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 <a.ashfi...@verizon.net> 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 <lenn...@thornros.com>
> To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
> 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" <jedrothw...@gmail.com> 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&D 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 need you
> if someone comes up a reliable method." What they are saying is akin to:
> "if you go looking for gold, and you happen to find tons of it lying around
> on the ground, free for the taking, I will be happy to come and take half
> of it away from you in return for nothing." They don't seem to realize that
> is what they are offering.
>
>

Reply via email to