Even more interesting as I do understand organizations (much better than nuclear physics). We (the culture) is obsessed with "bigger is better". Then we when they proved that big organizations cannot work effectively then we must keep them as they are to big vs. the whole to fail. My pet peeve is that we have to organize ourselves in small groups and solve one problem at a time. I think it is true in regards to R&D also and if we divided the tasks at hand in any LENR group we would soon find *THE*solution both practically and theoretically. From what I can read there is enough experience, enough resources, just no plan to get to a fully working and understood LENR. To develop this idea in small groups and with simple step by step progress must be doable. I think there are a few factors, which prevent that from happen. First of all it is difficult to see where to begin. Usually called procrastination. Secondly and mostly, I think, it is a ego / greed problem. It should not be as there is no reward without a "real" solution. 100% of nothing is less than just a small percentage of one. To me it looks like a few individuals are having some progress and now they are protecting the small winnings they have seen. Understandable but far from rationell. Those lucky to have taken a few steps are carefully trying to find the missing links without saying what they have achieved. Those with no luck so far does not know what is the reason for very slow progress, so they do not contribute to the progress.. My suggestion would be to put the resources together and reward with 'points' until the whole is solved and the cake can be eaten. After listening (most of the time) to Vortex for some time I know the resources are here. It requires no big money to move ahead. To get big money one need to kiss xxxx and be politically correct and that guarantee slow progress and right to failure.
Best Regards , Lennart Thornros www.StrategicLeadershipSac.com [email protected] +1 916 436 1899 6140 Horseshoe Bar Road Suite G, Loomis CA 95650 "Productivity is never an accident. It is always the result of a commitment to excellence, intelligent planning, and focused effort." PJM On Mon, Feb 24, 2014 at 10:52 AM, Jones Beene <[email protected]> wrote: > *From:* Lennart Thornros > > > > Jones, very interesting story about Rancho Seco. > > I live in the Sacramento area and I moved here from Sweden in 1988. I > could never understand that people voted to close a relatively new power > plant, thanks for giving me an explanation. Poor design I guess. > > > > Well not so poor as the Soviet design of Chernobyl, but Babcock & Wilcox > was clearly at fault - and at TMI also. The government secretly bailed them > out of some liability or they would have gone under long ago. Both > disasters were not far away from Fukushima. > > > > They could build good boilers, but not good control mechanisms. Most of > the neighbors in Sacto would rather have had the later. They were also > involved heavily in asbestos, so it is a miracle they are still in business. > > > > In World War II, B&W claim that half of the Navy fleet was powered by > their boilers, so naturally after the War - the company decided to get into > the lucrative nuclear energy business. They hooked up with a sleazy oil > company after the two big failures but did go bankrupt anyway - yet they > somehow recovered. Were it not for many friend$ in the Pentagon, and > sweetheart contracts galore - this company would be as dead as Rancho Seco, > and probably should be - except sadly there is a reality to "too big to > fail". > > > > > > >
