Twenty-three years ago on March 23, 1989 Dr. Martin Fleischmann and Stanley Pons made an announcement of their astounding discovery of a new form of energy then dubbed cold fusion.
One of the first scientific discoveries born of the modern mass media, the world buzzed with fax machines and satellite TV as scientists dropped what they were doing to try to reproduce their results. A deceptively simple apparatus was more difficult to handle than thought, and very brilliant people became brilliantly emotional at their inability to accomplish the Fleischmann-Pons Effect FPE.
Martin Fleischmann and Stanley Pons were since abandoned by their universities and disowned by their colleagues. They have yet to be recognized for their work by mainstream science even as, more than two decades later, independent labs are close to developing a commercial technology that could change the future of humanity.
We honor these two Lions of Science who had the courage to face the unknown with honesty and integrity. Sirs, you have no peers!
These videos are from the MacNeil/Lehrer Newshour of that day, when the pair were interview by journalist Charlayne Hunter-Gault. They come compliments of the New Energy Foundation which provides direct support to new energy researchers and was founded by Eugene Mallove, an early defender intellectual honesty and a champion for those scientists who were shut out from the community they so loved.
13 Replies to “Martin Fleischmann and Stanley Pons In Their Own Words”
In the ebook “Secrets of E-Cat,” (Consulente Energia Publisher, 145 pages, 68 illustrations, Pdf format, 7 €, http://www.consulente-energia.com/cold-fusion-book-secrets-e-cat-by-mario-menichella-secret-ecat-andrea-rossi-focardi-energy-catalyzer.html ) author Mario Menichella says:
“The modern history of cold fusion begins with the premature announcement made in the United States by the two electrochemical Martin Fleischmann and Stanley Pons, who in 1989 convened a press conference…there were numerous attempts to replicate (their) result, but for some years had little success, so that soon the question of cold fusion was labeled by the media and mainstream science as a “hoax.””
Their names should be put on the MIT Dome.
That would be justice served.
MIT hot fusion has just lost all federal funding; announced a few weeks ago. The White House has some explaining to do which I believe will include recent developments in LENR utilization.
the reasonable excuse is duplicate of ITER work.
I won’t be surprised if really all the elite ignore LENR, and share sincerely the consensual vision of cold fusion…
this would mathe the self delusion theory
I’d like everybody to quit using the word free when rcesdibing CF/LENR/CANR. While likely more economical and lower cost than carbon-based energy sources, it will never be free . Even wind and solar energy sources, which get their power from free wind and free solar sources, still aren’t free they require a mechanism to convert that energy into a serviceable form, which takes capital investment (never free, even if Obama would like to make it so) along with a delivery system to get it to paying customers (also never free, even if the government provides it).Applying the free term lets skeptics equate CF to perpetual motion machines and everybody knows they don’t work, so by association this free cold fusion just has to be a scam.So please drop the free term besides, free items are generally the most expensive. At least that’s been my life experience.
I am not sure of the point of the joke.
I, and the rest of the world, wait impatiently. The stakes are very high.
With our present conversion rate of 10 units of oil energy into 1 unit of food energy without a new source of energy cannibalism is on the table.
I don’t want to think about it. Nor does anyone else. But we must.
It’s the end of the world… as we know it.
In many respects NASA @Woodland Texas now with LENR keynote speakers, Rossi, and many others are paying tribute to those lions of wonderment and observation.
Before the dawning of humanity our instincts warned us of the threat of fire… like all other animals. Over time we captured embers after raging fires passed, learning the utilization of, eventually creating it; our instinctual fear of fire evolved and we entered the fire era. Now our strong survival instinct is evolving to include each of each other and all life on the planet as a whole. We enter the Transmutation Era with Cold Fusion/LENR.
Hence LENR and the end of the world as we Know IT. Not a bad thing after all.
lovevolvesharinglovevolvesharinglovevolvesharinglovevolvesharing etc etc etc… THANKS LIONS
We honor these two Lions of Science who had the courage to face the unknown with honesty and integrity. Sirs, you have no peers!
I honor them as well. They not only continue to be shunned by mainstream science, but even the scientists that claim to be close to developing a practical device refuse to acknowledge or credit Fleischmann and Pons for fear of patent infringement apparently.
Is it possible to have a iolmbe unit activate in some timely manner, such that it could be taken around the country and actually demonstrated live?A event could be arranged in DC with Energy and Environment committee members invited. It could visit some schools and colleges and be demonstrated to students and professors. Myths don’t seem to ever end. But people operate under the myth , and if its right there in front of them, what would they believe, the myth or their own eyes?It’s true that people see what they expect to see , but some will become excited at the prospects, and then .Right now CF is hidden in labs. How about demonstrations out for the public. Is is possible? Youtube videos are good for a virtual demo, but mostly for those already familiar with the effect. A live demo at a public event with media could spark a whole new kind of gold rush.I love the solution is patience because the truth about nature always wins in the end. comment. Something to remember every single day that goes by.
MY WIKI WORKS
MY WIKI WORK
(visit and comment)
I propose a new section “Mainstream Science Cold Fusion/LENR”
LENR hob nobs with leading nuclear scientists. LENR scientists end the conference with this wonderful presentation of Cold Fusion Technology.
Presented at the “Nuclear and Emerging Technologies for Space 2012 Topical Meeting”  which includes the following (and more):
The Lunar and Planetary Institute – 43rd Lunar And Planetary Science Conference
ANST – Aerospace Nuclear Science and Technology
USRA – Universities Space Research Association
ANS – American Nuclear Society
“A Game-Changing Power Source Based on Low Energy Nuclear Reactions (LENRs)”
Xiaoling Yang and George H. Miley, University of Illinois, Urbana, IL 61801 (104 S Wright Street, 216 Talbot Laboratory, Urbana, IL 61801  –Gregory Goble (talk) 21:10, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
Many attended the NETS topical meeting and heard the following presentation of theory developing from LENR science, which was delightfully billed as:
“Advanced Concepts: LENR, Anti-Matter, and New Physics” 
“CRYOGENIC IGNITION OF DEUTERON FUSION IN MICRO/NANO-SCALE METAL PARTICLES” Y. E. Kim, Department of Physics, Purdue University Physics Building, West Lafayette IN 47907. 
Being the final presentation on the Friday of this three day meeting infers significant weight to the attendees.
Cold Fusion/LENR is peer reviewed by the best and brightest, hence its’ advancement.–Gregory Goble (talk) 23:34, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
LENR scientists are welcome in the most revered hallowed halls of physics. This is so worthy of posting in this section. Yea!!!
CERN Colloquium in Geneva, Switzerland
Overview of Theoretical and Experimental Progress in Low Energy Nuclear Reactions (LENR) 
Chaired by Francesco Celani with a presentation by Yogendra Srivastava Thursday, March 22, 2012 from 16:30 to 18:00 (Europe/Zurich) at CERN ( 500-1-001 – Main Auditorium )
“Overview of LENT Theory: Low Energy Nuclear Transmutations”  (LENR) by Yogendra Srivastava, Professor of Physics. INFN & Department of Physics University of Perugia, Perugia, Italy
Summary clearly states that LENR is replicable science, “Theoretical know how and technology for LENT already exist.”  (See pg. 40)
“Overview of Theoretical and Experimental Progress in Low Energy Nuclear Reactions(LENR)”  Francesco CELANI – National Institute of Nuclear Physics, Frascati National Laboratories. Vice-President of International Society for Condensed Matter Nuclear Science.
Encyclopedic works concerning science need be reflective of the present state of the art of the environmental, experimental, or observational element of science over the theoretical state of the art.
If you and others really really really see something that does not fit theory… theories change while all physical phenomenon are real.
The present state of the art for LENR/ Cold Fusion environments is explained in this presentation… “The use of nano material (powder and thin wires) makes evident the importance of increasing the surface exposed to the gas environment to enhance the effect. Arata (experiment) fully replicated by Mc Kubre (SRII- USA). Nano-dimensionality important by itself, as claimed by Y. Arata and B. Ahern?”  (from pg 11)
As this CERN presentation shows, “the quality of experiments worldwide performed is so high and the results obtained so widespread/reproduced”  (pg 32) we see the science has indeed advanced since the emergence of nano technology.
This litany of Cold Fusion/LENR Condensed Matter Scientific Works has been entered into the record of CERN. Both presentations were peer reviewed and approved months in advance and are now undergoing a more intense peer review as all published scientific works do.
Everything in these presentations is WIKI WORTHY if presented in the proper light.
This article still has a bad bad time relevance and censorship problem compared to all of the recently published encyclopedias I just read. OH well what the ##### love keeps on going and going and going. We eventually figure it out.
With warm regards and electrifying anticipation.
So much of the WIKI article on cold fusion is focused way back in time because of the 10 year heavy edit battle.
We wonder (socialcencorshiporcorporate?hmmmm);
private investigators are looking into this now.
Grist for the film industry; now tracking
all editor sources.
Here it is slimmed down. No negative comments at wiki talk yet. This is wiki submission is dedicated to the two “Lions of Science” Martin Fleischmann and Stanley Pons.
MY WIKI WORKS
(visit cold fusion talk to comment)
Proposed section header:
“Cold Fusion- Mainstream Science”
Cold Fusion/LENR LENT is peer reviewed by mainstream science. “Advanced Concepts: LENR, Anti-Matter, and New Physics”  “A Game-Changing Power Source Based on Low Energy Nuclear Reactions (LENRs)”  “Cryogenic Ignition of Deuteron Fusion In Micro/Nano-Scale Metal Particles”  Presented at the “Nuclear and Emerging Technologies for Space 2012 Topical Meeting and concurrent 43rd Lunar and Planetary Science Conference” 
Peer review at CERN cold fusion Colloquium, ”Overview of Theoretical and Experimental Progress in Low Energy Nuclear Reactions (LENR)(LENT)”  “Overview of LENT Theory: Low Energy Nuclear Transmutations”  Summarizes that LENT (LENR) is replicable science, “Theoretical know how and technology for LENT already exist.”  (See pg. 40) “Overview of Theoretical and Experimental Progress in Low Energy Nuclear Reactions (LENR)”  Here the description of state of the art LENR/ Cold Fusion environments is, “The use of nano material (powder and thin wires) makes evident the importance of increasing the surface exposed to the gas environment to enhance the effect. Arata (experiment) fully replicated by Mc Kubre (SRII- USA). Nano-dimensionality important by itself, as claimed by Y. Arata and B. Ahern?”  (from pg 11) and, “the quality of experiments worldwide performed is so high and the results obtained so widespread/reproduced”,  (pg 32) the art of this science has advanced since the emergence of nano technology.
End of text. So that’s it so far. I will clear up the links (all are in the upper body of this section) and await delightful discourse and suggestions or objections. With warm regards and electrifying anticipation. –Gregory Goble (talk) 19:27, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
MY WIKI WORKS
“I have had a few responses and am engaged in editorial discourse seeking moderation. I love Hackers. DO YOU? Wish me luck. ”gbgoble
View to date: 3/27/12 This proposal would give far too much weight to those talks. We should be very careful about using any sources which are not from mainstream news outlets or nuclear science journals. Olorinish (talk) 23:39, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
Excuse me Olorinish… “not from news outlets or scientific journals”… What are you, completely unaware that CERN is AND NETS are both leaders in nuclear science peer reviewed presentations and publications. Clearly Wiki Worthy. Tell me why you think they are not or quit commenting on this subject. Thank you for obfuscation. –Gregory Goble (talk) 12:04, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
Why only nuclear science journals ? Any respected science journal is appropriate. The SPAWAR papers (long list) are published in several journals like Journal of Electro analytical Chemistry, Physics Letters A, Fusion Technology, Naturwissenschaften, European Physics Journal of Applied Physics, Radiation Measurements. Yeong E. Kim’s papers are in journals Few-Body Systems, Japanese Journal of Applied Physics, Naturwissenschaften, Physics Letters A, Physical Review A. I could go on and on. There are summary papers published in such journals too. “Too much weight” is an argument used here to artificially put weight on mainstream science view. There is a significant number of scientific peer-reviewed papers supportive of the minority view. In comparison, rebuttals to these papers are non existent. Based on number of published papers on the subject the WEIGHT in this article must be totally on the minority side. The fact that some journals blatantly refuse publishing anything related to the field and the fact that there is very limited funding for research in the field is not at all an argument for WP-editors to decide where to put the WEIGHT in our article. And you cannot only rely on outdated 20 year old books by biased authors to decide where to put the WEIGHT. When I use a source from a peer reviewed paper from a science journal, I get an avalanche of “I don’t like it” arguments why it cannot be used: “it’s a primary source”, “it’s a fringe author”, “it’s a non reliable source”, “it’s too much weight”. Your argument that only “nuclear science journals” should be used is just one of them. –POVbrigand (talk) 07:24, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
Hey POVbrigand slow down. I understand your frustration. Just go to the local library and you can find very good encyclopedic information about present day LENR science,–Gregory Goble (talk) 12:04, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
The mainstream secondary sources (many of them being quite recent) leave very clear what is the mainstream view. Also, giving lots of undue weight to conference talks. –Enric Naval (talk) 10:08, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
Enric_Naval, I Can not understand you. Could you please elucidate further? Thank you for your obfuscation. I apologize for my inability to “GET” what you are saying. Please forgive me. Thank you very much from the bottom of my heart. I needed to painfully dredge that one up. Hack Hack! –Gregory Goble (talk) 12:04, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
I now plead for a moderator to step in before I post this section to the article. A two-day grace period is gladly given for sustentative discourse. LOVE LOVE LOVE the ridiculousness of the ?Wiki? ?editorial? ?process? Which I do not comprehend. In this context I might prevail… trust me on this one… or not. Hackers may be following this closely, or not. I do not know. –Gregory Goble (talk) 12:04, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
It would be refreshingly refreshing if an honest idiot chimed in now with an innocent query seeking understanding for encyclopedic information on COLD FUSION and found Wiki sorely lacking on such. WHY? GUESS? This is undergoing deep observational consideration…. trust me… us… them… OR NOT!–Gregory Goble (talk) 12:18, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
All good grist for the film industry. GBGoble
Comments are closed.