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

Wednesday, November 16, 2005

Steven E. Jones redux

Monkeygrinder didn't take the bait with this bit of news so I will.

"Cold fusion energy" pioneer Steven E. Jones recently went out on a limb concerning the WTC collapse, and the evidence keeps mounting that he seems to really enjoy doing this kind of thing, in a repeat-offender kind of way.

BobCousins at peakoil.com pointed out that Jones had also written a paper called "Behold My Hands: Evidence for Christ's Visit in Ancient America"

In it he shows old Mayan figurines of gods showing their palms cupped outward, ala Jesus Christ. From this he makes some wild claims, which you can guess from the title. (I think it proves that either the Mayans: came from a long line of beggars, they had endured quite a dry spell, or they invented silicone breast implants)

I have tracked down all his papers:

"Observation of Cold Nuclear Fusion in Condensed Matter"

"Evidence for Christ's Visit in Ancient America"

"Why Indeed did the WTC Buildings Collapse?

"Did Christ bomb the WTC?"

"Evidence that WTC buildings spontaneously fused"

"Osama visited the Pentagon and left a floater in the executive washroom"

"Watching my scientific reputation collapse"
Regnery Press, pre-publication

"Why won't anyone listen to me? What would JC do?"

(only half in jest)

Seriously, we need a better scientist to get behind this line of inquiry. I would completely back it if we could get someone like the recently passed Richard Smalley. But Jones just acts like a goof-ball. The "progressive=truth" cause doesn't need him.


Professor Anonymous science student said...

1. He is a Mormon. All kinds of religious scientists believe strange things. Many christian scientists follow and believe in more or less solid christian science. Lots of Jewish scientists scientifically puts Jesus and all his pals whereever it would be useful for todays conflict to have been.

Nikola Tesla was an ardent supporter of directing the US defense budget away from earth-based threats and towards attacks by UFOs. That doesn't make induction or AC power wrong. What is interesting is how he applies scientific method, it is revealing that you think a scientific work submitted to a peer reviewed scientific journal can be debunked without dealing with a single of its arguments.

Jones paper reaches a staggering number of people that will read it, as you evidently didn't.

I am not making final judgement on this before I see the final paper, and I will base it on that, not media reports.

2. http://www.newscientist.com/channel/mech-tech/nuclear/dn7315

Cold fusion is not bollocks like you say. Steven E. Jones never claimed his finds could be used for energy production like the idiots you refer to.

Read New York Times' coverage here:


Steven E. Jones claims himself to be the first person to debunk the fake coldfusionist which I find plausible though not verified.

He also does take a position towards how science is often applied by Conspiracy theorists, and does a work with debunking some rather popular theories in 9/11 mythology, read the conclusion to his draft paper.

He did act calm and contained on the MSNBC, intimidating tucker to a degree.

Also note that He is not the Ste*ph*en E. Jones that is into creationism. Steven E. Jones' scientific work aside from his religious writings is rather solid. I made the same mistake as you about him on first encounter.

9:10 PM  
Professor Anonymous Brian M said...

I was present at Steven E. Jones' presentation about 9-11 (at W. Cleon Skousen's home in Utah.)

Currently I am working on a webpage containing the information from a Power Point Presentation that Professor Jones made and showed to us.


Don't bash it until you've read it and seen all the videos.

3:48 PM  
Professor Anonymous WLADIMIR GULGINSKI 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:



3:26 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home

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