There is a fundamental sociological difference between LENR energy production and the current energy infrastructure.
10s of millions of people worldwide are employed by the current energy infrastructure. It is one of the only economic areas that remain that are rich enough to provide a living wage. LENR on the other hand can originate out of an automated facture filled with robots and staffed by just a few hundred people. Most of the world’s energy needs can be met out of that type of factory automation. What will those untold millions do for a job when that LENR factory gets rolling? On Sun, Jan 5, 2014 at 7:31 PM, Jed Rothwell <[email protected]> wrote: > Edmund Storms <[email protected]> wrote: > > >> > Rossi clearly does not understand how the effect works. He was lucky and >> is now trying to find out why. >> > > No one is that lucky. He knows a lot, and he and his coworkers are > learning more every day. > > > We have no way of knowing what the Chinese have learned. >> > > We do too! Mizuno and I know, because we spoke with Arata's coworkers in > Japanese. Mizuno coauthored their paper. Many Americans know what the > Chinese collaborating with Rossi are up to. > > > >> The threat is the possibility they will find out and use this information >> more effectively than Rossi can. >> > > I am sure they will use it more effectively than Rossi can. So will > Mitsubishi and General Electric. Rossi agrees with me about that. > > > >> This is a huge risk that I would expect would be taken seriously, >> especially when the cost of countering the risk is trivial. >> > > Of course it will be taken seriously. Once people realize that cold fusion > is real, everyone will take it seriously. They will be spending a billion > dollars a day on it. > > That is nonsense. Americans are no better or worse at teaching or learning >> than anyone else. >> >> >> You miss the point Jed. I said nothing about the general ability to >> learn, which is universal. The problem is teaching knowlege about a >> particular subject. >> > > There is practically no knowledge about cold fusion! Once serious R&D > begins, people will be learning more about it every week than they now > learn in a year. There will be 500,000 to a million world class experts > working frantically on this, just as there were on railroads, automobiles, > airplanes, nuclear energy, computers, transistors and the genome when these > technologies were hot. > > > >> That knowledge has a lifetime because a lot of it is not in print. >> > > It will all be in print soon. > > > That which is in print is hard to find and difficult to understand. This >> kind of knowledge is taught in university. No university teaches LENR. >> > > No universities taught about DNA or transistors in 1952 either. They all > did a decade later. > > > >> Even if you want to start the process, how many professors do you think >> are available? >> > > As many as you want. Professors are cheap. You can train thousands of new > ones in a short time. > > > >> I agree, the issue is how long it would take to rediscover the >> understanding while China is running ahead. >> > > No time at all. The time it takes to fly a top expert and his family out > of China to California, and have him cash a check for $5 million. Or $50 > million. If you do not think that would happen you know nothing about > business. > > > >> Of course a Manhattan-type program might speed up the rest of the >>> world getting the knowledge after China put generators on the market. >>> >> >> R&D into cold fusion will far larger than the Manhattan project. R&D into >> transistors was far larger. IBM's development of the IBM 360 computer cost >> more than the Manhattan project in constant dollars. >> >> >> And your point is??? >> > > My point is that a dozen Manhattan style R&D efforts will be launched in > the U.S., the EU, Japan, China. Trillions of dollars of profit ensure this > will happen. > > > >> We know that more bright physicists are in China than are in the US or in >> any other country. >> > > No, there are not. Anyway, the EU and the US outnumber them, and we can > train bright physicists as fast as they can. > > > >> If they are given the incentive to study LENR, which is not given in the >> West, they will understand it sooner. This is simple logic you cannot >> reject. >> > > Suppose they do understand it sooner? We can catch up in a matter of > months. As I said, we can hire their best people if that is what it takes. > Or their second best people. How do you think the Japanese and Chinese > caught up with the West? It can be done far more quickly now than it could > in 1868, or 1975 when the Japanese decided to get serious about making > computers. > > Technical information can no longer be kept secret. This is not 1900 or > 1950. > > > >> This is not secret technology. This is IGNORANCE about a function of >> nature. We are like a person from 1800 who came forward in time and was >> confronted with explaining how a cell phone works. >> > > At this moment, no one in China or Japan knows better than the people in > the U.S. If they do learn something, they will teach it to us. All it takes > is money to persuade them. > > > > >> How long do you thing it would take to come up with an answer? >> > > The flight time from Beijing to San Francisco, as I said. > > >> They will figure out what to look for! Or they will hire Chinese people >> who know. >> >> >> Yes, they will try. The issue is scale. >> > > We can match the scale of any R&D enterprise in the world. > > > >> Yes bright people would contribute if they have the incentive. This >> incentive is not provided in the West. >> > > IT WILL BE PROVIDED. That's my point. The incentive will consist of a > trillion dollars of profit, there for the taking. The absolute dominance in > every major heavy industry from automotive to aerospace, to power > generation. Everyone will see that. U.S. and EU industrialists and Army > Generals are not going to roll over and play dead, or let the Chinese gain > a two-year advantage in something like that. > > Many other people will understand the use of this technology and the vital > importance of it just as well as you and I do. They have never heard of it > at present. > > > >> Even with incentive, they would have to learn about the subject before >> they could make a contribution. From whom do they get this teaching? >> > > From the Chinese, if they happen to be the ones who posses it. > > > >> Yes, that is true. I predict this will be too little too late. >> > > You have no basis for that prediction. Post-WWII history shows that you > are wrong. > > >> The West will wake up to this fact about a week after people in China do. >> >> >> Really?? If so, this will be the only example of leadership learning >> anything so fast. >> > > No, it isn't. When the airplane, the atomic bomb, transistors, computers > and silicon semiconductors were demonstrated, leadership acted within > weeks. Industrial, military and government leaders worldwide convened > meetings and reacted to these developments immediately. > > When the U.S. realized that the Japanese Zero fighter plane was in some > ways superior to our fighter aircraft, and they captured an intact Zero in > Alaska after the battle of Midway, they conducted intense R&D to reverse > engineer it and to learn all about its strengths and weaknesses, and to > devise counter-measures. They wasted no time at all. > > > >> The country that can industrialize it first will have a huge advantage. >> > > Not true. The U.S. has no advantage in personal computers or cell phones > even though we were the first to manufacture them. The advantage vanished > in a few years. > > > >> Why must our leaders wait until the device is on sale at Wal-Mart? >> > > They won't wait. They are not idiots. They are no stupider than the > Chinese leaders. > > > The issue is with timing and scale. These two factors are the difference >> between a successful business and a failure. >> > > Timing is less important than it used to be. It is much less important > with cold fusion than, say, computers, because no standardization is > needed. Being the second or third company to enter a market is often an > advantage these days. IBM did not keep its dominance in personal computers > for long. > > - Jed > >
