A Few Further Details About MIT Cold Fusion Event — [UPDATE — New Data Available]

There has been considerable interest in the news earlier this week published in Cold Fusion Times of the demonstration of cold fusion at a short course taught by Dr. Peter Hagelstein at MIT. Dr. Mitchell Swartz of JET Energy Inc. was invited to present to the class, and Cold Fusion Times (which is owned by Mitchell Swartz) reported that the “JET Energy NANOR(TM) demonstrated a significant energy gain greater than 10, much larger than the previous open demonstration.”

It has been difficult to find out more details about what was presented at the course. Since the original report there have been some snippets of new information have been posted on various web sites — but the information provided cannot be fully sourced.

Cold Fusion Now stated on February 2 that, “The NANOR used in the open MIT Demonstration is a ZrO2-PdD Cold Fusion/LANR solid state quantum electronic device – now ongoing for five days straight!”

New Energy Times today reports that an unnamed LENR researcher reported “that the peak power output Swartz measured in that experiment was 18 milliWatts.” [Correction — New Energy Times now reports a source as saying that the output was 80 milliwatts]

Infinite Energy Magazine reports that the information presented by Dr. Swarz was to be “experimental results showing excess power in PdD and NiH systems, with a particular focus on experiments he has conducted.”

I have tried to contact both Drs. Swartz and Hagelstein for more information about the event, but without success. If there is anyone reading this who may have attended the event who can provide more information, please feel free to contact E-Cat World –there’s lots of interest in this topic.

UPDATE: An anonymous source has sent New Energy Times more of JET Energy’s data. This source is quoted as saying ““When you look at the data, you can see, barely, a 1 degree C temperature rise for about three minutes, using about 12 mW of input power to produce less than 100 milliwatts of heat.” This source provided New Energy Times with a chart which shows input power and energy produced in the JET system.

  • Fibber McGourlick

    My response to Mr. Krivit’s article in The New Energy Times is as follows…

    The fact that the power output was low and Mr. Swartz’s demonstration didn’t conform to Mr. Krivit’s preferred standards of presentation, does not of itself make Mr. Swartz’s claim misleading.

    Unless Mr. Krivit had real proof that Mr. Swartz did not do what he claimed, it’s Mr. Krivit’s headline that’s misleading. “

    • DSM

      Yup I go with you on this. Also Krivit’s ‘unamed source’ doesn’t help him when he is effectively trying to belittle someone else’s efforts.

      The more I read written by Krivit the more I dislike him. Yet I started out thinking he was one of the heros of new energy.

      Now I find myself wondering what he is, who he is, and what is his real agenda.


      • Bernie Koppenhofer

        He is an egotist only interested in using LENR to feed his ego, and in that process trashing his profession.

        • Colin Connaughton

          I can’t imagine why anyone would trash his own profession. I’m a sceptic on both ecat and LENR, more so on the former than the latter. I believe we need sceptical input so that potential investors are aware of the dangers involved here.

          Regarding the level of power:- It does seem absurd that 18mW was produced by a nuclear reaction. Also at such a low level of power I would have thought that the possibility or probability of power contamination by, for example, stray radio or magnetic fields, or inaccuracy of reading instruments would be greater.

          • Fibber McGourlick

            Skepticism is fine. It’s unfounded and unexamined skepticism that’s objectional. It’s exactly the thing that induced establishment science to lock cold fusion in the outhouse without a second glace. We will soon have very good reason to be thankful to the LENR scientists who ran against the establishment grain and exercised the primary attribute of the true scientist–curiosity.

  • morse

    “that the peak power output Swartz measured in that experiment was 18 milliWatts.”

    With an energy gain greater than 10, does it mean the input power was only 1,8 mW?

    • Fibber McGourlick

      Yes. But the magnitude of the power isn’t the point here. The breakthrough is in the gain achieved–i.e.,the multiplication of the power input. If it works, then the operation can be scaled up.

      • racribeiro

        I wonder how much power was needed to have paladium and Zr available and if scales to higher energy levels maintaining the energy produced / fuel volume ratio.

  • atanguy

    Well, the big news was that MIT offers a course on ‘cold fusion’ after its attack against Fleishmann and Pons more than 20 years ago. An apology from the MIT physic department seems to be in order, don’t you think?

    • Robert Mockan

      “A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it” —Max Planck ((German theoretical Physicist who originated quantum theory, 1858-1947).

      The question is are enough of them dead yet.

      • daniel maris

        Never a truer word spoken! That Planck was a clever guy. 🙂

      • Steve Robb

        A shame that events must proceed that way but probably true.

    • nobody

      Hagelstein, who put on the course, has been working on this at MIT the whole time. I guess MIT’s not exactly a monolithic organization. Recently in a talk about this he said others at the school are still fighting this, and they just turned down a grant that had been awarded to them to try to replicate the Italian results.

  • Pingback: A Few Further Details About MIT Cold Fusion Event — More Needed | ColdFusionBlog.net()

  • Frank
    • nobody

      bad link, thanks!

      link has no actual additional info on the event, just biased editorializing. see the link in the post just above this one for an (over-the-top) explanation

  • Tony


    Numerical Analysis of Steven Krivit’s Lastest Rants
    February 5, 2012 – There he goes again.  Just when cold fusion scientists thought it might be safe to emerge from their laboratories, along comes major mischief-maker Steve Krivit (‘New Energy Times’) to spin facts into fiction.  Known by many for his serial, unqualified “analyses” and his intense advocacy of a knock-off theory, Steve Krivit has now been over-shadowed by fifth grade level logic regarding both the magnitude of numbers AND how he failed to even read a graph correctly.

    • artefact

      good link, thanks!

  • Keith Long

    Evil will no longer be able to hide. Mankind has reached the conscious state that we can see the truth and evidence will no longer be needed. Krivit is running uphill and against the wind. Don’t waste to much thought on him. Mankind has been presented a choice. Make the right one and “ALL” things are possible.

    With all my love Keith

  • Pingback: A Few Further Details About MIT Cold Fusion Event — [UPDATE -- New Data Available] | ColdFusionBlog.net()

  • Stringbustr

    When it comes to LENR the cat is defintly out of the box.
    everyone that was suppressing LENR Is now coming forward.