Friday, February 7, 2014


Dear Bill,

My name is Peter Gluck, I am living in Cluj, Romania. After
working for 51 years in the chemical industry, then for new sources of  energy, web-search, Internet journalism and consultancy- I am now an independent blogger interested in real life problem solving.
See please I have experience in
R & D in the three realms of Matter, Energy and Information- and I want to use it till I am here upstairs.

I have studied your recent Annual Letter 2014 and I am very positively impressed- it is more than an thorough analysis- it is a real holistic synthesis. I like it and I take it as an opportunity to congratulate you for everything you have done for Mankind during your Microsoft era and after it. You are very rich however NOT your richness defines the best your personality and activity but your creativity and desire to help those in need. Your richness belongs to the area of meritocracy.
I am writing you because I have an ideology & strategy to donate to you and I dare to think it is something that can improve a lot the effectiveness and efficiency of your Foundation.
I know that the Internet is wonderful, however I am unable to predict if:
 a) my Open Letter will indeed ever ‘arrive’ to Bill Gates;
b) if he will read it, and
c) if he will take my suggestions in consideration. Anyway, I have not much to lose. I have had discussions with really great people as the writer Arthur C. Clarke and even with a Greek Goddess- see please [1]- who has explained me the root causes of the recent global Crisis already in 2007.Maybe I will have luck in the present case too Perhaps the rule of six- or less degrees of separation will help. My dear reader, perhaps you know a way to Bill  Gates?!
The 2014 Annual Letter has already generated aome 4000 Open Letter to Bill Gates.

The Gates Annual Letter

I agree that the world is a better place now than it was before, despite the general validity of the Twin Peaks Principle: “Evil is indestructible and always wins.” Actually Evil changes its form and its intensity decreases sometimes. ‘Geography is destiny’ and ‘History is a trap’ are evanescent truths in many places. Not in North Korea as an extreme negative example.
I am very pleased to see that you are using the same strategy- complete definition- first negative as in my problem solving rules.
(the 20 rules are attached to this letter).
Yes, the removal of the imaginary obstacles – in this case Myths is the first, decisive step.
To stop all these myths we have to fight the inherently natural trend of poor (and in a smaller extent- rich) countries to become kleptocracies where corruption is endemic and systemic being modus cogitandi, operandi and vivendi for the politicsl leaders and  citizens.. If human rights are not cannibalized by super-human privileges- the 3 myths can be defeated. Problem solving is ineffective when the privileged people in a country take more profit from the problems than from the  solutions.  

The global problem is aggravated by what we know as Crisis- due to complex causes, the Whole (contrary to its natural state) is becoming smaller than the sum of its parts. I know the explanation of this national/global tragedy from the best Person possible, [1] but due to the Cassandra Syndrome insignificantly few people believe “us” Nor Athena, neither I want money, we just want to solve the heinous, persistent and recurrent  problem.

I have studied your Foundation’s strategy with admiration; I think it can be characterized by aiming to do the maximum good directly at the problems/humans interface where the need and the pain are the greatest.
What I think it could be the best for your long range-greatest scale effectiveness is to act complementary at the deepest core of the problems/solutions interface where the positive effect is the greatest.
Very specifically it is about solving the essential problems of technology in the optimal mode; this will have the greatest possible positive impact on the future of the Mankind.

The core problems of Technology. [2]

The best and smartest definition of Technology due to Pierre Le Goff is:


Simple and comprehensive. The global situation is as follows:

a) we, humans have solved quite well the transport and transfer of information (with a decisive contribution of Microsoft). Transformation on the DIKWP- data- information- knowledge- wisdom – prediction scale is an endless problem that has to be solved for each case again and again.

for energy is situation is much worse, the domination of fossil fuels used via destructive burning is the shame of human technology and the weakness of the natural regenerable sources. WE NEED NEW SOURCES OF ENERGY! My blog Ego Out (ego “out” i.e. lost ego that is the information, knowledge and wisdom lost by the death of n individual) – is dedicated to the best new energy sources of the near future and to real life problem solving. A decisive step will be made in New Energy this year! Please believe me

For matter- chemistry, physics, materials science are fighting on many technological fronts; it would be unfair to tell which is more important- however nanotechnologies and nanoplasmonics appear to be a cornucopia of great possibilities.

The starting idea- what can the Gates Foundation do now?

There is no real equivalent of the Nobel Prize for technology. The Foundation could create it in the most adequate form- three prizes:

Gates Prize for Core Technology of Matter; 
Gates Prize for Core Technology of Energy;
Gates Prize for Core Technology of Information.

I bet this will be the catalyst for great achievements. Matter and energy technologies will follow information technology in solving their fundamental problems.

Peter Gluck




by Peter Gluck

It is available in 21 languages


“ 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, February 2, 2014

Stoyan Sargoytchev about "Gamma radiation in nanoparticles and shielding"

Our friend, Dr. Stoyan Sargoytchev explains the problem:

"I see some discussions with a doubt about a cold fusion because gamma radiation from the E-cat HT test was not detected despite that it did not have a lead jacket. I added my considerations about gamma shielding in my article in (page 15)"

He cannot make additions or corrections to the original paper, however his personal expert opinion about this is as follows:

.Let considering the gamma radiation from the nickel nanopowder and its shielding. For gamma energy in the order of 6 MeV, the wavelength is about 0.2 pm. This wavelength is a few orders smaller than the gaps between the nanopowder particles. The gas occupying the gaps has a refractive index close to one, while the refractive index of the nanoparticle material for the wavelength of 0.2 pm is much higher. Then the emitted gamma rays from the nickel nanopowder in the bulk will undergo multiple reflections, refractions and absorption, so the energy they loose will be converted to heat. Some proper attenuated gamma rays will produce Rydberg hydrogen that is useful for the cold fusion. Only not absorbed attenuated gamma rays may escape the fuel powder, so they must be shielded. Gamma rays emitted from the nickel nanopowder that is closer to the cylindrical enclosure will be stronger. From the publicly released information by Focardi and Rossi it is known that a small gamma radiation exists. For this purpose the E-cat described in the Rossi patent contains a lead jacket [28]. For the E-cat HT reactors that were tested by G. Levi et al., however, a lead jacket was not noticed [3]. This does not mean that there is not any radiation shield. With the advancement of nanotechnology a new way of effective gamma radiation shield is developed. This has been in focus of NASA research for years [40, page 14]. A new technology for gamma shielding is already offered by the company Radiation Shield Technology, Inc. [41]. They manufacture a trademarked product Demron™, which is a lead-free radiation protective fabric in a form of a blanket created with nanotechnology. The Demron material is designed to reduce emission from high energy gamma sources such as Cesium 137. Such material might be hidden beneath the silicon ceramic or inside of the cylindrical body of E-cat HT where the heaters are placed.

Added reference:
40. Revolutionary Concepts of Radiation Shielding,
41. Nanotechnology used in radiation protection – new product (2004)