Report from Cold Fusion 101 at MIT (Barry Simon)

Thanks very much to Barry Simon for this report from the recently held 2015 Cold Fusion 101 short course held at MIT .

CF 101 was again inspiring. Peter Hagelstein is a CF theorist and Mitchell Swartz brings in his experimental data with the NANOR and the PHUSOR. Since 2012 when I first saw a NANOR at MIT, they have been improving on an increasing curve. The latest series are called M-NANORs. The M is for magnetism, which somehow increases the efficiency and the longevity of the NANOR with consistent gains of 80 to 100 COP (in some tests much higher by far).

I asked Dr. Swartz if he would share these super-gains, but he said he wants to run the tests 100 times first. The gains are at low wattage. Some NANORS are becoming physically larger and less expensive to make. When the wattage is increased the gains come down. At 2 watts they give out a COP of 6. Above 2 watts the gains become less and less efficient. His goal is more with low watt electronics than home heating. He also has an ambition of setting up a NANOR lab at MIT to study the phenomenon.

Dr. Swartz and Dr. Hagelstein both use the term “Cold Fusion” quite freely. Perhaps what we call the phenomenon should be up to those who have been wrestling with it for the last 25 years.

Peter Hagelstein was told, “If CF is real you have to prove the negative testing wrong and come up with a new model of physics.” There were 217 negative tests of CF, most of them dating back to 1990. With four modern CF criteria he rendered the tests down to zero. When someone in the class suggested he should present these findings somewhere, he said, “I just did.” He also presented a model that joins CF to classic physics. He’s been working on it for 10 years and said it will be a long time, maybe generations, before it can be proved or disproved (just don’t ask me to explain it).

At MIT, anything Cold Fusion happens only through him and Mitchell Swartz, though only PH works at the college. MIT has yet to awaken from their false negatives from the early days of Pons and Fleishmann. Reproducible data is far beyond 1989. Perhaps it’s time for colleges to enter the 21st century and redo the classic CF/LENR experiment.

Attendance was down, but the class is available to the world at large thanks to Jeremy Rys’ good work of live streaming the class and making videos available through Ruby Carat’s Cold Fusion Now Through them last year’s class went out to 8,000 people via the web. As a result PH also corresponded with scientists from other countries, Russia included (Parkhomov???)

On the last day Mitchell Swartz passed around a celebratory copy of Current Science with an article about the class put together by Gayle Verner (from Infinite Energy magazine who’s always working behind the scenes).
Since I’ve become aware that “Cold Fusion is Hot Again” in 2012, though the progress has been excruciatingly slow at times, it has been the scientific thrill of a lifetime to watch CF/LENR gain momentum on a steady upward curve. It’s our generation’s Theory of Relativity. Soon the world will change beneath our feet!

Barry Simon

  • roseland67

    Awash in fear huh Bachole?

    • bachcole

      I have no idea what you are responding to, and you need to spell my handle properly or else it is likely that I would not see it.

      And, eh, I am not awash in fear. If I am awash in anything, it is gratitude and inner silence.

  • jousterusa

    There’s an unwritten rule in the media that if one newspaper or magazine breaks a huge story, its subject is tabu in other newspapers. 99 percent of the time, only those who read the original newspaper will ever hear about the story, which may affect tens of millions of people who remain ignorant of it – that’s the news you don’t get. It’s clear the same is true of cold fusion/LENR. Every research/manufacturing project I hear of pretends that Rossi and the E-Cat don’t exist, so they will waste tens of millions of dollars to do something like what he’s done much better. Why is the Current Science Journal running 12 articles on cold fusion in which some of Rossi’s observations – 1000% gains over unity, for instance – don’t mention him or his achievement. Peter Hegelstein and Mitchell Swartz are a thousand miles behind Rossi, but you don’t hear them talking about Rossi, either. Does anyone else here notice this, and perhaps share my resentment?

    • Barry

      Why would you say you don’t hear them talking about Rossi? Totally untrue. MS shares Rossi’s progress on his web site Cold Fusion Times. He also invited Rossi to speak at the MIT colloquium last year, Rossi refused.
      Mitchell Swartz has also had observations of 1000% gains and much more. As for “a thousand miles behind” it’s more like they are on different tracks. Jet Energy is working towards low wattage LENR for electronics, not industrial or home heating.

      • jousterusa

        I appreciate the observation, Barry, and will keep it in mind. I am glad to hear MS mentioned Rossi in ther 101 colloquium. However, I would point out that the 1000% gains MS reported were from extremely small gains, less than a watt, I believe. In many respects, I feel a lot of other CF/LENR researchers are re-inventing the wheel. Yet at the same time I admit that if my neighbor built a mansion, doing so might be my first response, too; I would have no desire to move into his house, which in some respects is what I inadvertently called for. But what about the omission of his name from all those Current Science Journal articles?

        • Barry

          Yeah, I know what your saying. Other than a footnote from David Nagel, Rossi wasn’t mentioned. Sometimes I think there is no love lost between the Cold Fusion collective and A Rossi.

  • EEStorFanFibb

    Thanks Barry

  • Alan DeAngelis
  • GreenWin

    Andy, Hagelstein has tenure and Swartz does not work for MIT. Angels are in the details. 🙂 But HERE is a guide to MIT’s hot fusion “scientists” who should be fired for corrupting the scientific method:

  • ecatworld


  • LENR G

    Exciting but also very frustrating. Dr. Swartz has something that could both easily prove LENR to labs around the world and be commercialized were he to partner with the right company.

    But he just keeps doing solitary science. Yay for the science and the newfound super NANORS jacked up by magnetic fields, but this could have been and still could be so much more.

    Even just sending a few previous generation NANORS to MFMP could start a revolution.

    • Barry

      He’s trying to get a NANOR lab set up at MIT for the further study. He also puts a lot of effort into sharing his findings, this class being an example. The NANOR is still undergoing a patent, has been for over a decade. The patent office puts a red stamp on all things Cold Fusion, though they’re starting to lighten up.

      • LENR G

        He should have done what Rossi wound up doing, finding a partner with deep pockets that could apply the necessary resources.

        Or if commercialization is not his priority then he should just share it with other labs and MFMP and at least get the recognition (which he could surely parlay into more resources and a well-funded lab).

        The lone wolf strategy (ok 2 wolves if you add Prof. H) is going to leave all his efforts as curious footnotes when the story is finally written.

        • Barry

          A lot of “shoulds” there Lenr. Jet Energy is made up of a number of people. M Swartz spends much of his time as a is a doctor at a mind and body clinic. P Hagelstein and he organized the MIT Colloquium last year. Wouldn’t exactly say they’re using “a lone wolf strategy.”
          Strongly disagree either one of them will ever end up as curious footnote.

          • LENR G

            I admire both men as well.

            However, they have failed to create any significant impact with their NANORs and it remains, at least publicly, available only in their very small circle and without any public verification. I have to fault them for this. They are not winning the science race, they are not winning the commercialization race and they are not winning the recognition race.

            Things could have been very different.

            • Barry

              Well, we’ll agree to disagree Len. I’m more frustrated with MIT itself as an obstacle to CF.

            • Omega Z

              LENR G,
              It’s not so much lone wolf as everyone just going his own way.
              Such as 10 people coming at the problem from a different direction and Each thinking his way is the right way. There is a subtle difference. Note, that many of them come together for the ICCF conventions as well as other get conventions & share their progress. Of course, they show you their previous results, not their very latest.

              There are those among them who are willing to share knowledge & work together, but few trust those of whom they would be sharing with. Situations such as DGT/Rossi are always in mind.

              Still, you have some that work close together such as Swartz & Hagelstein. As to them working faster, I believe they do much of this on the side. Both have Day Jobs that come first.

              As to Investors, It’s a risky proposition not to be entered into lightly. Venture Capital groups want a BIG chunk of your IP. You can lay this onto greed, But the Fact is, VC’s invest in many ventures & extremely few pay off. They need a large share of those that prove out in order to be around for future ventures. It comes down to what each party finds acceptable. And Yes, there is some greed involved. On both sides.

              As to the NANOR’s, scaling up & taking it to market, Note they have a high COP>100 at a couple watts, but COP declines as they try to scale up. This is the same type of issue that everyone runs into. Low energy high COP, or High energy low COP. Only Rossi, Brillouin & possibly a couple in the shadows have been able to obtain high energy & high COP at the same time.

              It would be interesting to see Rossi & Brillouin collaborate in some mutual way. Each appears to have the edge over the other in some aspects of their devices. Combining their technology could prove beneficial to both. Then again, Maybe each approach is not compatible with the other. But it would be interesting. Guess well have to wait until both are on the market to find out.

  • Allan Shura

    A bit off the discourse but logic and repeat observations are ahead of math theories and proofs.
    A unifying element is the electrical arc (applied often with water or hydrogen) in nearly all branches of to new energy technologies. Magnetism and electromagnetism are near to a number
    of effect enhancements. It seems that too often peer review is based on maths that are not
    able to explain observed effects even when they are repeated and (at least in my estimation)stunting near term applications of findings.

  • Warthot

    Has to be G.A.N.D.E.R. in my case.

    • BroKeeper

      Try again. 😉

  • Barry
  • Gerard McEk

    This is the third top story today that tells us that magnetism influences LENR. Axil’s theory about SPP, the laser induced LENR effect where permanent magnets are needed and now this. It cannot be an coincidence! Albert Kallal below mentions Rossi’s unusual voltage/resistance ratio for heating the hot cat and leading to high current pulses, that this also may be needed to increase the COP. I have pointed to that fact also in my different comments in the past. Maybe a changing magnetic field is even better. So if you intend to test, make arrangements for a powerful magnetic field, that may lead to positive results!
    Thanks Barry for sharing this with us.

    • clovis ray

      yep,. thanks buddy

  • GreenWin

    Thank you Barry for taking the time to attend and report on this stalwart team of cold fusion scientists — working in a hornet’s nest of naysayers. Great to hear about the recognition of magnetism — which may warp the lattice altering the resonance field that allows particle fusion. One day I hope to see a “Hagelstein-Swartz School of Nanoplasmonics” at MIT. But I ain’t holding my breath!

    • Alan DeAngelis

      I’d prefer to see a “Hagelstein-Swartz School of Nanoplasmonics” at Texas Tech.

  • Albert D. Kallal

    The discovery of using magnetism here is VERY interesting. While “most” in LENR assumed that some kind of frequency pulse can be used to “excite” the metal lattice to enhance the LENR effect.

    It now “could” turn out that such frequency pulsing was NOT increasing COP, but the “simple” fact of such frequency stimulations would also be inducing a magnetic field into the metal.

    This is VERY interesting since pulsing and shaking of the metal lattice “could” mean NOTHING for LENR and it is the fact of creating a magnetic field that is a “magic” sauce here.

    In other words the LENR community may have been working under the false assumption that stimulation of the metal lattices improves the LENR effect, but in fact all is requited is a magnetic field, and MORE interesting is a constant one seems to work.

    The above statement certainly spills A NEW SET of beans on the LENR effect.

    I suspect even Rossi knows this. The heating coil in those hot cats is designed specific to not only provide heat but such wire wound around a tube would also produce a significant magnetic field.

    The fact that magnetism results in significant yield of energy and heat is another MAJOR key in cracking the LENR effect. How very very exciting this revelation is.

    And the 100+ COP’s that they can “easy” obtain are encouraging.

    The only $100 question left:
    How was the use of magnetism to increase the LENR effect discovered? Was this an accident, a hunch, or something based theory that would point to magnetism being a magic enhancer of the LENR effect? The story and source of WHY they tested or tried magnetism is VERY important for both history and that of science theory.

    This “story” is especially so if magnetism turns out to be a fundamental way of controlling LENR and more important making LENR commercially viable. In fact this may well be the largest story of 2015.

    Does anyone know who or why they decided to introduce magnets into their nanors?

    Albert D. Kallal
    Edmonton, Alberta Canada

    • Warghot

      Stimulation by means of electromagnetic pulses of very specific properties is the entire core of the Brillouin approach. Brillouin vs Rossi pretty much strikes me as a cigarette lighter vs flint and steel. You can “make fire” with both…..but one is a heck of a lot easier.

      • Warthog

        I see I typo’d my own handle…….Warghot should be Warthog!

      • Albert D. Kallal

        I much accept since the resurgence of LENR that EVERY one has accepted that phase changing EM fields can enhance LENR. This is NOT news at all.

        It would be reasonable easy to test the alternating or phase changing magnetic field as to being superior to a non changing EM field.

        Simply take a nanor and replace the permanent magnet with an alternating electric one – in fact I suspect Hagelstein/Swartz already done this.

        In other words, it is VERY easy to have tested a phase changing field as opposed to a permanent magnet field.

        The stated COP’s and gains are now VERY high as a result of introducing a permanent magnet. I have little (if any) doubt that Hagelstein/Swartz would testing both alternating vs non alternating magnets.

        In fact I am MUCH willing to bet that’s how they started out. Given they use DC, then a DC current to power the electric magnet would be super close and handy – why not just for the heck wire up the electric magnet! This discovery could have been an accident, or simply that of curiosity – hey lets just try using DC for the magnet, since the DC source is handy and simple.

        From above then by logic, anyone would reason of mind would conclude that such non phase changing electro magnets work, then the OBVIOUS conclusion is a permanent magnet would also work!

        As I stated the STORY of HOW Hagelstein/Swartz found out or choose a permanent magnet for these nanors is REALLY the question I want answered! It really is the story of the year.

        While all here (including me) over the last 5 years of LENR have always considered evidence that changing electro magnetic fields can stimulate or enhance the LENR effect, quite sure this is FIRST TIME that NON changing fields (permanent magnet) has been shown to enhance the LENR effect.

        There is NO change or phase or cycle in a permanent magnet. We have zero knowledge that a changing EM field is any better for LENR. I MUCH accept Hagelstein/Swartz would have tested this issue. Introduction of a magnetic coil powered by electricity with a phase change likely hints that along the way, DC current was used and tested. It is by logic that if a DC powered electric magnet works, then logic would suggest that a permanent magnet would ALSO work. So this STORY of HOW Hagelstein/Swartz went down these paths and choices is MOST important.

        As such this is new experimental evidence that non phase changing magnetic fields can significantly enhance the LENR effect.

        Albert D. Kallal
        Edmonton, Alberta Canada

        • Eyedoc

          Are you sure that a CONSTANT magnetic field is sufficient ?? is it documented somewhere ? What would the strength of the field need to be ? Thanks for any info

          • Albert D. Kallal

            Actually, I am not 100%. The MIT nanors “suggest” this. So I URGE caution here. I assume those nanors run on DC, and assume the “M-” has NOT changed this.

            However, if the magnetic field is NOT DC (ie: “non” oscillating), then they are using A/C current. As I stated, the use of magnetism or a EM stimulation field is NOT new.

            However, is this DC or permanent is the question that specifically needs to be asked of Hagelstein/Swartz. Reading the post here, how this magnetic field is being created is most important (is it AC or DC?).

            If I have read this wrong, then I have some high quality egg on my face here. In other words, my assuming that the magnetism they are talking about is DC. My assume may WELL BE VERY WRONG!. If I am wrong, the this is nothing new to the LENR field.

            And being wrong means my posts on this particular thread means I am doing their LENR experiments and the general LENR community some disservice.

            Albert D. Kallal
            Edmonton, Alberta Canada

        • Barry

          Hi Albert. You might find the NANOR lectures that Jeremy Rys recorded interesting. Thursday’s goto from beginning to 1:19:00

          More about the M-NANORS on Friday (see the link posted earlier above)

    • Barry

      Dennis Cravens did some work with magnetic fields. Not sure when, see the vid above.

    • Transmutations

      Mizuno and Takahashi have obtained an LENR effect with only a D2 gaz and a magnetic field !!!!

      • Eyedoc

        If you might know……How was the mag field induced ? constant ? and how powerful ? Thanks

    • Dave Lawton

      I pointed this out awhile back. Harold Aspden in his lenr patent mentioned the magnetic
      field is the catalyst.He passes AC current from a transformer through the nickel.