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 <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]> > To: vortex-l <[email protected]> > 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 <[email protected]> > 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 <[email protected]> > To: vortex-l <[email protected]> > 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" <[email protected]> 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. > >
