Re: [Vo]:Why venture capitalists are unlikely to help at this stage
Adrian i read your article. I agree 100 percent with you. Particularily the part about exucation. Happiness is not money they say, i agree. I do not think a doctorate is happiness either. I have employed many people with much better education than i have. The impressive academical records means nothing to a persons ability to contribute in a team is what i learnt. Academia is good but only for a few who have that passion. My mum never heard about pythagoras but she was smarter than most people i met. Yes i am biasedī Thank you for the article. On Sat, Jun 16, 2018, 10:22 AM Adrian Ashfield wrote: > Lennart, the problem is deeper. You may enjoy this but it is mainly > political so most can skip it. > > http://www.delcotimes.com/opinion/20180611/guest-column-a-critique-of-the-democratic-platform-what-the-country-needs > > > > -Original Message- > From: Lennart Thornros > To: vortex-l > Sent: Sat, Jun 16, 2018 9:43 am > Subject: Re: [Vo]:Why venture capitalists are unlikely to help at this > stage > > Bs > > On Jun 15, 2018 4:40 PM, "Jed Rothwell" wrote: > > From time to time, people tell me that if only we had a practical device, > cold fusion research would be funded. McKubre and many others have pointed > that a practical device is the end-point of research, not where you start. > People don't seem to realize this. Over at lenr-forum.com someone wrote: > > ". . . nothing could have a larger world wide market than even a modest > compact space or water or food heater that runs long periods on a small > amount of inexpensive fuel." > > > My response: > > That is obvious. But unhelpful. If we had anything remotely like that, we > could instantly get billions of dollars of investment money. If it were > generally known that such a machine existed, every industrial company on > earth would be frantically investigating it, and reverse engineering it at > the earliest opportunity. > > The problem is to get from where we are now to the kind of thing you > describe. We have to go from something like the repeatable but low power > shown by Takahashi et al. and replicated by Beiting, to a larger, more > reliable version. If that can be done at all, it will take some amount of > money ranging from several million dollars to a billion dollars. I have no > idea where in that range it will cost. The thing is: *no one has any idea*. > No one knows whether it can be done, how it can be done, or how much it > will cost. If anyone tells you they know these things, that is a good > indication they don't know what they are talking about. > > Finding an effective way to do cold fusion might require something like > the Wildcat Discovery Technologies approach, which must cost hundreds of > millions. I have no idea how much, but it sure looks expensive. It is > probably hundreds of times better than old fashioned manual R techniques. > See: > > http://www.wildcatdiscovery.com/technology/high-throughput-workflow/#hs1: > > Needless to say, there is not a snowball's chance in hell that anyone will > put that kind of money into cold fusion. It might take centuries to do the > same amount of research that this technique could accomplish in a year. So > we might never get there. We are trying to develop this without a theory, > so the pace of progress is likely to be the same as it was with technology > before 1700. The technique was mainly trial and error, so it took centuries > to accomplish what modern science can accomplish in decades. > > So far, almost all of the investors and venture capitalists have been > unwilling to lift a finger or risk any money to make that transition. Other > than I.H. and the Mysterious Person funding Texas Tech., venture > capitalists have been useless. They are waiting for the outcome to be a > sure thing before they invest. As Mark Twain said about bankers, they will > only give you money when you don't need it. > > Based on my experience, venture capitalists say they are in business of > taking risks, but most of them are lying. They do not actually want to take > risks. They want to invest in a sure thing that looks like a risk to other > people. Those other people know less about the product, so they will not > invest. This lowers the cost and lets the venture capitalist buy a larger > share from the people who developed the product (the inventors, > programmers, or businesspeople). Venture capitalists want to look as if > they are taking a risk, without actually taking one. Cold fusion is an > actual risk, so not one in a thousand venture capitalists will touch it. > > The other problem with the present era is that money is sloshing around in > unprecedented amounts looking for a home, yet paradoxically the wealthy > have never been wealthier. There is no need for them to take risks, so they > will not take any. They can make a fortune by rentier capitalism. This was > situation in California after the discovery of gold in the 1850s, which is > why the Transcontinental Railroad
Re: [Vo]:Why venture capitalists are unlikely to help at this stage
No i have poor internet connection so i answered with what i really should have said before. Yes we need to to get rid of the political / insustry / pentagon complex. Now is the time. We all have access and need no representatives. I know people say that does not work as most are pootly informed / educated. Not so. Only interested people will participate. No chance to skim the pools and a minimal admin to excecute what is asked for. Republican or democrate or xyz same ol idea. Enrich myself then who helps me and what can i do to him so he owes me. We need to participate all of us. Lennart On Sun, Jun 17, 2018, 12:58 PM Adrian Ashfield wrote: > Lennart, > Thank you for replying. I don't know if you got to the end of the long > article and saw that I wrote it. > I won't rehash it here but merely point out that I think the Democratic > platform is pathetic. > The Republicans are even worse as they seem to like starting wars. > Something is sadly wrong if China's GDP has grown at a rate of three times > that of the US for 20 years. > Adrian > > > > -Original Message- > From: Lennart Thornros > To: vortex-l > Sent: Sun, Jun 17, 2018 12:29 pm > Subject: Re: [Vo]:Why venture capitalists are unlikely to help at this > stage > > Hello Adrian > Yes, most can skip it. > My comment was perhaps fed by irritation over the whole idea that money is > of different kind and that some money are good and other not. > I am not in the mode of writing a book so i will just touch the subject > briefly. > The idea that economy is a sience and can be better utilized by having > highly educated people restricted by laws and rules to achieve a better > outcome is flawed. > The only money that can enhance inventions are risk willing capital. > You cannot make rules and formulas to marry an invention with capital. In > our society there is a form to fill in and a license (a piece of paper with > no connection to the issues at hand) to obtain capital. Does not matter if > the money is our tax money or our savings, handled by banks, which are > heavily regulated (and protected) by the bureacrazy. They can create > companies like facebook. They cannot support a passionate inventor. > I believe the only marriage that will propel new technology is between a > risk willing individual with capital and a passionate inventor. > I am not sure about the american say but i am sure it is close to a > Swedish say; real basic need is the mother of all inventions. Thus a bit of > suffering, hard work, willingness to risk it all are among the ingrediences > required to progress. > Let me just say that i think the academical knowledge is very important. > Not to find the solutions but to point out possible routes and to explain > the relationships so we can use that for further progress. > Economy is simple. There is no magic formula. There is no regulation to > make it better (or fair if that is what we want). > Lennart > > On Sat, Jun 16, 2018, 10:22 Adrian Ashfield > wrote: > > Lennart, the problem is deeper. You may enjoy this but it is mainly > political so most can skip it. > > http://www.delcotimes.com/opinion/20180611/guest-column-a-critique-of-the-democratic-platform-what-the-country-needs > > > > -Original Message- > From: Lennart Thornros > To: vortex-l > Sent: Sat, Jun 16, 2018 9:43 am > Subject: Re: [Vo]:Why venture capitalists are unlikely to help at this > stage > > Bs > > On Jun 15, 2018 4:40 PM, "Jed Rothwell" wrote: > > From time to time, people tell me that if only we had a practical device, > cold fusion research would be funded. McKubre and many others have pointed > that a practical device is the end-point of research, not where you start. > People don't seem to realize this. Over at lenr-forum.com someone wrote: > > ". . . nothing could have a larger world wide market than even a modest > compact space or water or food heater that runs long periods on a small > amount of inexpensive fuel." > > > My response: > > That is obvious. But unhelpful. If we had anything remotely like that, we > could instantly get billions of dollars of investment money. If it were > generally known that such a machine existed, every industrial company on > earth would be frantically investigating it, and reverse engineering it at > the earliest opportunity. > > The problem is to get from where we are now to the kind of thing you > describe. We have to go from something like the repeatable but low power > shown by Takahashi et al. and replicated by Beiting, to a larger, more > reliable version. If that can be done at all, it will take some amount of > money ranging from several million dollars to a billion dollars. I have no > idea where in that range it will cost. The thing is: *no one has any idea*. > No one knows whether it can be done, how it can be done, or how much it > will cost. If anyone tells you they know these things, that is a good > indication they don't know what they are talking about. > > Finding an effective
Re: [Vo]:Why venture capitalists are unlikely to help at this stage
Lennart, Thank you for replying. I don't know if you got to the end of the long article and saw that I wrote it. I won't rehash it here but merely point out that I think the Democratic platform is pathetic. The Republicans are even worse as they seem to like starting wars. Something is sadly wrong if China's GDP has grown at a rate of three times that of the US for 20 years. Adrian -Original Message- From: Lennart Thornros To: vortex-l Sent: Sun, Jun 17, 2018 12:29 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Why venture capitalists are unlikely to help at this stage Hello Adrian Yes, most can skip it. My comment was perhaps fed by irritation over the whole idea that money is of different kind and that some money are good and other not. I am not in the mode of writing a book so i will just touch the subject briefly. The idea that economy is a sience and can be better utilized by having highly educated people restricted by laws and rules to achieve a better outcome is flawed. The only money that can enhance inventions are risk willing capital. You cannot make rules and formulas to marry an invention with capital. In our society there is a form to fill in and a license (a piece of paper with no connection to the issues at hand) to obtain capital. Does not matter if the money is our tax money or our savings, handled by banks, which are heavily regulated (and protected) by the bureacrazy. They can create companies like facebook. They cannot support a passionate inventor. I believe the only marriage that will propel new technology is between a risk willing individual with capital and a passionate inventor. I am not sure about the american say but i am sure it is close to a Swedish say; real basic need is the mother of all inventions. Thus a bit of suffering, hard work, willingness to risk it all are among the ingrediences required to progress. Let me just say that i think the academical knowledge is very important. Not to find the solutions but to point out possible routes and to explain the relationships so we can use that for further progress. Economy is simple. There is no magic formula. There is no regulation to make it better (or fair if that is what we want). Lennart On Sat, Jun 16, 2018, 10:22 Adrian Ashfield wrote: Lennart, the problem is deeper. You may enjoy this but it is mainly political so most can skip it. http://www.delcotimes.com/opinion/20180611/guest-column-a-critique-of-the-democratic-platform-what-the-country-needs -Original Message- From: Lennart Thornros To: vortex-l Sent: Sat, Jun 16, 2018 9:43 am Subject: Re: [Vo]:Why venture capitalists are unlikely to help at this stage Bs On Jun 15, 2018 4:40 PM, "Jed Rothwell" wrote: >From time to time, people tell me that if only we had a practical device, cold >fusion research would be funded. McKubre and many others have pointed that a >practical device is the end-point of research, not where you start. People >don't seem to realize this. Over at lenr-forum.com someone wrote: ". . . nothing could have a larger world wide market than even a modest compact space or water or food heater that runs long periods on a small amount of inexpensive fuel." My response: That is obvious. But unhelpful. If we had anything remotely like that, we could instantly get billions of dollars of investment money. If it were generally known that such a machine existed, every industrial company on earth would be frantically investigating it, and reverse engineering it at the earliest opportunity. The problem is to get from where we are now to the kind of thing you describe. We have to go from something like the repeatable but low power shown by Takahashi et al. and replicated by Beiting, to a larger, more reliable version. If that can be done at all, it will take some amount of money ranging from several million dollars to a billion dollars. I have no idea where in that range it will cost. The thing is: no one has any idea. No one knows whether it can be done, how it can be done, or how much it will cost. If anyone tells you they know these things, that is a good indication they don't know what they are talking about. Finding an effective way to do cold fusion might require something like the Wildcat Discovery Technologies approach, which must cost hundreds of millions. I have no idea how much, but it sure looks expensive. It is probably hundreds of times better than old fashioned manual R techniques. See: http://www.wildcatdiscovery.com/technology/high-throughput-workflow/#hs1: Needless to say, there is not a snowball's chance in hell that anyone will put that kind of money into cold fusion. It might take centuries to do the same amount of research that this technique could accomplish in a year. So we might never get there. We are trying to develop this without a theory, so the pace of progress is likely to be the same as it was with technology before 1700. The technique was
Re: [Vo]:Why venture capitalists are unlikely to help at this stage
Hello Adrian Yes, most can skip it. My comment was perhaps fed by irritation over the whole idea that money is of different kind and that some money are good and other not. I am not in the mode of writing a book so i will just touch the subject briefly. The idea that economy is a sience and can be better utilized by having highly educated people restricted by laws and rules to achieve a better outcome is flawed. The only money that can enhance inventions are risk willing capital. You cannot make rules and formulas to marry an invention with capital. In our society there is a form to fill in and a license (a piece of paper with no connection to the issues at hand) to obtain capital. Does not matter if the money is our tax money or our savings, handled by banks, which are heavily regulated (and protected) by the bureacrazy. They can create companies like facebook. They cannot support a passionate inventor. I believe the only marriage that will propel new technology is between a risk willing individual with capital and a passionate inventor. I am not sure about the american say but i am sure it is close to a Swedish say; real basic need is the mother of all inventions. Thus a bit of suffering, hard work, willingness to risk it all are among the ingrediences required to progress. Let me just say that i think the academical knowledge is very important. Not to find the solutions but to point out possible routes and to explain the relationships so we can use that for further progress. Economy is simple. There is no magic formula. There is no regulation to make it better (or fair if that is what we want). Lennart On Sat, Jun 16, 2018, 10:22 Adrian Ashfield wrote: > Lennart, the problem is deeper. You may enjoy this but it is mainly > political so most can skip it. > > http://www.delcotimes.com/opinion/20180611/guest-column-a-critique-of-the-democratic-platform-what-the-country-needs > > > > -Original Message- > From: Lennart Thornros > To: vortex-l > Sent: Sat, Jun 16, 2018 9:43 am > Subject: Re: [Vo]:Why venture capitalists are unlikely to help at this > stage > > Bs > > On Jun 15, 2018 4:40 PM, "Jed Rothwell" wrote: > > From time to time, people tell me that if only we had a practical device, > cold fusion research would be funded. McKubre and many others have pointed > that a practical device is the end-point of research, not where you start. > People don't seem to realize this. Over at lenr-forum.com someone wrote: > > ". . . nothing could have a larger world wide market than even a modest > compact space or water or food heater that runs long periods on a small > amount of inexpensive fuel." > > > My response: > > That is obvious. But unhelpful. If we had anything remotely like that, we > could instantly get billions of dollars of investment money. If it were > generally known that such a machine existed, every industrial company on > earth would be frantically investigating it, and reverse engineering it at > the earliest opportunity. > > The problem is to get from where we are now to the kind of thing you > describe. We have to go from something like the repeatable but low power > shown by Takahashi et al. and replicated by Beiting, to a larger, more > reliable version. If that can be done at all, it will take some amount of > money ranging from several million dollars to a billion dollars. I have no > idea where in that range it will cost. The thing is: *no one has any idea*. > No one knows whether it can be done, how it can be done, or how much it > will cost. If anyone tells you they know these things, that is a good > indication they don't know what they are talking about. > > Finding an effective way to do cold fusion might require something like > the Wildcat Discovery Technologies approach, which must cost hundreds of > millions. I have no idea how much, but it sure looks expensive. It is > probably hundreds of times better than old fashioned manual R techniques. > See: > > http://www.wildcatdiscovery.com/technology/high-throughput-workflow/#hs1: > > Needless to say, there is not a snowball's chance in hell that anyone will > put that kind of money into cold fusion. It might take centuries to do the > same amount of research that this technique could accomplish in a year. So > we might never get there. We are trying to develop this without a theory, > so the pace of progress is likely to be the same as it was with technology > before 1700. The technique was mainly trial and error, so it took centuries > to accomplish what modern science can accomplish in decades. > > So far, almost all of the investors and venture capitalists have been > unwilling to lift a finger or risk any money to make that transition. Other > than I.H. and the Mysterious Person funding Texas Tech., venture > capitalists have been useless. They are waiting for the outcome to be a > sure thing before they invest. As Mark Twain said about bankers, they will > only give you money when you don't need it. > > Based on
Re: [Vo]:Why venture capitalists are unlikely to help at this stage
Lennart, the problem is deeper. You may enjoy this but it is mainly political so most can skip it. http://www.delcotimes.com/opinion/20180611/guest-column-a-critique-of-the-democratic-platform-what-the-country-needs
Re: [Vo]:Why venture capitalists are unlikely to help at this stage
Bs On Jun 15, 2018 4:40 PM, "Jed Rothwell" wrote: > From time to time, people tell me that if only we had a practical device, > cold fusion research would be funded. McKubre and many others have pointed > that a practical device is the end-point of research, not where you start. > People don't seem to realize this. Over at lenr-forum.com someone wrote: > > ". . . nothing could have a larger world wide market than even a modest > compact space or water or food heater that runs long periods on a small > amount of inexpensive fuel." > > > My response: > > That is obvious. But unhelpful. If we had anything remotely like that, we > could instantly get billions of dollars of investment money. If it were > generally known that such a machine existed, every industrial company on > earth would be frantically investigating it, and reverse engineering it at > the earliest opportunity. > > The problem is to get from where we are now to the kind of thing you > describe. We have to go from something like the repeatable but low power > shown by Takahashi et al. and replicated by Beiting, to a larger, more > reliable version. If that can be done at all, it will take some amount of > money ranging from several million dollars to a billion dollars. I have no > idea where in that range it will cost. The thing is: *no one has any idea*. > No one knows whether it can be done, how it can be done, or how much it > will cost. If anyone tells you they know these things, that is a good > indication they don't know what they are talking about. > > Finding an effective way to do cold fusion might require something like > the Wildcat Discovery Technologies approach, which must cost hundreds of > millions. I have no idea how much, but it sure looks expensive. It is > probably hundreds of times better than old fashioned manual R techniques. > See: > > http://www.wildcatdiscovery.com/technology/high-throughput-workflow/#hs1: > > Needless to say, there is not a snowball's chance in hell that anyone will > put that kind of money into cold fusion. It might take centuries to do the > same amount of research that this technique could accomplish in a year. So > we might never get there. We are trying to develop this without a theory, > so the pace of progress is likely to be the same as it was with technology > before 1700. The technique was mainly trial and error, so it took centuries > to accomplish what modern science can accomplish in decades. > > So far, almost all of the investors and venture capitalists have been > unwilling to lift a finger or risk any money to make that transition. Other > than I.H. and the Mysterious Person funding Texas Tech., venture > capitalists have been useless. They are waiting for the outcome to be a > sure thing before they invest. As Mark Twain said about bankers, they will > only give you money when you don't need it. > > Based on my experience, venture capitalists say they are in business of > taking risks, but most of them are lying. They do not actually want to take > risks. They want to invest in a sure thing that looks like a risk to other > people. Those other people know less about the product, so they will not > invest. This lowers the cost and lets the venture capitalist buy a larger > share from the people who developed the product (the inventors, > programmers, or businesspeople). Venture capitalists want to look as if > they are taking a risk, without actually taking one. Cold fusion is an > actual risk, so not one in a thousand venture capitalists will touch it. > > The other problem with the present era is that money is sloshing around in > unprecedented amounts looking for a home, yet paradoxically the wealthy > have never been wealthier. There is no need for them to take risks, so they > will not take any. They can make a fortune by rentier capitalism. This was > situation in California after the discovery of gold in the 1850s, which is > why the Transcontinental Railroad could not be funded. San Francisco was > filled with millionaires who could make another million easily and without > much risk, by opening another gold or silver mine. The would literally -- > actually -- light cigars with burning $100 bills to flaunt their wealth. > Not one of them would risk investing an railroad, because they could make > money without risk elsewhere. The railroad had to wait until Lincoln passed > a law under which the Federal government subsidized the construction and > lent a lot of money. Uncle Sam took most of the risk. It was a sure thing > after that. Capitalists such as Leland Stanford were then willing to risk > their own money, knowing that Uncle Sam had their back. (They might have > lost money, but it was unlikely. They did have to pay back the loans, but > they had decades to do that.) It was finished in 1869. The government made > a lot of money on the interest for the loans, so it benefited everyone. The > point is, capitalists would never have taken that risk on their own. > > From
[Vo]:Why venture capitalists are unlikely to help at this stage
>From time to time, people tell me that if only we had a practical device, cold fusion research would be funded. McKubre and many others have pointed that a practical device is the end-point of research, not where you start. People don't seem to realize this. Over at lenr-forum.com someone wrote: ". . . nothing could have a larger world wide market than even a modest compact space or water or food heater that runs long periods on a small amount of inexpensive fuel." My response: That is obvious. But unhelpful. If we had anything remotely like that, we could instantly get billions of dollars of investment money. If it were generally known that such a machine existed, every industrial company on earth would be frantically investigating it, and reverse engineering it at the earliest opportunity. The problem is to get from where we are now to the kind of thing you describe. We have to go from something like the repeatable but low power shown by Takahashi et al. and replicated by Beiting, to a larger, more reliable version. If that can be done at all, it will take some amount of money ranging from several million dollars to a billion dollars. I have no idea where in that range it will cost. The thing is: *no one has any idea*. No one knows whether it can be done, how it can be done, or how much it will cost. If anyone tells you they know these things, that is a good indication they don't know what they are talking about. Finding an effective way to do cold fusion might require something like the Wildcat Discovery Technologies approach, which must cost hundreds of millions. I have no idea how much, but it sure looks expensive. It is probably hundreds of times better than old fashioned manual R techniques. See: http://www.wildcatdiscovery.com/technology/high-throughput-workflow/#hs1: Needless to say, there is not a snowball's chance in hell that anyone will put that kind of money into cold fusion. It might take centuries to do the same amount of research that this technique could accomplish in a year. So we might never get there. We are trying to develop this without a theory, so the pace of progress is likely to be the same as it was with technology before 1700. The technique was mainly trial and error, so it took centuries to accomplish what modern science can accomplish in decades. So far, almost all of the investors and venture capitalists have been unwilling to lift a finger or risk any money to make that transition. Other than I.H. and the Mysterious Person funding Texas Tech., venture capitalists have been useless. They are waiting for the outcome to be a sure thing before they invest. As Mark Twain said about bankers, they will only give you money when you don't need it. Based on my experience, venture capitalists say they are in business of taking risks, but most of them are lying. They do not actually want to take risks. They want to invest in a sure thing that looks like a risk to other people. Those other people know less about the product, so they will not invest. This lowers the cost and lets the venture capitalist buy a larger share from the people who developed the product (the inventors, programmers, or businesspeople). Venture capitalists want to look as if they are taking a risk, without actually taking one. Cold fusion is an actual risk, so not one in a thousand venture capitalists will touch it. The other problem with the present era is that money is sloshing around in unprecedented amounts looking for a home, yet paradoxically the wealthy have never been wealthier. There is no need for them to take risks, so they will not take any. They can make a fortune by rentier capitalism. This was situation in California after the discovery of gold in the 1850s, which is why the Transcontinental Railroad could not be funded. San Francisco was filled with millionaires who could make another million easily and without much risk, by opening another gold or silver mine. The would literally -- actually -- light cigars with burning $100 bills to flaunt their wealth. Not one of them would risk investing an railroad, because they could make money without risk elsewhere. The railroad had to wait until Lincoln passed a law under which the Federal government subsidized the construction and lent a lot of money. Uncle Sam took most of the risk. It was a sure thing after that. Capitalists such as Leland Stanford were then willing to risk their own money, knowing that Uncle Sam had their back. (They might have lost money, but it was unlikely. They did have to pay back the loans, but they had decades to do that.) It was finished in 1869. The government made a lot of money on the interest for the loans, so it benefited everyone. The point is, capitalists would never have taken that risk on their own. >From time to time, exceptionally stupid capitalists have actually said to me: "This looks interesting. Call me if anyone ever comes up with a reliable method of doing it." I try to answer politely: "We won't
