Bottom homepage
WTC & Hutch (JJ)
Erin & Field (erin)
Billiard Balls
Qui Tam Case
Why Indeed
Index JJ1 JJ2
JJ 3
JJ4 JJ 5 JJ6 JJ7 JJ8
Appendix_1 Appendix_2 Appendix_3

Anomalies at the WTC and the Hutchison Effect
(page 7)


Dr. Judy Wood and John Hutchison

This page last updated, April 1, 2008
(Not-yet final; minor updates still being made.)
(originally posted: December 25, 2007)
Page 7 index
VII. Free Energy
· Cold Fusion

· Dr.Martin Fleischmann
· Managing Public Opinion
· Dr. Eugene Mallove
· Dr. Ken Shoulders
· William Zebuhr
· Michael Zebuhr

· Heavy Watergate
VII. Free Energy Top

Cold Fusion Top
Steven Jones - 9/11 Parallels
Heavy Watergate Steven Jones Scandal
Figure 1. Russ Gerst talks with Jim Fetzer.
(0:00:00) URL,
From: pumpitout, Posted August 12, 2007
Figure 2. Segment from the video, Heavy Watergate.
(0:00:35) URL,
Steven E. Jones sabotaged cold fusion and he is sabotaging the truth about 9/11. Watch Heavy Watergate (can be seen on google video) Also look into Eugene F Mallove who was murdered May 14, 2004. Steven Jones is described as an opportunist who was tipped off by "DoE informants" to help coverup the reality of free energy.

Near the the end of the segment, Steven Jones indicates he knows there has been no declaration that energy weapons must be space based. So, what motivates him to promote false information about another researcher's work? Steven Jones received funding from the DOE for 15-20 years and in the area of "Cold Fusion." With his background, saying it's impossible for energy weapons to destroy the WTC raises a red flag.
Figure 3. Here is an excerpt from an Alex Jones show when he had Steven Jones on, 1/31/07.
(0:03:00) (mp3) (2.2 MB)

Alex Jones refers to those who conducting a true scientific analysis of what happened on 9/11 as "Marvin the Martian proponents" and Steven Jones agrees.

Steven Jones also misrepresents the work of Dr. Wood and fails to address the real issue of molecular dissociation without heat. The amount of energy required to cook the buildings is irrelevant as the buildings were not cooked.

(See the Cloud Chase section of the "dirt" series. There were no burned bodies after the cloud passed.)

Figure 5. A view north, from south of the WTC.
(9/11/01) Source: (see cloud chase)
Figure 4. Here is an excerpt from an Alex Jones show when he had Steven Jones.
(0:01:47) (mp3) (0.424 MB)

Figure 6. 1989 Steven Jones, "Read my lips."
(0:00:00) (mp3) (1.3 MB)

Breaking Through Editorial: Ethics in the Cold Fusion Controversy
(Originally Published January-February, 2001 In Infinite Energy Magazine Issue #35)
by Eugene Mallove
Dr. Steven Jones in his skeletal three-page commentary confirms that he still trusts his sparse cold fusion neutron measurements—fair enough. But Jones, the egocentric denier of excess heat claims from day one, apparently has learned nothing and still knows nothing about the process of science. He is an example of the kind of scientist identified in the Bockris quote above. Jones writes disingenuously, "It is high time to strongly question claims of cold fusion based on crude techniques and to demand tests at a rigorous scientific-proof level. . .I have not seen any compelling evidence of any 'cold fusion' effects to date."
Figure 7. Excerpt from "Breaking Through Editorial: Ethics in the Cold Fusion Controversy"
(January 2001) Source:

Dr. Martin Fleischmann Top

Reflections on the Sociology of Science and Social Responsibility in Science, in Relationship to Cold Fusion
Professor Martin Fleischmann, Fellow of the Royal Society
Bury Lodge, Duck Street
Tisbury, Salisbury, Wilts SP3 6LJ

Accountability in Research, 2000. 8: p. 19.

Section 12. In conclusion; Conspiracy Theories?
It will be clear to those familiar with some of the background of the topic of "Cold Fusion" that there are many aspects which I have not considered in this article - notwithstanding its length. The strange behavior of the Patent Office, the strange presentations in some of the books devoted to the subject, the strange behavior of a number of scientists concerned with the research, the strange circumstances surrounding the preparation and publication of the Report commissioned by the Department of Energy, the strange behavior of the Editors and Editorial Staff of some of the Scientific Journals and many other matters all deserve detailed scrutiny. Much of this behavior has an intimate bearing on the role of Science in our Society.

I have often been asked whether all of these strange happenings might not be explained by a Conspiracy Theory or else a series of conspiracies linked to some central Conspiracy Theory. My reply has always been that it is usually tempting to invoke Conspiracy Theories but that one should only do so only as a last resort. Instead, I subscribe to a different theory, put forward by a former colleague, best described as "The Cock-up Theory of History".

Nevertheless, one must ask oneself the question: suppose that one would wish to frustrate research within a given field of research, without wishing to admit that this is ones intent. Then would one not take the steps which have been illustrated by the example of "Cold Fusion"? At the present time readers will have to reach their own conclusions as to what may be the explanation of the strange events which have surrounded this field of research.
Figure 8.
(2000) Source: pdf: (archived)

Audio. Steve Krivit interview with Martin Fleishmann, August 24, 2003.
(8/24/2003) Source: (mp3) (4.8 MB) (27:50 in length)
Audio. "The hole in the floor" (Cute story, from a portion of the above interview (approx. 16:20-19:02 in above interview))
Figure 9.
(8/24/2003)Source: (mp3) (4.8 MB) (27:50 in length)
(8/24/2003) Source: (mp3) (0.484 MB) (2:42 in length)

Managing Public Opinion Top
This may be how "public opinion" is managed.

What is the difference between nuclear fusion and cold fusion?

Asked by: Robert Hernandez


Nuclear fusion can produce energy when the nuclei of lighter elements come together (fuse), creating larger nuclei. Energy is liberated when the total mass of the end products is slightly less than the mass of the lighter nuclei going into the process, with that difference in mass being converted to energy via Einstein's famous E=mc2 relationship.

Because the protons in nuclei are all positively charged, and like charges repel, nuclei need some convincing to get them to fuse. That convincing ordinarily involves high temperature and pressure, such as exists at the core of a star or under conditions created by a fission bomb.

Cold fusion is an attempt to get fusion to occur under less extreme conditions, possibly as a result of chemical reactions. Despite the flurry of publicity several years ago, cold fusion remains unrealized speculation for now.

Answered by: Paul Walorski, B.A. Physics, Part-time Physics Instructor

Cold fusion, if it worked, would be a form of nuclear fusion.

Although many nuclei can be fused, this subject normally refers to fusion of hydrogen isotopes deuterium or tritium to form helium. When this happens energy is released. Unfortunately, the hydrogen nuclei are positively charged and repel one another -- very strongly so at short distances. This makes fusion difficult to achieve. In the Sun very high levels of heat and pressure overcome the repulsion. On Earth fusion can also be forced this way, but so far not with more energy being released than what went into building the neccessary heat and pressure.

Early in 1989 two chemists, Prof. G. Stanley Pons and Prof. Martin Fleischmann were experimenting with electrolyzing heavy water, (which contains tritium), using palladium electrodes. Hydrogen in all its forms has a very strong affinity for palladium. From their measurements, Pons and Fleischmann calculated that more energy was being released from the process, as heat, than was being put into it as electricity. They speculated that somehow tritium nuclei were being forced close together enough to cause fusion. This would account for the apparent excess heat being released. The process was called cold fusion because the temperatures involved were far lower than any at which fusion had been known to occur.

Today it is believed by most scientists familiar with the facts of the case that the procedures of Pons and Fleischmann were flawed and their conclusions mistaken.

Answered by: Craig Busse, B.S., Process Engineer, Lucent Technologies, Whippany NJ
Figure 10. [emphasis added]

Breaking Through Editorial: Ethics in the Cold Fusion Controversy
(Originally Published January-February, 2001 In Infinite Energy Magazine Issue #35)
by Eugene Mallove
Dr. Shamoo, of the Department of Biological Chemistry at the University of Maryland School of Medicine, states in his lead editorial that he had formerly assumed that cold fusion had been debunked. That is, until plasma physicist Dr. Robert Terry politely told him that "the jury was still out" on the subject. Shamoo admits that in his teaching about research ethics he had often used the cold fusion episode as an example of how the "self-correcting nature of science" works. Now his view is entirely different, summarized in this key passage from his editorial:
"I find it disconcerting that competent and accomplished researchers are unable to have an open discourse about a scientific controversy in a democratic and open society. These are serious lapses from a profession (physics) that professes the highest standards of accountability. The leadership of research enterprise was lacking during the controversy. For these reasons, it is important that eleven years after the first report on cold fusion results that we discuss the process and how it impacted policy decisions. More importantly, we have to learn from this experience how to deal with these kinds of controversies in the future. Our national interest requires that we do a better job."
Dr. Martin Fleischmann in his essay provides a comprehensive historical review of the thinking which led him and Stanley Pons to experiment with the deuterium-palladium system in the mid-1980s. He touches on social and media questions, though not heavily. And, he addresses the role that military security issues may have played in the controversy. At one point he makes a very pertinent remark: "One outcome of this research has been the demonstration that scientists have developed a blindness for accepting unusual results. No doubt this is due in part to an excessive faith in invalid paradigms." Dr. Bockris makes an equally compelling comment: "A comfortable illusion of the 20th Century—held not by scientists themselves, but by the tax payers—is that scientists are, somehow, above the fray and highly honest. What a lot of nonsense this is!"

Dr. Steven Jones in his skeletal three-page commentary confirms that he still trusts his sparse cold fusion neutron measurements—fair enough. But Jones, the egocentric denier of excess heat claims from day one, apparently has learned nothing and still knows nothing about the process of science. He is an example of the kind of scientist identified in the Bockris quote above. Jones writes disingenuously, "It is high time to strongly question claims of cold fusion based on crude techniques and to demand tests at a rigorous scientific-proof level. . .I have not seen any compelling evidence of any 'cold fusion' effects to date."

The main virtue of this special issue of Accountability is that discussion of cold fusion has been brought to a larger and different academic audience. Like Editor-in-Chief Shamoo, that audience may have believed the prevailing myth that cold fusion was honestly debunked in 1989. Newcomers will be able to learn from the scientific papers cited in many of the essays that this is not true. What effect this enlightenment may have in wider academe is uncertain, but it could not hurt the cause of truth.
Figure 11. Excerpt from "Breaking Through Editorial: Ethics in the Cold Fusion Controversy"
(January 2001) Source:

Dr. Eugene Mallove Top

ISSUE 53, 2004 o I n f i n i t e E n e r g y
The "New" Solar Power
by Eugene F. Mallove, Sc.D.
In the fast-moving, technologically gimmicky world of the early twenty-first century there are many things that are new "under the Sun." But there is also something very old coming from the Sun, which can now be seen in a new light—pardon the pun. For the very first time perhaps, we may be beginning to see the Sun’s radiation in its true light, and very tangibly so. This is the evidence: experiments which demonstrate the capture of solar power around-the clock, solar power by day and solar power by night. No, the world hasn’t stopped turning on its axis, so how can that be? Solar power captured at nighttime too? Yes—evidently extracted from unsuspected stores of energy, which are charged up by solar radiation, but certainly not in ways that modern physics has understood. This is a kind of widely available latent heat which is probably being observed, in part or in whole, in other types of excess energy new energy experiments as well. One thinks in particular of those carried out with atmospheric-arc or water-arc discharges, by Peter and Neal Graneau and their colleagues. But the energy release mechanism may well play a role in electrochemical "cold fusion" experiments as well, giving rise not only to some of the excess heat but to nuclear changes as well.

Figure 6. Water-arc discharge (not part of original article)
Figure 7. Water-arc discharge (not part of original article)

This "new" solar power should be of much more than passing interest to the conventional solar power industry with its focus on photovoltaic cells and thermal conversion solar power collection. There is simply no conventional way in which solar energy can be captured around-the-clock (with the exception perhaps of chancy wind power, in particular locations). As an example, the now defunct Federally supported "Solar Two" experimental installation, a beautiful image of which appears on the cover of this issue of Infinite Energy, employs some 2,000 planar mirrors to actively track the Sun and focus sunlight on the central power tower. Within the glowing cylinder atop the tower, molten salts are heated and begin the first stage of heat transfer toward steam production and then electric power generation. Yet this array is as good as derelict junk during the nighttime. Ditto for every photovoltaic array and every other solar thermal installation worldwide; there is no energy capture at night.

(Continued in JJAppendix3.)
Figure 12.
(xxx) Source: pdf: (archived)

Figure 13.
(xxx) Source: Fire from Ice, by Eugene Mallove

Figure 14. Tritium at the WTC
(xxx) Source: pdf: (archived):

Figure 15. Thomas Cahill, a University of California - Davis professor, was hired for the job sometime in early October. It's not clear when his first samples were gathered. Day 28 on the chart below would be about October 9, 2001. (reference to be posted)

Dr. Ken Shoulders and Bill Zebuhr Top

Figure 16. EVO.jpg
Source: webpage,

Issue 61 of Infinite Energy Magazine, May/June 2005
Also see: Charge Clusters in Action, Ken Shoulders and Steve Shoulders (pdf from Shoulder's site)
Charge Clusters: The Work of Ken Shoulders
By William Zebuhr, Chairman of the New Energy Foundation

Our cover article in this issue is about charge clusters, which are compact groups of electrons. They defy the common belief that such things cannot occur because of the great repelling forces these electrons should exert on each other. Yet they do appear to exist and are not even that difficult to create, once you know how. Ken Shoulders knows how and has been doing it for about 25 years. Ken and his son Steve experiment with charge clusters (also called exotic vacuum objects or EVOs) in a well-equipped, privately funded lab in California. Ken has a history of working at the edge of science and engineering. He worked at SRI International for ten years as a staff scientist and started a field now called vacuum nanoelectronics, which is based on field emission active devices. He also worked at MIT (during this time he fabricated the world's first microcircuits) and later did some exotic and confidential work for the CIA and others.

Ken's very qualified background has helped convince many people that the EVO phenomenon is real, in spite of the difficulty in believing that electrons can form such clusters. Ken notes: "Nobody believed anything ever said. They only believed the gadgets that were run by EVs. I actually had to almost beat the patent office into submission by a series of brutal assaults with my devices!"

Not only are the clusters themselves exotic to mainstream science but they seem to offer a way of connecting to the most fundamental and universal element of existence, sometimes called the aether. Ken refers to this as the Potentum, a name given by Joe Firmage. Whatever the name, it is a little understood part of the universe that many agree is loaded with energy if we only knew how to tap into it. The EVO may be the fundamental connecting link. Ken considers it a "kind of Universal Clutch as it clutches the basic fabric of the universe by biasing the medium with a dense, asymmetrical charge distribution." This is a very powerful concept and may well be the foundation of any device that operates with an "efficiency" over-unity.

This clutch apparently can operate in many environments. EVOs are likely the source of the extremely high temperatures recently measured in collapsing bubbles formed by cavitation. Temperatures as high as 20,000 degrees K have been measured (see p. 37). Temperatures in this range need an exotic explanation and EVOs exhibit extremely high temperatures. Sonofusion is likely triggered by the same mechanism and may not really qualify as "cold" fusion. The destructive effects of cavitation on marine propellers has been known for over 150 years but never explained satisfactorily. Likewise the cavitation that can occur in pumps. There have been many claims of over-unity performance in pumps designed to produce a lot of cavitation but never enough to be useful as an energy source because the input is electrical and the output is heat at moderate temperatures.

Tesla is known to have been able to create what appeared to be ball lightning and even was able to let it touch him without harm. Ball lightning is probably a large charge cluster. It is not well understood but can appear in lightning storms, coming and going in mysterious ways, sometimes quietly and sometimes with a great deal of commotion. Understanding charged clusters better may clarify some of Tesla's work as well as give a better understanding of a strange natural phenomenon.

I have mentioned before that it may take decades from now to market a useful over-unity or "free energy" device. I based that on the work that Ken and others are doing in the cutting edge of this science. Ken has been working on this problem for 25 years and cold fusion/LENR work has been going on for over 15 years. This is difficult work that requires a rare combination of creativity, persistence, energy, and attention to fine detail. It also often involves the ability to improvise because of lack of funding and all too often a thick skin to put up with the unimaginative naysayers. On top of all this the work can also be dangerous. EVOs contain incredible potential energy for their size and it is not difficult to make them big enough to blow up a lab or more.

The work to date is much more science than engineering though doing the science often involves considerable engineering. This is quite different from the engineering that goes into an energy machine that could be sold to the public as an appliance or to a utility as a generator. We are still a long way from that. Fundamental understanding needs to progress to the point where results are consistent, reliable, safe, and can be had at reasonable expense. Only then can a product be engineered around the concept. This will take many years and many dollars.

One of the most difficult problems in the new energy field is funding for good ideas. This is because of the very long time to market by conventional investment standards and because of the great difficulty of evaluation of the potential of the technology. A significant part of the evaluation problem is caused by the fact that most new energy concepts are either pure bunk or just on the wrong path. The very encouraging part of what Ken and Steve are doing is that, 1) they have great credentials for understanding this work, 2) the experimental techniques are very good and the associated theory is sound, and 3) the potential payoff of this approach is huge. This technology has the potential of being engineered into a very powerful, compact, and economical machine with endless variations and applications. There is still the problem of time to market.

Investors who are inclined to take this kind of risk like to see the potential of making 30 or 40% annual returns. This is not only because they want to make a killing but because so many ventures fail that that each winner must support several complete losses. This means that even if an idea looks like it will be worth $1 billion when developed it may not be worth enough to an investor to put the required money in during the early phases of development. It is very realistic that a given idea from concept to product could take 20 years. If it is worth $1 billion in 20 years it is now worth only $5.2 million discounted at 30% and only $1.2 million discounted at 40%. Since it will often take more than this to even get traction with the idea, it is clear that even if the inventor sells his whole idea to the investor he will not have enough money to do the work. Actual cases are probably much worse than this. The project will take longer, cost more, and may even have competition problems when it is finally on the market.

Ken has mostly self-funded his work to date and the potential is so big that there ought to be a good investment opportunity in the work, but the time to market is still unknown and the real cost of development is unknown. This means the investor would still have to have a very long-range vision and deep pockets. These are hard to find. More conventional technology gets funding in the many established ways, including private investors, venture capital, corporations, and governments. These avenues are rarely open to risky and long-range projects. Many historic inventors, such as the Wright brothers, funded their own work for the same reasons but technology has gotten orders of magnitude more complex in the last 100 years and this method is only open to the truly wealthy today.

The new energy field needs more people willing to give grants to promising ideas with minimal strings attached. Many foundations exist for endless causes, few of which come close to offering the result that some of the good ideas in the field offer.

Foundations don't invest because they hardly even know the new energy field exists and they have no way of evaluating ideas even if the learn about them. There are very few people qualified to evaluate this technology. Even if they are very knowledgeable in the general field it is very difficult to make judgments of work done by others without spending a lot of time with the innovator. This is expensive and often the innovator is reluctant to expose critical parts of the technology. Furthermore, a hired consultant is usually correct if he declares that there will be a lot of problems and recommends against investment.

A new energy peer review process involving a credible group of scientist and engineers would be very helpful in selecting the best technology for funding but this won't happen soon. The whole nature of the field is against it. Many are innovative in their own project but not interested in others. There are theories and there are experimental results that may or may not be facts and the two often don't agree. These problems are not necessarily anyone's fault. It is a logical result of a few people trying to solve huge problems using a science they don't understand yet. A lot of planes crashed before (and after) the Wright brothers for the same reasons. The net result is that at this time investors in this field must be willing to take large risks. Even a non-profit foundation or private donor cannot take excessive risks or their money and credibility will soon disappear. There are a few generous and thoughtful donors in the field today but much more is needed to generate some traction and get a useful device out in the market.

Infinite Energy's founding editor, the late Gene Mallove, was an advocate of taking even a very simple device into the market— even if it was just a toy— to generate interest and publicity. This is still a good idea but even that modest goal is very elusive. I have lost track of the number of "magnetic" motors that people have gotten excited about but have never heard a credible story about one that actually worked. A concentrated effort is needed on a chosen technology to achieve Gene's goal. The EVO technology has promise of yielding very exciting results with a fairly modest amount of funding.

Figure 17. Issue 61 of Infinite Energy Magazine, May/June 2005
(xxx) Source:
See also Ken Shoulders' EVOs - Exotic Vacuum Objects Challenge Particle Theory,
and EVOs and Hutchison Effect

Bill Zebuhr and Eugene Mallove Top
Issue 56 of Infinite Energy contains numerous tributes to its editor, Eugene Mallove, who was killed on May 14, 2004. Below we reprint the memorial presented by the New Energy Foundation Board of Directors. The non-profit New Energy Foundation publishes Infinite Energy and its directors take this opportunity to introduce themselves to the public and assure readers that the magazine will continue to publish.
Memorializing Gene
By Bill Zebuhr, Chairman of the New Energy Foundation

We have all suffered a great loss. Gene Mallove was killed on the evening of Friday, May 14. He was at his childhood home in Norwich, Connecticut, cleaning up between tenants, when he was murdered in an apparent robbery.  Infinite Energy will provide reports as more details become available.

Gene's tragic death made me wonder once again about the nature of the universe. How can a brilliant, hard working, loving individual who has contributed so much and asked for so little be killed by worthless thugs? Maybe we need to rethink the whole issue of personal defense.

I only knew Gene for about three years, but we became very good friends quickly. The news of his death was probably the most horribly shocking I have ever heard. Gene asked me to be Chairman of the New Energy Foundation (NEF) Board of Directors because of my background and my strong interest in Infinite Energy Magazine and the peripheral projects he was involved in. Neither one of us expected that I would have to do very much hands-on work in that role, but all that has changed. That is how I happen to be writing this.

The NEF is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit foundation that allows contributors to take a federal tax deduction. Its purpose is to promote the exploration of new science and technology that is energy related and out of the realm of conventional paradigms. The NEF does this primarily through publication of IE and secondarily through direct grants to inventors/scientists and organizations working in the "new energy" field.

The NEF was formed in the Fall of 2002. The former company's (Cold Fusion Technology) major assets, including Infinite Energy, were transferred to the foundation. After a lengthy battle with the IRS, Gene was able to get the foundation its non-profit status in July 2003. The NEF Board of Directors believes that the NEF has enough history and enough depth that even though Gene's presence was pervasive, his work can continue without him— and this is surely what he would want from us. The Board of Directors and staff of IE are fully and enthusiastically committed to building on Gene's goals and visions.

We would like to take this opportunity to formally introduce the NEF Board of Directors. Members are Rick Broussard (Vice-Chairman), Mark Aldrich (Treasurer), James Kazan (Secretary), and myself (Chairman).

I am a mechanical engineer (master's degree, Cornell University) with experience in the large corporation world, the defense industry, and extensive experience as an inventor and entrepreneur in the energy and environmental fields. I am currently founder and CEO of Ovation Products Corporation, which has developed a small vapor compression distiller which has broad application in cleaning water for domestic and industrial use worldwide (see I have about thirty patents and have a great interest in finding creative solutions to address the world's energy and environmental issues.

Rick Broussard is Editor-in-Chief of New Hampshire Magazine and a writer of numerous articles on topics related to culture and science. Along with his role as a board member for the New Energy Foundation, he is a board member of the New Hampshire Stories, Inc. board, a member of the New Hampshire Humanities Council board of advisors, and committee chairman for the New Hampshire Theatre Awards.

Mark Aldrich is currently the Economic Development Director of Claremont, New Hampshire. In December 1999, he retired after working for twenty years for the United States Senate, where he was the N.H. Chief of Staff to United States Senators Bob Smith and Gordon Humphrey. Mark was responsible for the administration of the Senators' four New Hampshire offices and served as the Senators' state representative and intergovernmental liaison, representing them at various events and ceremonies. He also had a major role in advising the Senators on major environmental issues affecting the state. He is a graduate of the University of New Hampshire with a degree in political science (minor in anthropology), and he holds an MBA from New Hampshire College. He is also a licensed NH real estate broker.

Jim Kazan is a New Hampshire lawyer and a partner in the firm of Kazan & Shaughnessy, located in Manchester, New Hampshire. He graduated with high distinction from the University of Iowa College of Law in 1973. Before entering private practice in New Hampshire in 1980, he served as a law clerk to both the United States 8th Circuit Court of Appeals in St. Louis, Missouri, and the New Hampshire Supreme Court. He has also served as an Assistant Commissioner of the New Hampshire Insurance Department and as a New Hampshire Bar Examiner. Jim became acquainted with Gene a number of years ago at Temple Beth Jacob in Concord, New Hampshire, where both of them served on the Board of Trustees. Later, as an officer of the Temple, Jim worked with Gene in presenting a series of lectures on "Science & Religion," all of which featured Gene. Although Jim does not have a formal science background, he is an amateur astronomer and loved talking with Gene about science topics.

The Board of Directors elects and directs the executives of the organization, in addition to other responsibilities (which will now be more formal and broadened). This is still a small organization. Gene was the President of the NEF and Editor-in-Chief of its magazine and Christy Frazier is the Managing Editor of the magazine. Since Christy was active in the business operation of the NEF and IE with Gene, she has recently been given the title of General Manager of the NEF and will perform many of the executive business functions. Her dedication, talent, judgment, and energy throughout this difficult and emotionally draining transition has been amazing. We will need to replace Gene's editorial function and his technical expertise, but the operation is in excellent hands.

There will be a transition period where IE will continue as it has been, but with guest editorials. Readers will be happy to know that the next four issues of IE will primarily be made up of materials that Gene himself had authorized. Decisions regarding direction and content will be mostly made by Christy and myself with input from our Board members, Scientific Advisory Board, past contributors, associates, and friends of Gene who have been involved in some way with the foundation or magazine. There is a great deal of will and ability in this group to not only continue but to build on and improve. We also welcome constructive suggestions from readers as to content, direction, and form.

If there is any silver lining to the awful event of Gene's death it is that I have had the good fortune to know some of these outstanding people that are, and will be, helping. I have also gotten to know Gene's wonderful family better. His wife Joanne, daughter Kim, and son Ethan all have been very helpful in spite of their trauma. The foundation is working with them to ease the transition as much as we can. Kim and Ethan are interested in taking a more active role in helping to continue their father's work and these efforts will be integrated in as time goes on.

None of the foundation's work could get done without money. We are extremely grateful that our major contributors have confidence in the NEF team and have been very supportive. We are also grateful for all the contributions that came in after Gene's death to help assure his work will continue. Of course, every reader is a supporter and we thank you all. One of our goals is to find more like you.

The transition period will probably be four or five issues. During that time we will seek additional Board members to add depth and facilitate activities such as fund raising, finding new editorial talent and new material, and filling Gene's important role as a major new energy contact for inventors, investors, and the press. Gene stated in the last issue (IE #55, p. 6) "that IE must be a mixture of original scientific research and explanatory and motivating editorial material." Explanatory to make "difficult scientific concepts accessible to lay audiences" and motivating because it is not always clear what paths should be taken and many paths are rough. Matching Gene's spirit will not be easy, but we will try our best.

Change will be inevitable because of the people involved and because technology moves on. We will maintain the general high quality of the science reported and will seek as big an audience as possible for such quality. We will continue to be controversial because that is the very nature of new science. We will continue to pull at the threads of the fabric of conventional science and will hope for some good ripping sounds. We have to be able to live with the uncertain and admit that we often don't know the answers. Some theories look good for awhile and then look silly. These are chances we have to take to exist in our chosen niche. We will try to avoid "ownership" of ideas so that we don't acquire a vested interest and lose our sense of openness and fairness. We want to maintain a healthy outlook and perspective so that readers can sense the importance of the science and technology in a proper world view. Hopefully this will motivate activity in directions that yield the most benefit to the planet and to the individuals doing the work.

The Board and management of NEF and IE are dedicated to the cause. We believe this is very important work and can evoke major changes far beyond what the size of our readership might suggest. We are there for the few who are really capable of changing the world. Science and technology drive world change and the spirit of discovery can drive the technology.

We owe gratitude and eternal thanks to Gene Mallove for his important contribution to the world. Founding IE and the NEF is just, to use one of Gene's favorite expressions, "the tip of the iceberg" of what Gene has accomplished for new energy science. The tributes in this special issue are just some of the many proofs that Gene was a good, honest man who fought for what he believed in— in all areas of life, not just science. May Gene's spirit guide us to new heights.

Figure 18. Memorializing Gene, by Bill Zebuhr, Chairman of the New Energy Foundation
(June 2004) Source:

Michael Zebuhr Top

In Memory of Michael Zebuhr

September 21, 1980 - March 19, 2006

Figure 19.  This picture was taken by Michael Zebuhr (Clemson University) on 28 Feb 2006, to demonstrate that aluminum does indeed glow, if hot.  Here, the aluminum is on a tungsten "boat" between two electrodes.  The boad is heated by an electrical current.  At this temperature, an increase in the temperature would increase the brightness and white-out the picture similar to photographing an incandescant light. 

Figure 20:  The team casts a crankcase from aluminum.

source: Popular Mechanics
The molten aluminum is glowing. 
The environment is at atmospheric pressure. 
The lighting is "daylight conditions" (outside).

Here is the last 20 minutes of Jim Fetzer's radio show (10 Aug 2006)
with Steven Jones, who claims aluminum doesn't glow. (The full show is hour1 and hour2.)

Why do we have an educated nuclear physicist emphatically denying that aluminum glows? The mystery has now been solved! (See ___)
As with all metals, emissivity varies with temperature, as explained here.

(*) In Memory of Michael Zebuhr
September 21, 1980 - March 19, 2006

(3/1/06) Aluminum Glows

(*) Justice for Michael Zebuhr
Following the murder of my student, Michael Zebuhr, a truly extraordinary human being, I received an email telling me, "we've done it before and we will do it again if need be." Michael told me, "Whatever happens, don't ever stop pursuing this. It's too important."

Had Michael not been murdered, how long would it have taken for him to make the connection between his uncle (Bill Zebuhr), Gene Mallove, and Steven E. Jones?

Heavy Watergate Top

Heavy Watergate: The War Against Cold Fusion pt 1 of 5
Heavy Watergate: The War Against Cold Fusion pt 2 of 5
Figure 21. Segment from the video, Heavy Watergate.
(0:09:58) URL,
Figure 22. Segment from the video, Heavy Watergate.
(0:08:29) URL,

Heavy Watergate: The War Against Cold Fusion pt 3 of 5
Heavy Watergate: The War Against Cold Fusion pt 4 of 5
Figure 23. Segment from the video, Heavy Watergate.
(0:08:56) URL,
Figure 24. Segment from the video, Heavy Watergate.
(0:09:42) URL,

Heavy Watergate: The War Against Cold Fusion pt 5 of 5
Figure 25. Segment from the video, Heavy Watergate.
(0:08:17) URL,

 Continue to next page.

 Continue to next page.

Top homepage
WTC & Hutch (JJ)
Erin & Field (erin)
Billiard Balls
Qui Tam Case
Why Indeed
Index JJ1 JJ2
JJ 3
JJ4 JJ 5 JJ6 JJ7 JJ8
Appendix_1 Appendix_2 Appendix_3

In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the articles posted on this webpage are distributed for their included information without profit for research and/or educational purposes only. This webpage has no affiliation whatsoever with the original sources of the articles nor are we sponsored or endorsed by any of the original sources.

© 2006-2008 Judy Wood and the author above. All rights reserved.