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

  • Paul Maher

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

  • martae

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

  • Mats002

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

  • 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!

  • http://magicmusicandmore.com/ Barry

    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.

      • http://magicmusicandmore.com/ Barry

        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€¦”

  • winebuff67

    Does the attendance look larger than last year?

    • http://magicmusicandmore.com/ Barry

      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.

        • http://magicmusicandmore.com/ Barry

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

  • http://www.lenr-forum.com/forum/ barty

    It is unfortunately not OF MIT but AT MIT…

  • http://www.lenr-forum.com/forum/ barty

    It is unfortunately not OF MIT but AT MIT

  • Tim

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