Dr. Steven E. Jones disputes accusations made in documentary “Heavy Watergate: The War Against Cold Fusion”


This weekend (April 17-18, 2007) I traveled to Austin, TX to attend the Project for a New American Citizen (PNACitizen) sponsored event “Rebuilding America’s Senses: Exposing False-Flag Terrorism to Prevent a New 9/11”. While there, I had the great honor of meeting Dr. Steven Jones for the first time.

In the past few months, there has been widespread criticism of Dr. Steven Jones’ former muon-catalyzed research through the documentary “Heavy Watergate: The War Against Cold Fusion”:

I quote:

Prior to the 1989 announcement, Steven E. Jones, a physics professor at nearby Brigham Young University, learned of Pons and Fleischmann’s work through an informant at the DOE. In a flagrant example of shameless opportunism, Jones insisted on going public quickly with his comparatively much less clear results. Disparaging the excess heat claims of Fleishmann and Pons, Jones announcement would have effectively prevented the two scientists from patenting their process -- a process they had developed on their own over long years of research.

As I thought these attacks on Dr. Jones could possibly derail the credibility of his current research analyzing various samples of World Trade Center dust, I decided to interview him in the hope that he might permanently settle the controversy behind the claim that he once was a saboteur of early cold fusion research.

Thankfully, Dr. Jones refuted the accusations made in "Heavy Watergate: The War Against Cold Fusion" by way of a number of compelling points:

1.) Pons and Fleischmann were independent researchers that Dr. Jones did not know when he first began his work on muon-catalyzed fusion in 1985.

2.) Dr. Jones’ first publication on muon-catalyzed fusion, C.D. Van Siclen and S.E. Jones, "Piezonuclear Fusion in Isotopic Hydrogen Molecules," Journal of Physics G. Nucl. Phys. 12: 213-221 (1986), was three years before the 1989 Pons and Fleischmann announcement.

3.) The decision of Pons and Fleischmann to go public in 1989 with the results of their cold fusion research was theirs and theirs alone to make. To suggest that a previous open declaration by Dr. Steven Jones about his work somehow played a manipulative role in this event is ridiculous and unfounded.

That Dr. Jones impeded the patentability of Pons and Fleischmann's cold fusion research is for me a particularly perplexing allegation. As one who is quite familiar with the patent process, I think I can confidently say that a public statement by Dr. Jones about his research would not have prevented Pons and Fleischmann from acquiring a patent for their work.

Here are the reasons why:

1.) The respective research of Dr. Jones and Pons and Fleishmann appears to have been different enough for the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) to grant individual patent rights for what I view are altogether separate utilities and/or methods.

2.) With respect to patent rights, the United States practices “first to invent” not “first to file” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_to_invent). Although a public announcement might lend some weight to the claim of first inventor, such a claim would not be absolute as other forms of documentation, for example laboratory notebooks and formerly published papers, can help to establish first inventor rights.

3.) The provisional patent application process (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Provisional_application), established June 8, 1995 was obviously not in effect in 1989 when the announcements in question were made. At that time, the process of reducing an invention to practice and the patent process itself were both difficult and expensive. This fact could have served as a reasonable motive for Pons and Fleischmann to publicly announce their cold fusion discovery in order to have the stronger claim to first inventor rights – especially if they feared the claim could be challenged by another inventor following a similar line of research, like Dr. Steven Jones.

Regardless, Dr. Jones has provided a very reasonable and legitimate explanation as to why there is no substance to the accusation that he somehow, through a mere public announcement of his work, sabotaged both the patentability and ultimate progress of Pons and Fleischmann's cold fusion research.

On a lighter note, thanks to Dr. Jones for inadvertently teaching me through my interview of him the correct pronunciation of the words “muon” and "Pons".

Great job! The attacks on Dr

Great job! The attacks on Dr Jones are very transparent and desperate.


Retired physicist claims 9/11 attack was really controlled demolition
Ex-BYU professor bases theory on examination of dust samples

By Philip Jankowski



Thanks for article, link added to DIGG !!!

Thanks and best wishes


That was a really great article!


it really was. short but not

it really was. short but not condescending or disrespectful at all. it would probably be enough to get me to google some 9/11 truth if i wasnt already "in the know".

A belated thank you

I came across this video today quite by accident. My belated thanks to Mekt_Ranzz for asking me the questions he did regarding cold fusion, and for videotaping my responses.

Some may be interested in a newspaper article from a year ago that addresses this issue once more along with a brief discussion of some of my recent energy-related research: