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 <a.ashfi...@verizon.net>
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 <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 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