Cold Fusion Now Reports on MIT’s Cold Fusion 101 Course

For those who haven’t discovered it yet, I’d like to recommend an excellent article at the Cold Fusion Now web site reporting on the recent MIT Cold Fusion 101 short course that was put on by Drs. Peter Hagelstein and Mitchell Swartz. There are nice summaries, videos and images posted there which cover very thoroughly the proceedings of that meeting. Like last year, the course featured a live demonstration of Jet Energy’s NANOR cold fusion cell which according to the article was able to achieve energy gains of 14 times and over.

Here’s a video of Mitchell Swartz’s introduction to cold fusion in which he discusses some of his research results of cold fusion.


  • http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UVkScFIFR2Y uploadJ

    In the opening statement of this video Dr. Peter Hagelstein (of MIT) warns in no uncertain terms that dabbling in Cold Fusion can be career-ending and to proceed at your own risk:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UVkScFIFR2Y

    -uploadJ

    .

  • Eric

    in the video, the presenter says “for each Gigawatt per day”. No such thing. Fail

  • Jason

    I just finished watching all of the presentation. I was thinking about an experiment that might be useful. It seems that voids in the Pd metal matrix provide reactions sites for the Deuterium. It takes a long time, hours, for the Deuterium to diffuse into the metal. The voids in the metal allow 2 Deuterons to enter a single void and create the energetic environment for fusion to take place.
    In silicone, oxygen ion implantation can be used to inject oxygen into the silicone crystal to provide a layer of insulation at a known depth. Could Deuterium ion implantation be used to inject Deuterium into the metal. The high energy of the deuterium ions would displace some of the Pd atoms creating voids and filling them with Deuterium molecules.

  • georgehants

    When all publications such as New Scientist wake up and realise that there should be no politics in Science, no opinions, no beliefs, just TRUTH, EVIDENCE and FACTS and if there is not a clear answer then RESEARCH, RESEARCH, RESEARCH, then Science may begin to move away from its incompetent situation dominated by crazy “expert opinion.”
    When we have ridiculous situations such as so called scientists standing up and giving their expert opinion that Cold Fusion cannot exist without recommending full research and many other equally childish statements, then science will stay the untrustworthy joke that it has become.
    In science only Truth counts or is there anybody on these pages that disagrees.
    —–
    New Scientist
    Opinion
    Challenge unscientific thinking, whatever its source
    Science may lean to the left, but that’s no reason to give progressives who reject it a “free pass”
    http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21729023.000-challenge-unscientific-thinking-whatever-its-source.html?cmpid=RSS|NSNS|2012-GLOBAL|online-news

  • Jackob

    Too much talking, videos, articles for years now, and my basement is still with no sign of Cold Fusion Reactor.

    • GreenWin

      “Too much talking, videos, articles for 60 years now, and my basement is still with no sign of Hot Fusion Reactor.”

      • Silvio Balatelli

        but we know that hot fusion works. The sun and hydrogen bomb proved it.

        • robiD

          Do you really think that human beings could be able to bridle energy produced in that way?
          Mother nature doesn’t care what human beings think.

          You can’t always get what you want.
          But if you try sometimes well you just might find
          You get what you need.
          [Rolling Stones]

        • Hampus

          Isn’t hydrogen bomb a nuclear fission reaction? And the sun is hot fusion not cold fusion.

          • Hugo

            No. The h-bomb only uses a fission bomb to trigger fusion of deuterium and tritium which are hydrogen isotopes. You could theoretically initiate the fusion reaction with regular explosives but the resulting bomb would require several inconveniently large ships to carry it to its destination so they settled for fission to provide the initial energy.
            The sun, too, is hot fusion as you say but that is what Silvio pointed out anyway.

        • GreenWin

          “but we know that hot fusion works.” OK. Where’s the reactor promised 60 years ago??

          • Hugo

            It actually went productive more than 60 years ago and produced a yield of a little over 10 megatons. Enough to heat all privately owned homes in the US for about 14 years. Ok, they had a little difficulty controlling it and they were fortunate that few people called the atoll where they first tried it out ‘home’ but there is no getting away from the fact that it worked.

  • clovis

    Hi, all.
    Very cool video, and some interesting comments, I could be more interested in what MIT is doing if they had not been the very ones that poo-pooed two great scientists, Stanley Pons and Martin Fleischmann.
    Maybe they are trying to make up for their callous and almost criminal behavior, with regards to cold fusion, lenr, lanr, Like George I too think someone should be held accountable for destroying their careers.

    • clovis

      this just in from fp/mp, things are looking real good,
      #41 Ron B 2013-02-04 13:26
      If you look at Cell 1.1 for the last 12 hours at 5 min res, you see that the peaks getting near 6 are starting to look like leaping flames!! NewFire
      Quote

      • Hugo

        They had dropping pressure and rising ambient temperatures correlating well with power out. I think they can pretty much forget that run. Especially ambient T seems to be a never ending problem they’ll hopefully fix with the new, better insulated setup.

        • clovis

          I just looked at the quartz cell 1.0 it was producing 4.8482 watts, not 20 but we take what we can get, at this stage of the game, these guys are doing great work, and they will be rewarded for their most elegant work one of these days, big smile

          • clovis

            this just in from Dr.R

            We are working with the Hot Cat ( the E-Cat at high temperature) since May 2012. The improvements have been remarkable, because we passed from a conceptual prototype to industrial plants that are in construction. The third party tests in course are made on a module of the Hot Cat for industrial applications. We are at the level of safety certification too. As for the theoretical issues, strong improvement has been done too. Personally, (I think we have understood very well the phenomenon’s sources and this has improved the technology.)
            Warm Regards,
            A.R.

    • HHiram

      Since when is MIT a “they”? It only makes sense to talk about specific researchers.

      • Warthog

        Unfortunately not true. University departments and many cliques constitute various “theys”. In the case of MIT, the tail that wags the dog is the physics department, especially that subset involved with “hot” fusion. Their antipathy is nothing more than them protecting their sacred turf and grant funding (which is “large”).

        • hadamhiram

          This is just conspiracy-theory whackjobbery. It’s crazy talk. Of course clusters of researchers work, publish and acquire funding together. But the idea that there is some overarching conspiracy to give cold fusion the shaft is just tinfoil hat nonsense spouted by people who have have never set foot in a university research lab and know nothing about how the system works.

          People here are talking about MIT the way that bad TV shows talk about the CIA or the NSF. It’s absurd.

          • Warthog

            LOL. I suggest you study up. In particular I suggest you read Charles Beaudette’s book on “Cold Fusion”. No “active conspiracy” necessary, just a confluence of prejudices and actions. The SOLE PROVEN instance of fraud in CF research was done at/by MIT by “hot physicists” to “debunk” P & F. Lots of other data out there as well.

            And your comment is PRECISELY what the pathological skeptics use as a counterargument.

          • http://www.lenr-forum.com/tags.php AlainCo

            it is not a conspiracy, it is a groupthink, collective denial.
            http://www.princeton.edu/~rbenabou/papers/Groupthink%20IOM%207p%20paper.pdf
            http://www.princeton.edu/~rbenabou/papers/Groupthink%20IOM%207p%20paper.pdf
            it happens often, and people are both sincere and acting to protect their assets…

            after that they sincerely try to block any opponents that may ruin their denial with evidence.

            very frequent in organization.

            see the behavior of nature when facing a successful paper that have been peer reviwed, and next time how they react to roporta 41 (no room).
            how MIT influent broke the funding of hagelstein last year.
            how advisor of papaandreou blocked funding by greece, letting room for xanthoulis…

            read the patterns of denial, and then the model.
            especially the par about denial in hierarchical organization.

            It is not CIA. CIA is better organized and more realis about data.
            it is more like a church.

            did you know that there are priest that no more believe in god… they still work because it is their life. there have been an article on that.

            • Warthog

              Correct. “Groupthink” was the term I was thinking of but couldn’t dredge up from memory….thanks for providing the correct term.

              But there is no question that powerful physicists have acted behind the scenes to stifle CF research. These actions are VERY well documented.

      • Barry

        Right now HHiram, Peter Hagelstein is the only CF hold out at MIT.

  • Shane D.

    Infinite Energy has an article up recapping last Novembers “Global Breakthrough Energy Movement Conference” that was held in Holland. Interesting comment from one of the speakers:

    “James Martinez spoke about Stanley Pons’ and Martin Fleischmann’s experiences with the media. Martinez produces Cold Fusion Radio and is in the new film The Believers.

    He commented about what he sees as greed around coldfusion. “Cold fusion should be everybody’s business. It shouldn’t be a situation where a small group of people control it and then boss everybody around.” His interest lies in financing the field, getting investors tobankroll it.

    He said, “Right now it is a year, or maybe less depending on how much money is available, before coldfusion is coming out.”

    Martinez is involved with a group that is developing such a technology. “I’d say they have the Rolls Royce version.Nobody knows about it; nobody would believe it. It’s protected from public incredulity. They’re going to solve a lot of the problems because they’re going to give it away for free.”

    He had traveled to Hollywood seeking financial assistancefor the cold fusion researchers. He contacted people sur-rounding actors such as Val Kilmer and Elisabeth Shue,whose 1997 film The Saint
    was about cold fusion. He stated,“Nobody in Hollywood will stand up with us. For now. They don’t want to get near it”.

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/123731404/Global-breakthrough-energy-movement-conference-by-Jeane-Manning

  • PeterRoe

    OT – Centrica (British Gas) has pulled out of Camoron’s UK nuclear program, leaving cash-strapped EDF as the only name currently in the game. Reasons given; escalating costs and timescale slippage (mostly due to problems with the EDF reactor design and the recently added costs of hardening against extended flooding). I am currently praying that Hitachi see the way the wind is blowing and dump their options, leaving the whole thing to sink quickly (as it should).

    Just the millions wasted so far in wrecking several hundred acres of beautiful farmland at Hinkely Point in Somerset probably would have cracked cold fusion if it had been invested in research instead.

    http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2013-02/04/centrica-pullout-nuclear-power

    • GreenWin

      Interesting how climate-alarmists are thumping for nuke fission, just as the industry and States are checking out. Makes me think the “green” movement is years behind the reality curve. Only the wholly blind or ignorant in the energy industry do not know of the impending upheaval coming from LENR. One after another big nuke services company has bailed. Oilcos are dumping oil fields. Even AGW’s propaganda minister James Hansen has called wind and solar projections “believing in the tooth fairy.” Yet Jim has become a nuke proponent!

      The first sentence of this Slate article provided me 10 seconds of joyful laughter!! http://slate.me/Yy0IlX

  • GreenWin

    Mitchell discusses his system producing 1 Watt of energy AFTER the input power source is removed aka “heat after death.” This has been observed by many, many scientists including those at e-cat demos.

    • Ged

      The real question that remains is not whether there is an event, but how to scale it up and stabilize it. These seem the hardest challenges. Cold fusion appears to be easiest to produce at small scales, but the stochastic nature of larger scales challenge attempts to keep the reaction controlled.

      It’s a fascinating field, and I hope this 101 course will help spur all those young, bright minds into taking on the problem. Nothing like new blood and new perceptions to drive innovation.

      • http://www.electric-sailing.fi Pekka Janhunen

        One question which is unclear to me is to what extent LENR occurring at one point of a macroscopic object spreads to other parts of that object. I think that it does to some extent, because if the phenomenon was purely local, its occurrence would probably be more predictable because somewhere over the surface of a macroscpic object the local conditions should be suitable for it, just on statistical grounds. E.g. in MFMP I don’t recall cases where just one end of the wire would be active.

        • Hugo

          How would you know whether only one end of the wire would be active? IR cam resolution (both, thermal and temporal) is certainly not granular enough to catch any singular event and their thermocouple placement coupled with thermal conductivity of the wire itself and the gas acts like a big equalizer. I agree as far as the chances for suitable conditions on a macroscopic object goes, however any reaction could very well destroy these conditions around the location where it happens and the effects seen aren’t spreading out but rather reducing the chances for it to happen again in the same location (which is what always bothered me about the standing wave effects theorized to happen in a homogenous lattice which likely wouldn’t be homogenous any more whole Angstroms around wherever a couple hundred MeV have been emitted).

          • http://www.electric-sailing.fi Pekka Janhunen

            I don’t know specifically about MFMP. My point is just generically that by observing how and if the phenomenon spreads from some initial location one might learn something about its nature. I guess my main question is: if the phenomenon is micro or nanoscale (=large number of potential sites), why is reproducibility still often an issue.

            • GreenWin

              Swartz and hagelstein claim they can produce the effect with near 100% repeatability. Presumably at the micro/nanoscopic scale, excess heat is not at magnitude to destroy the lattice geometry.

              Separately, in higher energy systems (Rossi/Focardi, piantelli, Defkalion) they may be starting their reactions at nanoscale, then amplifying them with ancillary materials like Be, or liquid Li (as suggested by Ikegami chemonuclear.) Two or three steps might allow higher magnitude reactions after the ignition catalyst starts the process.

            • Hugo

              We can’t rule out the null hypothesis which would be that at least most cold fusion observations are artefacts. High reproducibility with any specific experimental setup doesn’t rule that out but actually makes it more probable as long as a slight diversion yields no results at all or results on a different order of magnitude. In a way Celani’s high reproducibility now (after the first series of MFMP runs) strongly hints at a substantial and systematic measurement or interpretation error on his part than it already did anyway.

              • GreenWin

                Verified, reproduced transmutations, he4, gamma bursts, excess heat, CR39 tracks… you may mean “dull hypothesis.”

              • http://www.lenr-forum.com/tags.php AlainCo

                you can rule out artifact, not only because of the multiple effect, but some correlation or anti-corellation, and also because the anomaly seems independent of the kind of metrology, and depend on factors like crystallography, loading, impurities, that have no relation to possible artifact…

                anyway there is no limite to delusion, and i don’t expect to convince someone that imagin that this pile of varied and coherent experiments is an artifact.

                in that case, forget about science and enter a conspiracy guild.

                In that case everything is possible, and no reality is accessible to human.

                • Hugo

                  The only really independent factor all successful cold fusion experiments have in common is questionable calorimetry and the sad fact that none of them ever managed to run self-sustained for any convincing length of time. As long as that is the case you can rant all you want about conspiracies… it’ll never convince anybody outside of the small cold fusion research niche described as voddoo science by the rest of the world.

                • georgehants

                  AlainCo, you seem to be agreeing that only Evidence counts and until clear Evidence is forthcoming only more research will find an answer. Also that circular argument without research and Evidence is a waste of time.
                  Why, if “anything is possible” would that mean “no reality is accessible to human.”

          • Warthog

            Actually, the videos of IR microscopy (I think from the Navy lab that did the plastic dosimetry experiments) was quite impressive at showing electrode hot spots.

      • georgehants

        Ged both yours and Pekka’s questions seem just what science should be asking, if only we had such a thing as science actually doing research on such subjects.
        Why bother doing real science when one can earn a doctorate by things like the link below —-
        Global worming’: Earthworms contribute to climate change UC Davis 17:02

        • Hugo

          Are you saying science doesn’t research these subjects? What are we talking about here if not science researching cold fusion. This post is about MIT. It doesn’t get much more science than that, does it? You may argue about that it could be more or more official or with more money or whatever… but science is definitely researching this subject. Hagelstein, McKubre, Miley, Celani, Iwamura and so on aren’t amateurs.

          • georgehants

            Hugo, I would suggest a little more reading and Evidence of the state of Cold Fusion research now and for the last 24 years.

          • GreenWin

            FYI, Hagelstein made it VERY clear at a conference last Spring that his efforts to secure third party funding for Piantelli reproduction experiments was ignominiously scuttled by an MIT Nobel laureate (likely Gel Mann.) The old coot called the funder and made threats – the funding disappeared and the employees of the party had their jobs threatened.

            Hugo, you and consensus scientists need to grok the fact that your camp has opposed CF research every step of the way. Actions speak louder than words – and will not be forgotten (though they may be forgiven.)

  • daniel maris