Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy
News announcements and other topics => News => Topic started by: JamesThomas on April 21, 2013, 09:44:31 PM
-
When I attempt to go the the members list, I get: "You can't view the memberlist because you don't have permission to." I guess I should have purchased a Hitler Youth card ;)
I never got a chance to ask him why he crucified Pons and Fleishman.
Here is a little vid in case you don't know what I'm referring to: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a0GBksJFmjI (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a0GBksJFmjI)
Can anyone help clear my mind on this one? I'm open.
Thanks,
jt
-
James
I suppose you have tried very hard to correspond privately with Dr. Jones before posting this material on a public forum ?
What a class act !!
He goes by the handle PhysicsProfessor.
Thx
Chetkremens@gmail.com
-
Sorry,
I'm a fool.
Please post your laws and regulations of correctness that I can from here on follow them and hopefully be redeem in your eyes.
-
james
Don't be so hard on yourself,Most children in this country take quite some time to learn what it means to be a Man,and to act like a man.
Character can take quite some time to develop........
Most of our rules for how to treat your fellow man are taught starting in Kindergarten?
maybe Do onto others as you would have done to you is not in fashion anymore?
Whats it Now?
More a "do onto others before they do onto you"?
thx
Chet
-
Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.
There, in those few words, is the only pure and simple guidance we need to light the way to the end of mans inhumanity to man.
Eleven words that spring from the wisdom within our deepest heart.
So, when those we feel know this and would agree, go in the opposite direct....what do we do?
We seek to get their side and explanation. Not in secret, but openly.
The information against Jones is everywhere. So what's wrong with an open letter or post to him?
I don't, as you think, want to hurt him, or do to him what I would not want done to me. Rather, I publicly open a way for all to see what is the truth. If I were charged unfairly, I would want the same open arena to share my side. Wouldn't you?
Actually I was surprised when you immediately took my post as an attack of some sort. When there was no such motive. I just want to know what the fuck is going on. What does he have to say about his dealings with Pons and Fleishman..a moment in time that could have changed the entire direction of mankind....to one of do no harm to all life.
If, in your mind, I am a retarded demon out to destroy kindness and cause harm, so be it. It's not my problem.
-
James
You act as an angry child, Your attempts to play monday morning quarter back 30 years after the fact.Intimating that you possess some Form of credibility worthy of responce,....Is at the very least Bizzare.
To hold others to a high standard and then scrape accross the pavement like some attention grabbing low life is at the very least grandiose behavior
indicative of some unjustified elevated self worth....
Why don't you quit the "Hey look at me aren't I a smart fellow" routine
and speak with the man?
Or maybe go back and teach more Ethics lessons to Sterling?
Thx
Chet
PS
You seem intelligent ,I will not respond here anymore I suspect you are drunk
and posting under the influence.
Time out.............
-
I have for my self big doubts about the probity of Dr. Steven Jones.
His demonstration about a so-claimed over unity Joule-thief has never been evidenced in any replication.
On a French forum, a recent replication brought at most 50% efficiency.
The Joule-thief is per se an oscillator chopper that presents low efficiency - because based on NPN transistor. It is therefore expected from the bifilar coil to compensate its losses to turn into overunity.
In this case, it is worth redesign the chopper stage with a spark gap or a MOSFET that would be far more efficient.
-
When I attempt to go the the members list, I get: "You can't view the memberlist because you don't have permission to." I guess I should have purchased a Hitler Youth card ;)
I never got a chance to ask him why he crucified Pons and Fleishman.
Here is a little vid in case you don't know what I'm referring to: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a0GBksJFmjI (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a0GBksJFmjI)
Can anyone help clear my mind on this one? I'm open.
Thanks,
jt
hello,
jt
in my mind you seem legit but .. steer clear of anybody that refers to them self as dr. in these forums because they have very large ego's and they seem to like to steal..
a lot of the reason why I do not post diagrams of my stuff any more.. I got a device right now a lot of people here would like to steal.. but don't worry about him he has been posting in another forum that has been took over by wrong as to the good just like all forums..
see you on the other side
robbie
-
I've never come across a less ego based Dr. than Dr. Jones. He's a very good guy and has given away a lot of his own stuff including solar ovens to 3rd world countries. He shipped a bunch of them out at his own cost. IIRC he has offered gold and silver coins to those who might need some extra money for research or equipment while back. So I don't know where some of you are coming from but I've never seen anything except good come from Dr. Jones who has earned his Dr. title as a PhD from a real University which gives you the right to that title and he was physics teacher at Brigham Young University. Now as to whether he's nailed down all the facts on the JT I don't know. I think he might have gotten convinced by LTseung's very enthusiastic info but proving anything OU at extremely low power levels is difficult IMO. I think he check's in here from time to time but I know he's on other forums also.
I'm really surprised to see any negative remarks here about him unless it's some of the people from another forum where they seem to have more than their share of arguments and attacks. I do believe there were a couple mild 'scuffles' there he was involved in but we all have opinions and unfortunately some people don't seem to be able to accept that it's okay to have a different opinion without need for personal attacks.
-
I Just watched the video posted by the OP. I don't know who made this video or who posted it and who is talking in it as no one is identified. But it looks to me very much like someone is trying to discredit one of the few highly credible physics professors in the overunity movement. First off there were hundreds of scientists trying to replicate Pons and Fleischman's experiment and no one seemed to be having much luck with it. Either that or the PTB were jumping into this in a big way back then to make sure all the results posted appeared negative. So in my opinion some one is trying to put Dr. Jones in a bad light here. That's just my opinion on this. Also it seemed unclear in that video how they were tying Dr. Jones to a 911 theory about the tower collapse. Dr. Jones's video about the collapse of the towers indicated it could not have been just due to the planes IIRC. Yet in the video above it almost sounds like they are saying he said something else. It would appear to be a way to tie him to a very emotional event in a negative way. Something smells fishy here... >:(
-
This gets stranger and stranger. The websites in the links at the OP's youtube listed above seem to be focused more on discrediting Dr. Jones findings about how the 911 towers may have collapsed (his findings pointed to something OTHER than the jets hitting it). Those web sites in the links seemed to have come up with some nonsense about a hurricane being near New York at the time and trying to tie that hurricane to causing the towers collapse through the Hutchison effect ?? WTF?? I'll admit I haven't looked into this but that sounds like an extremely far fetched idea someone has come up with to point the finger at Mother Nature (thus diverting attention from any man made causes) since not many are buying the idea that the jets alone brought down the towers. Very strange.
-
ah man
I was just trying to get dr. jones in a roar thinking maybe he would come back post a bit.. I was just joking around..
he is a good guy..
the theories on the two towers has went all crazy since it all happen..
the USA needs to do what the romans never did.. close the doors .. no one in.. no one out.. simple
-
Hello, JamesThomas, this is the "Dr. Steven Jones" you refer to.
What you say below (quoted), I find I agree with. : Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.
There, in those few words, is the only pure and simple guidance we need to light the way to the end of mans inhumanity to man.
And yet you say above, "I never got a chance to ask him why he crucified Pons and Fleishman."
I certainly don't think I did that. Although others twist things and make it look so. I did say that what they were seeing was not d-d fusion, based on Physics principles which I elucidated. That's science, not a personal attack. And I think most researchers in the field, who understand the difference between "cold fusion" and "LENR" -- now agree with me.
BUT - please consider my own writings and my own talks and efforts, not what the video says ABOUT me. More to follow.
Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.
There, in those few words, is the only pure and simple guidance we need to light the way to the end of mans inhumanity to man.
Eleven words that spring from the wisdom within our deepest heart.
So, when those we feel know this and would agree, go in the opposite direct....what do we do?
We seek to get their side and explanation. Not in secret, but openly.
The information against Jones is everywhere. So what's wrong with an open letter or post to him?
I don't, as you think, want to hurt him, or do to him what I would not want done to me. Rather, I publicly open a way for all to see what is the truth. If I were charged unfairly, I would want the same open arena to share my side. Wouldn't you?
-
Thanks Ramset and E2matrix and others for trying to help set the record straight.
I have performed research in cold fusion for over 30 years, starting with muon-catalyzed cold fusion and continuing from that foundation into what is now called "cold fusion" LONG BEFORE I heard of Pons and Fleischmann. I wrote a paper on the subject with Clint VanSiclen long before I heard of their research AT ALL.
A useful history, to help set the record straight, is found here: http://pages.csam.montclair.edu/~kowalski/cf/131history.html (http://pages.csam.montclair.edu/~kowalski/cf/131history.html)
If you find anything there that "crucifies" P&F, pls let me know.
But I think it does attempt to set the record straight, while others have indeed attacked me.
My web-site is here, including research on cold fusion and 9/11 research (for which I lost my position, truth be known):
http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/ (http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/)
It is certainly true that some have said some very negative things about me, I don't know why really. You would have to ask them.
With regard to my OWN views regarding cold fusion and anomalous excess heat, please read:
<blockquote>"Setting the muon-catalyzed effect to one side, there are at least two distinct phenomena going on here with metals, which can be confusing until we use experiments to sort this all out. First, there is a confirmed and published effect showing products of d-d [deuterium-deuterium] fusion at low levels. This is true 'cold fusion' with metals enhancing the d-d-fusion rate. I show confirming data and provide half a dozen references in my slides. This small nuclear effect is now 100% repeatable, when the metals are properly prepared.
"Then there is the excess heat observed in some experiments, properly called 'anomalous excess heat' since we don't really know where that energy is coming from. I consider the anomalous xs heat to be real but a separate phenomenon from the small enhanced fusion-effect in metals. So far, the anomalous xs heat effect is not 100% reproducible."
..."To say that the anomalous xs heat effect is nuclear in origin requires finding nuclear products that arise at the same time and in the same quantities, correlating with the xs heat. Otherwise, one cannot definitively say that the xs heat is nuclear in origin. It is better to say it is 'anomalous', for now, until experiments clearly determine the origin of the xs heat phenomenon."
-- Steven E Jones
Shall I say it again? The recent evidence particularly from NRL is compelling to me for a real anomalous heat effect, but that does not mean it is necessarily from d-d (cold) fusion!
An article at PESN states:
"Since the days of P&F's announcement of excess heat in electrolytic cells due to fusion and up to the present time, Jones has adamantly stated that the P&F reactions, while producing excess heat, are not due to fusion. He strongly recommended to them that they not use the term "fusion" to describe what they were observing; and near the end of his life, Fleischmann concurred that "fusion" was not the appropriate descriptor."
You may wish to read the entire article: http://pesn.com/2012/11/19/9602225_Steven_Jones_replica--Pons_and_Fleischmann_XS_Heat_not_from_fusion/ (http://pesn.com/2012/11/19/9602225_Steven_Jones_replica--Pons_and_Fleischmann_XS_Heat_not_from_fusion/)
It is also true that I have used over $9,000 from my inheritance from my father and distributed this to various freedom energy researchers (world-wide actually) to encourage and support this research. (E2Matrix alluded to this IIRC). Far from fighting this research, I support it and join the effort as I have for years.
Finally, I invite you JamesT in particular to review my seminar given at Univ of Missouri Oct 2012, available here:
http://pesn.com/2012/11/19/9602225_Steven_Jones_replica--Pons_and_Fleischmann_XS_Heat_not_from_fusion/StevenJonesSeminarAtUnivMissouriOct2012.pdf (http://pesn.com/2012/11/19/9602225_Steven_Jones_replica--Pons_and_Fleischmann_XS_Heat_not_from_fusion/StevenJonesSeminarAtUnivMissouriOct2012.pdf)
Pls let me know if you have any questions.
And please, call me Steve.
-
I would like to set the record straight on one more thing if I may. Someone accused me (yes I know who it was) of being responsible for the murder of Eugene Mallove. There is no truth whatsoever in that vile accusation and it pains me deeply to be so unjustly and unfairly accused. Why does this person make such unfounded and heinous accusations? I don't understand it.
Eugene Mallove (RIP, may he be remembered kindly) was a friend of mine, a good friend really, even though we disagreed in some of our views. Happens with a lot of friends, I think.
Please read what Gene wrote about me, published in his "Infinite Energy":
-
Welcome back Dr. Jones. It is great to see you here again.
Bill
-
Thanks, Bill.
(Please note that I have been posting at OU fairly recently, three posts on 15 April for instance.)
-
Good to see you here Steve! I'm glad you found this thread as I expected ... especially since my recollection is not always the best with all the info I read daily but it seemed clear to me that there were untruths and nonsense being flung about in that video and the links on that youtube page. Are you familiar with who made the video posted in the first message by JamesThomas?
-
A very interesting video about cold fusion: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=1-ruFNzr7kk (http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=1-ruFNzr7kk)
This video is posted by the very lucid AlienScientist. Note his video's were being pulled from youtube due to harassment by one THOMAS Potter. See www.alienscientist.com (http://www.alienscientist.com) for details. Thomas Potter also has a history of harassing 9/11 Victim's Family Members, and various 9/11 research groups and conspiracy theorists. Since Dr. Steven Jones has been involved in research of what really caused the 9/11 towers to collapse I have to ask if the double first name member here JamesTHOMAS is related to this Thomas Potter. Note that I am asking but not accusing. It's just one of those coincidences that is hard to ignore as I know how people often choose their screen names on the Internet by recycling parts of a name in different ways.
-
Good to see you here Steve! I'm glad you found this thread as I expected ... especially since my recollection is not always the best with all the info I read daily but it seemed clear to me that there were untruths and nonsense being flung about in that video and the links on that youtube page. Are you familiar with who made the video posted in the first message by JamesThomas?
No, but I would be interested to find out who this "FringeReality" is... Note that she/he references the site nomoregames (Morgan Reynolds et al. IIRC) which may be a clue.
The statement with the vid contains errors of fact:
Uploaded on Oct 16, 2010
Steven Jones, took a little tip from the Department of Energy (then under the regime of oil-man George H. W. Bush?) and proceeded to hastily put together his own sinkable version of the Ponds-Fleishman [sic] cold fusion discovery,
That is a lie. Its just false and unfounded.
My work on cold fusion pre-dates learning about P_F by years -- see my historical note referenced in my first thread here.
"denounced their claims of excess heat, and helped pave the way for the eventual dismissal of the government funding of the research (well, the MIT false negative study didn't help either) by forcing Ponds and Fleishman to present their findings before the peer-review process was complete."
Wait, how can she/he say I {FORCED} them to present their findings early -- are these not grown men? How did I force them? I did not.
" The science is now being studied and many peer-reviewed papers have been written about it. Whether it was or was not the revolution Ponds and Fleishman [sic] thought they had found, the Truth is... our hero, Steven Jones, was there to do the bidding of the hot fusion researchers and the oil executives like George H. W. Bush and help submarine the study with his own flawed "research".
a lot more info:
http://nomoregames.net/index.php?page... (http://nomoregames.net/index.php?page=911&subpage1=trouble_with_jones)
http://www.checktheevidence.com/cms/i... (http://www.checktheevidence.com/cms/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=224&Itemid=60)
How is my own research "flawed"? the low-level d-d fusion effect has been verified in experiments in Japan and Europe.
I did NOT "do the bidding of the hot fusion researchers and the oil executives like George H. W. Bush ". I do not even like George Bush or oil executives, at all!!! (I do have some "hot fusion" friends, but I was not and am not doing their bidding.)
Furthermore, those who understand the difference between LENR and d-d FUSION (which P&F were claiming, against my strong advice to them NOT to claim FUSION) may now understand my concerns back in 1989.
I urged P&F to NOT call their anomalous heat "FUSION" -- it is not d-d fusion that generates that much heat since there are not COMMENSURATE fusion products. That was and is my argument, physics-based and not ad hominem.
As I have said, I accept that there is a strongly-evidenced anomalous heat effect -- but it is not d-d fusion! (I am quite sure, based on analyses and experiments which continue.)
-
How did I force them? I did not.
Again, our team had and reported a TINY tiny d-d fusion enhancement for deuterons in a metallic lattice environment. (See the journal Nature, April 1989.) P&F claimed "excess heat" -- fine -- but that is NOT a d-d FUSION effect! (I have explained why, based on solid principles and experiments.) I get hoarse repeating this over and over -- since 1989!
Thus, from my point of view, I did not threaten them with my research or my reports of my research -- we had a tiny fusion effect, they had xs heat -- and the tiny numbers of neutrons we saw was and remains a SEPARATE and distinct effect! At one point, IIRC, they called it "neutron-less heat" which should immediately draw a distinction between the tiny d-d-fusion-neutron effect we claimed and the xs heat effect they claimed.
-
PS -- I like AlienScientist mentioned by E2M above -- he asked me about this history, did his own research, and has then tried (like me) to set the record straight.
-
Does JamesThomas still post here? ;)
-
Does JamesThomas still post here? ;)
ha.ha,, good question
-
@JamesThomas: I await your replies.
My work on cold fusion pre-dates learning about Pons and Fleischmann by years -- see my historical note here: http://pages.csam.montclair.edu/~kowalski/cf/131history.html (http://pages.csam.montclair.edu/~kowalski/cf/131history.html)
I urged P&F to NOT call their anomalous heat "FUSION" -- it is not d-d fusion that generates that much heat since there are not COMMENSURATE fusion products. That was and is my argument, physics-based and not ad hominem. Martin Fleischmann agreed with me finally, saying it was a mistake to call the excess heat "fusion" in the first place, may he rest in peace (he passed away last year).
As I have said, I accept that there is a strongly-evidenced anomalous heat effect -- but my physics-based conclusion was and is that this heat is not due to d-d fusion.
Slides from the seminar given on alternative energy at the University of Missouri in Oct. 2012:
http://pesn.com/2012/11/19/9602225_Steven_Jones_replica--Pons_and_Fleischmann_XS_Heat_not_from_fusion/StevenJonesSeminarAtUnivMissouriOct2012.pdf (http://pesn.com/2012/11/19/9602225_Steven_Jones_replica--Pons_and_Fleischmann_XS_Heat_not_from_fusion/StevenJonesSeminarAtUnivMissouriOct2012.pdf)
-
Thanks for sharing that Steven. Very nice work! I had not realized you were so knowledgable on cold fusion until this message thread.
Maybe JamesThomas IS Thomas Potter and he decided the 'gig' was up - LOL.
-
Thanks for sharing that Steven. Very nice work! I had not realized you were so knowledgeable on cold fusion until this message thread. Now I understand why you were interested in the Davey 'bell' on EF. Just a side question if you have any thoughts on it - do you think Rossi has something valid which can produce useful energy with his E-Cat?
Maybe JamesThomas IS Thomas Potter and he decided the 'gig' was up - LOL.
-
Dr. Steven:
Thank you for uploading the previous information on your work and results, it is still all very interesting and informative.
Somehow I feel that not only the NASA, but other scientists, as well as some corporations, and their labs are not putting all the cards on the table.
NickZ
-
Thanks for sharing that Steven. Very nice work! I had not realized you were so knowledgeable on cold fusion until this message thread. Now I understand why you were interested in the Davey 'bell' on EF. Just a side question if you have any thoughts on it - do you think Rossi has something valid which can produce useful energy with his E-Cat?
Maybe JamesThomas IS Thomas Potter and he decided the 'gig' was up - LOL.
Thanks E2matrix and NickZ. I'm deeply interested and experimentally involved in "cold fusion" approaches [now more of an umbrella term]. I should point also to recent experiments by Woopy and others using H2O (not D2O) and an orange glow around the cathode during the electrolysis using pulsed DC or AC through a FWBR. Exciting stuff, and note the radio-frequency emissions also, reminiscent of the work at NRL (where they use D2O mostly).
I'm awaiting more data from Rossi's e-cat. I've written him, encouraged him to show his gamma spectra -- which could provide COMPELLING data for a nuclear (LENR) effect. Why will he not do this?
-
Thanks for sharing that Steven. Very nice work! I had not realized you were so knowledgable on cold fusion until this message thread.
Maybe JamesThomas IS Thomas Potter and he decided the 'gig' was up - LOL.
Hmmm, How'd that happen (double post). :-[
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.
-
...
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/ )
-
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.
-
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.
-
An article by Ed Storms [http://www.tcm.phy.cam.ac.uk/~bdj10/papers/storms/review8.html ] states:
QuoteIn 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 (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/ (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/ (http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/)