Is it a trap or not?
Thursday, April 16, 2026
The human factor in research
4/16/26:
Today is an oldies kind of day. I'm reviewing posts for those which gathered the most attention. This one and the one previously posted this morning caught my eye. So I wrote an update for each.
What could be more human than finding something and then forgetting it? Then finding it again? The same is true on the historic scale as it is on the personal. I'm thinking of the Roman era, which was more advanced than some may have thought. Roman life may have been like living in nineteenth century, but it was a very long time ago--in ancient times. When Roman civilization collapsed in the Western half of Europe, there was an era called the Dark Ages. Life became primitive for centuries. It took a long time to recover.
There are lessons in history if you bother to notice. It is a lot like studying this blog and rediscovering posts like these. A question comes to mind: what does the future hold? As of now, there is no solution to the energy problem. There seems to be a war in Iran that is closely related to the problem of energy. If the energy problem were solved, would that help bring about world peace? It's a thought.
5/20/11:
Not too long ago, I did a number of posts on the subject of Rossi Focardi fusion research. Then, yesterday, I came across the energy from Thorium proposition. Both are attempting to do the same thing: generate energy from the atom. The difference between the two is that one is fusion while the other is fission. The similarities are that both had a lot of promise at one point, but seemed to fall by the wayside and recently rediscovered.
There has been a great deal of fear about nuclear energy. Not to mention the worry about the wastes. This did not concern me as much as others may have been because of what I read in Dixy Lee Ray
's book Trashing the Planet
. I suspect that a lot of the fear has to do with a lack of understanding which is exacerbated by the way that mishaps get reported in the news. Hence, the Three Mile Island incident effectively shuts down the nuclear industry here. A few years later, Chernobyl reinforced that fear. Now Fukishima just adds to the climate of fear of things nuclear- these things just don't seem safe. Now, Germany abandons nuclear power. All of this is an overreaction. Sadly, it may be unavoidable. People will fear something they don't understand. What to do?
The star crossed history of fission has been the impetus for fusion research. But fusion is much harder. After all these decades, we still don't have a fusion reactor which is net energy. But people are looking and looking hard. As for me, I've been looking closely at the energy issue for several years now. I came across Dr. Bussard's Polywell concept. It was one of the first things I wrote about on this blog. Lately, two other concepts have caught my attention- Focus Fusion and Rossi Focardi's "cold fusion". My own experience studying these ideas has brought something else to my attention- the human factor. People fall in love with their ideas. It is entirely human, but it is also hazardous in its own way. It may blind us to other paths that we may take. That's because to fall in love means the exclusion of all other choices.
To fear and to love are all too human. But it is also possible to learn and keep an open mind. Unfortunately, when emotions take over, the mind tends to close down. Reason and logic go overboard and big mistakes can be made. The reaction to this may draw the reaction- who do you think you are, Spock? Yeah, maybe you weren't thinking that at all, and the Spock reference turns you off. I've described times when I got turned off by something only to reconsider. Sometimes to reconsider can be helpful. Jumping to conclusions can't be good. But it is easy to fall into that trap. I try to avoid that as well as avoiding "drinking the Kool Aid." I wrote about this Kool Aid stuff on this blog too. I won't be drinking anybody's Kool Aid. I'm keeping an open mind.
I haven't fallen in love with any one way of solving the energy problem. It may turn out that the best way will get overlooked when something else is found. Such has been the case of fission. Just looking at the way we generate electricity now may look foolish in the future in comparison to how it might be done better with Thorium reactors. Thorium reactors are smaller, cheaper and safer. That is not a mere theoretical possibility. They have already been built. They weren't commercialized because it was thought better to be able to make bombs. Thorium is not useful for making bombs.
However, Rossi Focardi may be right around the corner. This idea may get the lead on Thorium and it may be back to the sidelines for Thorium. Frankly, it doesn't make any difference to me who wins. I think we all win when we solve the energy problem. If it gets solved by fission or fusion- who cares, as long as it works.
Today is an oldies kind of day. I'm reviewing posts for those which gathered the most attention. This one and the one previously posted this morning caught my eye. So I wrote an update for each.
What could be more human than finding something and then forgetting it? Then finding it again? The same is true on the historic scale as it is on the personal. I'm thinking of the Roman era, which was more advanced than some may have thought. Roman life may have been like living in nineteenth century, but it was a very long time ago--in ancient times. When Roman civilization collapsed in the Western half of Europe, there was an era called the Dark Ages. Life became primitive for centuries. It took a long time to recover.
There are lessons in history if you bother to notice. It is a lot like studying this blog and rediscovering posts like these. A question comes to mind: what does the future hold? As of now, there is no solution to the energy problem. There seems to be a war in Iran that is closely related to the problem of energy. If the energy problem were solved, would that help bring about world peace? It's a thought.
5/20/11:
Not too long ago, I did a number of posts on the subject of Rossi Focardi fusion research. Then, yesterday, I came across the energy from Thorium proposition. Both are attempting to do the same thing: generate energy from the atom. The difference between the two is that one is fusion while the other is fission. The similarities are that both had a lot of promise at one point, but seemed to fall by the wayside and recently rediscovered.
There has been a great deal of fear about nuclear energy. Not to mention the worry about the wastes. This did not concern me as much as others may have been because of what I read in Dixy Lee Ray
's book Trashing the Planet. I suspect that a lot of the fear has to do with a lack of understanding which is exacerbated by the way that mishaps get reported in the news. Hence, the Three Mile Island incident effectively shuts down the nuclear industry here. A few years later, Chernobyl reinforced that fear. Now Fukishima just adds to the climate of fear of things nuclear- these things just don't seem safe. Now, Germany abandons nuclear power. All of this is an overreaction. Sadly, it may be unavoidable. People will fear something they don't understand. What to do? The star crossed history of fission has been the impetus for fusion research. But fusion is much harder. After all these decades, we still don't have a fusion reactor which is net energy. But people are looking and looking hard. As for me, I've been looking closely at the energy issue for several years now. I came across Dr. Bussard's Polywell concept. It was one of the first things I wrote about on this blog. Lately, two other concepts have caught my attention- Focus Fusion and Rossi Focardi's "cold fusion". My own experience studying these ideas has brought something else to my attention- the human factor. People fall in love with their ideas. It is entirely human, but it is also hazardous in its own way. It may blind us to other paths that we may take. That's because to fall in love means the exclusion of all other choices.
To fear and to love are all too human. But it is also possible to learn and keep an open mind. Unfortunately, when emotions take over, the mind tends to close down. Reason and logic go overboard and big mistakes can be made. The reaction to this may draw the reaction- who do you think you are, Spock? Yeah, maybe you weren't thinking that at all, and the Spock reference turns you off. I've described times when I got turned off by something only to reconsider. Sometimes to reconsider can be helpful. Jumping to conclusions can't be good. But it is easy to fall into that trap. I try to avoid that as well as avoiding "drinking the Kool Aid." I wrote about this Kool Aid stuff on this blog too. I won't be drinking anybody's Kool Aid. I'm keeping an open mind.
I haven't fallen in love with any one way of solving the energy problem. It may turn out that the best way will get overlooked when something else is found. Such has been the case of fission. Just looking at the way we generate electricity now may look foolish in the future in comparison to how it might be done better with Thorium reactors. Thorium reactors are smaller, cheaper and safer. That is not a mere theoretical possibility. They have already been built. They weren't commercialized because it was thought better to be able to make bombs. Thorium is not useful for making bombs.
However, Rossi Focardi may be right around the corner. This idea may get the lead on Thorium and it may be back to the sidelines for Thorium. Frankly, it doesn't make any difference to me who wins. I think we all win when we solve the energy problem. If it gets solved by fission or fusion- who cares, as long as it works.
About today's plan, how simple things get complicated
4/16/26:
Almost 15 years to the day for this update. What has happened in the meantime? Sadly, not very much.
The lack of progress is symptom of something, wouldn't you think?
As for me, I do think so. Progress is not a function of time. Time progresses, but human progress is not automatic. Human progress doesn't rise and set as reliably as the sun.
That would be human progress on any scale. Meaning the personal scale or the scale of nations. Ultimately, it would mean the progress of mankind. It ISN'T automatic. People take it for granted that it will occur, but it may not.
Generally, progress seems to be a thing that runs for awhile, then stops for awhile. Maybe it will pick up with a new inspiration, or it will flicker out---maybe forever. A chilling thought.
There's this general feeling in the world that progress is certain. It won't be certain unless the fire of inspiration can be bottled up and preserved for any time in which it may be needed. Know what I mean, Vern?
4/15/11:
A case in point is this blog. All along, I wanted it to be self financing. But that has failed. Why? For the same reason that is plaguing NASA. You start with a simple idea that should be affordable, but complexity is allowed to creep in, and that ruins the plan.
The original idea for this blog was for it to at least make some money off advertising. That is what AdSense was for. Since the blog is free, I figured even a little money should keep the blog in the black. But it didn't turn out that way. Why?
I asked the blog to do too much. A simple idea got too complicated because I wanted the blog to not only be profitable, but to support me eventually. It may never do that. Besides, I don't have forever in order to get that done. In short, I became too ambitious. This reminds me of what we studied while I was still in college. It was the story about the development of IBM's OS/360. This operating system became too costly; the reason for that was that it was too ambitious. An incredible amount of money went into it, but IBM could afford it because they were the kings of the computer world at that time. I've learned enough from my own experience to know that mistakes can be costly. Allowing complexity to creep in because of too much ambition is a costly mistake.
NOTE: A quick scan of the Wikipedia link does not necessarily confirm directly my hypothesis- too much ambition leads to excessive complexity. But I do recall that discussion somewhere. It may have been in the classroom. But this was nearly 30 years ago. Pardon me, I am relying upon memory. I think the point is valid, nonetheless. If nothing else, it is valid in my own situation with respect to this blog.
The answer to this problem is to reduce the ambition. Lower the horizons a bit. If the blog is to ever survive, it must stay economical. The same is true for space travel and colonization.
Incidentally, that is why I believe JP Aerospace is important as a model. It is a going concern. They make money and that is what ensures their survival. JP is making steady progress to his goal, but it is taking a long time. Considering how ambitious his ultimate goal is, the ultimate goal may not be reached. But, it is worthwhile because other things can get achieved along the way. Besides, he just might succeed after all.
As for NASA, they started out with a simple idea, a reusable spacecraft. But it became too ambitious a project, and that allowed complexity to creep in. In the end, it became a remarkably complex and wonderful bit of engineering. But it also became terribly expensive. Like IBM's OS/360, it was only affordable because of deep pockets. But even deep pockets are only so deep. There are limits that have to be acknowledged. Going forward, NASA needs to lower its ambitions on what types of spacecraft get engineered. They should not be too complex, but instead, should be tailored to meet the needs of a particular mission.
In addition, NASA needs to become economical minded. The nation's pockets aren't so deep anymore. The focus should be on simplicity. That's why I suggest the big, dumb rocket to ferry huge amounts of matter into space, but at an affordable cost per pound. It will be up to others to take advantage of this opportunity. That's where private enterprise can step in.
Some of this nation's leaders want to lower carbon dioxide emissions and be more green. Fine. Here's a way to do it. Put carbon dioxide on the Moon. It may sound ridiculous, and it may well be. But carbon dioxide, even though it may be a problem according to some people, is very useful for life support. It can be made into rocket fuel and oxygen to breathe. It gives the chance to practice ISRU for a future Mars mission. And it may lead to colonization of the Moon for the purposes of setting up an economical rationale for being there.
There are even more, but let's keep this post simple. See. I'm doing it again. It is seductive.
Almost 15 years to the day for this update. What has happened in the meantime? Sadly, not very much.
The lack of progress is symptom of something, wouldn't you think?
As for me, I do think so. Progress is not a function of time. Time progresses, but human progress is not automatic. Human progress doesn't rise and set as reliably as the sun.
That would be human progress on any scale. Meaning the personal scale or the scale of nations. Ultimately, it would mean the progress of mankind. It ISN'T automatic. People take it for granted that it will occur, but it may not.
Generally, progress seems to be a thing that runs for awhile, then stops for awhile. Maybe it will pick up with a new inspiration, or it will flicker out---maybe forever. A chilling thought.
There's this general feeling in the world that progress is certain. It won't be certain unless the fire of inspiration can be bottled up and preserved for any time in which it may be needed. Know what I mean, Vern?
4/15/11:
A case in point is this blog. All along, I wanted it to be self financing. But that has failed. Why? For the same reason that is plaguing NASA. You start with a simple idea that should be affordable, but complexity is allowed to creep in, and that ruins the plan.
The original idea for this blog was for it to at least make some money off advertising. That is what AdSense was for. Since the blog is free, I figured even a little money should keep the blog in the black. But it didn't turn out that way. Why?
I asked the blog to do too much. A simple idea got too complicated because I wanted the blog to not only be profitable, but to support me eventually. It may never do that. Besides, I don't have forever in order to get that done. In short, I became too ambitious. This reminds me of what we studied while I was still in college. It was the story about the development of IBM's OS/360. This operating system became too costly; the reason for that was that it was too ambitious. An incredible amount of money went into it, but IBM could afford it because they were the kings of the computer world at that time. I've learned enough from my own experience to know that mistakes can be costly. Allowing complexity to creep in because of too much ambition is a costly mistake.
NOTE: A quick scan of the Wikipedia link does not necessarily confirm directly my hypothesis- too much ambition leads to excessive complexity. But I do recall that discussion somewhere. It may have been in the classroom. But this was nearly 30 years ago. Pardon me, I am relying upon memory. I think the point is valid, nonetheless. If nothing else, it is valid in my own situation with respect to this blog.
The answer to this problem is to reduce the ambition. Lower the horizons a bit. If the blog is to ever survive, it must stay economical. The same is true for space travel and colonization.
Incidentally, that is why I believe JP Aerospace is important as a model. It is a going concern. They make money and that is what ensures their survival. JP is making steady progress to his goal, but it is taking a long time. Considering how ambitious his ultimate goal is, the ultimate goal may not be reached. But, it is worthwhile because other things can get achieved along the way. Besides, he just might succeed after all.
As for NASA, they started out with a simple idea, a reusable spacecraft. But it became too ambitious a project, and that allowed complexity to creep in. In the end, it became a remarkably complex and wonderful bit of engineering. But it also became terribly expensive. Like IBM's OS/360, it was only affordable because of deep pockets. But even deep pockets are only so deep. There are limits that have to be acknowledged. Going forward, NASA needs to lower its ambitions on what types of spacecraft get engineered. They should not be too complex, but instead, should be tailored to meet the needs of a particular mission.
In addition, NASA needs to become economical minded. The nation's pockets aren't so deep anymore. The focus should be on simplicity. That's why I suggest the big, dumb rocket to ferry huge amounts of matter into space, but at an affordable cost per pound. It will be up to others to take advantage of this opportunity. That's where private enterprise can step in.
Some of this nation's leaders want to lower carbon dioxide emissions and be more green. Fine. Here's a way to do it. Put carbon dioxide on the Moon. It may sound ridiculous, and it may well be. But carbon dioxide, even though it may be a problem according to some people, is very useful for life support. It can be made into rocket fuel and oxygen to breathe. It gives the chance to practice ISRU for a future Mars mission. And it may lead to colonization of the Moon for the purposes of setting up an economical rationale for being there.
There are even more, but let's keep this post simple. See. I'm doing it again. It is seductive.
Sunday, April 5, 2026
Light weight camper
It doesn't have everything. The main feature is an onboard furnace. It might be okay, but likely costs a ton. Cargo campers were really getting expensive back in 2005, which is the last time I bought one.
Tuesday, March 31, 2026
Living dangerously?
It seems dangerous around those boulders, plus it really isn't waterproofed.
On the other hand, it is interesting to watch. I wouldn't want to be around it when it rains.
Monday, March 30, 2026
Don't agree with Tyson on the Mars question
We will be going to Mars via SpaceX. But getting back will be very difficult, if not impossible. It has already been stated by Elon Musk that it will be a one way trip.
The first colonists will be sacrificing themselves, in other words.
By the time the colony becomes self contained and sufficient, it will become possible for round trips.
Automated systems can lead to you ridiculous outcomes
There's a problem I'm experiencing with the "system".
The problem cannot be resolved because it is too automated and the part that isn't automated is too inflexible to deal with the problem.
Without going into specifics, the problem could be easily resolved if there was another human being with decision making authority that could do what it took to resolve it.
This is being written once again to warn people about the future we are running headlong into. When automated systems control everything, fundamentally solvable problems will become unsolvable because machines cannot solve all problems. People are needed. Even further, people with COMMON SENSE are needed. Evidently, there is a shortage of that quality as well.
The problem cannot be resolved because it is too automated and the part that isn't automated is too inflexible to deal with the problem.
Without going into specifics, the problem could be easily resolved if there was another human being with decision making authority that could do what it took to resolve it.
This is being written once again to warn people about the future we are running headlong into. When automated systems control everything, fundamentally solvable problems will become unsolvable because machines cannot solve all problems. People are needed. Even further, people with COMMON SENSE are needed. Evidently, there is a shortage of that quality as well.
Angry Astronaut: "What happens if something goes very wrong with Artemis 2?
When I write something about Artemis, I have a problem with not using Roman numerals. Maybe we need a design review and spend a few billion to answer that question. SLS was an amazing boondoggle. But some folks still like it.
You cannot design all the risk away. How much risk is acceptable? If all risks had to be taken out of any endeavor, nothing would have ever been achieved. We'd all be living in caves. Maybe not caves, either. Because wild animals liked to live in caves too!
Wednesday, March 25, 2026
The Amish Have Never Paid A Fuel Bill
This video says how they do it. I wonder if it would work out in West Texas...
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)