"Tom Potter" <tdp1001@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:450414f9$0$19698$88260bb3@free.teranews.com...
|
| "Randy Poe" <poespam-trap@yahoo.com> wrote in message
| news:1157856115.574291.75310@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
| >
| > Steven Ruth wrote:
| >> "Steven Ruth" <nope@nope.com> wrote in message
| >> news:cXAMg.43596$ok5.19103@dukeread01...
| >> He began his career at the university in 1985 and has been known his
cold
| >> fusion research.
| >
| > Ah, so this is not his first crackpot project. He's got a long
| > history of crackpot-ism.
|
| It is interesting to see that "Randy Poe" and "Steven Ruth"
| have short memories, and are making the false statement
| that "He's got a long history of crackpot-ism."
|
| Martin Fleischmann and Stanley Pons of the University of Utah
| were working with their own funds on cold fusion from 1984 to 1988.
|
| In 1988, they applied to the Federal Government for funding,
| and the Department of Energy, who was funding research by
| Steven E. Jones of Brigham Young University
| in muon-catalyzed nuclear fusion, asked him to
| review the feasibility of their grant application.
|
| Apparently, Fleischmann and Pons thought that they were onto
| a revolutionary source of cheap, clean energy,
| and they became paranoiac about Jones and the government,
| stealing their concept, and rushed a paper into print in March 1989,
| so they could claim ownership of cold fusion.
|
| The bottom line is, that Steven E. Jones was doing
| good research, and had a good reputation,
| and that is why he was asked to review the cold fusions grant
application
| of Fleischmann and Pons.
|
| To my knowledge, Jones never promoted nor claimed any viable
| cold fusion breakthroughs, and in fact,
| he doubted that Fleischmann and Pons
| had achieved cold fusion.
|
| As can be seen from the following article from The Washington Post
| on Apr 1, 1989 indicates that Jones appeared skeptical that
| Fleischmann and Pons were claiming far more fusion
| (Four watts vs. less than a trillionth of a watt.)
| than he had seen in his experiments.
|
| "[Steven E. Jones] said that in his experiments fusions occurred at the
rate
| of 0.4 per second. That is not enough to create measurable heat, but is
far
| greater than anything previously seen. Until now, he said scientists
| believed that only one fusion per second occurs in the entire galaxy.
| The University of Utah group said that over 100 hours of fusion produced
| four watts of energy, while Jones' experiments produced less than a
| trillionth of a watt.
| Jones said he could not account for the difference, but he referred to
the
| fact that the Utah group had been working on its experiment two years
| longer."
|
| --
Hey Potty! Here's an earlier screw up along the path to finding energy:
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Smart/LT.gif

Tom Potter wrote:

As can be seen from the following article from The Washington Post
on Apr 1, 1989 indicates that Jones appeared skeptical that
Fleischmann and Pons were claiming far more fusion
(Four watts vs. less than a trillionth of a watt.)
than he had seen in his experiments.

"[Steven E. Jones] said that in his experiments fusions occurred at the rate
of 0.4 per second. That is not enough to create measurable heat, but is far
greater than anything previously seen. Until now, he said scientists
believed that only one fusion per second occurs in the entire galaxy.
The University of Utah group said that over 100 hours of fusion produced
four watts of energy, while Jones' experiments produced less than a
trillionth of a watt.
Jones said he could not account for the difference, but he referred to the
fact that the Utah group had been working on its experiment two years
longer."

Great... Cutting edge, world-changing physicists who thnk energy is
measured in watts...They probably give the dimensions of their
apparatus in knot-seconds...

"Steven Ruth" <nope@nope.com> wrote in message
news:TlLMg.9142$c07.5866@fed1read04...

"Randy Poe" <poespam-trap@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1157856115.574291.75310@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...

Steven Ruth wrote:

"Steven Ruth" <nope@nope.com> wrote in message
news:cXAMg.43596$ok5.19103@dukeread01...
He began his career at the university in 1985 and has been known his
cold
fusion research.

Ah, so this is not his first crackpot project. He's got a long
history of crackpot-ism.

But other professors will teach his classes while he's on
paid leave.

He will be allowed to conduct research in his field but the university
is
reviewing his actions.

What field is that?

- Randy

He is definetly a crackpot! But all of the conspiracy theorists eat it
up
because he is a "physics professor". But even his peers don't seem to
agree with him since: "...Dr. Jones' works on this topic has not been
published in appropriate scientific venues."

I suggest that "Steven Ruth" do more research about Steven Jones
before declaring him a "crackpot" or claiming that
"his peers don't agree with him" (generally speaking).
(No doubt, peers can disagree on specific issues,
as evidenced in the excerpts from a May 3, 1989
newpaper article, below where Jones took exception
with the cold fusion findings of Pons and Fleischmann.)
=====================================

Physicists Debunk Claim Of a New Kind of Fusion
By MALCOLM W. BROWNE, SPECIAL TO THE NEW YORK TIMES

ALTIMORE -- Hopes that a new kind of nuclear fusion might give the world
an
unlimited source of cheap energy appear to have been dealt a devastating
blow by scientific evidence presented here.
In two days of meetings lasting until midnight, members of the American
Physical Society heard fresh experimental evidence from many researchers
that nuclear fusion in a jar of water does not exist.

Physicists seemed generally persuaded as the sessions ended that
assertions
of "cold fusion" were based on nothing more than experimental errors by
scientists in Utah.

Furor on Initial Claim

Dr. B. Stanley Pons, professor of chemistry at the University of Utah, and
his colleague, Dr. Martin Fleischmann of the University of Southampton in
England, touched off a furor by asserting on March 23 in Salt Lake City
that
they had achieved nuclear fusion in a jar of water at room temperature.

Some of the new experiments also sought to reproduce the less contentious
findings on cold fusion reported independently by Dr. Steven E. Jones and
his colleagues at Brigham Young University in Utah. Dr. Jones, who used a
device similar to the one in the Pons-Fleischmann experiment, did not
claim
that any useful energy was produced. But he did report that slightly more
neutrons were detected while the cell was operating than could be expected
from normal sources. The result suggests at least the possibility of
fusion,
he said, although it is not likely to be useful as an energy source.

Physicists who have investigated Dr. Jones's report have been fairly
restrained in their criticism, acknowledging that Dr. Jones is a careful
scientist. But from the outset they have expressed profound skepticism of
claims by Dr. Fleischmann and Dr. Pons.

Dr. Jones himself spoke at the meeting, and although participants
questioned
him sharply about his experiment, questioning was generally friendly.

He drew cheers and laughter when he concluded his talk by saying, "Is this
a
shortcut to fusion energy? Read my lips: No!" He defended his own
experiment, describing his results as a "fragile flower" that would never
grow into a "tree" producing useful energy, but could nevertheless
"beautify" science.
=======================

The bottom line is,
many people are confusing Jones with Pons and Fleischmann.

--

"Steven Ruth" <nope@nope.com> wrote in message
news:TlLMg.9142$c07.5866@fed1read04...

"Randy Poe" <poespam-trap@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1157856115.574291.75310@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...

Steven Ruth wrote:

"Steven Ruth" <nope@nope.com> wrote in message
news:cXAMg.43596$ok5.19103@dukeread01...
He began his career at the university in 1985 and has been known his
cold
fusion research.

Ah, so this is not his first crackpot project. He's got a long
history of crackpot-ism.

But other professors will teach his classes while he's on
paid leave.

He will be allowed to conduct research in his field but the university
is
reviewing his actions.

What field is that?

- Randy

He is definetly a crackpot! But all of the conspiracy theorists eat it up
because he is a "physics professor". But even his peers don't seem to
agree with him since: "...Dr. Jones' works on this topic has not been
published in appropriate scientific venues."

I suggest that "Steven Ruth" do more research about Steven Jones
before declaring him a "crackpot" or claiming that
"his peers don't agree with him" (generally speaking).
(No doubt, peers can disagree on specific issues,
as evidenced in the excerpts from a May 3, 1989
newpaper article, below where Jones took exception
with the cold fusion findings of Pons and Fleischmann.)
=====================================

Physicists Debunk Claim Of a New Kind of Fusion
By MALCOLM W. BROWNE, SPECIAL TO THE NEW YORK TIMES

ALTIMORE -- Hopes that a new kind of nuclear fusion might give the world an
unlimited source of cheap energy appear to have been dealt a devastating
blow by scientific evidence presented here.
In two days of meetings lasting until midnight, members of the American
Physical Society heard fresh experimental evidence from many researchers
that nuclear fusion in a jar of water does not exist.

Physicists seemed generally persuaded as the sessions ended that assertions
of "cold fusion" were based on nothing more than experimental errors by
scientists in Utah.

Furor on Initial Claim

Dr. B. Stanley Pons, professor of chemistry at the University of Utah, and
his colleague, Dr. Martin Fleischmann of the University of Southampton in
England, touched off a furor by asserting on March 23 in Salt Lake City that
they had achieved nuclear fusion in a jar of water at room temperature.

Some of the new experiments also sought to reproduce the less contentious
findings on cold fusion reported independently by Dr. Steven E. Jones and
his colleagues at Brigham Young University in Utah. Dr. Jones, who used a
device similar to the one in the Pons-Fleischmann experiment, did not claim
that any useful energy was produced. But he did report that slightly more
neutrons were detected while the cell was operating than could be expected
from normal sources. The result suggests at least the possibility of fusion,
he said, although it is not likely to be useful as an energy source.

Physicists who have investigated Dr. Jones's report have been fairly
restrained in their criticism, acknowledging that Dr. Jones is a careful
scientist. But from the outset they have expressed profound skepticism of
claims by Dr. Fleischmann and Dr. Pons.

Dr. Jones himself spoke at the meeting, and although participants questioned
him sharply about his experiment, questioning was generally friendly.

He drew cheers and laughter when he concluded his talk by saying, "Is this a
shortcut to fusion energy? Read my lips: No!" He defended his own
experiment, describing his results as a "fragile flower" that would never
grow into a "tree" producing useful energy, but could nevertheless
"beautify" science.
=======================

The bottom line is,
many people are confusing Jones with Pons and Fleischmann.

--
Tom Potter
http://home.earthlink.net/~tdp/
http://tdp1001.googlepages.com/home
http://no-turtles.com
http://www.frappr.com/tompotter
http://photos.yahoo.com/tdp1001
http://spaces.msn.com/tdp1001
http://www.flickr.com/photos/tom-potter/
http://tom-potter.blogspot.com




--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
Warning: Do not use Ultimate-Anonymity
They are worthless spammers that are running a scam.

schoenfeld.one@gmail.com wrote:

Randy Poe wrote:

Steven Ruth wrote:

"Steven Ruth" <nope@nope.com> wrote in message
news:cXAMg.43596$ok5.19103@dukeread01...
He began his career at the university in 1985 and has been known his cold
fusion research.

Ah, so this is not his first crackpot project. He's got a long
history of crackpot-ism.

Muon-catalyzed nuclear fusion research was of interest some decades
ago,

Until it was found not to exist.

schoenfeld.one@gmail.com wrote:

Randy Poe wrote:

Steven Ruth wrote:

"Steven Ruth" <nope@nope.com> wrote in message
news:cXAMg.43596$ok5.19103@dukeread01...
He began his career at the university in 1985 and has been known his cold
fusion research.

Ah, so this is not his first crackpot project. He's got a long
history of crackpot-ism.

Muon-catalyzed nuclear fusion research was of interest some decades
ago,

Until it was found not to exist.

- Randy