MIT IAP Cold Fusion 101 to run again

The IAP course on cold fusion co-taught by Drs. Peter Hagelstein and Mitchell Swartz is scheduled to run again in 2014 for a third year in a row.

Cold Fusion 101: Introduction to Excess Power in Fleischmann-Pons Experiments will be held on campus at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) January 27-January 31 at 10:30AM-1:30PM in Room 4-145. The class is sponsored by the MIT Electrical Engineering and Computer Science Department where Hagelstein is a faculty member.

In 2012, the course was well-attended and featured a JET Energy, Inc demonstration of the NANOR, a nano-material, two-terminal component that generates excess energy gain using a dry, pre-loaded hydrogen fuel. Open to the public for viewing, the NANOR ran for months in Hagelstein’s office. Massachusetts State Senator Bruce Tarr visited the campus to witness the event, and is now a supporter of the pioneer technology.

Cold Fusion Now’s Jeremy Rys attended the course in 2013 and videod the lectures throughout the week. Problems with the audio feed were lessened with a second Enhanced Audio edit by uploadJ. Watch the 2013 background and theory lectures by Peter Hagelstein here, and see the experimental and technology talks by Mitchell Swartz of JET Energy, Inc. here.

The course syllabus includes:

Excess power production in the Fleischmann-Pons experiment;
lack of confirmation in early negative experiments;
theoretical problems and Huizenga’s three miracles;
physical chemistry of PdD;
electrochemistry of PdD;
loading requirements on excess power production;
the nuclear ash problem and He-4 observations;
approaches to theory;
screening in PdD;
PdD as an energetic particle detector;
constraints on the alpha energy from experiment;
overview of theoretical approaches;
coherent energy exchange between mismatched quantum systems;
coherent x-rays in the Karabut experiment and interpretation;
excess power in the NiH system;
Piantelli experiment;
and prospects for a new small scale clean nuclear energy technology.

Independent Activities Program (IAP) is designed for MIT students wishing to learn between semesters, but enrollment is open with permission from the instructor and there is no advance registration required. For more information and to contact the instructor, visit the IAP Cold Fusion 101 course page.

Related Links

Synopsis of Cold Fusion 101 2013 [.pdf] by Gayle Verner Infinite Energy Magazine

Peter Hagelstein Introduction to Excess Power … 2013

Mitchell Swartz Introduction to Excess Power … 2013

Slide Set of NANOR®type output presented at MIT IAP Course [.pdf] 2012

14 Replies to “MIT IAP Cold Fusion 101 to run again”

  1. Seems a little schizophrenic that one academic institution is running a course on a subject that by the religious dictates of the ruling powers cannot and does not exist.
    Next we will have some medical Rebels doing competent research on subjects like the Placebo Effect etc. that could enhance the lives of millions.
    Some people seem to think that science should find the Truth, these people must be stopped or before we know it there will be scientists actually thinking for themselves rather than following their leaders “expert opinions” that they must get from a direct link to their own personal god, who strangely turns out to be in error most of the time.

    1. MIT does not support LENR research. However, Hagelstein has kept at it all these years but sheer pluck. The IAP session is a time when professors teach courses that they like, personal interest-type stuff, so I guess that’s how he can do it.

  2. It is not schizophenic, but Free speech provision.
    IAP are independent, and this tradition is tolerated because experiences csays that Science benefit from free speach.
    The tragedy of LENr is that free s^peech was bullied by preacher of Truth.

    One lesson tha Roland Benabou get from his Groupthink theory, is tha there should be “ex-ante” provision to protect free-speech, dissenters, because ex-post no dissenters is tolerated, even by people who think they are honest and rational (which is not true of course, because nobody is always so).

  3. Alain, I am sure we re not really disagreeing but you are not appreciating the point I am making.
    “Free speech” searching for the Truth is admirable but any “speech” with a destructive nature is Evil.
    The science administration followed by many incompetent scientists is corrupt and incompetent in not allowing Research and Truth to determine the direction of investigation.
    Instead dead brained “opinion” by people with a destructive agenda, in many cases to protect their own pathetic positions are employed to debunk and distort the Truth as in many other areas of life.
    Science is as corrupt as capitalism and only those few Rebels willing to gamble their careers etc. in pursuit of the Truth are to be admired, all other self serving parasites who preach to maintain the status quo through fear of the truth need to be shown as the fools that they are.
    There in only one goal of science, seeking the Truth, everything else is inconsequential.

  4. The problem that I observed (on me too), and that is coherent with Benabou model, is that nobody can know that he is defending the good or the bad, until “the end”.
    Nothing definitive, like censor, suicide, murder,defunding, or huge funding should be done until the evidences are short term clear and blatant. this is the philosophy of Taleb, and it match the “no regret” advice of Judith curry.
    Sharing the funding among all hypothesis is the least stupid method.

    My vision is that good theory can defend alone without a law. LENR have proven it was real in 1991. only censorship prevented it to be recognized, because scientific method say it is real.

    1. Agreed but that just justifies the obvious concept that only an open-mind is rational.
      Anything less than a totally open-minded search for the Truth is against any logical endevour to advance in any area.
      Any fool who follows opinion in preference to Evidence, Facts or Theory regardless of whether any of these agree with the prevailing, imposed Dogma is incompetent or corrupt or both.
      The only way to “find the good from the bad” is Research not “expert opinion”.
      Anybody aware of science knows that in just about every area, the excepted Dogma forced down our students throats for years is wrong and falling apart around these experts ears.
      Time maybe for a new motto in science – We search for the Truth and not waste everybody’s time and money trying to verbally justify our opinions or scientific Dogmas or methods without appropriate open-minded Research.

      1. Good points up to that “Truth” thing where we tribalists stumble so often over our universal Camelot1, Camelot2, Camelot3….. Dogmas and Assumptions. Maybe it is time we scientists recognize that the only truth is the local observer data set LODSi, not some pretend universal Camelot=Ave(Camelot( i)).
        It is an extremely real modern problem as Benabou has outlined as groupthink.
        On the other hand, Modern Hamiltonian math may provide an “out”. After all, the Hamiltonian of EM theory is both a “particle” and a “wave”, BOTH of which are “Truth”! i.e. the “Truth” of different perspectives or measurements.
        i.e. “Modal Truth”.
        It is my contention that no universal “Truth” exists that is not “Modal Truth”. An example would be Philosophy;Skepticism, Cynicism, Pragmatism, Materialism, Realism …… All of which can be “Truth” for limited local playpens(datasets) but very bad universally.

  5. Best to stay with the common sense meanings of words without to much complication or one could never make a fair point.
    Truth is easy to determine in all down to Earth discussions as long as the words that frighten science to death are used – We Don’t Know.
    Science knows virtually nothing, yet we are faced continually with reports telling us that they know this and that, smug reports giving explanations for things about which they do not even have the common sense knowledge of the common man.
    If the Truth is, we don’t know, then the only answer is competent open-minded Research and investigation to try and find knowledge to move us on in any subject, as long as it is clearly stated that current knowledge is just a temporary thing until further research overrides or adds to that knowledge.
    In science, it is the Truth that opinion has no place beyond trying to determine the best direction to do the Research, after that it is just bar-room chitchat, not to be taken seriously by the sheep.
    A perfect example of the lows that science has fallen would be the Laural and Hardy of science, Hawkins and Dawkins giving out academic opinion that there is no creator etc.
    Scientifically any such statements are of course nothing but uneducated dribble.

  6. Peter Gluck,

    RE: Dear Bob, Thank you for answering, only my personal friends have commented the “wet CF=bad CF” idea. I wrote a lot about this on my blog,…

    My thanks for insight you have given.

    Beyond that, the point is a “wet cell” will become gaseous when desired temperatures are reached.

    That which came from the cradle is certainly growing up; note zirconium ceramic and other temperature stable elements strengthening the low energy nuclear reactive environment. HIGH TEMPERATURE LATTICE.

    Gaseous environments are superior, as that is the state when desired temps are achieved. NASA patent. SPAWAR patent. Rossi patent. Defkalion patent. Brilloin patent. Gaseous LENR environs.

    Quote Chief Scientist of NASA, Dennis Bushnell, “This is not a narrow band set of physical phenomenon”

    1. From the time that Andrea Rossi did High Output demonstrations with his wet devices (ECAT) it took just a few months before we was demoing a High Temperature (more efficient) Hydrogen Gas (DRY) device (HOTCAT). It was almost to good to be true, like magic but if he has a good understanding of the processes it would make sense that someone pitched in a bit of money. Now it seems he can make mini cats and tigers and moves with the speed of light. Brillouin though is (??) going for the wet systems but maybe what is a problem with ECAT is not a problem for them because they seem to be working from other physics / theory (within that wide set of phenomena that the Cold Fusion Brand make up)

      When I went to MIT last year it was to investigate if Andrea was lost in the woods or not. I have not the educational heavy background that many others here have but I reasoned that it one could just add neutrons to Hydrogen you would not have to go to high energy levels or try to overcome the strong nuclear force. It seems (???) that maybe both theories could be true … Peter Gluck wants to find “the gold road” to Cold Fusion and unity between the different researchers but maybe(?) its not such a bad thing that different organisations / labs are tackling these problems with different approaches, different set ups and different catalysts. (?)

      Anyway, Its great that Peter makes another year in MIT because personally I felt it was a very important and meaningful experience going there, It has opened up a lot of doors for me during the year. I can highly recommend attending the class even if you so have to travel half around the world to get there.

      Jet Energy seems to also have a high level of momentum going, I would love to hear how much progress they made since last year on their “Nanors”.


  7. Please have look at e-Cat Site the article “Cold Fusion Catalyst” for Ni/H atomtransmutation to copper using negative hydrogen from potassium hydride.

Comments are closed.