See the Other JNE's Links on the SUBJECTS Page

JOURNAL OF NEW ENERGY

Volume 3, Number 4

Spring 1999

ISSN 1086-8259

How to order!

Untitled

ISSN 1086-8259

EDITORIAL COMMENTS

Hal Fox, Editor

IS KNOWLEDGE POWER?

Francis Bacon (1561-1626) said, "Knowledge itself is power." It is supposed that he would accept an extended version that would read, "The knowledge of truth is power." If that be so, then where is the power of those who refuse to recognize or even endure the discussion of new truths? They are destined to have neither lasting power nor fame. Bacon also said, "There is nothing makes a man suspect much, more than to know little." Perhaps this is the problem with those who rail against such a simple event as the recent three-day International Conference on Future Energy, held at the Holiday Inn in Bethesda, Maryland beginning on April 29, 1999.

We recognize that Declan McCullagh was able to be at this International Conference on Future Energy. He has taught us much about the inadequacies of critics. Declan is a self-proclaimed reporter for Washington, D.C. papers. However, it is apparent from his choice of negative words in a recent email (e.g. "...garage researchers who gathered Saturday in a ramshackle Holiday Inn ...") that Declan McCullagh is not about to provide an unbiased, science-journalist's report. His science education has apparently failed to teach him that nearly all major scientific breakthroughs do not come from the ivy-covered halls of academia nor from highly-funded government laboratories.

Declan failed to mention that one of the foremost experimentalists this nation has enjoyed (Kenneth Shoulders) presented (for the first time) some exciting details about high-density charge clusters. One of the many interesting topics that Ken Shoulders briefly presented is the ability of a charge cluster to create a phase change in silicon carbide (which disassociates at 2300 degrees C) without there being any evidence of a thermal gradient in the experimental silicon-carbide layer coated onto aluminum foil. That experiment has just been replicated in Trenergy's laboratory. Could Declan McCullagh or his supporters explain that experiment by using any of his classical physics books? Not likely!

Declan failed to mention the experiments by the famous scientist, Peter Graneau. Dr. Graneau presented an exciting paper which demonstrates energy anomalies. Declan also failed to mention the numerous papers that have been published in peer-reviewed journals by dozens of respected international scientists who have found anomalous nuclear reactions in a large variety of experiments in which some form of electrolysis or low-voltage plasmas produced elements not initially present in the experimental apparatus.

Some experimental anomalies can, of course, be explained by classical physics. The ones that cannot be explained by known physics are the ones that serve to advance science. It does not matter whether the presentations are made in a motel or at a classroom in MIT. The advancement of new science and new energy will continue regardless of those who choose to thwart their work or those who use disparaging comments about selected papers. There were many disparaging remarks made against the Wright Brothers, Edison, Goddard, etc. Now they name airfields, buildings, and parks after these "garage scientists." As Einstein observed, it takes little intelligence to criticize.

Others, who have been highly critical of new-energy meetings, have proclaimed, "This is fringe science!" It is indeed a wonderment that highly-educated men of science could achieve any advanced degrees without learning that all new science stems from the fringes of old science. It is the pushing of the boundaries of today's knowledge that leads to the breakthrough discoveries. How can any true scientist be so naive as to condemn "fringe science?"

Perhaps we should bestow on these unbelieving and self-appointed, all-knowing critics an Annual Order of Irrelevance. In these conferences on new-energy, the organizers may err in allowing speakers to proclaim a hypothesis that is obviously not in agreement with what we think we know about Nature. Permission is certainly more virtuous than wholesale condemnation. It is a poor gardener who destroys the harvest to kill a weed. In attending some twenty conferences concerning new-energy topics, this author has not experienced many new-energy theories that are as wild as the Big Bang. Think of the rich ideas that Nature has disclosed to the many new-energy scientists. Which of the following new-energy discoveries should be declared invalid: High-density charge clusters? Low-energy nuclear reactions? The hydrosonic pump? The action of cavitating bubbles on deuterated palladium? The collapse of the hydrogen atom below its ground state? Anomalous energy with water-gun experiments? Gravity-wave fluctuations? Superluminal velocity of torsion fields? The Aspden Effect? The Rowe Effect? Nuclear batteries? Low-energy transmutation?

Nature is telling us something profound, if we will but observe and study. Classical physics (after spending billions of dollars in the study of high-energy, nuclear reactions) has yet to provide a clean, abundant, energy-producing resource. By contrast, new-energy technologies have already succeeded. Today's scientists who proclaim that new-energy science should not be tolerated in a government-owned facility must stem from the same halls of science as those who have proclaimed the inadequacy of the work of Edison, Goddard, the Wright Brothers, Tesla, et al. These critics are irrelevant. Nature is revealing her truths. The critics will die off, their opportunities for fame obscured by their inadequacy to recognize new scientific truths. We extend our sympathy to them. Because they exhibit intellectual demise, they should be treated in the words of Thomas Gray: "No farther seek his merits to disclose, Or draw his frailties from their dread abode, (There they alike in trembling hope repose), The bosom of his Father and his God." from "Elegy Written in a Country Churchyard."

Respectfully, Hal Fox, Editor

JOURNAL OF NEW ENERGY
Volume 3, Number 4, Spring 1999

Contents:

Page

6    COLD FUSION RESEARCH: MODELS AND POTENTIAL BENEFITS
     James J. Hurtak, Ph.D., Patrick G. Bailey, Ph.D.

19   BIOLOGICAL NUCLEAR REACTIONS:  EMPIRICAL DATA DESCRIBES UNEXPLAINED
     SHC PHENOMENON 
     M. Sue Benford, R.N.

28   NUCLEAR IMPLOSION
     Vladimir B. Ginzburg

43   ACTION AT A DISTANCE A QUESTION OF VIEWPOINT
     Josef Hasslberger

47   DYNAMIC CASIMIR EFFECT IN AN ELECTROCHEMICAL SYSTEM
     Xing-liu Jiang,  Jin-Zhi Lei

50   MEASURING SUPERLUMINAL VELOCITY
     Hal Fox

54   THE CLASSICAL/NEWTONIAN DERIVATION OF LORENTZIAN EQUATIONS FOR SOUND
     AND OTHER MEDIA PROCESSES
     Dennis McCarthy

63   NUCLEAR REALIZATION OF HADRONIC MECHANICS, I: INVARIANT REPRESENTATION OF
     NONPOTENTIAL NUCLEAR FORCES
     Ruggero Maria Santilli

75   NUCLEAR REALIZATION OF HADRONIC MECHANICS, II:  EXACT REPRESENTATION OF
     TOTAL NUCLEAR MAGNETIC MOMENTS AND THE PREDICTION OF THE STIMULATED
     NEUTRON DECAY
     Ruggero Maria Santilli

85   INTERACTION BETWEEN KOZYREV-DIRAC RADIATION AND RADIONUCLIDES
     I.M. Shakhparonov

90   BREMSSTRAHLUNG - RELATIVE ROLE IN HOT AND COLD FUSION AND IMPACT UPON
     POTENTIAL ISOTOPIC FUELS
     Mitchell Swartz, Gayle Verner

102  CREATION OF GALACTIC MATTER, AND DYNAMICS OF COSMIC BODIES THROUGH SPATIAL
     VELOCITY- FIELD
     Paramahamsa Tewari

118  FUSION FACTS  &  PATENTS

For submission of articles for future publication in the Journal of New Energy:

See the JNE Author's Instructions.

See the Other JNE's Links on the SUBJECTS Page