Saturday, July 26, 2014


For LENR, lots of theories, few principles.

Semantics is not quite an exact science; words have different and somewhat fluid meanings. A congress of philosophers  could not tell us what are the differences between a theory and a principle however when we are moving in a familiar territory of knowledge where theories abound and principles are not considered relevant & important- we can tell the ones from the others quite easily- just by looking to them; remember the pragmatic definition of pornography. “I know it when I see it”- principle.
In the VUCA world of LENR, there can be intermediary states
or hybrids of theories and principles. Theories are knowledge-oriented, more precise and detailed than principles, while principles are action-oriented, implying change.
Theories are interesting and passive, principles active and useful- as a somewhat general rule.

To the faithful readers of this blog is obvious that I have a passion to discover basic principles- see the “Twin Peaks’ and the “Sue-Ellen principle” (combined with the Kaltwasser doctrine) the Principle of the Chief Engineer and, especially the realistic and very practical technical principles of Defkalion Green Energies. My personal techno- moral principles-slogans as:
“I think, I exist; I decide, I live; I solve problems, I live with a purpose” and
“My favorite sport is swimming. My favorite metasport is swimming counter-stream”
are – at least for me, proofs that principles are important. In the present case we need to find those principles that could contribute to the solutions of the wickedly wicked problems of LENR.

But let’s discuss about LENR theories at first:
May I tell here what everybody knows- theories have not achieved much, have not explained even basic facts, are not guiding experiment, do not have problem solving power.
Despite these non-successes, many theories are beautiful impressive logical constructs and their authors plus some fans like them, promote them and oppose them to the competition.

It happens that just now, a new theory, created by the most knowledgeable and reputed author of the LENR field is fighting
for general acceptance and supremacy, having an excellent press and a lot of supporters. It is discussed on the forums, in many threads and it is the core idea of a book written just for the sake and for extended/deep presentation- of the theory- w
by dr. Ed Storms. You can buy the book, “Explanation of Low Energy Nuclear Reactions” from here:
and I advise you to do it- the qualities of the book are more important than any and all possible weaknesses of the new theory. The book is surely a treasure both for old cold fusionists like me happy to remember the great events of the past and to
young LENR researchers trying to build a great future for a most interesting, however very special domain of Science.

It happens that I have followed the creation of Ed’s theory from its embryonic stadium when it was just a sketch of a paper; and I disagreed with parts of it- all the time... 
However both the book and the theory will be inspiring; the book after a pleasant study, the theory after its evaluation and dissection (to which I contribute here; at least I think so). 
The book has to be taken seriously because it will surely be taken very seriously (not a tautology!) by the young people entering the field due to the reputation and authority of its creator and the high quality of his writing.

My history with the new theory:  I have learned long ago that Ed Storms is a leading personality of Cold Fusion/LENR and therefore I have taken in consideration the theory as soon as it was formulated. These writings are more than 2 years old:


Ed Storms' answers to 5 questions. Questions No. 6 and 7

Ed has answered patiently to all my questions- as you can see. However, I was not convinced by his arguments, as we will see later. I was quite stubborn, Ed had the impression that “we are looking at Nature in very different ways”- and I had to agree.
For those unable to understand his theory, the answers cannot be supplied in few words, so he has decided to write this book.


Personal note: in 1970, when I became the Head of the research laboratory for PVC and chlorine compounds at OLTC HIM  Ramnicu Valcea I delivered a short discourse  about strategy and future.  Toward the end I have tried to say something quotable:
“I know well differences in opinion are attracting intelligent people and are repelling only those who are not so!”
My coworkers liked it. Then I have added:
“Take care, friends! You can do many things with me, but for your own sake, beware contradicting me!!!”

Now, more than 40 years later I am increasingly convinced that the first part was one of the greatest idiocies I have ever said.
People are unbelievable conflictual and take their opinions
very personal- “Ma theorie, c’est moi!”
However I dare to claim that I am an exception to this, being really tolerant to different and even opposing views re any issues with no ethical implications.

For the present case my disagreement with Ed Storms theory described in his book, is just the tip of an iceberg and the body of this iceberg is the major contradictions from this “frame”: 

The hybrid scientific-technological approach

The basic contradiction is regarding the Solution of the LENR commercialization problem.

Theories belong to the Scientific Method- and Ed’s theory
has obviously the same natural purpose: to explain how LENR works and how this could be used for creating a commercial energy source based on LENR. Absolutely correct, this is the essence of the scientific method, a creative dogma, a must. You are not allowed to develop a technology if you don't know well how it works, isn’t it? It is unscientific and it can be very risky!

However what to do if you are not able to understand, you cannot create a theory fulfilling this elementary request? Perhaps you cannot have a theory because the phenomenon/process was discovered too early and science is not prepared to explain it.  And surely, the phenomena are so complex, so multilayered and poly-sequential that they need more theories not one single one? Add to this that the experimental situation is simply dreadful- only, say, one experiment from 5-6, gives a measurable result. The phenomenon clearly exists but cannot be controlled. I don’t know why nobody believes me and Ed Storms rejects my air poisoning hypothesis)
What TO DO THEN? You have to abandon the issue and continue to strive heroically for the perfect theory and deep complete understanding? I have to take this personally; I will be 77 years old in October, how many years I can wait for a good theory to save LENR and to make it flourish? I know that the distance from a perfect theory to a working device is great, technology is much more than applied science.

Yes, I take it personally and I say it is an alternative to the seemingly fatal obstacles and to a blocked way is to build a new way, the way of technology.
What does this mean? If you have no theories to help, and you are lost theoretically as in our case there still is a possibility- use guiding principles and smart engineering, hard work to develop a well functioning device and technology i.e. to solve the problem per se. The problem has to be reframed, the task becomes to create, by radical changes a functional process.
The scientific method says “how the process works” but if it works badly the alternative is “how can we make it to work
well?” by very smart engineering. The scientific method is combined- actually hybridized with the technological method.
This is based on principles not on complete theories.
For those who believe in the universality of the Scientific Method, this is a sacrilege however it is possible pragmatically
It was done by Andrea Rossi and by DGT (see their "make hydrogen more reactive and metal more receptive” principle) I have written much about this on my blog. If the scientific method does not work, use the hybrid technological scientific method - engineering is the key. I have promoted this idea starting from the very first issue of Infinite Energy.
How this principles-based hybrid scientific-technological works in practice can be seen here:

We have to determine more guiding principles for solving the LENR problem. Ed’s technology is stating the following:
-        PdD and NiH LENR are similar and the experience from the first can be used for the second- I think this is not true;
-        The active sites for the reaction are cracks of critical dimensions say 1 to 10 nm width. More good cracks lead to more reactions, more heat. but actually more cracks is destruction of the working material;
-        Only the cracks are important, many materials will work;
this seems to be implausible- only transition metals work;
-        The existence of the hydroton has to be demonstrated

Ed’s theory is incompatible with the hybrid approach.

Active vs. passive approach.

Ed’s theory takes a passive approach to the problem.
He resumes the essence of his theory as:

We are faced with three facts.  Many other facts are known but let's discuss these three
1. The LENR process is rarely produced.
2. The LENR process takes place somewhere in a physical structure.
3. The LENR process does not emit neutrons or energetic radiation consistent with the amount of detected power.

These facts have several consequences:

1. A difficult to create NAE is required
2. The process must be consistent with the Laws of Thermodynamics
3. The process must release the mass energy in small units of energy rather than all at once. 
These facts and consequences limit the nature of the mechanism that can cause LENR.

The active, approach guided by technological principles would be:
1. The best methods to create the maximum density of NAE have to be found, the process has to be intensified, controlled and optimized.
2. The process has to use the laws of Nature, including some newly discovered ones in order to obtain the best possible results by a comprehensive multi-disciplinar R&D program.
3. Nuclear signals have to be reduced as much as possible, they are useless in the case of a heat source.

Further contradiction regarding LENR vs. LENR+

Ed’s theory does not show the difference between classic LENR and enhanced excess heat as obtained by Rossi and DGT. It is about going from tens of Watts to kWatts, can this be hundred times more good cracks or is it something more fundamental and more smart?

My answer was, from the start that it is the mechanism of genesis of active sites ( Ed calls them NAE, but I disagree- see: )  Classic LENR works mainly with pre-formed active sites, limited in number/density while LENR+ is based on a continuous generation of new active sites- it is a dynamic equilibrium between the active sites that are destroyed by the high temperature and the new ones that appear; the trick is to have many of these doing their task - a sequence of processes and reactions. The constructive side of the high temperature must be added to its destructive effect and this is the clue of the LENR+’s exceptionality and progress. This is something more sophisticated than crack management.
The critical Debye temperature is one at which the dynamics of the atoms at the surface of the metal, changes and the generation of active sites can begin. In my opinion the active sites are at the very surface of a specific metal or alloy.

I have predicted this decisive role of surface dynamics long ago see please my Surfdyn paper:

I hope that the coming LENR+ crucial events will reveal a lot, including the role of the dynamic equilibrium of the active sites- with details that can help us to go from principles to practice and, simultaneously to theories.
The denial part of Ed’s papers and book is remarkable anyway. He assassinates a lot of theories that are not valid and promotes his theory created in the following basic assumptions:

 The LENR process does not take place in a chemical lattice.
. The LENR process takes place only in cracks of a critically small gap size. 
. All isotopes of hydrogen can fuse by the same basic process, with only the nuclear products being different.
. The basic process removes energy over a period of time as photon emission. Most of this emission does not leave the apparatus.
. The fusion process causes the transmutation reactions.
. The overall process is consistent with all natural law and requires introduction of only one new process.
. Cold fusion and hot fusion are not related in any way.
(from his interview:

As already shown till now:
The LENR process, indeed does not take place in the lattice but on the lattice;
The LENR process does not take place in the “void” part
of the cracks but on some special dynamic nanostructures on the surfaces, including the surfaces of cracks;
Deuterium and hydrogen are participating in different nuclear reactions and interactions and different things happen in the
PdD and NiH systems. No simple, logically symmetric vision can be created
The remaining statements are probably valid in great part but this has to be proved by experiment.

What to do with the bad theories

Theories are actually a form of truth and I believe that many are Pareto truths. Even if a theory is not usable for guiding experiments, they may contain fragments of good ideas. smaller or greater sometimes hidden due to a harmful principle (as Pd D is like NiH in Storms’ new theory.)
Therefore, I think we can learn from history what to do and the
Mayan Meteorology Management will be fine as guide, in principle. See please
The victims were beheaded and their hearts were extracted and offered to bloodthirsty (however de facto inexistant) Gods- in exchange of enough rain and other blessings.
Similarly, the smartest and most valuable parts of the bad theories have to be offered to Science serving for the creation of
healthy and potent principles for LENR.
I well know this parallel with human sacrifices, prohibited now, in the manner described, is a very weird idea.
I have only one excuse: Ed Storms’ new theory is based on cracks, formed by the cracking of Pd- that is, on the irreversible destruction, sacrificing of a precious material.
Were human sacrifices, “efficient”?


Sunday, July 20, 2014


Anybody can contribute to the text, can present his/her own ideas and even
 can change the title at will.
This is a 'wisdom of crowds' exercise.


Friday, July 18, 2014


My war with and for Memes.

In one of my Septoes, I have stated that we are living in “memcracies” i.e.  dominant memes are ruling over us.
The definition of a “meme” – largo sensu is a cultural element
(see propagating usually epidemically by imitation; however for the subject of this essay- that belongs to Science, higher quality and intellect memes are mainly concepts, ideas or theories.
For all the cases, the concept of meme, is paradoxically not a meme per se, perhaps because important fields of real and imagined knowledge as politics, religion but even established science strongly dislike the idea of meme. Even memes that
are like pathological criminals and or obviously combining
violence, greed and stupidity- re-read please “Stop Koalemos!” are considered genuine truths and not lowly memes.
I have to confess that, based on my personal experience and system of thinking, I have accepted the concept- it has both explanatory and predictive power for me.
The duty of a thinker is to create memes, good ones from the sort that solves problems and does not create or aggravate them. I have failed almost completely to do this; my philosophical ideas including those regarding Cold Fusion continue to be unpopular and in danger to go in complete oblivion when I cannot more promote them. It is a possibility that they will be discovered again around 2050, however it is more pragmatic to survive and prosper than to resurrect and start again, without parental support.

Actually it is about a sensitive process of memefication- ideas are selected by Reality- some become almost immortal memes, while other perish irreversibly. The factors of success are overly complex and contradictory- beautiful simple, low IQ, emotionally charged lies are favored to unpleasant, not positive,
complex truths needing effort to be understood, however miracles (in many senses!) can happen. Sometimes, by sudden collective or just uni-personal satoris, a concept, symbol, image or idea gets value, importance and life and starts to generate
newness and light. It is terrifying to see how the most evil memes of the XX-th and the XII-th Century are prospering just now.

Discovering VUCA, a terrible meme

Recently, I had such a moment of illumination and a concept from the management-leadership philosophy that I have ignored till then- was revealed almost explosively.

Kurt Harden’s wonderful “Cultural Offering”-
has generously included EGO OUT in a list of “25 blogs guaranteed to make you smarter.” I am studying systematically the other 24 blogs –these are really fine and able to make smarter a good part of their readers. Recently, I have discovered a masterfully written paper:

Leadership in VUCA World: Perspectives on #IndiaHRChat

It was a sui generic intellectual discovery; I realized that VUCA is an acronym as inspiring as SWOT and as stimulating as ASAP – the first examples that come to my mind. The previously ignored acronym was converted in, upgraded to- a shining, splendid meme.
Volatile, Uncertain, Complex, Ambiguous is an excellent acronym, describing huge chunks and zones and periods of our world. Obviously not in the ideal or desired sense- you have to combat VUCA- it is an opportunity for the negative to come first and to dominate us as I have described it in my, now fallen, essay:
A pragmatic strategy for catalyzing self-sustained progress
see please:”3. Priority and predominance of the negative.”
Actually, really- VUCA can be many other bad things as: violent/vulnerable + undefined/unmanageable+ chaotic/crazy + arguable/acausal- more or less. The Quaspire blog paper also offers a VUCA Solution: Vision- Understanding- Clarity- Agility a quasi ideal one, to the VUCA problem.
VUCA is nothing new, our first ancestors had to confront it as soon as they were thrown out for a vegan sin, from the Garden where perfect harmony has ruled. VUCA is strongly related to other concepts: directly to “wicked problems”, to hidden parameters and dangers, inherent negativity, Black Swans (Black Raptors is more realistic). In a VUCA World the truths are mainly Pareto Truths or worse- irreversibly fragmented- incompatible Lego pieces, maddening color changing Rubik cubes…the realm of the Twin Peaks principle. The Evil si indestructible and in some places, it always wins”
LENR is also a VUCA World- now.

Please take in consideration this: "Words mean more than we mean to express when we use them," Lewis Carroll” 

Let’s investigate how much means the components of the malefic acronym VUCA for our favorite acronym, LENR.

V. Volatility- in which senses is LENR- volatile? My instant reaction to volatile is the Italian word volare- flying, also flying away; when a bit of time is added- disappearing. My primary feeling toward “volatile” is negative due to my professional experience, highly volatile substances are explosive, dangerous too. One of my research tasks during my apprenticeship (1962-3) was to remove even traces of volatiles from plasticizers by steam distillation combined with vacuum and for some months I was focused on this task starting with the Bible-like, unique Perry’s Chemical Engineers Handbook.
12-15 years later I was very dedicated to removing the volatile but very sticky residual monomer, vinyl chloride from PVC- difficult task but of vital importance- because the monomer is
cancerogenic for processors and users.

See please the web-dictionaries for the synonyms of volatile- can you discover a single positive one? Even the good perfumes have a well moderated volatility.

What is volatile in the LENR field? Good results and hopes, first of all. From the very start, lots of ideas were considered to
solve the problems- to make cold fusion reproducible, upscalable- to convert it in the Promised Energy Technology, however all were volatile and have disappeared- illusion, deception and new illusions came. Only the fundamental idea
that cold fusion exists, remained permanent, however can we speak about progress when open questions multiply so much faster than good answers? How else can we call the tens of theories that eventually did not help to define, understand and manage the desired phenomenon- excess heat- than non-answers?
No unity could be found in variety, no stop to the volatility, no explanation of the situation, no solutions to the problems as unreliable, uncontrollable weak effects. No solid and permanent experimental support could be obtained...

These days our community is discussing a theory elaborated by the most knowledgeable scientist of the field, Dr. Edmund Storms, see please:
 and buy Ed’s book:
I could not read the book till now- have to wait till it is in electronic form due to my vision problems- I hope the book explains how the theory can solve the chronicized problems of
LENR. We will come back to this “theory de jour”, however for a technologist like me the seems to be too pessimistic, putting too much emphasis on the inherent difficulty and rarity of the LENR process. For its author, the theory is a certainty and so we have arrived to the second letter of VUCA; to a nasty word-  

U. Uncertainty- it is difficult to survive and impossible to be happy with no certainties, both personally and professionally. In LENR the offer of certainties is modest and in most cases what is a certainty for some of us, is falsity and trash for many of our peers. It is tragic we had not been able to manufacture solid, non-volatile certainties accepted by most of our community members.
I am explaining this bad situation based on the personal certainty that Cold Fusion was discovered too early, when Science was not prepared to understand and exploit it as I say here: and in many other writings, in vain.
This remains a personal certainty and many readers (if they read the paper indeed and don’t abandon it due to the bad title)
become certain that my CF-specific IQ is very low and I am simply unable to understand the basics of the field including its
history and essence and heroes...
An other personal LENR certainty (even in my worst nightmares or episodes of depression, I have not the slightest doubt about its validity) is that the working surfaces in LENR must be free of alien gases- ergo the wet electrochemical PdD cell will never become reliable and manageable- those who bet on it will remain prisoners in a VUCA world – for lifetime. Here VUCA is more: Vulnerable- Unmanageable- Chaotic- Adrift (both scientifically and technologically). This idea of poisoning of LENR systems with air was ignored with hostility and generated the certainty that I have pathological ideas re the LENR experiments- euphemistically speaking. Many times I got promises of perfectly reproducible FP Cell type experiments that will invalidate spectacularly the very idiotic idea of air-killing-CF. I still wait for these wonderful results and if uncle Alz allows me, I will discard this certainty, together with my humble apologies.

C- Complex- it seems the field is not able to generate the much desired certainties- as LENR Technology- Yes! however these are coming from outsiders as Rossi and Defkalion- surprise! You could guess that the situation is not simple in the field, this new battlefield has added static and dynamic magnitudes to the third VUCA adjective: complex- and is also confusing, chaotic, challenging. It is full of internal conflicts.

It is an elementary principle of the Scientific Method to develop understanding first and only when you know what happens you are allowed to develop technologies. This is a seemingly healthy dogma. An ideal dogma. But is it always possible to proceed scientifically, is it possible and good- realistic, pragmatic materialistic? What when the science per se is quite VUCA-like
as it is for LENR? Are we “allowed” to try to create a technology by discovering some principles and the factors that determine safety using excellent engineering combined with incomplete science? Many of my dearest friends say clearly NO!, science must come first and overall, however Andrea Rossi, the Defkalion team, I and other technologists admit that “technology first” is also possible. I have published a paper with this title in the first issue of Infinite Energy, so I am an old sinner. I have concluded long ago that the scientific method has some limitations, however these cannot be limitations of technological progress. This paper emphasizes the complexity of the subject:
Perhaps the situation of LENR is unique because real LENR differs essentially from the model(s) accepted initially that persisted almost unchanged till today. A radical paradigm change will alleviate the VUCA status of LENR

A Ambiguous-we have to consider carefully the fourth VUCA feature of LENR too- it is called Ambiguity but it is worse than this going much beyond the multiple and instable interpretations of facts. The field, for the time given is sentenced to pre-logical thinking, see: Correlations and causations seem to be impossible or at least, very unsure.
The experiments are based mainly on trial and error, the results are aleatory, in great extent- cannot be predicted and reproduced at will; the cause-effect relationships are quite mysterious, LENR seems to be acausal. The experimental facts are very diverse and cannot be connected in a logically consistent vision with predictive capacity..
Eventually, the researchers don’t know what to measure as cause and don’t know how to measure the effect (excess heat) because it is usually very small and evanescent. The word ametric adequate for our case is not in the dictionary but is in the wet cells and leads to a tragic reversal of the efforts and creativity, from intensification to measurement.

There are no general rules in such a VUCA world, it is difficult to define/determine what is correct and what is error and it seems the tunnel has no end- it has a 3-dimensional Mobius strip topology- no end, no lighting.

Can be LENR de-VUCA-ized?

Improving the status from inside, using the old paradigm or theories like that of Ed Storms as guide is theoretically possible.
New approaches, ideas and methods from outside (rs) as Rossi and DGT needs practical demonstrations- working technologies, in the very spirit of the VUCA Solution to build vision and understanding, clearly and fast.
I believe these will come and after that the field will really radically Change.
Dum spiro, spero!


Friday, June 27, 2014

A Traveller's Note

Motto: Nature does not hurry, yet everything is accomplished.Lao Tzu

About one and a half hour away from the polluted, noisy and traffic-jammed Bucharest you can take a deep breath of fresh (not squeezed...) forest air. The sky has a more intense blue, the Sun is burning more efficiently and broken clouds look lighter when you look at them from the mountains. At night more stars are shining in the clear sky and also storms are more spectacular, with lightening and thunder definitely more impressive than back in the crowded city.

It was raining a lot in Bucharest in the past couple of months and the specific smell has triggered in me some serious mountain nostalgia.

I remember from my childhood that there were 1-day excursions organised by the school. Other times we would go for longer times, during summer, spring or winter camps. Every time it seemed like an adventure, with attached emotions and fears. My biggest fear was the one of not being sportive enough compared to other kids. I was striving to minimize the probability of either being left behind or delay everyone climbing the mountain. Later on I developed another concern, connected to associating proper clothing and the right shoes ... to be honest, this did not go away with age ...

Years have passed and the pattern of my trips to the mountains have changed. Getting to the same childhood destinations nowadays has to do more with a set of wheels and a pair of sunglasses. But the specific smell of the fresh air still reminds me of the school teacher, telling us children to empty our lungs of residual air and fill them with clean forest one.

The grass usually invites either bare-foot walking or plain sleeping on . The scenery always brings big stupid smiles on my face. I drift towards another distant memory, in a place close to Vienna, back in 2009. A car and then a funicular, took us in less than 1 hour somewhere higher than 1000 meters for sure ... We set then a reasonable destination target for light walking. It was not supposed to be a huge climb, it looked quite ambitious only compared to the passivity of the last years - it was supposed to last for about one and a half hour. So we started enthusiastically... After about 20 mins, our path reached a nice mountain cottage. The Sun was smiling at us, the food looked quite inviting, we were already tired (!), so we decided to have a rest ... I took a blanket to lay down on the grass away from my friends, just for a couple of minutes... Then I turned on a side, covered myself a little better, got warm and relaxed and ... when I opened my eyes again, I felt strangely well rested... my friends told me they did not have the heart to wake me up ... for about one hour!...

I felt like doing this again today, but had a plane to catch... I know however that I will have a good night's sleep, with a smile on my face, grateful for another beautiful day, because ... my hand took a dive in the cold water of a small mountain creek, my lung took deep breaths in fresh humid forest air, my face felt the warmth of a loving Sun, my eyes looked up to the Caraiman cross and then all around to the mystic mix of shades of green and grey on the mountains surrounding it; then my whole heart enjoyed a show of light and shadow mixing through some fluffy clouds. Later in the evening my entire body was lifted above the clouds and I witnessed once more an incredible sunset from the airplane. And before going to bed, I went out to enjoy the beautiful night vision of Karlskirche, mirrored in the calmness of a small pond in the middle of Vienna.

All those above crossed my path within one day... It made me realize how important it is to remember to daydream while carrying on our tiny life. To acknowledge that all the beautiful things in the world are there for a myriad of reasons, among which filling the eyes of hasty travelers with beauty and their hearts with gratitude - just for being alive!

Good night!


Saturday, May 31, 2014


I have received today this paper that has made me angry:

Actually, it is not about our Cold Fusion, bur from sci-populistic reasons it infamously tells that “cold fusion died an inglorious death”
This is completely false, however, sadly enough, after 301+ months of history, of bright and smart worldwide efforts, the desired contrary of that: “it has started a glorious and useful new life” is also not true.
We still have to wait while fugit irreparabile tempus however hope is still there…but for how many of us?
I have repeatedly stated that classic cold fusion/LENR is not what we wanted it to be and, as such, it remains weak and unmanageable. Few of you believe me, however cannot contradict me with facts. The new forms of CF (if we take it in its broadest sense) are under strong attack on many fronts.

The state of the field is not a source of happiness and I am asking with sadness:

What would my dear, good friends, already in the Heaven of Cold Fusion: Hal Fox, Chris Tinsley, Gene Mallove, Akira Kawasaki, say today about CF’s status?

A painful question and unanswerable- infinite energy generates also infinite patience?
I will ask them all  soon, but I am not in great hurry, so I am asking you now, my friends still in battle, old and young, what do you think- what would our Heroes say and DO? And you?


Tuesday, May 20, 2014


In order to see the context and deeper details of the Gamberale Report published here: I have asked the most authorized person- the leader and strategist of the Defkalion company to give me an interview. CEO Xanthoulis has accepted and has answered to all my questions. It was an illuminating discussion despite revealing somewhat shadowy sides of that Report.

Q: Based on the recent publications of Mr. Gamberale & various others, what is your position?
A: Firstly we need to see what happened during the two live streaming presentations.
From 1st June 2013, our chief engineer Mr. S Amaxas & Mr. Gamberale were setting up the Laboratory in Milan. From the 25th June they were both running tests checking the set-up, the performance and the software.
During those days they made various adjustments and improvements which were mutually agreed upon, based on my knowledge.
On Friday the 19th July, I and my team arrived in Milan. In the meeting after my arrival NO questions or quires were raised by Mr. Gamberale on the performance of the equipment.  Furthermore on Sunday the 20th July our stock broker arrived and as per my promise given to Mr. Gamberale previously, he opened the Accounts to receive shares of the Defkalion Holding Company of Canada and he signed for them.
On Monday the 22nd  July Mr. Gamberale performed and presented the live streaming test for Italy in Italian, he was enthusiastic about the technology to all of the attendees.
Attending were journalists and scientists from Italy to whom afterwards in private he explained in detail the technology. On the same day, all night and till early morning of the next day our technical staff was preparing the equipment for the Live Streaming presentation for ICCF18.
On Tuesday 23rd July at 11.00am Mr. Gamberale declared himself sick and did not attend the live presentation.
The Live presentation was witnessed by many attendees, including Mr. Mats Lewan, who later was controlling independently and in detail all of the equipment and operations.
The live presentation was carried out with several difficulties such as power failures, no A/C and inadequate time to degassing from Argon to Hydrogen. During this live test none of the attendees raised any questions, doubts, whatever.
On Wednesday the 24th July and before our departure from Milan we were requested to participate in a meeting with the following participants, Alex Xanthoulis, Stavros Amaxas, Franco Capielo, Lucas Gamberale. At the request of Mr. Gambarale our CTO Mr. Hadjichristos was not invited to attend.
During this meeting Mr Gamberale made a presentation of his “SO CALLED” secret test which were conducted on the 18th of July, I was totally surprised and shocked because his attitude the previous days (of the 19th, 20th, 21st, 22nd  July) was positive and enthusiastic.
My question to him was why he accepted the Defkalion Shares, why he made the Italian presentation and why he brought the subject up when we could not repeat the same test together because of our departure schedule. I have never received any answer to the above also to why he excluded Mr. Xadjichristos from that meeting.
Due to shortage of time and since all the questions were on the calorimetry, I suggested to send him test that were conducted without calorimetry. These tests were delayed to be sent due to my health problems at that time. However they were actually sent one month later. In fact this information was sent two times and although this information was strictly confidential we never received further questions or any answers.
So I was shocked when I saw published a test of Mr. Gamberale that was never conducted together with us to prove his position. Although a strict NDA was signed by Mr. Gamberale with a very high penalty clause in the case of a breach.
I was strongly advised by our personnel to use our Lawyers for the breaching of the NDA, but so far I have not taken any action, as I strongly believe that there are strong hidden interests.
Q: You mean that Luca Gamberale has made his test prior to your arrival and official tests in Milan?
A: Yes, he could not have done it during our presence or after because our engineers were next to the reactor all day of our presence and when we departed, we have taken the reactor with us. Anyhow, he told us that his test was on the 18th.
Q: Who prepared the software on National Instruments Board?
A: N.I.  and Luca Gamberale according to our instructions.
Q: Did Luca Gamberale attend tests prior to Italy and ICCF presentations?
A: He was two days in Athens, 15 days in Vancouver and 35 days in Milan conducting tests.
Q: Did he have any remarks or objections during the tests?
A: None that I know.
Q: Did he really receive shares of the company?
A: Yes, and he signed for the shares.
Q: Did he signed a NDA?
A: Yes, with a very high penalty for breach of contract. My question is: if we go legally against him, who is going to pay the penalty? Probably, somebody has promised to pay for him. What the public seems to forget is what big interests are behind this technology.
Q: Do you believe that Luca Gamberale is a good scientist?
A: Yes, I believe that Luca Gamberale is a brilliant scientist and I am wondering how on earth he did not understand earlier that calorimetry was wrong.
Q: Was calorimetry wrong?
A: I am not a scientist. Calorimetry was not set by us but from brilliant and well known international scientists.
Q: Do you have any scientists who observed the tests and examined the data?
A: As I have repeated several times, we are a business entity and not a lab. Up to now, we have 12 scientists from big international companies who have signed and accepted our tests and data and 3 who were neutral and still examine the data with a lot of questions and answers.
Q: What about your interview with Mats Lewan?
A: Mats is a very good journalist but he, as every journalist, takes bits and pieces from every sentence and he publishes accordingly depending how he wants to present his view.
Q: Are you going to publish any scientific paper on this issue?
A: No, the next publication will be on our R6. Anyhow what we are doing and how we do it concerns only our shareholders.
Q: You have announced that you will trade your shares in the stock market soon.
A: We believe the right moment is when R6 pre-industrial product is ready and licensed. Anyhow our new shareholders do not believe in stock market. I have to convince them.

Remark: “My personal opinion is that the statements  from the Gamberale Report re. the malfunctioning of the flowmeter have nothing to do with the actual modus operandi of the Hyperion R5 in conformity with the Defkalion Protocol during standard tests and the Demo"

Friday, April 11, 2014


' We are sinking, we are sinking!!! '
' What are you thinking about?... '
(For proper understanding, this needs some visual effects - you can find them here)

Brain waves. Hugs. Signs.
Words. Music. Dance. Sculpture. Painting. Building. Flying.
Papirus. Paper. Morse. Feather. Coal. Chalk. Pen. Keyboard. Touch screen.
Radio.Tv. Computer. Phone.
Theatre. Opera. Multiplex.
Pigeon. Horse. Post. Courier. Internet. Email. Call. Sms. Chat.
Evolution or involution? Curse or blessing?
Fear or desire? Irony or smile? Tear or laughter?
Love or hate? Acceptance or rejection? Hurt or embrace? Anticipation or avoidance?
Honesty or deceit? Reality or dream?
Photo or paint? Live or unplugged?
Eloquent or ambiguous? Intimate or public? Gentle or aggressive?
Build or destroy? Divide or join? Break or conquer?
Manipulate or convince? Seek or avoid? Share or hide?
Give or take? Endorse or disclaim?
Listen or hear? Watch or see? Say or insinuate?
Loud or whispery? Stereo or surround?
Read or heard? Seen or imagined?
Flat or curved? Colored or b&w? Sepia?...
Touch. Hold. Hug. Kiss. Weep. Smile. Frown. Laugh. Blink.
Speak. Feel. Smell. Hear. Taste.
Morning. Lunch. Afternoon. Evening. Night. Late at night. Early morning.
Clock. Tick-tack.
Over and out.

By now I have already communicated to you more than in all the other nine roots put together. This would be true in case you have been reading properly each line and everything lying between and behind those lines. If you haven't, I invite you to slooowly read them again.

Did you find different meanings? Did you imagine different scenes and different persons on the second reading?

That could be triggered by the common while abstract nature of those words. We go through life convinced that we listen, understand and react. Actually we may very well spend most of our life imagining, translating and acting on what we think we know.

Why do I believe that current communication pattern has become one of the deepest roots of the current status of our world? One reason could be that we started to take too many things for granted. We got used to so much communication, on so many levels and coming to us in so many packages that we are gradually turning off old-fashioned communication, the one occurring on a basic intuitive level. We (ab)use surrogate communication so much that we are gradually convinced that we know it all. We get carried away by online presence of hundreds of remote friends, adrenaline rush of movie characters, news about public persons, accomplishments of sportsmen and emotions of artists, most of them happening on a flat cold computer or television screen, while we are comfortably snoozing on our couch. We are nicely fitting in pre-packed life stories and consume the enormous supply of communication which is being fed to us. Quantity seems to have won the war over quality and is now taking heads-on another challenge: our time.

Some of us even got used to the idea that robots and people have daily access to our communication and don't even bother about it anymore. A handful is fighting to win back the right to intimacy, but the 007 Genie is out of the bottle for a long time on a planetary scale. One can only hope that the paranoia of supervised communication may actually have positive consequences, such as bringing back into our life the communication channel which matters the most: eye to eye. One can dream that someday we will go back to using all our given senses at the same time (including common sense!) and therefore minimize as much as possible misunderstandings.

I wonder what else is to be said as a closing note. I believe at this point it would be better just to challenge you to remember any classic French movie, so you can draw your own conclusions. When I was young I used to hate the fact that those movies had no ending. Today I would just smile, turn off the tv and move on. 

I have learned that one should not seek answers to all life questions. Some things, facts and people are just there for a reason which will reveal itself much later in the process. There are events which just happen - for apparently no reason. Asking for answers and looking for endings in advance just leads to misunderstanding of much bigger pictures.

Georgina Popescu