Finally news from the MIT experiments.

And yes, I think I beat Frank Acland of to a news story — that’s a first!

I have attached 3 videos of Dr. Peter Hagelstein discussing the MIT work.  The sound quality is very poor.  Dr. Hagelstein talks right over my head most of the time.  But he clearly validates the MIT reports.  He clearly declares that MIT has been demonstrating an ongoing reaction for months.  He clearly declares that the process is not of chemical origin.

Even better (or worse), in video 3 he accuses a colleague of sabotaging research investment.  Physicists, of course, are purely driven by rational analysis, not pocketbook reasoning, right?

<— To main blog

About these ads

Tags: , ,

11 Responses to “Finally news from the MIT experiments.”

  1. Simon Derricutt Says:

    Thanks for this, Bruce. Hagelstein just states things as they are, without making grandiose claims. One thing that isn’t covered is whether every Nanor that is made works as well as the previous one. So far we’ve seen good repeatable responses from what they have, but can they translate those results into mass-production with a reasonable chance of success?
    Put another way, is there a way to tell a Nanor that will work from one that won’t, apart from running it? Once this can be done, then mass-production is possible.

    The last video is somewhat surprising, since it was looking like he’s got a toe-hold in MIT and the science was being accepted as real and useful. There may be some interesting repercussions on this once the dust has settled.

  2. Roger Bird Says:

    I find Peter Hegelstein to be a very pleasant person, with backbone. Of course, anyone doing research in this field has to have backbone. “Speak softly but carry a big stick”. Teddy Roosevelt said that. Hegelstein certainly speaks softly and carries a very big stick of credible evidence.

    For me, this is very exciting. Between McKubre’s video and this Hegelstein’s MIT based video, naysayers are either not paying attention, are being paid to be naysayers, or are pathological.

  3. oleprospector Says:

    It is surprising to me that a University such as MIT would allow a staff professor to cause another staff research professors one million dollars in valuable research money to be literally thrown away and that valuable research project canceled.

    I would hope this situation will be corrected so as to see that Professor Hagelstein receives his private grant for this well deserved and valuable research.

  4. Brad Arnold Says:

    Let me caution: the state of the situation at MIT must be dire for fellow collegians to vandalize/sabatage “cold fusion” experiments. This needs more than just a by-the-way mention, and furthermore will very likely need more than just a “correction” to be made to correct the problem which is as likely institutional as just a few bad apples acting independently to sidetrack a rival researcher.

    In my opinion MIT is itself a bad apple, so the degree of reform necessary to put an end to such sabatage (both physical and psychological) to the “cold fusion program” there. I am sick of all these people complusively defending MIT – that is the reason this sort of things is tolerated, because the sabatage is minimized in importance, and the necessary corrective action is minimized to a couple bad apples rather than correctly diagnosed as institutional.

    • brucefast Says:

      Brad, “In my opinion MIT is itself a bad apple.” Brad, I very strongly agree with you. Two bad apples have been identified, MIT and the DOE. Both need a major humbling. These two worked together to rob the world of 20 years of research into the Pons and Fleischmann discovery.

      However, it is not the time yet to address this wrong. We must wait until the “duh” moment happens to the world on LENR. At that point the bad apples within these two organizations need to discover how painful it is to be strung up by the short hairs.

    • Simon Derricutt Says:

      Brad – although I agree that in this case it seems they haven’t been open-minded enough, there’s a fine line between an open mind and having your brain fall out.

      LENR has been classed in the same group as Orgone energy, magnetic motors and perpetual motion. As such, they have been trying to protect the “good name” of MIT by stopping people from being encouraged to investigate things that they truly believe can’t be truth. Science has always been this way, with the established science saying what is possible because it’s been proved, and also saying things are impossible because they have not yet been unequivocally measured to have happened.

      If MIT started research into a perpetual-motion machine that used gravity as its motive force, would you believe that it could be true? I still wouldn’t believe it until I measured the results myself (and maybe could buy one in Wal-Mart).

      In the case of LENR, enough people have continued to do good work on tiny funding (again that’s pretty standard if you look at history) and now we are very near the point when you can go buy one at the local hardware store (maybe in a few years, anyway).

      The problem with institutions such as MIT will continue – that is basically the reason they are there, to defend the world of science against crackpot ideas that waste time and money. Meantime the crackpots will continue researching whatever they want to and can afford to, and if they are right then the world changes (again). It’s the way things have worked in the past and although it may delay progress in some ways it also stops a lot of peoples’ time and money being wasted on things that really can’t work. It’s hard on individuals with good ideas, but it also stops the real crackpot ideas from getting common currency.

      Overall, I don’t think the system’s broke, and any attempt at fixing it, other than maybe shaming the most venal offenders, would probably do more harm than good.

      • brucefast Says:

        Simon, I would agree with you that MIT wants to protect its good name from, well, pathological science except for two facts:

        1 – Back when Pons and Fleischmann announced their discovery (admittedly not through standard channels) NASA replicated it. MIT, on the other hand, worked very hard to discredit this phenomenon.
        2 – On of MITs own scientists has a working product just down-campus from the professors who are discrediting the claims. These scientists haven’t demonstrated the curiosity or intellectual honesty to to check out the claims of their own guy. Instead they have blindly discredited him.

        MIT’s approach to this incredible discovery will cause their name to be discredited far more than checking out a possible example of “pathological science” falsified ever would.

        In the name of self-protection they will damage their good name. Smart, very smart.

      • Simon Derricutt Says:

        Bruce – Mitchell Swartz’s work and publicising of this may go some way to redeeming the “good name” of MIT, but you’re right that they shouldn’t have stomped on P+F like they did.

        Overall, the record of MIT has been good at pursuing weird science, and it’s most likely only a few in MIT who did this particular stomping. No such institution is going to be immune from bigotry in some of its members – it’s just unfortunate that in this case they were and remain influential.

        Basically, the cachet of being backed by MIT will be still worth getting, but the opposition of MIT won’t be worth as much.

      • brucefast Says:

        “it’s most likely only a few in MIT who did this particular stomping.” Always the case.

        “No such institution is going to be immune from bigotry in some of its members.” Immune is one of those absolutist, black and white sort of words. Of course absolute immunity cannot happen. However, the response of the majority still matters. The fact that only about 25 students showed up for the LENR class would imply that intimidation at MIT is effective. A few wandering down to the LENR lab, and telling their friends and professors is all it takes to bring the truth to light. The fear of curiosity that is clearly operating at MIT is pitiful.

        When this technology breaks through the shroud of silence, hopefully a lot of MIT students, professors and grads practice a little navel gazing, and realize how closed-minded they have become. Probably not.

      • Simon Derricutt Says:

        Bruce – I think the main problem is that they wouldn’t look at the evidence fairly, once the “crackpots” _had_ produced good evidence. It’s understandable that in the beginning they didn’t accept the evidence, and NASA certainly didn’t tell anyone at the time that they’d got similar results. Later on, with Storms having his graduate students running successful experiments, denying it seems like King Canute ordering the tides to go back. Killing LENR research after that seems like an “Oh sh1t! Let me retire before it gets out” sort of response. It’s the response of an accountant, not a scientist – it goes against the rules so must be squashed.

        So yes, of course you’re right, but I still think MIT as an institution will get over this and clean its act. This sort of thing happened with a lot of major advances in science.

      • Iggy Dalrymple Says:

        It’s no longer about science…but about money, an ever continuing flood of money. Since the “March of Dimes” succeeded in conquering polio, no “disease” foundation has fulfilled their ‘mission’. That would be a case of the cure being worse than the disease.

        Consider Hal Lewis’ resignation from the American Physical Society:
        “When I first joined the American Physical Society sixty-seven years ago it was much smaller, much gentler, and as yet uncorrupted by the money flood (a threat against which Dwight Eisenhower warned a half-century ago).

        Indeed, the choice of physics as a profession was then a guarantor of a life of poverty and abstinence—it was World War II that changed all that. The prospect of worldly gain drove few physicists. As recently as thirty-five years ago, when I chaired the first APS study of a contentious social/scientific issue, The Reactor Safety Study, though there were zealots aplenty on the outside there was no hint of inordinate pressure on us as physicists. We were therefore able to produce what I believe was and is an honest appraisal of the situation at that time. We were further enabled by the presence of an oversight committee consisting of Pief Panofsky, Vicki Weisskopf, and Hans Bethe, all towering physicists beyond reproach. I was proud of what we did in a charged atmosphere. In the end the oversight committee, in its report to the APS President, noted the complete independence in which we did the job, and predicted that the report would be attacked from both sides. What greater tribute could there be?

        How different it is now. The giants no longer walk the earth, and the money flood has become the raison d’être of much physics research, the vital sustenance of much more, and it provides the support for untold numbers of professional jobs. For reasons that will soon become clear my former pride at being an APS Fellow all these years has been turned into shame, and I am forced, with no pleasure at all, to offer you my resignation from the Society.”
        Lewis resigned because of his disgust with the corrupt global warming scam, but he nailed it when he zeroed in on money as the principal cause of the corruption.

        shame, and I am forced, with no pleasure at all, to offer you my resignation from the Society.”

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 66 other followers

%d bloggers like this: