Re: [Vo]:NEDO RFP for cold fusion projects
CB Sites cbsit...@gmail.com wrote: Hii All. Based on pdf and from that question Jed translated, (ie the translation sighted by Jed), it's no worst than an NSF proposal, or NIH proposal. Yes, it seems reasonable. The problem is that all remaining cold fusion researchers in Japan are retired professors without academic affiliations so they would be excluded. Plus they do not have the secretarial help they would need to fill in something like this. If this had come 10 or 20 years ago there would have been applicants. It is too late. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:NEDO RFP for cold fusion projects
Hii All. Based on pdf and from that question Jed translated, (ie the translation sighted by Jed), it's no worst than an NSF proposal, or NIH proposal. The grant writing processes make you jump through hoops, and from that one translation, it doesn't sound out of line with a grant application. It could be stacked deck against CF, but then again, maybe not. Grant writing is so tricky to do but so rewarding if you get one. Also, just the process of writing the grant can make the project focus on the science and theory behind the science that it clarifies the experiments and the purpose of the funding. So this NEDO RFP may not be a bad thing at all. On Thu, Jul 30, 2015 at 4:50 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: I think Mizuno meant that is no one left in Japan who is capable of applying for this grant, or interested in applying for it. The document (http://www.nedo.go.jp/content/100754489.pdf) is entirely in Japanese, but if you look at the pages below 15, you will see the application form. You will recognize the bureaucratic format and get a sense of what the government demands. Name of institution, name of researcher, RD area, theme, schedule, etc., etc. Here is item 2.3 run through Google translate and adjusted by me: Implementation Structure * For implementation system when we contract for this research and development project, please provide the implementation system diagrams so that the role of each institution is shown. Please include any subcontractors, when there is a joint implementation plan. Blah, blah . . . A retired professor trying to submit something like this would be rejected out of hand. I can't blame NEDO. This is tax money. The government must have accountability. But it just isn't going to happen with these kinds of rules. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:NEDO RFP for cold fusion projects
Let me point out that Fleischmann and Pons both worked at government-owned, government-run institutions for their entire careers, as did Mizuno, Srinivasan, Storms, Miles and many others. Most cold fusion research has been paid for by governments and conducted by government employees. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:NEDO RFP for cold fusion projects
Lennart Thornros lenn...@thornros.com wrote: Once again - nothing wrong with people in large organizations. I am saying they could be more effective if broken down and organized for rapid changes (read adapt to the reality we live in). You are saying people could be more effective, in your opinion. I am pointing out that in actual historical fact, in the case of cold fusion, they were not more effective. Fleischmann, Pons, Srinivasan and the others were all part of large groups in established institutions. They made contributions to cold fusion. Very few people in small institutions, and few individuals working on their own have made contributions to cold fusion. Leslie Case and Andrea Rossi are the only examples that come to mind. People such as Ed Storms and Tom Claytor have made contributions working at home, but they are drawing upon expertise they developed at Los Alamos, and in some cases they are still using instruments at Los Alamos. You are describing a counter-factual version of history. You are saying that perhaps in parallel universe, cold fusion would have worked better if it had been developed by small groups. Perhaps you are right but there is no way to prove it. There may be other discoveries and inventions which works better pursued by individuals or by small groups. Offhand, other than the airplane, I cannot think of many fundamental breakthroughs in the last 200 years that did not originate in large institutions. Fundamental breakthrough such as the incandescent light were made by individuals such as Edison and Tesla. They had lots of institutional support and lots of Wall Street capital. After 1906 the Wright brothers also had mainstream Wall Street support, without which they would have failed, in my opinion. People such as Mizuno were part of mainstream institutions but they encountered a great deal of opposition from other people in those institutions. I am not suggesting that all large institutions have welcomed this research. Pam Boss and others have had to fight decision-makers in the Navy all along. Many minor incremental technological breakthrough such as the software from Microsoft were done by small groups of individuals -- Bill Gates in that case. Compared to the fundamental RD in computers and in software conducted by the government before 1975, the contributions made by Gates are trivial. He repackaged work that was already done in mainstream institutions and mostly paid for by Uncle Sam. You could make the case that the billions of dollars he earned should have gone to the taxpayers who paid for 99% of the work before he started. You could say the same for most of the money made in Internet ventures. These people are building minor improvements to an infrastructure paid for by the taxpayers. They just happen to the first to come up with an implementation. For example, the first product made by Gates was Microsoft BASIC. BASIC was invented by Kemeny and Kurtz at Dartmouth College in 1964. Gates did an excellent job migrating it to microprocessors, but there were thousands of good programmers who might have done that. He just happened to be the first. Dartmouth is a private university but it is very much part of the establishment and a great deal of the money spent there comes from the federal government. That was already true in 1964. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:NEDO RFP for cold fusion projects
Hello Jed, Once again - nothing wrong with people in large organizations. I am saying they could be more effective if broken down and organized for rapid changes (read adapt to the reality we live in). I have no problem that many devoted and successful people have government affiliation. On the contrary they have had no other venue. It is not like people in government cannot achieve anything. If we let government manage everything (we are getting closer so . . .) then we could say that government has provided it all. Best Regards , Lennart Thornros www.StrategicLeadershipSac.com lenn...@thornros.com +1 916 436 1899 202 Granite Park Court, Lincoln CA 95648 “Productivity is never an accident. It is always the result of a commitment to excellence, intelligent planning, and focused effort.” PJM On Fri, Jul 31, 2015 at 9:35 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Let me point out that Fleischmann and Pons both worked at government-owned, government-run institutions for their entire careers, as did Mizuno, Srinivasan, Storms, Miles and many others. Most cold fusion research has been paid for by governments and conducted by government employees. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:NEDO RFP for cold fusion projects
The point I am getting at here is that the early stages of basic research into things like cold fusion are seldom profitable. Corporations seldom do basic research for this reason. There was a time when ATT supported a lot of fundamental research at Bell Labs, and IBM used to do a lot of fundamental research, but this seldom paid off. Of course the transistor was a huge exception, and I am sure you can think of others. However, most devices such as the laser were not profitable at first. There is little chance that anyone will make a profit from cold fusion research as it is now conducted. One of the reasons is that a force of nature cannot be patented. So corporations are pretty much ruled out. They cannot do cold fusion research even if they want to, because it will not lead to immediate profits. Also because the stockholders and Wall Street speculators would be outraged to learn that a corporation is doing cold fusion. Private individuals are also ruled out. There is little chance that you can contribute unless you happen to be a multimillionaire. You will not have the money to conduct useful experiments in something like cold fusion. It requires expensive instruments and safe lab space. That leaves only government labs, national labs, and university labs, which do not have to show a profit. Their main goals, in descending order, are: 1. To get U.S. government research funding. 2. To contribute to weapons development. 3. To establish scientific priority. 4. To discover new scientific knowledge. Goals 1 and 2 far outweigh the others. If anything such as cold fusion threatens #1 it will be ruthlessly suppressed, even if it would contribute to new scientific knowledge. You cannot blame people for making research funding the number one priority. They have to make a living after all. Most scientists do not have lavish lifestyles. Fortunately (I guess it is fortunate), cold fusion has numerous weapons-related potential applications, so it has been kept on life-support by organizations such as DARPA. You must understand that DARPA's fundamental purpose is to find better ways to blow people up. That is the purpose of most of the RD money spent by the U.S. government. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:NEDO RFP for cold fusion projects
Hello Vincent, I could not agree more. Large and aged private enterprises suffer from the same decease. There is no way that a CEO or department head can make a culture penetrate the organization of age and size. The hope is that even large organizations are allowed to fail. Not like many financial organizations and GM to take examples when the 'buddies' in government with unlimited funds (read our money) saved the behind of top management that should have had to leave. I hope I do not come across as not being civil. I agree that one has to live with the beast we designed. That does not mean that I think it is all well. On the contrary. It wont make dramatic improvements in my life time. However, it has to start somewhere. To develop new technology , i.e. LENR, the right conditions need to be at hand. I hear constant complains about that LENR is underfunded because all people who sits on the money do not understand better. Reality is that there is only one source. It is enormous and one would think that a small risk would be easy to take. No, reality is that there is no risk worthwhile the ramification of a failed result of LENR and there is no upside for a good outcome. Such good outcome will just be rewarded with a gold star by the closest boss. Have no controversial hot fusion (I think that there is no controversial opinion about that it would work with the right temperature and encapsulation) receive the funding and then if it does not work everybody (read nobody being the same guy) needs to be blamed. The positive result will be treated the same way regardless of the project. my solution means small flexible task oriented organizations rewarded for taking risk. Best Regards , Lennart Thornros www.StrategicLeadershipSac.com lenn...@thornros.com +1 916 436 1899 202 Granite Park Court, Lincoln CA 95648 “Productivity is never an accident. It is always the result of a commitment to excellence, intelligent planning, and focused effort.” PJM On Thu, Jul 30, 2015 at 6:57 PM, Orionworks - Steven Vincent Johnson orionwo...@charter.net wrote: Hello again Lennart, I wanted to comment on: Example of good result in the government is not enough to convince me that government can handle change and improvements I would say the same criticism applies towards a number of private corporations as well. Jed has been very good at citing numerous historical examples that have shown the Achilles heels of well-established private enterprises. I think we must resign ourselves to the realization that we are stuck with both extremes running our society: Governments and private enterprises, and all the interesting hybrids that find their little niches in-between. I think it best if both extremes try to do their best to remain civil and work with each other for the common good of everyone. As they say on the Red Green Show: We're all in this together. http://www.redgreen.com/ I'm hoping this is a matter we can both agree on. Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson OrionWorks.com zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]:NEDO RFP for cold fusion projects
Yes, Jeff only the politician can handle it. BS the reality is that we let them. We accept that we have less and less input on the over all financial operations. I believe that your priority list is accurate, or close enough. Are you happy with that? I am not. I have several reasons in descending order: 1. It is centralizing the decision making (the Sovjetunion tried between 1917 and 1989 - did not work so well). 2. The military (industrial complex) does very little for people in general seen away from those who have their income from that part of society. It ought to be well down played. 3. It makes the freedom (academic and personal in general) less. 4. It limits whom can be funded by bureaucratic (very dull) tools. You are saying this is how it was, this is how it is, therefore it should remain the same. I say it is time to change gear and undo some of the old rules. That I understand is consensus in Vortex that it might take modification of established rules to make LENR a reality. I think the same goes for our society in general and for management principal especially. Best Regards , Lennart Thornros www.StrategicLeadershipSac.com lenn...@thornros.com +1 916 436 1899 202 Granite Park Court, Lincoln CA 95648 “Productivity is never an accident. It is always the result of a commitment to excellence, intelligent planning, and focused effort.” PJM On Fri, Jul 31, 2015 at 2:05 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: The point I am getting at here is that the early stages of basic research into things like cold fusion are seldom profitable. Corporations seldom do basic research for this reason. There was a time when ATT supported a lot of fundamental research at Bell Labs, and IBM used to do a lot of fundamental research, but this seldom paid off. Of course the transistor was a huge exception, and I am sure you can think of others. However, most devices such as the laser were not profitable at first. There is little chance that anyone will make a profit from cold fusion research as it is now conducted. One of the reasons is that a force of nature cannot be patented. So corporations are pretty much ruled out. They cannot do cold fusion research even if they want to, because it will not lead to immediate profits. Also because the stockholders and Wall Street speculators would be outraged to learn that a corporation is doing cold fusion. Private individuals are also ruled out. There is little chance that you can contribute unless you happen to be a multimillionaire. You will not have the money to conduct useful experiments in something like cold fusion. It requires expensive instruments and safe lab space. That leaves only government labs, national labs, and university labs, which do not have to show a profit. Their main goals, in descending order, are: 1. To get U.S. government research funding. 2. To contribute to weapons development. 3. To establish scientific priority. 4. To discover new scientific knowledge. Goals 1 and 2 far outweigh the others. If anything such as cold fusion threatens #1 it will be ruthlessly suppressed, even if it would contribute to new scientific knowledge. You cannot blame people for making research funding the number one priority. They have to make a living after all. Most scientists do not have lavish lifestyles. Fortunately (I guess it is fortunate), cold fusion has numerous weapons-related potential applications, so it has been kept on life-support by organizations such as DARPA. You must understand that DARPA's fundamental purpose is to find better ways to blow people up. That is the purpose of most of the RD money spent by the U.S. government. - Jed
RE: [Vo]:NEDO RFP for cold fusion projects
From Jed, So corporations are pretty much ruled out. They cannot do cold fusion research even if they want to, because it will not lead to immediate profits. Also because the stockholders and Wall Street speculators would be outraged to learn that a corporation is doing cold fusion. IMO, it is conceivable that Dr. Randall Mills' Blacklight Power company may be pushing the envelope on that matter. Over the decades BLP, a privately owned RD company, has managed to receive millions of dollars from rich angel investors in order to prove they can build a new kind of technology capable of generating energy through the exploitation of a controversial (and presumably cheap) new energy source. The process strikes many of us on this list as being somewhat similar to LENR. Again, I say: Somewhat similar. Dr. Mills would vehemently disagree there is any similarity between his hydrinos and any kind of LENR research. Dr. Mills would then attempt to drive a stake in the heart of all LENR research and researchers, proclaiming the community is primarily made up of faulty researchers who are for the most part incapable of conducing proper experiments. Lately, I noticed there have been some members who have become brave enough to debate LENR research over at Dr. Mills' Society of Classical Physics Yahoo group. Needless to say, Dr. Mills does not seem particularly interested in letting LENR debate progress too far in his discussion group. I can't really blame him since they are supposed to focus on Classical Physics matters. I believe there are a number of really smart cookies doing their best to comprehend how Dr. Mills Classical Physics is supposed to work. Many of them ask questions that involve a lot of scary-looking mathematical formulas. I commend their efforts. OTOH, what did bug me was the existence of a group of cheerleaders who tended to congratulate Dr. Mills for every new alleged breakthrough BLP claimed had just transpired. No questions asked. The latest alleged BLP breakthrough involved transforming SunCell Technology from a moving parts engineering project to a brand new non-moving solid-state engineering project. If true, it would presumably be a huge improvement. I asked Dr. Mills if BLP would be willing to assemble some kind of a black box experimental demonstration that could show everyone that the new solid state direction BLP is taking is not just smoke and mirrors. I argued it would help quell negative commentary from pathological skeptics if BLP could show something new indeed was happening. I stressed it would need to be some kind of black box demonstration that would not reveal any proprietary details. By making such a request, repeatedly so I might add, I ended up upsetting the cheerleading section. A few went after me for challenging Dr. Mills. One even called my persistence passive aggressive. To make a long story short, I was eventually canned from the list. Despite my defrocking, I continue to bare no ill-will towards Dr. Mills or BLP, and especially towards the moderator who privately treated me with the upmost respect. Truth of the matter, Dr. Mills was never under any obligation to show and/or demonstrate anything to the peanut gallery, of which I'm a non-paying member. It is, after all, a privately owned company. But trying to get back to Jed's comment. Will BLP, a privately run RD company be able to survive the constant slings and arrows of outrageous misfortune and eventually come to be? I'd like to hope so. It would make a great story to tell one's grandchildren. Only time will tell. Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson OrionWorks.com zazzle.com/orionworks
RE: [Vo]:NEDO RFP for cold fusion projects
From Jed: Mizuno informed me that the Japanese government agency NEDO has issued a Request for Proposal (RFP) for projects in cold fusion. The date is 2015, title Energy / Environment New Technology Program http://www.nedo.go.jp/content/100754489.pdf Item D4 on p. 13 here apparently refers to cold fusion: Phenomenon analysis and methods of control of the new thermal energy source from metal hydrides. Mizuno thinks it is a day late and a dollar short. I remember seeing lots of RFPs whiz through my mailbox when I was still working at Wisconsin Dept. of Transportation. As a government agency, I would imagine there are reasonably strict rules in place in Japan just as there are here in the U.S. pertaining to the management of taxpayer's money, i.e. who gets it, and how much of it do they get to play with. In my experience there often seemed to have been a never-ending struggle between awarding a RFP to an outside company who seemed like they actually knew what they were talking about versus going with the lowest bidder. Mix that volatile mixture up with an influx of new inexperienced managers who themselves are ignorant of the systems they inherited from experienced employees and managers who either retired or got fed up and left to save their own sanity, and in my experience that means you end up with a lot of RFPs that generate lots of CRAP. Case in point: The EDMS (Electronic Document Management System) I got hired on to help maintain back in 1997 on a mainframe system at Wis. DOT is still in place today. In software terms, a system that was installed around 1995 has now become a horribly antiquated time-bomb that should have self-destructed years ago. It is constantly in danger of dying a permanent death with every minor IBM mainframe O/S s/w upgrade, which typically occurres every 6 to 12 months. Employees and managers came and went, and I somehow managed to survive the carnage of three still-born RFPs assigned the task of migrating the system over to a new server. As they began to process the fourth RFP attempt I plotted my final departure. I recall meeting with some of the new outside contractors. I did my best to assemble a multi-page chart containing Database Tables and their relationships with each other. I linked these tables with numerous SPUFI commands that showed how to extract (export) the front end table structures that in-turn pointed to the actual document objects. I recall being profusely complemented with the amount of exquisite detail I had supplied them with. (I guess having a BS in ART and an AD in Data Processing assisted me in creating pretty looking graphics that occasionally revealed useful information.) What their complements suggested to me was the disquieting suspicion that they, themselves, were not as knowledgeable of the ancient system as they claimed they were in the RFP that was awarded to them. All my charts and graphs showed them was how to migrate the FRONT END table structures. It didn't show them how to migrate the actual OBJECTS, the actual documents (scanned or electronically produced) that our users would need to display on their monitors such as citations, insurance letters, and traffic accident reports. The only person who has a clue as to how to do that is working in another government building on the other side of Madison, and he has been told not to give any assistance to our contractors. Presently, I believe there still exists three individuals left within the state within our immediate vicinity who possess actual knowledge of how the system works under the hood. Only two of the three work at DOT. Only one of the two employees at DOT is still tasked with the responsibility of maintaining the viability of the 1995 system. Incidentally, the state employee who works on the other side of Madison was previously assigned to assist us in prior RFP attempts. At one point I recall he spent about six months digging into the nuts bolts of the inner workings of out EDMS system in an attempt to construct a consistent and reliable migration procedure. He reported back that even with his vast knowledge he discovered there were orphaned documents, documents that could not be accessed via a batch migration procedure. These were orphaned documents that our users could ironically access on their monitor screens manually one-at-a-time, but that an automated batch oriented migration system for some strange reason was incapable of accessing. We are talking about a system containing millions of document OBJECTS that need to be migrated. That implies there must exist a lot of orphaned documents we can't access via a batch system. He told us he needed to spend a lot more time trying to work out a better procedure to access these documents. So, what do our newly hired managers decide to do when faced with this fact? Apparently, they dismiss the ramifications supplied to them from the
Re: [Vo]:NEDO RFP for cold fusion projects
I think Mizuno meant that is no one left in Japan who is capable of applying for this grant, or interested in applying for it. The document (http://www.nedo.go.jp/content/100754489.pdf) is entirely in Japanese, but if you look at the pages below 15, you will see the application form. You will recognize the bureaucratic format and get a sense of what the government demands. Name of institution, name of researcher, RD area, theme, schedule, etc., etc. Here is item 2.3 run through Google translate and adjusted by me: Implementation Structure * For implementation system when we contract for this research and development project, please provide the implementation system diagrams so that the role of each institution is shown. Please include any subcontractors, when there is a joint implementation plan. Blah, blah . . . A retired professor trying to submit something like this would be rejected out of hand. I can't blame NEDO. This is tax money. The government must have accountability. But it just isn't going to happen with these kinds of rules. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:NEDO RFP for cold fusion projects
Jed I like your reaction The conclusion to me is that government is not good at entrepreneurship, innovation or other things not fully understood as the result is part of the task to be delegated. Government by definition cannot delegate. I think Steven's example proves it. That is why risk taking has been part of the capitalistic ideology. Now we try to take that out and then we end up with an empty ideology. I think the say is that nature hates vacuum - that goes for ideology also so now the bureaucrats are filling the void. Best Regards , Lennart Thornros www.StrategicLeadershipSac.com lenn...@thornros.com +1 916 436 1899 202 Granite Park Court, Lincoln CA 95648 “Productivity is never an accident. It is always the result of a commitment to excellence, intelligent planning, and focused effort.” PJM On Thu, Jul 30, 2015 at 12:50 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: I think Mizuno meant that is no one left in Japan who is capable of applying for this grant, or interested in applying for it. The document (http://www.nedo.go.jp/content/100754489.pdf) is entirely in Japanese, but if you look at the pages below 15, you will see the application form. You will recognize the bureaucratic format and get a sense of what the government demands. Name of institution, name of researcher, RD area, theme, schedule, etc., etc. Here is item 2.3 run through Google translate and adjusted by me: Implementation Structure * For implementation system when we contract for this research and development project, please provide the implementation system diagrams so that the role of each institution is shown. Please include any subcontractors, when there is a joint implementation plan. Blah, blah . . . A retired professor trying to submit something like this would be rejected out of hand. I can't blame NEDO. This is tax money. The government must have accountability. But it just isn't going to happen with these kinds of rules. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:NEDO RFP for cold fusion projects
OK Jed it was not very well stated. Yes, there are good people all over the place. My point was that in new organizations it is easier to get the culture to stay. If you have clear messages from the top and enthusiasm then it can work. I think - without having any connection worth mentioning - that people who where there in an early stage will agree that most of the enthusiasm is gone. It is nothing wrong with the people. It is just as it works. Example of good result in the government is not enough to convince me that government can handle change and improvements. They are rather the exceptions that confirms the rule. I am not well aware of the names you bring forward. I would say that I am sure there are other organizations claiming the honors as well. Once again no problems with that good people are employed in the government. Justy think that large organizations eventually will make people regroup in the common attitude of CYA , which is the opposite of forward thinking. Best Regards , Lennart Thornros www.StrategicLeadershipSac.com lenn...@thornros.com +1 916 436 1899 202 Granite Park Court, Lincoln CA 95648 “Productivity is never an accident. It is always the result of a commitment to excellence, intelligent planning, and focused effort.” PJM On Thu, Jul 30, 2015 at 4:18 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Lennart Thornros lenn...@thornros.com wrote: Yes I agree with that NASA did something I would say in spite of being a government organization. Driving forces JFK and W von Braun. Not the organization . That is not a bit true. Most of the NASA people were top notch. The movie Apollo 13 is an good portrayal of the organization and people. I knew some of them and I assure you it wasn't only JFK and von Braun. The government also pioneered semiconductors and computers in that era, and later the Internet. I also knew some of the government people in the forefront of computer hardware and software. I did not know Grace Hopper but no one contributed more to software than she did. She was an admiral in the Navy. The Navy also encouraged and paid for the discovery and development of the laser, and much else. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:NEDO RFP for cold fusion projects
Hi Steven, I'm sympathetic to your feelings about new, inexperienced managers barging in and arrogating to themselves important decisions without the benefit of consulting the people who are in the best position to know what the implications will be. But going beyond that, let me propose that each government is dysfunctional in its unique way, and the primary challenge faced by the US government seems to be that it is overly bureaucratic. Americans love management as a topic, and they love to manage, to sit back and tell other people what to do, to put in place all kinds of processes and to hide behind such processes in order to avoid personal liability. There is a similar overgrowth that can be seen in US legal practice. The following article is about the small team that fixed the healthcare.gov website, and it shows a little of what a group of Silicon Valley expatriates encountered along the way, trying to work with US government agencies: http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2015/07/the-secret-startup-saved-healthcare-gov-the-worst-website-in-america/397784/ Eric
Re: [Vo]:NEDO RFP for cold fusion projects
Hi Steven, Yes I agree with that NASA did something I would say in spite of being a government organization. Driving forces JFK and W von Braun. Not the organization . I will not comment on the political stuff as I do not want to come across as I like any politician (looking on them as a function rather than a person). Scott Walker I am sure you have all the ins and out about. The only thing I like is that he stood up and even as he was attacked he did not back down. Unfortunately I think the outcome is as you say. Government cannot do anything right if not by accident. Maybe that was a little harsh:) If government does something right it is because they hired someone with a personal agenda with enough personal strengths to withstand all the forces that works on bringing things back to 'normal'. 'Normal' being as close as it was before. We do not like changes (if they are not done to someone else). In reality large corporations does not come far beyond in ability to innovate - in a wide meaning - just you hope they should have a better mechanism to fire people that are able to lead. Another thing. The right to do mistake is to 'innovation' / changes like coal is to a fire. The problem is not that new employees is going to make mistake. The problem is that they will soon be taught that mistakes will make a carer blocker, then they take more risk and then everything stays the same in the name of CYA. I want you to observe, I have no problem with people working in the public sector. They are of the same quality as people working elsewhere. It is that organizations create an atmosphere or culture if you so prefer. That culture needs to penetrate and it becomes harder and harder depending on two factors - size and age of the organization. When we do not know what to do (=the culture does not penetrate), then we honker down and make minimal noise. That is the basic of CYA. That in its turn is the culture of large organizations. Best Regards , Lennart Thornros www.StrategicLeadershipSac.com lenn...@thornros.com +1 916 436 1899 202 Granite Park Court, Lincoln CA 95648 “Productivity is never an accident. It is always the result of a commitment to excellence, intelligent planning, and focused effort.” PJM On Thu, Jul 30, 2015 at 2:39 PM, Orionworks - Steven Vincent Johnson orionwo...@charter.net wrote: Hi Lennart: Government by definition cannot delegate. I think Steven's example proves it. Actually, I would disagree with that opinion even though my previous post would seem to suggest otherwise. I really don't blame government, nor do I think government is incompetent or incapable of delegating. I think the problem is indicative of an ageing government workforce (both state federal) that is retiring in droves resulting in a vacuum that simply can't be filled fast enough to replace all the expertise that has left. Often the only recourse left is to hire a lot of young, inexperienced scared managers and employees that really are trying their best to tackle monsters they inherited. Inevitably, some are going to end up making a lot of mistakes. Some mistakes are going to be more spectacular than others. I just hope enough of these young whippersnappers survive the education process and become experienced managers that choose to remain within the government system. Unfortunately, once they get edu-ficated, many just leave for the private sector when head hunters start circling about and wave big bucks in front of them. And, of course, the vicious cycle re-edu-fication process starts all over again. Complicating matters in the case of Wisconsin, Scott Walker's Wisconsin Act 10 Budget repair Bill ended up cutting hundreds of dollars ($450 of net pay in my case) out of state employee's monthly salary - which went towards paying higher health insurance and retirement premiums. Doing so has only made it that much harder trying to hire a fresh new crop of state employees from the private sector. But think positive! Government projects plus all the delegation involved can be capable of producing miracles. NASA took us to the moon and back using 1960s technology. There's that Internet thing, too. Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson OrionWorks.com zazzle.com/orionworks *From:* Lennart Thornros [mailto:lenn...@thornros.com] *Sent:* Thursday, July 30, 2015 4:40 PM *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:NEDO RFP for cold fusion projects Jed I like your reaction The conclusion to me is that government is not good at entrepreneurship, innovation or other things not fully understood as the result is part of the task to be delegated. Government by definition cannot delegate. I think Steven's example proves it. That is why risk taking has been part of the capitalistic ideology. Now we try to take that out and then we end up with an empty ideology. I think the say is that nature hates vacuum - that goes for ideology also so now the bureaucrats
Re: [Vo]:NEDO RFP for cold fusion projects
I wrote: But going beyond that, let me propose that each government is dysfunctional in its unique way, and the primary challenge faced by the US government seems to be that it is overly bureaucratic. I do not want to overstate this. I do not mean that other governments are not also too bureaucratic. The thought is that different governments face challenges that go back to their history and how they have evolved over time. Eric
RE: [Vo]:NEDO RFP for cold fusion projects
Hello again Lennart, I wanted to comment on: Example of good result in the government is not enough to convince me that government can handle change and improvements I would say the same criticism applies towards a number of private corporations as well. Jed has been very good at citing numerous historical examples that have shown the Achilles heels of well-established private enterprises. I think we must resign ourselves to the realization that we are stuck with both extremes running our society: Governments and private enterprises, and all the interesting hybrids that find their little niches in-between. I think it best if both extremes try to do their best to remain civil and work with each other for the common good of everyone. As they say on the Red Green Show: We're all in this together. http://www.redgreen.com/ I'm hoping this is a matter we can both agree on. Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson OrionWorks.com zazzle.com/orionworks
RE: [Vo]:NEDO RFP for cold fusion projects
Hi Lennart: Government by definition cannot delegate. I think Steven's example proves it. Actually, I would disagree with that opinion even though my previous post would seem to suggest otherwise. I really don't blame government, nor do I think government is incompetent or incapable of delegating. I think the problem is indicative of an ageing government workforce (both state federal) that is retiring in droves resulting in a vacuum that simply can't be filled fast enough to replace all the expertise that has left. Often the only recourse left is to hire a lot of young, inexperienced scared managers and employees that really are trying their best to tackle monsters they inherited. Inevitably, some are going to end up making a lot of mistakes. Some mistakes are going to be more spectacular than others. I just hope enough of these young whippersnappers survive the education process and become experienced managers that choose to remain within the government system. Unfortunately, once they get edu-ficated, many just leave for the private sector when head hunters start circling about and wave big bucks in front of them. And, of course, the vicious cycle re-edu-fication process starts all over again. Complicating matters in the case of Wisconsin, Scott Walker's Wisconsin Act 10 Budget repair Bill ended up cutting hundreds of dollars ($450 of net pay in my case) out of state employee's monthly salary - which went towards paying higher health insurance and retirement premiums. Doing so has only made it that much harder trying to hire a fresh new crop of state employees from the private sector. But think positive! Government projects plus all the delegation involved can be capable of producing miracles. NASA took us to the moon and back using 1960s technology. There's that Internet thing, too. Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson OrionWorks.com zazzle.com/orionworks From: Lennart Thornros [mailto:lenn...@thornros.com] Sent: Thursday, July 30, 2015 4:40 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:NEDO RFP for cold fusion projects Jed I like your reaction The conclusion to me is that government is not good at entrepreneurship, innovation or other things not fully understood as the result is part of the task to be delegated. Government by definition cannot delegate. I think Steven's example proves it. That is why risk taking has been part of the capitalistic ideology. Now we try to take that out and then we end up with an empty ideology. I think the say is that nature hates vacuum - that goes for ideology also so now the bureaucrats are filling the void. Best Regards , Lennart Thornros www.StrategicLeadershipSac.com http://www.StrategicLeadershipSac.com lenn...@thornros.com mailto:lenn...@thornros.com +1 916 436 1899 202 Granite Park Court, Lincoln CA 95648 “Productivity is never an accident. It is always the result of a commitment to excellence, intelligent planning, and focused effort.” PJM On Thu, Jul 30, 2015 at 12:50 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com mailto:jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: I think Mizuno meant that is no one left in Japan who is capable of applying for this grant, or interested in applying for it. The document (http://www.nedo.go.jp/content/100754489.pdf) is entirely in Japanese, but if you look at the pages below 15, you will see the application form. You will recognize the bureaucratic format and get a sense of what the government demands. Name of institution, name of researcher, RD area, theme, schedule, etc., etc. Here is item 2.3 run through Google translate and adjusted by me: Implementation Structure * For implementation system when we contract for this research and development project, please provide the implementation system diagrams so that the role of each institution is shown. Please include any subcontractors, when there is a joint implementation plan. Blah, blah . . . A retired professor trying to submit something like this would be rejected out of hand. I can't blame NEDO. This is tax money. The government must have accountability. But it just isn't going to happen with these kinds of rules. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:NEDO RFP for cold fusion projects
Lennart Thornros lenn...@thornros.com wrote: Yes I agree with that NASA did something I would say in spite of being a government organization. Driving forces JFK and W von Braun. Not the organization . That is not a bit true. Most of the NASA people were top notch. The movie Apollo 13 is an good portrayal of the organization and people. I knew some of them and I assure you it wasn't only JFK and von Braun. The government also pioneered semiconductors and computers in that era, and later the Internet. I also knew some of the government people in the forefront of computer hardware and software. I did not know Grace Hopper but no one contributed more to software than she did. She was an admiral in the Navy. The Navy also encouraged and paid for the discovery and development of the laser, and much else. - Jed
RE: [Vo]:NEDO RFP for cold fusion projects
From Jed: I did not know Grace Hopper but no one contributed more to software than she did. She was an admiral in the Navy. Back around 1980 when I still had a few visible fledgling feathers I got to see Grace Hopper at a talk she gave in Madison on one of her numerous speaking engagement rounds. One of the first things she did after she stepped up to the podium was to apologize about what happened to COBOL. The audience was packed with COBOL mainframe programmers, myself included. Her apology got a chuckle, particularly from the smaller group of us that had been exposed to other programming languages. I think the rest probably just scratched their heads and wondered what she was apologizing for. I certainly do not blame Grace and the monumental task that had been handed to her to develop the first business oriented programming language known as COBOL. Love it or hate it, COBOL is still one of the most widely used 3rd generation programming languages in the mainframe environment. Being the first business oriented programming language of its kind, Grace and her team had no prior experience in comprehending how such a programming language should be structured. Since they were trying to design a simple-to-understand programming language syntax that performed a lot of business oriented accounting activities it seemed to make sense to develop commands around the English language, using simple grammatically correct English-like sentences, like ADD SALES-TAX-VALUE TO GRAND-TOTAL. (Don't forget that period!) Of course you could write the same computation in COBOL as COMPUTE GRAND-TOTAL = GRAND-TOTAL + SALES-TAX-VALUE. which was just as bad because of its wordiness. Developing the excessively worded commands that many computer science academics turned their noses up at wasn't her fault or the team's fault. Eventually, I would imagine the whole team learned what worked and what didn't through trial and error and getting feed-back from users. But by then COBOL standards had already been set in stone, and there was no going back. You had to respect the Admiral. Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson OrionWorks.com zazzle.com/orionworks
