Cold fusion economy supported by Greek government

“…SPIEGEL ONLINE has obtained information from German government sources knowledgeable of the situation in Athens indicating that Papandreou’s government is considering abandoning the euro and reintroducing its own currency.” [4]
Christian Reiermann Athens Mulls Plans for New Currency, Greece Considers Exit from Euro Zone Der Spiegel Online

By indirections find directions out.
— Shakespeare

There is a category of inventions called disruptive technology. Funding streams allotted to this sector award designers who innovate based on radical departures from incremental change. A cursory search of disruptive technology will yield many examples, most of which are IT-oriented, such as breakthroughs in social networking, cloud computing, and cyber security.

You will find little to no mention of the most disruptive technology of all, cold fusion, even as the first commercial device is poised to be installed later this year. Defkalion Green Technologies based in Athens, Greece holds the world rights, excepting the Americas, for Andrea A. Rossi‘s Energy Catalyzer, or ECat, a new energy reactor based on cold fusion technology, which Mr. Rossi prefers to be called low-energy nuclear reactions. A factory located in Xanthi, Greece plans to use an array of smaller models of the publicly demonstrated 12 Kw ECat, linked together, to generate 1MW power for the purpose of manufacturing more ECats.

Steven B. Krivit of New Energy Times published on his blog the possible board of directors for Defkalion as:

– Sortikos George, businessman, born 1942, President
– George Xanthoulis, student, son of Alexandros Xanthoulis, born 1987, Vice President
– Aurel Christian David, Managing Director, born 1969
– Christos Stremmenos, University Professor, born 1932
– PRAXEN L.T.D., Company based in Cyprous, will be represented by Alexandros Xanthoulis, born 1954
– John Chadjichristos, business consultant, member of the board, born 1958
– Andreas Meidanis, industrialist, member of the board, born 1953
– Muafak Sauachni, medical doctor, (Israeli), member, born 1961
– Andreas Drugas, business consultant, born 1945

Member Christos Stremmenos is a University of Bologna professor who was interviewed recently on Radio Città del Capo in Bologna, Italy about the ECat technology. Portions of the interview have been translated from Italian by Alex Passi in a piece on the website entitled Stremmenos: “cold fusion will solve many problems of humanity”. [1]

In the interview, Professor Stremmenos mentions “his mediation with the Greek government to make an industrial plant possible. For this purpose, Defkalion Green Technology was formed, a business venture of which he is vice-chairman — on “honorary terms”, he says.

When asked about the role of the Greek government in the formation of Defkalion and the initiation of the factory in Greece, Professor Stremmenos replied with some background:

“When I retired, I wanted to set up my own lab and quietly continue my research. But I did inform George Papandreou, the current Prime Minister, who at the time was President of PASOK. In the Convention which elected him, there were these commissions working on various aspects of the Greek economy. These were supposed to lay down the most favoured Party’s platform for government. So I told him, “George, look” — I explained — “I’m still working on this”. So at the Convention he says: “You know, I believe in this thing too, but who knows when it will come about” “I don’t know”, I said, “ truth and fate we haven’t got, but we must support and pursue this line.”

When the recent breakthrough in energy production came with Mr. Rossi’s catalyst, Professor Stremmenos says he wrote to Mr. Rossi “I’d like to follow this thing up in Greece too, because right now there are serious economic problems in my country”. Later, he states,

“In short, considering the climate, the mindset of the present government in Greece …let me tell you, even the opposition has now asked to be informed on this issue, too. Therefore in Greece this matter is treated without prejudice, no one is uncommitted. Here, Rossi is right, there is not much one can do about it…”

Whatever the veracity of the report by Der Speigel Online that Greece would like to “exit’ from the Euro Zone, if a factory in Greece has the rights to manufacture the biggest breakthrough energy technology since the burning of wood, and the government has confidence that it’s ready to be commercialized, these events would influence any decision to leave the Euro behind, and speculate on perhaps creating their own currency backed by profits of ECat manufacturing and licensing, estimated in the hundreds of trillions of dollars? [5]

Separated from the European Central Bank, the people of Greece could be able to keep this wealth derived from energy, close to its shores. Where over two-thousand years ago, the roots of modern science, math, and democracy first emerged, we may now see a next-generation energy technology that will extend globally, for the first time in history, the opportunity for all humans to be equally self-sufficient.

The reality is that once the technology is spread, the opportunity for a change in living arrangements will be immediate, and a boon to the entire planet. New and better devices will be developed with applications we cannot think of today; an entirely new service environment with new roles for humans to play.

In a Wall Street Journal update after the secret meeting held last night in Luxembourg, Finance Minister George Papaconstantinou has refuted the notion that Greece will leave the Euro Zone, and there are other points to factor in. But as Greece roils from a year of financial crises that continues to bring its people into the streets protesting, the European Union won’t let Greece go easily, as revealed in the dire predictions for its economy should Greece ever depart.

One clothed, and two naked, Energy Catalyzers.
It may look like an old bathroom pipe, but this invention defines disruptive technology. Photo: Mats Lewan NY Teknik

As this technology emerges into the public awareness, “there will be a stampede” for cheap, clean, energy generated by the hydrogen in water. Our current global industries of oil, gas, and coal will be obsolesced by a small, portable, self-contained energy reactor that can supply all personal energy needs for about a quarter to a third of current prices, and eventually, even cheaper.

The dollar, once “as good as gold”, became a petro-dollar linked with the currency of oil and as cold fusion technology permeates society, the dollar will not retain its status as the world’s reserve currency. Corporations, and all levels of government that exist for these non-entities, will see profits landslide. Cold fusion, and all new energy technologies, challenge the power that existing networks of money and hydrocarbons have, and after reigning for a hundred years, it won’t go down easy.

The public must be prepared to defend this ultra-clean energy technology. Be prepared for the assault by the diehards on this the most disruptive of technologies.

Challenge energy policies that do not include cold fusion relentlessly.

Support young, independent new-energy companies designing next-generation technologies.

Defend your right to clean energy.

And begin transitioning to the next phase in human existence.

Cold Fusion Now!

Related links

1. interview with Christos Stremmenos at translated by Alex Passi and Alfredo Knecht.

2. Cash-Flow interview with Dr. Edmund Storms: “There will be a stampede.” excerpts transcribed by Ruby Carat.

3. Defkalion Green Technologies

4. Der Spiegel Online Athens Mulls Plans for New Currency Greece Considers Exit From Euro Zone.

5. Infinite-Energy Cold Fusion and the Future Part 2 – A Look at Economics and Society by Jed Rothwell

6. New Energy Times blog Possible Listing of Defkalion Board Members by Steven B. Krivit.

7. Ny Teknik Ny Teknik tested the energy catalyzer by Mats Lewan.

8. Pure Energy Systems Andrea Rossi with Sterling Allan on Coast-to-Coast AM by Hank Mills.

9. Wall Street Journal UPDATE: Greece must plan next steps for 2012-2013.

Kuhn, Helium “molecule”

I think that people do not understand Science, I know that I don’t and so I have been trying to rectify that matter by reading, amongst other things, Thomas Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions.  Kuhn and his paradigms may not be hip anymore, but that is unfortunate for the hipsters, for he still deserves the attention of anyone wondering how science works, or in some cases, how it doesn’t work.

Kuhn gives an example of an investigator asking a physicist and a chemist whether helium was a molecule.  Both answer without hesitation, but with different answers.  The chemist says that it is a molecule “because it behaved like one with respect to the kinetic theory of gases.”  But, the physicist said that a helium atom was not a molecule because it displayed no molecular spectrum.”  Kuhn continues, saying:

 “Presumably both men were talking of the same particle, but they were viewing it through their own research training and practice.  Their experience in problem-solving told them what a molecule must be.  Undoubtedly their experiences had had much in common, but they did not, in this case, tell the specialists the same thing.” (Structure of Scientific Revolutions, 2nd ed., pp. 50-51; original investigator James K. Senior)  

So here we have, in appearances, the violation of the law of non-contradiction, that ‘X is both Y and not Y’ at the same time.  Of course, it only presents a problem if we do not recognize that each of these scientists has a specialization, and that their claims are due to their approach to the topic which stems from that same specialization.  There is no conflict because it is understood that they are approaching it from different ways of looking at the problem.  In their own realm of expertise, Helium is or is not a molecule.  Even though they both probably believe themselves ultimately right on the issue (because their way of looking at the phenomenon is for each of them more productive), there is no conflict because they would recognize that the other had also given a reasonable answer based on scientific theory. 

What is the comparison to cold fusion?  Well, there are two sets of scientists that deal with cold fusion.  There are those who are not specialists in the field of cold fusion because they deny that there is anything to specialize there.  In a field (physics) where all expertise is in the form of specialization, they are saying; ”trust me, I am a scientist.  I know about all things scientific.  I know what I am doing.”  Or what is just about as bad, “I am an expert in hot fusion and therefore an expert in cold fusion as well, which incidentally, does not exist.”  I mean, I am joking, but the same time there is something chilling;) about people who investigate something they believe does not exist.

And, there are those who specialize in cold fusion.  In a way I admire their bravery.  They do not seem to have a comprehensive theory of what is happening when the phenomenon commonly known as cold fusion is going on.  They have no laws to which they can appeal when conversing with other physicists, because they are on the cutting edge.  I understand that until recently, they could not even create the phenomenon at will.  They are just starting out in their specialization.  They are at the beginning of the exploration of the field of low energy physics.  They do, however, have a valid, if nascent area of specialization, even if it is unrecognized the naysayers. It would be nice if we let them play with their puzzles (as, indeed, all scientists do, nothing wrong with that) free from outside interference.  

In fact, it is not despite but rather because they admit that not everything is understood or under control, that I trust in the honesty of their reports and believe they should be supported in their endeavors.  From what understand, there is something going on there with the Deuterium/Palladium and the Hydrogen/Nickel set-ups and I hope that they can get to the point (sooner rather than later) where they can tell us what exactly is happening.  It’s great that cold fusion can produce energy, but I am just damn curious about what is going on at the subatomic level.

Technocrat: “No-money society” uses energy credits.

James Martinez produced another hour of far-out radio in his recent Ca$h Flow interview with Ron Miller of
Download full .mp3
April 7 interview with Ron Miller from the Cold Fusion Radio Audio page.

Defined by Wikipedia:
“Technocracy is a form of government in which engineers, scientists, health professionals and other technical experts are in control of decision making in their respective fields. The term technocracy derives from the Greek words tekhne meaning skill and kratos meaning power, as in government, or rule. Thus the term technocracy denotes a system of government where those who have knowledge, expertise or skills compose the governing body. In a technocracy decision makers would be selected based upon how highly knowledgeable they are, rather than how much political capital they hold.”

Ron Miller is a retired engineer who now educates about technocracy conducting workshops for kids at schools and colleges. One of his students described technocracy as “a cross between Star Trek and Nova”, which may be as accurate as Wikipedia.

James, whose show looks at issues of money and society, asked about the support shown for a “no money society” from poll participants. Mr. Miller responded:

What the organization proposed was that the amount of energy that is required to produce every single thing that society needs should be accounted for, and everyone would be given their share, simply by dividing between the population, of the amount of energy over a given budgeting period.

An then when you go into a store, that amount of energy would be deducted so that we could keep track of what’s going where, and so on and so forth. You still have to have a feedback mechanism, for instance, so that the warehouses know that their beginning to run out of a particular product and the warehouse can tell the manufacturer they need more and the reason we chose energy is because energy is the most fundamental constituent of anything physical.

In the universe, there is really only two things, matter and energy, and without energy there is no motion and no movement. It requires energy to dig materials out of the ground, it requires energy to turn them into products, and so forth. Most of the time we don’t measure it, but we certainly could.

One of the real problems, too, that you have when we talk about money, and this is one of the things that I make sure to explain to kids in the classroom, is that money is not wealth. Money is not wealth at all.

Wealth is the chairs they’re sitting in, the buildings they’re sitting in, the houses they go home to, the cars they drive in. That’s wealth. Money is just a pile of paper.

James asked Mr. Miller what would life look like with this different type of living arrangement, and how would a country operate under this system?

“There would be numbers of things that simply wouldn’t change much,” Mr. Miller said. “People still have to have homes, some place to live, they still have to eat, and so on and so forth, and go about their business.”

But when you no longer have a price system, there’s a whole bunch of things that you don’t need anymore. You don’t need Wall Street. In fact it becomes worthless, pointless, it can’t exist. Neither can corporations exist. The banking systems becomes obviously non-existent, just an empty building. Most of the financial structure that we have now essentially would disappear.

We certainly wouldn’t need the advertising that we have anymore. There’s going to be huge numbers of things connected with the financial system that we are not going need.

A great deal of what is left can and should be automated, very quickly in some cases. Immediately, what the organization proposed was that a person should start work about the age of 25 and retire by the age of 45. I think that even with a framework of only 20 years of working, I think you’d have trouble finding work for alot of people.

Now, that having been said, we’re going to have to completely rebuild our infra-structure. It’s at a minimum inadequate, if not downright dangerous. It needs to be drastically converted into something that uses far less energy.

Mr. Miller offers solutions like transportation systems like high-speed magnetically levitated trains, which would replace polluting airplanes. People would work only 4 hours a day, 4 days a week, leaving more time for them to engage in creative pursuits. He describes “an explosion” in the arts and sciences “because people will want something to do with their time and lives of value.”

He believes the transformed society would have personal transports that are diesel-driven, which means there is a huge hole in this model, but he does say overpopulation is the biggest issue that must be dealt with whether or not a technocracy was established.

M. King Hubbert Original Technocat

M. King Hubbert was an original Technocrat. We recently wrote about Mr. King’s interest in nuclear power and his time at the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, then the Atomic Energy Commission. Those who claim Carbon Currency is an outgrowth of the Technocracy, Inc are missing the point by limiting credit to carbon, though perhaps it is not surprising that this is so in a world where governments are indistinguishable from fossil fuel corporations.

A free-energy society operating on energy credits may sound radical, but low-energy nuclear reactions LENR technology is poised to drop on world culture within the next couple of years, and questions such as how our economy can and should be shaped will be important to stabilizing the effects.

It was Marshall McLuhan whose theories of communication expressed the importance of understanding our technology so that we do not become slaves to it. Laws of Media, written with his son Eric McLuhan, models a system that allows an inventory of effects when new technologies are introduced in society, in order to better mitigate the inevitable disservices.

In the discussion of how to create a new living arrangement on a planet-wide scale using cold fusion technology, one model is proposed by Technocracy, but you decide. In a no-money society, how would we operate with free-energy credits?

Download full .mp3
April 7 interview with Ron Miller from the Cold Fusion Radio Audio page.

Persecution of (Early) Philosophers

If you have taken a philosophy course, you probably have heard the story of Socrates, who as an old man was convinced of impiety and corrupting the youth in Athens in 399 BC, and was sentenced to drink the poison hemlock.  Instead of fleeing Athens to points unknown, Socrates abided by the decision of his homeland and refused attempts to smuggle him out of the country. He argued that as a loyal citizen of Athens, he should abide by her judgment, just as he had obeyed her laws all his life. By doing so, he made himself into a martyr and eventually, the same courts that had persecuted him; persecuted his accusers.

Socrates, armed with his quest to find someone wiser than himself, may have been the gadfly, irritating his fellow citizens and sometimes making them look like fools. However, he also comes across in Plato as the only truly loyal son of Athens, who with the irritation he caused woke up his fellow citizens, allowed them to see the errors in their thinking and correct those errors if they so desired. Socrates, being portrayed as the loyal son of Athens on the one hand, and the quintessential philosopher on the other, is the patron “saint” of philosophy, for he secured the position of philosophy in Athens and thus ultimately, in the world.

But why did philosophy need to be saved? Truth is; that since its beginning, philosophy was not too popular. Think of it, you are the citizen of an average Greek city, happy with the way things are done, which is the same way they have been done for the past thousand years, and here comes some new upstart, criticizing Tradition and Custom, advocating phusis or Nature, talking about the arche (overarching principle) of things. You may not be the high man on the totem pole, but you understand your place in the cosmos and are anxious about whether everything that makes sense is being overturned. You do not understand much of what this new-fangled philosopher is saying, but you do understand that he is not talking about the traditional gods or rather, the gods as they are traditionally understood. The whole entire city; with its political and cultural system are based on that traditional understanding. “Impiety” is a crime against the city.

So while you do not know exactly what the philosopher is saying, you do know that it is bad news and should be nipped off at the bud. Instead of putting up with the impiety and having the whole political and cultural system undermined, it easier to kill or exile or just chase offending fools out of town. That is what they often did, in Athens and elsewhere in the Greek world. Socrates’ treatment, far from being an exception to the normal treatment of philosophers, is merely the most prominent example of what often happened, the persecution of the philosopher.

On the death of Alexander, Aristotle fled Athens, “lest Athens sin against philosophy twice.” Of course, in saying “twice,” Aristotle was not counting the persecutions by Athens of Anaxagoras, Damon, Protagoras and Diagoras. Anaxagoras of Clazomenae was a friend of the Athenian leader Pericles, and was imprisoned and later, expelled from Athens. Damon the sophist, a friend and associate of Pericles and Socrates, was ostracized. Protagoras of Abdera, the sophist, was expelled from Athens and his books were burned in the agora. Diagoras, an atheist, was condemned to death and fled Athens. A talent of silver (26 kg) was offered as a reward to whoever killed him.

Xenophanes of Colophon was exiled. Zeno of Elea died defying a tyrant. Pythagoras, in some accounts, was killed by a mob. He also had left his home city of Samos, moved to Kroton and then moved again to Metapontum. We do not know how urgent these moves were, but they probably were not entirely voluntary. His followers, the Pythagoreans, were persecuted in Sicily, and there were two general uprisings against the Pythagoreans in Magna Graecia. In fact, what happened to Socrates was very much like what had happened to Pythagoreans or Sophists elsewhere before.

There was a general pattern, a philosopher would make himself unwelcome in a town and would either be chased out or thrown out. In many ways, it was easier for the philosopher to leave and perhaps start up somewhere else, than it would be for him to stay and fight the charges. The problem though is that while running, for example, a Pythagorean cell out of town, took care of that particular cell, it did not solve the issue of the underlying conflict between tradition on the one hand, and philosophers and sophists on the other. This kind of scene was repeated over and over again, throughout Greece until the trial of Socrates basically embarrassed people for the conviction of an old man who always had been loyal to his city, even though that loyalty was expressed in rather idiosyncratic ways.

In philosophy’s early days (c. 585-399), philosophers were often persecuted, but also philosophers persecuted other philosophers. Xenophanes and Heraclitus were highly critical of Pythagoras and his followers, while the Pythagoreans expelled and persecuted renegade members such as Hippasus. Plato was told that he should not bother burning Democritus’ books because there were too many to get them all. Plato also avoids any allusions to Democritus and the atomists in his dialogues. While Plato defines and co-opts other philosophers and sophists who preceded him, he wants to annihilate the memory of Democritus. He is not much better for Parmenides of Elea. A character in Plato’s Sophist (241d-242a), the Eleatic Stranger, talks about (theoretically) having to murder his father, Parmenides, in order to make way for a new critique. To the Greeks, patricide was the worst crime.

Of course, for “golden” Plato, all his sins are still nullified today by the quality and character of his writing. But, it is not only a matter of us overlooking the crimes of a man who through his art delights us. Plato’s “crimes” were done in wartime when philosophy was besieged, and in the end Plato’s work legitimatizes philosophy, establishes it and saves it from persecution. Plato’s work saves philosophy, but it also transforms it and in the process it loses something. Philosophy after Plato is not the same kind of beast that it was before Plato came along. Just in the last 150 years have we really started to realize that, showing how complete Plato’s vision is for us, even today.

But what does this have to do with cold fusion? Maybe just this: No matter how frustrating it is, trying to get cold fusion taken seriously as far as funding and publicity is concerned, it could be worse and it has been worse and also, we have gotten through that. The lesson of the persecution of philosophers in ancient Archaic and Classical Greece is that a thing which is an anathema one moment can become accepted and embraced the next. In fact, not only can that thing become embraced, the very existence that there ever was a conflict can become glossed over. Because of that habit of humanity to gloss over past events, we have been here much more often than one might guess. Because of this habit, one should not confuse the “map” (or formal history) of a thing, with the “territory” of the actual phenomena. By “territory,” here I mean cold fusion as a phenomena which has social and eventually, historical significances in addition to its scientific/technological significances.

That is not to say that scientifically cold fusion is “right,” and that it needs to be (socially) accepted as such. That is an issue ultimately for physicists and engineers to settle, as physicists and engineers, not as gatekeepers who protect the scientific status quo because they are strongly invested in it. At the same time, anyone who is curious about cold fusion should use their God given intelligence, and judge the matter for themselves of whether there is potential there and whether it is worth us as a society pursuing. If they decide there is, then welcome. If not, then I thank them for looking and I will trust that they have considered it in good faith. To me there is enough there to amaze about what has been found so far, and to wonder about what more might be possible.

This article benefits from Peter J Ahrensdorf mentioning of persecuted philosophers in his The Death of Socrates and the Life of Philosophy, (State U. of NY Press, Albany). His book is a close reading of Plato’s Phaedo in the light of the persecution.

Thank-you Martin Fleischmann; Thank-you Stanley Pons

It’s officially 22 years since the announcement of your discovery – fusion-power from heavy water and a tiny piece of metal.

We’re grateful for your contribution. We’re grateful for your courage.

We know it wasn’t easy. You shouldn’t have had to go through such bullying from fellow scientists.

But you started a revolution.

And we’re so glad you did. This discovery will give the world a second chance at a technological future with peace and freedom.

You have been vindicated. A new generation knows your contribution and learn without prejudice.

The work isn’t finished.

And we’re not going to stop until we have the future this planet deserves.

Martin Fleischmann and Stanley Pons
Martin Fleischmann and Stanley Pons Heros of Tomorrow


With Love and Peace and Gratitude,

Our Home

PS Just look what you started!

Sterling Allan and Andrea Rossi on Coast to Coast AM on this anniversary of Drs. Fleischmann and Pons‘ announcement.