Re: [Vo]:X-prize proposal

[Kevin O'Malley]

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 prizes
are 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--Ke

Re: [Vo]:X-prize proposal

[Kevin O'Malley]

A recent LENR crowdfunding example


http://www.e-catworld.com/2014/02/e-cat-world-hho-experimentcrowdfunding-proposal/comment-page-1/#comment-178527
E-Cat World HHO Experiment/Crowdfunding Proposal
Posted on February 26, 2014 by
admin* 19
Comments


 I'm pleased to post a proposed experiment sent to me by Alan Smith, the
Managing Director of London-based startup Leap Forward Laboratory, Ltd.
Leap Forward Lab will move into a permanent home in late summer, but
meanwhile Alan has the space and facilities required for this in his own
workshop. Alan has had a wide range of experience in the manufacturing and
engineering professions -- see his LinkedIn
profilefor
details.

What we are really trying to find out here is if there is some kind of
unconventional reaction taking place when HHO gas is combined with a
catalyzer, as has been suggested a number of experimenters. We are simply
trying to get an answer one way or another here.

Alan's proposal is to carry out an experiment to examine the comparative
heat output of two HHO systems, one with simple combustion (naked flame)
and the other using catalytic recombination. The proposal is embedded
below, along with a download link.

Alan will carry out the proposed experiment if we can raise $500 by April
1, 2014 to cover the cost of the equipment he will need for the experiment,
so this will be a crowdfunded project.

If you want to support this effort, please send a contribution via Paypal
to me, Frank Acland, at frankacl...@yahoo.com. If we raise the the total
funds needed by April 1, Alan will carry out the experiment. If the
fundraising goal is not met by that time, all donations will be refunded,
and the experiment will not go forward.

As you will see in the document, Alan is asking for comments on the
proposed experiment, and will review all ideas carefully -- but will make
the final decision on how the experiment will be carried out.

There is a section in the E-Cat World
Forumdedicated
to the discussion of this project, where Alan will provide
updates of progress, and post videos and data. ECW readers are encouraged
to participate in the forum to ask questions, provide input, etc. I will
provide updates about fundraising progress in the forum space.

Lfl Experiment Proposal
HHOby
ecatworld 



On Sat, Feb 22, 2014 at 7:51 AM, Eric Walker  wrote:

> On Fri, Feb 21, 2014 at 11:35 PM, Kevin O'Malley wrote:
>
> Crowdfunding is the use of the internet to raise small sums of money from
>> large numbers of investors. Current US law allows organizations such as the
>> Martin Fleischmann Memorial Project to raise funds through crowdfunding but
>> it doesn't allow them offer to offer equity (stock or ownership) to those
>> who put up money.
>
>
> Nice.  Sort of like Kickstarter with equity.  The one million cap is a
> pittance.  It will allow software startups to get going, but anything
> focusing on hardware (e.g., LENR prototype development) is going to burn
> through amount quickly.  Having the SEC closely involved is also a possible
> damper.  It's one thing to log into Kickstarter, create an account and
> start a campaign.  It's another to apply to a federal bureaucracy, submit
> documentation and obtain permission (assuming permission is needed).  Also,
> venture capital would laugh at finance on this scale.  They generally want
> something that they can really put a lot of money behind, and something
> that will potentially have a huge ROI -- think of the 19B acquisition of
> WhatsApp by Facebook.  I'm pretty sure there are some happy VCs involved in
> that purchase, who will take away a disproportionate part of the money as a
> reward for their hard work, risk-taking, shrewd insights and brilliant
> advice.  But even with a teansy cap of one million, this amount is enough
> for a software startup to "bootstrap" its way to profitability, possibly
> cutting VCs out of the loop entirely and allowing the employees to retain
> full equity throughout the life of the business.
>
> Even though something like Kickstarter with equity feels like it could be
> a positive development overall for LENR, despite the tiny cap, I'm also
> wary of a thousand LENR scams blooming.  Although venture capital and angel
> investors could potentially be hoodwinked by a dishonest or self-deceptive
> player, they're on their guard and are generally willing to do some due
> diligence.  I think there is much less of an impulse to do due diligence
> among LENR watchers more generally, so there could end up being a lot of
> money th

Re: [Vo]:X-prize proposal

[Eric Walker]

On Fri, Feb 21, 2014 at 11:35 PM, Kevin O'Malley wrote:

Crowdfunding is the use of the internet to raise small sums of money from
> large numbers of investors. Current US law allows organizations such as the
> Martin Fleischmann Memorial Project to raise funds through crowdfunding but
> it doesn’t allow them offer to offer equity (stock or ownership) to those
> who put up money.


Nice.  Sort of like Kickstarter with equity.  The one million cap is a
pittance.  It will allow software startups to get going, but anything
focusing on hardware (e.g., LENR prototype development) is going to burn
through amount quickly.  Having the SEC closely involved is also a possible
damper.  It's one thing to log into Kickstarter, create an account and
start a campaign.  It's another to apply to a federal bureaucracy, submit
documentation and obtain permission (assuming permission is needed).  Also,
venture capital would laugh at finance on this scale.  They generally want
something that they can really put a lot of money behind, and something
that will potentially have a huge ROI -- think of the 19B acquisition of
WhatsApp by Facebook.  I'm pretty sure there are some happy VCs involved in
that purchase, who will take away a disproportionate part of the money as a
reward for their hard work, risk-taking, shrewd insights and brilliant
advice.  But even with a teansy cap of one million, this amount is enough
for a software startup to "bootstrap" its way to profitability, possibly
cutting VCs out of the loop entirely and allowing the employees to retain
full equity throughout the life of the business.

Even though something like Kickstarter with equity feels like it could be a
positive development overall for LENR, despite the tiny cap, I'm also wary
of a thousand LENR scams blooming.  Although venture capital and angel
investors could potentially be hoodwinked by a dishonest or self-deceptive
player, they're on their guard and are generally willing to do some due
diligence.  I think there is much less of an impulse to do due diligence
among LENR watchers more generally, so there could end up being a lot of
money thrown away on projects that are 100 percent unpromising.  That's the
abstract analysis.  More likely, I don't see this changing the situation
all that much, because it doesn't seem like there is a lot of money to go
around in LENR right now, even making it easier for everyday supporters to
participate.

Eric

Re: [Vo]:X-prize proposal

[Kevin O'Malley]

Crowdsourcing.
***



http://coldfusion3.com/blog/regulation-crowdfunding-could-jump-start-lenr-industry
Regulation Crowdfunding could Jump Start LENR Industry
Published February 21, 2014 | By jennifer

A new kind of financing called Regulation Crowdfunding could provide an
important new source of money for *low energy nuclear reaction* (LENR)
research and development. Regulation
crowdfundingcould
also make it far easier for average people to invest in
LENR and
profit from it.



Crowdfunding is the use of the internet to raise small sums of money from
large numbers of investors. Current US law allows
organizationssuch
as the *Martin
Fleischmann Memorial Project* to raise funds through crowdfunding but it
doesn't allow them offer to offer equity (stock or ownership) to those who
put up money.

The JOBS Act passed by Congress in 2012 allows a company to raise up to $1
million in a year by selling equities to the public through Regulation
Crowdfunding. That would allow companies such as LENUCO,
NANORTechand
Brillouin to offer average people equity in a *cold
fusion venture* in exchange for funding. It could help an
inventorraise
the money he needs to build an LENR
prototype
.

One advantage to this is that small investors would be able to get equity
in exchange for their money. A person might be able to get a share of an *LENR
enterprise* for as little as $10. Crowdfunding investments would be limited
to $2,000 under the SEC requirements.

That could open new sources of financing because average people have a hard
time investing in such companies. Companies also face limits because
current US law requires up $2 million worth of *paperwork *to issue stock
through an initial public offering.

Brillouin Financing 

That's the good news for *LENR entrepreneurs* and inventors in the US. The
bad news is that Regulation Crowdfunding cannot go into effect until the
Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) approves a set of
rulesfor
it. The SEC is considering those rules which have generated some
controversy.

The controversy is over accounting requirements. The current
ruleswould require
that a company seeking up to $100,000 in funding submit two
years of financial statements and a tax return. Companies raising $100,000
to $500,000 will have to provide financial statements reviewed by a
certified public accountant (CPA). *Companies *that raise between $500,000
and $1 million will have to submit to an audit.



Some critics believe that these regulations will make it too expensive for
some companies to take advantage of regulation crowdfunding. Even with
these limitations, regulation crowdfunding will be a tremendous opportunity
for *LENR entrepreneurs.*

The biggest challenge facing many LENR and *cold fusion inventors* is
getting start up
financing.
Regulation Crowdfunding could allow such companies to get that financing.
The crowdfunding rules have been finalized but it isn't clear when they
will go into effect. Another advantage to regulation crowdfunding is that
it could allow inventors to keep control of their LENR
technology
.

Even with its limitations, Regulation Crowdfunding could play an important
role in the development and *commercialization of LENR*. One hopes that
entrepreneurs will take advantage of it.
Related search:

   - crowdfunding OR crowdfund OR crowdfunded
   - entrepreneurs

Re: [Vo]:X-prize proposal

[Kevin O'Malley]

On Sat, Feb 15, 2014 at 1:31 PM, James Bowery  wrote:

>  .
>
>>
> When the MFMP says they are ready to claim they've sufficient signal to
> noise and sufficient replicability,
>
***The MFMP says they intend to test a NANOR
http://www.quantumheat.org/index.php/en/replicate
but they haven't.  The latest results from Dr. Hazeltein at MIT show a COP
of 80, as opposed to the Celani wire which at MFMP is showing a COP of
1.125.  There is a need for more activity in this open source realm.




> they will be in a position to submit that experimental protocol to a
> judging board
>
***There is no such judging board.  That is why my proposal says that the
judges should be of the choosing of the XPrize committee.




> along with funds to support replication by those skilled in the art
>
***"Skilled in the art" is too confining.  We need to encourage those who
are not currently "skilled in the art" and the best way to do that is with
prize money.



> as agreed by the judging board and MFMP.
>
***presumptuous

>
> The question is whether it is worthwhile attempting to raise money for the
> prize prior to MFMP claiming they have achieved said replicability.
>
***The simple fact is, the Pons-Fleischmann Anomalous Heat Event has been
replicated more than 14,000 times.  Waiting for one particular organization
to replicate it is a fool's errand.


>
>
>

Re: Incandescent lights was RE: [Vo]:X-prize proposal

[Jed Rothwell]

Hoyt A. Stearns Jr.  wrote:

In cold climates, they make nice localized heaters, and will probably cost
> less than what your electric furnace would have cost to run . . .
>

The energy cost is exactly the same as a resistance electric heater. The
equipment cost is far higher. A small, 1.5 kW resistance electric heater
costs much less than 15 light bulbs, and it lasts much longer.

In most geographic locations, space heating or water heating with electric
resistance is extremely uneconomical. You should use a heat pump in warm
locals, or gas heating in cold, northern ones. In a few places such as
Washington state they have a great deal of hydroelectricity in winter, so
it makes sense to use resistance heating. In a cold place with lots of
excess wind energy it would also make sense to use resistance heating.

An on-demand electric water heater is sometimes an economical solution,
such as in a spread-out house where a bathroom is far from where a hot
water heater tank can be located. You run only a cold water line to the
distant bathroom and heat the water on demand there.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:X-prize proposal

[Jed Rothwell]

Eric Walker  wrote:


>  Using incandescent lights is economic lunacy. Even with cold fusion it
>> would be crazy, especially in commercial apps.
>>
>
> That makes sense.  I draw a big distinction between compact fluorescents
> and LEDs.  LEDs are not bad at all; in fact, I kind of like them.  CFLs
> make my eyes hurt and make everything less vibrant looking.
>

Yes, they have made great progress in recent years improving the spectrum
of LEDs. I bought one the other day marked "Daylight." It is uncanny how
white it is. I do not think they will improve CFLs. I think that technology
is on its way out, to be replaced with LEDs.


Another kind of light source I really have a hard time with is sodium
> vapor.  San Jose, which is just a 45 minute drive from where I live on a
> good day, uses this for their street lamps.
>

I hate, hate, HATE those things!

I should join the International Dark-Sky Society.

http://www.darksky.org/

- Jed

RE: [Vo]:X-prize proposal

[Hoyt A. Stearns Jr.]

I'm guessing they're efficient because their near monochromatic output is near 
the peak
sensitivity of the human eye, so the comparison should be done with yellow LEDs.

Hoyt

-Original Message-
From: AlanG [mailto:a...@magicsound.us]
Sent: Saturday, February 15, 2014 2:17 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:X-prize proposal

Sodium vapor lamps are apparently the most efficient light source commercially 
available, which is why they're widely used in street lighting. At 200 
lumens/watt, they are about twice as efficient as typical LED lamps, and have 
about half the service life. Their construction uses borosilcate glass with a 
vacuum thermal insulation envelope. Sound familiar?  A discarded bulb might 
make a good core for a Celani cell.

AlanG

ref: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sodium-vapor_lamp

On 2/15/2014 12:08 PM, Eric Walker wrote:
> Another kind of light source I really have a hard time with is sodium
> vapor.  San Jose, which is just a 45 minute drive from where I live on
> a good day, uses this for their street lamps.


---
This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection 
is active.
http://www.avast.com

Re: [Vo]:X-prize proposal

[James Bowery]

On Fri, Feb 14, 2014 at 4:51 PM, Kevin O'Malley  wrote:

> My proposal for X-Prize is more of a grassroots movement to replicate the
> gamma rays & excess heat seen by the MFMP, and for the experiments to be
> done at a Techshop.  Such an arrangement probably isn't suitable to a
> company trying to sell a product and keeping a tight grip on their IP.
>

When the MFMP says they are ready to claim they've sufficient signal to
noise and sufficient replicability, they will be in a position to submit
that experimental protocol to a judging board along with funds to support
replication by those skilled in the art as agreed by the judging board and
MFMP.

The question is whether it is worthwhile attempting to raise money for the
prize prior to MFMP claiming they have achieved said replicability.

For the reasons Randy Wuller gives, we can't expect the X-Prize foundation
to support such a prize, so it will probably have to be a kickstarter
campaign.

Re: [Vo]:X-prize proposal

[James Bowery]

On Fri, Feb 14, 2014 at 4:51 PM, Kevin O'Malley  wrote:

> My proposal for X-Prize is more of a grassroots movement to replicate the
> gamma rays & excess heat seen by the MFMP, and for the experiments to be
> done at a Techshop.  Such an arrangement probably isn't suitable to a
> company trying to sell a product and keeping a tight grip on their IP.
>

MFMP is not yet ready to say they have, indeed, seen gamma rays & excess
heat
:

We feel we are close, but despite repeated signs of upto 12.5% excess heat
and recently signs of gamma, we are sticking to our principle, that of not
moving on to worldwide distribution until we have an incontrovertible,
repeatable experiment to share. When the gamma spectra solution is fully
realised and the mass flow calorimeter experiment ready, we have a good
shot of addressing all outstanding criticism. The nominal excess may not be
glamorous, but if certain, we will be very satisfied. We thank you.

Re: [Vo]:X-prize proposal

[Terry Blanton]

On Sat, Feb 15, 2014 at 3:08 PM, Eric Walker  wrote:

>CFLs make my
> eyes hurt and make everything less vibrant looking.  I'm going to guess this
> is because they are only lighting up small portions of the spectrum of
> visible light, but this is just a guess.

I think it is because many people perceive the 120 hz flicker in the
ionized gas as zero current flows.  You don't see this in
incandescents because the filament is not as responsive.

> I'm reminded of Neil Young's
> explanation for why he thought that CDs didn't sound as good as records --
> something along the lines of being able to hear the skips in the binary
> encoding of the CD as the laser was passing over.

I had a professor who ranted against solid state audio amplifiers.  He
claimed they made the music sound muddy passing through a solid and
could not compete with the crystal clear music passing through a
vacuum.

Actually there is an explanation for vinyl sounding different.  There
is a phase smearing which occurs in the differentiation of the needle
motion which is not present in PCM encoding of audio signals.  People
explain it as vinyl sounding "warmer".

Re: [Vo]:X-prize proposal

[AlanG]

Sodium vapor lamps are apparently the most efficient light source 
commercially available, which is why they're widely used in street 
lighting. At 200 lumens/watt, they are about twice as efficient as 
typical LED lamps, and have about half the service life. Their 
construction uses borosilcate glass with a vacuum thermal insulation 
envelope. Sound familiar?  A discarded bulb might make a good core for a 
Celani cell.


AlanG

ref: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sodium-vapor_lamp

On 2/15/2014 12:08 PM, Eric Walker wrote:
Another kind of light source I really have a hard time with is sodium 
vapor.  San Jose, which is just a 45 minute drive from where I live on 
a good day, uses this for their street lamps.

Re: [Vo]:X-prize proposal

[H Veeder]

On Sat, Feb 15, 2014 at 3:08 PM, Eric Walker  wrote:

> On Sat, Feb 15, 2014 at 10:38 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
>
> Using incandescent lights is economic lunacy. Even with cold fusion it
>> would be crazy, especially in commercial apps.
>>
>
> That makes sense.  I draw a big distinction between compact fluorescents
> and LEDs.  LEDs are not bad at all; in fact, I kind of like them.  CFLs
> make my eyes hurt and make everything less vibrant looking.  I'm going to
> guess this is because they are only lighting up small portions of the
> spectrum of visible light, but this is just a guess.
>


On a romantic scale I would place the incandescent bulb above LEDs and
CFLs, but below candles.

Harry

Incandescent lights was RE: [Vo]:X-prize proposal

[Hoyt A. Stearns Jr.]

In cold climates, they make nice localized heaters, and will probably cost less 
than what your electric furnace would have cost to run,

so the efforts to ban them is misguided.  ( They're also used in other heating 
applications and as nice load resistors for electrical

testing.)



Hoyt Stearns

Scottsdale, Arizona  (where we don't need much heat, so I'm replacing 
everything with LEDs.)



P.S. I toured the Boeing Everett Washington 747 plant years ago, and they told 
us that they didn't need any air heaters,

the lamps (metal halide lamps in that case ) and equipment were enough to heat 
that 100 acre building.







From: Eric Walker [mailto:eric.wal...@gmail.com]
Sent: Saturday, February 15, 2014 1:09 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:X-prize proposal



On Sat, Feb 15, 2014 at 10:38 AM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:



Using incandescent lights is economic lunacy. Even with cold fusion it would be 
crazy, especially in commercial apps.





---
This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection 
is active.
http://www.avast.com

Re: [Vo]:X-prize proposal

[Eric Walker]

On Sat, Feb 15, 2014 at 10:38 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote:

Using incandescent lights is economic lunacy. Even with cold fusion it
> would be crazy, especially in commercial apps.
>

That makes sense.  I draw a big distinction between compact fluorescents
and LEDs.  LEDs are not bad at all; in fact, I kind of like them.  CFLs
make my eyes hurt and make everything less vibrant looking.  I'm going to
guess this is because they are only lighting up small portions of the
spectrum of visible light, but this is just a guess.  I'm reminded of Neil
Young's explanation for why he thought that CDs didn't sound as good as
records -- something along the lines of being able to hear the skips in the
binary encoding of the CD as the laser was passing over.  He was no doubt
mistaken on that point.

Another kind of light source I really have a hard time with is sodium
vapor.  San Jose, which is just a 45 minute drive from where I live on a
good day, uses this for their street lamps.  This is what it looks like at
night there:

http://extras.mnginteractive.com/live/media/site568/2013/1101/20131101__streetlights~1_300.JPG
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/85/HPS-lamps.jpg

What these images don't adequately convey is the strain on your eyes that
you feel when you're there at night.  If the members of the city council
there are normal people, it is hard to envision the decision making process
that led to those lights being installed.  I suspect the members are all
accountants.

 An expert described the advantages of CFL over incandescent by saying:
> "this is not a free lunch; it is a lunch you are paid to eat."
>

If that's the case, then I would much prefer LEDs.

Eric

Re: [Vo]:X-prize proposal

[Jed Rothwell]

Jones Beene  wrote:


> The cost per FLOP or per byte of storage has declined by many orders of
> magnitude. BUT, we spend a lot more on computers than we did in 1970.
>
>
>
>
>
> We spend much more now so this is not comparable and disproves your former
> assertion ...
>

It is comparable. You are missing the point. The unit cost of energy falls
but overall consumption will increase. The total amount spent may also
increase, although I doubt that individual consumption will cost more.
Society as a whole may spend more when you include things like massive
desalination projects.



>  and you still do not have a grasp of the time issue, wrt energy and IP
> and trade secrets etc. LENR will not happen quickly and it will cost
> slightly more for many years, due to the novelty if nothing else.
>

It may not take many years. That is hard to say. It is in the interests of
Rossi and other IP holders to bring out cold fusion as quickly as possible,
and to lower the cost as rapidly as possible. For two reasons: patents do
not last long; and with a product of this nature you earn more selling many
units at a low cost than you do selling a few at a high cost.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:X-prize proposal

[Jed Rothwell]

Eric Walker  wrote:


> First, the light will know to turn itself off, and second, there won't be
> a particular need to turn it off.  I'll get my beloved regular old
> lightbulbs back and will say goodbye to compact fluorescents forever.
>

Probably not. Compact fluorescent (CFL) are cheaper per unit cost than
incandescent lights. The initial sale price is higher, but the cost is
cheaper over the life of the bulb because they last so long. LED lights are
rated to last 20 years, and some come with lifetime guarantees, meaning as
long as you own it, they will replace it. The lifetimes are 50,000 hours
for an LED and 1,200 hours for an incandescent. The LED cost is $36 versus
$1.25, so it is marginally cheaper over a lifetime. CFL cost $4 and last
10,000 hours so they are much cheaper. See:

http://eartheasy.com/live_led_bulbs_comparison.html

For commercial, office or industrial applications, CFL and LED lights are
far cheaper for another reason. They are replaced much less often.
Replacing one usually calls for a maintenance person to bring a ladder and
spend several minutes replacing the bulb and disrupting operations. That
ends up costing more than the bulb.

Obviously, with the cost of today's electricity both CFL and LED lights
save a tremendous amount of money for energy. Per 50,000 hours of
illumination, taking into account the unit cost of the bulbs, they cost
about $88 versus $353 for incandescent lights. Using incandescent lights is
economic lunacy. Even with cold fusion it would be crazy, especially in
commercial apps.

An expert described the advantages of CFL over incandescent by saying:
"this is not a free lunch; it is a lunch you are paid to eat."

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:X-prize proposal

[Eric Walker]

On Fri, Feb 14, 2014 at 2:36 PM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

Overall consumption may not rise much in the first world, because many
> people consume all the energy they want. I am sure consumption will rise in
> the the third world.
>

Assuming CF is commercialized in our lifetimes, people will no doubt end up
doing some pretty declasse things, like designing refrigerators without
doors.  People will create velvet paintings affixed with permanent lights
that move around and flash.  We'll all forget about the rule where you're
supposed to turn the light off when you leave the room, for two reasons.
 First, the light will know to turn itself off, and second, there won't be
a particular need to turn it off.  I'll get my beloved regular old
lightbulbs back and will say goodbye to compact fluorescents forever.

Eric

Re: [Vo]:X-prize proposal

[Axil Axil]

Be specific, you must be referring to the Koch brothers. When the
environmentalists push LENR as a solution for climate change, the Kock
family will spend big to kill the LENR menace before it spreads.




On Fri, Feb 14, 2014 at 1:26 PM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

> I wrote:
>
>
>> The fallacy would be to state that: "we know this is a lie because it
>> serves the speaker's best interests." That would only be true if people
>> invariably, automatically lied whenever it was in their best interest to do
>> so. We know they do not.
>>
>
> In this discussion, I have made a prediction that fossil fuel companies
> will lie about cold fusion, because it is in their interests to lie. That
> is not a logical deduction. It is a prediction based on my knowledge of
> history and human nature. I may well be wrong. I will be delighted if it
> turns out I am wrong.
>
> - Jed
>
>

Re: [Vo]:X-prize proposal

[Kevin O'Malley]

On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 9:44 PM, Randy Wuller  wrote:

> Of course I understand what the Xprize can accomplish, I was there at the
> beginning pitching it in St Louis.
>
> But if any of the entities talking about products introduces one that
> works, what prize do you suggest be funded?
>
***The ones that would be funded are the ones who apply for the prize.
Spaceship One was the winner because they demo'd to the requirements of
X-Prize.  Burt Rutan also builds & sells airplanes, so his business was
lifted up as a result.

My proposal for X-Prize is more of a grassroots movement to replicate the
gamma rays & excess heat seen by the MFMP, and for the experiments to be
done at a Techshop.  Such an arrangement probably isn't suitable to a
company trying to sell a product and keeping a tight grip on their IP.

In a way, Rossi already turned down a version of the X-Prize when he
wouldn't test his device in front of Dick Smith for the $1M offered.  If I
were in Rossi's shoes (and KNEW I had a working cold fusion box), I'm not
sure such a demo would be worth the effort and I also would doubt that Dick
Smith would even pay it.

Re: [Vo]:X-prize proposal

[Jed Rothwell]

Jones Beene  wrote:


> It will take years for that to happen, just as it did in automobiles.
> There will likely be trades secrets in LENR which prohibit this at first.
>

Okay, years. It took a while for the Intel microprocessor to gut the
minicomputer and mainframe markets. It did not happen overnight in 1970.

Cold fusion is likely to move faster for the same reason transistors did in
1952. Uncle Sam does not look kindly on trade secrets that prevent the
spread of vitally important technology. Back then, Uncle more or less
ordered Bell Labs to put transistors into the hands of experts at Los
Alamos and the major military contractors. Because of the cold war. Similar
military considerations will apply today.



> No major car manufacturer would buy engines from a vendor.
>
>
>
> Complete nonsense. This happens all the time. Toyota makes many engines
> for Chevy. 100% of several Volvo models are made by Mitsubishi.
>

Yeah, okay, but the engineers work closely together and they do not set up
a factory to make one-size-fits-all motors, like today's consumer
batteries. I meant there are no off the shelf sales.

Also, there is competition. No vendor is going to lock down that market.

Anyway, Exxon is no position to develop something like a cold fusion engine
or heater. There must be a thousand major companies with better expertise.
It will not be very expensive. We know that because Rossi working by
himself has managed to fabricate prototypes. A single individual could
never prototype something like a new CPU chip, a Prius hybrid motor, or an
oil tanker.

The R in cold fusion R&D is cheap. The D will cost way more, of course.
Still, I doubt it will be so expensive it will lock out mid-sized
industrial corporations. Unless it does lock out all but one or two big
companies -- like IBM in 1970 -- there will be competition and the price
will fall.

- Jed

RE: [Vo]:X-prize proposal

[Jones Beene]

 

From: Jed Rothwell 

 

Note how I phrased this, oh so carefully:

 

As long as there is free market competition, there will be cutthroat price
reductions and the cost of energy per joule will plummet, just as the cost
of computing fell by a factor of several billion (measured per instruction
or per byte of storage).

 

The cost per FLOP or per byte of storage has declined by many orders of
magnitude. BUT, we spend a lot more on computers than we did in 1970. 

 

 

We spend much more now so this is not comparable and disproves your former
assertion . and you still do not have a grasp of the time issue, wrt energy
and IP and trade secrets etc. LENR will not happen quickly and it will cost
slightly more for many years, due to the novelty if nothing else.

 

There will be no real savings to the energy consumer this decade, even with
robust LENR happening this year - since the initial cost will be high and
the supply will be low. Wind and solar are maturing at this time as well -
and they do not need major maintenance every 6 months.

 

Even if the "heat" source seems magical, the economics are not magic - it is
supply and demand. Coal can still be bought for $60 ton and LENR will never
compete on a thermal BTW basis with that - even if you give away the device,
since the nickel replacement will cost much more than Rossi wants to admit
(even if it does not have an enriched isotope, as his patent implies).

 

Jones

 

 

 

Re: [Vo]:X-prize proposal

[Jed Rothwell]

Note how I phrased this, oh so carefully:


> As long as there is free market competition, there will be cutthroat price
> reductions and the cost of energy per joule will plummet, just as the cost
> of computing fell by a factor of several billion (measured per instruction
> or per byte of storage).
>

The cost per FLOP or per byte of storage has declined by many orders of
magnitude. BUT, we spend a lot more on computers than we did in 1970.
Corporations spend more, and individuals spend way more, increasing from
zero dollars then to several thousand dollars today. When you count the
cost of computers built into your car, your food processor, TV and cell
phone, computers are probably one of your biggest expenses.

Something similar may happen with energy. We may consume a lot more of it,
in many new ways. The price may fall by a factor of ten for the raw joules
of heat, but manufacturers will think of clever ways to package energy and
we will buy it in small expensive chunks. This is like converting cheap
potatoes into expensive potato chips.

Overall consumption may not rise much in the first world, because many
people consume all the energy they want. I am sure consumption will rise in
the the third world.

If we undertake projects such as massive desalination, or a project to bury
most of the major highways, the overall, society-wide use of energy will
increase tremendously. The cost, meanwhile, will gradually fall to zero.

- Jed

RE: [Vo]:X-prize proposal

[Jones Beene]

From: Jed Rothwell 

 

I meant to say: LENR will be built into things like cars and space heaters,
BY the companies that manufacture these things.

 

It will take years for that to happen, just as it did in automobiles. There
will likely be trades secrets in LENR which prohibit this at first. 

 

I mean with in-house expertise, and in-house production lines. LENR will be
tightly integrated into the design of the machines. 

 

Eventually, after many years - but not at first.

 

Not something you can add-on from an outside vendor.

 

Nonsense. The main reason to integrate is simply to control supply. Often
the company is better off, cost-wise, buying the engines from a specialist
in engines. 

 

No major car manufacturer would buy engines from a vendor.

 

Complete nonsense. This happens all the time. Toyota makes many engines for
Chevy. 100% of several Volvo models are made by Mitsubishi. Mitsubishi
specializes in making both engines and the whole car for other companies.
Many Jaguar engines were built by Ford. Rolls-Royce did not make their own
engines for 20 years. BMW supplied the engines and other components for
Rolls and Bentley - prior to Volkswagen buying the company (years later, VW
sold Rolls to BMW). Aston Martin buys all their engines, etc, etc.

 

There is no independent factory out there churning out Toyota Prius hybrid
engines.

 

Whoa. As a matter of fact there is a Toyota engine plant not far from
Atlanta that ships to GM. It is owned by Toyota, but is independent from
their assembly plants - and it ships engines to other companies (not the
Prius drivetrain however) including the engine in the Chevrolet compact cars
and Pontiac at one time, Lotus and other smaller makes. 

 

If this plant were making LENR engines, which is not out of the question,
given Toyotas R&D - it would be able to ship them anywhere if there was
demand and excess supply that Toyota could not absorb.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toyota_Motor_Manufacturing_Alabama

 

Where did you come up with this disinformation about manufacturers not
buying engines from competitors ? Happens all the time.

 

Jones

 

 

 

Re: [Vo]:X-prize proposal

[Jed Rothwell]

Jones Beene  wrote:


> If LENR turns out to be long-term commercial reality, then the initial cost
> of the devices will be higher than most of us want to believe, since that
> price will be governed by typical supply and demand dynamics - with demand
> pushing prices to the limit. The savings will not be passed on to the end
> user.
>

This is like looking at Intel's first microprocessor in 1970, and saying,
"these things will never make computers any cheaper than they are today.
The saving will never be passed on to the end user."

Oh yes they will. As long as there is free market competition, there will
be cutthroat price reductions and the cost of energy per joule will
plummet, just as the cost of computing fell by a factor of several
billion (measured per instruction or per byte of storage). Nothing can stop
that from happening.

If there is one iron law of business it is that the customers will go for
the cheaper alternative. Manufacturers such as DEC and Data General who
tried to sell a $30,000 minicomputer in competition with a $2,000 desktop
computer in 1980 were doomed. They vanished. IBM nearly vanished for the
same reason.

A radical price decline can only be staved off -- for a few years -- if one
manufacturer gets a lock on the market, and dominates it way IBM dominated
mainframe computers in the 1960s and 1970s. IBM was able to do that because
manufacturing mainframe computers was difficult back then. Designing the
IBM 360 series cost more than the Manhattan Project. Nothing about cold
fusion technology will be remotely as difficult or complicated. Any large
industrial company will be able to master the technology. They may have to
pay a license to Rossi or Cherokee or some other IP holder. Such license
fees are never set at onerous prices. National governments will not allow
that. They would not allow Rossi to collect, let us say, $1,000 per cell
phone battery replacement, or $50,000 for an automobile engine cold fusion
power supply. The patent laws are administered by Uncle Sam with the
specific goal of promoting progress and spreading the use of technology --
not just enriching the inventors. They do not allow inventors to choke back
innovation or gouge. This has been settled in many cases over the last 200
years. Look at important technology such as the transistor and you see that
the government insisted that Bell Labs license at a reasonable rate.

The government will also never allow important military technology to be
held back by gouging, and cold fusion is the most important military
technology in history.

Corporations today are only allowed to gouge in the medical business, where
they charge $1,000 for 1 liter of salt water. That is a temporary
situation. Sooner or later the government will step in and begin enforcing
antitrust laws and other laws to prevent such abuses.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:X-prize proposal

[Jed Rothwell]

I meant to say: LENR will be built into things like cars and space heaters,
BY the companies that manufacture these things.

I mean with in-house expertise, and in-house production lines. LENR will be
tightly integrated into the design of the machines. Not something you can
add-on from an outside vendor. No major car manufacturer would buy engines
from a vendor.

A HVAC company such as Carrier has more in-house expertise in designing a
heat pump than any outside vendor. If Exxon tries to set up a production
line churning out cold fusion cells, I cannot imagine who would want them.
They have to be in a particular form factor, with particular performance
characteristics to fit an application, similar to the power supplies,
blowers and the other components in a furnace. That is what Carrier knows
how to engineer and manufacture. The actual cold fusion component will be a
minor part of the furnace in any case.

If, in the future, cold fusion cells are made by outside vendors, that will
be because the cells have become a standardized commodity, like a
transformer. Something you order from a catalog that is available from six
different vendors meeting various industry standard specifications. A
business like that cannot replace Exxon Mobil's $44 billion profit made
last year. It will be a nickel and dime business, worth tens of millions at
best.

The only outsider vendor who makes money in cold fusion will be R&D
companies that hold patents. Patents do not last long. Exxon is not likely
to come up with a patent in cold fusion any more than they are in medical
research. They have no relevant expertise. Just having money will not buy
them expertise, because lots of other corporations have money too, and they
already have relevant manufacturing expertise.

A company like Intel is better positioned to make money in cold fusion than
Exxon will be. They know materials, and materials are the key to cold
fusion.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:X-prize proposal

[Jed Rothwell]

Jones Beene  wrote:


> There is the cynical PoV, which should not be overlooked. The Exxons of the
> world do not necessarily see themselves as oil companies so much as
> "enablers of personal transportation". They want your $30 and up, per week,
> and do not care if they get it by leasing to you a device or an alternative
> fuel. They are not going away.
>

Christensen and others often quote the Pennsylvania Railroad executives
circa 1950. "We are not in the railroad business. We are in the
transportation business." Meaning they were lean, mean, competitive
fighting machines. They could take on airlines, trucks, and any other
method of moving goods and people. After all, the Pennsylvania Railroad was
the largest, most profitable, most politically powerful company in the U.S.
in 1900. So they knew the transportation business inside and out. Right?
Nope. They went clean out of business in 1970.

It turns out, they understood how to lay railroad tracks and maintain
rolling stock, but they did not know a thing about air transport. They
never even tried to break into that market. Or any other. They never though
of container traffic, which was the biggest transportation breakthrough of
the 20th century.

IBM in 1985 was still the biggest and most profitable computer company.
They dominated the industry. They thought they owned it. It turned out,
however, that they were good at mainframe computers but not other kinds of
computers. They almost went out of business in the late 1980s, after losing
more money than any other corporation in history.

The abilities of a corporation are much narrower than the managers realize.



> The oil companies have cash. They can, and will, buy the entire output of
> an
> LENR factory and control the supply. Then they can use LENR to make a
> substitute for gasoline, and they will be happy to do it that way.
>

There will be no such thing as a LENR factory. LENR will be built into
things like cars and space heaters, but the companies that manufacture
these things. Like today's power supplies or internal combustion engines.
There is no independent factory out there churning out Toyota Prius hybrid
engines.

All the cash in the world cannot make a petrochemical expert into someone
who understand how to sell into the household appliance market, or how to
design a better cold fusion auto engine. As I said, companies like GE will
blow them out of the water. GE has plenty of money too. Exxon will never
get a toehold into the cold fusion powered automobile market, which is one
the biggest. Why would GM or Toyota give them any of it? It will be 100%
their game. They will not need to send even one dollar to Exxon, so they
won't send a dollar or a dime. Why should they?

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:X-prize proposal

[Jed Rothwell]

Alain Sepeda  wrote:

It seems oils companies like Amoco, Shell have participated the research.
> Today they participate investment in renewables, like do oild kingdoms, to
> prepare for the transition...
>

A few scientists at these companies did research. I doubt that upper
management was aware of their work. Furthermore, even if management was
aware, I doubt they would look at these results and think that they might
result in practical technology any time in the next 50 years.



> what you describe is better explained by self-delusion like the one of hot
> fusionist...
> I feel that oil companies won't be the most victims of that delusion (they
> will have few decade to die).
>

Studies by Christensen (the author of "The Innovator's Dilemma") show that
existing corporations seldom survive the transition to a radical new
technology. He has many case studies. For example, he showed that when
ships converted from sail to steam power, the leading ship builders did not
survive the transition. They did not even try to make steamships. They did
make steel hulls for sailing ships, so they might have built steamships. In
some sense it did not even occur to them.

He has many 20th century examples. I happen to like that one.

One of the problems for the oil companies will be that they will have no
relevant experience, research capabilities, or marketing skills for cold
fusion. Selling cold fusion will mainly be the business of selling
household appliances, automobiles, and factory equipment. This is not
something an oil company does. They are less qualified to do it than, say,
Dell computer, and far less qualified than General Electric or Toshiba.
Having a ton of money and a bunch of petroleum engineers will not give them
the skills they need in this market. Digging wells and shipping millions of
tons of oil is not remotely like manufacturing a battery or a cold fusion
device.

- Jed

RE: [Vo]:X-prize proposal

[Jones Beene]

From: alain.coetm...@gmail.com 

It seems oils companies like Amoco, Shell have participated
the research.
Today they participate investment in renewables, like do oil
kingdoms, to prepare for the transition...

There is the cynical PoV, which should not be overlooked. The Exxons of the
world do not necessarily see themselves as oil companies so much as
"enablers of personal transportation". They want your $30 and up, per week,
and do not care if they get it by leasing to you a device or an alternative
fuel. They are not going away.

If LENR turns out to be long-term commercial reality, then the initial cost
of the devices will be higher than most of us want to believe, since that
price will be governed by typical supply and demand dynamics - with demand
pushing prices to the limit. The savings will not be passed on to the end
user.

The oil companies have cash. They can, and will, buy the entire output of an
LENR factory and control the supply. Then they can use LENR to make a
substitute for gasoline, and they will be happy to do it that way. 

This is why hydrogen fuel has appeal to Big Oil and is not a threat. The
auto engine is adaptable to hydrogen. 

The cynics-amongst-us suspect that the price of LENR devices to most
consumers will appear to be higher than the cost of a substitute fuel made
from electricity, and that although the price of electricity may stabilize,
it will never go down, even as costs to produce it go down. 

The filling station of the future may be a fast-recharging station, or a
hydrogen fuel station, or a drop-in LENR device supplier - owned by Exxon
and powered by Hot-Cats. That is the cynical PoV. 









<>

Re: [Vo]:X-prize proposal

[Alain Sepeda]

It seems oils companies like Amoco, Shell have participated the research.
Today they participate investment in renewables, like do oild kingdoms, to
prepare for the transition...

what you describe is better explained by self-delusion like the one of hot
fusionist...
I feel that oil companies won't be the most victims of that delusion (they
will have few decade to die).
hot fusionist and renewable, plus advising agencies benefiting from
expensive  or carboned energy (they will die instantly).



2014-02-14 19:26 GMT+01:00 Jed Rothwell :

> I wrote:
>
>
>>  The fallacy would be to state that: "we know this is a lie because it
>> serves the speaker's best interests." That would only be true if people
>> invariably, automatically lied whenever it was in their best interest to do
>> so. We know they do not.
>>
>
> In this discussion, I have made a prediction that fossil fuel companies
> will lie about cold fusion, because it is in their interests to lie. That
> is not a logical deduction. It is a prediction based on my knowledge of
> history and human nature. I may well be wrong. I will be delighted if it
> turns out I am wrong.
>
> - Jed
>
>

Re: [Vo]:X-prize proposal

[Jed Rothwell]

Alain Sepeda  wrote:

The usual fallacy I see often is of that family:
>
> - there are possibility that X is false/fake/artifact
> - thus sure X is  is false/fake/artifact
>

Exactly. Well said.



> there is the symmetrical believers equivalent, possible-> true
>

Yup.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:X-prize proposal

[Alain Sepeda]

The usual fallacy I see often is of that family:

- there are possibility that X is false/fake/artifact
- thus sure X is  is false/fake/artifact

there is the symmetrical believers equivalent, possible-> true


2014-02-14 18:33 GMT+01:00 Jed Rothwell :

> Eric Walker  wrote:
>
> From the website: "A person's interests and circumstances have no bearing
>>> on the truth or falsity of the claim being made. While a person's interests
>>> will provide them with motives to support certain claims, the claims stand
>>> or fall on their own."
>>>
>>
>> In a strict sense, this is true.  But people are inherently intuitive,
>> and intuition goes beyond cut-and-dry logic. . . .
>>
>
>
>
>> It is (or should be) a logical fallacy to hew too strictly to whether a
>> conclusion is based on a logical fallacy.
>>
>
> This is not quite right. What you are saying is that when a person makes
> an assertion X, such that if the public believed X this would benefit that
> person, we have reason to doubt the assertion. The person may be lying,
> because people often lie in their own interests. The person has a motive to
> lie. So it would be wise to check the veracity of the statement.
>
> That is not a logical fallacy. The fallacy would be to state that: "we
> know this is a lie because it serves the speaker's best interests." That
> would only be true if people invariably, automatically lied whenever it was
> in their best interest to do so. We know they do not.
>
> - Jed
>
>

Re: [Vo]:X-prize proposal

[Jed Rothwell]

I wrote:


> The fallacy would be to state that: "we know this is a lie because it
> serves the speaker's best interests." That would only be true if people
> invariably, automatically lied whenever it was in their best interest to do
> so. We know they do not.
>

In this discussion, I have made a prediction that fossil fuel companies
will lie about cold fusion, because it is in their interests to lie. That
is not a logical deduction. It is a prediction based on my knowledge of
history and human nature. I may well be wrong. I will be delighted if it
turns out I am wrong.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:X-prize proposal

[Jed Rothwell]

Eric Walker  wrote:

>From the website: "A person's interests and circumstances have no bearing
>> on the truth or falsity of the claim being made. While a person's interests
>> will provide them with motives to support certain claims, the claims stand
>> or fall on their own."
>>
>
> In a strict sense, this is true.  But people are inherently intuitive, and
> intuition goes beyond cut-and-dry logic. . . .
>



> It is (or should be) a logical fallacy to hew too strictly to whether a
> conclusion is based on a logical fallacy.
>

This is not quite right. What you are saying is that when a person makes an
assertion X, such that if the public believed X this would benefit that
person, we have reason to doubt the assertion. The person may be lying,
because people often lie in their own interests. The person has a motive to
lie. So it would be wise to check the veracity of the statement.

That is not a logical fallacy. The fallacy would be to state that: "we know
this is a lie because it serves the speaker's best interests." That would
only be true if people invariably, automatically lied whenever it was in
their best interest to do so. We know they do not.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:X-prize proposal

[Ken Deboer]

Love that Short piece.  Absolutely hilarious! Thanks for making my day.  ken


On Fri, Feb 14, 2014 at 8:35 AM, Chris Zell  wrote:

>  Labeling the mainstream climate narrative as 'true' or 'false'
> perpetuates the 'black or white' fallacy.  The elite controlled media helps
> by labeling prominent skeptics as "deniers" even if they openly acknowledge
> a rise in temperature over decades (Lindzen).  Eliminating a moderate view
> serves political and economic interests especially of the elite.
>
> Being naive about the power of the elite - and the TBTJ banks in
> particular might be fatal.  Just ask Andrew Maguire and read the details of
> his "accident" on Wikipedia.  Or think about the recent rash of "suicides"
> in the big banking community among those who had connections to
> matters under investigation. Calling these things "circumstantial" can lead
> to being 'carried by six'.
>
> I sincerely hope the truth about LENR emerges suddenly upon the world and
> is disbelieved until the 'last minute'.  Otherwise, there's no telling what
> the sociopaths in charge might do..
>
>

RE: [Vo]:X-prize proposal

[Chris Zell]

Labeling the mainstream climate narrative as 'true' or 'false' perpetuates the 
'black or white' fallacy.  The elite controlled media helps by labeling 
prominent skeptics as "deniers" even if they openly acknowledge a rise in 
temperature over decades (Lindzen).  Eliminating a moderate view serves 
political and economic interests especially of the elite.

Being naive about the power of the elite - and the TBTJ banks in particular 
might be fatal.  Just ask Andrew Maguire and read the details of his "accident" 
on Wikipedia.  Or think about the recent rash of "suicides" in the big banking 
community among those who had connections to matters under investigation. 
Calling these things "circumstantial" can lead to being 'carried by six'.

I sincerely hope the truth about LENR emerges suddenly upon the world and is 
disbelieved until the 'last minute'.  Otherwise, there's no telling what the 
sociopaths in charge might do..

Re: [Vo]:X-prize proposal

[James Bowery]

(Seriously, that's one of my favorite shorts of all time.  The actor is a
comedic genius as well as the directing, editing and writing being
excellent.)


On Fri, Feb 14, 2014 at 12:02 AM, James Bowery  wrote:

> Randy, think about it like this video:
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CEYcGPF00l0
>
> The companies that are threatening to, any day now (really -- just another
> year -- trust us -- don't introduce an X-Prize for cold fusion because it
> is moot or really soon will be) start selling a commercial cold fusion
> device are not doing so.  Obviously, since doing so would make an X-Prize
> for cold fusion moot, Murphy's Law says that the only way to get them to
> release a commercial device would be to start serious progress toward an
> X-Prize for cold fusion.
>
> It's sort of like the X-Prize for cold fusion is the buttered bread and
> the cold fusion product release is the cat.  Separately nothing happens.
>  Strap them together and -- breakthrough!
>
>
> On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 11:44 PM, Randy Wuller wrote:
>
>> Of course I understand what the Xprize can accomplish, I was there at the
>> beginning pitching it in St Louis.
>>
>> But if any of the entities talking about products introduces one that
>> works, what prize do you suggest be funded?
>>
>> Ransom
>>
>> Sent from my iPhone
>>
>> On Feb 13, 2014, at 7:39 PM, "Kevin O'Malley" 
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>> I am just not convinced a Prize is necessary.
>> ***WHY the f**k not?  Whoever dumps money into the prize would get their
>> press exposure 20X over, and whomever wins the prize would have dumped more
>> than 3-4X into it than they won?  Do you understand what the XPrize level
>> of exposure brings to LENR?
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 1:30 PM, Randy Wuller wrote:
>>
>>> Jed:
>>>
>>> I know Diamandis pretty well and other members of his board.
>>>
>>> I am just not convinced a Prize is necessary.  What is the chance any of
>>> the players, Rossi, DGT, Lenuco, Brilluion etc have something that will be
>>> convincing to the public, if so no Prize is necessary.
>>>
>>> Ransom
>>>
>>> Sent from my iPhone
>>>
>>> On Feb 13, 2014, at 2:53 PM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:
>>>
>>> Randy Wuller  wrote:
>>>
>>>
 There is no need to reinvent the wheel.  The Xprize foundation is very
 active.  Go to xprize.org
>>>
>>>
>>> Someone has to persuade this organization to offer a prize for cold
>>> fusion. Right? I do not know how to go about doing that.
>>>
>>> I do not think it is likely anyone can persuade them, so I am not going
>>> to try. However, if someone else here wants to try, I would be happy to
>>> edit your proposal.
>>>
>>> - Jed
>>>
>>>
>>
>

Re: [Vo]:X-prize proposal

[James Bowery]

Randy, think about it like this video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CEYcGPF00l0

The companies that are threatening to, any day now (really -- just another
year -- trust us -- don't introduce an X-Prize for cold fusion because it
is moot or really soon will be) start selling a commercial cold fusion
device are not doing so.  Obviously, since doing so would make an X-Prize
for cold fusion moot, Murphy's Law says that the only way to get them to
release a commercial device would be to start serious progress toward an
X-Prize for cold fusion.

It's sort of like the X-Prize for cold fusion is the buttered bread and the
cold fusion product release is the cat.  Separately nothing happens.  Strap
them together and -- breakthrough!


On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 11:44 PM, Randy Wuller  wrote:

> Of course I understand what the Xprize can accomplish, I was there at the
> beginning pitching it in St Louis.
>
> But if any of the entities talking about products introduces one that
> works, what prize do you suggest be funded?
>
> Ransom
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Feb 13, 2014, at 7:39 PM, "Kevin O'Malley"  wrote:
>
>
> I am just not convinced a Prize is necessary.
> ***WHY the f**k not?  Whoever dumps money into the prize would get their
> press exposure 20X over, and whomever wins the prize would have dumped more
> than 3-4X into it than they won?  Do you understand what the XPrize level
> of exposure brings to LENR?
>
>
> On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 1:30 PM, Randy Wuller  wrote:
>
>> Jed:
>>
>> I know Diamandis pretty well and other members of his board.
>>
>> I am just not convinced a Prize is necessary.  What is the chance any of
>> the players, Rossi, DGT, Lenuco, Brilluion etc have something that will be
>> convincing to the public, if so no Prize is necessary.
>>
>> Ransom
>>
>> Sent from my iPhone
>>
>> On Feb 13, 2014, at 2:53 PM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:
>>
>> Randy Wuller  wrote:
>>
>>
>>> There is no need to reinvent the wheel.  The Xprize foundation is very
>>> active.  Go to xprize.org
>>
>>
>> Someone has to persuade this organization to offer a prize for cold
>> fusion. Right? I do not know how to go about doing that.
>>
>> I do not think it is likely anyone can persuade them, so I am not going
>> to try. However, if someone else here wants to try, I would be happy to
>> edit your proposal.
>>
>> - Jed
>>
>>
>

Re: [Vo]:X-prize proposal

[Randy Wuller]

Of course I understand what the Xprize can accomplish, I was there at the 
beginning pitching it in St Louis.

But if any of the entities talking about products introduces one that works, 
what prize do you suggest be funded?

Ransom

Sent from my iPhone

> On Feb 13, 2014, at 7:39 PM, "Kevin O'Malley"  wrote:
> 
> 
> I am just not convinced a Prize is necessary.  
> ***WHY the f**k not?  Whoever dumps money into the prize would get their 
> press exposure 20X over, and whomever wins the prize would have dumped more 
> than 3-4X into it than they won?  Do you understand what the XPrize level of 
> exposure brings to LENR?  
> 
> 
>> On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 1:30 PM, Randy Wuller  wrote:
>> Jed:
>> 
>> I know Diamandis pretty well and other members of his board. 
>> 
>> I am just not convinced a Prize is necessary.  What is the chance any of the 
>> players, Rossi, DGT, Lenuco, Brilluion etc have something that will be 
>> convincing to the public, if so no Prize is necessary.
>> 
>> Ransom
>> 
>> Sent from my iPhone
>> 
>>> On Feb 13, 2014, at 2:53 PM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:
>>> 
>>> Randy Wuller  wrote:
>>>  
 There is no need to reinvent the wheel.  The Xprize foundation is very 
 active.  Go to xprize.org
>>> 
>>> Someone has to persuade this organization to offer a prize for cold fusion. 
>>> Right? I do not know how to go about doing that.
>>> 
>>> I do not think it is likely anyone can persuade them, so I am not going to 
>>> try. However, if someone else here wants to try, I would be happy to edit 
>>> your proposal.
>>> 
>>> - Jed
> 

Re: [Vo]:X-prize proposal

[James Bowery]

On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 7:54 PM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

> James Bowery  wrote:
>
> Well, by "exceedingly costly" I wasn't referring to the scientific
>> research program.  I was referring to the development program.  You
>> _really_ don't want to do engineering in the absence of validated theory.
>>
>
> Why not?
>

Simply because the business risk is more economically reduced by science
than by development.


> Most technology was developed without a theory.
>

Most technology was developed before the scientific method and the
Guttenberg Press.


> Most of the machines and structures you see around you were developed in
> ancient times when they had no idea what elements are, never mind atoms. I
> mean things like knives, concrete, steel, wooden houses, water pipes . . .
> People can use models, intuitive methods or Edisonian methods in place of a
> theory. It is more art than science, but art will take you a long way.
>

You deleted my rational placement of Edisonian methodology.

Re: [Vo]:X-prize proposal

[Eric Walker]

On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 5:01 PM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

>From the website: "A person's interests and circumstances have no bearing
> on the truth or falsity of the claim being made. While a person's interests
> will provide them with motives to support certain claims, the claims stand
> or fall on their own."
>

In a strict sense, this is true.  But people are inherently intuitive, and
intuition goes beyond cut-and-dry logic.  In a related connection, see:

http://xkcd.com/1132/

It is (or should be) a logical fallacy to hew too strictly to whether a
conclusion is based on a logical fallacy.

Eric

Re: [Vo]:X-prize proposal

[Jed Rothwell]

Kevin O'Malley  wrote:


> I am just not convinced a Prize is necessary.
> ***WHY the f**k not?  Whoever dumps money into the prize would get their
> press exposure 20X over, and whomever wins the prize would have dumped more
> than 3-4X into it than they won?  Do you understand what the XPrize level
> of exposure brings to LENR?
>

Okay, so that would make it desirable. But not necessary. Or not essential
to the survival of the field, if Rossi can pull it off.

As I said before, if you can bell that particular cat, and bring in the
X-prize, we mice will be grateful. We will give you the Golden Cheese Award.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:X-prize proposal

[Jed Rothwell]

James Bowery  wrote:

Well, by "exceedingly costly" I wasn't referring to the scientific research
> program.  I was referring to the development program.  You _really_ don't
> want to do engineering in the absence of validated theory.
>

Why not? Most technology was developed without a theory. Most of the
machines and structures you see around you were developed in ancient times
when they had no idea what elements are, never mind atoms. I mean things
like knives, concrete, steel, wooden houses, water pipes . . . People can
use models, intuitive methods or Edisonian methods in place of a theory. It
is more art than science, but art will take you a long way.



>  Development is costly enough with a validated theory.
>

True, but cold fusion will pay back at rate somewhere around $1 billion per
day. So it will be worth the cost. More to the point, once it begins to
succeed by Edisonian methods, people will rush to find a comprehensive
theory. Will they find one? Probably. Why? During a long rainy spell,
someone said to Mark Twain, "do you think it will ever stop raining?" He
said, "it always has."

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:X-prize proposal

[Kevin O'Malley]

I am just not convinced a Prize is necessary.
***WHY the f**k not?  Whoever dumps money into the prize would get their
press exposure 20X over, and whomever wins the prize would have dumped more
than 3-4X into it than they won?  Do you understand what the XPrize level
of exposure brings to LENR?


On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 1:30 PM, Randy Wuller  wrote:

> Jed:
>
> I know Diamandis pretty well and other members of his board.
>
> I am just not convinced a Prize is necessary.  What is the chance any of
> the players, Rossi, DGT, Lenuco, Brilluion etc have something that will be
> convincing to the public, if so no Prize is necessary.
>
> Ransom
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Feb 13, 2014, at 2:53 PM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:
>
> Randy Wuller  wrote:
>
>
>> There is no need to reinvent the wheel.  The Xprize foundation is very
>> active.  Go to xprize.org
>
>
> Someone has to persuade this organization to offer a prize for cold
> fusion. Right? I do not know how to go about doing that.
>
> I do not think it is likely anyone can persuade them, so I am not going to
> try. However, if someone else here wants to try, I would be happy to edit
> your proposal.
>
> - Jed
>
>

Re: [Vo]:X-prize proposal

[James Bowery]

Well, by "exceedingly costly" I wasn't referring to the scientific research
program.  I was referring to the development program.  You _really_ don't
want to do engineering in the absence of validated theory.  Development is
costly enough with a validated theory.  Indeed, *with* a validated theory
it is "exceedingly costly" compared to a scientific research program.
*Without* a validated theory it is virtually astronomical.

Now, having said that, the profits are virtually astronomical so maybe they
can pull an Edison (massive parallel trial and error) with the Chinese and
really get somewhere without a validated theory.  It just seems tragic.


On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 6:52 PM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

> James Bowery  wrote:
>
> That's true if Rossi has a handle on the science.  There is wide-spread
>> opinion among genuine skeptics (not to be confused with true believers in
>> the bureaucratic interpretation of physical theory) that what Rossi has is
>> more likely a technique that is more replicable and higher magnitude than
>> the FPE, but little better in terms of theory.
>>
>
>> If that is the case, progress in engineering will be exceedingly costly
>> until a scientific research program is executed by those who have access to
>> Rossi's device or devices with similar replicability.
>>
>
> It may be exceedingly costly, but it seems the people at Cherokee are
> exceedingly wealthy. They can probably put more money into it than the
> X-prize can offer, or that it can drum up.
>
> That is not to say there would be no benefit to opening up the research to
> many more groups.
>
> - Jed
>
>

Re: [Vo]:X-prize proposal

[Jed Rothwell]

I mean to say: "because it would be in the best interests of claimant Y for
claim X to be true, [and because I have proved X is false], I suspect that
Y is lying." In short, once you establish that X is false, you can then use
that fact to impugn motives. You cannot do it the other way around. The
fact that Mr. Y says X is never proof that X is true. Strictly speaking. In
real life it is common sense to suspect that Mr. Y. may be motivated by
crass self interest. Go ahead and suspect that, but just remember it is a
logical fallacy.

>From the website: "A person's interests and circumstances have no bearing
on the truth or falsity of the claim being made. While a person's interests
will provide them with motives to support certain claims, the claims stand
or fall on their own."

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:X-prize proposal

[Jed Rothwell]

James Bowery  wrote:

That's true if Rossi has a handle on the science.  There is wide-spread
> opinion among genuine skeptics (not to be confused with true believers in
> the bureaucratic interpretation of physical theory) that what Rossi has is
> more likely a technique that is more replicable and higher magnitude than
> the FPE, but little better in terms of theory.
>

> If that is the case, progress in engineering will be exceedingly costly
> until a scientific research program is executed by those who have access to
> Rossi's device or devices with similar replicability.
>

It may be exceedingly costly, but it seems the people at Cherokee are
exceedingly wealthy. They can probably put more money into it than the
X-prize can offer, or that it can drum up.

That is not to say there would be no benefit to opening up the research to
many more groups.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:X-prize proposal

[Jed Rothwell]

Chris Zell  wrote:


> Categoring their malevolent influence as ad hominem is a fallacy, indeed.
>

I did not say ad hominem. That is a different fallacy. I said
"circumstantial ad hominem." That is, dismissing a claim because it is in
the best interest of the claimant that the claim be true. That is a fallacy
even if everyone knows the claimant is evil.

You can say "claim X is incorrect for [various technical reasons]" and from
that you can assert that "because it would be in the best interests of
claimant for claim X to be true, I suspect that Y is lying." That is the
reverse logic. You start by showing the claim is wrong and from that you
impugn the motives of the claimant. That is logical. What is not logical is
to say that because the claimant is known to be immoral, that in itself
disproves the claim.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:X-prize proposal

[James Bowery]

On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 3:51 PM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

> Randy Wuller  wrote:
>
>
>> I am just not convinced a Prize is necessary.  What is the chance any of
>> the players, Rossi, DGT, Lenuco, Brilluion etc have something that will be
>> convincing to the public, if so no Prize is necessary.
>>
>
> I agree.
>
> Actually, if Rossi or one of the others convinces investors, we do not
> need them to convince the public. It seems Rossi has convinced Cherokee, so
> I guess we do not need an X-prize.
>
>
That's true if Rossi has a handle on the science.  There is wide-spread
opinion among genuine skeptics (not to be confused with true believers in
the bureaucratic interpretation of physical theory) that what Rossi has is
more likely a technique that is more replicable and higher magnitude than
the FPE, but little better in terms of theory.

If that is the case, progress in engineering will be exceedingly costly
until a scientific research program is executed by those who have access to
Rossi's device or devices with similar replicability.  Since all of those
devices are, at present, under non-disclosure agreement, a key dimension of
scientific discourse is missing and progress in development must be
indefinitely delayed.

RE: [Vo]:X-prize proposal

[Chris Zell]

Funny you didn't mention the TBTJ banks in your supposed fallacy - the banks 
that conspired with the FBI to discuss using snipers to deal with Occupy 
protesters ( exposed in redacted documents)   Or how they bribed police to make 
sure that these protests were kept away from their mansions ( NYPD/ Jamie 
Dimon). Or how they committed the greatest fraud in US history but suffered no 
prosecutions ( Public TV - Frontline investigation) Or how the US Attorney 
General admitted he couldn't control them (Eric Holder).

Categoring their malevolent influence as ad hominem is a fallacy, indeed.

Re: [Vo]:X-prize proposal

[Jed Rothwell]

Chris Zell  wrote:

 The nuclear power industry wants global warming to be real.  So do wind
> and solar interests.
>

They have their wish. The data proves beyond doubt that it is real. Beware
of making a Circumstantial ad hominem logical fallacy:

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/circumstantial-ad-hominem.html

An example of the fallacy:

"1. Person A makes claim X.
2. Person B asserts that A makes claim X because it is in A's interest to
claim X.
3. Therefore claim X is false."

But let's not debate this here.

- Jed

RE: [Vo]:X-prize proposal

[Chris Zell]

The nuclear power industry wants global warming to be real.  So do wind and 
solar interests.  The biggest booster of the global warming movement is rarely 
mentioned: the TBTJ banks such as Goldman Sachs - who want to feed off 
supervising carbon markets.

Re: [Vo]:X-prize proposal

[Jed Rothwell]

Randy Wuller  wrote:


> I am just not convinced a Prize is necessary.  What is the chance any of
> the players, Rossi, DGT, Lenuco, Brilluion etc have something that will be
> convincing to the public, if so no Prize is necessary.
>

I agree.

Actually, if Rossi or one of the others convinces investors, we do not need
them to convince the public. It seems Rossi has convinced Cherokee, so I
guess we do not need an X-prize.

We will not need the public until later, when it becomes generally known
that cold fusion is real, and that it will soon complete with other sources
of energy. At that point, I expect the fossil fuel industry, the DoE, and
the other established players will declare all-out war. They will try to
stop cold fusion by any means possible, with public relations campaigns,
and by paying members of Congress to pass laws making the use of cold
fusion illegal. We will need strong public support to stop them from
crushing it.

At this moment in history, practically no one realizes cold fusion is real.
There is not opposition to the research. The only people trying to stop it
are academic scientists and a few publishers such as Scientific American
and the New York Times science editors. Most opponents are trying to stop
it because they think it is fraud and lunacy, as Robert Park says. Others
think it unscientific nonsense, similar to creationism. A few scientists in
the plasma fusion program want to stop it because they fear it will cut
their budget. As far as I can tell, no one is trying to stop it because
they fear commercial competition. They will though. Nothing is more
certain. It is inconceivable to me that people making billions of dollars
will roll over and play dead the moment they realize cold fusion is better
than oil or coal. You need only look at the coal industry for proof of
that. They have been campaigning for years trying to crush wind energy, by
buying off members of Congress and journalists, and publishing propaganda.
They are also working to persuade the public that global warming is not
real. They have largely succeeded in that.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:X-prize proposal

[Randy Wuller]

Jed:

I know Diamandis pretty well and other members of his board. 

I am just not convinced a Prize is necessary.  What is the chance any of the 
players, Rossi, DGT, Lenuco, Brilluion etc have something that will be 
convincing to the public, if so no Prize is necessary.

Ransom

Sent from my iPhone

> On Feb 13, 2014, at 2:53 PM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:
> 
> Randy Wuller  wrote:
>  
>> There is no need to reinvent the wheel.  The Xprize foundation is very 
>> active.  Go to xprize.org
> 
> Someone has to persuade this organization to offer a prize for cold fusion. 
> Right? I do not know how to go about doing that.
> 
> I do not think it is likely anyone can persuade them, so I am not going to 
> try. However, if someone else here wants to try, I would be happy to edit 
> your proposal.
> 
> - Jed
> 

Re: [Vo]:X-prize proposal

[Jed Rothwell]

Randy Wuller  wrote:


> There is no need to reinvent the wheel.  The Xprize foundation is very
> active.  Go to xprize.org


Someone has to persuade this organization to offer a prize for cold fusion.
Right? I do not know how to go about doing that.

I do not think it is likely anyone can persuade them, so I am not going to
try. However, if someone else here wants to try, I would be happy to edit
your proposal.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:X-prize proposal

[Randy Wuller]

Jed:

There is no need to reinvent the wheel.  The Xprize foundation is very active.  
Go to xprize.org

I was involved with Dr Peter Diamandis when he first came to St Louis to 
propose a Lindbergh type prize to the St Louis Science Center.  All the legal 
documents for prizes have been hashed over and over since this started with the 
Ansari Xprize in 1996, my has it been that long, I feel old.

Anyway the foundation is constantly setting up new prizes and finding sponsors. 
 I would start with them if you really have an interest.  Prizes are wonderful 
for attracting 10-15 times the value of the prize in investment into capturing 
the prize.

Ransom

Sent from my iPhone

> On Feb 13, 2014, at 1:02 PM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:
> 
> I do not know anything about the X-prize. If someone here would like to 
> submit a proposal, I would be happy to assist in writing it.
> 
> - Jed
> 

Re: [Vo]:X-prize proposal

[James Bowery]

I've been rather too busy to respond, since one must be _very_ careful
about setting up the criteria, but since there is additional interest I'll
respond now briefly but carefully:


On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 3:31 PM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

> James Bowery  wrote:
>
> What I'm asking for is something similar to what I asked of proponents of
>> alternative fusion technologies when writing up the fusion prize
>> legislation back in 
>> 1992
>> :
>>
>> "If you were considering competing for a cold fusion prize to be awarded
>> for a reliably reproducible experimental protocol, how would you like to
>> see that prize's criteria stated?"
>>
>
> Well, it does not seem complicated. I guess I would say it has to be
> replicated by at least two other labs; it has to work in one out of ten
> runs; and it has produce a high signal to noise ratio. Exactly how high
> should be defined by someone who understands statistics better than I do.
>
> It would be nice if they could have intermediate prizes for incremental
> progress.
>
> One of out ten may not seem like much, but it is enough to make the
> experiment reasonably easy to replicate. In fundamental research, there is
> never any call for high reproducibility, only replicability -- which is a
> different thing. IPS cell reproducibility is something like 1%. I think
> Obokata has improved it a great deal with her new technique, but it is
> still low. Improved reproducibility has no bearing on the scientific
> validity of the claim, but it does make the research easier, and it is
> needed for eventual commercialization.
>

The central problem in setting up a cold fusion prize is the cost of
judging since replication is the foundation of judging and the cost of
replication can be considerable.

Moreover, the selection of those who are considered "skilled in the art" in
the sense meant by patent validation (ie: that a patent is valid only if
its disclosure allows those "skilled in the art" to realize beneficial
use), must be controlled by the judging authorities.  This is problematic
since it is hard to know, a priori, what "the art" will be if one is trying
to unconstrain the innovators in achieving the goal.  Therefore it seems
necessary that two conditions be met:

1) That the entrant will pay the costs of replication.
2) That the entrant will pay the costs of the negotiation of which teams
are considered "skilled in the art" for the purpose of replication.

Re: [Vo]:X-prize proposal

[Jed Rothwell]

I do not know anything about the X-prize. If someone here would like to
submit a proposal, I would be happy to assist in writing it.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:X-prize proposal

[Kevin O'Malley]

Jed:

I can see that we think alike.  I was about to set up a new thread for the
X Prize.

Enclosed is my proposal sent to Singularity University honchos I met last
week.  I do not include any responses because I have not gotten permission
to release the correspondence.

--

My proposal is to set up an X Prize to reward  & encourage Techshop (http://
http://techshop.ws/) teams who replicate the recent Cold Fusion experiment
at Martin Fleischmann Memorial Project wherein Gamma Rays were detected
after an  excess heat event.   The Gamma ray finding was replicated by Hans
Biberian within 48 hours.
MFMP Report Detection of Unusual Gamma Rays [Updated: Biberian Replicates]
http://www.e-catworld.com/2013/11/mfmp-report-detection-of-unusual-gamma-rays/

-

What is MFMP?
 In essence, they are a grassroots, open-source LENR replication effort.

http://www.quantumheat.org/index.php/en/

If one simply follows their latest recipe, a LENR device can be built and
tested by anyone who has the means.

-


Why Techshop?  Because they have a relationship to Instructables.com which
was started by Dr. Griffith.  They can be trusted; they are the right
people to encourage for a grass roots energy effort; and the interest in an
X prize would help that worthy organization grow; if they can do it, almost
anyone can do it and the generated excitement would turn the world upside
down.

--
-

What would success look like?

An Open Source LENR device generates more heat than can be accounted for by
chemical means.  My suggestion is to set a threshold that the heat
generated should have an energy density at least 10X that of any known
chemical source for at least one hour so that measurement error is not a
factor.  An additional test would be the presence of Gamma Rays well above
background.

Measurements would be done by a team of X Prize's choosing.   The team
should include at least one person trained to look for deception;
basically, a magician.

I would suggest that there should be multiple replications for this prize
to be claimed.  Perhaps 3 separate Techshop teams need to have their
projects tested independently and the 3 teams would share the prize.

-

Where would the money come from?

I would expend my passion, as Dr. Diamantis so eloquently inspired
yesterday,  pursuing money for this prize.

Recently, there was $5M donated to University of Missouri for LENR research
by billionaire Sidney Kimmel.

*Australian* Entrepreneur Dick Smith recently offered over* $1 million* for
a convincing demo.

Crowdsourcing.  There is a pent up interest in this technology.

Scientific Instruments.  This multi$billion company offered to give free
measuring hardware and software to anyone working in LENR.   They may enjoy
getting some publicity in exchange for a donation.

---

In conclusion, I hope that you will see that the time has come to give this
technology the nudge it deserves.   Thank you for considering the
proposal.  My preference for communicating would be cell phone for the time
being.

best regards,

Kevin O'Malley
Electrical Engineer




On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 12:39 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:

> I am confused. I do not follow what James Bowery means about the X-prize.
> Let me reset the conversation with a new title.
>
> Bowery wrote:
>
> "Sound criteria would include an experimental protocol is submitted to
> Dick Smith that, when followed by independent scientists, reliably
> generates excess energy."
>
> Okay, I gather this is what the X-prize would be given for. That seems
> like a reasonable goal. That is better than, say, a prize for the first
> commercial prototype device.
>
>
> "Other details of the criteria need to be established but it seems
> entirely reasonable that men like yourself and Ed are very qualified to
> help set those criteria."
>
> I do not know anything about the X-prize, so I would not be the one to
> establish other criteria. If they have any questions I would be happy to
> answer them.
>
> Years ago, someone from X-prize contacted me with some questions. I do not
> recall what they were, but I dutifully answered. I never heard back.
>
>
> If you have any influence with these people, by all means ask them to
> establish a prize for cold fusion. As you say, the prize should be for a
> reliable experimental protocol. Go for it! Bell that cat!
>
> - Jed
>
>

Re: [Vo]:X-prize proposal

[Jed Rothwell]

James Bowery  wrote:

What I'm asking for is something similar to what I asked of proponents of
> alternative fusion technologies when writing up the fusion prize
> legislation back in 
> 1992
> :
>
> "If you were considering competing for a cold fusion prize to be awarded
> for a reliably reproducible experimental protocol, how would you like to
> see that prize's criteria stated?"
>

Well, it does not seem complicated. I guess I would say it has to be
replicated by at least two other labs; it has to work in one out of ten
runs; and it has produce a high signal to noise ratio. Exactly how high
should be defined by someone who understands statistics better than I do.

It would be nice if they could have intermediate prizes for incremental
progress.

One of out ten may not seem like much, but it is enough to make the
experiment reasonably easy to replicate. In fundamental research, there is
never any call for high reproducibility, only replicability -- which is a
different thing. IPS cell reproducibility is something like 1%. I think
Obokata has improved it a great deal with her new technique, but it is
still low. Improved reproducibility has no bearing on the scientific
validity of the claim, but it does make the research easier, and it is
needed for eventual commercialization.



> The Longitude Prize  was
> about as vague as you can afford to be and still get results -- and its
> vagueness almost killed Harrison before he got the prize.
>

He didn't actually get it. He got half, as a way to support his research,
but his political opponents prevented him from getting the other half. The
rest of the prize was never awarded to anyone. George III took pity on
Harrison and got him the money by other means.

It was pretty clearly stated, but every time someone got close to winning
the opponents changed the rules. First you had to navigate from England to
St. George accurate to within a certain number of nautical miles. Then they
made it a round trip. Then they made it around the world. The opponents
were working on the lunar method, and they were determined to prevent
Harrison and the other watchmakers from winning. The lunar method was a big
government project. It was the biggest, most expensive scientific project
of the 18th and 19th centuries. It continued until 1911, as I recall.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:X-prize proposal

[James Bowery]

What I'm asking for is something similar to what I asked of proponents of
alternative fusion technologies when writing up the fusion prize
legislation back in 1992
:

"If you were considering competing for a cold fusion prize to be awarded
for a reliably reproducible experimental protocol, how would you like to
see that prize's criteria stated?"

The reason this is a meaningful question is that all too often you have
silly "prizes" offered by the usual suspects, such as the Gates Foundation,
where the award criteria ends up basically being "Make my courtesans feel
good and they'll award you the prize."

Objective criteria are absolutely essential to get serious competitors.

The Longitude Prize  was
about as vague as you can afford to be and still get results -- and its
vagueness almost killed Harrison before he got the prize.

The Ansari X-Prize criteria were pretty simple and objective, which is why
it worked so well.

Similarly simple and objective criteria need to be established for the cold
fusion prize.



On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 2:39 PM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

> I am confused. I do not follow what James Bowery means about the X-prize.
> Let me reset the conversation with a new title.
>
> Bowery wrote:
>
> "Sound criteria would include an experimental protocol is submitted to
> Dick Smith that, when followed by independent scientists, reliably
> generates excess energy."
>
> Okay, I gather this is what the X-prize would be given for. That seems
> like a reasonable goal. That is better than, say, a prize for the first
> commercial prototype device.
>
>
> "Other details of the criteria need to be established but it seems
> entirely reasonable that men like yourself and Ed are very qualified to
> help set those criteria."
>
> I do not know anything about the X-prize, so I would not be the one to
> establish other criteria. If they have any questions I would be happy to
> answer them.
>
> Years ago, someone from X-prize contacted me with some questions. I do not
> recall what they were, but I dutifully answered. I never heard back.
>
>
> If you have any influence with these people, by all means ask them to
> establish a prize for cold fusion. As you say, the prize should be for a
> reliable experimental protocol. Go for it! Bell that cat!
>
> - Jed
>
>