Large Hadron Collider Steven Jones provoked Pons & F into sudden announcement, 20 years before

Discussion in 'Haroche's Cockroach' started by lorenhough, Feb 19, 2015.

  1. lorenhough

    lorenhough Well-Known Member

    [​IMG]Large Hadron Collider - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia my understand that this is part of the puzzle for making energy. big windmill are going up fast around me.

    The old joke that “Fusion energy is 50 years in the future, and always will be” seems to be as true as ever.

    The Joke is they are 50 years ahead of what they tell us!

    [​IMG]
    Nuclear Fusion
    By Jerry Russell on October 22, 2014 in Technology

    Del Giudice speculates that cold fusion research was delegitimized following Pons & Fleischmann’s press conference because of a coalition of military and hot fusion workers who were provoked by the sudden announcement. He suggests an analogy to “Tutankhamen’s Curse”: that is, just as the Earl of Carnarvon died of pneumonia a few months after having funded the discovery of Tutankhamen’s tomb, so also both Preparata and Fleischmann were stricken by an unusual cancer of the intestines, and journalist-advocate Eugene Mallove was murdered under suspicious circumstances.

    Of course this could be a coincidence; Del Giudice notes that he himself is a counter-example: “when I was twenty, I had my fortune told by a gypsy, who predicted that I would have an exceptionally long life.Accordingly, Del Giudice says he will speak in riddles: he asks, what if you use uranium as the substrate for the reaction, instead of palladium?

    The book goes on to note that Edward Teller, ‘father of the H-bomb’, asked this same question at a conference in October 1989. And in an interview, Martin Fleischmann agrees that this is a very good question. Fleischmann says that “anyone and anywhere”, could try it, and that such a technology is the only way he can imagine, to explain the highly explosive and high-temperature effects of ‘depleted uranium’ anti-tank weapons. However, Fleischmann denies that he has ever tried to create cold fusion in a uranium substrate: contrary to rumors indicating that just such an experiment was responsible for a notorious explosion in Fleischmann’s lab.

    ”Viewed in the context of my earlier post “Haroche’s Cockroach”, this book by Torrealta & Del Giudice represents a collaborating argument from both theoretical & practical perspectives. While the suggestion that cold fusion technology was in use as early as 1991 is fascinating, I would add that the theoretical and experimental studies carried out by Serge Haroche and his colleagues and peers (including Steven Jones and Joseph Jacobson) probably led to the development of a more sophisticated pure fusion weapons technology during the 1990’s, necessary for covert use in false-flag operations such as the WTC in 2001. I would no longer assume that these weapons leave anything other than a very short-lived radioactive signature, caused by the release of gamma radiation during the explosion.
    ...............................................................................................................................................
    [including Steven Jones] that cold fusion research was delegitimized following Pons & Fleischmann’s press conference because of a coalition of military and hot fusion workers[Steve Jones] who provoked Pons & F into sudden announcement. 20 years before Steve Jones came out on 911 ..

    Steven Earl Jones (born March 25, 1949[1]) is an American physicist. Among scientists, Jones became known for his long research on muon-catalyzed fusion and geo-fusion.[2][3][4] Jones is also known for his association with 9/11 conspiracy theories.

    Genie in a Jar - The "Discovery" of Cold Fusion - Nu ...
    www.nuenergy.org/genie-in-a-jar-the-discovery-of-cold-fusion
    Enter Steven Earl Jones ...

    Had things proceeded normally at this point. Fleischmann and Pons would have received the DOE grant in due course and done the new suite of experiments. They might well have discovered that no combination of parameters would result in a reliably reproducible experiment. They might even have taken b nuclear physicist into their confidence. Of course, it is very hard to take anyone into your confidence when you think you’re sitting on the most important scientific discovery ever made.

    . If you think you’re sitting on the most important scientific discovery of all time, you live in fear that some other researcher may beat you to it.

    Enter Steven Earl Jones at nearby Brigham Young University, the scientist just down the road who had recently built a new neutron spectrometer in his pursuit of low-energy fusion.

    It may sound coincidental that the DOE sent Fleischmann and Pons’s grant proposal to Jones for refereeing, but the selection was natural. Jones was well known for his work in low energy fusion, had a good research track record, and had evaluated other proposals for the DOE. When Jones read the proposal he boggled. Two chemists a mere 50 miles away were proposing to carry out experiments that were alarmingly similar to his.

    Jones took the unprecedented step of asking the DOE funding director if any objections might be raised to his contacting the applicants.

    Jones’s desire to contact the pair seems to have been motivated by a generous spirit. Perhaps they would like to use his new neutron spectrometer. They might consider working with him or, at least, coordinating publications. Jones, in any event, did not think he was sitting on the discovery of the millennium.

    When Jones contacted Fleischmann and Pons in the fall of 1988, the pace of events picked up considerably. Jones, who planned to address a meeting of the American Physical Society in May 1989, submitted an abstract early in the New Year.

    'Their hands now forced',

    Fleischmann and Pons felt they needed another eighteen months of quiet research, but events seemed increasingly out of their hands.

    Fleischmann and Pons visited Jones in his Brigham Young laboratory after discussing their results, the three agreed to submit separate manuscripts. Simultaneously, to the prestigious science journal Nature on March 24.

    The effect of the meeting on all three participants can only he guessed. Clearly the two sets of experiments only served to reinforce the impression of each scientist that he was on the right track. At the same time, the agreement provided fertile ground for suspicion. What if the other party reneged and published first? For example, did Fleischmann and Pons violate the spirit (if not the letter) of this agreement by sending a paper on cold fusion well before March 24 to the Journal of Electroanalytical Chemistry without telling Jones? Enter the university administrators.
    When Pons first approached President Peterson of the University of Utah to announce that he and Fleischmann had apparently discovered a process that produced fusion at room temperature, great excitement spread through the upper echelons. If cold fusion were a reality and the claims of Fleischmann and Pons were correct, the university would become immensely famous and wealthy. But in sharing the dreams of wealth and fame with the pair, the university became vulnerable to the same fear of being scooped. The air of Secrecy spread to the administrative offices.

    For one thing, University of Utah administrators and legal staff worried about Steven Jones at nearby Brigham Young University. Almost from the beginning of contact between their own two chemists and the physicist at Brigham Young, there had been a parallel contact between the two universities. However, University of Utah administrators were far more excited about the financial prospects than their counterparts at Brigham Young. Jones claimed no excess heat from his own experiments, merely a low level of neutron emission that barely exceeded background levels. On the other hand, if there was credit to be shared, the Brigham Young people were not prepared to take a back seat to anybody.

    Even as University of Utah attorneys began to file patent applications, the two sets of administrators met to altar the air and come to an agreement about proceeding jointly. On March 6, the presidents of both universities, along with Jones, Fleischmann, and Pons met at Brigham Young to discuss cooperating in the matter of publication. All agreed that on March 24 the two research groups would each submit a paper to Nature, sending them off in the same courier package.

    Shortly after, something spooked the University of Utah. Was it the fear that the press had already heard rumors of the cold-fusion work?

    Would Jones’s work undercut their patent claims? Loren
     
    Last edited: Feb 20, 2015
  2. lorenhough

    lorenhough Well-Known Member

    The university abruptly decided to hold a press conference on March 23, one day before the agreed-upon date for filing the two papers.

    The crisis was coming to a head. In deciding to hold the press conference, they did not even inform their own physics department! Jones, who learned of the Conference only a day in advance, felt deep disappointments As far as he was concerned, the March 6 agreement ruled out such an announcement. Pons and Fleischmann did not feel that way, nor did University of Utah administrators. In fact, shortly after the press conference, a reporter asked one of the Utah principals at the March 6 meeting whether he knew of any similar work elsewhere. The reply was negative.

    Up to the moment of the press Conferences Fleischmann had both good news and bad news. On one hand, the DOE had approved their grant application for some $322,000 and the Journal of Electroanalytical Chemistry had accepted their paper. The one that would confirm their discovery and square things with the world of science. After all, in the normal course of events, scientists must publish first, then await review of their work by peers. The bad news was the neutron data. They needed confirmation of neutrons, but did not want it from Jones since it would mean that Jones would share the credit.

    Fleischmann contacted friends at Harwell, the British atomic research establishment, to see whether they could duplicate his setup and measure neutrons. Although Harwell could not comply in time, the prestigious British nuclear laboratory began intensive secret experiments that would last until June of that year. In the meantime, Fleischmann and Pons hired a radiologist to take gamma ray measurements in the vicinity of heat- generating cells.

    Fleischmann and Pons felt they needed another eighteen months of quiet research, but events seemed increasingly out of their hands.

    They evidently decided to make the best of a bad situation and go for broke.

    Much more evidence below.

    The Jones "Vote" Against Fleischmann and Pons
    Screen shots from successive frames of archival video shot during the 10 a.m. press conference at the American Physical Society meeting in Baltimore on May 2, 1989[​IMG]Jones has his hand raised high and is looking at the other physicists for their vote. From left, Moshe Gai, Yale University; Johann Rafelski, Arizona State University; Steven Earl Jones, Brigham Young University; Steven Koonin, Caltech and University of California Santa Barbara; Richard N. Boyd, Ohio State; Douglas Morrison, CERN; Walter E. Myerhof, Stanford University. Steven Koonin is the first to decide. He begins to raise his hand. The others need a moment to think, and perhaps watch their peers.

    see here for the whole story;
    http://newenergytimes.com/v2/sr/StevenEJones/JonesVote.shtml

    Loren
     
    Last edited: Feb 20, 2015
  3. Jerry Russell

    Jerry Russell Administrator Staff Member

    Hi Loren, I'd say the video from New Energy Times illustrates exactly how Jones played a key role in discrediting and defunding cold fusion research following the 1989 Pons & Fleischmann debacle. I think there's a great deal besides that going on, in the cold fusion field (also known as "Low Energy Nuclear Reactions", LENR) as well as other "New Energy" topics such as "Zero Point" energy, "Over Unity" devices, scalar waves, Schauberger vortex engines, UFO secrets, and so forth. Within cold fusion, there's Widom/Larsen theory, Rossi's ECAT, Brillouin Energy, Randall Mills & BlackLight Power, LeClair at NanoSpire, Edmund Storms from Los Alamos, Hagelstein at MIT, McKubre at Stanford Research Institute, and it goes on and on. It's a huge job to keep up on what all these people are saying, and it's hard to be sure which ones are charlatans, which ones are sincerely deluded, and which ones are looking at some aspect of the true elephant other than what I'm seeing. I've been thinking of writing an article about this, but it's such a huge topic and so easy to be wrong or at least unfair.
     
  4. lorenhough

    lorenhough Well-Known Member

    There at least 3 levels of understanding of science in search research must be on a need to know; etc that will make it hard to see the bigger picture.

    My neo-teacher in college talked about the cornucopia theory; as he played down man us slaves not them but that's not what he said where given free energy they, us, would do stupid things with it like dig holes for gold..so be happy on austerity.

    Loren; o ya don't think about he moon shot. etc. haha
     
  5. duane hennon

    duane hennon New Member

    Hi Jerry and Loren

    my view is that this is all "alchemy"
    in that the researchers get results by mixing this with that and eyes of newts
    (several recipes seem to work)
    but they really don't know what going on down there
    having a better theory of "quantum" would make the recipe simpler
    (which some may not want others to know)
    here is my current favorite explanation of all things
    http://www.amperefitz.com/
     
  6. lorenhough

    lorenhough Well-Known Member

    jerry
    this is for you and those who will come to this thread welcome

    http://trineday.com/paypal_store/product_pages/9781937584269-Three_Bullets/index.html

    cut from above; the reality behind cold fusion and its use on the battlefield today

    [​IMG]
    [​IMG]
    $14.95
    +SHIPPING


    The Secret of the Three Bullets

    How New Nuclear Weapons Are Back on Battlefields

    By Maurizo Torrealta & Emilio Del Giudice

    Four journalists found themselves traveling around the world with the aim of finding answers to some questions: Why was valid research into room-temperature fusion deliberately ignored? Why was enriched uranium found in a crater caused by a bomb in Khiam, Southern Lebanon? Why do depleted uranium bullets produce a temperature of 4000°C? Why are there traces of other radioactive elements in those bullets? How do the new bombs dropped on Gaza work, bombs that are able to amputate people's legs while leaving no trace of metal fragments? The answers to these questions are linked to one another by a secret that has been kept hidden for more than 20 years: a discovery of a process in physics that has enabled the production of nuclear bombs the size of a bullet. Based on facts, The Secret of the Three Bullets is a scientific spy story that tells in fiction the reality behind cold fusion and its use on the battlefield today.
    Maurizo Torrealta has worked as a journalist for 28 years. He is the director of the Italian weekly magazine Left Avvenimenti and the chief editor of investigative journalism for Rai News 24 in Italy. He has a PhD in political science from the University of Bologna.
    Emilio Del Giudice is a retired senior scientist at the Italian Institute for Nuclear Physics and formerly worked at the Theoretical Physics Center at MIT and the Niels Bohr Institute in Copenhagen. He was the recipient of the Prigogine Award in 2009.
     
  7. Jerry Russell

    Jerry Russell Administrator Staff Member

  8. Richard Stanley

    Richard Stanley Administrator

    The following episodes of Phenomenon:Lost Archives discuss the Cold Fusion fiasco. The entire series is available on Amazon Prime.

    The first is exclusively focused on the issue and interviews most of the major players, coming to the conclusion that CF is a real phenomenon, suppressed because of fellow scientists in directly competing fields, like Hot Fusion. But surely there was incentive coming from such as oil and fission nuclear energy, etc.. The second discusses CF as part of the problem of corrupted Science, where the 'Science' process is highly distorted by various financial interests. It uses CF as an example where the corrupted Science process has stifled an apparently valid phenomenon from being developed, and ruining reputations.

    Heavy Watergate > Phenomenon: Lost Archives
    On March 23, 1989, respected chemists, Dr. Stanley Pons and Dr. Martin Fleishman made an announcement that rocked the world of science. Their tabletop experiments with heavy water, a renewable resource readily available in ocean water, yielded enormous amounts of heat energy. Appropriately named, "Cold Fusion," this breakthrough challenged many basic scientific concepts. In response, a group of powerful physicists, heavily reliant upon government funding for their hot fusion research, leveled an unprecedented smear campaign against Pons, Fleishman and the entire field of Cold Fusion science. Was the discovery of Fire From Water too good to be true? Or was it the discovery of the millennium? http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0412202/plotsummary?ref_=tt_ov_pl

    Science Fraud: Is the Tail Wagging the Dog? > Phenomenon: Lost Archives
    The Cold Fusion Debacle and the purported discovery of the Piltdown man stand as two of the greatest shams perpetrated over the course of scientific history. Have the people of science learned anything from the real or alleged Goldbricks of the past? Experts in the field seem to think not. Today's scientists are under mounting pressure to achieve results. If they do not, they risk losing research grants and/or a chance at University tenure. How do these inherent conflicts of interest impact the integrity of medical and scientific discovery and how do they affect our society at large? http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0412207/plotsummary?ref_=tt_ov_pl
     

Share This Page