It appears that my X prize proposal wins the popularity contest.
*Thinking Big Is The Easy Part: My Weekend Dreaming Up The Next XPrize* http://www.fastcoexist.com/3030775/thinking-big-is-the-easy-part-my-weekend-dreaming-up-the-next- xprize When a couple of journalists join a bunch of powerful people for a weekend on the beautiful California coast, tasked with thinking about the biggest challenges facing humanity, techno-optimism, and visions of cold fusion prevail. On a picture-perfect afternoon at a resort in Ranchos Palos Verdes, a wealthy Los Angeles suburb, I joined up with three business executives to come up with a tough question for others to solve. We brainstormed this challenge: Devise a plan to generate half the food supply for an entire small city of 500,000 people within a 50-mile radius. Oh, and make sure the methodology could be transferred to most other similarly sized cities around the world. Audacious? Of course. Doable? Over the course of several years, possibly. This was our idea for the next XPrize, a series of public competitions that asks entrants to come up with "radical breakthroughs" that solve some of humanity's biggest challenges, in exchange for multi-million dollar prizes. Past and current XPrizes have included challenges to land a private craft on the moon, build a 100-mile-per-gallon car, and create a real tricorder. Our Self-Sustaining Food Supply XPrize, as we called it, was one of dozens thought up by some of the smartest and most powerful people in the world at last weekend's XPrize Visioneering gathering--a weekend of learning from experts and designing challenges aimed at tackling the major problems that humanity faces today. Peter Diamandis, the charming techno-optimist behind the nearly 20-year-old XPrize Foundation, reminded us several times throughout the weekend that past XPrizes were influenced by the Visioneering event. But this year, the stakes were higher than ever: The idea from the winning team would go straight into the prize pipeline, get its own event for further refinement, and after proper vetting, possibly become the next big XPrize. I wanted to win. A Short History of XPrize Diamandis, a physician and engineer who once worked in the space technology industry, launched the X Prize Foundation after reading The Spirit of St. Louis, an autobiography by Charles Lindbergh detailing the explorer's solo trans-Atlantic flight in 1927. It was a feat inspired by a prize challenge: the $25,000 Orteig Prize for the first person to complete a solo trans-Atlantic flight between New York and Paris. In winning the prize, Lindbergh helped familiarize the previously alien world of aviation to a generation of people, and brought us closer to today's aviation industry. Diamandis was inspired to create his own incentive prizes, starting with spaceflight. A decade ago, the $10 million Ansari XPrize--the first prize launched by the foundation--asked teams to build a private spaceship that could carry three people 100 kilometers above the Earth's surface twice in a two week period. Some 26 teams entered, spending over $100 million in total. In 2001, SpaceShipOne, designed by aerospace engineer Burt Rutan, won the competition. Ultimately, the spaceship technology was licensed by Richard Branson to create the foundation for Virgin Galactic--a move that, according to XPrize lore, opened up the larger private spaceflight industry. Today, the XPrize Foundation has awarded prizes for three challenges, including the Ansari XPrize and a prize to develop a better method of oil spill cleanup. The four active prizes include the Tricorder XPrize for a device that can diagnose patients at least as well as a physician, and the Google Lunar XPrize, for teams to create a rover that can launch and land on the moon and then transmit video back down to Earth. A number of prizesare in the pipeline, addressing everything from literacy to organ cryopreservation. Building A Prize After a brief session on prize design, the Visioneering weekend participants were sent off to brainstorm, divided into sections based on interest. My section on day one, held in an open-air half-dome outfitted with couches, pillows, and an especially soft shaggy rug, focused on the challenges facing cities. Paul Romer, the New York University economist who garnered attention recently for his ideas on charter cities, led a whirlwind 20-minute talk on how humanity can prepare for the 5 billion new urban residents who will emerge in the next 100 years. Romer pointed out that we have the power to shape the many new cities that will pop up, but there is a limited window of time to do so. "In 100 years, it will be over. Humans will live forever with the cities we leave them," is the somber thought he left us to chew on. After dividing into small groups and writing themes on post-it notes, it was time to hone in on prize ideas. We regrouped and split up into teams based on interest. My four-person team--Ken Neumann, CEO of Greenscape Ventures; Guy Wolloart, chief technical and innovation officer at The Coca-Cola Company; Rodrigo Veloso, founder of O.N.E. Coconut Water; and myself, an editor and writer for Co.Exist-- initially wanted to create a prize related to water, energy, food, and economic self-sufficiency in cities. We tossed around ideas for at least 20 minutes (the team briefly lost its way at one point when a member suggested that we try to spur the creation of an Ayn Rand-ian libertarian utopia) before deciding that we needed to hone in one topic area and come up with a measurable, ultra-focused challenge. Wolloart's pitch in front of the larger cities group was good enough to gather the votes needed to make it to the next round of pitching, this time in front of all the weekend's participants. But first, we had one more day of visioneering. This time, I chose to participate in a climate change session led by PopTech executive director Andrew Zolli. After once again brainstorming themes, I joined another four-person team that brainstormed an idea fairly quickly for the $5 million Farmer's Almanac 2.0 XPrize: a challenge to come up with a system that pulls in climate data in real time, aggregates it, provides clear and actionable information for individuals and businesses, and distributes the data through existing channels (like real estate websites, for example). Once again, we made it to the next round. The Winning Idea My luck went downhill from there. Neither of my teams won enough votes to make it to the final round--really, how could we compete with pitches from personalities like newscaster Pat Kiernan and actress Patricia Arquette? The final five ideas, selected via text message voting, included a prizefor getting trace molecules of medication out of the water supply (pitched by Arquette and earthquake scientist Dr. Lucy Jones), a prize for building a prototype of a long-lasting home that could be constructed for under $1,000 in less than 24 hours, and a prize for reproducing substantive energy generation from an entirely new energy source (like cold fusion or zero-point energy) twice in two weeks. After participating in a dramatic voting system that involved 3-D printed poker chips and glowsticks, the winner was declared: The Forbidden Energy XPrize for generating energy from an entirely new source, like cold fusion or zero point energy. Cold fusion is perhaps more fun to think about than existing alternative energy solutions. But in my opinion, it seems more important in the energy space to come up with exponentially better battery technologies that can store energy from existing sources like solar and wind (in fact, XPrize is thinking about a challenge for building a revolutionary battery). But this was a popularity contest, and the sexiest-sounding idea took home the trophy. There was a sense permeating the Visioneering weekend that technology can solve everything--an ideology disparagingly referred to by writer Evgeny Morozov as "solutionism." It can't solve everything, of course. Who cares if you build a better affordable home or system for local food production if the technology can't be evenly distributed? And who says we're even hunting for solutions to the right problems? Nonetheless, technology is a major driver of change in human society. And if even a small percentage of the world's big problems can be solved by people willing to spend their time and money thinking up challenges and then joining together to find solutions, all of XPrize's efforts will be worth it. Plus, visioneering is a whole lot of fun. Ariel Schwartz Ariel Schwartz is a Senior Editor at Co.Exist. She has contributed to SF Weekly, Popular Science, Inhabitat, Greenbiz, NBC Bay Area, GOOD Magazine and more. On Mon, Feb 10, 2014 at 4:07 PM, Kevin O'Malley <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > On Mon, Feb 10, 2014 at 3:50 PM, Kevin O'Malley <[email protected]>wrote: > >> >> ***Then for the time being we need to focus on attracting MONEY, like the >> X-Prize. >> I agree. How do you suggest this be done? >> ***Ummm, did I not mention the X-Prize, which generated 50X more interest >> and investment than the original prize offered? Or am I missing >> something? >> >> >> On Mon, Feb 10, 2014 at 3:34 PM, Edmund Storms <[email protected]>wrote: >> >>> >>> On Feb 10, 2014, at 4:30 PM, Kevin O'Malley wrote: >>> >>> Yes, that is the way science works. However doing the tests requires >>> money. >>> ***Then for the time being we need to focus on attracting MONEY, like >>> the X-Prize. >>> >>> >>> I agree. How do you suggest this be done? >>> >>> Ed Storms >>> >>> >>> >>> On Mon, Feb 10, 2014 at 2:59 PM, Edmund Storms <[email protected]>wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> On Feb 10, 2014, at 3:44 PM, Kevin O'Malley wrote: >>>> >>>> So Swartz is not unique. The question is, "Is his understanding >>>> correct?" As you admit, you are not qualified to judge. So, how do you >>>> decide? >>>> >>>> ***The same way that Science has decided for centuries. Your theory >>>> has implications, so do others. We test according to those implications. >>>> I've seen Jones Beene post that the presence of nuclear ash will be >>>> devastating to Mills's theory. What would be CONFIRMAtion of his theory? >>>> Similarly with yours, what would be devastating, what would be >>>> confirmatory? Do those tests. >>>> >>>> >>>> Yes, that is the way science works. However doing the tests requires >>>> money. If the tests show the theory is correct, then more money is required >>>> to amplify understanding. No one has the money to make the tests. So, I >>>> compare my model and all other models to all past studies and to what is >>>> known in physics and chemistry. The question then is which model can >>>> explain, without additional ad hoc assumption, the most behaviors without >>>> conflict with what is known? My model does this the best. Many models can >>>> be eliminated because they conflict with what is well known in science. >>>> >>>> >>>> The person who has had the most time on point with working reactors is >>>> Rossi. He's had the chance to test various implications and theories. He >>>> said to Krivit that it seemed like electron capture (maybe proton capture) >>>> was the best theoretical approach so far, not Weak Nuclear Force. It was >>>> at that point that Krivit started calling Rossi a fraud. >>>> >>>> >>>> Yes, this explanation has no future. You will have to read my book to >>>> know why because the explanation requires to much time to provide here. >>>> >>>> Ed Storms >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Mon, Feb 10, 2014 at 12:46 PM, Edmund Storms >>>> <[email protected]>wrote: >>>> >>>>> Blaze, you assume Swartz knows what he is doing. If he does, then this >>>>> is a good approach. Unfortunately, very little collaboration exists in the >>>>> field to resolve the problems in the various theories. People simply go >>>>> their own way regardless of the obvious problems and conflicts with >>>>> reality. >>>>> >>>>> Many people, including myself, have made the effect work and reported >>>>> the results. In addition, several of us have published attempts at an >>>>> explanation. So Swartz is not unique. The question is, "Is his >>>>> understanding correct?" As you admit, you are not qualified to judge. So, >>>>> how do you decide? >>>>> >>>>> Ed Storms >>>>> >>>>> On Feb 10, 2014, at 1:30 PM, Blaze Spinnaker wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Edmund - there are two problems. Solving the problem, which should >>>>> definitely be done. I applaud the work here. I think it's brilliant and >>>>> frankly, way beyond my understanding. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> But there is another, perhaps far more important problem - attracting >>>>> massive investment and recognition from labs everywhere. Once billion >>>>> dollar labs take it seriously, that's when you will see the technology >>>>> advance very dramatically. >>>>> >>>>> I believe Swartz is trying to do exactly that with Nanor, and he's >>>>> doing it in an open, transparent way. This is exactly the mature, >>>>> scientific, selfless approach I've been waiting for. >>>>> >>>>> In my opinion, it could turn out to be the great reflection point in >>>>> LENR. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Mon, Feb 10, 2014 at 12:26 PM, Edmund Storms <[email protected] >>>>> > wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> The approach expressed here is very depressing. We know that LENR is >>>>>> real. Buying and testing a Nanor would gain a person nothing. Unless a >>>>>> person knows how and why it works, which is not known, the information is >>>>>> worthless. The important investment is in acquiring information about >>>>>> how >>>>>> LENR works. So far, this approach is not bring used effectively. All >>>>>> present explanations can be shown not to explain the process. A person >>>>>> can >>>>>> disagree about what kind of explanation might be correct, but the present >>>>>> explanations are clearly wrong. Until this situation changes, I believe >>>>>> investment in a device will produce very little of value. >>>>>> >>>>>> We are like a person in 1800 being shown a smart phone and being >>>>>> asked to make another one. You can imagine all the explanations of how it >>>>>> worked that would be discussed, with none of them being even close to the >>>>>> correct one. That is the situation now in LENR. People have no idea how >>>>>> it >>>>>> works, yet they are certain they have a correct understanding. This is >>>>>> like >>>>>> trying to design heavier than air flight before the Wright Brothers or a >>>>>> durable light bulb before Edison. Why not invest in getting knowledge? >>>>>> >>>>>> Ed Storms >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Feb 10, 2014, at 1:08 PM, Blaze Spinnaker wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> If someone had 50K I'd say try to buy a Nanor from Michael Swartz of >>>>>> Jet Energy and test that. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Mon, Feb 10, 2014 at 12:05 PM, Kevin O'Malley <[email protected] >>>>>> > wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> If someone asked me "what kind of research can I do with $50,000?" I >>>>>>> would say go to the racetrack and bet the money. You will have more >>>>>>> chance >>>>>>> of making a profit than you would putting the money in cold fusion. >>>>>>> ***The LENR corner-turn is getting to that level. I am in >>>>>>> correspondence with the X-Prize committee, proposing a LENR replication >>>>>>> prize for Techshop and following the MFMP recipe. I think that with a >>>>>>> techshop, $100k, and some guidance, someone with as pedestrian an >>>>>>> intellect >>>>>>> such as mine could replicate those Gamma rays. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Sun, Feb 9, 2014 at 4:52 PM, Jed Rothwell >>>>>>> <[email protected]>wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> James Bowery <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> if an extremely wealthy person such as Bill Gates believed that >>>>>>>>>> cold fusion is real, he would be crazy no to invest in it. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Assuming he was not doing it for philanthropic purposes, wouldn't >>>>>>>>> he be crazy to let anyone know he was investing in it? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I would find out. People such as Ed Storms and McKubre would find >>>>>>>> out. It is a small world. People are not going to do research without >>>>>>>> word >>>>>>>> getting out. I may not know where the money is coming from, but if >>>>>>>> someone >>>>>>>> starts spending millions per year on cold fusion, they will have to >>>>>>>> hire >>>>>>>> grad students and consult with people, and word will get out. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> If you are a billionaire but you are only going to spend tens of >>>>>>>> thousands instead of millions, I might not hear about it. An investor >>>>>>>> who >>>>>>>> does not spend millions is wasting his money. If we could get somewhere >>>>>>>> with shoestring budgets, we would have made progress years ago. If >>>>>>>> someone >>>>>>>> asked me "what kind of research can I do with $50,000?" I would say go >>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>> the racetrack and bet the money. You will have more chance of making a >>>>>>>> profit than you would putting the money in cold fusion. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> - Jed >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >> >
