Livestream of MIT Cold Fusion 101 Course at MIT

Thanks very much to Gordon Docherty for bringing this to my attention.

There is a livestream of the LENR Cold Fusion 101 class that is taking place at Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) in Cambridge, MA. The course is led by Dr. Peter Hagelstein, professor of physics at MIT, and Mitchell Swartz of Jet Energy.

You can watch the video or got to YouTube here: http://youtu.be/WrU2iUxCHBs

  • Tim

    Great stuff. A shame the stream is of such an abysmal quality. It’s often hard to unterstand what is being said.

  • Tim

    Great stuff. A shame the stream is of such an abysmal quality. It’s often hard to unterstand what is being said.

    • Frank Acland

      I have been able to watch about 15 minutes and then the stream freezes — when I refresh, it takes me back to the beginning of the presentation. Is that just me?

  • f sedei

    It seems that MIT has a lot of catching up to do. Better late than ever, I guess.

    • It is unfortunately not OF MIT but AT MIT…

      • mike

        no, fortunately. The longer they take, the further behind they’ll be. Think about it. They will all have obsolete careers and be blocked from lenr due to complete ignorance on the subject.

  • It is unfortunately not OF MIT but AT MIT

  • It is unfortunately not OF MIT but AT MIT…

  • winebuff67

    Does the attendance look larger than last year?

    • Attendance was down.

      • Gerrit

        Maybe next year, Peter Hagelstein and Mitchell Swartz can give their lecture in Sweden or Norway, if an institution would invite them.

        • Well Gerrit, there is exciting news with the NANOR progress. M Swartz is trying to get a NANOR lab set up at MIT.

  • winebuff67

    Does the attendance look larger than last year?

    • Attendance was down.

      • Gerrit

        Maybe next year, Peter Hagelstein and Mitchell Swartz can give their lecture in Sweden or Norway, if an institution would invite them.

        • Well Gerrit, there is exciting news with the NANOR progress. M Swartz is trying to get a NANOR lab set up at MIT.

      • mike

        The longer they deny it’s existence, the harder they will fall. And to think, I was one of 15 people on earth that witnessed this stream and the future of technology unfolding before our eyes. I feel privileged, I mean truly truly privileged.

    • mike

      who cares, these guys know it is real. The establishment will go down in flames along with there over paid funding and useless careers, not to mention, the stranglehold they have on funding for real science.

  • Just got back.Too bad the sound didn’t come out well. At the 1:22 – 130 mark Peter Hagelstein goes over early negative experiments, the ones that tore down CF out of the gate. There were 217 negative experiments and 49 positive. PH went over them with what we now know as opposed to what they knew back then. 1st critiria applied and the list went down to 39. 2nd critiria, down to seven, 3rd down to 3, 4th down to o. In other words none of the early negative testing passed.

    • Gerrit

      The 4 criteria can be disregarded by pseudoskeptics, because of Huizenga’s a priori conclusion: “Furthermore, if the claimed excess heat exceeds that possible by other
      conventional processes (chemical, mechanical, etc.), one must conclude
      that an error has been made in measuring the excess heat.”

      • hempenearth

        If the entire Federal cabinet were given two sticks each, I’m sure not one of them would be able to start a fire. Furthermore they would conclude that it was not possible to start a fire with two sticks.

      • The first criteria was there were no nuclear emissions. (P&F never claimed there was, they would have been bombarded.) Take these negative tests away and the list went from 217 to 39.

        • fact police

          The first criteria was there were no nuclear emissions. (P&F never claimed there was, they would have been bombarded.

          Actually, in their 1989 paper, figure 1 claims detection of gamma rays (attributed incorrectly to 2.45 MeV neutrons), and beta detection, attributed to tritium.

      • fact police

        The 4 criteria can be disregarded by pseudoskeptics, because of Huizenga’s a priori conclusion: “Furthermore, if the claimed excess heat exceeds that possible by other conventional processes (chemical, mechanical, etc.), one must conclude that an error has been made in measuring the excess heat.”

        This quote is often used out of context to suggest that nuclear was excluded by dogma, but it begins with “furthermore”. Isn’t anyone curious about the sentence just prior? It is: “If the reported intensity of nuclear products is orders of magnitude less than the claimed excess heat, then the excess heat is not due to a nuclear reacton process”.

        So, he’s saying *if* it’s not nuclear and it’s not non-nuclear, then it must be an error.

        No scientist rejects experiment in favor of theory. In fact, in the same book, on page viii, Huizenga writes “Experimentation is the final authority in scienceā€¦”

  • Just got back.Too bad the sound didn’t come out well. At the 1:22 – 130 mark Peter Hagelstein goes over early negative experiments, the ones that tore down CF out of the gate. There were 217 negative experiments and 49 positive. PH went over them with what we now know as opposed to what they knew back then. 1st critiria applied and the list went down to 39. 2nd critiria, down to seven, 3rd down to 3, 4th down to o. In other words none of the early negative testing passed.

    • Gerrit

      The 4 criteria can be disregarded by pseudoskeptics, because of Huizenga’s a priori conclusion: “Furthermore, if the claimed excess heat exceeds that possible by other
      conventional processes (chemical, mechanical, etc.), one must conclude
      that an error has been made in measuring the excess heat.”

      • hempenearth

        If the entire Federal cabinet were given two sticks each, I’m sure not one of them would be able to start a fire. Furthermore they would conclude that it was not possible to start a fire with two sticks.

        • mike

          Amen.

      • mike

        Well one should conclude that there may be an effect as yet unknown. Anything else is religious belief.

        • Mats002

          To me that sounds like a I-just-slided-over-the-fence-statement.

      • The first criteria was there were no nuclear emissions. (P&F never claimed there was, they would have been bombarded.) Take these negative tests away and the list went from 217 to 39.

        • fact police

          The first criteria was there were no nuclear emissions. (P&F never claimed there was, they would have been bombarded.

          Actually, in their 1989 paper, figure 1 claims detection of gamma rays (attributed incorrectly to 2.45 MeV neutrons), and beta detection, attributed to tritium.

      • bachcole

        The hubris that his almost the speed-of-light elementary particles are “seeing” everything that there is to see down at the pico and femto size level.

      • fact police

        The 4 criteria can be disregarded by pseudoskeptics, because of Huizenga’s a priori conclusion: “Furthermore, if the claimed excess heat exceeds that possible by other conventional processes (chemical, mechanical, etc.), one must conclude that an error has been made in measuring the excess heat.”

        This quote is often used out of context to suggest that nuclear was excluded by dogma, but it begins with “furthermore”. Isn’t anyone curious about the sentence just prior? It is: “If the reported intensity of nuclear products is orders of magnitude less than the claimed excess heat, then the excess heat is not due to a nuclear reacton process”.

        So, he’s saying *if* it’s not nuclear and it’s not non-nuclear, then it must be an error.

        No scientist rejects experiment in favor of theory. In fact, in the same book, on page viii, Huizenga writes “Experimentation is the final authority in scienceā€¦”

  • GreenWin

    Thanks to Gordon, Frank, Peter Hagelstein, Mitchell Swartz for steadfast belief and instruction. In the vast dim ignorance of MIT’s solipsism, there IS a candle and flame!

  • GreenWin

    Thanks to Gordon, Frank, Peter Hagelstein, Mitchell Swartz for steadfast belief and instruction. In the vast dim ignorance of MIT’s solipsism, there IS a candle and flame!

  • Mats002

    To me that sounds like a I-just-slided-over-the-fence-statement.

  • Kevin Singer

    Here are some URL’s I’ve collected over the years. Some of this material will be much more accessable to your friends. This is it! This year!
    Let’s get some state funding? City council? Private? Crowd source?
    Best would be open source plans that can be built with 3D printers…

    2 MINUTE NASA VIDEO “LENR IS REAL, HOT WATER HEATERS REPLACED”
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mxeKeuh_2Bw

    60 Minutes piece on the reality of “Cold Fusion” (12 minutes long)
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JyNn_Z6wCIk

    INCREDIBLE 45 minute documentary on “Cold Fusion”
    http://www.personalgrowthcourses.net/video/cold_fusion

    http://www.lenrproof.com/
    LENR PROOF

    MIT Professor presentation on LENR running since January 2012 till May 2012 (11 minutes, May 2012)
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=SoPe4TzdJsA

    Part 2 (MIT Professor on LENR 13 minutes)
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=F_IoIfL-rTs

    Part 3, 2 minutes, explains how another MIT professor shut down his private funding! So Dry!
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=PkmzCkEFt94

    most recent article in Oil Price.com about successful LENR device entering the race
    http://oilprice.com/Alternative-Energy/Nuclear-Power/Yet-Another-Successful-LENR-Device-Enters-the-Race.html

    http://coldfusionnow.org/2013-starts-right-with-cold-fusion-101-at-mit-for-second-year/
    CLASS AT MIT AGAIN THIS YEAR

    A good website that honestly discusses Andrea Rossi’s commercial E-Cat LENR generator
    http://www.e-catworld.com/

    This one is from CNN, Recent, why aren’t we funding this?
    http://money.cnn.com/2008/07/01/smallbusiness/blacklight.fsb/index.htm

    A video where at 6 minutes the “show me” fellow VISITS MIT to see for himself
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wu18QvNLl_Y&feature=related

    By far the best site on truth. Only uses established media for links! Very clever, nothing fringe and still the truth
    A page at Fred Burkes amazing site, Want To Know .info. Want to go deep? Explore this site! The links are amazing.
    http://wanttoknow.info/newenergyinformation#newenergysummaries

    http://appft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-adv.html&r=1&f=G&l=50&d=PG01&S1=Zawodny&OS=Zawodny&RS=Zawodny
    NASA PATENTS COLD FUSION (METHOD FOR PRODUCING HEAVY ELECTRONS)

  • Preston
  • martae

    Obviously the fission, or hot fusion people have sabotaged this video. Is there a non screwed up version?

  • martae

    Obviously the fission, or hot fusion people have sabotaged this video. Is there a non screwed up version?

  • Paul Maher

    All the brain power at MIT and they can’t produce intelligible audio. Holy Moly!!