Essay Abstract
"How Should Humanity Steer the Future? With The LENR Techshop Y Prize Incentive Proposal My proposal is to set up a prize similar to the X Prize to reward and encourage Techshop (http://techshop.ws/) teams who replicate the recent Cold Fusion experiment at the Martin Fleischmann Memorial Project wherein Gamma Rays were detected after an excess heat event. Let's call it the Y Prize.
Author Bio
Electrical Engineer
Dear Mr. O'Malley,
Your suggestion seems very practical to me, and I hope that it will be adopted sooner rather than later.
Regards,
Joe Fisher
Dear Kevin O'Malley,
i am glad to see experts people of fusion related. i wrote an essay about fusion with a very limited knowledge so would like you to evaluate my nuclear fusion idea by its possibilities and pros and cons as "semi cold fusion".
http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1995
And do you think it is possible to experiment it at your lab? I think one can build a very tiny reactor at house.
wish you good luck!
ryoji
Thank you, Joe.
Practicality was a primary focus of my essay. To be candid, there are many essays here that do not strike me as practical at all. How can we steer humanity if we do not come up with practical ways to try?
best regards
Kevin O'Malley
Hello Ryoji:
I don't think I could build your device in my house, but if YOU do it successfully, my proposal would set up a prize fund that you could win.
I would invite you to propose your ideas at Vortex-L as well. At least 3 of us on this essay contest are regular contributors there: Jed Rothwell, Peter Gluck, and myself. And there's been some great discussion of Surface Plasmon Polaritons in Graphene:
http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l%40eskimo.com/msg91576.html
best regards
Kevin O'Malley
Dear Kevin,
Thank you for your reply with great link which i would read more soon!
Ryoji
Hello Aaron:
No, I do not think it is ironic that self-interest is involved in the rating practices of such authors. If we cannot harness self interest as a species, we will by no means be able to "steer humanity".
Looking at your article, I find a future predicting machine to be very impractical. And since my main focus is on practicality, I'll be rating your essay accordingly.
But there is a silver lining on this cloud. I have been involved in a wisdom-of-crowd project in the past, and it DEFINITELY harnessed self interest. That prediction "machine" was called Intrade. Alas, Intrade shut down because it was blocked from opening up in the USA. But while it was open, I enjoyed it immensely because it gave me a chance to put my money where my mouth is. And I even wrote a very pertinent article about my experience with Intrade with respect to LENR:
How I Made Money from Cold Fusion
Hi Kevin,
I enjoyed reading your essay. Very practical suggestions for encouraging demonstration of the cold fusion technology.
Regards, Georgina
Hello Georgina:
Thank you for your kind words. I'm glad to see that practicality easily comes across as a priority in my essay.
Best regards
Kevin O'Malley
Kevin,
Great idea. Nice description and to a very important purpose. I'm a highly practical guy myself so appreciate your approach. It deserves more prominence and a higher score. There is much we don't understand which current doctrine subjugates. I discuss such a breakthrough in understanding myself and would be glad of your views. I fear both may take an interminably long to time to overcome embedded beliefs.
Best wishes
Peter
Hello Peter:
Thank you for your response and kind words. I clicked over to your essay and found that it is one of those meaty, complicated essays that I have trouble understanding. Since I'm swamped at work, I'll need to get back to this later when I can spend a bunch of cycles to comprehend it. Perhaps this is one of those things that causes the "interminably long to time to overcome embedded beliefs"?
best wishes
Kevin O'Malley
To All:
Well, this is a bit frustrating. When I was logging into my gmail account, somehow I managed to unsubscribe to replies on this thread. I suppose this means there will be even a longer lag. I can't see how to reinstate it.
Kevin O
Kevin,
I understand, no prob's. What I have done is made QM understandable classically. The problem is to see the solution most have to learn the nonsense first! No need to bother really, as long as you know that Bell 'proved' only 'QM can produce a cosine curve, than you know any classical derivation blows it out of the water.
No nonsense, no spookyness, no FTL communication required. As long as you understand that anything spinning does so both clockwise AND anticlockwise subject to observer view aspect, then the whole toolbox is as follows.
"Superposed spin"; Means both bodies have north AND south hemispheres.
"Collapse"; Means only one hemisphere spin direction is 'measurable' at a time.
"Entanglement" = propagation on spin axis, so their equatorial planes are parallell.
"Detector setting" Rotates and flips EM field (electron spin direction) so OAM.
The problem is it's so shockingly simple that embedded Pagan beliefs call on Orwell's 'Crimestop' to render it invisible. We call it 'science' I think! A new way of thinking is required it seems! (Bob kind of shows how).
I wish you luck with your venture too. I've applied your score. I look forward to your comments when you get to mine.
Best wishes
Peter
Hi Kevin,
I like your short essay. There is a lot we do not know about catalysts. Putting attention on this suspicious fusion technology, is an obvious way to steer the future that is worth the candle.
High Marks,
Don Limuti
Hello Don:
Thank you for your kind words. I do agree that this effort is worth the candle, which is why I submitted the essay. It is definitely an obvious way to steer the future of humanity.
best regards
Kevin O
I like your idea about directed prizes. I have been thinking about them for some time. I proposed some of them in Lifeboat Foundations' response to the 100 Year Starship RFP, and I mention them briefly in my contest essay. A prize for a cold fusion demonstration is an excellent idea. However, I don't think an essay proposing such a thing should win this contest, not because cold fusion is definitively wrong, but because at the moment it is not yet definitively right, and therefore still questionable as the definitive direction in which humanity should be steered. It has to be conclusively demonstrated to the public first. The Wright Brothers did have a problem getting folks to realize that they had developed a working airplane, but they solved that problem by public demonstration. Cold fusion, if it works, can follow the same path. A prize could help open that path as the French invitation to demonstrate helped the Wright Brothres. I would have liked your essay better if it had advocated directed prizes in general, with cold fusion as an example how such a prize could be used.
You essay was useful as advocacy for testing cold fusion in that it introduced the possibility to a few contest participants like me. I personally would be interested in advocating for such a prize. I may not have terribly valuable help to offer since I am busy advocating lots of other things.
Another FQXi contest essay provides more extensive citations of recent cold fusion experiments: "Cold fusion may have revolutionary potential" by Jed Rothwell.
Hello James:
Thank you for your kind words and shared perspective. I will respond to your thoughts by embedding 3 asterisks *** within the body of your post.
best regards
Kevin O
I like your idea about directed prizes. I have been thinking about them for some time. I proposed some of them in Lifeboat Foundations' response to the 100 Year Starship RFP, and I mention them briefly in my contest essay. A prize for a cold fusion demonstration is an excellent idea.
***Thanks. I'm glad to see we think along the same lines.
However, I don't think an essay proposing such a thing should win this contest, not because cold fusion is definitively wrong, but because at the moment it is not yet definitively right,
***This position is a bit addlepated.
and therefore still questionable as the definitive direction in which humanity should be steered. It has to be conclusively demonstrated to the public first.
***If such were the case, the need for a LENR incentive prize would be obviated.
The Wright Brothers did have a problem getting folks to realize that they had developed a working airplane, but they solved that problem by public demonstration.
***I'm so glad you brought up the Wright brothers, because their experience is instructive. For 5 long years, they were treated to an endless parade of lookieloos who wanted a demo but when the Wright brothers asked a simple question, the answer was "no". That question was..."if we demo this device to you will you buy airplanes from us?" It was not until they had a contract to demo to (with the US Army) that they were in a position to prove they could fly and sell airplanes. All those guys who came around asking for demos were simply trying to steal the technology.
Cold fusion, if it works, can follow the same path.
***In many respects, cold fusion is following the same path. For instance, the Wright brothers were denied publication of their article in Scientific American because "such a thing was impossible" -- the greatest luminaries in science at the time had tried and failed ignominiously, like Dr. Langley at the Smithsonian. No one remembers who the genius was that turned down the article in Scientific American, but A.I.Root has his own unique place in history. So the lesson is that one puts forth his sincere witness of the technology in progress and lets the chips fall where they may.
Gleanings in Bee Culture, January 1, 1905
This issue of the Medina, Ohio based beekeeping magazine has the distinction of publishing the first eyewitness account of the Wright Brothers' historic manned flight in Kitty Hawk, North Carolina. A. I. Root, the publisher of Gleanings in Bee Culture and a longtime friend of the flight pioneers, was permitted to write this first account and sent it off to "Scientific American." After nearly a year of silence on the part of the magazine, Root wrote its editor, who responded that it was difficult to believe that the event had actually occurred and that even if it had, the airplane would never have any practical application. When Root showed this response to the Wright Brothers, they suggested that he go ahead and publish it in his beekeeping magazine.
A prize could help open that path as the French invitation to demonstrate helped the Wright Brothres.
***The French were far more interested in proving the Wrights were frauds. A couple of bicycle mechanics? Impossible! That is, until they demo'd it.
I would have liked your essay better if it had advocated directed prizes in general, with cold fusion as an example how such a prize could be used.
***For the time being I am focused on Cold Fusion. In fact, I have found a way to put my money where my mouth is with respect to cold fusion (again). I have put down an investment into Cyclone Power, (Penny Stock: CYPW), which stands to take off rapidly if Cold Fusion breaks out. And yes, Cold Fusion could likely break out before this essay contest is even finished, because Mr. Rossi has submitted his device to independent 3rd party testing (again) and the report is due out in June. He's also been hinting that NASA is evaluating his technology. And Hydrofusion is set to generate a public demo. All he needs to do to get his patent is to demo his device to the USPTO, which will very likely be accompanied by all the same level of hype as the Wright brothers' demo to the US Army. Anyone who wants to get skin in the game is welcome to buy CYPW, which is trading at historic lows due to lack of funds to research & develop their steam engine.
You essay was useful as advocacy for testing cold fusion in that it introduced the possibility to a few contest participants like me.
***I have been looking into the technical feasibility of LENR for 6 years, ever since Dr. Arata demonstrated his gas-phase experiments with pycnodeuterium and it was soon replicated, as my Intrade contract suggested would be the case.
I personally would be interested in advocating for such a prize. I may not have terribly valuable help to offer since I am busy advocating lots of other things.
***I understand. We're all busy. This essay was about how we should nudge humanity with a bootstrapping, simple, and eminently practical approach.
Another FQXi contest essay provides more extensive citations of recent cold fusion experiments: "Cold fusion may have revolutionary potential" by Jed Rothwell.
***I am a fan of Jed. He and I are regular contributors to the Vortex-L discussion website/email list. He also shares our admiration of the Wright brothers. His perspective is utterly valuable.
Here's a fascinating Cold Fusion X Prize parallel article.
Thinking Big Is The Easy Part: My Weekend Dreaming Up The Next XPrize
When a couple of journalists join a bunch of powerful people for a weekend on the beautiful California coast, tasked with thinking about the biggest challenges facing humanity, techno-optimism, and visions of cold fusion prevail.
On a picture-perfect afternoon at a resort in Ranchos Palos Verdes, a wealthy Los Angeles suburb, I joined up with three business executives to come up with a tough question for others to solve.
We brainstormed this challenge: Devise a plan to generate half the food supply for an entire small city of 500,000 people within a 50-mile radius. Oh, and make sure the methodology could be transferred to most other similarly sized cities around the world.
Audacious? Of course. Doable? Over the course of several years, possibly.
This was our idea for the next XPrize, a series of public competitions that asks entrants to come up with "radical breakthroughs" that solve some of humanity's biggest challenges, in exchange for multi-million dollar prizes. Past and current XPrizes have included challenges to land a private craft on the moon, build a 100-mile-per-gallon car, and create a real tricorder. Our Self-Sustaining Food Supply XPrize, as we called it, was one of dozens thought up by some of the smartest and most powerful people in the world at last weekend's XPrize Visioneering gathering--a weekend of learning from experts and designing challenges aimed at tackling the major problems that humanity faces today.
Peter Diamandis, the charming techno-optimist behind the nearly 20-year-old XPrize Foundation, reminded us several times throughout the weekend that past XPrizes were influenced by the Visioneering event. But this year, the stakes were higher than ever: The idea from the winning team would go straight into the prize pipeline, get its own event for further refinement, and after proper vetting, possibly become the next big XPrize.
I wanted to win.
A Short History of XPrize
Diamandis, a physician and engineer who once worked in the space technology industry, launched the X Prize Foundation after reading The Spirit of St. Louis, an autobiography by Charles Lindbergh detailing the explorer's solo trans-Atlantic flight in 1927. It was a feat inspired by a prize challenge: the $25,000 Orteig Prize for the first person to complete a solo trans-Atlantic flight between New York and Paris. In winning the prize, Lindbergh helped familiarize the previously alien world of aviation to a generation of people, and brought us closer to today's aviation industry. Diamandis was inspired to create his own incentive prizes, starting with spaceflight.
A decade ago, the $10 million Ansari XPrize--the first prize launched by the foundation--asked teams to build a private spaceship that could carry three people 100 kilometers above the Earth's surface twice in a two week period. Some 26 teams entered, spending over $100 million in total. In 2001, SpaceShipOne, designed by aerospace engineer Burt Rutan, won the competition. Ultimately, the spaceship technology was licensed by Richard Branson to create the foundation for Virgin Galactic--a move that, according to XPrize lore, opened up the larger private spaceflight industry.
Today, the XPrize Foundation has awarded prizes for three challenges, including the Ansari XPrize and a prize to develop a better method of oil spill cleanup. The four active prizes include the Tricorder XPrize for a device that can diagnose patients at least as well as a physician, and the Google Lunar XPrize, for teams to create a rover that can launch and land on the moon and then transmit video back down to Earth. A number of prizes are in the pipeline, addressing everything from literacy to organ cryopreservation.
Building A Prize
After a brief session on prize design, the Visioneering weekend participants were sent off to brainstorm, divided into sections based on interest. My section on day one, held in an open-air half-dome outfitted with couches, pillows, and an especially soft shaggy rug, focused on the challenges facing cities. Paul Romer, the New York University economist who garnered attention recently for his ideas on charter cities, led a whirlwind 20-minute talk on how humanity can prepare for the 5 billion new urban residents who will emerge in the next 100 years.
Romer pointed out that we have the power to shape the many new cities that will pop up, but there is a limited window of time to do so. "In 100 years, it will be over. Humans will live forever with the cities we leave them," is the somber thought he left us to chew on.
After dividing into small groups and writing themes on post-it notes, it was time to hone in on prize ideas. We regrouped and split up into teams based on interest.
My four-person team--Ken Neumann, CEO of Greenscape Ventures; Guy Wolloart, chief technical and innovation officer at The Coca-Cola Company; Rodrigo Veloso, founder of O.N.E. Coconut Water; and myself, an editor and writer for Co.Exist-- initially wanted to create a prize related to water, energy, food, and economic self-sufficiency in cities. We tossed around ideas for at least 20 minutes (the team briefly lost its way at one point when a member suggested that we try to spur the creation of an Ayn Rand-ian libertarian utopia) before deciding that we needed to hone in one topic area and come up with a measurable, ultra-focused challenge.
Wolloart's pitch in front of the larger cities group was good enough to gather the votes needed to make it to the next round of pitching, this time in front of all the weekend's participants.
But first, we had one more day of visioneering. This time, I chose to participate in a climate change session led by PopTech executive director Andrew Zolli. After once again brainstorming themes, I joined another four-person team that brainstormed an idea fairly quickly for the $5 million Farmer's Almanac 2.0 XPrize: a challenge to come up with a system that pulls in climate data in real time, aggregates it, provides clear and actionable information for individuals and businesses, and distributes the data through existing channels (like real estate websites, for example). Once again, we made it to the next round.
The Winning Idea
My luck went downhill from there. Neither of my teams won enough votes to make it to the final round--really, how could we compete with pitches from personalities like newscaster Pat Kiernan and actress Patricia Arquette?
The final five ideas, selected via text message voting, included a prize for getting trace molecules of medication out of the water supply (pitched by Arquette and earthquake scientist Dr. Lucy Jones), a prize for building a prototype of a long-lasting home that could be constructed for under $1,000 in less than 24 hours, and a prize for reproducing substantive energy generation from an entirely new energy source (like cold fusion or zero-point energy) twice in two weeks.
After participating in a dramatic voting system that involved 3-D printed poker chips and glowsticks, the winner was declared: The Forbidden Energy XPrize for generating energy from an entirely new source, like cold fusion or zero point energy.
Cold fusion is perhaps more fun to think about than existing alternative energy solutions. But in my opinion, it seems more important in the energy space to come up with exponentially better battery technologies that can store energy from existing sources like solar and wind (in fact, XPrize is thinking about a challenge for building a revolutionary battery). But this was a popularity contest, and the sexiest-sounding idea took home the trophy.
There was a sense permeating the Visioneering weekend that technology can solve everything--an ideology disparagingly referred to by writer Evgeny Morozov as "solutionism." It can't solve everything, of course. Who cares if you build a better affordable home or system for local food production if the technology can't be evenly distributed? And who says we're even hunting for solutions to the right problems?
Nonetheless, technology is a major driver of change in human society. And if even a small percentage of the world's big problems can be solved by people willing to spend their time and money thinking up challenges and then joining together to find solutions, all of XPrize's efforts will be worth it. Plus, visioneering is a whole lot of fun.
Ariel Schwartz
Ariel Schwartz is a Senior Editor at Co.Exist. She has contributed to SF Weekly, Popular Science, Inhabitat, Greenbiz, NBC Bay Area, GOOD Magazine and more.
Oops, I thought I was still logged in when I posted that comment. I'm having quite a bit of trouble with configuring logins and preferences in my newly adopted Linux OS. Sigh. Some of the frustrations with an egalitarian approach to technology.
I played around with Excel last night and came up with a way to predict the contest winner. Basically, by downloading all the data pertinent to this contest such as the title of the essay, how many posts, the community rating, the public rating, how many community ratings and how many public ratings, and one more column for a combination of all the ratings and how the essay judges are likely to weight all the columns with respect to eachother, it spits out an answer.
With all those numbers, I sorted on each column and changed the color of the top 10 essays in each column. Then when it was all done I just looked for the "most colorful essay".
And the winner (will likely be)...
Open Peer Review to Save the World by Philip Gibbs
#2: Recognizing the Value of Play by Jonathan J. Dickau
#3: Bohr-like model for black holes: the route for quantum gravity by Christian Corda
#3 wins the slot because the contest judges will want to be science-minded. That's why Corda will likely win out over the Honorable Mention
How to save the world by Sabine Hossenfelder
because #3 is very science-y and #4 is a bit more of a preachy title without as much of a hint towards what the essay is about.
Well, there's my prediction. It was enjoyable to participate in this contest. By my own criteria, my essay wasn't "colorful" at all. Maybe the judges will score highly on ease of understanding and practicality? Nahh, the guys who are at the top of this list still do very well in such categories.
Good luck to you all.
Kevin O
b