Re: [Vo]:Cold Fusion on Wikipedia japanes and chinese
I agree too that most of incentive in Science is status (science in real life is very like political in a way as my dear MP secretary explained to me). about removing older people from decision, I think it can be evil too. From decision maybe, but from discussion no. I see that older people often, because they can have no huge ambition for future, because they can have enough protection to feel safe, because they can have more ego than fear of the future, those fearless people, can play the rebels... In the early 20th century , young could play the rebels, they had to, but I'm afraid modern generation of scientists are so dependent on career and funding, that they cannot take the risk to think out of the funding box. They are also often too submitted to fashion, while oldies can remind of a period when things were different. they will be what Norbert Alter called alien, people who Today in many controversies,; I see only oldies, who take , for best and worst (I don't agree, mostly for best), crazy positions against the consensus, based on old knowledge, old evidences, of their memory of a period where feeling and trends were different. In the late 19th century, oldies were conservatives in a stable society. Today oldies are keepers of dead times, of dead culture, of outdated consensus, washed by waves of fashions and new consensus. Oldies are rebels, aliens, foreigner of their time, like were the young before. Like old heros, they can decide to suicide their career to defend their micro-ethics, not afraid of anything worse than the planned story... retirement and death. Maybe they are wrong, but sure you should not remove them from the story. They are what the young were before. If you look for young rebel, forget in science, go to business. However I agree that out of science, oldies often are more defending their honeypot, surfing on fashion, rather than rebels or defender of old values. 2013/9/25 Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote: There is also opposition from many ordinary people and many stupid people at places like Wikipedia In all of these cases we're dealing with the incentives of social status more than authority structure. I agree. I would say it is ordinary primate behavior, similar to what you see in our cousins the chimpanzees, and in other group hunting predators such as wolves. (I am not denigrating this behavior. I have great respect for other species.) So how do you identify the Jason(s) most likely to be more concerned with national security than peer pressure? I wouldn't know. I have never met 'em. I don't even know who they all are. I know some people who have met with them, and meet with them every year. I get the impression the Jasons are a bunch of washed up old farts who are opposed to everything that wasn't discovered before they turned 30, which was a long time ago. But I could be wrong. I know that one or two of them often pull strings to have cold fusion funding cancelled. It is big mistake to give any scientist over 30 a role in allocating money or making decisions. The way to make progress is get a large pot of money and hand it out to young people, letting them do whatever they please with it. Some of them will waste it. A few may steal it. But most will make far better use of it than an old scientist could. Young people succeed in doing things the older people think are impossible, because the young people have not yet learned where the boundary between possible and impossible likes. Actually, that boundary is imaginary, like a geographical boundary -- a state line, or a property line. No one knows what is possible and what isn't. No one can even imagine. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Cold Fusion on Wikipedia japanes and chinese
The scientific approach, of course, would be two establish two groups, one a control group and the other a treatment group where the treatment is the proposed change, in this case the age limit. On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 10:15 AM, Alain Sepeda alain.sep...@gmail.comwrote: I agree too that most of incentive in Science is status (science in real life is very like political in a way as my dear MP secretary explained to me). about removing older people from decision, I think it can be evil too. From decision maybe, but from discussion no. I see that older people often, because they can have no huge ambition for future, because they can have enough protection to feel safe, because they can have more ego than fear of the future, those fearless people, can play the rebels... In the early 20th century , young could play the rebels, they had to, but I'm afraid modern generation of scientists are so dependent on career and funding, that they cannot take the risk to think out of the funding box. They are also often too submitted to fashion, while oldies can remind of a period when things were different. they will be what Norbert Alter called alien, people who Today in many controversies,; I see only oldies, who take , for best and worst (I don't agree, mostly for best), crazy positions against the consensus, based on old knowledge, old evidences, of their memory of a period where feeling and trends were different. In the late 19th century, oldies were conservatives in a stable society. Today oldies are keepers of dead times, of dead culture, of outdated consensus, washed by waves of fashions and new consensus. Oldies are rebels, aliens, foreigner of their time, like were the young before. Like old heros, they can decide to suicide their career to defend their micro-ethics, not afraid of anything worse than the planned story... retirement and death. Maybe they are wrong, but sure you should not remove them from the story. They are what the young were before. If you look for young rebel, forget in science, go to business. However I agree that out of science, oldies often are more defending their honeypot, surfing on fashion, rather than rebels or defender of old values. 2013/9/25 Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote: There is also opposition from many ordinary people and many stupid people at places like Wikipedia In all of these cases we're dealing with the incentives of social status more than authority structure. I agree. I would say it is ordinary primate behavior, similar to what you see in our cousins the chimpanzees, and in other group hunting predators such as wolves. (I am not denigrating this behavior. I have great respect for other species.) So how do you identify the Jason(s) most likely to be more concerned with national security than peer pressure? I wouldn't know. I have never met 'em. I don't even know who they all are. I know some people who have met with them, and meet with them every year. I get the impression the Jasons are a bunch of washed up old farts who are opposed to everything that wasn't discovered before they turned 30, which was a long time ago. But I could be wrong. I know that one or two of them often pull strings to have cold fusion funding cancelled. It is big mistake to give any scientist over 30 a role in allocating money or making decisions. The way to make progress is get a large pot of money and hand it out to young people, letting them do whatever they please with it. Some of them will waste it. A few may steal it. But most will make far better use of it than an old scientist could. Young people succeed in doing things the older people think are impossible, because the young people have not yet learned where the boundary between possible and impossible likes. Actually, that boundary is imaginary, like a geographical boundary -- a state line, or a property line. No one knows what is possible and what isn't. No one can even imagine. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Cold Fusion on Wikipedia japanes and chinese
We are discussing a complicated issue. All old people and young people are not the same and it is not fair to stereotype everyone. It has been my observation that people tend to think in manners that are a result of their life experiences. An older scientist with a clear open mind has the ability to bring a vast amount of experience to the table. He has already made uncountable mistakes in judgement about nature whereas the youngster has just started finding that he does not understand everything about the universe. Some of our friends on this list harbor a lot of knowledge that they can and do offer to the discussions. It is critical to listen to what they have to say about new ideas since these can be filtered by their past experiences. The young guys are brave and willing to make mistakes which is a good thing as long as they continue to learn from these. It is refreshing to find some of the older scientists willing to speculate about LENR in open discussions where they understand that some of their ideas might be ridiculed. There is no shame in finding yourself defending your beliefs as long as the penalty is not too severe. All I request is that people keep asking questions about unexpected observations and not be of the firm belief that they have all the answers. Whether young or old, anyone with the proper mental state can find important pieces to the complex puzzle that we call LENR and we should encourage their inputs. One day soon the operation of these devices will be understood and we will all look back and see how the evidence was there the entire time. Dave -Original Message- From: Alain Sepeda alain.sep...@gmail.com To: Vortex List vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Wed, Sep 25, 2013 11:16 am Subject: Re: [Vo]:Cold Fusion on Wikipedia japanes and chinese I agree too that most of incentive in Science is status (science in real life is very like political in a way as my dear MP secretary explained to me). about removing older people from decision, I think it can be evil too. From decision maybe, but from discussion no. I see that older people often, because they can have no huge ambition for future, because they can have enough protection to feel safe, because they can have more ego than fear of the future, those fearless people, can play the rebels... In the early 20th century , young could play the rebels, they had to, but I'm afraid modern generation of scientists are so dependent on career and funding, that they cannot take the risk to think out of the funding box. They are also often too submitted to fashion, while oldies can remind of a period when things were different. they will be what Norbert Alter called alien, people who Today in many controversies,; I see only oldies, who take , for best and worst (I don't agree, mostly for best), crazy positions against the consensus, based on old knowledge, old evidences, of their memory of a period where feeling and trends were different. In the late 19th century, oldies were conservatives in a stable society. Today oldies are keepers of dead times, of dead culture, of outdated consensus, washed by waves of fashions and new consensus. Oldies are rebels, aliens, foreigner of their time, like were the young before. Like old heros, they can decide to suicide their career to defend their micro-ethics, not afraid of anything worse than the planned story... retirement and death. Maybe they are wrong, but sure you should not remove them from the story. They are what the young were before. If you look for young rebel, forget in science, go to business. However I agree that out of science, oldies often are more defending their honeypot, surfing on fashion, rather than rebels or defender of old values. 2013/9/25 Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote: There is also opposition from many ordinary people and many stupid people at places like Wikipedia In all of these cases we're dealing with the incentives of social status more than authority structure. I agree. I would say it is ordinary primate behavior, similar to what you see in our cousins the chimpanzees, and in other group hunting predators such as wolves. (I am not denigrating this behavior. I have great respect for other species.) So how do you identify the Jason(s) most likely to be more concerned with national security than peer pressure? I wouldn't know. I have never met 'em. I don't even know who they all are. I know some people who have met with them, and meet with them every year. I get the impression the Jasons are a bunch of washed up old farts who are opposed to everything that wasn't discovered before they turned 30, which was a long time ago. But I could be wrong. I know that one or two of them often pull strings to have cold fusion funding cancelled. It is big mistake to give any scientist over 30 a role in allocating money or making
Re: [Vo]:Cold Fusion on Wikipedia japanes and chinese
Being one of the old people, I would like to share my impression of this issue. Most young people are ignorant, self-centered, and without much imagination. When they become old people, most remain ignorant, self- centered, and without imagination. Growing old simply gives a person who wants knowledge a chance to get knowledge. It does not increase the incentive to get knowledge. Therefore, if you want advice from either the young or old, do not look at the age. Look at the willingness to learn and at the degree of imagination. Consequently, this discussion is focusing on the wrong variable. On Sep 25, 2013, at 9:46 AM, James Bowery wrote: The scientific approach, of course, would be two establish two groups, one a control group and the other a treatment group where the treatment is the proposed change, in this case the age limit. On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 10:15 AM, Alain Sepeda alain.sep...@gmail.com wrote: I agree too that most of incentive in Science is status (science in real life is very like political in a way as my dear MP secretary explained to me). about removing older people from decision, I think it can be evil too. From decision maybe, but from discussion no. I see that older people often, because they can have no huge ambition for future, because they can have enough protection to feel safe, because they can have more ego than fear of the future, those fearless people, can play the rebels... In the early 20th century , young could play the rebels, they had to, but I'm afraid modern generation of scientists are so dependent on career and funding, that they cannot take the risk to think out of the funding box. They are also often too submitted to fashion, while oldies can remind of a period when things were different. they will be what Norbert Alter called alien, people who Today in many controversies,; I see only oldies, who take , for best and worst (I don't agree, mostly for best), crazy positions against the consensus, based on old knowledge, old evidences, of their memory of a period where feeling and trends were different. In the late 19th century, oldies were conservatives in a stable society. Today oldies are keepers of dead times, of dead culture, of outdated consensus, washed by waves of fashions and new consensus. Oldies are rebels, aliens, foreigner of their time, like were the young before. Like old heros, they can decide to suicide their career to defend their micro-ethics, not afraid of anything worse than the planned story... retirement and death. Maybe they are wrong, but sure you should not remove them from the story. They are what the young were before. If you look for young rebel, forget in science, go to business. However I agree that out of science, oldies often are more defending their honeypot, surfing on fashion, rather than rebels or defender of old values. 2013/9/25 Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote: There is also opposition from many ordinary people and many stupid people at places like Wikipedia In all of these cases we're dealing with the incentives of social status more than authority structure. I agree. I would say it is ordinary primate behavior, similar to what you see in our cousins the chimpanzees, and in other group hunting predators such as wolves. (I am not denigrating this behavior. I have great respect for other species.) So how do you identify the Jason(s) most likely to be more concerned with national security than peer pressure? I wouldn't know. I have never met 'em. I don't even know who they all are. I know some people who have met with them, and meet with them every year. I get the impression the Jasons are a bunch of washed up old farts who are opposed to everything that wasn't discovered before they turned 30, which was a long time ago. But I could be wrong. I know that one or two of them often pull strings to have cold fusion funding cancelled. It is big mistake to give any scientist over 30 a role in allocating money or making decisions. The way to make progress is get a large pot of money and hand it out to young people, letting them do whatever they please with it. Some of them will waste it. A few may steal it. But most will make far better use of it than an old scientist could. Young people succeed in doing things the older people think are impossible, because the young people have not yet learned where the boundary between possible and impossible likes. Actually, that boundary is imaginary, like a geographical boundary -- a state line, or a property line. No one knows what is possible and what isn't. No one can even imagine. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Cold Fusion on Wikipedia japanes and chinese
Hi I signed up for this newsletter a few days ago. I guess I am answering the wrong way. Let me know the right way and I will do it correct. Just could not sit and listen to some of the the comments. Read Edmund Storms comment a couple of times. I am a rather old guy and I am working in the field of leadership development. I am what you call a serial entrepreneur and have an interest in energy (also an engineering degree in the sixties). I have met people in their eighties with more gusto than some in their twenties. You can wish for twenty-five year old decision makers all you want but that is not the answer and as you know you have to be careful about what you wish for you might just get it. I am sure it is frustrating to have ideas and ambitions but no response from people able to help and support. That means that you have to change the format we operate under. To eliminate by race , sex age or . . . is first of all illegal so it wont work. So, do I argue that you should give up? No, far from that. However, you need to do what all small start ups are doing - MARKET YOURSELF AND YOUR IDEAS. Also find out who is more likely to be supportive. Make your marketing appealing for those able to help and make the message appealing to them. I have an old say that requires you know the basics about horses. If you want a horse to act on your wishes you cannot hang behind the load and scream at the horse - you need to go up and take the halter and lead the horse. It is not an age thing. As an example I mentor a 27 year old entrepreneur with a software product and I am almost as excited as he is. Best Regards , Lennart Thornros www.StrategicLeadershipSac.com lenn...@thornros.com +1 916 436 1899 6140 Horseshoe Bar Road Suite G, Loomis CA 95650 “Productivity is never an accident. It is always the result of a commitment to excellence, intelligent planning, and focused effort.” PJM On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 9:14 AM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.comwrote: Being one of the old people, I would like to share my impression of this issue. Most young people are ignorant, self-centered, and without much imagination. When they become old people, most remain ignorant, self-centered, and without imagination. Growing old simply gives a person who wants knowledge a chance to get knowledge. It does not increase the incentive to get knowledge. Therefore, if you want advice from either the young or old, do not look at the age. Look at the willingness to learn and at the degree of imagination. Consequently, this discussion is focusing on the wrong variable. On Sep 25, 2013, at 9:46 AM, James Bowery wrote: The scientific approach, of course, would be two establish two groups, one a control group and the other a treatment group where the treatment is the proposed change, in this case the age limit. On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 10:15 AM, Alain Sepeda alain.sep...@gmail.comwrote: I agree too that most of incentive in Science is status (science in real life is very like political in a way as my dear MP secretary explained to me). about removing older people from decision, I think it can be evil too. From decision maybe, but from discussion no. I see that older people often, because they can have no huge ambition for future, because they can have enough protection to feel safe, because they can have more ego than fear of the future, those fearless people, can play the rebels... In the early 20th century , young could play the rebels, they had to, but I'm afraid modern generation of scientists are so dependent on career and funding, that they cannot take the risk to think out of the funding box. They are also often too submitted to fashion, while oldies can remind of a period when things were different. they will be what Norbert Alter called alien, people who Today in many controversies,; I see only oldies, who take , for best and worst (I don't agree, mostly for best), crazy positions against the consensus, based on old knowledge, old evidences, of their memory of a period where feeling and trends were different. In the late 19th century, oldies were conservatives in a stable society. Today oldies are keepers of dead times, of dead culture, of outdated consensus, washed by waves of fashions and new consensus. Oldies are rebels, aliens, foreigner of their time, like were the young before. Like old heros, they can decide to suicide their career to defend their micro-ethics, not afraid of anything worse than the planned story... retirement and death. Maybe they are wrong, but sure you should not remove them from the story. They are what the young were before. If you look for young rebel, forget in science, go to business. However I agree that out of science, oldies often are more defending their honeypot, surfing on fashion, rather than rebels or defender of old values. 2013/9/25 Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote: There is also
Re: [Vo]:Cold Fusion on Wikipedia japanes and chinese
MARKET YOURSELF AND YOUR IDEAS It seems to me that a LENR system is a jigsaw puzzle make up of 10,000 pieces. How do you hold the interest of a customer of the LENR concept long enough for them to endure the hard job of learning about all those thousands of obscure pieces? Especially when the customer is not sure the pieces fit together into a coherent picture. I think, you must provide the customer with a working commercial quality system to motivate them to endure the pain of learning a very difficult and convoluted process. I am sure that the software product that your acolyte is trying to sell is a high quality demonstrable product and is not vaporware. Once your customer sees a comprehensive demo of the amazing functions of that software product, he will be willing to trust the builder and to put in the long hours to understand how it works. On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 2:07 PM, Lennart Thornros lenn...@thornros.comwrote: Hi I signed up for this newsletter a few days ago. I guess I am answering the wrong way. Let me know the right way and I will do it correct. Just could not sit and listen to some of the the comments. Read Edmund Storms comment a couple of times. I am a rather old guy and I am working in the field of leadership development. I am what you call a serial entrepreneur and have an interest in energy (also an engineering degree in the sixties). I have met people in their eighties with more gusto than some in their twenties. You can wish for twenty-five year old decision makers all you want but that is not the answer and as you know you have to be careful about what you wish for you might just get it. I am sure it is frustrating to have ideas and ambitions but no response from people able to help and support. That means that you have to change the format we operate under. To eliminate by race , sex age or . . . is first of all illegal so it wont work. So, do I argue that you should give up? No, far from that. However, you need to do what all small start ups are doing - MARKET YOURSELF AND YOUR IDEAS. Also find out who is more likely to be supportive. Make your marketing appealing for those able to help and make the message appealing to them. I have an old say that requires you know the basics about horses. If you want a horse to act on your wishes you cannot hang behind the load and scream at the horse - you need to go up and take the halter and lead the horse. It is not an age thing. As an example I mentor a 27 year old entrepreneur with a software product and I am almost as excited as he is. Best Regards , Lennart Thornros www.StrategicLeadershipSac.com lenn...@thornros.com +1 916 436 1899 6140 Horseshoe Bar Road Suite G, Loomis CA 95650 “Productivity is never an accident. It is always the result of a commitment to excellence, intelligent planning, and focused effort.” PJM On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 9:14 AM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.comwrote: Being one of the old people, I would like to share my impression of this issue. Most young people are ignorant, self-centered, and without much imagination. When they become old people, most remain ignorant, self-centered, and without imagination. Growing old simply gives a person who wants knowledge a chance to get knowledge. It does not increase the incentive to get knowledge. Therefore, if you want advice from either the young or old, do not look at the age. Look at the willingness to learn and at the degree of imagination. Consequently, this discussion is focusing on the wrong variable. On Sep 25, 2013, at 9:46 AM, James Bowery wrote: The scientific approach, of course, would be two establish two groups, one a control group and the other a treatment group where the treatment is the proposed change, in this case the age limit. On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 10:15 AM, Alain Sepeda alain.sep...@gmail.comwrote: I agree too that most of incentive in Science is status (science in real life is very like political in a way as my dear MP secretary explained to me). about removing older people from decision, I think it can be evil too. From decision maybe, but from discussion no. I see that older people often, because they can have no huge ambition for future, because they can have enough protection to feel safe, because they can have more ego than fear of the future, those fearless people, can play the rebels... In the early 20th century , young could play the rebels, they had to, but I'm afraid modern generation of scientists are so dependent on career and funding, that they cannot take the risk to think out of the funding box. They are also often too submitted to fashion, while oldies can remind of a period when things were different. they will be what Norbert Alter called alien, people who Today in many controversies,; I see only oldies, who take , for best and worst (I don't agree, mostly for best), crazy positions against the consensus, based on old
Re: [Vo]:Cold Fusion on Wikipedia japanes and chinese
I think you may be misunderstanding Jed's point, Dave. Jed is far from implying that among LENR researchers the young are better represented than the old. Indeed, it is manifestly obvious that LENR research is kept alive almost entirely by the freedom older scientists enjoy either under tenure or retirement -- and there is a serious problem attracting younger researchers to the field because they dare not do a thesis on LENR. This might seem to be a paradox: If the younger researchers are pursuing their thesis under the direction of older researchers, and LENR research is largely the domain of older if not elderly researchers, then there should be an explosion of young researchers being directed toward LENR for their thesis work. But that is a logical fallacy. On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 11:05 AM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: We are discussing a complicated issue. All old people and young people are not the same and it is not fair to stereotype everyone. It has been my observation that people tend to think in manners that are a result of their life experiences. An older scientist with a clear open mind has the ability to bring a vast amount of experience to the table. He has already made uncountable mistakes in judgement about nature whereas the youngster has just started finding that he does not understand everything about the universe. Some of our friends on this list harbor a lot of knowledge that they can and do offer to the discussions. It is critical to listen to what they have to say about new ideas since these can be filtered by their past experiences. The young guys are brave and willing to make mistakes which is a good thing as long as they continue to learn from these. It is refreshing to find some of the older scientists willing to speculate about LENR in open discussions where they understand that some of their ideas might be ridiculed. There is no shame in finding yourself defending your beliefs as long as the penalty is not too severe. All I request is that people keep asking questions about unexpected observations and not be of the firm belief that they have all the answers. Whether young or old, anyone with the proper mental state can find important pieces to the complex puzzle that we call LENR and we should encourage their inputs. One day soon the operation of these devices will be understood and we will all look back and see how the evidence was there the entire time. Dave -Original Message- From: Alain Sepeda alain.sep...@gmail.com To: Vortex List vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Wed, Sep 25, 2013 11:16 am Subject: Re: [Vo]:Cold Fusion on Wikipedia japanes and chinese I agree too that most of incentive in Science is status (science in real life is very like political in a way as my dear MP secretary explained to me). about removing older people from decision, I think it can be evil too. From decision maybe, but from discussion no. I see that older people often, because they can have no huge ambition for future, because they can have enough protection to feel safe, because they can have more ego than fear of the future, those fearless people, can play the rebels... In the early 20th century , young could play the rebels, they had to, but I'm afraid modern generation of scientists are so dependent on career and funding, that they cannot take the risk to think out of the funding box. They are also often too submitted to fashion, while oldies can remind of a period when things were different. they will be what Norbert Alter called alien, people who Today in many controversies,; I see only oldies, who take , for best and worst (I don't agree, mostly for best), crazy positions against the consensus, based on old knowledge, old evidences, of their memory of a period where feeling and trends were different. In the late 19th century, oldies were conservatives in a stable society. Today oldies are keepers of dead times, of dead culture, of outdated consensus, washed by waves of fashions and new consensus. Oldies are rebels, aliens, foreigner of their time, like were the young before. Like old heros, they can decide to suicide their career to defend their micro-ethics, not afraid of anything worse than the planned story... retirement and death. Maybe they are wrong, but sure you should not remove them from the story. They are what the young were before. If you look for young rebel, forget in science, go to business. However I agree that out of science, oldies often are more defending their honeypot, surfing on fashion, rather than rebels or defender of old values. 2013/9/25 Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote: There is also opposition from many ordinary people and many stupid people at places like Wikipedia In all of these cases we're dealing with the incentives of social status more than authority structure. I agree. I would
Re: [Vo]:Cold Fusion on Wikipedia japanes and chinese
we can discuss on intrinsic qualities linked to age, and I would mostly agree. interpersonal differences are more important that the average changes in character with age... Experience, and time in the system have more impact than age... experience , and lack of experience have respective qualities. Being new in a system or having a huge network can cause good or bad. . Some good well installed people use their networks to protect the weakest, to protect innovation... this happen in administration, or in venture capital however what I was supporting when talking of young and old scientist is more linked to incentive linked to their economic and social position. I won't say the old are better than young, but that people who expect nothing from the system, who already have much, cannot have more, or no more expect anything, are more free. Being free is important. Today scientist, like most workers, starts with huge debts, with huge need to have a career, with huge social expectations and ambition... Debt is really, as says Taleb, something that make people less antifragile, more fragile. people with debt, with minimal expectation, are afraid to lose, and even sometime, afraid not to succeed. this is not good for innovation. Young poor people without debt, would prefer to take risk that to stay where they are... They would take any cheap option with the crazy hope to win. Indebted people do the opposite. The beginning of Antifragile book starts with a stoicism philosopher, who was rich, but who advised people to use few comfort so they can enjoy their unexpected wealth and accept their normal troubles... as taleb report, some great scientist and innovators were having a safe job, or a safe wealth, allowing them to do what they wanted in science. Another way to allow someone to take risk without being in risk. young or old we should give freedom to scientists. today I noticed that old scientists, not far from retirement, with adult children, with good saving, with small needs, can be free to bash the top scientists of their time, to raise their fingers to the community, to Nobel committee, to the funding agency, to their boss... There was a period when young scientist could do that, and older could not... Time have changed. anyway there are individual who can ignore incentive, but much less. moreover they are quickly eliminated by the law of survival and economics. 2013/9/25 Lennart Thornros lenn...@thornros.com Hi I signed up for this newsletter a few days ago. I guess I am answering the wrong way. Let me know the right way and I will do it correct. Just could not sit and listen to some of the the comments. Read Edmund Storms comment a couple of times. I am a rather old guy and I am working in the field of leadership development. I am what you call a serial entrepreneur and have an interest in energy (also an engineering degree in the sixties). I have met people in their eighties with more gusto than some in their twenties. You can wish for twenty-five year old decision makers all you want but that is not the answer and as you know you have to be careful about what you wish for you might just get it. I am sure it is frustrating to have ideas and ambitions but no response from people able to help and support. That means that you have to change the format we operate under. To eliminate by race , sex age or . . . is first of all illegal so it wont work. So, do I argue that you should give up? No, far from that. However, you need to do what all small start ups are doing - MARKET YOURSELF AND YOUR IDEAS. Also find out who is more likely to be supportive. Make your marketing appealing for those able to help and make the message appealing to them. I have an old say that requires you know the basics about horses. If you want a horse to act on your wishes you cannot hang behind the load and scream at the horse - you need to go up and take the halter and lead the horse. It is not an age thing. As an example I mentor a 27 year old entrepreneur with a software product and I am almost as excited as he is. Best Regards , Lennart Thornros www.StrategicLeadershipSac.com lenn...@thornros.com +1 916 436 1899 6140 Horseshoe Bar Road Suite G, Loomis CA 95650 “Productivity is never an accident. It is always the result of a commitment to excellence, intelligent planning, and focused effort.” PJM On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 9:14 AM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.comwrote: Being one of the old people, I would like to share my impression of this issue. Most young people are ignorant, self-centered, and without much imagination. When they become old people, most remain ignorant, self-centered, and without imagination. Growing old simply gives a person who wants knowledge a chance to get knowledge. It does not increase the incentive to get knowledge. Therefore, if you want advice from either the young or old, do not look at the age. Look at the willingness to learn and at
Re: [Vo]:Cold Fusion on Wikipedia japanes and chinese
Regarding: Experience, and time in the system have more impact than age Brian David Josephson, is a Welsh physicist. He became a Nobel Prize laureate in 1973 for the prediction of the eponymous Josephson Effect. You would normally assume that this fine and clever fellow would have some authoritative standing in the science community as a sponsor for the LENR concept. But the rank and file in science now think he is a wacko for this support for LENR. A guy even smarter than Richard P. Feynman, Julian Schwinger is another Nobel Prize winner who supported LENR and was put permanently in the science penalty box for his LENR theories. LENR is so toxic that anybody, no matter how eminent they were before their great and brilliant mind was before they were infected by LENR, this leprosy of the thought must turn them into a contagious intellectual pariah. We must deduce from these examples of LENR intellectual status in science require that absolute and undeniable proof is required. On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 4:08 PM, Alain Sepeda alain.sep...@gmail.comwrote: we can discuss on intrinsic qualities linked to age, and I would mostly agree. interpersonal differences are more important that the average changes in character with age... Experience, and time in the system have more impact than age... experience , and lack of experience have respective qualities. Being new in a system or having a huge network can cause good or bad. . Some good well installed people use their networks to protect the weakest, to protect innovation... this happen in administration, or in venture capital however what I was supporting when talking of young and old scientist is more linked to incentive linked to their economic and social position. I won't say the old are better than young, but that people who expect nothing from the system, who already have much, cannot have more, or no more expect anything, are more free. Being free is important. Today scientist, like most workers, starts with huge debts, with huge need to have a career, with huge social expectations and ambition... Debt is really, as says Taleb, something that make people less antifragile, more fragile. people with debt, with minimal expectation, are afraid to lose, and even sometime, afraid not to succeed. this is not good for innovation. Young poor people without debt, would prefer to take risk that to stay where they are... They would take any cheap option with the crazy hope to win. Indebted people do the opposite. The beginning of Antifragile book starts with a stoicism philosopher, who was rich, but who advised people to use few comfort so they can enjoy their unexpected wealth and accept their normal troubles... as taleb report, some great scientist and innovators were having a safe job, or a safe wealth, allowing them to do what they wanted in science. Another way to allow someone to take risk without being in risk. young or old we should give freedom to scientists. today I noticed that old scientists, not far from retirement, with adult children, with good saving, with small needs, can be free to bash the top scientists of their time, to raise their fingers to the community, to Nobel committee, to the funding agency, to their boss... There was a period when young scientist could do that, and older could not... Time have changed. anyway there are individual who can ignore incentive, but much less. moreover they are quickly eliminated by the law of survival and economics. 2013/9/25 Lennart Thornros lenn...@thornros.com Hi I signed up for this newsletter a few days ago. I guess I am answering the wrong way. Let me know the right way and I will do it correct. Just could not sit and listen to some of the the comments. Read Edmund Storms comment a couple of times. I am a rather old guy and I am working in the field of leadership development. I am what you call a serial entrepreneur and have an interest in energy (also an engineering degree in the sixties). I have met people in their eighties with more gusto than some in their twenties. You can wish for twenty-five year old decision makers all you want but that is not the answer and as you know you have to be careful about what you wish for you might just get it. I am sure it is frustrating to have ideas and ambitions but no response from people able to help and support. That means that you have to change the format we operate under. To eliminate by race , sex age or . . . is first of all illegal so it wont work. So, do I argue that you should give up? No, far from that. However, you need to do what all small start ups are doing - MARKET YOURSELF AND YOUR IDEAS. Also find out who is more likely to be supportive. Make your marketing appealing for those able to help and make the message appealing to them. I have an old say that requires you know the basics about horses. If you want a horse to act on your wishes you cannot
Re: [Vo]:Cold Fusion on Wikipedia japanes and chinese
It remind me one of the old rebel, who beside shaking the scientific community, being insulted by journalist and holder of The True Truth, do babysitting after the conferences... This fearless and hopeless scientist, with a huge carreer in his domain, said that he was forced to do the job alone or with few old apes, because if he employed some young student for a thesis it would ruin their career and close them the doors of all research centers. the worst is that the defender of the truth says that the dissenters are funded by billions... fact is that the lobbyists are on of True Truth side... another problems... off topic. It make me laugh when I see those holder of true truth talk in detail of how to identify conspiracy theories. (see http://translate.google.fr/translate?sl=autotl=enjs=nprev=_thl=enie=UTF-8u=http%3A%2F%2Ffavisonlus.wordpress.com%2F2013%2F09%2F24%2Fbufale-scientifiche-mietono-vittime-ma-e-piu-facile-smascherarle%2F ) this make me however cautious today when I am sure of something... good lesson. I've noticed also that many member of the militia of True Truth are often quite young... Maybe stockholm syndrome, Mutual Assured Delusion, because they are too dependent on the system. maybe also they have too few experience, seen too few generation and places, too few delusions, crisis... I started to understand the collective delusion after participating two bubbles/crash. as I said, older people are sometime the required alien from another time, facing a system which is too modern, where young people unlike before bring no new vision, because all is their own vision. we need free people, we need alien, from another time (past or future) another place, another domaine, another approach, another sex, another social milieu... we need unexpected! young or old... but unexpected, alien and free. 2013/9/25 James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com I think you may be misunderstanding Jed's point, Dave. Jed is far from implying that among LENR researchers the young are better represented than the old. Indeed, it is manifestly obvious that LENR research is kept alive almost entirely by the freedom older scientists enjoy either under tenure or retirement -- and there is a serious problem attracting younger researchers to the field because they dare not do a thesis on LENR. This might seem to be a paradox: If the younger researchers are pursuing their thesis under the direction of older researchers, and LENR research is largely the domain of older if not elderly researchers, then there should be an explosion of young researchers being directed toward LENR for their thesis work. But that is a logical fallacy. On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 11:05 AM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.comwrote: We are discussing a complicated issue. All old people and young people are not the same and it is not fair to stereotype everyone. It has been my observation that people tend to think in manners that are a result of their life experiences. An older scientist with a clear open mind has the ability to bring a vast amount of experience to the table. He has already made uncountable mistakes in judgement about nature whereas the youngster has just started finding that he does not understand everything about the universe. Some of our friends on this list harbor a lot of knowledge that they can and do offer to the discussions. It is critical to listen to what they have to say about new ideas since these can be filtered by their past experiences. The young guys are brave and willing to make mistakes which is a good thing as long as they continue to learn from these. It is refreshing to find some of the older scientists willing to speculate about LENR in open discussions where they understand that some of their ideas might be ridiculed. There is no shame in finding yourself defending your beliefs as long as the penalty is not too severe. All I request is that people keep asking questions about unexpected observations and not be of the firm belief that they have all the answers. Whether young or old, anyone with the proper mental state can find important pieces to the complex puzzle that we call LENR and we should encourage their inputs. One day soon the operation of these devices will be understood and we will all look back and see how the evidence was there the entire time. Dave -Original Message- From: Alain Sepeda alain.sep...@gmail.com To: Vortex List vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Wed, Sep 25, 2013 11:16 am Subject: Re: [Vo]:Cold Fusion on Wikipedia japanes and chinese I agree too that most of incentive in Science is status (science in real life is very like political in a way as my dear MP secretary explained to me). about removing older people from decision, I think it can be evil too. From decision maybe, but from discussion no. I see that older people often, because they can have no huge ambition for future, because they can have enough
Re: [Vo]:Cold Fusion on Wikipedia japanes and chinese
Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com wrote: Being one of the old people, I would like to share my impression of this issue. Most young people are ignorant, self-centered, and without much imagination. When they become old people, most remain ignorant, self-centered, and without imagination. . . . True. But the fact is, nearly all important innovation in science, math and technology is done by young people. Theoretical physics are mainly a young person's game. Most innovations in programming are by young people. There are exceptions of course. Niklaus Wirth published some of his famous contributions after age 40. But he contributed to theory. Programmers who made new programs or founded corporations, such as Bill Gates, Wozniak or Zuckerberg, were usually in their 20s when they did their best work. (People criticize Gates, but he wrote some excellent software back in the 1970s, when you consider the limitations of the early personal computers. So did I, if I do say say so myself.) In the case of cold fusion, I think Martin came up with some of the ideas when he was young, but he put off implementing them. Also, he was aware of work in the 1920s and 30s that pointed to cold fusion. Older people make important contributions to literature, music and graphic arts, especially painting. Monet painted some of his masterpieces a few years before he died, which were unlike anything in his youth, and unlike anything anyone painted before. Older people sometimes make important contributions to natural science, biology, other observational sciences, and archaeology. These things depend on a large base of knowledge and experience, rather than intuition or a new perspective unencumbered with older ideas. In physics, generally speaking, Planck's other constant holds. Progress occurs funeral by funeral. Regrettably, in cold fusion, the wrong gang of old coots are dying off. Also, we have a unfortunate generational role reversal, because of social and economic circumstances. See: http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RothwellJcomparison.pdf - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Cold Fusion on Wikipedia japanes and chinese
I think this is inverted in the LENR community. TG On Wed, 25 Sep 2013 16:49:57 -0400, Jed Rothwell wrote: Edmund Storms wrote: Being one of the old people, I would like to share my impression of this issue. Most young people are ignorant, self-centered, and without much imagination. When they become old people, most remain ignorant, self-centered, and without imagination. . . . True. But the fact is, nearly all important innovation in science, math and technology is done by young people. Theoretical physics are mainly a young person's game. Most innovations in programming are by young people. There are exceptions of course. Niklaus Wirth published some of his famous contributions after age 40. But he contributed to theory. Programmers who made new programs or founded corporations, such as Bill Gates, Wozniak or Zuckerberg, were usually in their 20s when they did their best work. (People criticize Gates, but he wrote some excellent software back in the 1970s, when you consider the limitations of the early personal computers. So did I, if I do say say so myself.) In the case of cold fusion, I think Martin came up with some of the ideas when he was young, but he put off implementing them. Also, he was aware of work in the 1920s and 30s that pointed to cold fusion. Older people make important contributions to literature, music and graphic arts, especially painting. Monet painted some of his masterpieces a few years before he died, which were unlike anything in his youth, and unlike anything anyone painted before. Older people sometimes make important contributions to natural science, biology, other observational sciences, and archaeology. These things depend on a large base of knowledge and experience, rather than intuition or a new perspective unencumbered with older ideas. In physics, generally speaking, Planck's other constant holds. Progress occurs funeral by funeral. Regrettably, in cold fusion, the wrong gang of old coots are dying off. Also, we have a unfortunate generational role reversal, because of social and economic circumstances. See: http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RothwellJcomparison.pdf [2] - Jed Links: -- [1] mailto:stor...@ix.netcom.com [2] http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RothwellJcomparison.pdf
Re: [Vo]:Cold Fusion on Wikipedia japanes and chinese
Ooh! That was an anser to Jeds post. Not to Storms post. On Thu, 26 Sep 2013 01:27:04 +0200, torulf.gr...@bredband.net wrote: I think this is inverted in the LENR community. TG On Wed, 25 Sep 2013 16:49:57 -0400, Jed Rothwell wrote: Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com wrote: Being one of the old people, I would like to share my impression of this issue. Most young people are ignorant, self-centered, and without much imagination. When they become old people, most remain ignorant, self-centered, and without imagination. . . . True. But the fact is, nearly all important innovation in science, math and technology is done by young people. Theoretical physics are mainly a young person's game. Most innovations in programming are by young people. There are exceptions of course. Niklaus Wirth published some of his famous contributions after age 40. But he contributed to theory. Programmers who made new programs or founded corporations, such as Bill Gates, Wozniak or Zuckerberg, were usually in their 20s when they did their best work. (People criticize Gates, but he wrote some excellent software back in the 1970s, when you consider the limitations of the early personal computers. So did I, if I do say say so myself.) In the case of cold fusion, I think Martin came up with some of the ideas when he was young, but he put off implementing them. Also, he was aware of work in the 1920s and 30s that pointed to cold fusion. Older people make important contributions to literature, music and graphic arts, especially painting. Monet painted some of his masterpieces a few years before he died, which were unlike anything in his youth, and unlike anything anyone painted before. Older people sometimes make important contributions to natural science, biology, other observational sciences, and archaeology. These things depend on a large base of knowledge and experience, rather than intuition or a new perspective unencumbered with older ideas. In physics, generally speaking, Planck's other constant holds. Progress occurs funeral by funeral. Regrettably, in cold fusion, the wrong gang of old coots are dying off. Also, we have a unfortunate generational role reversal, because of social and economic circumstances. See: http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RothwellJcomparison.pdf - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Cold Fusion on Wikipedia japanes and chinese
Obviously originality in physics is age related, but that is just a side effect when it comes to the gate keepers being tiresomely set in their ways. The reason for that is explained by Jerry Pournelle's iron law. Pournelle's Iron Law of Bureaucracy states that in any bureaucratic organization there will be two kinds of people: First, there will be those who are devoted to the goals of the organization. Examples are dedicated classroom teachers in an educational bureaucracy, many of the engineers and launch technicians and scientists at NASA, even some agricultural scientists and advisors in the former Soviet Union collective farming administration. Secondly, there will be those dedicated to the organization itself. Examples are many of the administrators in the education system, many professors of education, many teachers union officials, much of the NASA headquarters staff, etc. The Iron Law states that in every case the second group will gain and keep control of the organization. It will write the rules, and control promotions within the organization. So over time you will end up with people blocking new ideas and yes they will be old, but only because it has taken time for them to reach that position of power as a gatekeeper.It doesn't follow that old people in general will be that way.I will be eighty in a few months and was an early supporter of LENR and tireless advocate -- mainly to people who won't listen.It is most unlikely I will come up with the theory that explains LENR although I might have if I were still in my 20s when I was inventive by nature.
Re: [Vo]:Cold Fusion on Wikipedia japanes and chinese
To get back on track: Yes the Jasons started out as a way for young men to breakthrough the bureaucratic types and yes the Jasons has now been occupied by the likes of Nate Lewis, who was listed as third author of the Jasons report: Reducing DoD Fossil-Fuel Dependencehttp://www.fas.org/irp/agency/dod/jason/fossil.pdf . Nevertheless there are a number of other Jasons who are listed as contributors, as well as being listed as first and second authors of that report. All it takes is one to break ranks and others may follow. On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 7:21 PM, a.ashfield a.ashfi...@verizon.net wrote: Obviously originality in physics is age related, but that is just a side effect when it comes to the gate keepers being tiresomely set in their ways. The reason for that is explained by Jerry Pournelle’s iron law. Pournelle's Iron Law of Bureaucracy states that in any bureaucratic organization there will be two kinds of people: “First, there will be those who are devoted to the goals of the organization. Examples are dedicated classroom teachers in an educational bureaucracy, many of the engineers and launch technicians and scientists at NASA, even some agricultural scientists and advisors in the former Soviet Union collective farming administration. Secondly, there will be those dedicated to the organization itself. Examples are many of the administrators in the education system, many professors of education, many teachers union officials, much of the NASA headquarters staff, etc. The Iron Law states that in every case the second group will gain and keep control of the organization. It will write the rules, and control promotions within the organization.” ** ** So over time you will end up with people blocking new ideas and yes they will be old, but only because it has taken time for them to reach that position of power as a gatekeeper. It doesn’t follow that old people in general will be that way. I will be eighty in a few months and was an early supporter of LENR and tireless advocate – mainly to people who won’t listen. It is most unlikely I will come up with the theory that explains LENR although I might have if I were still in my 20s when I was inventive by nature.
Re: [Vo]:Cold Fusion on Wikipedia japanes and chinese
I agree. You make choices from the one available, from your data... and what you can do beyond you own person, of often null... the question is how much evil can do motivated people defending a Cause... Some says that since people are more dangerous than bandits. Milgram experiment show that clearly. on a scientist blog (she is a pro, a mainstream one, but now dissenter - guess who ) I have read an article about the opposition of micro-ethics, and macro-ethics. micro-ethics is for a scientist to be honest, to raise alarm when there are, to note problems, uncertainties, mismatch, errors, whatever are the consequence on his career, his project, on his college career, on his political/religious vision Macro-ethics is protecting the interest of the values, the communities, you estimate and want to defend. In real life there is an opposition between the two. Most mainstream scientists decide to hide uncertainties, if it is endangering their moral desire to make things change in the good direction. If it endanger the credibility of their scientific domain, of their scientific community, in which they believe to make the world better, to save the planet from evil they are sure do exist. They know/imagine they are under attack by knowledge terrorists, the salesmen of doubt, the mercenaries of Great Evil. The circle the wagon, the start to bend the facts, to hide problems, to manipulate peer-review, to terrorize the scientific journals, the academy who disagree... because they hold the Good, the Truth. Many people know they exaggerate, they are wrong, but it is for the Good... nobody can be against Good... They became salesmen of certainty... they know it is for the good. they ask for legal protection against denialists of their truth. the ask for ban, for ostracization... the behave like what they fear the most, like knowledge occupation army... the torture the facts, kills the dissenters, bomb the fringe labs... They do it because it is for the Good... one day there is a Manning, a Snowden, a Farewell, a FXXX (?) ...who simply cannot accept to burry his micro-ethic, the ideals he was born in, in the name of his macro-ethics, which he feel are corrupted now... who have an irrational ego to think he can change the things, that he will be recognized for so. They are not nice people, they are... required. data are leaked... and the house of cards is shaked... It hold for few years but more an more people lose faith in the macroethics... most continue by selfish interests, by laziness, or simply escape in silent... meanwhile the preachers of Truth get more and more radical, increase the level of their claims, as fast as the others lose interest... and it collapse like Berlin Wall. first in silence where nobody looks, then is a visible absurdity. and people forgets it ever existed. so it can happen again. 2013/9/23 Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com I agree with your description when applied to the details, Alain. However, the system is influenced by certain people based on their self interest and wisdom, or lack thereof. We see this situation play out throughout histoery. Some people use their power to improve while others use it to destroy. The rest of us are simply bystanders and collateral damage. Either we do nothing and get slaughtered or we move out of the way. The choice is based on knowledge. For example, some people left Germany when Hitler came to power and others stayed and died in the gas chambers. Their personal choice determined their fate. This choice was based on what they thought Hitler would do. Everyone has that same choice today when they react to events. Yes, there may be no vision in the system itself, but personal fate still can be influenced by a choice based on knowledge. If enough people make the proper choice, the fate of everyone can change. Right now poor choices are being made by most people in the West. On Sep 23, 2013, at 1:53 PM, Alain Sepeda wrote: my sad vision is there is no vision... some people think they are right, using bad heuristics. some follow them by selfish interest to get chocolate medal or to earn their life some follow just because they feel right when they follow some get convinced because they have no culture some shut up because they are coward, or have to protect their family some see but nobody hear them media feel guilty of being pretended wrong and over react to the opposite, to save their image population follow the media to be cool politician follow the population to be elected scientists follow the money thus the politicians politicians follow the scientists media follos the scientists population follow the media... system is locked, and the dissenters are fired. The roland Benabou Groupthink model of mutual assured delusion, based on the idea that if being right give you no benefit, and cause trouble, then you prefer to be delusioned... describe the MAD situation. the best intelligence is few
Re: [Vo]:Cold Fusion on Wikipedia japanes and chinese
By the way trying to get biographical data on Rossi, I found that newenergytimes is cited many times against rossi... it seems Fringe site have a different meaning when it attack rossi... LENR-CANR is never cited, while there is no comparison about which is the most Fringe. so much lack of honesty from defender of the true truth, make me ... (sorry i cannot find the english word - mix pain, rage, hate, deception, despair) 2013/9/23 Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com Years ago some Americans opposed to cold fusion tried to change this article, and they tried to ban LENR-CANR.org. A Japanese moderator asked them not to. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Cold Fusion on Wikipedia japanes and chinese
On Mon, Sep 23, 2013 at 3:34 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote: There is a similar unenlightened self-interest at work in preventing the proper development and deployment of LENR. It is intelligent in that sense and it has no incentive to become enlightened about its self-interest. There are therefore two questions in modeling this intelligence: 1) What is the actual authority structure? 2) What is the actual incentive structure? The only people standing in the way of cold fusion today are a small number of academic scientists, at places like MIT, the DoE, Nature magazine and the Jasons. Unfortunately, they have a great deal of influence. They are opposed to it on theoretical grounds, and because they can't imagine they might be mistaken, so they are not cautious. (That thought never crosses their minds.) Not because they are invested in oil. There is also opposition from many ordinary people and many stupid people at places like Wikipedia In all of these cases we're dealing with the incentives of social status more than authority structure. The key incentive here is to avoid embarrassment in the eyes of the others in the milieu but even her influence flows from the top down (MIT, DoE, Nature, Jasons, etc. - Wikpedia zombies, etc.). Clearly MIT can't be considered a unified entity as exemplified by Hagelstein. Indeed, Hagelstein's presence at MIT pretty much neutralizes it as a point of leverage from the social status angle since, as an institution, MIT can point to Hagelstein as the exemplar of their properly neutral institutional role. So forget MIT. The DoE has only partially covered its *ss with the Ramsey verbiage in the preamble to the DoE panel's report (and its reiteration in the 2009 report). This might be a weak spot -- especially given the hostility some Republicans have toward the Obama administration. Nature magazine stands much to lose, but the British foundation of that journal was protected to some degree by delegating authority over the rejection of Oriani's paper to the US editors. They can point their finger across the pond and simply say they should not have been so lax with the colonists. The Jasons, on the other hand the Jasons their raison d'être is precisely to discover game-changing physics potentials and not for any namby-pamby concerns like economic competitiveness or academic integrity. The Jasons are supposed to be above Nature magazine and the academics at the DoE and MIT, etc. Moreover, you don't have to get them all in agreement. All you need is one of them to break ranks. So how do you identify the Jason(s) most likely to be more concerned with national security than peer pressure?
Re: [Vo]:Cold Fusion on Wikipedia japanes and chinese
James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote: There is also opposition from many ordinary people and many stupid people at places like Wikipedia In all of these cases we're dealing with the incentives of social status more than authority structure. I agree. I would say it is ordinary primate behavior, similar to what you see in our cousins the chimpanzees, and in other group hunting predators such as wolves. (I am not denigrating this behavior. I have great respect for other species.) So how do you identify the Jason(s) most likely to be more concerned with national security than peer pressure? I wouldn't know. I have never met 'em. I don't even know who they all are. I know some people who have met with them, and meet with them every year. I get the impression the Jasons are a bunch of washed up old farts who are opposed to everything that wasn't discovered before they turned 30, which was a long time ago. But I could be wrong. I know that one or two of them often pull strings to have cold fusion funding cancelled. It is big mistake to give any scientist over 30 a role in allocating money or making decisions. The way to make progress is get a large pot of money and hand it out to young people, letting them do whatever they please with it. Some of them will waste it. A few may steal it. But most will make far better use of it than an old scientist could. Young people succeed in doing things the older people think are impossible, because the young people have not yet learned where the boundary between possible and impossible likes. Actually, that boundary is imaginary, like a geographical boundary -- a state line, or a property line. No one knows what is possible and what isn't. No one can even imagine. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Cold Fusion on Wikipedia japanes and chinese
Ironically: *JASON* is an independent group of scientists which advises the United States governmenthttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_government_of_the_United_States on matters of science and technology. *The group was first created as a way to get a younger generation of scientists*—that is, not the older Los Alamoshttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Los_Alamos_National_Laboratory and MIT Radiation Laboratoryhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiation_Laboratory alumni—involved in advising the government. It was established in 1960 and has somewhere between 30 and 60 members. On Tue, Sep 24, 2013 at 5:54 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: I get the impression the Jasons are a bunch of washed up old farts who are opposed to everything that wasn't discovered before they turned 30
Re: [Vo]:Cold Fusion on Wikipedia japanes and chinese
Something else from the Jasons Wikipedia articlehttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JASON_(advisory_group) : In 2002, DARPA decided to cut its ties with JASON. DARPA had not only been one of JASON's primary sponsors, it was also the channel through which JASON received funding from other sponsors. DARPA's decision came after JASON's refusal to allow DARPA to select three new JASON members. Since JASON's inception, new members have always been selected by its existing members. After much negotiation and letter-writing—including a letter by Congressmanhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_House_of_Representatives Rush Holt https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rush_D._Holt,_Jr. of New Jersey [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JASON_(advisory_group)#cite_note-3—funding was subsequently secured from an office higher in the defense hierarchy, the office of the Director, Defense Research Engineeringhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Director_of_Defense_Research_and_Engineering, name changed to Assistant Secretary of Defense (Research Engineering) (ASD (RE)) in 2011.[4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JASON_(advisory_group)#cite_note-4 On Tue, Sep 24, 2013 at 6:34 PM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote: Ironically: *JASON* is an independent group of scientists which advises the United States governmenthttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_government_of_the_United_States on matters of science and technology. *The group was first created as a way to get a younger generation of scientists*—that is, not the older Los Alamos https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Los_Alamos_National_Laboratory and MIT Radiation Laboratoryhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiation_Laboratory alumni—involved in advising the government. It was established in 1960 and has somewhere between 30 and 60 members. On Tue, Sep 24, 2013 at 5:54 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.comwrote: I get the impression the Jasons are a bunch of washed up old farts who are opposed to everything that wasn't discovered before they turned 30
Re: [Vo]:Cold Fusion on Wikipedia japanes and chinese
Looking around for information on which Jasons might be more interested in LENR and national security than peer pressure, I found the study Reducing DoD Fossil-Fuel Dependencehttp://www.fas.org/irp/agency/dod/jason/fossil.pdf. Clearly the author(s) of this study would be great candidates to approach with the data! Click through to see the lead authors Ooops On Tue, Sep 24, 2013 at 8:24 PM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote: Something else from the Jasons Wikipedia articlehttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JASON_(advisory_group) : In 2002, DARPA decided to cut its ties with JASON. DARPA had not only been one of JASON's primary sponsors, it was also the channel through which JASON received funding from other sponsors. DARPA's decision came after JASON's refusal to allow DARPA to select three new JASON members. Since JASON's inception, new members have always been selected by its existing members. After much negotiation and letter-writing—including a letter by Congressmanhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_House_of_Representatives Rush Holt https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rush_D._Holt,_Jr. of New Jersey [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JASON_(advisory_group)#cite_note-3—funding was subsequently secured from an office higher in the defense hierarchy, the office of the Director, Defense Research Engineeringhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Director_of_Defense_Research_and_Engineering, name changed to Assistant Secretary of Defense (Research Engineering) (ASD (RE)) in 2011.[4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JASON_(advisory_group)#cite_note-4 On Tue, Sep 24, 2013 at 6:34 PM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote: Ironically: *JASON* is an independent group of scientists which advises the United States governmenthttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_government_of_the_United_States on matters of science and technology. *The group was first created as a way to get a younger generation of scientists*—that is, not the older Los Alamos https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Los_Alamos_National_Laboratory and MIT Radiation Laboratoryhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiation_Laboratory alumni—involved in advising the government. It was established in 1960 and has somewhere between 30 and 60 members. On Tue, Sep 24, 2013 at 5:54 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.comwrote: I get the impression the Jasons are a bunch of washed up old farts who are opposed to everything that wasn't discovered before they turned 30
Re: [Vo]:Cold Fusion on Wikipedia japanes and chinese
Years ago some Americans opposed to cold fusion tried to change this article, and they tried to ban LENR-CANR.org. A Japanese moderator asked them not to. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Cold Fusion on Wikipedia japanes and chinese
Of course LENR is denied by the West. The technology is a real and profound danger to the West. It would undermine the economics of the energy industries, on which the West is built, and it would give the Third world, including China and India, great advantage. The people in charge in the West may seem stupid in their policies, but they are fully aware of the danger LENR represents. The West will be forced to accept the technology eventually, but not because an intelligent approach was used to develop and take advantage of the technology. No, they will have to accept the working generators built in and controlled by China or some other country, such as Sweden. LENR not only has the ability to make energy cheaper but it will, in the process, change the power structure of the world, just as discovery of atomic weapons did. This subject may be a fun intellectual game to scientists; it is a life and death issue to some industries and social structures. On Sep 23, 2013, at 3:52 AM, Alain Sepeda wrote: Did you notice that Cold fusion was treated much more in a balanced way in Chinese and japanese . https://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E5%B8%B8%E6%B8%A9%E6%A0%B8%E8%9E%8D%E5%90%88 translated: http://translate.google.fr/translate?hl=ensl=autotl=enu=http%3A%2F%2Fja.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2F%E5%B8%B8%E6%B8%A9%E6%A0%B8%E8%9E%8D%E5%90%88 http://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E5%86%B7%E6%A0%B8%E8%81%9A%E5%8F%98 translated: http://translate.google.fr/translate?hl=ensl=autotl=enu=http%3A%2F%2Fzh.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2F%E5%86%B7%E6%A0%B8%E8%81%9A%E5%8F%98 lenr-canr is not blacklisted, and you find reference to many positions. what does it inspire you? is LENR denial a western problem?
Re: [Vo]:Cold Fusion on Wikipedia japanes and chinese
It is hard for me to imagine that it is an intelligent desire to protect economic rent for few against the western population... Having worked in finance, in Internet bubble, I would rather blame it on individual weakness (selfishness, ambition, greed, self delusion, submission to easy) sewed to make a fabric of stupidity... with a few strong cables , like gary taubes and other leader in closed mindedness, lack of culture, and ego, who give the skeleton, the frame, to that tent of absurdity... maybe the US human cables holding the western delusion tent cannot reach Japan and China... Maybe a language barrier... sure most EU is under that tent... why not the italians ? (maybe because they have a good palladium provider!) interesting question... selfish interest of a minority ? of stupidity of the majority? 2013/9/23 Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com Of course LENR is denied by the West. The technology is a real and profound danger to the West. It would undermine the economics of the energy industries, on which the West is built, and it would give the Third world, including China and India, great advantage. The people in charge in the West may seem stupid in their policies, but they are fully aware of the danger LENR represents. The West will be forced to accept the technology eventually, but not because an intelligent approach was used to develop and take advantage of the technology. No, they will have to accept the working generators built in and controlled by China or some other country, such as Sweden. LENR not only has the ability to make energy cheaper but it will, in the process, change the power structure of the world, just as discovery of atomic weapons did. This subject may be a fun intellectual game to scientists; it is a life and death issue to some industries and social structures. On Sep 23, 2013, at 3:52 AM, Alain Sepeda wrote: Did you notice that Cold fusion was treated much more in a balanced way in Chinese and japanese . https://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E5%B8%B8%E6%B8%A9%E6%A0%B8%E8%9E%8D%E5%90%88 translated: http://translate.google.fr/translate?hl=ensl=autotl=enu=http%3A%2F%2Fja.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2F%E5%B8%B8%E6%B8%A9%E6%A0%B8%E8%9E%8D%E5%90%88 http://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E5%86%B7%E6%A0%B8%E8%81%9A%E5%8F%98https://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E5%86%B7%E6%A0%B8%E8%81%9A%E5%8F%98 translated: http://translate.google.fr/translate?hl=ensl=autotl=enu=http%3A%2F%2Fzh.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2F%E5%86%B7%E6%A0%B8%E8%81%9A%E5%8F%98 lenr-canr is not blacklisted, and you find reference to many positions. what does it inspire you? is LENR denial a western problem?
Re: [Vo]:Cold Fusion on Wikipedia japanes and chinese
The homeostatic mechanisms of these systems embody a kind of intelligence that is all-too-frequently attributed to conspiracy. This is complicated by the fact that genuine conspiratorial behavior is sometimes involved. It is further complicated by the vague definition of conspiracy as the word is used in rhetorical conflict. I find it helpful to think of these homeostatic mechanisms as a kind of intelligence that is so alien to human intelligence that we have difficulty conceptualizing it. In this respect it is similar to our difficulty in conceptualizing the homeostatic mechanisms of our own bodies that include incredibly sophisticated systems such as immune response. If we could somehow get a better conceptual handle on the structure of these mechanisms it might become practical to disrupt them so that progress can proceed. On Mon, Sep 23, 2013 at 10:38 AM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.comwrote: Of course LENR is denied by the West. The technology is a real and profound danger to the West. It would undermine the economics of the energy industries, on which the West is built, and it would give the Third world, including China and India, great advantage. The people in charge in the West may seem stupid in their policies, but they are fully aware of the danger LENR represents. The West will be forced to accept the technology eventually, but not because an intelligent approach was used to develop and take advantage of the technology. No, they will have to accept the working generators built in and controlled by China or some other country, such as Sweden. LENR not only has the ability to make energy cheaper but it will, in the process, change the power structure of the world, just as discovery of atomic weapons did. This subject may be a fun intellectual game to scientists; it is a life and death issue to some industries and social structures. On Sep 23, 2013, at 3:52 AM, Alain Sepeda wrote: Did you notice that Cold fusion was treated much more in a balanced way in Chinese and japanese . https://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E5%B8%B8%E6%B8%A9%E6%A0%B8%E8%9E%8D%E5%90%88 translated: http://translate.google.fr/translate?hl=ensl=autotl=enu=http%3A%2F%2Fja.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2F%E5%B8%B8%E6%B8%A9%E6%A0%B8%E8%9E%8D%E5%90%88 http://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E5%86%B7%E6%A0%B8%E8%81%9A%E5%8F%98https://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E5%86%B7%E6%A0%B8%E8%81%9A%E5%8F%98 translated: http://translate.google.fr/translate?hl=ensl=autotl=enu=http%3A%2F%2Fzh.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2F%E5%86%B7%E6%A0%B8%E8%81%9A%E5%8F%98 lenr-canr is not blacklisted, and you find reference to many positions. what does it inspire you? is LENR denial a western problem?
Re: [Vo]:Cold Fusion on Wikipedia japanes and chinese
I agree, stupidly is certainly at the core of the problem. I think the atom bomb provides a useful example of the situation. Early during WWII, scientists understood that Germany was working on the atom bomb and if they were successful, the power structure of the world would change. Only a determined effort by Einstein and a few scientists in the US were able to pursued a reluctant US government to pay any attention to the threat. The difference now is that we do not have an Einstein or a Roosevelt in charge to make wise decisions. The US government is in chaos and unable to respond to even obvious threats. On the other hand, Japan and China, although equally stupid in many ways, have a self-interest to develop the technology that is lacking in the West. Of course, the normal herd of skeptics and people who follow the media carry the message that CF is not real. These people would be ignored if the government really wanted CF to be developed. The selling of the Iraq war shows just how effective the government can be in getting what it wants. On Sep 23, 2013, at 11:05 AM, Alain Sepeda wrote: It is hard for me to imagine that it is an intelligent desire to protect economic rent for few against the western population... Having worked in finance, in Internet bubble, I would rather blame it on individual weakness (selfishness, ambition, greed, self delusion, submission to easy) sewed to make a fabric of stupidity... with a few strong cables , like gary taubes and other leader in closed mindedness, lack of culture, and ego, who give the skeleton, the frame, to that tent of absurdity... maybe the US human cables holding the western delusion tent cannot reach Japan and China... Maybe a language barrier... sure most EU is under that tent... why not the italians ? (maybe because they have a good palladium provider!) interesting question... selfish interest of a minority ? of stupidity of the majority? 2013/9/23 Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com Of course LENR is denied by the West. The technology is a real and profound danger to the West. It would undermine the economics of the energy industries, on which the West is built, and it would give the Third world, including China and India, great advantage. The people in charge in the West may seem stupid in their policies, but they are fully aware of the danger LENR represents. The West will be forced to accept the technology eventually, but not because an intelligent approach was used to develop and take advantage of the technology. No, they will have to accept the working generators built in and controlled by China or some other country, such as Sweden. LENR not only has the ability to make energy cheaper but it will, in the process, change the power structure of the world, just as discovery of atomic weapons did. This subject may be a fun intellectual game to scientists; it is a life and death issue to some industries and social structures. On Sep 23, 2013, at 3:52 AM, Alain Sepeda wrote: Did you notice that Cold fusion was treated much more in a balanced way in Chinese and japanese . https://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E5%B8%B8%E6%B8%A9%E6%A0%B8%E8%9E%8D%E5%90%88 translated: http://translate.google.fr/translate?hl=ensl=autotl=enu=http%3A%2F%2Fja.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2F%E5%B8%B8%E6%B8%A9%E6%A0%B8%E8%9E%8D%E5%90%88 http://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E5%86%B7%E6%A0%B8%E8%81%9A%E5%8F%98 translated: http://translate.google.fr/translate?hl=ensl=autotl=enu=http%3A%2F%2Fzh.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2F%E5%86%B7%E6%A0%B8%E8%81%9A%E5%8F%98 lenr-canr is not blacklisted, and you find reference to many positions. what does it inspire you? is LENR denial a western problem?
Re: [Vo]:Cold Fusion on Wikipedia japanes and chinese
James, I have no idea what you mean to say here. No conspiracy is involved or implied. The effect of LENR on the world's economy is obvious to anyone who understands economics. This is reality, not some proposed crazy idea. On Sep 23, 2013, at 10:46 AM, James Bowery wrote: The homeostatic mechanisms of these systems embody a kind of intelligence that is all-too-frequently attributed to conspiracy. This is complicated by the fact that genuine conspiratorial behavior is sometimes involved. It is further complicated by the vague definition of conspiracy as the word is used in rhetorical conflict. I find it helpful to think of these homeostatic mechanisms as a kind of intelligence that is so alien to human intelligence that we have difficulty conceptualizing it. In this respect it is similar to our difficulty in conceptualizing the homeostatic mechanisms of our own bodies that include incredibly sophisticated systems such as immune response. If we could somehow get a better conceptual handle on the structure of these mechanisms it might become practical to disrupt them so that progress can proceed. On Mon, Sep 23, 2013 at 10:38 AM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com wrote: Of course LENR is denied by the West. The technology is a real and profound danger to the West. It would undermine the economics of the energy industries, on which the West is built, and it would give the Third world, including China and India, great advantage. The people in charge in the West may seem stupid in their policies, but they are fully aware of the danger LENR represents. The West will be forced to accept the technology eventually, but not because an intelligent approach was used to develop and take advantage of the technology. No, they will have to accept the working generators built in and controlled by China or some other country, such as Sweden. LENR not only has the ability to make energy cheaper but it will, in the process, change the power structure of the world, just as discovery of atomic weapons did. This subject may be a fun intellectual game to scientists; it is a life and death issue to some industries and social structures. On Sep 23, 2013, at 3:52 AM, Alain Sepeda wrote: Did you notice that Cold fusion was treated much more in a balanced way in Chinese and japanese . https://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E5%B8%B8%E6%B8%A9%E6%A0%B8%E8%9E%8D%E5%90%88 translated: http://translate.google.fr/translate?hl=ensl=autotl=enu=http%3A%2F%2Fja.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2F%E5%B8%B8%E6%B8%A9%E6%A0%B8%E8%9E%8D%E5%90%88 http://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E5%86%B7%E6%A0%B8%E8%81%9A%E5%8F%98 translated: http://translate.google.fr/translate?hl=ensl=autotl=enu=http%3A%2F%2Fzh.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2F%E5%86%B7%E6%A0%B8%E8%81%9A%E5%8F%98 lenr-canr is not blacklisted, and you find reference to many positions. what does it inspire you? is LENR denial a western problem?
Re: [Vo]:Cold Fusion on Wikipedia japanes and chinese
Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com wrote: Of course LENR is denied by the West. The technology is a real and profound danger to the West. It would undermine the economics of the energy industries, on which the West is built, and it would give the Third world, including China and India, great advantage. That is incorrect. The economics of the energy industry play only a small role in most first world countries, such as the U.S., France or Japan. The number of people employed in the energy business has fallen drastically in the last several decades. The percent of the GDP devoted to energy has fallen. GDP and productivity per joule of energy has soared, because of improved efficiency in things like lighting, heating, power generation, computers and automobile gas mileage. These improvements have been drastic in some cases. LED lighting takes only about one-fifth of the electricity of incandescent lights. Energy plays a large role in the economics of Russia, Venezuela and Middle Eastern oil exporting countries. Furthermore, decreasing the cost of energy is likely to improve first world economies sooner than it improves third world countries or China, since we have more high tech, we have more ways to grow the economy, and we import more energy per capita than they do. Lower energy costs would be a tremendous boon to Japan, because they are closing down all of the nuclear power plants. The people in charge in the West may seem stupid in their policies, but they are fully aware of the danger LENR represents. I do not think so. Not the ones I have heard from. Not the ones in the Japanese government that Mizuno and others have spoken with, or in the Navy. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Cold Fusion on Wikipedia japanes and chinese
Sorry, Ed, I should have clarified that I wasn't referring to you as having posited a conspiracy theory. My abstractions may have been a bit too for the present conversation... On Mon, Sep 23, 2013 at 11:52 AM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.comwrote: James, I have no idea what you mean to say here. No conspiracy is involved or implied. The effect of LENR on the world's economy is obvious to anyone who understands economics. This is reality, not some proposed crazy idea. On Sep 23, 2013, at 10:46 AM, James Bowery wrote: The homeostatic mechanisms of these systems embody a kind of intelligence that is all-too-frequently attributed to conspiracy. This is complicated by the fact that genuine conspiratorial behavior is sometimes involved. It is further complicated by the vague definition of conspiracy as the word is used in rhetorical conflict. I find it helpful to think of these homeostatic mechanisms as a kind of intelligence that is so alien to human intelligence that we have difficulty conceptualizing it. In this respect it is similar to our difficulty in conceptualizing the homeostatic mechanisms of our own bodies that include incredibly sophisticated systems such as immune response. If we could somehow get a better conceptual handle on the structure of these mechanisms it might become practical to disrupt them so that progress can proceed. On Mon, Sep 23, 2013 at 10:38 AM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.comwrote: Of course LENR is denied by the West. The technology is a real and profound danger to the West. It would undermine the economics of the energy industries, on which the West is built, and it would give the Third world, including China and India, great advantage. The people in charge in the West may seem stupid in their policies, but they are fully aware of the danger LENR represents. The West will be forced to accept the technology eventually, but not because an intelligent approach was used to develop and take advantage of the technology. No, they will have to accept the working generators built in and controlled by China or some other country, such as Sweden. LENR not only has the ability to make energy cheaper but it will, in the process, change the power structure of the world, just as discovery of atomic weapons did. This subject may be a fun intellectual game to scientists; it is a life and death issue to some industries and social structures. On Sep 23, 2013, at 3:52 AM, Alain Sepeda wrote: Did you notice that Cold fusion was treated much more in a balanced way in Chinese and japanese . https://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E5%B8%B8%E6%B8%A9%E6%A0%B8%E8%9E%8D%E5%90%88 translated: http://translate.google.fr/translate?hl=ensl=autotl=enu=http%3A%2F%2Fja.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2F%E5%B8%B8%E6%B8%A9%E6%A0%B8%E8%9E%8D%E5%90%88 http://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E5%86%B7%E6%A0%B8%E8%81%9A%E5%8F%98https://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E5%86%B7%E6%A0%B8%E8%81%9A%E5%8F%98 translated: http://translate.google.fr/translate?hl=ensl=autotl=enu=http%3A%2F%2Fzh.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2F%E5%86%B7%E6%A0%B8%E8%81%9A%E5%8F%98 lenr-canr is not blacklisted, and you find reference to many positions. what does it inspire you? is LENR denial a western problem?
Re: [Vo]:Cold Fusion on Wikipedia japanes and chinese
I wrote: These improvements have been drastic in some cases. LED lighting takes only about one-fifth of the electricity of incandescent lights. Illumination is a large fraction of total energy use. See: http://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.cfm?id=99t=3 QUOTE: How much electricity is used for lighting in the United States? EIA estimates that in 2011, about 461 billion kilowatt-hours (kWh) of electricity were used for lighting by the residential and commercial sectors. This was equal to about 17% of the total electricity consumed by both of these sectors and about 12% of total U.S. electricity consumption. Residential lighting consumption was about 186 billion kWh or 13% of all residential electricity consumption. The commercial sector, which includes commercial and institutional buildings and public street and highway lighting, consumed about 275 billion kWh for lighting or 21% of commercial sector electricity consumption in 2011. EIA does not have an estimate for only public street and highway lighting. . . . (Note that high efficiency lighting also improved vehicle gas mileage, since cars and trucks often drive with their lights on.) - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Cold Fusion on Wikipedia japanes and chinese
I agree Bob, the world is not managed in order to increase everyone's benefit. Jed tends to be an optimist about the future while I and apparently you as well are more of a realist. The world is in a mess. The West has created an unstable and unsustainable economic structure and many parts of the world are being threatened by religious insanity. Add something so unexpected, uncontrolled, and threatening to the production of oil, coal, and uranium as is LENR, we can expect the worst possible outcome. For example, although the US is self- sufficient in energy, the cost is controlled by the world market. If the cost goes down, the profit goes down and the loans supporting the infrastructure cannot be paid, resulting in massive default. The system is already saturated with such bad debt. Meanwhile, China is limited by how fast she can build energy generators and by availability of water. If she can out produce us now, just think what she can do with unlimited energy. In the future, she will be selling to her own people for prices we can not afford, resulting in shortages and a lower standard of living in the West. I raise these issues because unless the West finds an intelligent way to respond to this situation, we in the West will be in bad shape. Unless the real threat is acknowledge, no effort will be made to find a solution until it is too late, as is typical of how the West reacts. Simply pretending all will work out is not a solution. Ed On Sep 23, 2013, at 12:52 PM, Rob Dingemans wrote: Dear Jed, On 23-9-2013 20:13, Jed Rothwell wrote: Furthermore, decreasing the cost of energy is likely to improve first world economies sooner than it improves third world countries or China, since we have more high tech, we have more ways to grow the economy, and we import more energy per capita than they do. Lower energy costs would be a tremendous boon to Japan, because they are closing down all of the nuclear power plants. You would be right if the focus of the ones in charge were to be on lowering energy cost and gaining a higher standard of living for ALL people. However I strongly doubt if that is what their real intention is. I tend to agree with Alain and Edmund's (probably also Peter Gluck's) perception of how the world is managed. Kind regards, Rob
Re: [Vo]:Cold Fusion on Wikipedia japanes and chinese
my sad vision is there is no vision... some people think they are right, using bad heuristics. some follow them by selfish interest to get chocolate medal or to earn their life some follow just because they feel right when they follow some get convinced because they have no culture some shut up because they are coward, or have to protect their family some see but nobody hear them media feel guilty of being pretended wrong and over react to the opposite, to save their image population follow the media to be cool politician follow the population to be elected scientists follow the money thus the politicians politicians follow the scientists media follos the scientists population follow the media... system is locked, and the dissenters are fired. The roland Benabou Groupthink model of mutual assured delusion, based on the idea that if being right give you no benefit, and cause trouble, then you prefer to be delusioned... describe the MAD situation. the best intelligence is few people aware of material science which simply know they have to be modest, and follow the evidence... no strategy intelligence in the system above the one of an ant in a colony. no plan... at worst vicious hate of those one feel as the evil, the foes accused of fighting against The True Truth... Defending the consensus like one defend a Mother Goddess, or simply Mum. No conspiracy, but huge ego motivation. all of that is tiny. From what I see , it is a tiny story. like a kindergarten fight. It is a serious affair for kids anyway. they bet their soul in those battle... like some want to clear wikipedia, the holy territory, or science from pseudoscience. with planet consequence. 2013/9/23 Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com I agree Bob, the world is not managed in order to increase everyone's benefit. Jed tends to be an optimist about the future while I and apparently you as well are more of a realist. The world is in a mess. The West has created an unstable and unsustainable economic structure and many parts of the world are being threatened by religious insanity. Add something so unexpected, uncontrolled, and threatening to the production of oil, coal, and uranium as is LENR, we can expect the worst possible outcome. For example, although the US is self-sufficient in energy, the cost is controlled by the world market. If the cost goes down, the profit goes down and the loans supporting the infrastructure cannot be paid, resulting in massive default. The system is already saturated with such bad debt. Meanwhile, China is limited by how fast she can build energy generators and by availability of water. If she can out produce us now, just think what she can do with unlimited energy. In the future, she will be selling to her own people for prices we can not afford, resulting in shortages and a lower standard of living in the West. I raise these issues because unless the West finds an intelligent way to respond to this situation, we in the West will be in bad shape. Unless the real threat is acknowledge, no effort will be made to find a solution until it is too late, as is typical of how the West reacts. Simply pretending all will work out is not a solution. Ed On Sep 23, 2013, at 12:52 PM, Rob Dingemans wrote: Dear Jed, On 23-9-2013 20:13, Jed Rothwell wrote: Furthermore, decreasing the cost of energy is likely to improve first world economies sooner than it improves third world countries or China, since we have more high tech, we have more ways to grow the economy, and we import more energy per capita than they do. Lower energy costs would be a tremendous boon to Japan, because they are closing down all of the nuclear power plants. You would be right if the focus of the ones in charge were to be on lowering energy cost and gaining a higher standard of living for ALL people. However I strongly doubt if that is what their real intention is. I tend to agree with Alain and Edmund's (probably also Peter Gluck's) perception of how the world is managed. Kind regards, Rob
Re: [Vo]:Cold Fusion on Wikipedia japanes and chinese
Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com wrote: For example, although the US is self-sufficient in energy, the cost is controlled by the world market. The U.S. is not self-sufficient in energy. We consume 97 quads. We import 24 quads (mainly oil) and export 10 quads (oil and coal). See: http://www.eia.gov/totalenergy/data/annual/diagram1.cfm If the cost goes down, the profit goes down and the loans supporting the infrastructure cannot be paid, resulting in massive default. That would depend on how far down the costs go, how quickly. Energy costs have dropped throughout history. The cost of electricity in particular has fallen in real dollars. Granted, cold fusion is likely to cause a catastrophic drop in prices which would strand much of the industry, but the default would not be massive. Oil, gas, coal and electric companies do not have much debt. They are not a major part of the U.S. economy. There would be stranded infrastructure, but it would be stranded because we don't need it. It will not serve any purpose, and no one will miss it, any more than we miss having the use of abandoned railroad lines. It will take a long time to close down the electric power industry. 20 or 30 years at least, and probably longer. That is plenty of time to pay off bonds. They will not have to buy any new equipment or generators during that time, since the market will be contracting. They can just use up and then throw away their old equipment. That is what U.S. railroads did from 1945 to 1965, as passenger traffic vanished. Even today, most of the remaining rolling stock is decades old, and it is a tiny fraction of what we had in 1945. The global energy market is $6 trillion, but most of that money goes to the oil producing countries, mainly in the Middle East and Russia. Their economies will be destroyed. Not ours, and not Europe or Japan. Look at the Fortune 500: http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune500/2013/full_list/index.html?iid=F500_sp_full It is true that #2, 3, 4 and 9 are in the energy business, with a total of $992 billion, but the others are nowhere to be seen. Other companies in other business make far more in the aggregate, and many of these companies such as GM and Ford may benefit from cold fusion, or profit from it directly, such as GE (assuming they make cold fusion generators). Every dollar not earned by Exxon is likely to be spent elsewhere. Every dollar not sent to Saudi Arabia will be spent here instead. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Cold Fusion on Wikipedia japanes and chinese
I agree with your description when applied to the details, Alain. However, the system is influenced by certain people based on their self interest and wisdom, or lack thereof. We see this situation play out throughout histoery. Some people use their power to improve while others use it to destroy. The rest of us are simply bystanders and collateral damage. Either we do nothing and get slaughtered or we move out of the way. The choice is based on knowledge. For example, some people left Germany when Hitler came to power and others stayed and died in the gas chambers. Their personal choice determined their fate. This choice was based on what they thought Hitler would do. Everyone has that same choice today when they react to events. Yes, there may be no vision in the system itself, but personal fate still can be influenced by a choice based on knowledge. If enough people make the proper choice, the fate of everyone can change. Right now poor choices are being made by most people in the West. On Sep 23, 2013, at 1:53 PM, Alain Sepeda wrote: my sad vision is there is no vision... some people think they are right, using bad heuristics. some follow them by selfish interest to get chocolate medal or to earn their life some follow just because they feel right when they follow some get convinced because they have no culture some shut up because they are coward, or have to protect their family some see but nobody hear them media feel guilty of being pretended wrong and over react to the opposite, to save their image population follow the media to be cool politician follow the population to be elected scientists follow the money thus the politicians politicians follow the scientists media follos the scientists population follow the media... system is locked, and the dissenters are fired. The roland Benabou Groupthink model of mutual assured delusion, based on the idea that if being right give you no benefit, and cause trouble, then you prefer to be delusioned... describe the MAD situation. the best intelligence is few people aware of material science which simply know they have to be modest, and follow the evidence... no strategy intelligence in the system above the one of an ant in a colony. no plan... at worst vicious hate of those one feel as the evil, the foes accused of fighting against The True Truth... Defending the consensus like one defend a Mother Goddess, or simply Mum. No conspiracy, but huge ego motivation. all of that is tiny. From what I see , it is a tiny story. like a kindergarten fight. It is a serious affair for kids anyway. they bet their soul in those battle... like some want to clear wikipedia, the holy territory, or science from pseudoscience. with planet consequence. 2013/9/23 Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com I agree Bob, the world is not managed in order to increase everyone's benefit. Jed tends to be an optimist about the future while I and apparently you as well are more of a realist. The world is in a mess. The West has created an unstable and unsustainable economic structure and many parts of the world are being threatened by religious insanity. Add something so unexpected, uncontrolled, and threatening to the production of oil, coal, and uranium as is LENR, we can expect the worst possible outcome. For example, although the US is self-sufficient in energy, the cost is controlled by the world market. If the cost goes down, the profit goes down and the loans supporting the infrastructure cannot be paid, resulting in massive default. The system is already saturated with such bad debt. Meanwhile, China is limited by how fast she can build energy generators and by availability of water. If she can out produce us now, just think what she can do with unlimited energy. In the future, she will be selling to her own people for prices we can not afford, resulting in shortages and a lower standard of living in the West. I raise these issues because unless the West finds an intelligent way to respond to this situation, we in the West will be in bad shape. Unless the real threat is acknowledge, no effort will be made to find a solution until it is too late, as is typical of how the West reacts. Simply pretending all will work out is not a solution. Ed On Sep 23, 2013, at 12:52 PM, Rob Dingemans wrote: Dear Jed, On 23-9-2013 20:13, Jed Rothwell wrote: Furthermore, decreasing the cost of energy is likely to improve first world economies sooner than it improves third world countries or China, since we have more high tech, we have more ways to grow the economy, and we import more energy per capita than they do. Lower energy costs would be a tremendous boon to Japan, because they are closing down all of the nuclear power plants. You would be right if the focus of the ones in charge were to be on lowering energy cost and gaining a higher standard of living for ALL
Re: [Vo]:Cold Fusion on Wikipedia japanes and chinese
Good... perhaps I can try my approach from the angle opened up by the problem of writing off capital investments in a debt saturated western economy: The bailout of the large financial institutions was an example of the kind of 'panic' that results when a massive write-off of capital investments occurs. In that instance, there was a choice as to whether to bailout the debt-loaded population so they could service their debts, or whether to bail out the financial institutions so they could, for example, foreclose and evict the population from their homes and let those homes be overtaken by squatters, weeds, mildew algae growing in their swimming pools. The system made a decision: Evict the population and centralize assets in the hands of the financial institutions. If you recall during this period there were serious proposals in the major financial press for the government to mobilize the physical destruction of excess housing resulting from the centralization of real wealth. This was an intelligent decision from some interests' perspectives and it was a stupid decision from others' perspective. Of course, the new-homeless didn't care whether it was intelligent or stupid -- conspiratorial or accidental -- it was just downright evil from their perspective. Viewing the system that made this decision as exhibiting unenlightened self-interest, we can invoke my saying Never attribute to sheer stupidity that which can be explained by unenlightened self-interest. In other words, the system was acting intelligently here but only from some perspectives. There is a similar unenlightened self-interest at work in preventing the proper development and deployment of LENR. It is intelligent in that sense and it has no incentive to become enlightened about its self-interest. There are therefore two questions in modeling this intelligence: 1) What is the actual authority structure? 2) What is the actual incentive structure? Analyze those two structures and something might be done. On Mon, Sep 23, 2013 at 2:15 PM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.comwrote: I agree Bob, the world is not managed in order to increase everyone's benefit. Jed tends to be an optimist about the future while I and apparently you as well are more of a realist. The world is in a mess. The West has created an unstable and unsustainable economic structure and many parts of the world are being threatened by religious insanity. Add something so unexpected, uncontrolled, and threatening to the production of oil, coal, and uranium as is LENR, we can expect the worst possible outcome. For example, although the US is self-sufficient in energy, the cost is controlled by the world market. If the cost goes down, the profit goes down and the loans supporting the infrastructure cannot be paid, resulting in massive default. The system is already saturated with such bad debt. Meanwhile, China is limited by how fast she can build energy generators and by availability of water. If she can out produce us now, just think what she can do with unlimited energy. In the future, she will be selling to her own people for prices we can not afford, resulting in shortages and a lower standard of living in the West. I raise these issues because unless the West finds an intelligent way to respond to this situation, we in the West will be in bad shape. Unless the real threat is acknowledge, no effort will be made to find a solution until it is too late, as is typical of how the West reacts. Simply pretending all will work out is not a solution. Ed On Sep 23, 2013, at 12:52 PM, Rob Dingemans wrote: Dear Jed, On 23-9-2013 20:13, Jed Rothwell wrote: Furthermore, decreasing the cost of energy is likely to improve first world economies sooner than it improves third world countries or China, since we have more high tech, we have more ways to grow the economy, and we import more energy per capita than they do. Lower energy costs would be a tremendous boon to Japan, because they are closing down all of the nuclear power plants. You would be right if the focus of the ones in charge were to be on lowering energy cost and gaining a higher standard of living for ALL people. However I strongly doubt if that is what their real intention is. I tend to agree with Alain and Edmund's (probably also Peter Gluck's) perception of how the world is managed. Kind regards, Rob
Re: [Vo]:Cold Fusion on Wikipedia japanes and chinese
Rob Dingemans manonbrid...@aim.com wrote: Dear Jed, On 23-9-2013 20:13, Jed Rothwell wrote: Furthermore, decreasing the cost of energy is likely to improve first world economies sooner than it improves third world countries or China, since we have more high tech, we have more ways to grow the economy, and we import more energy per capita than they do. Lower energy costs would be a tremendous boon to Japan, because they are closing down all of the nuclear power plants. You would be right if the focus of the ones in charge were to be on lowering energy cost and gaining a higher standard of living for ALL people. However I strongly doubt if that is what their real intention is. Intentions play no role in economics. No one is in charge. Many people think they are in charge, but as we saw in the 2008 economic collapse, those people actually have no power and no control over anything. If it becomes generally known that cold fusion is real and that it can save every American ~$2,000 per year, no force on earth could stop the development -- or slow it down. Money has power over society than anything else. Even if both political parties and every member of the 1% elite opposed cold fusion there is nothing they could do to stop it from being developed. The demand will be too strong. The profit motive too strong. In fact, many large industries and many members of the elite will want cold fusion, because they will make money with it. Exxon will surely go bankrupt soon. That's $450 billion per year lost. Others will make that money instead. It isn't going to fall down a black hole. It won't be going to Saudi Arabia any more. People who stop buying gas will spend the money elsewhere. I tend to agree with Alain and Edmund's (probably also Peter Gluck's) perception of how the world is managed. The world is never managed. It is chaos and happenstance. No one is in charge, because no one can predict the future. The people who think they are in charge, such as Alan Greenspan, usually turn out to be witless. People did not even anticipate the rise of natural gas electric power generation, which is rapidly overtaking coal. That is a conventional source of energy. It is a minor, incremental change in the technology. It is blowing the coal companies out of the water. No one cares about that except people who own stock in coal companies, and coal miners. There are more people building wind turbines than there are miners, so it makes little difference to the overall economy. See: http://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.cfm?id=7090 - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Cold Fusion on Wikipedia japanes and chinese
James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote: There is a similar unenlightened self-interest at work in preventing the proper development and deployment of LENR. It is intelligent in that sense and it has no incentive to become enlightened about its self-interest. There are therefore two questions in modeling this intelligence: 1) What is the actual authority structure? 2) What is the actual incentive structure? The only people standing in the way of cold fusion today are a small number of academic scientists, at places like MIT, the DoE, Nature magazine and the Jasons. Unfortunately, they have a great deal of influence. They are opposed to it on theoretical grounds, and because they can't imagine they might be mistaken, so they are not cautious. (That thought never crosses their minds.) Not because they are invested in oil. There is also opposition from many ordinary people and many stupid people at places like Wikipedia, for the reasons explained by Francis Bacon: The human understanding, when any preposition has been once laid down, (either from general admission and belief, or from the pleasure it affords,) forces every thing else to add fresh support and confirmation; and although more cogent and abundant instances may exist to the contrary, yet either does not observe or despises them, or gets rid of and rejects them by some distinction, with violent and injurious prejudice, rather than sacrifice the authority of its first conclusions. The rest of the world has no idea that cold fusion exists. Not the slightest idea. I have talked to enough government officials and big name scientists to ascertain that, and so have people such as Rob Duncan. Leaders and decision makers are not opposed to it. They do not have the slightest inkling that it exists. Yes, thousands of people have read papers at LENR-CANR.org, but there are billions of people on the Internet. Many of the people who read papers keep their knowledge to themselves, because there is widespread contempt and ridicule. If it becomes generally known that cold fusion is real, then I am sure there will be TREMENDOUS opposition from big oil, big coal, big wind and so on. Unbelievable opposition. You should see how they attack one-another! However, this opposition will avail them nothing. Nothing can stand in the way of a Niagara Falls flow of money. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Cold Fusion on Wikipedia japanes and chinese
Dear Jed, On 23-9-2013 20:13, Jed Rothwell wrote: Furthermore, decreasing the cost of energy is likely to improve first world economies sooner than it improves third world countries or China, since we have more high tech, we have more ways to grow the economy, and we import more energy per capita than they do. Lower energy costs would be a tremendous boon to Japan, because they are closing down all of the nuclear power plants. You would be right if the focus of the ones in charge were to be on lowering energy cost and gaining a higher standard of living for ALL people. However I strongly doubt if that is what their real intention is. I tend to agree with Alain and Edmund's (probably also Peter Gluck's) perception of how the world is managed. Kind regards, Rob
