Tuesday, December 31, 2013

WAYS 7 – The GiveAndTaker

Motto: The only people with whom you should try to get even are those who have helped you.
John E. Southard

Today is the last day of 2013. Austrians call this day Silvester, which always makes me think of the cat chasing Tweety in a Looney Tunes cartoon, even thou the spelling is different (Sylvester). All in all, it makes me smile and, together with the nice atmosphere which invades Vienna in this period, contributes much to giving me an optimistic disposition before New Year Party.

For celebrating the night between the years, there are some pre-requisites which cannot be cheated: a little trip down the memory lane (what did the ‘old’ year bring, compared to what I wished for last year), a little peek into the future (what would I kindly ask from the ‘new’ year), food and drinks in the stomach and on the table, some money in my pocket, funny outfits (especially on and around the head…), lots of noise and lots of hugging, kissing and hoping.

I spent the morning enjoying a late breakfast in a wonderful place (Beaulieu in Ferstel Passage), focusing on the memory part. Then I strolled a little through the town, went home for a hot bubble bath (thus coming back to enjoying the present). Then I decided to take a glimpse into the future, before I get out and loose myself into the present again - by eating, drinking and fire-working into the New Year. So I started writing ...

I cannot say I have completely stopped making wish lists and plans for the next year. I have however learned that lists are mostly useful for putting things into perspective when you look back on them … and smile while remembering the ‘old you’ who created that content... Time has a way of sorting through what is important and lasting versus short day-dreaming, and revealing what is good for one versus what is just meant to become lesson-learning...

Those being said, I should focus now on the message I wish to share with you today...

While sitting and enjoying my hot chocolate cup this morning, I looked around at the crowd which was strolling up and down the Ferstel passage. Some people were working this morning, such as the waiters and the singers. There was a small piano and a violin exquisitely playing music of various backgrounds – from classical to Elvis ballads. Those people were giving us food, drinks and music, in exchange for a few euro and applause. We were giving them our money and admiration in exchange for nurturing and beautiful future memories. Everyone was giving and taking, in a nice set-up and with a smile on his or her face.

Why is this so important? … Quite simple answer … It is one of the easiest ways out from the contemporary self-induced and self-perceived ‘Crisis Ages’. As pointed out in a previous posting (Ways 6 – The Teacher), our future has the face of our children. If we raise takers, we shall provide tyrants and feed abuse, intolerance and inequity in our world. If we raise givers, we shall provide martyrs and feed more abuse, intolerance and inequity… If we raise give-and-takers, we shall provide leaders and people striving on generosity and freedom of choice, thus feeding love, tolerance and prosperity in our world.

For all religions, races and cultural backgrounds, the past has proven over and over again that the only way out of any crisis created by inequity was for people to come together when they have hit the bottom of despair and start to give to and take from each other in an equitable manner. I am not referring here only to tangible goods, but also to housing and hospitality, moral support, love and trust and the list can go on.

Life is a multioption, multichoice and multipeople game, which should find its own balance once people learn to accept that happiness comes from within. The give-and-take mood has more to do with feeling, perception and expectation than with any material thing one may see around. Material things could be used to achieve internal aspirations but not the other way around. Material things could be used to achieve higher spirituality but not the other way around. People should regard taking as a way to improve their giving capacity but not the other way around. By taking love, trust or knowledge from others, you will enrich yourself; by further sharing this love and trust and knowledge, you will enrich the world around you.

I will share with you now my short list of wishes for 2014. May this Year bring health, wealth, respect and happiness to all the genuine give-and-takers of the world! And may this Year bring health, wealth, respect and happiness also for all the others, so that they may learn to accept and value what they are offered, so that they may start giving things that matter in exchange. And ... may 'wealth' go way behind the material component of its meaning!

Happy 2014!

Georgina Popescu

Tuesday, December 24, 2013



The radical improvement wish goes first of all to cold fusion, LENR, LENR+, HENI, and it depends critically on great, deep,
bold changes – those changes that were possible in 2013 but did not happen.
Success or failure is a problem of definition, of possibility per expectation and lowering expectations is the best for easy successes. However, my OUTLOOK 2013 cannot be called a success by any standard; it is actually an exercise in wishful thinking.
I have started it by wishing “Vivat, crescat, floreat” to LENR- for 2013 and beyond. Now it can be seen that LENR has lived- it survived, however it is still, in part living in past, depending on its past, kind of prisoner of its cradle. It is growable only at the price of fundamental metamorphoses, but only very few of our colleagues are accepting this.
In Outlook 2013 I have told you about my optimistic expectations- LENR should be more intelligent, serious, realistic, pragmatic, materialistic in 2013. Has it? Please answer, dear readers and give us examples.
Interesting, important, significant positive events came only from the new forms of LENR+ (HENI) having a scientific-technical genome so different from that of the original Fleischmann Pons phenomenon that a filiation or kinship demonstration is not easy at all. Metal and hydrogen in great love and unexpected (due to insufficient knowledge) good heat- that has been left from the great energy dream of the Founding Fathers. The Hope is alive and shining but has moved, quite far from its birthplace.

I am old, but (modesty go away!) still a very good learner. Outlook 2013 has taught me what to expect for 2014. how to be very, very cautious and moderate, how to minimize risks of errors.
Therefore, I predict with absolute certainty that 2014 will mark the end of Cold Fusion’s 25 Years War- with a great victory. It will be a year of triumphal battles en route; our most advanced form of new energy will start to conquer the world. The competitors as Fossil, Nuclear, Solar, Wind, and Bioenergy will accept their fate
And the journals will start to publish more and more “peccavi”
confessions of the most stubborn skeptics.
Wait and be amazed. And happy.


Saturday, December 7, 2013


A fast answer to the title question refers to this weekend. Beyond any doubt, the JCF14 Meeting of the Japan CF-Research Society is an important meeting; see please the program and the abstracts of the papers:                                                           
I was especially  impressed – very positively, by one of the presentations: Discussion about the quality of the experiments in cold fusion” by E. Igari and T. Mizuno The title of the paper is even more comprehensive than “about the reproducibility of cold fusion experiments.” All my faithful readers know that reproducibility is my obsession. However quality sounds even better- a  dear technological concept making me nostalgic – my passionate reading the opuses of the great quality gurus: Deming, Juran, Crosby and others and my own Gladwellian Ten Thousand Hours work for the quality of suspension polyvinyl chloride- sweet glory of yesterday! One of the authors is a really great cold fusionist and the first author is the CEO of a Japanese ecology company, also a very important personality. The vital importance of reproducibility is clearly described in the abstract. The origin of the problem is systematically investigated using the very principles of scientific research. They find more contributors to the wicked problem: "the lack of clear hypothesis", "difficulty in controlling the experimental conditions" and "uncertainty of information" What else could be considered and how could we improve the situation?  I hope the in-extenso paper will give some- at least incipient answers. However the prestige of the authors will hopefully stimulate the total intolerance toward bad reproducibility and the problem solving abilities of our community. We have to wake up from this reproducibility nightmare.
So far, so good but we also need a strategic, long range answer to the “what now, cold fusion” question.
A fine Motto is this:                                                                            The secret of life is to have a task, something you devote your entire life to, something you bring everything to, every minute of the day for the rest of your life. And the most important thing is, it must be something you cannot possibly do. (Henry Moore)
Henry Moore was a sculptor; for non-artistic professions in which reality and rules are brutally imposed, his dictum becomes true and applicable mainly for the period of life which starts with retirement and ends with death- physical or intellectual, whichever comes first. The Task you try to accomplish must be important, infinite, impossible and in order to attain the highest peak experiences, unpopular too. Heresy is the best. You can see I am fighting for truly unpopular views, both outside and inside the cold fusion field. I am not doing it for seeming different, but because I sincerely think I have discovered some nasty inconvenient truths that happen to confront standard views and memes.
I have discovered the Motto after a professional career in which I had to solve well, as many problems as possible; I needed successes in order to remain a researcher- as almost anybody else I could not afford too many great failures. In 1989 when I have joined the Cold Fusion movement irreversibly, I was convinced that the first technologies will appear no later than in 5 years. My unique worries were the scarcity of the magic metal palladium and the expected production of lower currency energy that cannot be converted in electric energy. However the vision of a world using cold fusion energy was quite natural and vivid.
The problem of bad reproducibility became “a rich source of troubles, despair and skeptics from the start of the cold fusion story” as I wrote during the third year of CF history.  Take care please, I was speaking about ‘troubles” and not problems  (problems are solved, troubles, in the best case get old and fade away) because I already was disappointed with the passive approach- advanced calorimetric methods instead of radical measures for intensification of the heat release. It was then an open question, in which extent the active, creative method was THEN possible? Was THEN possible- in principle to understand what happens scientifically, to build a working theory that can lead to good, repeatable, controllable experiments? Was THEN feasible to start an action of scale up and technological development?  It is more important to answer today; so many years later to the same question- can be the existential and developmental problems of the classic CF/LENR systems solved? Are they actually solvable in principle?  According to my 20 Rules of Problem Solving-appended to this for your convenience to this editorial, after the Igari Mizuno abstract, Rule No. 18 is special for unsolvable problems. These can be solved only if their premises are radically changed. In the same manner, cold fusion has to be metamorphosed in such an extent that even its parents could not more recognize it, in order to become productive indeed..
This metamorphoses can be described in the style of the problem solving rules- by “complete definition. An other quotation from Henry Moore wisely states:
To know one thing, you must know the opposite. Therefore a good definition combines a negative one- what the thing, concept is NOT with what it actually is, or has to be. The list is still not complete. Usable, energy generating cold fusion is:
Accomplished NOT by Science First, BUT by Technology first;
Created NOT via Theory, BUT using smart Engineering,
Based NOT on wet (aqueous) systems BUT only in vapor phase;
Working not at low temperatures (> 100 C), BUT at higher ones (>200 C);
Using NOT palladium, BUT transition metals *e.g.) nickel:
Using NOT deuterium, BUT light hydrogen;
Being NOT simple, static, linear, BUT complex, dynamic,
Structured NOT as one step, BUT multi-step multi-phase;
Belonging NOT to electrochemistry, BUT to nanoplasmonics;
Incorporating NOT nuclear  reactions, BUT nuclear interactions;
Correctly called NOT LENR  BUT LENR+, HENI
I make the most pernicious assertion include here explicit:
“The reproducibility problem and scale up practically cannot be solved for WET cold fusion systems- as the FP Cell. Wet systems are technologically dead."
This will not contribute much to my popularity, but I would be very happy if somebody proves this is idiotic, with data, solid data, and longer term. The simplest reasons for this:

First reason: it seems that deep degassing of the active surface is an absolute necessity; the presence of any non hydrogen gas inactivates fatally the cathodes. Purely electrochemical tricks as electrode inversion and co-deposition are not effective to solve the dreadful reproducibility problem

Second reason the spatial density of the places or zones where the reactions that generate heat, happens is much too low and decreases fast in time

Third reason, due to the presence of a water (heavy or light) phase the temperature is limited to ~100 C, high pressure electrolysis cells are inconvenient. Recent discoveries converge to showing that a higher temperature is able to accelerate the reactions considerably- a sine qua non condition for scale up.

Fourth reason- it seems electrolysis cannot deliver deuterium or hydrogen in the necessary active form.

ATTENTION PLEASE; this: “wet systems, no technology”   is my direct message too, for Eijiro Igari and Tadahiko Mizuno- I hope one of my readers will let them know before they start the presentation at JCF14.
Mizuno is the greatest specialist worldwide in plasma electrolysis- and this is NOT a wet system because the active site of the cathode is not in contact with water, but with plasma.
Strictly in principle plasma electrolysis is NOT hopeless. I cannot do more; I am not able to communicate in Japanese. Help us please!


Discussion about the quality of the experiments in cold fusion

E. Igari and T Mizuno:

Hydrogen Engineering Application and Development


After the announcement of the Cold Fusion by Fleischmann and Pons in 1989, there has been great debate between the deniers and the believers of the science of cold fusion phenomena. The debate continues to this day after two decades since the announcement. In other sciences, this situation is rare typically due to the fact that experiments are either reproducible or not. In this particular situation, the poor reproducibility of the experiment has been a major issue. As a result, the truth about whether or not cold fusion is even possible has been questioned. The purpose of this paper is to clarify why this unique situation occurred. We divide the process of experiment into four phases to analyze why "poor reproducibility" occurred. (1)Setting up the hypothesis, (2) Planning of experimental design, (3) Implementation of the experiment and (4) Verification of experiment. We would like to discuss what the problems have been in each phase.We interviewed the scholars in the field of Cold Fusion and found that the following problems have occurred in the four phases. (1) Hypotheses: There have been a number of hypotheses. Therefore, it has been difficult to get specific, measurable feed back. What one believes theoretical plays outs quite differently in experimental form (2) Experimental design: Each experiment may appear to have been carried out under the same conditions. However, variations appeared in the experimental results. It is possible that there were unknown conditions in metal, gas, and other components. Such unknown conditions might have not been considered in the experimental design. (3) Implementation of the experiment: Preventing the dispersion of the gas such as nano-structure of the metal as well as the gas such as hydrogen is very difficult. Hence, it has been difficult to control the experiment perfectly. (4) Verification of experiment: There has been some uncertainty about the various hypothesis and experimental conditions. It is difficult to write specifically about all the experimental conditions in the papers. Therefore, reproducing the experiments have been difficult for other researchers.
In this study, we focused on the quality of the "implementation of experiment". In particular, we analyzed the prototype of the venture companies outside of Japan. We looked at the photos and the data of the prototype. We also analyzed the structure of the prototype, material, gas, and the method of heat measurement from the photos. We came to the conclusion that the results and outputs that the company claims are quite different from what they appear to be. Moreover, the data and the information which contained a lot of noise were announced without peer-reviews.
In conclusion, "the lack of clear hypothesis", "difficulty in controlling the experimental conditions" and "uncertainty of information" led to the current controversy of Cold Fusion. It is important to solve these problems in order for the society of Cold Fusion to be in the main stream of the scientific society.

by Peter Gluck


“ I think, I exist. I decide I live. I solve problems, I live with a purpose.”

1. There are NO isolated problems, they always come in dynamic bunches

2. There are NO final solutions for the really great problems, these have to be solved again and again.

3. NOT solving the problem, but defining it is the critical step.

4. NOT the unknown data, but those known and untrue are the greatest obstacle to the solution.

5. .NOT what we know, but what we don’t know is more important for solving the problem.

6. NOT the main desired positive effect, but those secondary negative and/or undesired effects decide in most cases if a solution is implemented.

7. NOT all problems have a complete, genuine solution.

8. NOT the solutions that seem perfect from the start, but those which are very perfectible are the best in many cases.

9.  NOT the bright, shiny, spectacular solutions but those elaborated, worked out with difficulty and effort and patience are more valuable and have a larger area of applicability.

10. NOT the solutions that are logical and perfectly rational, but those that are adequate for the feelings of the potential users, even if they are ilogical, have the greatest chances of fast implementation.

11. NOT the quality of the solution but the speed of its implementaion is the decisive factor in many cases. It can be better to have a partial solution applied fast than a slower almost perfect solution.

12. NOT always long hours of hard work and great efforts, but (sometimes) relaxation and fun is the best way to obtain solutions for (awfully) difficult problems.

13. NOT our own problems, but the problems of other people are usually more boldly and creatively solved by us

14. NOT the solutions worked out by us, but those borrowed. bought or stolen from others are more easily accepted and implemented.

15. NOT the enhancement of human strengths but the limitation
of human weaknesses is more useful for efficient problem solving

16. NOT the very careful perfect planning, but the smart assuming of risks and firm decision taking are the practical keys to successful problem solving.

17. NOT always the existent, real problems, but many times the fictive, imaginary ones are the most difficult to be solved.

18. Do NOT accept the premises of the problem, change them as necessary and possible.

19. Do NOT stop at the first solution, seek for alternatives.

However, for the really advanced problem solvers, there is a SUPER –RULE- the most important of all;

20. NOT the wise application of these rules but the finding of the specific exceptions to these, is the real high art of problem solving.

Sunday, November 24, 2013


A recurrent, painful question characterized by lost patience and bearing shades of silent desperation is: “How to have CF accepted by the scientific community?” Recently one of our best men, wrote a very nice essay about it but got only one answer saying the situation is hopeless and salvation of the field can come only from outside. I was this unique respondent and my pessimism is based in part on the idea that in the still core system of cold fusion, PdD electrolysis cell, it is practically impossible to obtain decent reproducibility and there are no chances for real scale up.               

Suppose I am erring here stupidly and tomorrow a perfectly reproducible classic LENR system will be worked out, 99 successful tests from 100 and a scientific explanation will be found for this great achievement. Unfortunately it will be extremely difficult to publish a paper in a high rank scientific journal. A recent discussion with a reputed, highly successful university professor who is a good friend i.e. absolutely sincere with me- has again shown that the orthodox science has given its verdict final and irreversible to cold fusion- no mercy! It is esoteric science and its adequate status is pariah science. Scientifically not understood, experimentally not reproducible, sooner or later it has to die.

As many of my readers I disagree with this, however I disagree on the basis of the ideas developed in this blog; I dare to think that now the PROBLEM part is complete and finished. I have explained in detail and repeatedly how due to unfortunate circumstances in self-enhancing and reinforcing combinations cold fusion could not find a good explanation (theory) and how and why the experimental part is faulty due to bad reproducibility. Being a professional technologist my repulsion toward that damned reproducibility problem is fiercer and deeply ingrained in my thinking than the arguments of the most skeptic enemy of cold fusion.

From now on, let’s start thinking on the SOLUTION.

I repeat It is time to completely re-think and re-write the history of the field and go to a radically and painfully new strategy, new modes of thinking- to a new Paradigm.

Actually this has already started even if we are not aware of it, just now it is deep silence, real “saison morte” on our forums but (I bet!) the coming year will bring a tsunami of new, creative ideas disseminated in the epidemic mode. You will see triumphant, absolutely convincing experimental high energy intensity facts
demonstrating that yes, what has started as Fleischmann and Pons’ cold fusion is now the finest energy source of the future.
History will judge me and the new Paradigm I am announcing here and now. Those who know my privileged way during the last 3 years, my revelations and ordeals know how privileged I was by
learning from Piantelli directly, how hard I have tried to understand
Rossi’s discovery (not his personality) and what a unique wonderful source of intellectual and technological discoveries was my friendship with the Defkalion heroes- will think: “it is easy for Peter, he was favorised by his professional destiny and now he plays the wise guy and dares to tell us about a New Paradigm- shameless self promotion!”

True, and not true in the same time the appended document shows actually I was preaching and prophesizing. about a New Paradigm already 19 years ago! Just I thought it was a paradigm too far and this was true- the distance was 20 cold fusion years (a unity of length similar to a light year but much shorter.
It is old stuff, but many of those who have read it illo tempore are not more with us (as my unforgettable dear friend Hal Fox who has published it) and I don’t think it is a popular paper.

You will discover that the last words of that paper are today still the key to the survival and future prosperity of the field: Gain power by accepting reality." Not an easy job if your brain is poisoned with dominant memes (guess which ones?) Accepting reality as irreproducibility cannot be tolerated, CF must be metamorphosed in order to live etc. is an awfully difficult and slow process.  

Further I have stated then that cold fusion is actually not science? Is it today with all the attributes of a science as a basic all accepted
theory understanding standards? Just developing science very very far from the initial ideas. New “truths, theories, totems and taboos” will populate the radically changed field, soon. 

I see, with some pleasure that even 19 years ago I have supported the active sites idea with fervor and facts. And I knew even earlier that only technology will save Cold Fusion- perhaps.
In 1995 my own idea re “To be, or not to be “was too smart for me too. But now I see it clearly- if it wants to BE, cold fusion must boldly and entirely change its identity. Just a bit more subtlety,
my dear readers!


By Peter Gluck
Fusion Facts, January 1995 p19

Is cold fusion a science? Not yet, because by definition: "A
science is any discipline in which the fool of the present generation can go beyond the point reached by the genius of
the last generation" (Max Gluckman).
We all, geniuses, bright scientists, common researchers, fools
and me belong to the first generation dedicated to battles and
sacrifices, we try to build the House of Cold Fusion in
perpetual stormy weather. The next generation will have the
decisive advantage to use the good paradigm and will take the
I dare to predict that finally everybody will be happy: the
Skeptics because cold fusion is not exactly genuine D-D fusion,
the believers because cold fusion is the inexhaustible source
of energy of the future, and, finally, Mankind because it will
use this energy.
To be a science, cold fusion needs its own paradigm, and this
isn't ready yet.

A paradigm for Cold Fusion.

A basic difference: Cold Fusion belongs to Solid State which
is: Developing science/Developed technology.
Hot Fusion belongs to Plasma Physics which is: Developed
science/Developing technology.

In both cases, as in politics or economics, `developing' is
merely an euphemism for underdeveloped; many essential
subfields of solid state e.g. high temperature
superconductivity, conductive polymers, porous silicone,
heterogeneous catalysis actually do not have a real,
quantitative, predictive theory but are prospering
technologically. Each of these fields is a technological
miracle grafted on a theoretical quagmire, and who
cares? This is always forgotten and a cold fusion theory is
ever more insistently requested, however both similarity and
synchronicity suggest that such a theory cannot be worked out
Two recent papers [1, 2] written by seven authors with a total
IQ of well over 1000 (is this really additive?) scan the entire
range of cold fusion theories and conclude, one explicitly [1]
and one implicitly [2]: no theory possible.
For cold fusion a paradigm shift or a new paradigm is
necessary; this is a complex action comprising: transport,
transfer, and transformation of truths, theories, totems and
taboos of established fields for the use of the new one. The
paradigm of hot fusion was the first choice, however, the two
paradigms are so different, between them there is a conceptual
abyss, and the strategy adopted was, unfortunately, enough to
pass this abyss by small steps. The result is: many strange
hybrids with a very low life expectancy. Troubles with the replacement paradigm.

The central problem of hot fusion is the Coulomb barrier, an
obstacle which can be passed by high temperatures; for room
temperature fusion, we have to find something similar,
according to the replacement paradigm, it has to be high
pressure! A palladium lattice oversaturated with deuterium is
ideal for packing and squeezing the deuterons, therefore, the
great totem has to be the D/Pd ratio, and everything happens
inside the lattice, and only in the lattice. In the whole lattice,
cold fusion is a bulk phenomenon. Little was changed when
Mills and co-workers demonstrated that heat excess can also
be obtained with light water [3], that is: CF is not a privilege
of deuterium, and later new proofs of a kind of Isotopic
Democracy came to change the first naive image of the field:
the systems of Dufour [4] (gas sparking), Piantelli et al. [5]
(gas/solid, electromagnetic stimulation) are working with both
Hand D, however, democracy is not perfect equality. Two
systems using ultrasound to obtain excess heat have been
discovered. One is based on heavy water [6] and gives heat
plus helium. The other is a commercial patented apparatus for
heating fluids, extracting a lot of free Btu's from ordinary
water [7].
Many other materials besides palladium proved to be `CF
active' that is CF is more general and less specific than we had
thought in 1989.
Actually a theory has to elucidate three aspects of the
phenomena locus, nature and mechanism. The first two of
these are correlated in part but not predetermined as it was
considered by extrapolating the paradigm of hot fusion well
beyond its limits of validity. Despite a plethora of
experimental facts, "the locus is the bulk" and "the nature of
the reactions is obviously D-D fusion" became axioms and
only a few heretics tried to discuss about possible alternatives.
Due to the domination of the hybrid paradigm, the problem of
understanding cold fusion was attacked in the reverse order
(the proper being: locus - nature - mechanism) or only in part
by treating the mechanism of reactions, admitting tacitly that
locus and nature are well known from the start. Invariably,
only depth-first approaches have been used, however, we now
need breadth-first approaches, so useful in cases of
interdisciplinary fields where a vision is essential. In these
circumstances, after over 5 years, cold fusion has existential
problems. In the same time, this situation is quite normal for a
brand new science, and a question "To be or not to be?" for CF
is actually stupid, a symptom of dualistic thinking. The answer
as almost always given by nature is of the "mu" type (see
please the books of Pirsig, Hofstadter, Capra which are
essential for understanding physics). Actually, the skeptics are
searching for genuine fusion and the believers for a
non-chemical, non-exhaustible source of energy. The answer,
any answer has different significance for the parties in
To some extent,  both skeptics and believers are victims of
Groupthink, dualistic thinking and thinking small.

An alternative.
By an objective analysis of the facts, and by trying to use the
Methods of creative thinking, I started to build an alternative
paradigm [8,9]. The essential points are:
˝ cold fusion is an extreme case of catalysis;
˝positive and negative results are compatible in the frame of
our approach we can accommodate seemingly antithetical
˝ irreproducibility is not the karma of CF, it is a direct
consequence of the catalytic nature of the phenomena, it is a
great informational asset and can be eliminated by technology;
˝ to understand the field we need a global approach: all
systems, all results, all phenomena, and above all, all the
isotopes of hydrogen;
˝everything happens on the surface or very near to it, and
only in certain active sites of it, just as in case of catalysis; the
role of the bulk is to support the surface;
˝ the clue is not pressure but mobility.
Two papers published in 1994 demonstrate the creative
abilities of the very high surfaces; using titanium soot,
impregnated with tritium, Reifenschweiler [10] could change
the radioactivity of tritium; the double structured cathodes of
the Arata cell comprising palladium black, i.e. another
ultra-dispersed material with a huge surface resulted in a
reproducible, intense heat excess (200 MJ in 3000 hours).
Such particles guarantee the presence of many catalytic
The very high loading ratios attained by Celani, et al. [12],
D/Pd= 1.2 who used very short pulses of current, didn't give
the expected great excess heat values, substantiating our idea
that global loading is nothing more than a prerequisite of high
local loading.
Excess heat was obtained in a new system, ionic implant of
Deuterium in aluminum followed by electron bombardment,a
very important result, I think (Kamada, l994). The
micrographs clearly show that the metal is locally melted at the
deuterium molecular collections/Al interface. [13]
Temporarily, we have to give up hope (but not search!) for a
theory and have to accept that cold fusion will develop as a
technology and:" Technology is not a science, not a discipline,
not a tool and not engineering. It's know-how." (Alfred
This is very bad news for some of our friends. However, we
will soon be able to understand some basic facts and will have
a usable paradigm. Don't forget, even Confucius was advised
by his ancestors to "Gain power by accepting reality."


[l] V.A. Chechin, V.A. Tsarev, M.Rabinowitz, Y.E. Kim,
"Critical Review of Theoretical Models for Anomalous Effects
in Deuterated Metals, "International Journal of Theoretical
Physics, vol 33, no 3, 1994, pp 517-670

[2] M.Fleischmann, S.Pons, G.Preparata, "Possible Theories
of Cold Fusion, "Nuovo Cimento, vol 107A, no 1, Jan. 1994,
pp143-154 (these papers do not pass the barrier of the Pd/D2O

[3] R.L. Mills, S.P. Kneizis, "Excess Heat Production by the
Electrolysis of an Aqueous Potassium Carbonate Electrolyte
and the Implications for Cold Fusion, Fusion Technology,
20, Aug. 1991, p 65.

[4] J. Dufour, J. Foos, J.P. Millot, "Cold Fusion by Sparking
in Hydrogen Isotopes,"Cold Fusion Source Book, edited by
Fusion Information Center, Utah, May 1994, paper no 27.

[5] S. Focardi, R. Habel, F. Piantelli, "Anomalous Heat
Production in Ni-H Systems,"Il NuovoCimento,vol 107A,
no 1, Jan. 1994, pp 163-157.

[6] R. Stringham, "Cavitation Induced Micro-fusion," 4th
International Conference on Cold Fusion, Maui, Hawaii, 6-9
Dec. 1994, paper no 3.9.

[7]J.L.Griggs, "Calorimetric Study of Excess Heat Production
within the Hydrosonic Pump System using Light Water,"
Cold Fusion Source Book, edited by Fusion Information
Center, Utah, paper no 42.

[8] P. Gluck, "The Surfdyn Concept: An Attempt to Solve the
Puzzles of Cold Nuclear Fusion," Fusion Technology, 24
Aug. 1993, p 122.

[9] P. Gluck, "Cold Fusion - a Logical Network Approach,"
International Conference on Cold Fusion, Minsk, Belarus, May
24-25, 1994.

[10a] O.Reifenschweiler, "Reduced Radioactivity in Small
Titanium Particles," Physics Letters A, 184, 1994, pp

[10b]O. Reifenschweiler: II. More detailed description of our
experiments with proposals to improve the experimental
technique (provided by the author)

[11] Y. Arata, Y-C. Zhang, "A New Energy Caused by
`Spillover Deuterium', "Proc. Japanese Academy 70, ser.B
(1994), pp106-111, communication by Jed Rothwell.
[12] F. Celani, A. Spallone, P.Tripodi, A. Petrocchi, D. Di
Gioacchino, M. Boutet, "D/Pd Loading Ratio up to 1.2:1 by
High Power Microsecond Pulsed Electrolysis in Pd Plates,"
Cold Fusion Source Book, edited by Fusion Information
Center, Utah, May 1994, paper no 25.

[13]K. Kamada, H. Kinoshita, H. Takahashi A., "Anomalous
Heat Evolution of Deuteron Implanted Al on Electron
Bombardment," National Institute for Fusion Science, Report

NISF-281, May 1994.

Tuesday, November 12, 2013


  1. The field is in a very bad situation: the phenomenon is real, but it is not understood and is not yet manageable, cannot be upgraded in a technology.  Metaphorically, it is ill.                                                

  1. The main cause is: Cold Fusion was discovered years before its time when Science and Technology were not prepared to understand and develop it.

  1. An aggravating factor: Cold Fusion was discovered perhaps in the worst place possible. Its “cradle” the electrolytic cell is too sensitive, too wet, too dirty and too cold(!) for a reliable functioning, for scale-up and for technological development. We also have to add to this the extreme complexity of the phenomena.

  1. Due to these harmful effects at its birth, the field has developed very slowly, mainly horizontally, incrementally and is still in a kind of larva/infantile state, being retarded scientifically and immature technologically. Scientifically there is no consensus even for the most fundamental concepts and issues as topology, nature and mechanism of the reactions; technologically no real progress is possible due to inherent weaknesses of all systems as discussed here too many times.

5.     There is a cure to this immaturity illness; there are solutions to its existential problems. There is a direction of real progress in the field. The nature of the usable form of LENR is very different of the classic form (PdD system); therefore in order to prevail the field must go through very profound and even surprising metamorphoses. First, enhanced excess heat release has to be achieved by transition from static LENR to dynamic LENR+ continuously generating active sites. The field will be developed by multi-disciplinar research centered on the relatively new science of Nanoplasmonics. At the end of its  25 Years War, the field will claim it has grown up and will prove it, following a very radical paradigm change, kind of mentality reversal and focus on technology and engineering. However, in parallel with the coming commercial triumph, eventually science will also flourish.

Thursday, October 24, 2013


The ICCF-18 paper:
"Theoretical Analysis and Reaction Mechanisms for 
Experimental Results of Hydrogen-Nickel Systems" by Yeong E. Kim and John Hadjichristos can be accessed from now at

I consider this paper of paramount importance, both by what it says and by the
new ways it opens, trends it suggests- it is a (the) genuine New Wave in New Energy opus.
I hope you will approach it with a positive/open minded attitude; your questions
and comments focused on the paper are welcome.

Thursday, October 17, 2013

About the secret catalyzer used by Andrea Rossi in his E-cat reactor.

Guest Editorial by Stoyan Sarg Sargoytchev, York University, Canada

The analysis of some LENR experiments provided in my article in General Science Magazine [1] and in my recent book, Physics of Nuclear Fusion [2], leads to the suggestion what could be the Rossi catalyzer used in his E-cat reactor. In the E-cat reactor of Andrea Rossi and Hyperion reactor of Defkalion [3] one and a same nuclear reaction Ni + H -> Cu is reported. Despite some differences in the technical approach, the analysis unveils that one and a same physical phenomenon takes place in both rectors. In Hyperion reactor the high voltage discharge firstly causes a dissociation of the molecular to atomic hydrogen and then obtaining of a proper Rydberg state of the hydrogen. According to the source [4], Strongly magnetized Rydberg atoms and plasmas continue to attract interest for several reasons; they represent a well-known paradigm for quantum-chaos, exhibit interesting collective and collisional properties and may provide a superior route towards simultaneous atom-plasma confinement and control.
My theoretical work [1,2,5] and experimental research on cold plasma [2] reveals the existence of a specific state of the Rydberg atom of hydrogen in which the orbiting electron does not emits optical spectrum, while its magnetic moment becomes detectable. This is a new distinguishable feature of this state, so it is called ion-electron pair. The stability of this ion-electron pair is kept by the attractive Coulomb forces, while the electron rotating around the heavier ion (proton in case of hydrogen) drives the pair due to its anomalous magnetic moment. The electron has 658 times greater magnetic moment than the proton, so the magnetic fields from a large number of ion-electron pairs combine constructively in clusters creating a much stronger magnetic field. The strong magnetic field detected during the live test of Hyperion reactor broadcasted on 22-23 July 2013 might be a signature of this effect. The magnetic field of some ion-electron pair interacts with the nuclear magnetic moment of the nucleus that is in a proper nuclear spin state. As a result the Coulomb barrier is overcome, so the proton from the hydrogen ion-electron pair is fused to the nickel nucleus converted it to a copper. The proper nuclear spin facilitates the cold fusion process, according to Ruggero Santilli, as discussed in [2]. In the Hyperion reactor, the creation of ion-electron pairs (Rydberg atoms) is caused by the high voltage plasma discharge. In the E-cat reactor, this phenomenon might be invoked by beta particles emitted by some radioactive isotopes. This could be the secret catalyzer used by Rossi in his E-cat device. Practically it is not convenient to mix the radioactive beta emitters with the nickel powder. It is more appropriate to place them at the outside wall of the container holding the powder. Then the external shield of beryllium used in the E-cat reactor might play a double role: shielding the external environments from the beta particles and shielding from some radiation obtained due to nuclear reactions. In provided public test Rossi did not allow close examination of the E-cat device by sensitive detectors.
The process of ion-electron pair formation, its properties and interaction with the proper nuclear spin is described in the book [2]. Additionally a new method was suggested for estimation of the position of the proton prior to the nuclear fusion. The analysis and the new method suggest also a possibility for other nuclear reactions using chromium and hydrogen. It is shown that the right selection of heavier element isotope is important for successful cold fusion reaction with minimum radioactive by-products.
In conclusion, the Rossi secret could be uncovered by experimenting with beta emitters.  There is a large variety of such isotopes produced for medical purpose and defectoscopy.

1.     Stoyan Sarg, Physics of Cold Fusion with BSM-SG Atomic Models, http://gsjournal.net/Science-Journals/Essays/View/4805
2.     Stoyan Sarg, Structural Physics of Nuclear Fusion, Amazon.com, (2013)

5.     Stoyan Sarg, Basic Structures of Matter - Supergravitation Unified Theory (2002), Amazon.com

Wednesday, October 16, 2013


Because we are living in It, it is quite interesting and even useful to understand how this World is functioning, how it does work.
I have tried to understand what, how and why happens, and how long. Actually I have worked out an original system described in my papers and editorials and Septoes.

The very core of it is the inherent, inexhaustible, infinite interestingness of our Universe.  Both Freeman Dyson and I have concluded that our Universe is most interesting of all the possible universes. This means there are myriads of alternative universes with no life, no sex, no conscience, no stupidity, no evil appearing there at all, and some of these are still privileged if you compare them with most rudimentary universes missing molecules, atoms, quarks whatever down to those primitive ones in which space and time are unable to become distinct, annoying beyond any imaginable limits. However we live in a fine interesting Universe and:
The Universe feeds our insatiable curiosity forever
The Universe is obsessed to be interesting.

The problem is how can things be really interesting- first of all surprising? The answer is … a brand new Septoe:
Interesting: things are not what they seem.
In order to know the differences between what seems to be and what really is, humans have created Science and Research, these have to use thinking
The idea of this new Septoe is quite negative; it is known we, humans have many problems to solve all the time, it is not difficult to guess that the problems can be solved only starting from the correct premises and if we have usually the wrong, unrealistic premises- we are in trouble before starting to solve the problems.
This explains Rule no 3 here:

that is dreadful; you must to waste a lot of time, energy, effort, creativity just for defining the problems (to understand them) instead of effectively solving them. The great task of human thinking is to differentiate what the things seem from what the things really are.
This is a continuous, inexorable, unavoidable, destructive-constructive, difficult process in all fields of knowledge; it is evolution and progress the unique way of improvement. I hope you have guessed: cold fusion is no exception! However it is in a sense an extreme case because it was discovered so much before its time and in such a wrong place, I have repeatedly told you about this unhappy start- the most clearly probably when I have confessed that everything I knew about cold fusion was wrong. The best euphemism would be to say that my writings had a very limited impact: palladium is still “glowrious”, the F& P electrolytic cell went to the European Commission, and very few colleagues think there is a qualitative essential difference between LENR classic and the enhanced excess heat generating LENR+ and its advanced form, HENI... If at least the title of this series is true:

then CF/LENR is still an immature field and it makes no sense for me to continue, I will have zero success anyway. Obviously it is saison morte for publishing now, serious work is acousticophobic/ligyrophobic (see the list of phobias) - and the chances of be more convincing now are low. However this morning something strange and unbelievable has happened this morning- Kurt Harden the editor of the wonderful Cultural Offering- a daily enchantment for me has published a perfect description of the impossible, as defined for our field. I have asked Kurt’s permission to reproduce it for you, and this time, I am sure you will confirm me honestly that this has never happened in our solid basic memecracy, and it never will:

A change of mind

He changed his mind.  He altered his course.  He reversed his position.  He advocated a new path. 

The decision had been made.  The course established.  The plan was set in motion.  Details were mapped.

But then new information came in.  It was good data and it showed something new.  Something different from the old data.  The savings weren't there.  The results would not be as expected.  He recognized this, tilted his head back and chuckled.  

A new plan was made.  

It was that simple.  New data.  New conclusion.  An altered path.  

No ego.  Just a change of mind.
Posted by KH at 10/15/2013 9:57 PM 
Categories: Business

 I am very impressed, even shocked by such a never met possibility for “us”. Did something even a bit similar happened with a leading cold fusion theorist? I cannot remember; as far I know all theories are born via spontaneous generation, increase in complexity but do not change. Any and all disputes re LENR go a way of exactly 360 degree i.e return, sometimes very tired, to the very starting point- I have seen a few thousands of examples. 
Detailitis, Dilutitis, Disputitis- An Eternal Palladium Braid.
What can we do? I have always told that initiative is the great differentiator between people – so I have to start the action. I will write down 100 times: “Palladium is the future! It is NOT an unmanageable expensive metal!! The cradle is the best vehicle!!!” 
Using autosuggestion well I will succeed to believe that CF is what everybody knows it is and not was those bad New Wave people try to convince us.                                                                                                     Who will follow my example of making such a Harden type miracle- in the inverse direction?


Tuesday, October 8, 2013


A great lady whom I will ever admire, has stated a sad and merciless truth: “ Old age is no place for sissies”(Bette Davis)
It is a nice exercise to translate ‘sissies’ in more languages, but anyway it is about weak people. On the contrary, it is not nice at all to state in practice how painfully real is this sentence. OK, we all have to learn to ignore with some elegance the inconvenient things; LENR is no exception especially if we have pet ideas, personal theories and recurrent slogan-memes.
Bette Davis is right and many other things are no place for sissies; an example is technology, creating new revolutionary technologies.
Today I want to tell you about a special area of technology, not simple, not easy to define, describe and to do; full of contradictions and with some moral implications. My original expertise is in chemical industry- seemingly is not the best place for using reverse engineering. Taking a simple product as ethanol or dioctylphtalate, usually quality = purity and even the most advanced analytical instrumental methods cannot reveal how it was manufactured. Except perhaps some significant trace impurities. However, it happens I have worked with a product having a really complex morphology and structure. I can say today suspension PVC was for me what mathematics was for Yiannis Hadjichristos- a long tough school of complexity.
I remember well when I have spoken for the first time about the concept of reverse engineering.
A sympathetic and agile radio reporter from radio Craiova, Mr. Tantaru (Mosquito in   Romanian) has discovered that the research lab of OLTCHIM that I was leading, could be a source of news- and has made a habit to visit us each Sunday morning and make interviews with me- about global and, local technological progress. He was a real mosquito, coming early and asking much.
Once I told him about the necessity of total documentation-information something I have discovered independently from the then popular idea of total football (soccer).

Mosquito: So you consider that if somebody works for the technology of PVC he has to read and learn everything it was
published about the technology of PVC?

Gluck:  If you are a serious professional, this is actually a minimum. It is just the tip of the iceberg- read all papers and all patents and all available technical leaflets and even advertisements. You can learn much about how to manufacture the product from these, however the real truth- why to do what you do, why NOT to do some things…this deep truth is at the people and hidden in the products. You have to communicate with the people and to analyze the best products from the market.

Such statements were not in accordance with the politics of the communist Party claiming we are more advanced than the moribund capitalism; I could tell everything non-political at that radio from the simplest reason- it was obvious that it has exactly zero audience, nobody was interested to listen it. It was an exercise of rhetoric and an illusion of some freedom. Paradox. However PVC-S being a strategic product and its market competitivity essential, I was allowed to communicate with colleagues, to ask papers and conference reports, and even samples of products. Surely everything I wrote was supervised and censored by some incompetent people but the laziness of the censors and the laissez faire spirit were my most powerful allies- I dare to say I was very well informed. I have lead an extended program of analyzing and characterization of many (around 100) samples of leading high quality PVC assortments, from many companies. Kind of multiple parallel sui generis reverse engineering. Take a sample, analyze it
by a dozen of specific analytical methods, combine the results with what you know from the patents and the papers of the experts working at that company, try to determine correlations, compare, think and think again. Apply the scientific method, directly or in steps, more or less primitively and continue to work for a few years incessantly with almost unlimited patience.
Process or harmonize contradictory data, manage surprises, swallow series of failures, enjoy complexity and make the conclusions understandable for your collaborators. Apply them creatively in practice. Is this a job for technological sissies?  How can be judged such a program in the light of professional ethics?
Is it just an extension of documentation, a special method of gathering vital information? Or is it an incipient form of industrial
espionage? You are not cheating anybody, not stealing intellectual property, it is very hard work.
It is known that the really good salesman knows the products of the competition better than his own. The competition is free to take your product and analyze it at will. Patents protecting a product have to be respected; patents protecting a process are vulnerable anyway. I think that reverse engineering is an exam for the expert
and an implicit threat for every manufacturer.

However industrial espionage is a dirty affair and I want to illustrate this with a spectacular case: that of the hyper fuel MG- microencapsulated gasoline. For more than 30 years tens of the best companies of the world have failed to make an usable product and were not able to build an engine working with it- decently. The idea of MG seemed to be a complete failure when a Romanian
Company Energie Arcal Uinoe – (Noah’s Ark Energies, NAE) has solved the problem and has presented prototypes of working MG machines Due to the too strict Romanian tax laws and to overwhelming bureaucracy, NAE has moved to Alaska. Quite recently the CTO of NAE, Ioan Santulescu has made a demo of half a day duration at the Iceland branch at Reykjavik of the company showing how well the MG generator works. Unfortunately the Icelandic Officer, of the company, Loftur Gretson has tried to steal and to send to the US competition, LEDOM Theorcomp, a few grams of NAE’s proprietary microencapsulated gasoline. It is not easy to cheat smart Romanians they have guessed this evil plan and have replaced the good product with an inactive one, with no traces of gasoline in it, so our Icelandic guy proved that industrial espionage is not for sissies, too.
However he made a lot of trouble and eventually the Icelandic branch of NAE has frozen; nothing to wonder in that cold climate. But do not worry, Romanians are inborn problem solvers and Ioan Santulescu is a great one, everything will be OK.

Thursday, October 3, 2013


Motto: In theory, theory and practice are the same. In practice, they are not.
Albert Einstein (attributed)

Twenty-one years ago, on a nice October day, I stepped into the big festivity room of the Academy of Economic Science, where the official opening of the university year was held. I was a fresh(wo)man. After the usual opening words from the Academy officials, Professor Doctor Anghel Rugina was introduced to the audience, as a prominent American Economist of Romanian origin. He was 79-years-young back then (he died in 2008, at the age of 95).

It was the first time I have heard about this guy, however after I listened to his very short speech, I knew I would remember him for the rest of my life. He told us to value every moment of the university years ahead and to pay attention to all our teachers, no matter how we judge them – good or bad, strong or weak. He said we should always have in mind that there is much to learn also from the bad teachers; from them, we learn how we should NOT be in our future life. And sometimes such learning may prove more valuable than the positive one.

Later on, I discovered during a Six Sigma training that one of the most powerful methods of brainstorming is practicing the negative thinking. It is very useful especially when you hit a dead end in terms of solutions. You challenge the participants to think of anything which can make the situation worse than it is. Negative creativity is far more imaginative than positive one. And then, you identify those actions which, by reversing the idea, have potential to become constructive solutions.

My dear friend Peter (the ‘owner’ of this English blog who is generous enough to host my postings here), is another fervent supporter of the constructive power of the word ‘NO’.  He has developed a sensational set of rules for problem solving. Most of those rules I apply in my day to day life. Peter had found supporters of his ideas worldwide and thus they helped him translate those rules in many languages. You can look for a version in your own language here.

I come back to the learning process now. That October day in 1992 marked one of the most important lessons for me, even thou Prof. Dr. Rugina was never on my university curriculum. Another memorable day was when I realized that the ‘Golden Rule’ which was instilled to me as a child would be better applied in its ‘Platinum’ version. More exactly, not only you should not do to others what you would not like them do to you, but you should basically do to others what they would like to be done to them (something like first observe, then empathize and only in the end actually deliver).

I would stop here with examples of my past learning, as it would be totally unfair to mention some great teachers from my life and omit others. Therefore I will mention none. It suffices to say that I consider myself extremely lucky, as I have had the opportunity to learn from everyone and everything that surrounds me. I have been learning from family and school, work place and nature, friends and foes, dreams and reality alike.

Why do I consider ‘the teacher’ as one of the ways we have to focus on, so that we can get ahead? I believe no extensive arguments are needed. It is obvious for most of the people that the current worldwide situation (which I am not sure we should even call ‘crisis’ any more) is deeply rooted in the moral hazard that has gradually swamped most of the inhabitants of this world.

I do not believe that we will solve our moral dilemmas by splitting the world into 99% vs. 1% - the poor and pure vs. the rich and rotten. No one is free from moral hazard. Almost any man or woman in this world is exposed daily to temptation, corruption and sin. The difference between the 99% and the 1% is the type of temptation they face – more or less expensive. Mankind is full of sinners and saints, liars and truth-holders, with a rather reasonable distribution on all regions, religions, professions and income levels.

There is of course one significant difference, which is that the 1% decides on taxes and laws, respectively distribution of wealth and punishment. And they do so, basically as they please. But in this respect we should wake up and see reality for what it is. It was always like this. There were always kings and servants, nobles and peasants, generals and troopers, priests and sinners. There was always a reasonable middle class, providing services to whoever could afford them, and there were always taxes and duties.

What got really complicated in the past decades was the increasing interdependence between democratic systems (which need electors to legitimate their rulers) and financial systems. In theory, each democratic system is based on separation of powers. In practice, they are all interconnected and fueled by one circulatory system, which is the financial system – the blood that irrigates all the state organs in the contemporary society. And also in practice, there is no humanly operated system which is immune to moral hazard. Everyone started to bend moral rules in order to get what they targeted – some wanted power, other wanted profit, most of them wanted both.

I believe everybody has heard of the little Golden Fish (you know… the one who can make dreams come true!) or of Aladdin’s lamp. In the past decades, the financial system assumed this fairy-tale role for whoever wanted to make a wish come true. Car, house, political or legal power, and so on. Some had smaller and other had bigger dreams. As you know, some things cannot be bought… for everything else there is xxxx (will not mention the credit card provider, but you get the point).

Therefore, we have nice theoretical separation of powers and nice theoretically functional macroeconomics and nice theoretically working financial systems. Practically, informal systems were born from the interaction of the initially planned theoretical ones. And they started to grow and lead a life of their own, just like tumors in an apparently healthy body. Doctors only noticed when it was too late. It is metastatic already.

It is hard to tell which system has sinned more and who is to blame for what. All the ‘systems’ which should be theoretically functional are practically as good as their human operators. Just as it happens with machines and company – their lives depend on the quality of the people behind them.

And thus I finally get to the point of this Way edition: why do we need to redefine our Teachers? 

Because we cannot kill our systems. It would be like a mass suicide, as they are actually our working places, our source of income, our future education and health service systems. We need to re-adapt them to a practically functional reality, in a way which is acceptable to our moral standards.

Communities cry out nowadays that their educational systems are failing. Unfortunately, they seem to refer purely to the organized school, college and university education; however I would like to go one step further. I would also blame it on what Peter likes to call it the new religion – Moneyteism. 

And specifically on one of its Gods - the Career God. It is killing most of our teachers. Families are dying because of lack of focus on personal time (while home education is crucial for a successful school impact). A large number of managers do not follow a teaching path because of the perceived competition. They are afraid to lose power and thus they keep information and prevent knowledge sharing. They are afraid that their own people may learn too fast and shine too much when (alas!), they should know that people reflect their light upon their teachers. By suffocating talent within a team, managers are basically getting in the way of their own future development. Good managers should spot talents and encourage them to learn as much as possible, regard them not as threats but as opportunities. The talent pool can either provide successor ship (and thus set their manager free, to further expand their own career) or can become peers in other important areas of the organization and create an ideal network for their former teachers and colleagues. A manager, who treats the people as potential future stars, is on the way to own personal growth.

Is then the Career God a bad God for us? I believe not. I believe that if we start seeing It as a Teacher we can improve our life as a whole – both professional and personal side. And the same goes for other Moneyteistic Gods. If we learn good things from them and not let them rule us, we can live a fulfilling life.

I will end my post today with a common sense question: WHO should be the Teacher of tomorrow?
The short answer is: me, you, us together. And we should be also pupils at the same time, all our lives. Because we have to walk before we can run, we have to learn before we can teach, and we have to be proud to have lived before we can die in peace.

We are the teachers of our families (husbands and wives, kids, parents, other relatives), of our work places (colleagues and bosses), of our friends and our enemies equally. We are good teachers and bad teachers in one and the same body, because we cannot be saints all the time - we are merely humans. We should not be afraid of this but embrace our nature, while remembering all the time that WE ARE THE TEACHERS. 

The people around us will learn both from the good stuff and the bad, how they should and how they should not be - every day! Sometimes they will get it wrong, misunderstand our ways and misjudge our actions. But we should never give up being ourselves, with the permanent knowledge that we are the masters of our life and the teachers of our fellow people. And as such, we need to live our life so we can smile when we see ourselves in the mirror – every day.

All the best,

Georgina Popescu