Tuesday, April 30, 2013

New Energy trends paper about Defkalion Green Energies

"Trends Journal" edited by Gerald Celente has published a paper about New Energy that includes a part about Defkalion Green Energies .
This journal is readable only be “members” (subscribers) therefore I will include here only pages 32-3 about DGT.

DGT wants to make a small correction: “ only at NI Week it will be a “physical” public demonstration, at ICCFF-18 there will be a theoretical demo.


by Bennett Daviss
The Trends Journal • Spring 2013, pp 30-34

Part about Defkalion pp 33-34)


Andrea Rossi, the maverick Italian inventor of the “E-Catalyzer” (Trends Journal, Autumn 2011), was the first to unveil a device that reputedly derives abundant, radiation-free nuclear energy by combining hydrogen gas with powdered nickel. Last fall, Rossi delivered yet another version of his invention to an unnamed “military partner” for testing.
But Rossi’s former partners at Defkalion Green Technologies aren’t waiting for more tests. They’re ready to make products.
Defkalion was formed in Greece in 2009 to commercialize this as-yet-mysterious reaction: a combination of powdered nickel, hydrogen gas and a few proprietary catalysts under precise combinations of pressures and temperatures that produce heat to make steam. Rossi’s calculations indicate that as much as 20 times as much energy,
as heat, comes out of the device than is used to run it – far
more than a chemical reaction could generate.
Also, the reaction among the materials doesn’t produce
radiation but leaves behind copper isotopes and bits of
iron in quantities not present before the reactor was turned
on. This indicates that the process transmutes some elements in the reaction chamber into others, a signature of
a nuclear event. Many observers believed Rossi’s device
was poised to become the first commercial device able to
capitalize on clean or “low energy” nuclear reactions to
deliver cheap, abundant, pollution-free energy.


But Defkalion and the notoriously quirky Rossi disagreed
over both scientific and business ideas and divorced early
in 2011. In the interim, several of Rossi’s early supporters
have wearied of his string of unmet promises of public
demonstrations and commercial products. Now Defkalion’s technology may overtake Rossi’s as the first venture
to market nickel-hydrogen devices, as it unveils two inventions of its own.
Alex Xanthoulis, Defkalion’s CEO, is quick to emphasize that the company’s products differ sharply from Rossi’s. An unnamed “major US organization,” he says, has
compared Rossi’s and Defkalion’s devices on 14 points.
“It found only two the same – the use of hydrogen and the
use of nickel,” he says. “Otherwise, the two are completely
There are other points of departure. Rossi’s early devices, like the inventor himself, also were quirky. The temperatures they would reach weren’t predictable;
they produced only a few watts of excess energy; and,
when shut off, took varying lengths of time to stop producing heat.
In contrast, Defkalion’s machines reportedly produce
heat at precise temperatures that customers require and can be shut off within a few seconds. The devices also produce energy up to 10 kilowatt-hours, not single watts as
others have. The nickel-hydrogen fuel modules can easily be pulled out and replaced when depleted, a task that should need to happen only every few months.
Defkalion’s first product is called “Hyperion” and will
enter the market early next year. A cube about 20 inches on a side, it will be marketed as a heater or boiler for
homes and light industry needing up to five megawatts of
The second product is a larger-scale reactor that canbe used to drive turbines or even cars, trains, ships, space
satellites, and planes. Defkalion reports fielding inquiries
from hundreds of companies around the world and has
chosen to partner with at least 10 large ones – including
three vehicle manufacturers, a utility company, telecommunications firms, and a maker of aircraft – to continue research and development. Some of the companies already are testing commercial devices using the reactor as
a power source.
If Defkalion’s figures are right, the economic case is
compelling. The cheapest electricity is generated from
nuclear fuel at a cost of about US$.045 per kilowatt-hour.
In contrast, Defkalion calculates that it can make electricity for US$0.0035 cents, less than a tenth as much.
Xanthoulis notes that setting up a five-megawatt photovoltaic array in Greece, with 120,000 square meters of
solar panels delivering full power for about seven hours a
day, would cost US$10 million.
Defkalion, however, maintains that its reactor, capable
of providing the same amount of energy, would be only
20 feet long, cost $1.5 million, and deliver full power 24
hours a day.
In practical terms, an ocean freighter, for example,
spends around $27,000 a day on diesel at current prices,
needs to make port for refueling, spews sooty exhaust, and
risks polluting the seas in case of a fuel spill. Swapping
the contents of a ship’s engine room for a Defkalion reactor would call for four 20-foot containers and fuel costs of
about $400 a day. Refueling could be done at sea every
six months and the risk of air and ocean pollution falls
to zero.
Defkalion will conduct a public demonstration of its
reactor at the International Cold Fusion Conference during the third week of July 2013 at the University of Missouri in Columbia, and another at NIWeek, the National
Instruments Conference in Austin, Texas, to be held August 5 – 8 this year.
What the company won’t do is attempt to explain how
its devices work. Defkalion is purely a business entity,
Xanthoulis points out. While other ventures in low-energy nuclear reactions have been led by scientists intent
on making new physics, Defkalion’s purpose is to make
products. “We don’t operate on the principle of chemical
reactions or nuclear reactions,” he says. “We operate on
the principle of Mrs. Maria.”
Mrs. Maria was a family friend who lived in the same
apartment building in Greece as Xanthoulis. When
Greece’s economic calamity struck, Mrs. Maria’s pension
was cut by 40 percent and she couldn’t pay for heat. The
building’s manager confided in Xanthoulis, who agreed
to pay the old woman’s heating bill and swore the manager to silence. In the spring, Mrs. Maria told Xanthoulis
how clever she’d been: the apartments all around her
were heated, so she stayed warm even though she didn’t
pay for heat.
“Mrs. Maria didn’t know why she had heat and we can’t
explain why our products create heat,” Xanthoulis says.
“Our priority is not to explain what atoms are doing. Our
priority is to make sure that Mrs. Maria stays warm. Of
course we want a scientific explanation, but publishing
scientific papers is not our first priority.”
So far, Defkalion has survived on capital supplied by a
small group of partners. Now that the company is ready to
grow, it’s also ready to talk with investors. It shuns venture
capitalists and banks, but has entered discussions with a
few corporations and individuals and is ready to hear from
Editor’s Note

For more information, contact:
Defkalion Green Technologies
1140 Homer Street, Vancouver, BC Canada V6B 2X6
phone: 604 683 5555
email: info@defkalion-energy.com

Monday, April 29, 2013

AXIL dixit

The enemy of LENR is scientific focus. Development of LENR requires good knowledge levels in a dozen fields of science and engineering to support any progress in the subject.
Science is usually done in a systematic way where one inquiry or measurement is inspired or built on a previous one.
It is a methodology where systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, leads to the support and the formulation, testing, modification and eventual perfection of a hypotheses.
Most science is evolutionary where a concept is continually examined in increasing detail and where one element is based on the next.
This approach to the acquisition of knowledge eventually shapes the thinking process of the people who make their living doing it.
In this view, scientific progress is seen primarily as "development-by-accumulation" of accepted facts and theories.
The incremental scientist needs a reliable framework of concepts to frame their perception of reality. I call this scientific focus.
This type of mentality does not lend itself toward revolutionary science.
The episodic scientific model persists during periods of conceptual continuity in normal business as usual science.
For example, it is unrealistic to ask a chemist to design a car. The chemist has a focused view of his particular subject constrained by his education, his goals, his interests, and the requirements of his employment.
No one person has the time or the intellectual storage capacity to learn and understand everything that is required to design and build a complex system.
In our example, the chemist knows nothing of aerodynamics, engine development, interior design, transmission shift points, and so on.
Designing a car requires a culture of allied technologies.
Those interested in progression and advancement of LENR should understand that a culture of allied LENR technologies must be envisioned, understood, defined, and organized.
From time to time a revolutionary thinker defies the incremental scientific approach and uses “out of the box” thinking methods to define a new paradigm in knowledge.
During such revolutions in science and allied technology, the discovery of unexplained anomalies leads to a whole new paradigm that changes the rules of the game and the "map" directing new research, asks new questions of old data, and moves beyond the puzzle-solving of normal science.
For example, the revolutionary science of the Copernican Revolution emphasized that, in its beginning, it did not offer more accurate predictions of celestial events, such as planetary positions, than the Ptolemaic system, but instead appealed to some practitioners based on a promise of better, simpler, solutions that might be developed at some point in the future.
The motivation to recognize revolutionary science and technology comes when those who make their living in recognizing that this type of disruptive advancement is occasionally possible.
These systems oriented thinkers will eventually recognize that LENR is possible, useful, and most importantly… profitable.
The Rossi-types do not need to reveal their secrets. They simply have to show that LENR is possible, useful, and profitable.
When LENR gets to this take off point, the current world culture of industrial competition in technology will do the rest.

Sunday, April 28, 2013


Dear new friends of Ego Out and me,

My Blog has only one writing in your language:
however you can use these rules to solve all your problems.
It is a pity that the Rules are still not part of curriculums in
millions of schools

I also want to mention that my best writer friend, Valeriu Butulescu who has generously supported Info Kappa (the Romanian variant of INFORMAVORE’s SUNDAY) with his
unique aphorisms- has studied in Poland, has a Polish wife and
belongs to the Polish culture in the same manner as Stanislaw Jercy Lec.

Welcome to Ego Out and please join me in my travel to New Energy!



I still like to learn. Today I come upon this paper, actually an ancient management/business slogan:
You Can Learn More From Failure Than Success

It is an excellent paper due to the well chosen applications; however the idea per se is a relative and fragmented truth (a Pareto truth)
I want to show you my own examples, pedagogical failures and
simply harmful failures. Two recent examples:

A week ago I have launched a very emotional appeal to the Professors who have tested Rossi’s Hot Cat. A day before yesterday I had a fine Skype discussion with a very young and very new (in the field) LENR researcher and I was amazed how
much is he worried by Rossi’s chaotic, unpredictable, bad behavior? He thinks Rossi does a lot of harm to the field.

OK I have not received any signal, response from the Professors.
I have learned more but have understood even less from Rossi’s Blog

a) there were 15 professors plus helpers:

Andrea Rossi
Dear Paul:
The tests have involved 15 persons between Professors and Researchers from 4 Universities and I do not know where the publication will be made. I cannot know if between them there was also a reviewer of a scientific magazine. I have not been told anything about this issue.
Warm Regards,

b) Rossi CANNOT give the names etc. of the professors:

1.    Yona
Dear Andrea Rossi
Can you reveal the names of the Professors of the Indipendent Party that made the report, and from which Universities they are?
Warm Regards
2.    Translate
Andrea Rossi
Dear Yona:
No, I cannot.
Warm Regards,

c) people are trying in vain to get any information about those professors: \

1.    gio
Dear Ing.Rossi
you do not know where the publication of tests will be made by the Professors, but i think you know when will be made.
I will try to explain better my opinion.
I think the professors have a dead line to make the publication, for example 60 days from the end of their tests.
Am I wrong?
2.    Andrea Rossi
Dear gio:
you are wrong, the Professors are totally indipendent from us.
Warm Regards,
And I have no news, because, as I said, I have not contacts with the Third Indipendent Party’s Professors since the end of the tests. I can only repeat that the publication of the report will be surely published.

My appeal to the Professors has failed miserably, I have even not received confidential information from some friend saying he knows them but he cannot tell anything due to NDA. The most relevant common characteristic of the professors is their total independence. Independency from what?
This insuccess is a failure, but not only my personal failure; Reason, Common Sense and Professionalism are in the same boat with me.

An other failure, more painful
It went almost unnoticed and uncommented despite the fact that it contains some really challenging ideas as:
a) Cold Fusion is in such a deep trouble because it has arrived too early when we were still missing the means and ideas necessary for solving the problem. This justifies perfectly the failure to convert Cold Fusion in a practical energy source and actually is great historical compliment for our Founding Fathers. And, despite these the idea was 110% ignored,
b)  The scientific method cannot be applied well to LENR just because a) is still valid; a creative symbiosis of science and engineering is the condition to solve the problems – both understanding and applications.
c) The dream and promise of Cold Fusion was Infinite Cheap Clean Energy and the idea of a perfect theory has appeared only later  after the accumulation of many experimental failures of a specific kind based on difficult reproduction of the results. The losing and defeatist idea that both insiders and outsiders have the ethical-scientific obligation to tolerate irreproducible results was created by necessity and works against genuine problem solving.
OK, this writing had zero success. Should I tell only pleasant things to my dear colleagues? I prefer telling what I think it is the truth- as LENR is NOT LENR+.

An unfulfilled promise is a failure too.
I have promised to systematically debunk pseudo-wise parables and stories of all ages, but I have not followed the idea in part being lazy, in part being busy and eventually being scared to offend some sacred cows. I wrote a sketch of essay showing how unrealistic is the Parable of the Tares but I have never published it. That parable is contrary to a vital principle in both life and profession: be proactive!

A great failure – apologizes?
I wrote an informative web-search newsletter for 437 weeks (in Romanian) when I have worked at the local ISP. When I lost my job and have started with on my Blog http://egooutpeters.blogspot.ro/2011/01/info-search-no-1-438_16.html   in English, using the same taxonomy. Surprise: the Romanian variant had over 7000 subscribers; the English one was practically ignored. Being stubborn, I have continued to compose these long issues with 120-150 useful and interesting links each till No 500, but then I have abandoned step-wise the publication completely.
INFORMVORE”S SUNDAY was completely forgotten for 1.5 years at least, however starting yesterday – as my Blog’s statistics say it has a few hundred of readers, seemingly all coming from Poland. It is an almost miracle and I cannot explain it.
But I want to express my gratitude to these readers. Dziękuję!
Regarding LENR, I have learned a lot from failures, however it is the time to learn from very successful LENR+ breakthroughs and this will be my main job in the coming months.


Saturday, April 20, 2013



No one can persuade another to change. Each of us guards a gate of change that can only be opened from the inside. We cannot open the gate of another, either by argument or emotional appeal.

As I have already said more times, it is true that Fleischmann and
Pons gave us a mighty dream of Energy, as Rossi says too, however Rossi gave us a nightmare of uncertainty and confusion. He claims to be in great hurry, but acts as somebody convinced to live for ever. A frightening example of his behavior:

Andrea Rossi
Dear Tony:
I am very sorry, but I have absolutely no more contacts with the Third Indipendent Party Professors. The only thing I know is that the publication is pending, but I have no information about when and where.
We all are very anxious to read it.
Warm Regards,
 I am unable to swallow this message, it is an invincible challenge
to my intelligence except if the Professors are extraterrestrials using non-human logic.
Rossi says he is not more communicating with the Professors.
They were 11 if I remember well, has he ceased to speak with all the 11? Why does this happened? Who had the initiative of this divorce and what was the reason, obviously a powerful one?
Let’s think: if Rossi has cut the ties, that means he was discontented with the execution of the tests and with the results
Then Rossi believes the Hot Cat works but the Professors were unable to demonstrate it thus disappointing the inventor.

Had the professors decided to exclude Rossi from the circle of their friends? Suddenly, the entire Group? Why?

Actually there are 3 possibilities:

YES! the tests gave clear positive results, i.e. the Hot Cat is as over-unity as the Sun- that’s excellent news. In this case the professors must have the greatest respect and admiration toward Rossi, the Great Inventor and should e very happy and to communicate with him, isn’t it?

NO! despite heroic efforts and added creativity, the Professors were unable to find any trace of excess heat .In this case, being given that they can publish what they want (Rossi says so) it would be their ethical due to warn the world. OK, the Hot Cat is a new member of the feline family and what’s true for it must not be automatically true for the 1MW e-cats! but the warning is an ethical obligation.

MAYBE!  (as the Italians say “Forse che si, forse che no” the professors remained undecided all of them, or they voted 6 to 5
in the favor of the incandescent E-cat or against it. I think you agree that informing the world fast is an elementary duty of the Professors,                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   

I do not exclude other possibilities as this message was written by Rossi during celebrating something formidable in the company of all those mysterious Professors at the Nobu Miami Beach restaurant with a Mississippi of Veuve Cliquot champagne.

However, if we take Rossi seriously, then the image of the professors is that of a bunch of self-appointed scientists, slow thinking, illogically acting, barely able to write a scientific report
who do not know how to tell yes, no or maybe with a less then 200 words abstract.

Therefore, I think we all –those interested in LENR should sign this And it is sure somebody from our Group knows personally at least one of the Professors. They must be on the Web.

APPEAL TO THE PROFESSORS who have performed the Third Party Test of Andrea Rossi’s HOT CAT.

Dear Professors,

In case you are real persons, genuine scientists, serious professionals, dedicated to Truth; In case you have indeed made those tests, please publish and disseminate on Web ASAP the essence of the result, positive, negative or killer-neutral. For the sake of your prestige- publish, please!

Thank you!

Peter and….(your names and signatures)

Sunday, April 14, 2013


In 2013, the seriousness quotient of the discussions regarding LENR tends to sharply increase. If this trend continues, there are good chances for the discussions to become much more realistic too.                                                                                   An example: at this forum:                    
http://wavewatching.net/fringe/lenr-call-for-the-best-papers/                 my Australian friend Doug Marker (who was one of the first to accept the LENR/LENR+ division of the field) when supporting my ideas has received this answer of my long time US friend:
This is fundamental research, not engineering. Peter (Gluck) should understand that. (Jed Rothwell)
I cannot agree with Jed, first of all because he and Doug and I are referring to different things. We are speaking about the enhanced systems on their way to commercial applications while Jed is probably considering the entire field, broadly defined and undivided but cognitively dominated by the classic Fleischmann-Pons electrolysis cell.
Second: as repeatedly told, LENR+ is a result of a creative form of the science-engineering symbiosis.
I (and reality) cannot agree with Jed. I will also use this opportunity to answer to some of the implicit questions from a classic LENR “programmatic” document of historical importance- the Hagelstein Editorial                                                                   http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/Hagelsteinontheoryan.pdf
Let’s start with 3 quotations from my future writings:
The first:                                                                         
Fundamental research? What else can we learn about Mother Nature from the LENR research that (mildly put) She is a cruel and tetchy Stepmother? (I am both polite and feminist here- those who confronted the reproducibility problem can guess exactly what I wanted to say.)
The second
Fleischmann and Pons have not promised: “I will show you great things and difficult which you don’t know” No, they were very specific about ENERGY, a significant new source. Not a word about discovery of some deep secrets of Mme Nature, Cold fusion has started as applicative science and only after the accumulation of a sufficient quantity of failures it was converted in fundamental science to help it survive. And palladium has a special relationship with the isotopes of hydrogen thus creating endless possibilities for myriads of very interesting studies that can be classified as fundamental.
The third                                                                                   
The real Cold Fusion story: reality has imitated but also has messed up Christian Andersen’s fairy tale: a scientific ugly duckling is unable to grow up and become a beautiful technological swan even after 24 years!
But we can say much more. Victor Hugo has revealed us that: “Nothing is as powerful as an idea whose time has come.” The reverse is also true; an idea that arrives before its time is weak and has to wait patiently in obscurity. I think this can explain the tortuous history of the LENR field. In the very spirit of the initial F&P announcement the time of Cold Fusion will arrive when it will be able become a significant energy source. Not earlier!
The mother of all errors in LENR

I dare to say that an erroneous implicit, axiomatic presumption was made and has persisted: everybody was firmly convinced that the scientific method CAN be applied for cold fusion- at the time of its discovery, but now this seems to not be justified. CF came before its time. It is too complex, too new, to unexpected, too messy, too multifaceted, too dynamic, too non-linear and too weird to be really understood and controlled at the time of its discovery.
The problem was with Cold Fusion per-se not with the science or the scientific method that are developing continuously but have their limits and constrains at a given time.
I remember that the morphology and morphogenesis of PVC (my Thesis) could be understood well only when scanning electron microscopy became available.
Cold Fusion-in order to be made reliable and useful needs advanced nanotechnology, high-tech materials science, hyper-active forms of hydrogen, resonances, plasmonics and probably other novelties inexistent in 1989. Without the new knowledge and improved tools the chances of success were small.              
Even today classic LENR has more ambitions than genuine achievements in “serious” fundamental research. Incomplete and inadequate models and partial theories cannot lead to reliable good results.

Painful questions

In retrospective it is easy to put “smart” questions; I apologize, but here there are:

Why “we” have remained so many years so focused on the FP Cell despite failures in understanding and control?

Why the FP Cell was considered as kind of final solution and not an intermediate stage toward a greater, better something?

Why is this cell still mesmerizing so many of our best researchers when it was early discovered that it is something very fishy with it?

A part of the standard answer is that we know so much about palladium. It is huge literature about this; coming from an institute (http://www.itim-cj.ro/) where it was a fine group specialized in Pd, lead by a reputed expert, Dr, R V Bucur I have
a correct image of the subject. Many years, one of my favorite journals was http://www.platinummetalsreview.com/  Unfortunately, it seems Pd is missing just the essential energy generating virtues. One of the possible causes is that Pd’s attraction to deuterium is so “promiscuous”- both at the surface where it is OK and deep in the bulk that competes with the active surface. The very high D/Pd story.

A tragic view of the reproducibility problem in LENR

The heat effect is a certainty, however unfortunately a low quality certainty due the stunning, disturbing, endlessly annoying low reproducibility of the heat release- an over-discussed subject. This trouble calls for a decision, how much non-reproducibility can be tolerated? If we see that this problem is wicked, stubborn, practically cannot be solved, what should we do? How long can we tolerate this situation? This is an issue of professional education and the majority has the right to decide- it is about funds, effort, resources, waste. I am coming from an area with very low tolerance to risks= chemical industry. I cannot accept this reproducibility disaster but I have not lost my techno-faith in LENR. I tried to find a logical cause of this and despite the fact that I am right; I will roll in my grave for long time till my poisoning hypothesis will be thoroughly tested.
An incipient guess – the slow progress of the MFMP can be due to the de-activation of the Celani wires by some form of poisoning?!)

Continuing with nasty questions:

 Are people who cannot accept lack of reproducibility, skeptics?
Bad unjust oppressive people? Enemies of the progress?


With allusion to the Hagelstein editorial:

In retrospective, do some similarities exist between Piantelli and an in-community Semmelweis? If in 1994 it had been a mass exodus from the Pd-D to the Ni-H system, then the evolution of LENR could had been entirely different, more positive? (Futile question)

Inspired by the conclusions of the Hagelstein editorial

The author says: “excess heat in the Fleischmann-Pons experiment is a real effect” True, but somehow the usability of the effect has to be built, at a multi-watt scale.
There are big implications for science, and for society.” The implications for science will be great when the system will be clearly understood and those for society will appear via applications, society want value not truth.
Without resources science in this area will not advance. True! But the most necessary, critical resource is ideas- new, creative, radical, paradigm changing. Not money. This is true for many other cases today, see please this book:

The Infinite Resource: The Power of Ideas on a Finite Planet                                                                                           http://www.amazon.com/The-Infinite-Resource-Finite-Planet/dp/161168255X

With the continued destruction of the careers of those who venture to work in the area, progress will be slow, and there will be no continuity of effort. Sooner than you think, the new area of the field, LENR+ will enter a phase of epidemic development and many jobs will be created first of all in LENR+ development.

The relationship between “fundamental” LENR and applicative LENR+

Defkalion has chosen the friendly way and collaborates with classic LENR scientists, strategically this is good.

Rossi on the contrary said things like:
a- his Ni-H system has nothing to do with Piantelli's Ni-H system;
b- the can not learn much useful for his technology from the entire LENR field\
c- the true LENR specialists are not those who we have learned
to think;
d- Fleischmann's great merit is that he has given us a dream not the idea or science per se; (Rossi, at his turn has given us nightmare of uncertainty and waiting)
Rossi is paradoxical, he has made the great LENR discovery and this is derived not from the FP Cell but from heterogeneous catalysis, being a special case of support metal interaction (as I have suggested in my Topology paper in 1992).
If you take care to nuances you will remember that Defkalion’s CTO who has, taken LENR seriously first after his meeting with Rossi, has confessed that he has studied the lenr -canr literature first of all to know what to NOT do. And he has decided to build an original technology. He knew that while the “love” between Pd and D is too intense, the love between Ni and H is more moderate and there is always a risk of platonic love, ergo the use of strong love potions and rites is compulsory.
The ideological and praxeological split between the LENR and LENR+ camps is greater than we usually think. Simply told, they think differently, act differently, and have completely different aims. Time will change this, I bet. LENR+ will prevail.

It’s time to finish this paper

Peter Hagelstein speaks about science by vote and scientific method including consensus-in his great editorial. Obviously these are against the very nature of science as PH shows it.
But suppose my ideas presented here will be judged democratically, I hope to receive at least 2% of the votes.
During the ’70-ties when I was head of research at OLTCHIM (
a great unit of the Romanian petrochemical industry- just now in course of assassination by the dark forces of capitalism= see News!) I have intensely practicised post-logical thinking. That is, I took the majority of the decisions re. the directions in our research and development activity. An angry co-worker wrote once on the blackboard in my office: “Gluck ha sempre ragione.” comparing me with the ill-fated Italian dictator. I have not contradicted him.
And will not do it now, because, yes, LENR+ is not like LENR classic.
A popularity index of 2% is oxymoronic; and I have not much time left. Fortunately history has, plenty of it.


Wednesday, April 3, 2013


  The mind of man is a dark and murky place. Its mysteries have been ever advancing for over ten million years of evolution; with one more complex layer piled on the top of a more primitive one, from the most basic and animalistic to the most human and altruistic, as humanity struggled to overcome its animal nature shaped by the wilderness of our origins to the exalted pinnacles of civilization where we aspire to be.

In the immutable ways of evolution, through the long march of time over the endless eons, none of the old mechanisms of the mind have ever been replaced; with the more primitive layers being suppressed by evolution and supplanted by the more modern machinery of thinking.

The bottom line, we cannot fight our human nature; we can only learn to live with it, to follow it dictates and guidelines in bending it to follow our will.

A strategy for problem solving that is not consistent with our nature is destined to be ineffective as a tool in meeting its ultimate goals.

In the quest to understand ourselves, just how do our minds work: the conscious, subconscious, and unconscious? And what is the difference between them?

The concept of three levels of mind has been around for some time now. Sigmund Freud, the famous Austrian psychologist was probably the first to study the dichotomy of mind and popularized that study into mainstream society as we know it today.

Freud has bequeathed to us a useful model of the mind, which he separated into three tiers or sections – the conscious mind or ego, the preconscious, and the unconscious mind.

One way to illustrate the concept of the three minds is by using a triangle. If you imagine at the very tip of the triangle is your conscious mind. It occupies only a small portion of space at the top, a bit like an iceberg where only a fraction of it is showing above the water. It probably represents about 10% of your brain capacity. This mental capability is newly developed and untried in the march of our evolution where communication of our thoughts and feelings requires some organization and logic to be transferred onward to others.

Below this is a slightly larger section that Freud called the preconscious, or what some refer to as the subconscious. It is much larger than the conscious mind and accounts for around 50-60% of our brain capabilities. This mental process kept our ancestors alive in their fight to struggle out of the wilds of our first habitats and is usually devoid of logic and science but the preserve of intuition and feeling.

The section below this middle layer is the unconscious mind. It is the mind of the primitive and occupies the whole width of the base of the triangle and fills out the other 30-40% of the triangle. It is vast and deep and largely inaccessible to conscious thought, a bit like the dark depths of the ocean were the basest emotions live.

Our conscious mind is what most people associate with who we are, because that is where most people live day to day. It is the thin veneer of our being. It is the outer edifice of our existence where we expose ourselves to the world.  But it’s by no means where all the action takes place.

Our conscious mind is a bit like the captain of a ship standing on the bridge giving out orders to the crew. In reality, it’s the crew in the engine room below deck (the subconscious and the deeper unconscious) that carry out the orders. The captain may be in charge of the ship and give the orders but it’s the crew that actually guides the ship that does the dirty work, all according to what training they had been given over the years to best do so.

Our conscious mind communicates to the outside world and the inner self through speech, pictures, writing, physical movement, and thought.

On the other hand, the subconscious mind is in charge of our recent memories, and is in continuous contact with the resources of the unconscious mind.

The unconscious mind is the storehouse of all memories and past experiences, both those that have been repressed through trauma and those that have simply been forgotten as no longer important to us. It’s from these memories and experiences that our beliefs, habits, and behaviors are formed.

The unconscious constantly drives the conscious mind via our subconscious, and is what provides us with the direction and meaning to all our interactions with the world, as filtered through our beliefs and habits. It communicates through, insight, feelings, emotions, imagination, mood, sensations, and dreams.

The unconscious deals with all the same tasks as the subconscious – the memory, habits, feelings, emotions, and behaviors. The difference between the two minds, however, is that the unconscious is the source of all these programs that our subconscious uses and the energy that drives us.

It is the place where all our memories and experiences since birth have been stored. It’s from these memories that our beliefs, habits, and behaviors are formed and reinforced over time.

The unconscious mind is where our optimism is born and the kind of hope that just ignores the enormity of the tasks that face us or the road blocks that stand in our path. I’m not talking about the wishful idealism that allows us to just sit on the sidelines or shirk from a fight. It is the unreason of stubbornness, the thing inside us that insists, despite all the evidence to the contrary, that something better awaits us so long as we have the courage to keep on thinking, to keep on hoping, to keep on reaching, to keep on working, and to keep on fighting.

It is the drive rooted in the unconscious instinct for survival that has gotten us to where we are now over the countless generations in an endless cycle of birth and death.

It is where purpose if found. It is this purpose that guides up, this purpose that connects us, this purpose that pulls us, this purpose that drives us, and it is this purpose that binds us.

It is where these mystic chords of our passion lie that swell when touched, as surely they will be, by the better angels of our natures. It will not allow us to shrink from these great missions of our lives and the root of the emotions that life engenders.

It is the part of us that says unto the latest generation that when we are tested we refused to let this great journey of survival end, that we did not turn back nor will we falter to pass the gift of life forward; and with unreasoned eyes fixed on the horizon, we are compelled ever onward to carry forth, restore and maintain that great gift that cannot be squandered and must be delivered safely to future generations.

Our subconscious is dominated by our conscious mind. Controlling and directing it is the key to personal change. This control is like programing an internal computer.

Our subconscious is a bit like the RAM in our computer; the short term working memory in our computer and its job is to hold the programs and data that are currently in use so they can be reached quickly and easily by the computer processor. It’s a lot faster than the other types of memory, such as the hard disk or CD-ROM available on the conscious level. The quality of these memories and programs determines how successful the conscious level will be.

Apart from short term memory, the subconscious also plays an important role in our day to day functioning.

It works hard at ensuring you have everything you need for quick recall and access to when you need it. Things like –

Memories – such as what your telephone number is, how to drive a car without having to consciously think about it, what you need to get from the shop on the way home etc.

Current programs you run daily, such as behaviors, habits, and mood.

Filters (such as beliefs and values) to run information through to test their validity according to your perception of the world.

Sensations taken in via your 5 senses and what it means to you.

If it doesn’t happen to have a filter or reference point in its RAM for some bits of information that come in, then it has a direct line to the storage place of the mind – the unconscious. It will ask the unconscious to pull out the programs that it best associates with the incoming data to help make sense of it all.

The subconscious is also constantly at work, staying a lot more aware of your surroundings than you realize. In fact, according to the NLP communication model we are assaulted with over 2 million bits of data every second. If our conscious mind had to deal with all that you would very quickly become overwhelmed and not be able to get anything done. The conscious selects from the vast storehouse of data and functions to get a job done.

Instead, our subconscious filters out all the unnecessary information and delivers only that which is needed at the time, around 7 chunks of information. It does all this behind the scenes so you can perform our daily work uninhibited. And it does this as logically as it can; based on the programs it has access to in your unconscious.
The subconscious is where most problems are solved. These solutions flash into the conscious mind in a flash of inspiration, logic of the conscious follows the intuition of the subconscious.

It then communicates all the results into consciousness via emotions, feelings, sensations and reflexes, images and dreams. It doesn’t communicate in words, it flashes insights that we feel come out of nowhere to help us solve the problems of the conscious. This communication between these mental layers is where hunches, premonitions, instincts, and guesses are born.

One of the truly great things about the subconscious (and one which we need to take advantage of to affect change) is … it obeys orders; the subconscious can be educated!

People often erroneously think that the subconscious is in charge and we are merely at its mercy. In fact it’s the complete opposite. Your conscious mind gives it the direction, the environment if you like, for which it operates in. The subconscious will only deliver the emotions and feelings of what you continuously think about.

Now I’m not saying it’s as easy as changing what you think of in one moment and your entire life will be changed. In most cases your default programs have too much energy attached to them to change instantaneously. Training the subconscious take both great effort and discomfort. It can be done though – such as after a massive life altering event or if enough pain is associated with the old behavior – but without a major shift like that it is likely the old programs will reemerge.

As an example of how the subconscious mind works, let us look at one of the greatest minds to have ever lived to see what formed it and what made it tick.

Leonardo DaVinci was a great painter, designer, scientist, futurist and thinker. He also had the gift of dyslexia.

One remarkable indication that Leonardo was dyslexic is in his handwriting. Leonardo was constantly sketching out his ideas for inventions. Most of the time, he wrote his notes backwards. Why did Leonardo write from right-to-left, in mirror image? Although unusual, this is a trait shared by many left-handed dyslexic people. Most of the time, dyslexic writers are not even consciously aware that they are writing this way.

Leonardo's spelling is also considered erratic and quite strange. He also started many more projects then he ever finished - a characteristic now often considered to be 'A.D.D.'

The way the world entered DaVinci’s mind forced his subconscious programs to compensate. How this process worked is not known but his genius was not developed on the conscious level. It was a miracle of adaptation.

To make sense of the world, the dyslexic sorely needs to order the confused signals that enter through their senses.

From the earliest age, the dyslectic forms programs and compulsions to impose a synthesis of the product of their senses.

This synthesis is achieved by registering through memorizing all the relevant data involved in a subject, correlating it using inbuilt subconscious programs perfected from birth as a coping mechanism for dyslexia so that no contradictions exist between the input data. When this synthesis is reached, the unconscious responds with a feeling of beauty that reinforces the synthesis behavior.
Dyslexia requires the achievement of order, precision, and harmony in the unconscious mind as a coping mechanism for the imprecision and confusion inherent in the senses of the dyslectic. This compensation mechanism results in unique mental mechanisms and talents to form.
 Dyslexia Areas of Strength:
•Computer programming
•Art- especially 3-D expression and visualization
•Highly intuitive
•Mechanical skills
•Inquisitive and Imaginative
•Creative and Innovative
•Global thinkers-"think out-side of the box"
•Problem solvers-good at seeing the big picture
•Strong verbal communicators

As an example, of the Dyslexic method, here is how an affected software person would write a tax preparation program.

First memorize all the rules of all the application programming interfaces (API) and the functions of the operating system that will be needed to write the program. These APIs are all committed in detail to the subconscious usually through long experience.

Completely learn all the rules that govern the tax structure to be programed.

Formulate a user experience that best suits the needs of the users of the program.

Inside the head of the dyslectic, a subconscious program works 24/7 to correlate all the associated factors to form a synthesis of form and function. Based on his level of unconscious compulsion to achieve order, the programmer may well dream about the program constantly.

When completed and such a program is examined and evaluated by others skilled in the art, it is considered beautiful in it execution in terms of the level of synthesis and innovation that it achieves.

On the other hand, the opposite of this is termed in the software industry as spaghetti code which is twisted and tangled; Spaghetti code occurs when items are added in disjointed layers without any correlation, ordering, and harmony. It is a nightmare to add to it or maintain this type of program.

In another example, in what is known as DaVinci’s masterpiece in light and perspective, The Last Supper, da Vinci applies his novel, though more complicated understanding of light and optics, translating his scientific inquiry into artistic innovation.

First Leonardo da Vinci’s studied perspective and mastered it. His use of light and optics in painting over long years of practice were it became second nature and was committedentirely into his subconscious.

This subconscious programming ultimately allowed him to excel in the portrayal of reflection, shadow, and luminescence.  Leonardo da Vinci’s The Last Supper demonstrates this careful study of light and the relation of light to perspective.  In the work, da Vinci delves into the true complications of optics and reflections, and its renown guided the artistic study of light by subsequent masters. 

From da Vinci’s personal manuscripts, accounts from his contemporaries, and present-day art historians, the iterative relationship between Leonardo da Vinci’s study of light and study of optics becomes apparent, and how his study of the two fields manifested in his paintings. 

What gives this painting it unparalleled eternal beauty is the mastery and synthesis of the artistic techniques used to confer the unified and coherent message of the artist.

Albert Einstein was another famous Dyslexic.
The mechanism of Dyslexic subconscious production of insight is illustrated by the Albert Einstein Eureka moment at the Bern Patent office. The truth that was long apparent on the subconscious level eventually flashed into his conscience mind.
Albert Einstein was sitting in his chair at the Patent Office in Bern one day when the breakthrough happened. "Suddenly, the thought struck me: if a man falls freely, he does not feel his own weight. I was taken aback. This simple thought experiment made a deep impression on me," he wrote in 1907. This was two years after the publication of his Special Theory of Relativity and it led directly to his theory of gravity, and still later to his General Theory of Relativity. In effect, Einstein had stumbled upon one of his greatest insights: gravity is acceleration.

Einsteinknew about and utilized his subconsciousabilities to solve difficult problems. Using a sudden flash of insight method, one of the key insights in developing his special theory of relativity came to Albert Einstein while talking to his friend Michele Besso:

I started the conversation with him in the following way: "Recently I have been working on a difficult problem, today I come here to do battle against that problem with you" We discussed every aspect of this problem. Then suddenly I understood where the key to this problem lay. Next day I came back to him again and said to him without even saying hello, "thank you. I've completely solved the problem"

Functional magnetic resonance imaging and electroencephalogram studies have found that problem solving requiring insight involves increased activity in the deep primitive brain at the right cerebral hemisphere as compared with problem solving not requiring insight. In particular, increased activity was found in the right hemisphere anterior superior temporal gyrus.

Subconscious processing may take place while a person is asleep, and there are several cases of scientific discoveries coming to people in their dreams. Friedrich August Kekulé von Stradonitz said that the ring structure of benzene came to him in a dream where a snake was eating its own tail. Studies have shown increased performance at insight problems if the subjects slept during a break between receiving the problem and solving it. Sleep may function to restructure problems formulated in the subconscious, and allow new insights to be reached. Henri Poincaré stated that he valued sleep as a time for "unconscious thought" that helped him break through problems.

A kitchen design or a pluming job can be just as beautiful as a work by Leonardo DaVinci if they achieve a synthesis of form and function.

Everyone has their own talents and abilities that have been formed by their nature and nurture. We must identify who can best do the job needed to be done and let them do it.

The shaping the subconscious mind entails a lifetime of effort, discipline, experience, and practice.

Let Einstein understand the universe, Michelangelo build St. Peters cathedral, and William Shakespeare write the plays.