Skip to comments.Cold Fusion Demonstration During MIT Short Course
Posted on 03/09/2012 2:49:16 PM PST by Wonder Warthog
From January 23 to 31, MIT Electrical Engineering Prof. Peter Hagelstein conducted a course on cold fusion at MIT. Cold Fusion 101: Introduction to Excess Power in Fleischmann-Pons Experiments was part of MITs Independent Activities Period (IAP), during which students can take credit or non-credit courses in a variety of subjects (some, like cold fusion, not offered as part of MITs regular course selection).
Five MIT students attended the course, four of whom had been students of Hagelsteins. Another 15 or so individuals from outside MIT were also in attendance. During the first week, Hagelstein provided a theoretical and experimental overview of the cold fusion field, with lectures focusing on (but not limited to): excess power in Fleischmann and Pons early experiments; claim of energy production without chemical or nuclear products; theoretical difficulties and overview; hydrogen/deuterium evolution reactions and electrochemical models; excess power as a function of loading; vacancies and codeposition; the nuclear ash problem; correlation of He-4 with excess power; excess power in the NiH system.
For the final two days of the course on January 30 and 31, Dr. Mitchell Swartz spoke to the class about experimental lattice-assisted nuclear reaction/cold fusion (LANR/CF) systems, including those engineering modifications discovered by JET Energy, Inc. and other groups for controlling and increasing the excess heat obtained from activated CF/LANR devices. On January 30, Swartz presented a broad background covering LANR/CF aqueous, gas, and nanomaterial systems. He began with discussions of the evolution of CF/LANR developments starting with thermometry, calorimetry, and the control standards and engineering used to actually determine the activity of a driven LANR/CF material. This led up to presentations of excess heat and generated electricity from aqueous (nickel and palladium) systems, from codepositional and nanomaterial systems. Swartz stated, The emphasis was to transfer to them the pattern recognition used to recognize active CF/LANR systems and materials. On that background came improvements that led to marked increases in activity like Optimal-Operating-Point control and metamaterial JET Energy PHUSOR® cathodes. His final emphasis that day was on the mathematics and developments that led to the more successful results with paired Stirling engines and electricity producing systems.
After presenting background on nanomaterials in general, Dr. Swartz led the class back to Prof. Peter Hagelsteins lab, where a Series 6 NANOR experimental run was already underway. Like its 2003 (ICCF10) predecessor demonstration at MIT, this NANOR-inspired device also showed excess heat, which was monitored three ways by class members. Swartz reported, The group watched as the cold fusion demonstration performed like the Energizer Bunny, producing excess energy which appeared on the meters and computer graph in front of them, from the production of de novo helium-4 from deuterons. These results were analyzed by the class the next day. One of the confirmatory measurements from the first day of the open demonstration of CF/LANR at MIT during the course is in Figure 1.
Swartz explained the curves: Shown in Figure 1 are the incremental increase in temperature normalized to be input electrical power, for both the ohmic control and the NANOR, and the input electrical power to each. The graph shows first the response of the ohmic control, and then the response of the NANOR. It can be seen that despite lower input electrical power to the NANOR, the incremental temperature differential observed in the core was higher than expected, as compared to the ohmic control. The graph heralds the great efficiency and the excess power gain of the cold fusion/LANR NANOR device.
On January 31, Swartz focused on CF/LANR nanomaterials, including recent developments on how to better handle and activate them. He concluded with several types of new NANOR results, including the results from the groups previous day experimental CF/LANR run. This cold fusion demonstration had an average energy gain (COP) of 14.12 over the several hours that were observed (and which followed).
Swartz noted, The duty cycle was split with half going to a control portion consisting of a carefully controlled electrical DC pulse into an ohmic resistor which was used to thermally calibrate the calorimeter. For the entire month of February, the NANOR continued to produce excess energy, with daily calibrations against an ohmic thermal control; thus, it also confirmed the existence of CF/LANR daily during that time.
Compared to the 2003 MIT CF/LANR demonstration, the new calorimeter shown at the lab also had additional monitoring diagnostics for improved verification, such as the measurement of heat flow, to thereby provide for three independent ways of monitoring excess heat semiquantitatively compared to a thermal ohmic control. The excess heat, which the NANOR demonstrated, was monitored three ways. Swartz and others at JET Energy created a unique calorimeter and driving system whose unique design was its driving configuration and implementations which were made especially for portability to MIT along with other features. Swartz noted that, compared to the 2003 demonstration at MIT, this second demo had improvements of size, response time, diagnostics and output energy. The current set-up was designed to run at low power input levels to increase the likelihood of longer runs and safety at the educational institution for its month-long stay.
Swartz expounded on the improvements over the 2003 demo: First, the 2012 IAP demo has used an entirely new, more reproducible configuration of cold fusion. It showed a significant improvement over the previous demonstration because it was composed of an entirely new line of CF/LANR nanomaterials. At its core is a specially prepared CF nanomaterial developed by JET Energy, and constructed into a NANOR which is a member of the sixth generation of these mini CF/LANR devices which certainly appear to have a place in the future of cold fusion. Second, and most importantly, the NANOR used in the January IAP demonstration had a much higher energy gain compared to the 2003 demonstration unit [energy gain 14.1 in 2012 vs. energy gain ~2.7 in 2003]. The current NANOR series have had higher power gain (to beyond 30) and energy gain (to 16) levels, but the group was quite satisfied with a COP of 14 for hours. Third, another unique quality of the NANOR is precise, safer containment. In this case, the mini-sized NANOR is a sixth generation CF/LANR device, and it is smaller than a few centimeters, with an active site less than a gram. Fourth, in the case of the sixth generation NANORs, unlike the others, the pre-loaded devices can be simply electrically driven. The activation of this cold fusion reaction is, for the first time, separated from its loading. In every other system knownFleischmann and Pons, Arata, Miles and othersthe loading was tied to activation. The next step with the NANOR research is to increase input power, energy production density and temperature.
The NANOR on display during the IAP course at MIT in January had been giving out excess heat since the beginning of January, through February 2012. Also worth noting, the 2003 demo set-up needed two full tables, whereas the new 2012 NANOR demo needed only a single standard sized desktop (with most of the space taken up by a computer and meters, not the device itself). In addition, the new calorimeter was cycleable in hours rather than requiring an entire day, making it applicable to the MIT course.
Hagelstein said of the NANOR experiment, I like the approach. It is a bulk effect. The whole NANOR is participating, whereas the Pons and Fleischmann experiment was only active at the surface. This is important because you dont want to have a process that destroys your host.
"This cold fusion demonstration had an average energy gain (COP) of 14.12 over the several hours that were observed (and which followed)."
"The NANOR on display during the IAP course at MIT in January had been giving out excess heat since the beginning of January, through February 2012.
"Figure 1" is at link.
This has been discussed before.....but the link has more and later data.
Kev.....ping to list, if you would.
So, in short... Pons and Fleischman were not kooks.
First done in 2003, and there's still no explanatory theory or independently verified device.
And nothing says "legitimate source" like "Infinite Energy."
My bet is that cold fusion will produce more energy than will ever be generated by Obama’s algae boondoggle.
Having long ago been an MIT grad student, I’m glad to see that MIT is recovering from the fraudulent cover-up of their Pons and Fleischman replication back in the day, as reported by Eugene Mallove.
I have an idea what cold fusion is but, I think I need the bunny and a pancake for this one. Nothing against the article for not beind dumbed down enough for me
You would have thought so in 1989 when the establishment sicked the media on them!
This excellent resource has information from beginner’s level to full-bore expert, with many peer-reviewed articles. Probably the single best resource on the web on the subject of LANR (Lattice Assisted Nuclear Reactions), which is, IMO, the most accurate name for the phenomenon.
Wait, let me give the obligatory seagull squawk, “It can’t be true because we already know it’s not possible.”
Thanks for posting & pinging, WW. This was the article I was going to post today.
The Cold Fusion Ping List
If the molecular structure of the materials are indeed the determining factor, maybe new nano-manufacturing techniques can build an anode/cathode that achieves reproducible, and indisputable results?
If basic research can figure out exactly what is going on, they might be able to optimize the molecular structure and make it economically viable.
That AND processing history. It's a very complex situation. But I believe that the consensus among the current LANR researchers is that great progress has been made, and they pretty much understand empirically what has to be available, if not theoretically/quantitatively.
"If the molecular structure of the materials are indeed the determining factor, maybe new nano-manufacturing techniques can build an anode/cathode that achieves reproducible, and indisputable results?
This is precisely where the current state of research is...how to "structure" the fuel to maximize performance.
"If basic research can figure out exactly what is going on, they might be able to optimize the molecular structure and make it economically viable."
My current favorite choice is the zirconium oxide/palladium (or nickel) type fuel developed by Arata and currently being worked on by George Miley (and probably others), which is an effort in exactly this direction.
http://www.ibm.com/smarterplanet/us/en/smarter_computing/article/atomic_scale_memory.html ~ don’t forget these guys. Recent stuff. The trick seems to have been to drill a hole just big enough to hold a hydrogen proton ~ but to do it so precisely that the “memory” atom is not interfered with by the containing atoms, nor does it interfere with them.
Thanks for posting — interesting article.
Interesting concept. I had sort of been bouncing the concept of a “photolithographic well” nanostructure off the walls of the inside of my head for a few days now. I think the “structure” has to be bigger than a single “H” (or “D”)....at least two and likely more, with means for ingress and egress of fuel and reactant products. A “sheet” of such structures fabricated on a high-thermal conductivity substrate should seriously boost heat transfer efficiency, and minimize size/power output. Probably would enhance controllability also.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.