[[ Check out my Wordpress blog Context/Earth for environmental and energy topics tied together in a semantic web framework ]]

Friday, November 11, 2005

Beaker Breaking News

Steven E. Jones, the quack BYU physics professor, who brought us Cold Fusion version 1.1 (Pons and Fleischmann introduced v.1), has started down another goose-stepping path. Now he believes that bombs toppled the WTC on 9/11.

Forget that he never demonstrated the over-the-top and over-optimistic energy positive outcome as did his Utah-based cold fusion colleagues, Jones still benefited from the cold fusion hysteria of the late 80's. As I recall, he never downplayed the practical realities of the science of "Cold Fusion", instead preferring to engage in a high-profile fight with Pons for funding at their respective Utah universities.

Even though Jones latest theory may make some sense, his track record clearly shows that we can't afford to trust him. A number of scientists in the early 90's wasted both lots of effort and funding money -- money arguably better spent on other more incremental projects.

He made one big mistake already by committing a large sin of omission. We really should not buy anything this guy has to say. I bet that he doesn't want to get scooped on this bombing theory like he did by the Pons and Fleischmann characters. Too bad that he doesn't realize that getting scooped becomes irrelevant when the theory won't pan out in the end.

File under Pile higher.Deeper.

The coming meme on the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge as reported by the sanctimonious, pretentious, and unctuous radio douche-spigot Spew Spewitt:
ANWR is a national security issue. In a time of war, the actual production from ANWR is not as improtant as taking the steps necessary to get the oil to a position where it would be available to us if we were to need it because of supply disruption or, worse, a catastrophic attack on our facilities for importing oil.
Too late Spew Spigot, shut your damn tap off and face up to your shameful agenda-driven disingenuousness. You have not lifted one finger to point out oil depletion issues until now. But we know the drill you guys follow. First his corporatist buddies start to feel the heat, then Spew puts his douche-nozzle in full blast for their benefit.

Same thing with Spewitt's favorite mutual crotch-sniffing attorney buddy AssMissile:
In a slap at the party's conservative base, the leadership agreed to cave in to the environmentalist lobby on ANWR oil drilling, an absolutely inexcusable move in a time of high oil prices.
As I first reported last year, in the entire existence of PowerLine, you find nary a mention of oil depletion, at least, until now.
In a slap at the party's conservative base, the leadership agreed to cave in to the environmentalist lobby on ANWR oil drilling, an absolutely inexcusable move in a time of high oil prices.

Like Steven E. Jones, do not give these characters a second chance. They blew it badly the first time and if we follow any policy directions that they will try to force down the throat of their right-wing followers, we will just dig ourselves a deeper hole. And on top of a big mound of Juris.Dung, to boot.


Professor Blogger monkeygrinder said...

I'm sorry to hear Jones is associated with the Cold Fusion set.

As for the WTC, I've always felt it odd that building 7 fell down so fast, without so much as a sneeze. And if seven was demolished, there is nothing to stop one from examining the destruction of the other two. (The one's people remember.)

7:54 PM  
Professor Blogger WHT said...

Yeah, the smaller building, how odd that would fall.

BTW, I sent the Mike Malloy radio show this here post and he read some of it on the air!

8:17 PM  
Professor Anonymous Anonymous said...

I don't get it.
Becuase he was wrong about "cold fusion", and fought for funding for his research, we should IGNORE the completetly reasonable questions he is asking about the WTC collapse?
I don't think this post is sarcastic, but I seriously don't understand why we should discount the questions being asked by a physicist about the physical events of 9-11.
Please, clear up my confusion, because I normally enjoy reading your blog, but this seems a bit reactionary.

8:48 AM  
Professor Blogger WHT said...

In my reactionary mode, I don't give scientists second chances, especially when they blow their first chance in a very high profile way. This is a commonly held code of honor among engineers and scientists. And one that doesn't translate well to the world of politics, c.f. Michael Brown and the Bush cronies. Second, third, fourth, etc., chances are the rule there.

10:26 AM  
Professor Anonymous Anonymous said...

WHT said :

"This is a commonly held code of honor among engineers and scientists"

As a fellow engineer I understand what you are saying, as far as application is concerned. One failed bridge = your last chance. But as far as inquiry is concerned? No, I don't think so. Bark up as many wrong trees as you'd like, investigate every spurious effect you can find, entertain every departure from official explanation. Hell, that might even be the definition of science.

I appreciate your acknowledgement that you were being reactionary, but I am still finding it hard to understand.

Nick B. (anonymous from 8:38am)

11:20 AM  
Professor Blogger WHT said...

But Jones is talking about getting another peer-reviewed paper out. The last time he tried that look what happened:

Indeed, the journal Physical Review C recently declined to publish new fusion findings by Jones because the cited experiment did not work every time.

"They wanted 100 percent reproducibility, rather than evidence of statistical significance," said Jones. "That's a criterion I haven't seen applied elsewhere, a knee-jerk reaction that probably stems back to the 1989 flap."

Maybe so, but some scientists say cold fusion research must necessarily meet the highest standards, if only to rise above past hyperbole and over-inflated expectations. That means published results in the most prestigious peer-reviewed journals.

Bob Park of the American Physical Society put it more bluntly. He'll believe in cold fusion, he said, "when it passes the Kmart test."

My point is that a scientist with a much less tainted reputation would do much better when presenting a paper refuting the conventional wisdom around WTC.

And keep an eye on what Bob Park has to say; he writes a weekly column for the American Physical Society and comments about all the questionable scientific findings of the day.

12:13 PM  
Professor Anonymous Anonymous said...

the controlled demolition theory fits the evidence much more closely than the official theory.

i would not judge this paper according to its author, rather according to its substance.

remember that hitler believed that you could tell a lie so "colossal" that no one would believe anyone "could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously".

in this case, they did something so outrageous that very few people would even dignify the notion that they had done it. some people are coming around, though. it took me three years to even begin to consider the inside job theory, but now i would say that it is true with a probability of more than 90%.

9:47 AM  
Professor Anonymous WLADIMIR GUGLINSKI said...

I would like to say some words concerning what said by the journalist Bob Weber:
"Regardless of experimental results, one needs a convincing theory of CF"
in the link:

Before to understand cold fusion, we neeed to have a complete understanding of the nuclear phenomena. However we dont have it.

In the Introduction of my book QUANTUM RING THEORY, it is written in the page 4:
“Perhaps one would like to say that the foundations for cold fusion are the same of that proposed in Quantum Mechanics. Indeed, in Jan-2004 the cold fusion researcher Dr. Dimitriy Afonichev sent me an e-mail where he said the following:
‘I think that occurrence of cold fusion can be explained on the basis of the existing theories’.
Truthfully his words transmit not merely a personal opinion, because actually several theorists those try to explain the cold fusion occurrence share his viewpoint. However such opinion is very intriguing, since the own academic community is agreeing that the existing theories in the branch of Nuclear Physics are unable to explain even the ordinary nuclear properties, as confessed by Eisberg and Resnick in their book Quantum Physics, where they say in the first page of the Chapter 15:
‘Though we dispose nowadays of a sufficient complete assembly of information about the nuclear forces, we realize that they are too much complexes, not having been possible up to now to use this acknowledge for building an extensive theory of the nuclei. In other words, we cannot explain the whole properties of nuclei in function of the properties of the nuclear forces that actuate on their protons and neutrons’.
So, as the existing theories are unable to explain the nuclear properties responsible for the hot fusion occurrence (which occurs according to the principles of Quantum Mechanics), it's hard to believe that such existing theories could explain nuclear properties that would be responsible for the occurrence of some so much complex as it is the cold fusion (which occurs by infringing the principles of QM). “

For a layman to understand easily that said in the Introduction of my book, take for instance the interaction between two neutrons.
Two neutrons have no repulsion. But in a short distance, they are attracted by the strong force. So, after interacting within a nucleus, two neutrons would have to form the 0n2, and would never separate anymore.
But 0n2 does not exist in nature. Heisenberg tried to explain it with the introduciton of the concept of Isospin. Unfortunatelly the isospin is an abstract mathematical concept.
Two neutrons tied strongly by the strong force cannot be separated by an abstract concept, because an abstract concept cannot produce a FORCE capable to win the force of attraction by the strong force.
Only a FORCE of repulsion can win the force of attraction.
A NEW NUCLEAR MODEL (that shows what is the force of repulsion between two neutrons in short distances) is proposed in my book Quantum Ring theory.

In 2002 the Infinite Energy magazine has published my paper “What is Missing in Les Case’s Catalytc Fusion” , in which I have proposed some improvements to be addopted, in order to avoid the missing of replicability.

In 2003 in the ICCF-10 Lets and Cravens exhibited their experiment, in which they have adopted the suggestions of mine in my paper published in 2002 by IE.

In my book I propose an explanation for Lets-Cravens experiment, showed in paper entitled “Lets-Cravens Experiment and the Accordion-Effect”

The Accordion-Effect is a nuclear property unknown by nuclear theorists, and it is responsible for the resonance that takes place between a nucleus (for instance Pd) and the oscillation of deuterons due to zero-point energy.

After reading some of my papers, the late Dr. Eugene Mallove said in 2004: "Guglinski has interesting and intriguing ideas".
That's why he suggested to put my papers on a book form, and to publish it.

However, Dr. Mallove did not read my papers concerning the new nuclear model.
The stronger reason why the scientific community neglects cold fusion is because its occurrence requires a neutron model n=p+e formed by proton and electron. However such theoretical model violates the Fermi-Diract statistics.

A model of neutron n=p+e that does not violate Fermi-Diract statistics is proposed in the book QUANTUM RING THEORY (QRT).

Two papers on the neutron new model n=p+e of QRT are available in the Internet.
They are:


Before to post here the two links, I would like to give some enlightenment on the paper NEW MODEL OF NEUTRON, as follows:
1) When we analyze the mass of pions according to the current Standard Model, we arrive to contradictory conclusions about the mass M(d) of the quark down and the mass M(u) of the quark up.
In the paper NEW MODEL OF NEUTRON it is shown that we arrive to the following two conclusions:
CONCLUSION 1: M(d) > M(u)
CONCLUSION 2: M(u) > M(d)
2) Look at the chemical reaction Na+Cl->NaCl
QUESTION: what is the matematical formalism underlying such a chemical reaction?
ANSWER: No one. The chemical reactions have not been established through the mathematical formalism.

The chemical reactions have been established based on the LOGIC, and such a procedure was viable because the chemists had the help of a property of the chemical reactions: the mass of the reagent elements does not change after the reactions. For instance, the mass of Na is the same in the two sides of the equation Na+Cl->NaCl.

In the case of the high energy nuclear reactions the discovery of the equations became very complicated, for two reasons:

1) Either particles can desintegrate by discharging energy, or particles can be created, by the transformation of energy to matter.

2) In the model adopted by the theorists, the addition of spins is applied to all the reactons.
However in the beta decay the addtion of spins cannot be applied (but there is conservation of the total angular momentun, because in the reactions there is creation of neutrinos and antineutrinos).

Such anomaly in the addition of spins in the beta decay made the situation to be very bad, and the theorists could not apply the LOGIC for the discovering of the mechanic of high energy reactions, as the chemists made in the Chemistry.

That’s why the theorists tried to solve the problems by the mathematical formalism, through the Lie symetries as SU(2), SU(3), etc.
But the result was unsatisfactory, as one can understand easily. There are particles that does not fit to the theory, and that’s why Murray Gell-Mann felt the need of proposing ad hoc bandages, like the Strangeness.

As the theorists did not discover the true cause of the beta decay anomaly, they impute to other cause the occurrency of that anomaly: they state that the parity is not kept in the beta decay.

By addopting the “spin-fusion” hypothesis proposed in QUANTUM RING THEORY, it is explained the anomaly of the beta decay, and from such a way the high energy reactions can be explained through the LOGIC, in the same way as occurred in Chemistry for the establishment of the chemical reactions.

The two links are:



1:56 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home

"Like strange bulldogs sniffing each other's butts, you could sense wariness from both sides"