Cold Fusion Times (owned and operated by Mitchell Swartz) has produced a lengthy response to reporting by Steven B. Krivit of New Energy Times who has criticized Swartz for posting what he (Krivit) considers “misleading” information on a personal web site about the recent cold fusion demonstration at MIT.
The response states that Swartz and Hagelstein have decided to publish a portion of the data collected in the class in order to rebut the analysis of Krivit, including the two charts below.
Cold Fusion Times criticizes Krivit for what it considers to be very basic math errors. Krivit quoted a source on New Energy Times as saying that the temperature output increase in the experiment lasted only for about three minutes. According to Cold Fusion Times it “actually lasted circa [ 4 * (3592-2053)] seconds!!![over 102 minutes] That is much, much more than “three minutes”. . . Mr. Krivit is quantitatively off by 3420%”
The article includes a number of other areas of dispute with Krivit, accusing him of faulty analysis and of unfounded attacks on other researchers in the cold fusion field. The article concludes by saying “cold fusion is struggling to make its resurgence, driven by researchers who have worked their fingers to the bone at enormous expense. It does NOT need bullies trying to make a name for themselves by advocating a “theory”, they personally like and have been paid to push. Hard-working experimental cold fusioneers worldwide need real support and not Krivit’s version of reality founded on disingenuity. Steve Krivit ought to shape up.”
No doubt there will be a response from Steven Krivit, considering the serious accusations made about him in this article
UPDATE (Sep 18, 2016) The following response has been submitted by Steve Krivit
In fact, we did respond, the next day. Here is the New Energy Times link.
Here’s the summary. On his “Cold Fusion Times” Web site, Swartz made claims of a “significant energy gain” of 10 times the amount of heat output than the electrical input. At that time, in 2012, because of Andrea Rossi, people were talking about, and thinking of gains in the megawatt range.
But in the claim Swartz made on his website, Swartz did not state the absolute level of his excess heat gain, only the relative level. Nor did Swartz state his input power. Therefore, readers had no idea how much — or how little — Swartz’ gain really was. Naturally, people would have expected Swartz’ “significant energy gain” to be somewhere in the same range as Rossi’s — megawatts.
At the time Swartz made this claim on his Web site, he had not published any data to support this heat claim. I sent Swartz a news inquiry to seek more facts, but he did not respond. I then began talking with other sources to learn what I could.
I quickly learned that Swartz’ “significant energy gain” was less than one-tenth of one Watt. One source that I spoke to said that Swartz had measured 18 milliwatts of heat. I later learned that that source had misread one of Swartz’ graphs. Swartz had measured 80 milliwatts of heat, not 18. Of course, it’s a trivial difference: neither 18 nor 80 milliwatts of heat is a “significant energy gain.” Another source had misread the duration of the heat excursion. They are not the first LENR -researchers to have difficulty reading or understanding Swartz’s reports.
Only after our first news story, Swartz released his data which then revealed how trivial his “significant energy gain” was. It also revealed that our source made the 18/80 milliwatt mistake and the other source made a mistake about the duration. Both relatively minor errors.
The bottom line is that New Energy Times exposed the fact that Swartz made a claim of a “significant energy gain” when it was a trivial 80 milliwatts; a level that, for two decades, every LENR researcher who has measured excess heat has achieved. Please let me know if you have any further questions, I’d be happy to chat with you.
Steven B. Krivit