Does Dr. Steven Jones Still Post Here?

[JouleSeeker]

...
Maybe Rossi is afraid to release any details for fear someone will copy his process.  Or he doesn't really have it running right yet.  As it is Dekfalion seems to be a bit further ahead in that game and I'm sure others are trying to get in fast to corner their share of the action.   I suppose at this point maximum secrecy is part of their game plan.

Perhaps you're right.   Seeking beaucoup bucks and "maximum secrecy" causes people to do strange, non-scientific things I've found.

There should be fair return to the inventor(s) of new energy sources, for sure; but (IMO) the goal is to get the new energy source out to the people and not worry about patents and tons of money -- but rather, let mankind benefit and be freed from Big Oyl domination/control.   

For instance, I gave my little solar-cooker invention to the world freely.  The Solar Funnel Cooker concept is now all over the globe, benefitting families especially in third-world countries.  (I have reports from Haiti, Kenya, Bolivia, Phillipines, Peru, etc. -- favorable reports of people using this invention.)  That's the pattern I'd like to see for Freedom Energy!   

(See my web=site, bottom of the page for more re: solar funnel cooker:
http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/  )

[TinselKoala]

There is just one thing about your Solar Funnel Cooker that distinguishes it from Rossi's ECat: the solar cooker works as claimed and anyone can build one and get the same results.

Now.... ask yourself who would likely to benefit if Rossi's or Defkalion's claims were in fact true. First and foremost would be military interests. How is a civilian who posts on the internet going to keep anything secret from, say, Mossad, or the CIA, or GRU? Then ask yourself who would be the most hurt if Rossi's claims were true, and who would have the most to gain from suppressing him entirely "with prejudice" as they say in the spy novels? Yet he continues to blog, to make further improbable claims, to "improve" the design (taking it out of reach of the garage investigator, unlike the original ECat.... which works and could easily be demonstrated........ right?) and continues to walk around free, instead of working in some corporate or military laboratory.

[JouleSeeker]

There is just one thing about your Solar Funnel Cooker that distinguishes it from Rossi's ECat: the solar cooker works as claimed and anyone can build one and get the same results.

Good point -- the Solar Funnel Cooker does work to harvest the sun's FREE energy; whenever the sun is shining!

Now.... ask yourself who would likely to benefit if Rossi's or Defkalion's claims were in fact true. First and foremost would be military interests. How is a civilian who posts on the internet going to keep anything secret from, say, Mossad, or the CIA, or GRU? Then ask yourself who would be the most hurt if Rossi's claims were true, and who would have the most to gain from suppressing him entirely "with prejudice" as they say in the spy novels? Yet he continues to blog, to make further improbable claims, to "improve" the design (taking it out of reach of the garage investigator, unlike the original ECat.... which works and could easily be demonstrated........ right?) and continues to walk around free, instead of working in some corporate or military laboratory.

  I've heard that Rossi has a military contact or contract...  not that that would be a good thing (IMO).

  How to avoid supporting the warmongers?  this is a challenge and decent goal that perhaps we share.  I think most of us in this community share this goal.  One approach is to build on a "toy model" scale -- a small, "ignorable" device...

Another approach is to quietly build a new device by the dozens, in various countries, then announce the successfully tested devices on a particular day, world-wide. Go viral if possible. At least the information would reach the people.

Note that it may be that the military-corporatist complex already have "free energy" and just wish to suppress any significant developments outside their control.

@all:  Don't think that there is no suppression. As some of you may know, a device was shipped to me via fedex for testing in my (home) laboratory, and the device arrived dis-assembled and badly scratched.  Four nuts which held the device together (on four large bolts) were found in the bottom of the shipping container -- a different container than the device was shipped in by the inventor.  The parts had been crudely re-assembled -- in the wrong order!   The inventor is re-building the device. 

Harassment, at least.

Also, I have been the object of rather vicious personalized attacks (see video in OP of JamesThomas above for starters -- vid makes vilifying, untrue accusations against me).  Harassment, again.  Let us continue, but aware of likely opposition to deal with.

[JouleSeeker]

An article by Ed Storms [http://www.tcm.phy.cam.ac.uk/~bdj10/papers/storms/review8.html ] states:
Quote

In 1989, Pons and Fleischmann [1] (P-F) caused a media storm by claiming to cause fusion to take place in an ordinary electrolytic cell containing D2O. This process was first named "Cold Fusion" by Steven Jones - an especially poor description. The names "Chemically Assisted Nuclear Reactions" (CANR) and "Low Energy Nuclear Reactions" (LENR) more correctly describe the phenomenon.

Notice that Storms provides no reference for his statement, "This process was first named "Cold Fusion" by Steven Jones - an especially poor description."
In fact, I strongly opposed calling the "P-F process" cold fusion from day one. 

I believe the problem arises when one conflates two distinct processes:

1.  A small fusion-enhancement effect in metals which we observed at BYU -- this is what Paul Palmer and I called "cold fusion" beginning in 1985-86, years before we even heard of P &F.  The cold d-d fusion process produces measurable ENERGETIC proton and neutron emission, demonstration of a true d-d fusion process, and the term cold d-d fusion applies.  Our observation has been verified and made 100% reproducible in experiments in Japan and Europe (see my website for references).

2.  An anomalous excess heat effect which P&F claimed, which they admitted does NOT produce commensurate neutrons and which is still not 100% reproducible.  This is a different phenomenon from (1).

I strongly urged Fleischmann to NOT call the anomalous heat effect "cold fusion" -- I did NOT call this process cold fusion!

Storms and others like to call the P-F anomalous heat effect "CANR" or "LENR" as we see in Storms' paper -- but even that is not sure at this time, we don't know that the excess heat is nuclear in origin.  It should just be called an "anomalous heat effect" until the source of the excess heat is determined experimentally.

A factual history of the cold fusion research at BYU is given here:  http://pages.csam.montclair.edu/~kowalski/cf/131history.html

My recent comments on the anomalous heat effect here:  http://pesn.com/2012/11/19/9602225_Steven_Jones_replica--Pons_and_Fleischmann_XS_Heat_not_from_fusion/

My website:  http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/