Swartz-Hagelstein MIT Cold Fusion Videos Posted


Many thanks to Mr. Moho who posted this very useful comment in an earlier thread about the MIT Cold Fusion Seminar. I thought it deserved our attention, so I have made it a separate post.

All lectures from the Cold Fusion 101 Class at MIT have been posted on thecoldfusionnow.org Youtube channel.
I would suggest everybody to watch at least the video segments featuring Mitchell Swartz as they are easy to follow and focus on the experimental side (NANOR) which most people here might be probably interested in.

January 27: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uVoxxcEWkAo (MS at 2:01:29)
January 28: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k_PZh79zliI (MS at 2:06:10)
January 29: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nFmzKVkgFtM (MS at 2:02:40)
January 30: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BkPxOhjNlgM (MS at 2:03:30)
January 31: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Al7NMQLvATo (MS at 2:14:50)

I learned that the latest NANOR devices are nickel-based and use no expensive palladium. However, they are preloaded with deuterium, not hydrogen (heavy water, which contains deuterium, is worth several thousands dollar per liter). At low input (a few dozen milliwatts) these NANORs show an energy gain of about 27x, but they can be driven at a higher input power (1 watt) at which the gain drops to about 3x. They have a bell-shaped gain curve, of which he calls the peak “optimal operating point” (OOP). My observation is that since the gain is higher at low input, if we wanted the same gain with a higher output power there would have to be more active material / bigger NANOR devices. The ones shown only weight about 50 milligrams.

Swartz is currently working on the version “8″ of these devices, focusing on scaling them up using different materials. Apparently he is having very good results and very high gain, which he won’t disclose yet. Regarding how they’re made, there’s much information he can’t talk about yet due to the patent status (rejected because “cold fusion”). He hopes to be able to during the next Cold Fusion 101 class next year (so, 2015).

I must be honest here: after watching these videos my confidence in these NANOR devices increased ten-fold. If he’s going to give them to other researchers/labs for testing (his IP is in the active material preparation – apparently a very lengthy process – not the actual materials used), there’s no way that LENR will not soon become mainstream.

This is possibly bigger than Rossi and the others working on kilowatt-scale excess power.

‘Mr. Moho



  • Alan DeAngelis

    I thought this might be interesting because it was written just a few weeks after F&P’s March 23, 1989 announcement.

    “….From the media accounts, the Pons and Fleischmann experiment appeared to have been motivated by the speculation that since electrons in a conduction band move collectively, it is possible for a conduction-band electron
    to act as if it were much more massive than a free electron. Thus, if there is a dislocation in the matrix of palladium ions, a site at which occupancy by two deuterium ions is marginally possible, an electron between these two deuterium ions might, by virtue of is effectively greater mass, bring them close enough for fusion to occur.
    The contradiction between the observed large heat release and the very small neutron yield may be explained by making the further assumption that catalyzed cold fusion is a different process from thermal fusion. In thermal
    deuterium-deuterium fusion the 4He nuclei is an extremely short-lived intermediate; the two deuterons come together with both the energy of the reaction and the thermal energy needed to overcome the coulombic barrier. This
    thermal energy brings with it considerable angular momentum. Since the 4He nuclei is isolated, the only ways in which it can dispose of the excess energy and angular momentum are by decomposition to 3He + n and to T + H. In catalyzed cold fusion, however, the situation is quite different. The 4He nucleus is formed without significant angular momentum or thermal energy and is not isolated in that the electron which catalyzed the fusion event is available to
    remove excess energy.

    Thus one possible explanation for the production of heat without corresponding neutron production is that when fusion is catalyzed by conduction-band electrons in palladium the dominant reaction is to 4He, with 3He + n and T + H only minor side reactions….”

    Richard K. Lyon May 15, 1989 letter to C&E News

    • Alan DeAngelis

      PS
      In another May 15, 1989 letter (page 3) to Chemical & Engineering News, Albert H. Alberts of The University of Groningen, Department of Chemistry mentions that D + D He(4) could be in equilibrium as mass is lost!
      (too long to copy).

    • Alan DeAngelis

      PS
      Could the energy of the 24 MeV electron that Richard K. Lyon mentioned be redistributed throughout the conduction band since electrons in a conduction band move collectively? This would make more heavy electrons that could catalyze more D-D fusions (a chain reaction).

      • Alan DeAngelis

        PPS
        Heavy electron catalyzed fusion would be analogous to muon catalyzed fusion (no need to go through a WLT mechanism).

    • MasterBlaster7

      I just want to make a note here…your quote above, especially the part…

      “it is possible for a conduction-band electron to act as if it were much more massive than a free electron”

      …mass gaining electrons are Widom-Larsen theory. This is the most popular theory in LENR theory (there are about 1000 of them). There are about 5–6 theories entertained by top scientists in the field. Widom-Larsen is one where Hagelstein is another.

      My point is. This is 15 hours of Hagelstein (theorists) and Swartz (experimentalist)….and Hagelstein is highly critical of Widom-Larsen theory.

      Theory in this area is very very very hard. It could be argued that that there is not enough empirical scientific understanding in condensed matter physics, nuclear physics or Quantum physics to form a basis for a correct theory on LENR.

      I see it like this. Imagine, in say 1879 someone with a sun telescope discovered that light from stars near our sun was being bent and distorted. Now imagine trying, for 25 years, to explain that effect with Newtonian physics. I think that is where we are right now with LENR theory. You need and Einstein level breakthrough to have the correct basis for putting together a correct theory.

      • MasterBlaster7

        Another note. I just watched all 15 hours of this lecture series. And, I highly highly highly recommend, that anyone interested in LENR, should watch the whole thing. You will gain a huge understanding of what has been going on in LENER for the last 25 years. The theory parts are brutal but important to understand the broad strokes. I guarantee that if you watch the whole thing,and have half a brain in your head, you will be able to speak intelligently about LENR to anyone.

      • Alan DeAngelis

        Yeah MasterBlaster, I was just thinking about heavy electrons. Maybe there’s no need for them to react with protons to become neutrons (that’s energetically uphill) to do D-D fusion. Maybe they can just
        act like muons in muon catalyzed fusion (as F&P originally proposed). After all, a muon is a lepton (as is an electron) but it doesn’t need to react with a proton to make a neutron do D-D fusion. Maybe F&P were on the right track 25+ years ago when first thought of it.

        • Alan DeAngelis

          …when they first thought of it.

          • MasterBlaster7

            I would have to look at it again. But, I want to say that Hagelstein was looking at a H + D = He3 reaction through a coherent mechanism. This avoids the D+D = H4 to H3 releasing the 24MeV gamma. But, im not sure. When he went hard core it melted my brain. The theory is way way over my head. I dont have an academic basis in Quantum Field Theory, Electro-Chemistry, condensed mater physics, condensed mater nuclear physics or nuclear physics….which is what you need to even wrap your head around the theory. I do understand the broad strokes, and I understand them well enough to stay far far away from the theory.

            From the broad strokes. I have studied Hagelsteins latest theory a little and Widom-Larsens theory a little. But my gut feeling is that no one is right. Storms out of Los Alamos, another top theorist/researcher in the LENR field thinks that they are going to have to throw a billion dollars at the problem to begin to figure it out. That means a lot more high end experiments using expensive equipment. I think, if you are serious about theory, you need to wait till that billion dollars (after a commercial success) and a lot more big minds getting into the problem working stuff out. So, talk to me in 10 years about theory haha. I just dont think they are even close to there yet….like figuring out Einstein problems with Newtonian physics in 1790…..or maybe the Fermat theorm in year 25…only 275 years to go haha.

            The nice thing is that we are getting a result…and that result can be exploited commercially, without having the theory.

            • Alan DeAngelis

              I’m just having fun. I had my own hand waving thought in April of 1989 (May 15, 1989 page 3, were I misspelled Fleischmann) and sent it to C&E News by snail mail ["stripping" reactions or Oppenheimer-Phillips reactions (d,p) with palladium].

              The letter below mine by Larry A. Hull talks about a deuteron reacting with an electron to become a dineutron (pn + e >nn) (I think Brillouin talks about that). This would make more sense than W-L theory because it requires much less energy than a deuteron and an electron going to
              two neutrons ( pn + e > n + n – 3.08 MeV!). He wrote this just a few weeks after the March 23, 1989 F&P announcement!

              • MasterBlaster7

                Another interesting place for you to look…I know that Rossi was interested in Quantum Ring Theory as a competitor to Quantum Field Theory. You might get some interesting ideas from that upstart theory.

          • MasterBlaster7

            Hey Alan, what is your background in the scientific field? Just curious as to what kind of brain I am talking to haha.

            • Alan DeAngelis

              I’m a chemist (just an old lab rat).

              • MasterBlaster7

                Ah, then you are way ahead of me on bouncing around theory. My last science was undergrad…chem I II…organic i II….physics….I II. I am an enthusiast. My background is BS in psychology JD Santa Clara, International law certificate from Oxford and an MCSE in computing…just for fun. I was on the AGATE aircraft design team for NASA AIMS in undergrad…we beat MIT and CIT in the competition. I am also an inventor with a patent pending….did 90% of the legal work on it myself and all of the drawings…I guess im a drafter too haha. And, I read a lot of science stuff these days…so thats where I am coming from in a discussion on theory. I would say I understand about 90% Swartz and 10% Hagelstein. I can kick around relativity theory and some Oppenheimer but this area of theory…only broad strokes.

    • Alan DeAngelis

      Oh yeah, I just remembered. Joshua Cude put the heavy election fusion idea to rest that Richard K. Lyon mentioned by pointing out the obvious that muon catalyzed fusion has the same fusion products as hot fusion.
      [He(3) + n and H(3) + H(1)].
      http://coldfusionnow.org/electron-capture-by-a-proton-where-would-the-energy-come-from/
      another R.I.P.
      But then again some tritium is seen.

  • Mr. Moho

    Yep I think you’re right. The slides here starting from 2:25:00 state “megaohms”, although I think I did hear him say teraohms at some point when mentioning that these devices can exhibit sudden, equipment-wrecking, large changes in electrical resistance. I don’t remember where unfortunately:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=BkPxOhjNlgM#t=8735

  • ecatworld

    I’m sorry, but I can’t remember which comment that was, and what, if anything, I objected to. There have been so many comments, I lose track sometimes!

    • bachcole

      curious and Frank, often I get the response to a comment before I get the comment. since curious may not have gotten an email to his first comment about P = (V^2)/R, he might not have noticed that.

      And curious, there is nothing wrong with your math. It looks good to me.

  • AB

    I have only watched the first video but it has been informative, and I’m glad this material is being made available to the public.

  • Mr. Moho

    An extremely interesting thing I forgot to mention in my very short summary is that on video #4 (January 30th) Mitchell Swartz showed how applying powerful magnetic fields to NANORs improves their operating properties permanently. He calls NANORs treated with magnetic fields, “M-NANOR”. Watch the January 30th video starting from hour 2:30 for more information on this:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BkPxOhjNlgM&t=02:30:00

    • Barry8

      Wow, seems a crime the scientific community does not get behind this. These videos are the first of their kind. Here are classes in Cold Fusion, 3 years worth now, with results of a demonstration model. These are bypassing the scientific politics at MIT and are being sent out to the world at large. Cold Fusion history in the making.

      • BroKeeper

        I agree Barry. Anyone here knowing other scientists/physicists should pass this info to them. I am sure there are a few associated with bro commentators.

  • Alan DeAngelis

    Just because deuterium is being consumed as helium is being created does not necessarily mean that

    deuterium-deuterium fusion is taking place. Perhaps there is a fusion-fission reaction that is taking place that involves the creation of a 24 MeV alpha particle (an alpha particle is helium). This might explain the absence
    of 24 MeV gamma rays.

    We can’t ignore the chemistry of the system. It’s well known in catalytic hydrogenation that deuterium forms a covalent bond with nickel. This would set things up for the following nuclear reaction:

    D~Ni~D > Cu*~D > Zn* > Ni + He (24 MeV, no gamma rays)

    D~Ni~D is nickel deuteride
    Cu*~D is cuprous deuteride in an excited state
    Zn* is zinc in an excited state
    Ni is nickel
    He is helium

    Because nickel is consumed but then spit out at the end, the overall reaction is:

    D + D > He (24 MeV, no gamma rays)

    It would resemble D-D fusion but it isn’t.

    This is a rehash of what I said about deuterium-palladium and hydrogen-nickel systems before in the comments of the following article.

    http://coldfusionnow.org/peter-gluck-and-yeong-e-kim-on-lenr-research/

    • Alan DeAngelis

      PS
      Peter Hagelstein says no energetic alphas are seen. If that’s true I must be wrong.

      • Alan DeAngelis

        PPS
        But then again, energetic particles are seen emanating from Francesco Piantelli’s nickel rods when they’re placed in a cloud chamber.
        Also, the 88 KeV in the Gozzi experiment (I’ll have to read the details of it) could be from the beta decay of Pd-109 to Ag-109 ((Handbook of Chemistry and Physics). Silver-109 could be formed in an Oppenheimer-Phillips reaction.
        Pd-108 (d,p) Ag(109)
        An energetic proton would be generated. It’s too much for my feeble mind; I still have to think about this.

  • Bertuswonkel

    The last one is very interesting. Who new that he build a self loop cold fusion devise in 2004! An argument used by skeptics sometimes is that i cant be real because nobody build a device which can run it self. It would be solid proof since this would make the argument about calorimetry irrelevant. Mr. Swartz is a great experimenter but not so good at PR on the net i think. Why not upload that movie to the JET energy site. Or is that video on youtube? I cant find it.
    His site Cold Fusion Times http://world.std.com/~mica/cft.html is interesting but the layout just hurts my eyes, or is it just me?

    We could be waiting on a NANOR for some time since he said he is building 1 a month. He will not be able to make a lot of products without the proper investments. Rossi has done much better. Sure he claims more stable and higher results but Swartz his experiments are quite good. He has a higher energy gain then Rossi. Like Hagelstein said just build a lot of them and sell a product. In all those years Rossi has actually sold not many products but did attract a lot of investment. Guess Swartz small nanor is less impressive then the hot steam ect from Rossi. However, with a couple of million dollars i think Swartz might be able to actually build a competitive device.

  • Landlocked Surfer

    Frank posted the times when Michael Swartz started to talk in parenthesis next to video links (MS at hh:mm:ss). Thanks Frank!

    • ecatworld

      Actually you should thank Mr. Moho for that — he wrote the post.

      • Landlocked Surfer

        My bad… big thanks to Mr. Moho also!

  • artefact

    last video at 2:14:50 till the end is fun.

  • bkrharold

    “This is possibly bigger than Rossi and the others working on kilowatt-scale excess power”

    I agree, although the power output levels are much smaller than Rossi’s, the association with MIT lend great credibility to the nanor. These annual lectures at MIT are an invaluable tool for promoting LENR. As soon as the scientific community embraces this new technology, and serious money is dedicated to fundamental research, progress will accelerate rapidly. It is only through the heroic efforts of Dr Hagelstein, that mainstream science will sit up and take notice.

    • Allan Shura

      Nanors and similar could also be more available and suitable for domestic and commercial usage with a roll out.

  • Barry8

    Thanks Mr. Moho, Ruby too. The video of a Sterling engine hooked up to a Cold Fusion device is on the last (Jan 31st) video at hour 2:43:40 At 2:38:37 info on inputs and outputs. 1W input will give 3W output. Lower the wattage and the NANOR becomes more efficient, with 4mW the output is 27 times or 27COP. (typo, the chart says input where he meant output)
    PH goes on to explain why they think they get more COP at lower input power. MS would not say how much more the latest series of NANORs are getting.
    I thought the Blacklight demo was going to totally overshadow MS and PH’s work, glad it didn’t. Blacklight was a fizzle where MIT was more than expected. Exciting times!

    • Sanjeev

      A 100×100 array of these can yield 1KW (heat) while consuming only 40W. One wire is only 30mg, so a 1KW array will be 300g, you can carry it in your pocket.
      The downside is that it needs a very high voltage (kVs? I’m not sure if I heard it correctly) and its preloaded, so may stop working as soon as the D2 leaks out of it.

      • Mr. Moho

        The main downside at the moment is that these NANOR devices, even though in principle work like a diode, have an electrical resistance of about a teraOhm, which can suddenly drop to kiloOhms when driven too hard (when they reach an “avalanche threshold”). The result is that control is difficult, even though it only takes DC input. Expensive power supplies and setups that can reliably deal with large sudden changes are needed, and there’s always a risk of losing both them and the NANOR under testing. Furthermore, the extremely large initial electrical resistance means that it needs a rather high voltage to be driven to usable power levels, as you’ve written.

        Still a long way to go for practical uses, but as a lab toy to demonstrate the effect it’s good enough.

        Preloading should not be a problem in the short to medium term, but long term (>1 year) full duty operation hasn’t been tested yet.

        • Sanjeev

          Perhaps they should consider indirect heating.

          • Mr. Moho

            I think they need a current, not just heating. They have an anode and a cathode, just like diodes. I don’t actually remember if Swartz touched this subject, however. That would have been an interesting question.

  • Andreas Moraitis

    The combination Ni-D is new to me. Deuterium does not work in Rossi’s Ni-H reactors. But maybe it would work under specific conditions. Since we know that Pd-D systems work, the next question is if Pd-H systems would be feasible.
    If one could generate LENR from all these combinations, the theoretical puzzle would perhaps be easier to solve.

  • Ivone

    Actually, heavy water costs $300 for reactor grade (95%) and $430 medical purity (99%). Expensive, but not prohibitively so, and you’re using it in a tightly sealed container so no evaporation. A litre costs the same as a laptop. The reaction will last a year at least.

    • Mr. Moho

      Either he was talking about something else and I misunderstood that, or he is using ultra high purity, lab grade heavy water which might actually be that expensive.

      • Ivone

        Ummm…$2883 per litre…but the difference between 99.95% and 99% isn’t huge. If the efficiency penalty isn’t too bad, but the only way is to find out with blind controls.

        • Manuel Cruz

          The difference between 99.95% and 99% IS huge, none other than two orders of magnitude. Impurity-wise, the second one is 1 out of 100 parts while the other is 1 out of 2000-10000 parts.

          • Allan Shura

            Not for the intended purpose. Ordinary water can initiate a CF reaction and it only is
            1 part of 6,420 of hydrogen atoms. Deutrium is used to enhance the reliability to reproduce
            the reaction as Yoshiaki Arata of Osaka University in Japan discovered in 2008.

  • Warthog

    One can patent either the specific composition of the substrate…. a “composition of matter” patent or the means of preparation, or both. What one apparently CANNOT currently patent in the USA is the use of either in a cold fusion reactor (unless one happens to be the FedGov, which has applied for and gotten several cold fusion patents).

    • Sanjeev

      That’s true. There are a few granted patents on CF and a long list of accepted applications (In US). One can easily patent them in other countries that are more favorable for science and business.
      There was a presentation in last ICCF on how to patent a cold fusion invention. Perhaps Jet Energy needs a good consultant on world wide patenting or should simply launch a product without patents, like Elon Musk. The patent only helps your competitors to copy it quickly and easily.

  • Daniel Maris

    I agree with your assessment Frank – could be much more important than IH/Rossi in terms of overcoming the resistance of the scientific community.

    • ecatworld

      Actually, Daniel, that was Mr. Moho’s assessment — he originally wrote this as a comment, and I reposted it here.

      • Daniel Maris

        Noted – sorry Mr Moho!