"Y CHALLENGE" I suppose a guy could look at it as a slap in the face, but I choose rather to consider it as a challenge.
You see, the BYU Physics Dept. had me scheduled to give a colloquium talk on September 5, 2012, on “Alternative Energy: History and Prospects.” I had been invited to speak and the talk was publicly announced; see screen-copy below.
All winter long, I was so looking forward to speaking to the students, once again to see them and share some exciting news.
However, I was later told that the BYU physics faculty had met apparently some time in March and voted that I would not be allowed to speak after all! What the heck!?!
Actually, they did not tell me they were going to reconsider nor did any in the BYU physics department inform me afterwards of their decision – until a fellow in Nevada noticed that someone else was scheduled for my day, and then I emailed the department chair to ask what was going on. Curiously, the chair declined to email an answer even that my colloquium had been cancelled, but would only speak to me verbally.
Bizarre, I thought, to cancel a BYU Physics colloquium scheduled by a Full Professor of Physics (Emeritus at the time) who had served for over 21 years at BYU, and not even tell him you had canceled it!?
OK, so I went to the Chair's office and he informed me that indeed my colloquium had been canceled by vote of the BYU Physics Department faculty.
Wow! What is so controversial about alternative energy? Especially by a full Professor of Physics Emeritus who had researched alternative energy for decades! I taught at BYU for over 21 years, yet they reject my colloquium behind my back?
Whoa! I take that as a challenge to spur research.
I was going to talk about over three DECADES of research regard muon-catalyzed fusion and its daughter “cold fusion” aka “geo-fusion”/ along with other non-conventional alternative energy approaches. After all I had published in Scientific American (July 1987) and the British journal Nature (May 1986 and April 1989) as well as Physical Review Letters on these topics – and indeed I have devoted my career to exploring alternative energy. (Web-page
http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/ )
Undaunted, I gave the talk I was planning to give at BYU a few weeks later at the University of Missouri in Columbia, Missouri. Yes, they allowed me to speak! Sure, I discussed muon-catalyzed fusion and geo-fusion/cold fusion and all those supposedly weird yet exciting topics. I explained that the BYU geo-fusion results, published in Nature in1989, had been put on firm footing in subsequent experiments, with 100% reproducibility in research conducted in Japan and Europe. [E.g., Czerski, K.; Huke, A.; Biller, A.; Heide, P.; Hoeft, M.; Ruprecht, G. (2001). "Enhancement of the electron screening effect for d+ d fusion reactions in metallic environments". Europhysics Letters 54 (4): 449–455. Quote: “...the observed enhancement of the electron screening in metal targets can, in tendency, explain the small neutron production rates observed in the cold-fusion experiment of Jones [reference 1989 Nature paper].”
These researchers at the University of Missouri did not call it “bad science” at all, but listened and commented in scientific fashion. One of the professors then invited me to speak at the next International Conference on Condensed Matter Nuclear Science to be held at that University of Missouri the following summer. I accepted and spoke and greatly enjoyed meeting with colleagues in this ongoing research.
[Jones, Steven E. "Empirical Evidence for Two Distinct Effects: Low-level d-d Fusion in Metals and Anomalous Excess Heat". 18th International Conference on Condensed Matter Nuclear Science. University of Missouri.]
To be fair, some of this research is cutting-edge and therefore controversial. I noted that Dr Harvey Fletcher, another BYU graduate, had puzzled over Henry Moray's device, and admitted he could not deny it nor explain it. Cutting-edge research is often “out of the box.”
I welcome the challenging nature of research that can benefit humanity with a NEW untapped energy source. And I see nothing wrong with openly discussing these studies with students, at BYU and the University of Missouri and elsewhere. Students are sharp and can decide for themselves what lines of research to pursue. They don't have to be “protected” from research colloquiua as if they cannot think for themselves.
After my talks at the University of Missouri, the St. Joseph News-Press covered my alternative energy research responsibly:
http://www.newspressnow.com/news/local_news/article_3c2ae1c1-423d-576e-9d54-10ef13b6c131.html I asked a member of the BYU physics faculty about the vote against letting me speak. He replied that
“I initially advocated for your presentation but changed my mind.”
And, he explained further,
“I read about Moray device online at http://thmoray.org/ . The information there is not encouraging. The Radiant Energy device looks like bad science: sworn affidavits, anecdotal evidence, affirmations mixed with religious sentiment, a devoted band of true believers, a plea for financial support, assertions of powerful entities trying to suppress information, and no credible scientific explanation, no access to experimental details, and a secret key component that no one can reproduce in spite of "millions" spent in that effort.”
Of course,
one of the affidavits was by Dr. Harvey Fletcher, a famous physicist with BYU connections, who gave considerable details about the Moray experiment, hardly “anecdotal evidence.” True, Fletcher could not explain the Moray device even after inspecting it, but that does not invalidate his carefully recorded observations of the Moray device. And my talk would cover MUCH more than this one example anyway!
I wrote back to this BYU physics professor:
“1. Did you think that my talk was about the Moray device only? ...
A simple email or phone call would have clarified ...
To me, the goal is to get this into the hands of families in third-world countries, as I did with the solar cooker. It is apparent that you and the department majority are not interested. Sigh.”
The BYU Professor declined to answer my question.
To me, this is not a game, but an opportunity for cutting-edge research and a sought-for breakthrough which may benefit humanity for centuries! I do not claim we are “there” yet – but I do claim there are evidences, “anomalies” I call them, which should be studied out and pursued.
OK, I could be offended I suppose – but instead I choose to view this as a challenge, to FIND OUT. Working to actually show the BYU guys and others that they are missing something and there IS some real (if “anomalous”) science here. We certainly have some observations by good scientists that this is the case. Perhaps students at BYU and around the world will be allowed to view for themselves, and ponder the evidence in front of them. It is their world that may be transformed by a game-changing novel energy source.
And so I accept the rejection of my scheduled BYU Colloquium as a challenge: Can I/we demonstrate conclusively the existence of a new (untapped) source of useful power and energy? That is the central issue. I will be working with colleagues around the globe, such as Professor Jirohta Kasagi of Tohoku University and Dr. Francesco Celani (see photos below, taken at ICCF-18, Univ. of Missouri) and many others including Chet Kremens, Russ Gries, and Mark Vaughn.
As I have repeatedly stated, we are not looking for “perpetual motion machine” which would be considered “bad science.” Rather, we are looking for a novel, presently-untapped source of energy - like uranium used to be (before 1900 certainly). We are talking about pursuing an unusual effect that a serious scientist can observe and replicate and study in the laboratory. We are approaching a light that glows "forever" (BYU faculty will be familiar with the Brother of Jared and his glowing solid-state devices).
I will leave it that – Stay tuned!
Author
Topic: Dr. Jones - Current Research and Historical Notes (Read 101140 times)
