enters a robotic custom product production plant as feedstock via a pipe and a purpose build custom product will roll off the production line of the local plant as a finalized manufactured article without ever needing or seeing a human. I do not think that sort of industrial scale transmutation will happen in the not so distant future. More like hundreds or thousands of years from now. Two comments: 1. Arthur C. Clarke predicted this in Profiles of the Future. 2. If water is the feedstock, I hope they keep track of the approximate mass, and they convert garbage back into water. The mass of manufactured goods, food an other materials consumed by people is large enough that a few thousand years of consuming water might lower the sea level measurably. It might make more sense to convert garbage and trash into what we need, rather than water. Clarke suggested that the machines might need to store ash (unused output material) or extra feedstock in some convenient, non-toxic, dense material. He recommended gold. It would be ironic if factories had large piles of slag in the form of gold. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Migrant Workers in China Face Competition from Robots
Well, with carbon, hydrogen and oxygen, you can make pretty much all the organics you need . . . with free energy. T
RE: [Vo]:Migrant Workers in China Face Competition from Robots
Jed wrote: I do not think that sort of industrial scale transmutation will happen in the 'not so distant future.' More like hundreds or thousands of years from now. I couldn't disagree more. seriously, hundreds or thousands of years? Once the scientific community (both academic and corporate) realizes that a whole new field of science is being born, they will dive in to understand it and engineer it in ways we can't even imagine; the scientists and engineers will optimize the reaction process to *FAVOR* transmutation! I can see LENR reactors being used NOT only for energy production, but for the sole purpose of transmuting all kinds of cheap, abundant elements into those used for manufacturing and energy production, so in addition to cheap energy, most all metals that we use in manufacturing are also readily available, and all about the same cost - little or no scarcity; vary stable prices not prone to manipulation by monopolies or scarcity/interruption of supply due to natural disasters! CANT: Chemically Assisted Nuclear Transmutation YATR: Yet Another Transmutation Reactor If the transmutation aspect results in even modest amounts of reaction products, and that were to become widely know (how could it not), then what is left that has any value? Just the possibility that you could transmute Ni to gold or platinum would cause the precious metals markets to collapse. About the only thing of value would be the raw materials that go into making LENR reactors. We haven't even seriously considered the ramifications of transmutation on society... add that to the disruption caused by cheap energy and its going to be one bumpy rollercoaster ride. and I agree with whoever said that it has the potential to significantly raise the std of living for the masses. -Mark From: Jed Rothwell [mailto:jedrothw...@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, July 20, 2012 7:32 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:Migrant Workers in China Face Competition from Robots Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: In the not so distant future, water will enters a robotic custom product production plant as feedstock via a pipe and a purpose build custom product will roll off the production line of the local plant as a finalized manufactured article without ever needing or seeing a human. I do not think that sort of industrial scale transmutation will happen in the not so distant future. More like hundreds or thousands of years from now. Two comments: 1. Arthur C. Clarke predicted this in Profiles of the Future. 2. If water is the feedstock, I hope they keep track of the approximate mass, and they convert garbage back into water. The mass of manufactured goods, food an other materials consumed by people is large enough that a few thousand years of consuming water might lower the sea level measurably. It might make more sense to convert garbage and trash into what we need, rather than water. Clarke suggested that the machines might need to store ash (unused output material) or extra feedstock in some convenient, non-toxic, dense material. He recommended gold. It would be ironic if factories had large piles of slag in the form of gold. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Migrant Workers in China Face Competition from Robots
Your message remind me that serie of article. It is more focussed on EU, and for now, sadly, they apocalyptic prediction have been more or less confirmed (with some delay... politicians seems good in delaying) I let you read that http://www.leap2020.eu/The-future-of-the-USA-2012-2016-An-insolvent-and-ungovernable-United-States-first-part_a9750.html and make your opinion... In french system, we see the same polarisation, but since 5th republic, our constitution is much more resilient to thisn kind of blocage. We also have a different culture, much more used not to separate powers so much, and to change constitution very (too) often. probably a consequence of centuries of regionally controlled monarchy, and of our farmer culture (not trader, not pioneer). anyway like Defkalion shows, in desperate situation, black swan are welcome. 2012/7/18 OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson svj.orionwo...@gmail.com In any event, the current notion of austerity is nonsense and is tied to a tired and outdated concept that money is real or has some intrinsic real value which it doesn't. Austerity = Stupidity and I think every so often we as a society have to go through stretches of it before we remember that basic truth. I agree. This concept called velocity, I seem to recall that it was described as the multiplier effect, this from the macroeconomic course I took back in college. soap box Eventually we'll need to vote out those in power who continue to follow a quaint ideology that believes in maintaining the value of currency as a fixed resource is the only way to run an economy. I think this is a patently absurd concept to maintain in today's increasingly automated high-tech world. In fact we don't maintain fixed amounts of money in today modern economy anyway. Money supply is constantly being manipulated. Any belief that we always have a fixed sum of money flowing through the economy is an incredibly inaccurate one. We currently have in the United States several vocal super conservative political groups vying for absolute power. They are trying to put the kibosh on all sorts of government spending programs. Many have bought into a carefully manufactured fear that basically states: We as a society can no longer afford to pay for all sorts of valuable government services. They fear that to continue to fund these programs will eventually result in rampant inflation which of course will devalue the accumulate wealth everyone's pocket book both rich and poor, but ESPECIALLY the accumulated wealth in the rich man's pocket book. It is exactly on this front where the struggle for the control of money supply needs to be better understood and better managed. Many conservatives fear that if the government simply went ahead and printed up more money instead of issuing additional government bonds that will pay for such services, such fiscal irresponsibility will eventually result in massive amounts of inflation that would ravage the economy. However, what few Grok is the fact that experiencing the ravages of inflation is exactly equivalent to experiencing the ravages of taxation. The point being: you can either be taxed in hopefully a reasonably equitable many - or we can all experience the ravages of inflation which is essentially being levied a flat-tax against everyone both rich and por. Either way, we all end up paying for necessary valuable government services. OTOH, if we refuse to pay for these programs, which is the mantra of many super conservative organizations, we will essentially throw off massive numbers of people back into the unemployment line making them unproductive and an added burden to society. More of society begins to lose access to necessary services whether those services are for adequate health care, or to maintaining the health of our nation's infrastructure, such as roads and bridges. Unfortunately, it seems to me that we currently have a number of conservative groups who are not willing to look any farther than the notion of protecting the accumulated value of their own bank accounts. They have bought into the illusion that maintaining a constant fixed value for money is the most important resource to manage in their lives. They have bought into the illusion that managing the resource of money (as perceive in the form of a fixed limited resource) is far more important than trying to help better manage any other resource. A real irony in all of this is the fact that the manufacture of goods and services is ultimately what's responsible for giving VALUE to what has been accumulated in all of private bank accounts both rich and poor. /soap box Regards Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]:Migrant Workers in China Face Competition from Robots
Alain Sepeda alain.sep...@gmail.com wrote: Your message remind me that serie of article. It is more focussed on EU, and for now, sadly, they apocalyptic prediction have been more or less confirmed . . . That is silly. The U.S. has been through much worse crises than it presently faces, in 1860, 1932 and 1942. There is nothing apocalyptic about our problems. People should read history, and try to have a sense of perspective. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Migrant Workers in China Face Competition from Robots
possible, but current problems seems not to be economic, but of structural political stability (bipartisan system)... anyway problems create the organ. With Eurozone situation seemed locked between facts and rigidity; anyway with crisis getting more and more real and ridiculous, everybody starts to face reality. 2012/7/19 Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com Alain Sepeda alain.sep...@gmail.com wrote: Your message remind me that serie of article. It is more focussed on EU, and for now, sadly, they apocalyptic prediction have been more or less confirmed . . . That is silly. The U.S. has been through much worse crises than it presently faces, in 1860, 1932 and 1942. There is nothing apocalyptic about our problems. People should read history, and try to have a sense of perspective. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Migrant Workers in China Face Competition from Robots
Alain Sepeda alain.sep...@gmail.com wrote: possible, but current problems seems not to be economic, but of structural political stability (bipartisan system)... True. But these problems are nothing compared to what they were from 1860 to 1865, when we killed 650,000 people in the Civil War. There is some disunity in Europe right now. People are wondering if the Euro can be saved, or even if the EU can remain united. Maybe not. Okay, so there is a crisis in Europe. But it is *NOTHING REMOTELY AS BAD* as the crisis from 1914 to 1918, and 1940 to 1945. Losing the Euro cannot be compared to slaughtering 60 million people and destroying thousands of cities and towns! As I said, you need a sense of perspective. And you need to learn the lessons of history. The European economic crisis is nowhere near as bad as German inflation in the 1920s, or the depression of the 1930s. But it is bad enough. It is inexcusable. People should have learned the lessons of history. They should not let ~50% unemployment of young people in Greece continue. They need emergency employment programs such as the U.S. depression-era CCC and WPA. - Jed
RE: [Vo]:Migrant Workers in China Face Competition from Robots
Jed: I agree that 'apocalyptic' is a bit too strong for the U.S. situation, however, one thing that really ticks me off is the way govt 'revises' stats so things don't seem so bad. For instance, the 'official' Unemployment number does not reflect people whose unemployment compensation has run out AND those who only can find part-time work AND all the consultants whose businesses have dwindled to the point of barely making ends meet. So the govt figure of 8.2% is a joke. the real number is over double that. So things are close to what it was like in the Depression (1933, pop:92,950,000, wrkforce:51,840,000, unemp:12,830,000, 24.75%). The citizens need the truth from govt if they are to make wise and informed decisions. but not holding my breath on getting ALL the facts from our elected officials. The 'system' has degraded pretty much so it's just two elitist clubs playing games with the citizens while they 'play politics' to gain a majority. -Mark From: Jed Rothwell [mailto:jedrothw...@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, July 19, 2012 6:52 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:Migrant Workers in China Face Competition from Robots Alain Sepeda alain.sep...@gmail.com wrote: Your message remind me that serie of article. It is more focussed on EU, and for now, sadly, they apocalyptic prediction have been more or less confirmed . . . That is silly. The U.S. has been through much worse crises than it presently faces, in 1860, 1932 and 1942. There is nothing apocalyptic about our problems. People should read history, and try to have a sense of perspective. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Migrant Workers in China Face Competition from Robots
On 7/18/2012 11:08 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote: ... I suggest you read my book, chapters 14 and 15 especially. I show why cold fusion will probably reduce electric power costs by two-thirds quickly, and why eventually it will reduce all energy costs -- including equipment costs -- by orders of magnitude. To summarize: when one component in a system falls in price, the other components also soon become cheaper. Cheap microcomputers spurred the development of cheap hard disks and printers. I may be wrong about that, but I consulted with experts and thought about it carefully. I did not reach that conclusion in week or two. More like several years after reading lots of books. - Jed Jed: Lacking -at this moment- your book, I plunge ahead anyway... It seems to me that (unless LENR can be made capable of directly generating electricity) that electricity generation CAPITAL costs cannot really decrease much: Per watt, you need the same generator, you need an engine of matching HP (IC or steam, not much different), and now you need a boiler, water injector, usually a condenser. I see a twist in your favor: because the heat is SO cheap, a really wretched, cheap, cheap, kluge of a turbine could be fine. Who needs efficiency! Exotic metallurgy, ultra-precision machining, all by the board. Likewise the condenser -where plenty of water is handy. Another thing I get, material costs will surely drop, since some large fraction is due to fuel for mining, transportation, smelting, refining, forming, etc, etc, etc. SO, okay, maybe 2/3 drop in $$ per watt. Never by an order of magnitude. Well, IF direct electricity generation is possible, maybe... Ol' Bab
Re: [Vo]:Migrant Workers in China Face Competition from Robots
On Thu, Jul 19, 2012 at 9:42 PM, David L Babcock ol...@rochester.rr.com wrote: Lacking -at this moment- your book, I plunge ahead anyway... It's a quick, free download: http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RothwellJcoldfusiona.pdf T
Re: [Vo]:Migrant Workers in China Face Competition from Robots
In reply to Axil Axil's message of Wed, 18 Jul 2012 00:05:18 -0400: Hi, [snip] Did you ever think about all the people who make a living in the energy business? All of todays energy workers: the coal miners, oil workers, gas station attendants, gas drillers, pipeline workers, sycophant government workers on and on will be out of a job. The LENR energy industry will support hundreds of energy jobs rather than millions. Big disruptions are ahead. Since so many people will be available to do the work that does exist, we will all be able to enjoy the same standard of living while only working a 10 hour work week. :) Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: [Vo]:Migrant Workers in China Face Competition from Robots
LENR will not kill jobs by itself, and robots will be even more needed for more expensive energy sources like wind turbines... that is not specific to LENR. The more expensive it is, the more the automation is needed. as any productivity increase it will challenge the social organization, whether the gain will be mostly to the rich, to workers consumption, or worker free time... LENR mean only that unlike scarse and concentrated mineral ressources, it won't be lasy cash for some, incentive for corruption and dictatorship, but rather hard competition, wid distribution, power to the workers . that is not far from car revolution. to summarize if you divide the cost of energy by 10, and this imply reduction needed work per product by 2, then you will have the choice between : multiplying wages by 2 and dividing employment by 2, dividing wortime by 2, of multiplying shareholder profits by 2 and keeping unemployment and wages, or more probably a big mix with pressure of all sides, and ratio depending on culture... of course ther will be change in consumption making all more complex, because is rich and poor have more cash, and some more leisure time, the consumption will change, employment too, and wages equilibrium too... globally what history say, either in country focusing on leisure time, or in country focusing on consumption,redistributing or not, welfare or jungle , it is that it is GOOD. the only reason why we moan about progress is that we are already developed, and our unemployment and poverty problem is only a problem of social organization, international re-balancing and lack of recent productivity gain. 2012/7/18 Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com LENR will kill jobs by the millions. The LENR production factory will be completely automated. Only robots will populate these places. The sales of products will be done on Amazon.com. The distribution of product will be highly if not completely automated. If there is a thousand people employed in production, sales and distribution of the E-Cats I will be surprised. Maintenance of the solid state E-Cat will fair no better at creating jobs. This work can be completely automated over the internet with 24/7 monitoring and internet triggered auto reloading every six months. Did you ever think about all the people who make a living in the energy business? All of today’s energy workers: the coal miners, oil workers, gas station attendants, gas drillers, pipeline workers, sycophant government workers…on and on… will be out of a job. The LENR energy industry will support hundreds of energy jobs rather than millions. Big disruptions are ahead. Maybe government leaders don’t want to deal with this new revolution right now. They will put LENR into military systems but that is as far as it will go. Cheers: Axil On Tue, Jul 17, 2012 at 11:00 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: Robots and LENR could take down China… It doesn’t really matter where those robots are deployed; robots cost the same to install and run because they cost the same no matter where the factory is located especially when the power that drives them is almost free. Cheap labor is no longer a factor in competitive advantage. *Competitive advantage* is defined as the strategic advantage one business entity has over its rival entities within its competitive industry. Achieving competitive advantage strengthens and positions a business better within the business environment. Cheers: Axil
Re: [Vo]:Migrant Workers in China Face Competition from Robots
LENR will make jobs mostly uneeded. That's simple. You can have a closed structure to make crops and get you food for free. If you want any luxury, just some freelance will make the required money.
Re: [Vo]:Migrant Workers in China Face Competition from Robots
Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: LENR will kill jobs by the millions. The LENR production factory will be completely automated. Only robots will populate these places. True. The sales of products will be done on Amazon.com. I doubt that. I think most cold fusion devices will be built into other products, such as automobiles. Others will be distributed by HVAC installers and electricians. Decades later, when the technology is miniaturized, I predict it will be built into things like laptop computers, washing machines or toasters. I do not think there will be a large market for stand-alone cold fusion devices in the first world. Perhaps in the third world heaters and generators may sell, but in the first world you need to tie a generator into the house wiring, so you need an electrician. In my book, chapter 20, I look at total U.S. employment in the energy sector. It is not as big as you might think. It is mostly people in gas stations. As I point out, many of them are likely to go to other retail employment because gas stations function as convenience stores, which we will still need. There are roughly 250,000 people directly employed in oil extraction and coal mining. There are many others these days employed in the wind and solar energy business. They will all lose their jobs within a few years after cold fusion commercialization begins. The B.L.S. quotes the industry group AWEA saying there are 85,000 people employed in wind power: http://www.bls.gov/green/wind_energy/ This is an interesting essay. I estimate we will need at most few thousand people in the factories that make cold fusion devices, but for the first few decades we will need an army of researchers to develop the technology and rapidly improve it. Possibly 50,000 to 100,000 highly paid people. Billions of dollars. Semiconductor RD and fabrication plant construction runs around $50 billion a year worldwide. That is a lot of high-paid employment. Cold fusion will require similar levels of RD starting now, continuing for as long as we use cold fusion as a source of energy. Whether that is hundreds of years or thousands of years, I am sure there will still be plenty of research needed as far into the future as imagination can reach. After all, combustion and other conventional sources still demand billion-dollar levels of RD. They will until we shut down the last combustion generator and internal combustion engine. Alain Sepeda alain.sep...@gmail.com wrote: LENR will not kill jobs by itself, and robots will be even more needed for more expensive energy sources like wind turbines... that is not specific to LENR. There will be no market for wind turbines once cold fusion is developed. It will immediately bankrupt all alternatives sources such as wind and solar. Following that it will bankrupt conventional sources such as coal and oil, and finally hydroelectric (the cheapest present source). The more expensive it is, the more the automation is needed. Cold fusion will be orders of magnitude cheaper than any other source of energy. However, it can only be manufactured by high tech, robotic production lines. It resembles a Ni-Cad battery or a solar PV cell in that respect. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Migrant Workers in China Face Competition from Robots
Ah! It's soapbox time! Let me step on top of mine! I suspect that if the prospects of robotics and LENR, or one of the LENR cousins, pans out in the near future the concept of what money represents to individuals, companies, and government circles will also have to evolve with the times. Perhaps dramatically so. For thousands of years, as the concept of money and currency evolved in our world it has all too often been used (I'd say abused) in efforts to amass wealth along with the vestiges of power that go along with it by small elite groups of individuals who are more adept than the average person at amassing such artifacts. IMHO, the single most egregious problem money has created in our society is the fact that people attribute wealth and power to pieces of coins or paper currency. Because they perceive wealth and power as linked to pieces of coins and paper currency they have done a very good job of keeping these commodities scarce, artificially so, which in turn keeps such artifacts constantly in high demand. (Think of the monopoly De Beers has artificially created over the diamond trade.) I think most of us have gotten the concept of money turned half-assed backwards. Too many of us forget the fact that money in truth only represents potential wealth power. We forget is the fact that money is only worth something when it is actively being used in transactions between interested parties in order to purchase and/or exchange artifacts of wealth power among interested parties. When money is not actively being used in such a manner, when money is sitting around in a person's wallet, it has absolutely no value in itself. Granted, few of this belief that... considering the number of individuals that can a make a living as self-employed pickpockets in the world, but that is the truth. If something as disruptive as LENR were suddenly to come along and cause many of societies' products and services such as energy, food, the basic products associated with survival and a means to a decent living to become ubiquitous it will wreak havoc with a small group of individuals who have made a very good living at controlling the supply of coins and paper currency that historically had always been used to control the scarcity of these articles. Their services will no longer be needed. IMHO, LENR will not only be responsible for a huge paradigm shift in the redistribution of energy, it will also be largely responsible for the redistribution of political power back into the hands of individuals and their respective local communities. My virtual 2 cents. Regards Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]:Migrant Workers in China Face Competition from Robots
These plutocrats will strongly resist their fall from power; maintaining their position is their agenda. And how can economics functions without money? I will all be interesting to watch. Cheers: Axil On Wed, Jul 18, 2012 at 10:16 AM, OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson svj.orionwo...@gmail.com wrote: Ah! It's soapbox time! Let me step on top of mine! I suspect that if the prospects of robotics and LENR, or one of the LENR cousins, pans out in the near future the concept of what money represents to individuals, companies, and government circles will also have to evolve with the times. Perhaps dramatically so. For thousands of years, as the concept of money and currency evolved in our world it has all too often been used (I'd say abused) in efforts to amass wealth along with the vestiges of power that go along with it by small elite groups of individuals who are more adept than the average person at amassing such artifacts. IMHO, the single most egregious problem money has created in our society is the fact that people attribute wealth and power to pieces of coins or paper currency. Because they perceive wealth and power as linked to pieces of coins and paper currency they have done a very good job of keeping these commodities scarce, artificially so, which in turn keeps such artifacts constantly in high demand. (Think of the monopoly De Beers has artificially created over the diamond trade.) I think most of us have gotten the concept of money turned half-assed backwards. Too many of us forget the fact that money in truth only represents potential wealth power. We forget is the fact that money is only worth something when it is actively being used in transactions between interested parties in order to purchase and/or exchange artifacts of wealth power among interested parties. When money is not actively being used in such a manner, when money is sitting around in a person's wallet, it has absolutely no value in itself. Granted, few of this belief that... considering the number of individuals that can a make a living as self-employed pickpockets in the world, but that is the truth. If something as disruptive as LENR were suddenly to come along and cause many of societies' products and services such as energy, food, the basic products associated with survival and a means to a decent living to become ubiquitous it will wreak havoc with a small group of individuals who have made a very good living at controlling the supply of coins and paper currency that historically had always been used to control the scarcity of these articles. Their services will no longer be needed. IMHO, LENR will not only be responsible for a huge paradigm shift in the redistribution of energy, it will also be largely responsible for the redistribution of political power back into the hands of individuals and their respective local communities. My virtual 2 cents. Regards Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]:Migrant Workers in China Face Competition from Robots
just to guive data I've made some quick computation http://www.lenrforum.eu/viewtopic.php?f=3t=27p=1139#p1139 since energy is $5-7Tn and GDP is $70Tn, the potential saving on energy is around 10%, that you can interpret as productivity increase. The replacement of world energy source is estimated around 15% of GDP, that can easily be self-financed by the saving. Energy is not free, but few maintenance, ridiculous matter, and some investment. It will be important shock, but not so huge. at most 10% of course you can expect that the technology will become even cheaper, but even if LENR get to zero, the turbines, cooling and alike will stay as expensive (and I have under estimated their cost). Some gain might came from the side-effect of LENR, like fewer pollution, longer autonomy, sociological consequence of easier access to food, water, health, heat... maybe is it there the biggest potential of productivity gain. Now I'm less enthusiast, yet it will very good, energy does not seems to be so important... 10% only. maybe I miss the point? 2012/7/18 OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson svj.orionwo...@gmail.com Ah! It's soapbox time! Let me step on top of mine! I suspect that if the prospects of robotics and LENR, or one of the LENR cousins, pans out in the near future the concept of what money represents to individuals, companies, and government circles will also have to evolve with the times. Perhaps dramatically so. For thousands of years, as the concept of money and currency evolved in our world it has all too often been used (I'd say abused) in efforts to amass wealth along with the vestiges of power that go along with it by small elite groups of individuals who are more adept than the average person at amassing such artifacts. IMHO, the single most egregious problem money has created in our society is the fact that people attribute wealth and power to pieces of coins or paper currency. Because they perceive wealth and power as linked to pieces of coins and paper currency they have done a very good job of keeping these commodities scarce, artificially so, which in turn keeps such artifacts constantly in high demand. (Think of the monopoly De Beers has artificially created over the diamond trade.) I think most of us have gotten the concept of money turned half-assed backwards. Too many of us forget the fact that money in truth only represents potential wealth power. We forget is the fact that money is only worth something when it is actively being used in transactions between interested parties in order to purchase and/or exchange artifacts of wealth power among interested parties. When money is not actively being used in such a manner, when money is sitting around in a person's wallet, it has absolutely no value in itself. Granted, few of this belief that... considering the number of individuals that can a make a living as self-employed pickpockets in the world, but that is the truth. If something as disruptive as LENR were suddenly to come along and cause many of societies' products and services such as energy, food, the basic products associated with survival and a means to a decent living to become ubiquitous it will wreak havoc with a small group of individuals who have made a very good living at controlling the supply of coins and paper currency that historically had always been used to control the scarcity of these articles. Their services will no longer be needed. IMHO, LENR will not only be responsible for a huge paradigm shift in the redistribution of energy, it will also be largely responsible for the redistribution of political power back into the hands of individuals and their respective local communities. My virtual 2 cents. Regards Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]:Migrant Workers in China Face Competition from Robots
Alain Sepeda alain.sep...@gmail.com wrote: It will be important shock, but not so huge. at most 10% of course you can expect that the technology will become even cheaper, but even if LENR get to zero, the turbines, cooling and alike will stay as expensive (and I have under estimated their cost). I suggest you read my book, chapters 14 and 15 especially. I show why cold fusion will probably reduce electric power costs by two-thirds quickly, and why eventually it will reduce all energy costs -- including equipment costs -- by orders of magnitude. To summarize: when one component in a system falls in price, the other components also soon become cheaper. Cheap microcomputers spurred the development of cheap hard disks and printers. I may be wrong about that, but I consulted with experts and thought about it carefully. I did not reach that conclusion in week or two. More like several years after reading lots of books. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Migrant Workers in China Face Competition from Robots
I do not think this message went through . . . Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com mailto:janap...@gmail.com wrote: LENR will kill jobs by the millions. The LENR production factory will be completely automated. Only robots will populate these places. True. The sales of products will be done on Amazon.com. I doubt that. I think most cold fusion devices will be built into other products, such as automobiles. Others will be distributed by HVAC installers and electricians. Decades later, when the technology is miniaturized, I predict it will be built into things like laptop computers, washing machines or toasters. I do not think there will be a large market for stand-alone cold fusion devices in the first world. Perhaps in the third world heaters and generators may sell, but in the first world you need to tie a generator into the house wiring, so you need an electrician. In my book, chapter 20, I look at total U.S. employment in the energy sector. It is not as big as you might think. It is mostly people in gas stations. As I point out, many of them are likely to go to other retail employment because gas stations function as convenience stores, which we will still need. There are roughly 250,000 people directly employed in oil extraction and coal mining. There are many others these days employed in the wind and solar energy business. They will all lose their jobs within a few years after cold fusion commercialization begins. The B.L.S. quotes the industry group AWEA saying there are 85,000 people employed in wind power: http://www.bls.gov/green/wind_energy/ This is an interesting essay. I estimate we will need at most few thousand people in the factories that make cold fusion devices, but for the first few decades we will need an army of researchers to develop the technology and rapidly improve it. Possibly 50,000 to 100,000 highly paid people. Billions of dollars. Semiconductor RD and fabrication plant construction runs around $50 billion a year worldwide. That is a lot of high-paid employment. Cold fusion will require similar levels of RD starting now, continuing for as long as we use cold fusion as a source of energy. Whether that is hundreds of years or thousands of years, I am sure there will still be plenty of research needed as far into the future as imagination can reach. After all, combustion and other conventional sources still demand billion-dollar levels of RD. They will until we shut down the last combustion generator and internal combustion engine. Alain Sepeda alain.sep...@gmail.com mailto:alain.sep...@gmail.com wrote: LENR will not kill jobs by itself, and robots will be even more needed for more expensive energy sources like wind turbines... that is not specific to LENR. There will be no market for wind turbines once cold fusion is developed. It will immediately bankrupt all alternatives sources such as wind and solar. Following that it will bankrupt conventional sources such as coal and oil, and finally hydroelectric (the cheapest present source). The more expensive it is, the more the automation is needed. Cold fusion will be orders of magnitude cheaper than any other source of energy. However, it can only be manufactured by high tech, robotic production lines. It resembles a Ni-Cad battery or a solar PV cell in that respect. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Migrant Workers in China Face Competition from Robots
LENR will create lots of new products and create industries where there are none today. Money is just a vehicle for goods and services to change hands and as long as capitalism remains that won't change. Just cooling off the oceans and removing CO2 from the atmosphere will be one new industry... Retooling all of industry with LENR heaters and Boilers will create an unbelievable amount of work for the next 20+ years On Wed, Jul 18, 2012 at 10:48 AM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: These plutocrats will strongly resist their fall from power; maintaining their position is their agenda. And how can economics functions without money? I will all be interesting to watch. Cheers: Axil On Wed, Jul 18, 2012 at 10:16 AM, OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson svj.orionwo...@gmail.com wrote: Ah! It's soapbox time! Let me step on top of mine! I suspect that if the prospects of robotics and LENR, or one of the LENR cousins, pans out in the near future the concept of what money represents to individuals, companies, and government circles will also have to evolve with the times. Perhaps dramatically so. For thousands of years, as the concept of money and currency evolved in our world it has all too often been used (I'd say abused) in efforts to amass wealth along with the vestiges of power that go along with it by small elite groups of individuals who are more adept than the average person at amassing such artifacts. IMHO, the single most egregious problem money has created in our society is the fact that people attribute wealth and power to pieces of coins or paper currency. Because they perceive wealth and power as linked to pieces of coins and paper currency they have done a very good job of keeping these commodities scarce, artificially so, which in turn keeps such artifacts constantly in high demand. (Think of the monopoly De Beers has artificially created over the diamond trade.) I think most of us have gotten the concept of money turned half-assed backwards. Too many of us forget the fact that money in truth only represents potential wealth power. We forget is the fact that money is only worth something when it is actively being used in transactions between interested parties in order to purchase and/or exchange artifacts of wealth power among interested parties. When money is not actively being used in such a manner, when money is sitting around in a person's wallet, it has absolutely no value in itself. Granted, few of this belief that... considering the number of individuals that can a make a living as self-employed pickpockets in the world, but that is the truth. If something as disruptive as LENR were suddenly to come along and cause many of societies' products and services such as energy, food, the basic products associated with survival and a means to a decent living to become ubiquitous it will wreak havoc with a small group of individuals who have made a very good living at controlling the supply of coins and paper currency that historically had always been used to control the scarcity of these articles. Their services will no longer be needed. IMHO, LENR will not only be responsible for a huge paradigm shift in the redistribution of energy, it will also be largely responsible for the redistribution of political power back into the hands of individuals and their respective local communities. My virtual 2 cents. Regards Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
RE: [Vo]:Migrant Workers in China Face Competition from Robots
Alain wrote: since energy is $5-7Tn and GDP is $70Tn, the potential saving on energy is around 10% maybe I miss the point? Did you consider the following??? Energy is to economies as physics is to science. it is FUNDAMENTAL, and everything is built on top of it. A significant change to a fundamental will propagate to anything built using that fundamental. *If* LENR is able to deliver very cheap energy, then the cost of ALL PRODUCTS AND SERVICES will also go down. manufacturing requires ENERGY, moving those manufactured products to the end consumer (i.e., transportation) requires ENERGY (gas/diesel). If competition is allowed to take its course, the cost of nearly everything will come down. But the ramifications of this are much more complex, and the reality of how this would affect different aspects of life are hard to predict. my attitude at this point is that much disruption will happen in the short term, but long term the average person will be much better off. we are the most adaptable species on the planet, and we will adapt; economies will adapt; financial markets will adapt. -Mark From: alain.coetm...@gmail.com [mailto:alain.coetm...@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Alain Sepeda Sent: Wednesday, July 18, 2012 8:02 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:Migrant Workers in China Face Competition from Robots just to guive data I've made some quick computation http://www.lenrforum.eu/viewtopic.php?f=3 http://www.lenrforum.eu/viewtopic.php?f=3t=27p=1139#p1139 t=27p=1139#p1139 since energy is $5-7Tn and GDP is $70Tn, the potential saving on energy is around 10%, that you can interpret as productivity increase. The replacement of world energy source is estimated around 15% of GDP, that can easily be self-financed by the saving. Energy is not free, but few maintenance, ridiculous matter, and some investment. It will be important shock, but not so huge. at most 10% of course you can expect that the technology will become even cheaper, but even if LENR get to zero, the turbines, cooling and alike will stay as expensive (and I have under estimated their cost). Some gain might came from the side-effect of LENR, like fewer pollution, longer autonomy, sociological consequence of easier access to food, water, health, heat... maybe is it there the biggest potential of productivity gain. Now I'm less enthusiast, yet it will very good, energy does not seems to be so important... 10% only. maybe I miss the point?
Re: [Vo]:Migrant Workers in China Face Competition from Robots
Long term deflation? Harry On Wed, Jul 18, 2012 at 12:23 PM, MarkI-ZeroPoint zeropo...@charter.net wrote: Alain wrote: “since energy is $5-7Tn and GDP is $70Tn, the potential saving on energy is around 10%” “maybe I miss the point?” Did you consider the following??? Energy is to economies as physics is to science… it is FUNDAMENTAL, and everything is built on top of it. A significant change to a fundamental will propagate to anything built using that fundamental. *If* LENR is able to deliver very cheap energy, then the cost of ALL PRODUCTS AND SERVICES will also go down… manufacturing requires ENERGY, moving those manufactured products to the end consumer (i.e., transportation) requires ENERGY (gas/diesel). If competition is allowed to take its course, the cost of nearly everything will come down. But the ramifications of this are much more complex, and the reality of how this would affect different aspects of life are hard to predict… my attitude at this point is that much disruption will happen in the short term, but long term the average person will be much better off… we are the most adaptable species on the planet, and we will adapt; economies will adapt; financial markets will adapt… -Mark From: alain.coetm...@gmail.com [mailto:alain.coetm...@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Alain Sepeda Sent: Wednesday, July 18, 2012 8:02 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:Migrant Workers in China Face Competition from Robots just to guive data I've made some quick computation http://www.lenrforum.eu/viewtopic.php?f=3t=27p=1139#p1139 since energy is $5-7Tn and GDP is $70Tn, the potential saving on energy is around 10%, that you can interpret as productivity increase. The replacement of world energy source is estimated around 15% of GDP, that can easily be self-financed by the saving. Energy is not free, but few maintenance, ridiculous matter, and some investment. It will be important shock, but not so huge. at most 10% of course you can expect that the technology will become even cheaper, but even if LENR get to zero, the turbines, cooling and alike will stay as expensive (and I have under estimated their cost). Some gain might came from the side-effect of LENR, like fewer pollution, longer autonomy, sociological consequence of easier access to food, water, health, heat... maybe is it there the biggest potential of productivity gain. Now I'm less enthusiast, yet it will very good, energy does not seems to be so important... 10% only. maybe I miss the point?
Re: [Vo]:Migrant Workers in China Face Competition from Robots
The flame of capitalism will be extinguished by sustained deflation. harry On Wed, Jul 18, 2012 at 12:56 PM, Harry Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com wrote: Long term deflation? Harry On Wed, Jul 18, 2012 at 12:23 PM, MarkI-ZeroPoint zeropo...@charter.net wrote: Alain wrote: “since energy is $5-7Tn and GDP is $70Tn, the potential saving on energy is around 10%” “maybe I miss the point?” Did you consider the following??? Energy is to economies as physics is to science… it is FUNDAMENTAL, and everything is built on top of it. A significant change to a fundamental will propagate to anything built using that fundamental. *If* LENR is able to deliver very cheap energy, then the cost of ALL PRODUCTS AND SERVICES will also go down… manufacturing requires ENERGY, moving those manufactured products to the end consumer (i.e., transportation) requires ENERGY (gas/diesel). If competition is allowed to take its course, the cost of nearly everything will come down. But the ramifications of this are much more complex, and the reality of how this would affect different aspects of life are hard to predict… my attitude at this point is that much disruption will happen in the short term, but long term the average person will be much better off… we are the most adaptable species on the planet, and we will adapt; economies will adapt; financial markets will adapt… -Mark From: alain.coetm...@gmail.com [mailto:alain.coetm...@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Alain Sepeda Sent: Wednesday, July 18, 2012 8:02 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:Migrant Workers in China Face Competition from Robots just to guive data I've made some quick computation http://www.lenrforum.eu/viewtopic.php?f=3t=27p=1139#p1139 since energy is $5-7Tn and GDP is $70Tn, the potential saving on energy is around 10%, that you can interpret as productivity increase. The replacement of world energy source is estimated around 15% of GDP, that can easily be self-financed by the saving. Energy is not free, but few maintenance, ridiculous matter, and some investment. It will be important shock, but not so huge. at most 10% of course you can expect that the technology will become even cheaper, but even if LENR get to zero, the turbines, cooling and alike will stay as expensive (and I have under estimated their cost). Some gain might came from the side-effect of LENR, like fewer pollution, longer autonomy, sociological consequence of easier access to food, water, health, heat... maybe is it there the biggest potential of productivity gain. Now I'm less enthusiast, yet it will very good, energy does not seems to be so important... 10% only. maybe I miss the point?
Re: [Vo]:Migrant Workers in China Face Competition from Robots
In order to keep the flame of capitalism burning the deflation will need to be counteracted with inflationary measures. Harry On Wed, Jul 18, 2012 at 1:04 PM, Harry Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com wrote: The flame of capitalism will be extinguished by sustained deflation. harry On Wed, Jul 18, 2012 at 12:56 PM, Harry Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com wrote: Long term deflation? Harry On Wed, Jul 18, 2012 at 12:23 PM, MarkI-ZeroPoint zeropo...@charter.net wrote: Alain wrote: “since energy is $5-7Tn and GDP is $70Tn, the potential saving on energy is around 10%” “maybe I miss the point?” Did you consider the following??? Energy is to economies as physics is to science… it is FUNDAMENTAL, and everything is built on top of it. A significant change to a fundamental will propagate to anything built using that fundamental. *If* LENR is able to deliver very cheap energy, then the cost of ALL PRODUCTS AND SERVICES will also go down… manufacturing requires ENERGY, moving those manufactured products to the end consumer (i.e., transportation) requires ENERGY (gas/diesel). If competition is allowed to take its course, the cost of nearly everything will come down. But the ramifications of this are much more complex, and the reality of how this would affect different aspects of life are hard to predict… my attitude at this point is that much disruption will happen in the short term, but long term the average person will be much better off… we are the most adaptable species on the planet, and we will adapt; economies will adapt; financial markets will adapt… -Mark From: alain.coetm...@gmail.com [mailto:alain.coetm...@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Alain Sepeda Sent: Wednesday, July 18, 2012 8:02 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:Migrant Workers in China Face Competition from Robots just to guive data I've made some quick computation http://www.lenrforum.eu/viewtopic.php?f=3t=27p=1139#p1139 since energy is $5-7Tn and GDP is $70Tn, the potential saving on energy is around 10%, that you can interpret as productivity increase. The replacement of world energy source is estimated around 15% of GDP, that can easily be self-financed by the saving. Energy is not free, but few maintenance, ridiculous matter, and some investment. It will be important shock, but not so huge. at most 10% of course you can expect that the technology will become even cheaper, but even if LENR get to zero, the turbines, cooling and alike will stay as expensive (and I have under estimated their cost). Some gain might came from the side-effect of LENR, like fewer pollution, longer autonomy, sociological consequence of easier access to food, water, health, heat... maybe is it there the biggest potential of productivity gain. Now I'm less enthusiast, yet it will very good, energy does not seems to be so important... 10% only. maybe I miss the point?
Re: [Vo]:Migrant Workers in China Face Competition from Robots
In order to keep the flame of capitalism burning the deflation will need to be counteracted with inflationary measures. Harry On Wed, Jul 18, 2012 at 1:04 PM, Harry Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com wrote: The flame of capitalism will be extinguished by sustained deflation. harry On Wed, Jul 18, 2012 at 12:56 PM, Harry Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com wrote: Long term deflation? Harry On Wed, Jul 18, 2012 at 12:23 PM, MarkI-ZeroPoint zeropo...@charter.net wrote: Alain wrote: “since energy is $5-7Tn and GDP is $70Tn, the potential saving on energy is around 10%” “maybe I miss the point?” Did you consider the following??? Energy is to economies as physics is to science… it is FUNDAMENTAL, and everything is built on top of it. A significant change to a fundamental will propagate to anything built using that fundamental. *If* LENR is able to deliver very cheap energy, then the cost of ALL PRODUCTS AND SERVICES will also go down… manufacturing requires ENERGY, moving those manufactured products to the end consumer (i.e., transportation) requires ENERGY (gas/diesel). If competition is allowed to take its course, the cost of nearly everything will come down. But the ramifications of this are much more complex, and the reality of how this would affect different aspects of life are hard to predict… my attitude at this point is that much disruption will happen in the short term, but long term the average person will be much better off… we are the most adaptable species on the planet, and we will adapt; economies will adapt; financial markets will adapt… -Mark From: alain.coetm...@gmail.com [mailto:alain.coetm...@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Alain Sepeda Sent: Wednesday, July 18, 2012 8:02 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:Migrant Workers in China Face Competition from Robots just to guive data I've made some quick computation http://www.lenrforum.eu/viewtopic.php?f=3t=27p=1139#p1139 since energy is $5-7Tn and GDP is $70Tn, the potential saving on energy is around 10%, that you can interpret as productivity increase. The replacement of world energy source is estimated around 15% of GDP, that can easily be self-financed by the saving. Energy is not free, but few maintenance, ridiculous matter, and some investment. It will be important shock, but not so huge. at most 10% of course you can expect that the technology will become even cheaper, but even if LENR get to zero, the turbines, cooling and alike will stay as expensive (and I have under estimated their cost). Some gain might came from the side-effect of LENR, like fewer pollution, longer autonomy, sociological consequence of easier access to food, water, health, heat... maybe is it there the biggest potential of productivity gain. Now I'm less enthusiast, yet it will very good, energy does not seems to be so important... 10% only. maybe I miss the point?
Re: [Vo]:Migrant Workers in China Face Competition from Robots
Deflation is a concept based on the money supply, as it chases goods and services. If the money supply is constant and the goods and services chased increase, prices deflate. If the money supply is constant and the goods and services decrease, prices inflate. If you change the money supply (which happens today) any alternative is possible, so even with increasing goods and services, inflation can happen if the money supply is increased enough. The real problem today with the money supply is the slow down in the velocity of money which in effect changes the supply, decreasing it. The risk adjusted return today (seen as very poor) is causing a significant reduction in the money supply and productivity. The important thing is productivity, how many goods and services can be produced with the same effort, cold fusion will take many of the limiters off productivity. Of course part of our problem today is the real lack of need of human effort which will simply become worse with cold fusion. Since we want to give money to people for their effort, when it isn't needed one has to wonder how we will allocate money to them (and thus their ability to participate in the allocation of the productivity). But by far the biggest impact today of cold fusion would be to change the concept of risk adjusted return. If you think things are going to improve, you are less risk averse, spend and invest more often and in effect increase the velocity of the money supply. This stimulates productivity throughout the economy decreases the possibility of a deflationary spiral and recession/depression. In any event, the current notion of austerity is nonsense and is tied to a tired and outdated concept that money is real or has some intrinsic real value which it doesn't. Austerity = Stupidity and I think every so often we as a society have to go through stretches of it before we remember that basic truth. Ransom - Original Message - From: Harry Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Wednesday, July 18, 2012 11:56 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Migrant Workers in China Face Competition from Robots Long term deflation? Harry On Wed, Jul 18, 2012 at 12:23 PM, MarkI-ZeroPoint zeropo...@charter.net wrote: Alain wrote: “since energy is $5-7Tn and GDP is $70Tn, the potential saving on energy is around 10%” “maybe I miss the point?” Did you consider the following??? Energy is to economies as physics is to science… it is FUNDAMENTAL, and everything is built on top of it. A significant change to a fundamental will propagate to anything built using that fundamental. *If* LENR is able to deliver very cheap energy, then the cost of ALL PRODUCTS AND SERVICES will also go down… manufacturing requires ENERGY, moving those manufactured products to the end consumer (i.e., transportation) requires ENERGY (gas/diesel). If competition is allowed to take its course, the cost of nearly everything will come down. But the ramifications of this are much more complex, and the reality of how this would affect different aspects of life are hard to predict… my attitude at this point is that much disruption will happen in the short term, but long term the average person will be much better off… we are the most adaptable species on the planet, and we will adapt; economies will adapt; financial markets will adapt… -Mark From: alain.coetm...@gmail.com [mailto:alain.coetm...@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Alain Sepeda Sent: Wednesday, July 18, 2012 8:02 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:Migrant Workers in China Face Competition from Robots just to guive data I've made some quick computation http://www.lenrforum.eu/viewtopic.php?f=3t=27p=1139#p1139 since energy is $5-7Tn and GDP is $70Tn, the potential saving on energy is around 10%, that you can interpret as productivity increase. The replacement of world energy source is estimated around 15% of GDP, that can easily be self-financed by the saving. Energy is not free, but few maintenance, ridiculous matter, and some investment. It will be important shock, but not so huge. at most 10% of course you can expect that the technology will become even cheaper, but even if LENR get to zero, the turbines, cooling and alike will stay as expensive (and I have under estimated their cost). Some gain might came from the side-effect of LENR, like fewer pollution, longer autonomy, sociological consequence of easier access to food, water, health, heat... maybe is it there the biggest potential of productivity gain. Now I'm less enthusiast, yet it will very good, energy does not seems to be so important... 10% only. maybe I miss the point?
Re: [Vo]:Migrant Workers in China Face Competition from Robots
I hope so, and I feel that today energy cost is felt as a master parameter. It is just that it seems that it is only 10% of the produced good value... It is just a confilt between what my eyes see, and what the consensus seems to be... In that domain my intuition is not good enough to have a safe opinion... anyway it will make a shock of productivity, and as many say here, will create new organization, goods, services, that maybe will have more impact. One of them is simply food, water, education, ... 2012/7/18 Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com Alain Sepeda alain.sep...@gmail.com wrote: It will be important shock, but not so huge. at most 10% of course you can expect that the technology will become even cheaper, but even if LENR get to zero, the turbines, cooling and alike will stay as expensive (and I have under estimated their cost). I suggest you read my book, chapters 14 and 15 especially. I show why cold fusion will probably reduce electric power costs by two-thirds quickly, and why eventually it will reduce all energy costs -- including equipment costs -- by orders of magnitude. To summarize: when one component in a system falls in price, the other components also soon become cheaper. Cheap microcomputers spurred the development of cheap hard disks and printers. I may be wrong about that, but I consulted with experts and thought about it carefully. I did not reach that conclusion in week or two. More like several years after reading lots of books. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Migrant Workers in China Face Competition from Robots
Much of our quality of life in the developed world has been enchanced tremendously due to fossil fuel usage: Fossil fuels, such as coal, natural gas, and oil, were not used as a source of energy until the latter half of the 19th century. Prior to that, wind and water power were used for industrial mills. As the industrial revolution progressed, steam engines were used to drive boats and factories, making the use of coal necessary. Widespread use of electricity for lighting was not needed until the transmission of electricity and the light bulb were made practical late in the 19th century. Coal power was the main form used by these early plants. Oil was used to power steam engines, but it wasn't until the 20th century and the invention of the internal combustion engine that its demand soared. After the 1950s, oil became the world's foremost fuel. The automobile and power plants in the United States created an enormous need for petroleum fuel. This demand has only increased to the present day. LENR will drive energy costs to a minimum and further increase the quality of life for all humans. Sure, lots of change in industry, governments and tax structures to support governments, etc. but humans thrive on change and development. Look where we have gone with the silicon-based microprocessor in the past 40 years. All culminating inFacebook? On Wed, Jul 18, 2012 at 2:22 PM, Alain Sepeda alain.sep...@gmail.comwrote: I hope so, and I feel that today energy cost is felt as a master parameter. It is just that it seems that it is only 10% of the produced good value... It is just a confilt between what my eyes see, and what the consensus seems to be... In that domain my intuition is not good enough to have a safe opinion... anyway it will make a shock of productivity, and as many say here, will create new organization, goods, services, that maybe will have more impact. One of them is simply food, water, education, ... 2012/7/18 Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com Alain Sepeda alain.sep...@gmail.com wrote: It will be important shock, but not so huge. at most 10% of course you can expect that the technology will become even cheaper, but even if LENR get to zero, the turbines, cooling and alike will stay as expensive (and I have under estimated their cost). I suggest you read my book, chapters 14 and 15 especially. I show why cold fusion will probably reduce electric power costs by two-thirds quickly, and why eventually it will reduce all energy costs -- including equipment costs -- by orders of magnitude. To summarize: when one component in a system falls in price, the other components also soon become cheaper. Cheap microcomputers spurred the development of cheap hard disks and printers. I may be wrong about that, but I consulted with experts and thought about it carefully. I did not reach that conclusion in week or two. More like several years after reading lots of books. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Migrant Workers in China Face Competition from Robots
In any event, the current notion of austerity is nonsense and is tied to a tired and outdated concept that money is real or has some intrinsic real value which it doesn't. Austerity = Stupidity and I think every so often we as a society have to go through stretches of it before we remember that basic truth. I agree. This concept called velocity, I seem to recall that it was described as the multiplier effect, this from the macroeconomic course I took back in college. soap box Eventually we'll need to vote out those in power who continue to follow a quaint ideology that believes in maintaining the value of currency as a fixed resource is the only way to run an economy. I think this is a patently absurd concept to maintain in today's increasingly automated high-tech world. In fact we don't maintain fixed amounts of money in today modern economy anyway. Money supply is constantly being manipulated. Any belief that we always have a fixed sum of money flowing through the economy is an incredibly inaccurate one. We currently have in the United States several vocal super conservative political groups vying for absolute power. They are trying to put the kibosh on all sorts of government spending programs. Many have bought into a carefully manufactured fear that basically states: We as a society can no longer afford to pay for all sorts of valuable government services. They fear that to continue to fund these programs will eventually result in rampant inflation which of course will devalue the accumulate wealth everyone's pocket book both rich and poor, but ESPECIALLY the accumulated wealth in the rich man's pocket book. It is exactly on this front where the struggle for the control of money supply needs to be better understood and better managed. Many conservatives fear that if the government simply went ahead and printed up more money instead of issuing additional government bonds that will pay for such services, such fiscal irresponsibility will eventually result in massive amounts of inflation that would ravage the economy. However, what few Grok is the fact that experiencing the ravages of inflation is exactly equivalent to experiencing the ravages of taxation. The point being: you can either be taxed in hopefully a reasonably equitable many - or we can all experience the ravages of inflation which is essentially being levied a flat-tax against everyone both rich and por. Either way, we all end up paying for necessary valuable government services. OTOH, if we refuse to pay for these programs, which is the mantra of many super conservative organizations, we will essentially throw off massive numbers of people back into the unemployment line making them unproductive and an added burden to society. More of society begins to lose access to necessary services whether those services are for adequate health care, or to maintaining the health of our nation's infrastructure, such as roads and bridges. Unfortunately, it seems to me that we currently have a number of conservative groups who are not willing to look any farther than the notion of protecting the accumulated value of their own bank accounts. They have bought into the illusion that maintaining a constant fixed value for money is the most important resource to manage in their lives. They have bought into the illusion that managing the resource of money (as perceive in the form of a fixed limited resource) is far more important than trying to help better manage any other resource. A real irony in all of this is the fact that the manufacture of goods and services is ultimately what's responsible for giving VALUE to what has been accumulated in all of private bank accounts both rich and poor. /soap box Regards Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]:Migrant Workers in China Face Competition from Robots
Randy Wuller rwul...@freeark.com wrote: In any event, the current notion of austerity is nonsense and is tied to a tired and outdated concept that money is real or has some intrinsic real value which it doesn't. Austerity = Stupidity . . . I know little about economics, but I agree. It seems to me that money is a counter, like a poker chip, and you should make as much as you need, except when that causes excessive inflation. In general I am suspicious of any social or economic policy that it grounded in the notion that people are not suffering enough, or that we need more misery to improve the situation. I have read a lot of history and looked carefully at the world. I have met many people in different walks of life, in different countries. I have never noted that ordinary people seem too well off, too healthy, well educated or too happy for their own good. Most people struggle to live a decent life with what I consider few luxuries. I do not see how it could help to make life even more restricted and less secure for ordinary people. I also deplore the attitude that wealth is bad for you -- or bad for other people, is how it usually goes. As I said in the book: I despise the notion that poverty is ennobling, or that people want material things because they are greedy or decadent. Everyone on earth who wants a car should have a car. Or a dozen cars, a home movie theater, and a Jacuzzi. Cars are made of iron, and we have unlimited amounts of iron in the solar system. Paul Krugman is probably the most prominent economist who says that austerity is a bad idea, and we should go with the Keynes approach. I will grant that many conservative economists disagree, and I am not a bit qualified to judge, but Krugman's book The Return of Depression Economics sounds right to me. We need to increase demand. The book concludes with some eloquent paragraphs: . . . The quintessential economic sentence is supposed to be 'There is no free lunch'; it says that there are limited resources, that to have more of one thing you must accept less of another, that there is no gain without pain. Depression economics, however, is the study of situations where there is a free lunch, if we can only figure out how to get our hands on it, because there are unemployed resources that could be put to work. The true scarcity in Keynes’s world—and ours—was therefore not of resources, or even of virtue, but of understanding. We will not achieve the understanding we need, however, unless we are willing to think clearly about our problems and to follow those thoughts wherever they lead. Some people say that our economic problems are structural, with no quick cure available; but I believe that the only structural obstacles to world prosperity are the obsolete doctrines that clutter the minds of men. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Migrant Workers in China Face Competition from Robots
LENR will kill jobs by the millions. The LENR production factory will be completely automated. Only robots will populate these places. The sales of products will be done on Amazon.com. The distribution of product will be highly if not completely automated. If there is a thousand people employed in production, sales and distribution of the E-Cats I will be surprised. Maintenance of the solid state E-Cat will fair no better at creating jobs. This work can be completely automated over the internet with 24/7 monitoring and internet triggered auto reloading every six months. Did you ever think about all the people who make a living in the energy business? All of today’s energy workers: the coal miners, oil workers, gas station attendants, gas drillers, pipeline workers, sycophant government workers…on and on… will be out of a job. The LENR energy industry will support hundreds of energy jobs rather than millions. Big disruptions are ahead. Maybe government leaders don’t want to deal with this new revolution right now. They will put LENR into military systems but that is as far as it will go. Cheers: Axil On Tue, Jul 17, 2012 at 11:00 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: Robots and LENR could take down China… It doesn’t really matter where those robots are deployed; robots cost the same to install and run because they cost the same no matter where the factory is located especially when the power that drives them is almost free. Cheap labor is no longer a factor in competitive advantage. *Competitive advantage* is defined as the strategic advantage one business entity has over its rival entities within its competitive industry. Achieving competitive advantage strengthens and positions a business better within the business environment. Cheers: Axil
