Experimental Science to the Rescue: 9/11, Cold Fusion, now Alt-Energy

                 When I jumped into the ring to study 9/11 events in early 2005, I found that there were numerous wild and even conflicting claims. It was the “wild, wild west.” Some were saying that no planes hit the WTC Towers at all, and some said (in 2005 or soon thereafter) an energy beam from space knocked the Towers down. There were NO published peer-reviewed scientific papers in the field. To make a long story VERY short, this confused situation changed via experimental data and peer-reviewed papers published by Kevin Ryan, Dr. Niels Harrit, Dr. Frank Legge, Dr. Jeffrey Farrer, James Gourley, Dr. Crockett Grabbe, Tony Szamboti, and myself and others. Now the science of 9/11 and the use of pyrotechnics/explosives is on firm experimental footing and serious challengers to our papers will need to find a way to publish peer-reviewed papers of their own (in established journals preferably) if they can. (They have not done so.) That's how science works-- peer-reviewed published papers stand until challenged by another peer-reviewed paper. This has been the pattern for scientific progress for over 300 years, since Isaac Newton.

                 In a parallel way, experimental science came to the rescue when there were conflicting claims regarding Cold Fusion back in 1989. Unless you were on another planet or too young, you will recall the fervor generated by claims of working water-heaters by means of d-d fusion in metals by two chemists, P&F. They claimed “excess heat” production without neutron production via d-d fusion. I was thrown into the middle of the fray because a team (which I headed) claimed a MUCH smaller effect, but again involving d-d fusion in metals, with certain metals facilitating fusion better than other metals. Our paper was published in the peer-reviewed journal NATURE in April 1989; P&F withdrew their paper which they had submitted to the same journal about the same time.

                Our claims were put on solid footing when the “BYU-level” cold-fusion effect was made 100% reproducible by experiments in Japan and Europe, along with the use of state-of-the-art equipment (which we also used). Replication is the heart of science. The best metal for catalyzing cold fusion found so far is a lithium-palladium alloy. A brief summary can be found here: http://journalof911studies.com/volume/200704/JonesWTC911SciMethod.pdf

                There is yet another important field – one that relates to both 9/11 and to energy IMO – that is now in a “wild, wild west” condition. This is the field of alternate, non-conventional energy. Achieving a clean cheap and non-conventional form of energy might very well undercut the move towards centralization (some call it the "New World Order"); by taking control of energy sources (mostly fossil fuels) out of the hands of the wealthy elite and putting it into homes and communities worldwide. That is the expressed goal of a number of researchers in this clean-energy field.

                 Examples in this field include claims of energy generation by: Bedini motors, Marks TPU devices, Joule Thief circuits, variations on cold fusion (often called Low Energy Nuclear Reactions, LENR) and HHO generators. Getting more power out than the electrical power one puts in to initiate things is called “overunity” – there are NO published peer-reviewed papers claiming overunity at this time. Further, there are at least two prizes for the successful achievement of overunity that have been around for years, and neither has yet been claimed, showing that the research is not yet mature. (See, e.g., http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=2157.435 )

                 As with 9/11 and cold fusion researches, I'm trying to bring the scientific method including experiments using state-of-the-art equipment to find out what's really going on here, and to contribute if I can to the goal of achieving cheap, local clean energy.    In recent months, I have done tests using advanced techniques to evaluate input and output power -- experiments that suggest there MAY be a previously-untapped source of energy here. (I still believe in the law of Conservation of Mass-Energy!) I'm trying once again to bring “rigor without rancor”.

                 Prof. Harrit recently asked me about the claims of heat-production via proton-Nickel “cold fusion” by Rossi and Focardi in Italy. Below is an abbreviated version of my response, which is also a challenge to the “inventors” to do serious experiments and to publish those results. First the claim (by Focardi): “Here’s what’s going on: there, in the container, we have nickel and hydrogen, then we heat up the system. Then, let’s say, the hydrogen nuclei, which are protons, move inside the system and these protons are able to come into contact with the nickel, with the atom, penetrate into the atom and even into its nucleus. So, when the proton penetrates into the nickel nucleus, nickel is turned into copper...” – Focardi, http://22passi.blogspot.com/2011/04/sergio-focardi-father-of-ni-h-cold.html

                 Adding a proton to a Nickel nucleus as claimed by Rossi and Focardi will produce Copper isotopes, predominately Cu-59 and Cu-61, since the predominate isotopes of nickel are Ni-58 (68%) and Ni-60 (26.2%). Both Cu-59 and Cu-61 are highly radioactive and easily detectable. And detecting their presence via decay products would conclusively demonstrate the occurrence of the proton-capture reaction on Nickel. I challenge Rossi et al. to make quantitative measurements to demonstrate the proton-Nickel reaction they claim. I would use a gamma-ray detector; detailed gamma spectra from the decay of Cu-59 and Cu-61 are given in this reference: http://atom.kaeri.re.kr/ton/

                Cu-59 http://atom.kaeri.re.kr/cgi-bin/decay?Cu-59%20EC Half life: 81.5 s – short enough to be VERY easy to observe and demonstrate, to determine whether actually produced or not.

                 Cu-61 http://atom.kaeri.re.kr/cgi-bin/decay?Cu-61%20EC Half life: 3.33 hrs, also short enough to be VERY easy to observe and demonstrate, to determine whether actually produced or not

Edit 31 May 2011: Replication of my test circuit by Chris; see comment below; schematic diagram as he drew it, attached.

ChrisReplicationOfSJ1.jpg81.42 KB

PS -- Anyone with electronic-circuit savvy

including test equipment (e.g., digital storage oscilloscope) -- pls let me know. And if you would be willing to test one or more of these devices, and your location.

Here's the website

where most of my posts -- including circuit schematics and data -- are posted in this field of novel electromagnetics:


I go by "PhysicsProf" there.

Happy reading!

Videos as Introduction to the "new energy" movement

Muller generator:

What stops development of “free energy”?

Introduction by Manning of BreakthroughPower.net

Where does “free energy” come from?

Decent forum discussion on the Muller device:

Found a LOT of good videos lately

doing research on the Benini motor.

Some of the more interesting ones covering the RomeroUK Muller Dynamo are as follows.

The Smart Scarecrow Show (about a day old):

20110519 - Bill Muller's magnetic motor/dynamo


Videos created so far by ZeroFossilFuel covering his attempt to replicate the RomeroUK Muller Dynamo from scratch:

#268 RomeroUK Muller motor generator replication begins

#269 RomeroUK Muller motor generator replication

#270 Muller motor update & Call to action

#271 Muller Motor bobbins & safety

I'll post more soon!

Thank you, Mekt.

The RomeroUK/Muller dynamo is a particularly interesting approach, given the videos of the device self-running. Unfortunately, Romero's device was confiscated before he could learn the exact nature or source of the incoming energy field. He was threatened and intimidated by the suits. Citing a bad heart and need to keep his job, he said he will no longer talk about his device. However, others are pursuing replications based on the info he provided publicly before the visit to his home by these guys...

There are reasons why a corporatist state would resist innovative developments; explained here:

"The corporatist state not only destroys free enterprise but it also expands enormously the corrupt influences of government and destroys individual rights to life, liberty, and property on a selective basis. While it ensures prosperity for corporate leaders, it simultaneously ensures the destruction of innovation. By reducing competition and making industry far more dependent on planned growth dictated by federal bureaucrats, it miscalculates consumer demand leading to avoidance of the best and highest uses, reduces the standard of living, and increases the cost of all goods and services. In short, it reduces everything that is above and fails to raise anything that is below. It stultifies the economy by encumbering the functioning of engines of innovation and by insulating leading firms, reducing the necessity for their investment in research and investment."

Congratulations, Prof Jones!

20110526 - Does nuclear power have a future in a post Fukushima world ?

Dr. Steven E. Jones demonstrates 8x overunity circuit

Thanks, Mekt.

The videos were acquired yesterday. You can see some of what I'm doing in these videos.
Results are still coming in, and yes, there is hope for a novel energy source -- hope for humanity.

As I said -- NOT "perpetual motion" machine

I've thought of an analogy to help explain why such a device would NOT be -- as I have repeatedly said -- a "perpetual motion" machine as some here have erroneously posited. Think of an electric-power generator that has an electrical starter. This has more electrical power OUT than IN, and so is "overunity" as I defined it above.

This conventional generator has input energy from the fossil fuel consumed. Novel electrodynamic devices would have input energy from another source. So the issue then is -- are all sources of energy known at the present time? That is the question. It is not an issue of violating laws of physics which have been established experimentally and which I taught for over two decades as a full Professor of Physics. (I'm amused by assertions that I'm saying otherwise.)

I am saying that there may be -- evidently are (based on my own experiments and measurements of novel electordynamic devices) -- novel sources of energy that we are just learning about.

As long as the external source of energy provides energy, then the device will run -- just as the generator will run as long as you supply it with fuel. No violation of Physics laws in either case.

How to proceed, to determine the source of incoming energy...

First we establish that "overunity" as defined above exists in a novel electrodynamic device (OU-EDD). As I've noted, there are two prizes offered for the successful demonstration of such a device, and so far no one has been awarded either prize, nor is there yet a published peer-reviewed paper.

However, I'd like to help improve the situation, as I have myself OBSERVED the overunity condition using state-of-the-art Tektronix equipment (Tek 3032 DSO).

But back to the question -- How to proceed, to determine the source of incoming energy... once OU is firmly established experimentally.

I would say the next step would be to CUT OFF the incoming energy flow, in order to determine its source.
In the case of the conventional generator, when we cut off the fossil fuel, the thing stops.

So, once we have an OU-EDD, we proceed to determine how to STOP IT. This tells us something about the source of energy.

IF the source of energy is the earth's magnetic field, then we put the RUNNING device inside a magnetic-shielding cage. IF the source is electromagnetic waves (from whatever origin), we should be able to STOP IT by placing in an excellent FARADAY CAGE. And so on -- we do experimental tests to determine the source of the incoming ENERGY.

See? we proceed, as usual, by experiments. (NOT by mere speculation without experiments.)

EM waves

"IF the source is electromagnetic waves (from whatever origin), we should be able to STOP IT by placing in an excellent FARADAY CAGE. "

Yes, but we should also be able to measure the EM wave directly. If this is the source of the energy it should have the same magnitude as the net output power. What is the measured "overunity" of your device, i.e. the difference in input and output power? If you provide this number we have an order of magnitude estimate for the power of the EM waves.

For my device,

you asked: "What is the measured "overunity" of your device, i.e. the difference in input and output power? If you provide this number we have an order of magnitude estimate for the power of the EM waves."

I can give the measured difference in input and output power, but note (again) that it would be premature to claim that the incoming power comes from "EM waves" and I did not make that claim(!). First experimental replication, verification, and scaling up (as I said at the OUResearch forum) then one can proceed to determine the source of the incoming energy.

For my device (discussed at overunityresearch.com), I obtained on 1 April 2011 the following results:

Input power: 1.26 mW
Output power: 10.36 mW

The difference is 9.1 mW, to answer your question.
The data were acquired using a 300 MHz Tektronix 3032 oscilloscope using its built-in math function to determine the input and output power.

If someone can tell me how to attach a file here, I could attach the data from the Tek 3032 for you to see.
Thanks for the question.


Yes, I'm aware of that you did not claim the source was EM in nature. I was merely trying to understand thing better and add a thought.

In related to alleged overunity devices I've also seen that there are the people who claim that you can extract energy out of the quantum vacuum. It is certainly true that from quantum field theory we deduce an infinite energy of the vacuum. But since these people do not make a difference between energy and exergy so far I see no indication that they do not really understand the issue. For it simply does not matter if there is infinite energy in the vacuum as long as it is the lowest possible energy eigenstate and no energy can therefore be extracted.

However, if it turns out that the vacuum around us is only a metastable vacuum then it could be that with a suitable device one could cause a transition from this higher energy metastable vacuum to a lower energy vacuum state and thus extract energy and increase entropy. But I would then like to understand what exactly it is about these devices that could cause the hypothesized transition from metastable vacuum to ground state vacuum. I would suspect that this would require extraordinary devices.

Can you tell me more about the details of the device? What are the electrical components, wiring etc.. And why are we outside the domain of applicability of ordinary physics which seem to rule out overunity machines, at least under the physical conditions in which they run?

I of course agree with you that repeated and verified experiments always trumps theory. But I also share Snowcrash's concern which I take to be that involvement in free energy community might be used as yet another talking point against the truth movement. As ae911truth is expanding and gaining credibility among academics I suspect that this movement is in for major attacks this year. What this movement is trying to do is extremely difficult.

Electrical starter

When an electric power generator and an electric starter (henceforth labeled "generator system") produce more electric power than they consume, this begs the question:

Do you contend that the generator system produces more than it consumes, violating the law of conservation of energy, or:

Do you contend that the generator system taps into a previously unknown energy source, unknown to modern physics, or:

Does your definition of "overunity" mismatch the definition of that held by the forums you visit and/or Wikipedia?

Or... does an electric generator, taken together with the starter as a system, not produce more energy than it consumes, as dictated by modern day physics?

Is your stated goal to invent a device which produces more energy than it consumes? There are three options:

(1) The device violates the law of conservation of energy and one or more laws of thermodynamics, or:
(2) The device taps into an previously unknown energy source, unknown to modern physics, or:
(3) The device does not produce more than it consumes, and as such does not achieve "overunity", but is a form of alternative energy instead, not upsetting the laws of physics, in which case you are probably creating misconceptions in the overunity forums you frequent?

And...How is the earth's magnetic field a previously unknown physical entity?

Please help me understand, since there are limits to my knowledge of physics and engineering, yet your current claims conflict with conventional scientific consensus.


Michiel de Boer a.k.a. SnowCrash

P.S. Do you still have interest in further peer-reviewed published studies of the chips found in WTC dust, like the TEM study you once said you would publish? Why diverge from this 9/11 Truth centerpiece at this crucial time for a controversial quest into "overunity" and "man-made earthquakes"?

Is Conspiracy Con a proper venue for presentation of your research to informed, scientifically educated peers?

Stated goal is a device that produces usable power, available to

humankind worldwide. My little device needs to be verified by other scientists and scaled up. I'm pleased to announce that one scientist (Kraut) has already replicated my device and taken measurements that show that his replication behaves just as my original. I do NOT think this device violates any laws of physics (as stated previously).
On the contrary -- and we are proceeding using EXPERIMENTAL evidence, the essence of science.

Again, the way to measure more electrical output power than the relatively small amount of electrical power required to "start" the device is straightforward, but determining the exact source and nature of the external power coming in -- in this case will require careful experiments. I cannot give an answer in the absence of experiments.

I never said that "earth's magnetic field [is] a previously unknown physical entity", nor did I say that this device necessarily derives its energy from that field.

The Transmission Electron Microscope ( TEM) data were acquired by Dr. Jeffrey Farrer and are his to publish, not mine. He is a very careful scientist and co-author on the original "Active Thermitic Materials" paper. He has spoken publicly about 9/11 in an interview conducted by AE911Truth folks and his interview is available.

My sense is that research into novel electrodynamic devices will benefit humanity, and that is my goal. When people like you continue to misrepresent the energy research I am doing (I have already answered several of your questions on another thread), THAT does a disservice IMO.

Again, as I stated in another thread, I will be discussing my 9/11 and energy research in California with other scientists, but I will NOT be publicly discussing my preliminary research regarding engineered-earthquakes. I made that clear already.

To come back to

an earlier point, you said:

"I've thought of an analogy to help explain why such a device would NOT be -- as I have repeatedly said -- a "perpetual motion" machine as some here have erroneously posited. Think of an electric-power generator that has an electrical starter. This has more electrical power OUT than IN, and so is "overunity" as I defined it above."

Since the generator consumes fossil fuel as you stated:

"This conventional generator has input energy from the fossil fuel consumed."

Doesn't this mean the energy produced, with the fossil fuel accounted for, does not exceed the energy consumed? Why should one disregard the energy provided by the fossil fuel? How does this then result in overunity?

I hope you don't mind me asking questions, after all, you specifically referred people to this thread for replies.

External power

Since you claim an external power, apparently yet unknown to modern physics, I'm done asking questions for now, because I can't verify this claim. We'll see what the future brings for this project.

Yes, let's see what experiments bring -- that's science.

SC: "We'll see what the future brings for this project."

Yes, experiments will provide the answers. The future may well depend on what these experiments reveal, and whether or not we are able to develop the new energy in time and get it out to humankind.

Scaling up

You are assuring us that no claims will be made publicly until you have proved "over unity". I hope you are including scaling up the device as well. At present it appears so small in power that the possibility that it is extracting power from mains hum or noise must be regarded as possible. Only a scaled up test in a location far from electrical interference would be valid.

I have published over 50 peer-reviewed papers, and

as I recall, preliminary (and sometimes final) results were presented in public conferences or seminars prior to publication. I have seen my colleagues do the same and suggest that this is the normal pattern for scientists. Any claim of "overunity" would have to be supported by solid data and repeated measurements. A replication of my device has been built by a colleague, and I will test it in the next few days, along with re-testing of my two builds.

60-cycle hum from power lines is readily observable with a decent oscilloscope, because it shows a frequency of 60 Hz. My devices have frequencies over one MEGAhertz. Nevertheless, tests are made to assure that the device is not extracting power from prosaic hums or noise. And yes, I am seeking a scaling up from the levels currently reported. If a device cannot be scaled up, it is possible that the source of the energy is prosaic noise. We will see. Experimentally.


It is obvious that your device is physically too small to resonate with 60Hz hum, however your measuring devices, large, with substantial material, may be able to.

A replication, by Chris...

Hi Dr Jones.

I have replicated your Circuit. I have attached Pictures and the Calculator for others to use if they wish. I am getting COP = 2.5 at the moment. I think It may be a measurement error, but have checked three times and get the same result. Its early days for me and I will stay reserved at this point on my findings as there could be an error on my part. My goal is to make this self run like I mentioned but have not been able to make this happen yet.

I still think there is a 50/50 chance, but am convinced that some serious work will be needed to get a Bi-Polar Switch like Ron Cole/John Bedini's to make this run itsself.

All the best, and I will post more soon.


P.S. My components are slightly modified compared to the schematic. Sense resistor = 1.5 Ohm. Load Resistor was changed also.I will post more information soon.

Energy conservation

I'm wondering if the amount of energy produced by their device is consistent with a theoretically calculated energy production from the reactions (I work in theoretical physics so please excuse any ignorance on my part!):

58Ni + p --- fusion ---> 59Cu + gamma
59Cu + e --- electron capture----> 59Ni


60Ni + p --- fusion ---> 61Cu + gamma
61Cu + e --- electron capture ---> 61Ni

? Are we in the same ballpark so to speak?

Anyway here is a Coast to coast interview:

Interview with Rossi


Yes, this is also my point --

Rossi and Focardi need to show QUANTITATIVELY that their claim of having achieved energy production via proton-Nickel-nucleus reactions is correct. The production of isotopes of copper (Cu) in quantities commensurate with the heat produced, would be required IF their explanation holds water.

I found that a few scientists

I found that a few scientists have already tried to replicate the Rossi "effect" but without success. Perhaps it would be good to contact them to see what they think.

related topic: Thorium reactors

Your point that new energy sources would seriously undercut the move to a 'NWO' is very, very true. It is dismaying that it can be hard to separate the wheat from the chaff in this field, though! Thus my question:

Thorium nuclear reactors were pushed by E. Wigner in the 1950's but were largely abandoned by the 1970's, though some work continues in China and India. I have seen claims that molten-salt thorium reactors have remarkable properties including cheap fuel, small scale, little long-term radioactive waste, and self shut-down in emergencies like earthquakes. Could these be a new energy source? At least, it has been hard for me to figure out why they have been largely abandoned.

Thorium nuclear reactors

I believe thorium reactors were not developed initially becaue they do not produce plutonium as a by product. Plutonium was desired as it is easily separated from uranium chemically and is a very useful material for weapons. Compare this with the difficulty inherent in separating the isotopes of uranium to increase the concentation enough for a weapon.

India's thorium reactor research:

This RT report


makes Frank's point that because no bomb could be built the interest were simply not there.

Thorium reactors are a good example

of a technology overlooked in the West for obscure reasons, given the current dependence on oil. That is, unless dependence on oil is designed by the same guys scheming the controlled demolition of the world economy...

Recent article in The Telegraph:

Safe nuclear does exist, and China is leading the way with thorium
A few weeks before the tsunami struck Fukushima’s uranium reactors and shattered public faith in nuclear power, China revealed that it was launching a rival technology to build a safer, cleaner, and ultimately cheaper network of reactors based on thorium.

By Ambrose Evans-Pritchard 9:30PM GMT 20 Mar 2011


This passed unnoticed –except by a small of band of thorium enthusiasts – but it may mark the passage of strategic leadership in energy policy from an inert and status-quo West to a rising technological power willing to break the mould.

If China’s dash for thorium power succeeds, it will vastly alter the global energy landscape and may avert a calamitous conflict over resources as Asia’s industrial revolutions clash head-on with the West’s entrenched consumption.

China’s Academy of Sciences said it had chosen a “thorium-based molten salt reactor system”. The liquid fuel idea was pioneered by US physicists at Oak Ridge National Lab in the 1960s, but the US has long since dropped the ball. Further evidence of Barack `Obama’s “Sputnik moment”, you could say.

Chinese scientists claim that hazardous waste will be a thousand times less than with uranium. The system is inherently less prone to disaster.

“The reactor has an amazing safety feature,” said Kirk Sorensen, a former NASA engineer at Teledyne Brown and a thorium expert.

“If it begins to overheat, a little plug melts and the salts drain into a pan. There is no need for computers, or the sort of electrical pumps that were crippled by the tsunami. The reactor saves itself,” he said.

“They operate at atmospheric pressure so you don’t have the sort of hydrogen explosions we’ve seen in Japan. One of these reactors would have come through the tsunami just fine. There would have been no radiation release.” [/quote]

Research into alternative

Research into alternative sources of energy is necessary to confront environmental crises, not to undermine the "NWO". How is it that a person committed to the paradigm of scientific research is so willing to advance a crazy theory like "the NWO is taking over". It's like, is Steven Jones a scientist or is he wearing a tin foil hat? You hardly come across to me as an independent scientific researcher when you buy into all this NWO crap, and this compromises the effectiveness of pointing out your research to lay people. Then again you have said some weird things before, like "my perspective on global affairs is informed by a biblical perspective for which I do not apologize" or something to that effect.


NWO is a sloppy term used differently by different people. For some it is equated to esoteric secret societies "ruling the world" and for other it is equated with powerful interests from the oil, banking, elite, etc.. If you take NWO in the latter meaning you statement

"Research into alternative sources of energy is necessary to confront environmental crises, not to undermine the "NWO""

becomes false.

When I think of the "NWO"

and there's no friendly way to put this, I think of crackpots who think Rockefeller and Bush are secretly out to establish a socialist one world government.

That couldn't be further from the truth. This worldview is also America-centric, and thus severely crippled by cultural bias. The world is a chessboard of geostrategic superpowers and China, Russia, India, Japan, Europe and other countries, regions and spheres of influence should be considered.

The American educational system and the media have been hammering down certain perceptions and perspectives about "socialism", "collectivism" and "communism" that stem mostly from the McCarthy era. In the past decade, Fox has been carrying this torch with great zeal. Clearly, some of it sticks, even in the most vociferous critics of American imperialism, capitalism and militarism. To me, the "NWO" rules the world perspective is testament to the success of propaganda, and how elements of it live on in the minds of those who are supposed to effectively critique power structures.

The United States and the world at large, are ruled by men with money, religious leaders, gigantic corporations and military might. Man's inability to deal with power appropriately is inherent in all of us.

Also, there is a tendency to get lost in an endless quest to find the puppeteer behind the puppeteer. Sometimes, there is no reason to look any further than the corrupt men we were all stupid enough to elect.

The term NWO has indeed

The term NWO has indeed cranky connotations in addition to being non-descriptive. Therefore, it is best avoided. At the same time it seems clear that there are parapolitical bodies, think-tanks, and secret societies, families, that influence the political agenda. There is nothing wrong or cranky about studying their influence and raise concerns about their non-democratic nature (Russ Baker being a good example here.). On the contrary, it is important in any democracy to do so. The problem comes only when the discourse becomes too simplistic and we start entertaining the idea that the complex world of politics can be explained by the actions of a few people belonging to some secret societies.

The world today is full of pseudo-intellectualism and it is important not to give in to it. Being taken in by simplistic "NWO ideas" is one form of pseudo-intellectualism, but avoiding subjects just because they are *labelled* cranky is another.

"Sometimes, there is no reason to look any further than the corrupt men we were all stupid enough to elect."

Agreed. I would also add that transparency and accountability of government and enforcing the law would also go a long way.

You know

Currently, and perhaps surprisingly, I know of one person who speaks with unparalleled clarity, nuance and honesty about power structures, and that is...

Julian Assange.

He supports 9/11 Truth, but only the "ultra-reasonable" wing, like Coleen Rowley. I see nothing wrong with that. I hope people will listen to Julian Assange, because it won't be long before he will be eaten by the machine. Knowing ourselves, we will of course sit by and do nothing, glad we're not in his shoes, most of us pondering just what the hell that dry-witted cryptography nerd was lecturing about. The internet is for porn and games, right? Besides, Alex Jones and Webster Tarpley said Wikileaks is a CIA front. Let's lynch that NWO puppet.

We're doomed.

I view Assange as

bringing society one step closer to complete transparency of government. More power to him. The Apache footage was very important. But I have to say that I view the 911truth movement as much more significant than wikileaks, and I am more impressed by some leaders in this movement than Assange.


"He supports 9/11 Truth, but only the "ultra-reasonable" wing"

in which time-index did he say that?



To add to that: I also have little doubt Assange would support Sibel Edmonds. If you want to know why, I suggest you read my blog, which unfortunately helped spawn and/or fuel the worldwide conspiracy theories about Wikileaks, when it was posted on Infowars.

A bit of a jump, I think

I don't see how you can conclude much of anything from those three tweets, to be perfectly honest.

It seems much more reasonable to view those tweets as some kind of promotion, "WikiLeaks could have prevented 9/11 ! " drum roll

Give me a break.

Why don't we put Sibel and Mr. Assange together and then see what happens?

How's that for a bit of an experiment?

The truth shall set us free. Love is the only way forward.

I would bet

Assange would support her whistleblowing activities.

Assange is a huge supporter of Daniel Ellsberg, and Ellsberg is a huge supporter of Sibel Edmonds.

Wikileaks might have prevented 9/11, yeah. Too bad you're not with me on this.

Do you know Rop Gonggrijp... or Jacob Applebaum? Too often when people see an organization, they only think of the leader in evaluating the organization.

I don't know of either gentleman,

but I will look into them.

Are they still involved with WikiLeaks?

A lot of things might have prevented 9/11, not sure what the point of contemplating them is, though.

I'm not 100% sold on Ellsberg, so that only goes so far.

We do agree on pursuing the truth through verifiable and scientific means, that's all the agreement we really need, imo.

How about Ajax? :)



I was

for FC Twente ;-)

I'm not from Amsterdam, you know ;-)

Rop Gonggrijp produced Collateral Damage, and he's my hero from way before 9/11. He knows Assange well. He's out currently, because the US is intimidating him, and he has a wife and kids. He might be extradited by the fawning right-wing extremist pawns of the US in my government.

Appelbaum is a developer of Tor, a key tool used by Wikileaks. As far as I know he's still involved, although he too, is being intimidated. He gave a presentation about Wikileaks called "The New Hope".

Thanks, I'll look into them...

I've been an Ajax fan since the late 70's, btw, and was amazed that they managed to win the title on the last day.

Proost !

Thanks for disambiguating the

Thanks for disambiguating the term for me but in response I want to say let's call a spade a spade. When that term gets thrown around in these circles I think we all know what the intended meaning is. Nice try.

In what sense

do you think Ron Paul is using the term NWO? Is he using it they way you are using it?

A great loss

Additional data adds more DOUBT to Rossi's claim of cold fusion

There is some recent information -- let's take a look at the latest data that has come out:


The used powder contains
ten percent copper
For copper to be formed out of nickel, the nucleus of nickel has to capture a proton. The fact that this possibly occurs in Rossi’s reactor is why the concept of cold fusion has been mentioned – it would consist of fusion between nuclei of nickel and hydrogen.
A term that many consider to be more accurate, however, is LENR, Low Energy Nuclear Reaction.

Ny Teknik: For how long has the powder supposedly been used in the process?
Kullander: The [b]powder has reportedly been used for 2.5 months continuously with an output of 10 kW (according to Rossi). It corresponds to a total energy of 18 MWh, with a consumption of up to 100 grams of nickel and two grams of hydrogen.[/b] If the production had been done with oil, two tons of oil would have been required.
Ny Teknik: What analyses have you done on the powders?
Kullander: [b]Element analysis and isotopic analysis. At the Ångström Laboratory in Uppsala, Sweden, element analysis has been made using X-ray Fluorescence (XRFS). Dr. Erik Lindahl undertook the investigation. At the Biomedical Center in Uppsala, both element analysis and isotope analysis has been done through Inductively Coupled Plasma Mass Spectrometry (ICP-MS). Associate Professor Jean Pettersson has made the measurement.[/b]

Ny Teknik: What results have you obtained from the analyses?
Kullander:[b] Both measurements show that the pure nickel powder contains mainly nickel, and the used powder is different in that several elements are present, mainly 10 percent copper and 11 percent iron. The isotopic analysis through ICP-MS doesn’t show any deviation from the natural isotopic composition of nickel and copper.[/b]

Ny Teknik: How do you interpret the results?
Kullander: Provided that copper is not one of the additives used as catalyst, the copper isotopes 63 and 65 can only have been formed during the process. Their presence is therefore a proof that nuclear reactions took place in the process.[b] However, it’s remarkable that nickel-58 and hydrogen can form copper-63 (70%) and copper-65 (30%). This means that in the process, the original nickel-58 should have grown by five and seven atomic mass-units, respectively, during the nuclear transmutation. [/b]However, there are two stable isotopes of nickel with low concentration, nickel-62 and nickel-64, which could conceivably contribute to copper production. [b]According to Rossi copper is not among the additives. [/b]100 grams of nickel had been used during 2.5 months of continuous heating with 10 kW output power.[b] A straightforward calculation shows that a large proportion of the nickel must have been consumed if it was ‘burned’ in a nuclear process. It’s then somewhat strange that the isotopic composition doesn’t differ from the natural.[/b] [/quote]

Indeed -- VERY strange that the copper in the "ash" after 2.5 months of running (with no copper initially) -- strange that the ash shows [b]produced-copper in the "NATURAL isotopic composition"[/b]. As the scientist under-states:
it’s remarkable that nickel-58 and hydrogen can form copper-63 (70%) and copper-65 (30%). This means that in the process, the original nickel-58 should have grown by five and seven atomic mass-units, respectively, during the nuclear transmutation. .[/b][/quote]

Right -- naturally-occurring nickel, as in the initial powder -- has this isotopic composition:

[quote]Ni-58 ( 68.077% ) Ni-60 ( 26.223% ) Ni-61 ( 1.140% ) Ni-62 ( 3.634% ) Ni-64 ( 0.926% )
Adding ONE proton to a Nickel nucleus as claimed by Rossi and Focardi will produce Copper isotopes, predominately Cu-59 and Cu-61, since the predominate isotopes of nickel are Ni-58 (68%) and Ni-60 (26.2%). {Add one proton to Ni-58, becomes Cu-59; add proton to Ni-60, becomes Cu-61.) Furthermore, both of these copper isotopes are highly radioactive (releasing gammas) and easily detectable! And detecting their presence via decay products would conclusively demonstrate the occurrence of the proton-capture reaction on Nickel.

I wrote Rossi months ago and challenged him to allow gamma-detection during operation of his e-cat device. NO positive response from him yet. I noted:
[quote]Cu-59 http://atom.kaeri.re.kr/cgi-bin/decay?Cu-59%20EC Half life: 81.5 s – short enough to be VERY easy to observe and demonstrate, to determine whether actually produced or not.

Cu-61 http://atom.kaeri.re.kr/cgi-bin/decay?Cu-61%20EC Half life: 3.33 hrs, also short enough to be VERY easy to observe and demonstrate, to determine whether actually produced or not[/quote]

[b]But now we learn that the end products are NOT Cu-59 (which decays to Ni-59, decays in turn to cobalt-59 finally) and Cu-61, but rather the NATURALLY occurring isotopes found in copper, namely copper-63 (70%) and copper-65 (30%) [percents are approx.].

Now how do you explain THAT? easy -- its CONTAMINATION of natural copper into his device. [/b] That's my preliminary conclusion. This conclusion is supported by the observed IRON (11%) in the final powder, see scientists' data released above. [b]If there is NO contamination, then where did all that IRON come from? [/b]

BUT-- If its proton capture on nickel, as claimed by Rossi -- then he's got some EXPLAINING TO DO. How do you get copper-63 (70%) with ONE proton capture on natural nickel? And- How do you get copper-65 (30%) with ONE proton capture on natural nickel? [b]We're talking about NEUTRONS coming out of nowhere? where? in order to get up to the naturally-occuring ratio of Cu-63(70%) and Cu-65 (30)%. Where do these neutrons come from, in just the right ratios?[/b]

Do you grasp the problem? One more time: [b] proton capture on the predominant isotope of NICKEL, Nickle-58 (68%) would produce Copper-59, not the observed Cu-63 (and Cu-65).
You have to add FOUR more NEUTRONS (not protons) to Cu-59 to get to stable Cu-63, and do it in less time than it takes for Cu-59 to decay away (half life of Cu-59 is only 81.5 seconds).[/b]

C'mon-- we're not that gullible... IMHO, we should be skeptical. Rossi is claiming a very specific process, proton capture on nickel, but the experimental RESULTS do not support his claims. Sorry.

Note from Steven Krivit of New Energy Times, regarding the Rossi claims:
[quote]But the time-honored question to ask in all situations like this is, What is the total energy balance? Anybody who gets excited about this public demonstration without such information is vulnerable to deception. The next questions to ask are, Exactly how has the energy been measured? And by whom?

A power measurement – without the total energy balance – is virtually meaningless. Without answers to these questions, this experiment and demonstration could easily be a scam. Sadly, I have been a first-hand witness to deceptions.

The red flags with Rossi have been up for months.

In October 2010, a New Energy Times reader in Italy sent the following to me:

“I imagine you are aware that Rossi’s patent [application] has been [partially] rejected in a preliminary report by the patent examiner. Piantelli also published a new WIPO patent [application] a few months ago too.

“I wish Rossi well in his endeavors although I also feel he’s claiming as an invention merely the scaling up of Piantelli’s pioneering work. Any working devices ought to be good news for mankind regardless [of] who discovered what first. If anything works, we will all get some share of the glory (and perhaps profits?).”

Today, another New Energy Times reader in Italy sent the following to me:

“Pay close attention to Andrea Rossi; he has a dirty past. Twenty years ago he was arrested for illegal importing of gold from the Swiss.

“Not only that, but in the 1980s he was involved in a scam with industrial waste. It is a complex thing to explain, but the scam cost the Lombardy region € 25 million. He honestly does not convince me as a person, and I am not convinced about the test done at Bologna today.

“Check this link: http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petroldragon

“In friendship, I suggest you be careful, I smell something burning.”

According to the link, in 1995, Rossi was jailed for conspiracy to engage in tax fraud for his involvement in a business that was trading precious materials between Switzerland and Italy.[/quote]