Return to the INE Main Page


By Hal Fox, Editor

From: NEN, Vol. 6, No. 8, March 1999, pp. 2-4.
New Energy News (NEN) copyright 1999 by Fusion Information Center, Inc.
COPYING NOT ALLOWED without written permission.

By Hal Fox, Editor

One of the types of scientific action that has always puzzled me has been the rejection of new scientific discoveries. Here are some examples:

1875: Gasoline in the hands of people ... would constitute a fire and explosive hazard of the first rank. ... The development of the new power may displace the use of horses, which would wreck our agriculture. Congressional Record of 1875.

1902: Flight by machines heavier than air is unpractical and insignificant, if not utterly impossible. New York Times, December 10, 1903.

1910: The popular mind often pictures gigantic flying machines speeding across the Atlantic carrying innumerable passengers in a way analogous to our modern steamships. ... It seems safe to say that such ideas are wholly visionary. William Pickering, American astronomer.

1923: There is no likelihood man can ever tap the power of the atom. The glib supposition of utilizing atomic energy when our coal has run out is a completely unscientific Utopian dream, a childish bug-a-boo. Robert Millikan, Theoretical Physicist.

1937: Thus it appears that the cyclotron cannot be made to give much higher energies than those obtained thus far. Hans Bethe, in Physical Review.

1945: The biggest fool thing we've ever done. The atom bomb will never go off and I speak as an expert on explosions. Admiral William Leahy, aide to President Roosevelt.

1999: Commenting on low-energy nuclear reactions: How stupid do you think we are? My assessment of you and your colleagues is that you are complete frauds or totally mad. There is no known physical principle that would support the kind of results that you claim your technology can accomplish, nor is there any credible argument why there should be such a principle. Name of scientist withheld in hope of a return to sanity.

As a scientist, as an inventor, as the former director of a research laboratory, as a former missile system engineer, I do not understand how any person can call himself or herself a scientist and exhibit such a closed mind to new scientific discoveries!

The essence of science is discovery. The antithesis of science is emotional outbursts in an effort to maintain current dogma. There is probably no science graduate who does not poke fun at those who were so wrong in their declarations about aircraft, missiles, atomic energy, etc. What is there in our educational system or in our culture that would even permit (let alone encourage) such unscientific declarations. There is no question that anyone has a right to freedom of expression in this country -- not to include crying FIRE! in a crowded building. How can anyone, who deems him- or her-self to be a scientist make a blanket statement that " and your colleagues ... are complete frauds or totally mad." Such declarations are not only extremely unprofessional but verge on character assassination.

The statement "There is no known physical principle that would support the kind of results that you claim your technology can accomplish..." is merely an admission of lack of omnipotence. That statement could have been said about transistors in 1945 by anyone who had not been exposed to the very new study of solid-state physics. The statement is certainly correct if the person had said " physical principle, known to me..." Therefore, whenever a self-proclaimed scientist makes such a statement, one can acknowledge that it is a statement of incomplete knowledge of all science.

As editor of this publication and as editor of the Journal of New Energy, we have no problem in admitting that we don't know it all. If we did, there would be no reason for research, nor for publishing anyone else's work. It is a worthy pursuit of science to delve into the understanding of the world around us. We are very fortunate to have world-girdling friends among scientists in many countries. They send us papers. Their papers are peer reviewed. Known errors are pointed out. Corrections to English are often made. Papers that present new idea even if highly contrary to present scientific understanding are published. This publication has had the honor of being the first to report (and name) the Aspden Effect and the Rowe Effect. It was in this paper that it was first suggested that a new discovery could explain the red shift. Professor Anastasovski was delighted with the suggestion and he immediately wrote a paper showing that this suggestion was indeed appropriate (published in the Journal of New Energy). The Big Bang? Scientific dogma.

The Journal of New Energy has published six articles (most from Russia) where several scientific groups have studied torsion fields and reported their speed to be many times faster than the speed of light. Those papers resulted in our suggestion, "SETI, you are listening in the wrong spectrum," for Search for Extra-Terrestrial Intelligence. The claim that information cannot be communicated at speed faster than the speed of light -- is also scientific dogma.

What a thrill it is for all of us here to be involved in discoveries, in receiving marvelous papers (and some bad ones), in publishing new discoveries, and to be involved in our own research and making our own discoveries. We are not here to preserve any scientific discipline. We want to change the world's ways of creating and distributing energy. And we are being successful!

Here is our latest scientific finding: Be aware, this is an analytical result and not, as yet, proven in the laboratory: High-density charge clusters can be used in such a manner that an accelerator of positive ions can be designed that is at least one million times more effective (in transmuting elements) than previous accelerators! I wonder what the issuer of our 1999 quote (above) would say about that statement.

Here is, in part, our answer to Dr. Blank: "No one thinks you are stupid. Perhaps not yet informed. ... If you have a scientific interest in this new technology, I would be happy to provide you with both domestic and foreign references. This technology was discovered first in America, second in Belarus, third in Russia, and latest in China."

We hope to hear again from "Dr. Blank." (What would you have said?)

Return to the INE Main Page
June 2, 1999.