February 5 The JET Energy Solid State NANOR ‘IAP Cold Fusion/LANR Demonstration’ Has Just Successfully Completed Its First Week Continuously Operating at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (Cambridge, MA).
The website doesn't seem a credible, reliable source, but surely MIT is?
Successful Cold Fusion/LANR Demonstration at MIT?
The demonstration was held as part of a seven-day IAP ("Independent Activities Period") course at MIT. IAP courses are held during the winter break and many (including this particular course) are not for credit. Course instructors have a wide latitude regarding what they can teach, and MIT as an institution does not officially endorse the course subject matter.
More on this particular demonstration can be found on the Cold Fusion Times website (run by Mitchell Swartz, who conducted the demonstration). There you will find links to a back-and-forth spat between New Energy Times reporter Steven Krivit and Mitchell Swartz regarding the significance of Swartz's demonstration and Krivit's honesty and/or ability to read a graph. You will also find a few graphs there, publicly released due to the aforementioned spat, that you can try reading for yourself.
I'd say the upshot of it all is this: If you accept Rossi's and/or Defkalion's claims regarding the power output of their devices, Swartz's 80 mW energy gain is laughably insignificant. If you feel you have reason to mistrust Rossi and Defkalion, the significance of this demonstration is that the energy gain, while small, was long-lived, and it was conducted in an academic institution, which suggests that the data will eventually all be made public. Swartz and Hagelstein are preparing a paper for publication based on the results of the demonstration.
More on this particular demonstration can be found on the Cold Fusion Times website (run by Mitchell Swartz, who conducted the demonstration). There you will find links to a back-and-forth spat between New Energy Times reporter Steven Krivit and Mitchell Swartz regarding the significance of Swartz's demonstration and Krivit's honesty and/or ability to read a graph. You will also find a few graphs there, publicly released due to the aforementioned spat, that you can try reading for yourself.
I'd say the upshot of it all is this: If you accept Rossi's and/or Defkalion's claims regarding the power output of their devices, Swartz's 80 mW energy gain is laughably insignificant. If you feel you have reason to mistrust Rossi and Defkalion, the significance of this demonstration is that the energy gain, while small, was long-lived, and it was conducted in an academic institution, which suggests that the data will eventually all be made public. Swartz and Hagelstein are preparing a paper for publication based on the results of the demonstration.
Temperature, density, confinement time: pick any two.
I am interested in seeing published before and after mass spectrometer results from the elements within the device -- in particular to see if they have managed to provide conclusive evidence of different elements or differing isotopic ratios being present after running the device for a while. If the device is actually performing some sort of fusion/LENR/alchemy I would love to see this demonstrated using rigorous and reproducible testing protocols, performed at a reputable academic institution such as MIT, peer reviewed, and published in a reputable journal...Ivy Matt wrote:The demonstration was held as part of a seven-day IAP ("Independent Activities Period") course at MIT.
[-------snip----------]
the energy gain, while small, was long-lived, and it was conducted in an academic institution, which suggests that the data will eventually all be made public. Swartz and Hagelstein are preparing a paper for publication based on the results of the demonstration.
"Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away."
--Philip K. Dick
--Philip K. Dick