McKubre vs. Rossi on Competition, Collaboration in LENR

In Sterling Allan’s recent interview with Mike McKubre at SRI, McKubre discussed who he felt were the ‘big four’ companies on the verge of commercialization in the LENR field: Brillouin, Defkalion, Rossi, and Blacklight Power. When Allan asked McKubre about the issue of competition between these players, McKubre responded:


“There should be no competition between these four groups, they should be working with each other to make each other succeed — when one succeeds, all will succeed. There isn’t any possibility that a single corporation, a single company, a single country, will be allowed to monopolize this technology. It’s much too important for any one group to monopolize — it won’t be possible . . . one validation opens the door to funding which allows for all to develop. Now, in twenty years from now there will be Fords and there will be Volkswagens, and they’ll have different market share, but if one succeeds, all will succeed.”

The idea does sound attractive, but I’m not sure that players that McKubre mentions will get on board with this approach. When Andrea Rossi was informed about McKubre’s suggestion, he wrote the following vivid objection:

It easy to share something that is worth nothing. It is impossible to share IP which has substantial worth with competitors. The rest is just hypocrisy disguised by fake humanitarism, aiming to get IP ( Intellectual Property) without making all the work, fatigue and investments made by others. Medicine would have made no progress at all should not the Intellectual Property of the medicines be granted to the industries that paid all the necessary R&D and validation for the drugs they invented. In the energy field the situation is the same, as well as in all the important fields of R&D. In the recent history we had a paradigmatic evidence of what I said: the communism; along the communist phylosophy ( the so called Marxism) everything had to be put in common and everybody had to produce sharing his capacities and skills with all the others, while the results of the global work had to be shared between all the men along their necessities: everybody had to work along his skills, everybody had to consume along his necessities…we all have seen what this phylosophy has produced after Lenin has given substance to it. Let’s not make confusion between humanitarism and greed. Last Sunday I was walking along the shore of Miami Beach and I observed an interesting scene: a gull was continuing to fly low on the surface of the sea, looking for food, while other gulls were seat on the beach looking at him; after a while he grasped a fish with his beak, but immediately all the other gulls got flying around him, attacking him to steal the fish, and, after a while, they succeeded, leaving him without the prey he had worked for.

Rossi has expressed similar thoughts in the past, and it doesn’t sound like he is likely to change his outlook on the matter. I’m not so sure about the other players that McKubre mentions. It would be a different world if researchers in key fields like LENR would be fully open and forthcoming with their work (MFMP style), but business interests, our current economic system and human nature are strong obstacles to to taking this approach.




  • Spyrit

    The irony of the men/women of money (not science) are keen to cling to the socio-economic system (petrodollar), while working on a technology that can potentially destroy it. What collaboration brings, a pooling of resources both physical and human, gaining a quicker means to an end, as opposed to competition which at best staggers a long at best (hence 25 years of squandered R and D).

    Any -ism that you can think of has one factor all were methods of greed, all had currencies, all fail. All the killing done by each of the -isms were all based on greed. Given the state of current technologies, the system of scarcity is obsolete, has been for some time.

  • Frechette

    Excess heat resulting from Lenr is undeniable. The problem is getting reliable high COP and control of the reaction. That requires an understanding of the fundamental physics. Otherwise the engineering of a commercial product becomes an exercise in trial and error.

    • http://www.lenrnews.eu/lenr-summary-for-policy-makers/ AlainCo

      Right, problem is control.
      theoretical understanding is a way to have reliable results, it is the todays fashion in science to think theory is the only way.
      Like what ENEA have proven by finding the importance of impurities and crystallography, experiments are also a way to explore and find good control methods.

      trial and error is not fashion, but until the 50s it was the most efficient way to innovate… maye be it is finally the best way. My vision is that when we explore experimentally the LENR systesm, we will have more data, allowing good theory, to finish the job and reassure mum and pop.
      I don’t think that theory makes a system really safer.
      theory can be wrong in the same way that a series of test can miss a blackswan problem…
      a theory that match a mile of experiment, is a good mix, proposing a way to fill the hole in the testing space in a coherent way.

  • GreenWin

    McKubre’s point likely resolves around the LENR work governments already support under classification. Much of the Cold Fusion work at SRI is financed by DARPA and other government entities. Mike uses the automobile analogy – just because Ford was the first to market did not stop dozens, hundreds of other car makers selling products. Same with LENR. We already have a half dozen energy appliances (micro-CHP) announced. There will be more. With the BLP technology there’re opportunities to license it and design an original MHD.

    There will be no ONE single LENR technology in the market – that’s a certainty.

  • Charles

    Georgehants writes: “that without capitalism and the horrors that accompany it,”. Georgehants did NOT write: “that without socialism, fascism and communism and the horrors that accompany it”, some 100 million people who were slaughtered by Socialists, Fascists and Communists governments and leaders would have remained alive to contribute to “society”.

    I have only one question to ask of Georgehants and his Progressive, Liberal, Democrat, Socialist, Fascist and Communist ilk: “just what is a fair percentage of a population that should be killed to achieve the great and just society you imagine”. Should one of the last two purists standing, kill the other one for not being purist enough?

    Admin, do you think that the private property argument should be conducted on this Board? Our Founders thought there could not be a successful society without private property rights.

    • georgehants

      Charles, I am talking about the horrors of capitalism and then creating a new system.
      If you wish to talk about the horrors of other systems please feel free, but do not be so silly as to blame me when they where not the subjects I was addressing.
      Sorry, I also did not talk about the horrors of a Martian invasion by killer blobs, which I am sure you will think amiss of me.

  • Omega Z

    No-

    Money comes as soon as a proven working product is available.
    Be-damned the theory… That can come latter…

  • Alan DeAngelis

    When I was young I had a summer job as an operating room orderly. Should I have tapped the surgeon on the shoulder during a brain operation and given him some suggestions? I like the way Rossi thinks. I think it’s better to just leave him
    alone.

    • Alan DeAngelis

      PS
      But I must also say that I do understand Mike McKubre’s point. When the first commercial LENR reactor comes on the market it will silence all the critics (perhaps not the ones with delusions of grandeur in academia) and that will open the floodgates to competition.

  • Sandy

    Mexican law permits the formation of producer cooperative corporations, and I know of one such corporation whose members are all making a very good living. But these people are not members of the culture that you have called “Mexican traditional culture”.

    Animals live in groups for mutual defense against predators and in order to collectively defend their territory against encroachment by other groups. If predatory and territorial pressures are removed, animals will stop living in groups. After their societies dissolve, they come together occasionally just long enough to mate.

    The proliferation of LENR technologies is likely to undermine current human social structures. People will become more independent and less cooperative.

    • Udi

      Humans always lived in close interdependent groups, even before they where humans.
      Chimps and Bonovos, our closest relatives, also live in groups.
      Hunters-Gatherers, either in the tropics or in the Arctic – live/lived in groups.
      It’s the human nature.

      Only in the last hundred years or so technology has made it even possible to live as a single unit, which is not dependent on friends/relatives to survive.
      But still psychologically humans are most happy when they feel part of a group.

      • NT

        Hmmm, I dunno as many neighbors in the larger cities barely know or socialize with one another – that is just an observation as I have no substantiated facts on this…

    • NT

      Therefore, the world population should decrease somewhat or at least stabilize and not increase at an unsustainable rate?

    • Omega Z

      If life becomes less burdened, People may have a better demeanor & get along better. Lets Hope.

      “Animals live in groups for mutual defense against predators”

      Reminds me of 2 guys in the woods who run into a Bear.
      #1 Immediately bends down & ties his show lace.
      #2 Says what are you doing.
      #1 I don’t want to trip while I’m Running.
      #2 You Fool. You can’t outrun a Bear.
      #1 I don’t have to outrun the Bear. All I have to do is Outrun You.
      Animals live in groups- Each hoping he’s faster then the Other…

  • georgehants

    Roger you are still stuck with the idea the money exists, when only the working population engaged in producing needed goods and fair services and luxuries is actual.
    Money today is just a device to distribute that earned wealth unevenly.

    • bachcole

      When a completely new project is started, like building a bridge, who pays the workers and how are they paid? If someone wants to start an LENR research venture, who pays those people and how are they paid? If there is no capital accumulation, there is no money to pay these people. Did you want the government to pay for this. That would mean that they would be using MY and YOUR money when the government is inexperienced with ventures and have proven themselves over and over to be incompetent. I would much rather that some greedy person who is keeping a very hard eye on the bottom line risk HIS money than to have some government bureaucrat who doesn’t really care keeping no eye on the bottom line while risking MY money.

      This is why China has basically switched from a central planning economy to a capitalist economy. Instead of have a handful of bureaucrats with no skin in the game making decisions, they have thousands of individuals with lots of skin in the game making decisions.

  • Sandy

    Alfie Kohn wrote an interesting book about cooperation and competition. See “No Contest: The Case Against Competition”; excerpt posted at http://teacherrenewal.wiki.westga.edu/file/view/Competition-Alfie+Kohn.pdf

  • georgehants

    All resources exist, but I take your point you mean discovering them and utilising them.
    Therefore the person who domesticated fire, his offspring should still now own and control the World?
    You seem to be saying that a person who helps society more than the average should be rewarded, I agree.
    Where do you draw the line on those rewards?
    Your statement – “Democracy without protection for the minority is a lynch mob,” is obvious and meaningless unles you spend time putting it into some kind of context.

    • observer

      To own an object or a method of doing something is to control the use of that object or method. If others wish to have what you own, they could barter for it, take it by force, or duplicate it. You could be rewarded or punished for possessing something of value. We have laws in order to predetermine the consequences of our actions so that we can create a strategy for going forward. There is no point in creating and trying to keep what we can not hold. There is no difference between the strong taking from weak and the many taking from the few. If we loose the ability to possess we will not create more than we can immediately consume and the total amount of resources available to society will be reduced.

      • georgehants

        observer, thanks for very interesting chat but difficult to continue with constant interruption from another poster.
        I wish you well.

  • georgehants

    Roger do you see merit in achieving the most efficient and fair method of labour division.

    • bachcole

      I don’t understand the question.

  • georgehants

    Gerard, so the only reason the taxpayers are supporting a scientific charity system where they achieve virtuly nothing, is so they can put money into something that others achieve, that they completely deny is real.
    Sounds like something slightly wrong there.

  • david55

    Randell Mills answered few question.:

    > Will the demonstration produce electricity that can be compared to
    > input versus output or will the constructed device showcase just
    > the highly energetic plasma?

    Randell Mills

    ”The energetic plasma will be demonstrated. The energy and power
    balances will be measured using a commercial calorimeter that will
    quantify megaWatt power at a density of billions of watts per liter.

    I will also go over the system engineering, hydrino product
    characterization, and talk about applications and commercialization.

    We have to build the MHD converter for plasma to electric conversion,
    the basis of a later public demonstration.”

    > hopefully results in up to 50% of the energy of the plasma being
    > converted into electricity.

    Randell Mills

    ”The conversion could be much more efficient than 50% with a fully
    ionized supersonic plasma.”

  • georgehants

    Roger, that hopefully would be more enjoyable for you, than wasting your time having to work in a pointless made up job in finance etc to be able to pay your bills.

  • Gerard McEk

    I believe Rossi is right. The only way they might help each other is that they independently prove that their process works and due to which main stream scientists start to focus on LENR. Only then a new theory, fully accepted by these scientists, will arise and they (the competitors) will finally understand what LENR is and how it can be improved.

    • georgehants

      Gerard, why would it matter if “main stream scientists” never except it, the Rebel scientists seem to be doing very well without their closed-minded inertial drag.
      I think the Quantum and many other subjects demonstrates what a waste of time main-stream science is.
      Time to leave the old fossilised self-serving science establishment to rot and develop a new Open-minded system with the young, from the ground up.

      • Frechette

        Quantum theory has served modern science well. I bet a theory for Lenr will not require any new physics and will probably be based on quantum theory. Mainstream scientists are the problem. They are too lazy to look at the data uncovered by the experimentalists. Reminds me of the late 1800s when mainstream physicists claimed there was nothing left to be discovered in their field. Lo and behold someone discovered X-rays which some of the same physicists claimed to be a hoax.

    • Udi

      I really don’t see the great need for accepted theory. What I see is the need for some simple LENR/BlackLight/whatever device which can generate electricity on a continuous basis while generating more power than it consumes.
      That’s it – no more and no less.

      Once you have such a device working, there will be a gold rush, with hundreds of companies trying to create similar (if somewhat different due to IP considerations) devices.

      It seems that building such a device is a really slow and complicated process, due to the fact it still does not exist.
      I really hope we don’t have to wait decades for it, as my time on this planet is limited…

      • Frechette

        Without a theory designing and optimizing any system becomes extremely difficult from an engineering perspective requiring more time and money than would otherwise be the case. The designers would basically be working in the dark.

    • Sanjeev

      Its been debated here many times. So again I disagree. There are many examples where no theory could explain the phenomenon, such as superconductivity or many medicines, yet they continued to be used and progressed.
      Mainstream is a bunch of so called scientists who practice science for earning a living, they know nothing beyond text books and are always looking for securing their funding/jobs/title/reputations. A true scientist is never mainstream, he walks ahead of all streams. The mainstream then slowly catches up.

      • Frechette

        If a theoretical basis for Lenr were to postulated today it would only be accepted by the next generation of mainstream scientists. The present generation would need to die off first. Max Planck the originator of Quantum Theory made a similar claim.

  • georgehants

    Admin, I agree fully, as anybody who puts a little thought into things would see, that without capitalism and the horrors that accompany it, the possibility of free open distribution of knowledge instantly allows for the World to move on quickly and efficiently.
    No patents, no hiding things to maintain profits, Just members of society working together to help everybody better their lives.

    • observer

      Among the ephemeral what does not reproduce will no longer exist. Capital begets Capital. Altruism is self defeating if it puts the distribution of resources above the creation of resources.

      • georgehants

        observer, would you like to translate that philosophical rambling, dreamed up by somebody trying to sound impressive (probably a scientist) into clear statements of your views.

        • observer

          Do not condemn the creator(s) of resources. Wealth is not a zero-sum game. If I am talking over your head, I suggest you grow a little.

          • georgehants

            observer, perhaps you could come down off your pedestal a little.
            Who in your view are “the creator(s)”.
            What do you mean —-”Wealth is not a zero-sum game”
            Please enlighten this poor ignorant wretch with your knowledge.

            • observer

              George:

              Tom and John each have an apple. Tom eats his apple and throws away the core. John eats his apple, and plants the seeds. John nurtures and protects the sapling trees, and after years of effort has bushels of apples. John gives Tom an apple, but Tom resents the fact the John has more apples than he does. In the beginning of the story there were two apples. Before Tom and John ate the apples, it was a zero-sum game because the total number of apples was constant. When they ate the apples it became a negative sum game since the amount of available resources was reduced. When john raised a crop of new apples, it became a positive sum game. Just because John now has more apples than Tom, does not mean that Tom would have more apples if John had not accumulated his apples.

              Of course you know this because you are not as stupid as your glorification of ignorance would suggest.

              • georgehants

                Observer, I would not except that Mrs Jones who has worked diligently all her life but does not understand your posts is “stupid”, as you imply above.
                —–
                You seem to be taking the worst of Human Nature as your starting point.
                I will disagree and suggest that we should build on the positive aspects of humanity.
                Just a few positive and conscientious people can grow enough apples to feed the World, would you agree?
                This leaves the others free to spend their time helping to grow apples, to enjoy their lives and to work for the betterment of all, would you agree?
                Forget and except those few who will not except responsibility, but do not condemn unjustly the majority (I believe) who would do their fair share In a morally fair society.
                You have not answered who are “the creator(s)”.

                • observer

                  Your security is defined by those you depend on. If the world depends on just a few, than the actions of a few determine the security of the world.

                  What is my definition of the creator(s) of resources?

                  Those few who’s existence results in more resources than if they had not existed.

                  There are many ways to distribute resources once they exist. If a resource is scarce, (as most are), then it is wise if the distribution of resources does not inhibit the creation of resources.

                • georgehants

                  observer, now we are getting somewhere.
                  You are correctly understanding that the World depends on all those working to produce our food and then the other indispensable things such as housing, health, etc.
                  Of course the more that this is distributed away from the rich and powerful, as you suggest the better.
                  Very bad to rely on a few crazy bankers, politicians etc. far better to create a True democracy where those producing our needs make the decisions.
                  You say – “Those few who’s existence results in more resources than if they had not existed.”
                  All resources already exist they only need sensible nurturing, unlike at present.
                  You speak a riddle – “it is wise if the distribution of resources does not inhibit the creation of resources.” please enlarge.

        • david55

          He is saying socialism is subset of capitalism if you put socialism above capitalism you become North korea

          • georgehants

            david55, yes I understand, I just like things in common English not in I am clever’ese.
            Of course he is completely in error as who has mentioned socialism.

          • Udi

            North Korea is not socialist, it’s actually a dictatorship, and a violent and cruel one.
            You can find socialism in Western Europe, for example the Scandinavian countries, which are actually more successful than the US, economically and socially.

            • bachcole

              Socialism works better when everyone is in the same culture. “But North Korea is in the same culture, Roger.” But Scandinavian countries are part socialism and part capitalism.

              I tend to think that all of these model and ideology perspectives are bunk. What counts is the feeling tone of the country. North Korea started out and is run on fear and anger, hatred really. Sweden is run on caring about others. I see Sweden as a strong ally; North Korea as a sick enemy. The Soviet Union was started by a small cadre of idealists who were severely persecuted by the Tsar’s police. Of course they would start a paranoid and whack-job government. Sweden slid into their socialism gently and naturally, without rancor and hatred.

          • Frechette

            And if you put capitalism above everything else you end up with privatizing corporate profits and socializing corporate losses. The end result is the tax payer getting screwed. We just experienced that in 2008 by bailing out the crony capitalists.

    • Donk970

      The open model you suggest is fine when you have governments willing to provide the funding to do the research. Unfortunately what we’ve seen since the initial Cold Fusion debacle is that it has been impossible to get funding to do the work. In the situation we have now it has taken enlightened corporations to provide the funding because they are convinced that there is a path to profits. If this work had been very expensive, like hot fusion research is, no corporation would have touched it because the risk/reward ratio would have been much too high. In the case of Cold Fusion the risk/reward ratio is very low and therefor enticing to mid sized corporations looking to get a jump on their competitors. But never fear, no matter who cracks the CF nut first, the simple fact that it exists and works will kick off a tsunami of government funding world wide to bring this to the mainstream. The only exception will be the United States where the controlling corporations will try to squelch adoption of CF. I would expect to see a lot of new environmental and consumer protection laws aimed at preventing adoption of CF into the mainstream.

      • georgehants

        Donk970, you seem to be arguing for a fairer and more sensible society.
        Well here we are on the Internet, lets make it happen, as the rich and powerful b’stads and those of science in authority and grasping their salaries, are certainly not going to.

      • Frechette

        You realize of course that it is primarily government funding which pays for the bulk of medical research and drug discovery. Corporate entities invest little for fundamental research of this type. The financial risk is just too great. So government does in fact have a roll to play in paying for basic research.

        Another example is the space program. Had it not been government funded communications satellites and GPS would without a doubt not exist.

    • Frechette

      It comes down to balancing the rights of the individual on the one hand with the rights of society on the other. If the fruits of an individual’s labor belong to society then one ends up with a system where individuals pretend to work and society pretends to pay the individuals.