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.




-----Original Message-----
From: Lennart Thornros <lenn...@thornros.com>
To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
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 
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 
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).

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.




-----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


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 

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:


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