[amanasleep]

delt0r wrote: How does the BBNH explain galactic rotation curves? Or gravitational lensing measurements or the Bullet cluster? In fact as far as i can tell, you only have “BB doesn’t explain everything so we are right” Withing a theory that does at least as well, and lets be clear Electric universe does not, (or MOND), is a prerequisite for replacement.

Not much work has been done in this area. AFAIK the major Plasma Cosmology explanation for the galactic rotation curves comes from the simulations done by Peratt:

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-bib_query?bibcode=1995Ap&SS;.227..167S&db_key=AST&data_type=HTML&format;=&high=42ca922c9c17128

[amanasleep]

There is an independant variable which will continue to prevent EV’s from penetrating fully, focus fusion or no: Battery charging rates. Currently, the most advanced batteries safe enough for consumer use cannot be charged quickly, regardless of power supply, with most taking hours to acquire a charge. EV batteries that can be charged fully in under 5 minutes are probably a necessary precurser to EV adoption by the world consumer.

[amanasleep]

Brian H wrote: Sorry, not buying it! (I guess you’re not a good enough salesman.) 😉 :cheese: 😛

Care to make a counter-offer?

[amanasleep]

The law of the Lid shows considerable bias towards only the most successful leaders, and breaks down in analyzing unsuccessful ones. My reading of business history is that there are many successful leadership models, and a good proportion of them involve leaders who first failed at other ventures before becoming successful. In fact, that dynamic is frequently shown as a strength of American business style, as opposed to say Japan, where your first failure “tracks” you to the bottom.

What is misunderstood in lauding “exceptional” business leaders is that good business leaders are rarely successful because they are efficient, innovative, or even charismatic, but because the businesses over which they preside are inherently, massively, profitable. Most major businesses are so profitable that corporations (and their leadership) are able to waste these profits on an enormous scale before the company’s viability as a going concern is affected. When it is, CEO’s are sometimes fired (but often they are not). Either way, major restructuring of the company is rare, and returning profits result in the succeeding leader looking at the best ways to channel the profits to keep everybody happy. Their “leadership” consists of convincing everyone that this state of affairs is due to their leadership.

At best, great CEO’s are great salesmen. Why salesmen, as opposed to other important business archetypes, tend to rise to the top, has to do with salesmanship being applied to increasing the demand for salesmen.

As for startups like McDonalds, or Microsoft, Facebook, etc. Most successful startups are helmed by leaders who learned by failing in several other businesses first. The genius who gets it right first time off is infinitesimally rare. The Law of the Lid is not a law in my understanding of the word. More like the Anecdote of the Lid.

In the case of Ray Kroc, for instance, the limitation on McDonalds was the lack of a salesman (not necessarily a leader). But the salesman who came along eventually led the company, because he was the best at convincing everybody he could lead.

[amanasleep]

Some observations about railguns:

@ Brian H:

While you are correct that ground based railguns would be vulnerable to orbital weapons (including orbital railguns!), the implementation time for for orbital weaponry is prohibitive and subject to treaty by all nuclear armed powers. Since as Lerner rightly points out railguns will not be able to stop ICBM’s, nobody will be able to deploy space based weapons without being subject to prohibition by MAD brinksmanship. In fact, the implementation of railgun ground-based ABM tech (or any ABM tech) would be subject to the same prohibition should it work in the first place. IMO all technological attempts to break the MAD stalemate are so inherently destabilizing that they represent the most significant risk of general nuclear war occuring in the near future. Only by reducing deterrents to protected, non-redundant levels and securing precursors and weapons worldwide can this threat be reduced.

That leaves railguns free to be implemented in ground forces. However, the practical implications of this are not all that groundbreaking if the nuclear geopolitical situation does not change. Essentially, nuclear armed powers cannot face each other in conventional combat lest escalation lead to nuclear war. The result is as it is today: Nuclear armed powers can fight non-nuclear armed powers, who can also fight each other. In the first instance the weaker power is likely to engage in asymetrical warefare (to have any chance at all) rendering the railgun advantage negligible compared to current tech. In the second example, neither power is likely to have access to railguns (or both are). Either way such battles will almost certainly be largely fought by infantry at close range, making railguns not much better than conventional artillery (what would the Janjaweed do with cruise missiles in Darfur? probably not a lot).

Railguns are essentially only effective when used by two large, technologically sophisticated militaries on one another. Such an eventuality is highly unlikely to say the least. If they are used, it will be in future actions similar to US intervention in Iraq: as a cheaper, more effective alternative to existing tech. But it won’t change the dynamics or outcome much.

[amanasleep]

Although I have some passing experience and interest in this area, I would have to say I lack any real qualifications or expertise that would be useful even after the organization secures 501(c)(3) status. I would suggest that Lerner himself look for somebody bright and energetic who’s still in college from either of the EE’s (electrical or environmental) or pure or applied physics backgrounds, and with whom he personally has complete confidence. The fundraising and grant-writing can be learned much easier than the expertise necessary to properly sell the research (sorry, although I am an informed layman I have neither). Alternatively he could search out somebody planning to go into the Peace Corps or other humanitarian work and apprentice them in the science himself. The benefit of such an arrangement is that the individual is more likely to be able to provide contacts in that area that the scientific folks in the organization might have difficulty cultivating.

I am not too familiar with Lerner’s persona. Does he like to schmooze and politic? As the most recognizable name in the organization the onus will continually fall upon him to attract attention to the project and to LPP, and it is essential that this happen in the general press and the wider world (as opposed to the scientific journals which will happen according to the success of the experiments). Above all he and the others in the organization must attempt to actually meet and speak face-to-face with individuals who might be in position to help advance your goals, and not be shy about it. The amounts you require at this stage of research are relatively small, so you will be surprised at how effective knowing the right person can be in securing funding.

[amanasleep]

Yes, focus fusion must lobby organizations to recognize that it requires special consideration for funding because of it’s unique economic and ecumenical benefits. You may be correct that you fall outside of the normal purview for grants from humanitarian organizations, but at a certain point my feeling is that the intervention of a high-profile sponsor will be necessary to protect the fruits of successful research.

What happens if proof-of-concept is a smashing success? Only humanitarian organizations can provide the moral force to spearhead the introduction of this new energy source in precisely the areas where it can do the most good with the least institutional resistance: in third-world countries where there is a vacuum of reliable power generation.

This is a pie-in-the-sky formulation, of course, but my point is that it is important to capture the imaginations of those who want to change the world for the better, especially those with a few bucks. Soros is another example of the kind of investor you might consider. He is dedicated to humanitarianism, progressive social change, and forward-looking technology.

I agree with you that it is important not to go off without adequate preparation, and grant-seeking as everybody knows is 95% failure anyway.

I would not have a volunteer contact anybody unless they are 100% committed to your program and have a solid fundraising and/or scientific background. You should put your best foot forward always. That having been said, your existing body of theory and scientific research program should be sufficient if packaged properly and professionally presented both in written proposals and face-to-face presentations. If you do not have somebody in charge of such things I would make it a priority. While your grass-roots funding schemes are admirable I believe they will be insufficient in either the near or middle term while your cultural footprint is small. Later, if the intitutional support is secured from any sector, and assuming net energy production becomes a reality, individual contributions may become more important, but they are unlikely to provide significant income precisely when they are most needed.

The best solution is a non-corporate, non-governmental patron from outside the scientific establishment, whose aim is to support the project because of it’s possible impact on humanity, rather than possible economic exploitation or even the laudible goal of the advancement of pure science (as we have seen this is not always the only goal in the established science community).

The greatest asset of Focus Fusion is that it is not a crackpot idea and is supported by genuine scintific research. Therefore direct appeal to those with means is advisable, as even negative responses help to create awareness. A negative answer today could be a positive down the road, as any success in research will cause an instant re-evaluation of your efforts by those previously contacted.

[Author]

Posts