About LENRs
Mitchell Swartz
"Cold Fusion" Researcher x
Dr. Mitchell Swartz has been a "cold fusion" researcher for many years. He has attempted, without success, to obtain U.S. patents on his "cold fusion" inventions. In the past, he was a source used by New Energy Times.

Swartz is an unusual researcher in that he also claims to be a news source for himself as well as the LENR field. He publishes a Web site called "Cold Fusion Times." He describes it as "the journal of the scientific aspects of loading isotopic fuels into materials and the science and engineering of lattice-assisted nuclear reactions."

Swartz had previously published his "journal" as a newsletter, but his Web site, as of Nov. 2011, shows the last issue was in 2005. What remains is primarily a single home page that, if printed, exceeds 150 pages in length. It contains an unusual array of dramatic headlines to news stories and documents from other people and other news Web sites.

In 2007, Swartz transmitted threatening communications to New Energy Times (see below). We ignored him and he did not follow through with any of his threats. After we received the first communication, we made an editorial decision to no longer use him as a source or publish any report about his work. Following that incident, at various times, Swartz transmitted other communications to New Energy Times.

On July 30, 2010, we made an exception to our editorial decision and mentioned that in 1996, Swartz had "the good instincts that led [him] to consider weak interactions and neutrons [as the] key to LENR." However, Swartz did not put together a coherent theory of LENRs based on weak interactions and neutrons at the time. A few years later, Lewis Larsen, who later hired Allan Widom, did.

Larsen has obtained several U.S. patents on his LENR inventions, but he does not claim they are based on "cold fusion" and does not believe that fusion has any significant role in the process of LENRs.

When New Energy Times obtained the DTRA report on LENR in Oct. 2011, which prominently featured the work of Larsen and Widom, Swartz published incorrect information about our corrections to the DTRA report on his personal Web site. We notified Swartz of his mistake. He failed to respond.

On Nov. 10, 2011, when New Energy Times published reports on the claims of Andrea Rossi and his "Energy Catalyzer" device, Swartz transmitted incorrect information to the founding sponsor of New Energy Times.

We created this page at that time.

May 10, 2007

Swartz's response to a New Energy Times article which stated that Earthtech had tested the work of Mitchell Swartz without success.

Subject: Re: Libel (and plagiarism) by Steven B. Krivit
At 08:38 PM 5/10/2007, [Mitchell Swartz] wrote:

PRIVATE FOR STEVEN KRIVIT and the the New Energy Institute Inc.


To Editor and Publisher: Steven B. Krivit
Copy Editor: Cindy x Web Editor: Sally x
Science Advisers: Edmund Storms, John Armstrong
Support Team Randy x, H.P. Nick x V.F.

New Energy Times (tm), New Energy Institute Inc.
369-B Third Street, #556
San Rafael, CA 94901
(310) 470-8189

Mr. Krivit:

We have been patient with your falsehoods, plagiarism, and attacks against many members of the cold fusion community. However, even that patience is now tested.

In New Energy Times (tm), Published May 10, 2007 -- Issue #22, you willfully published worldwide the following disparaging libelous comment, "Little has tested the work of Ken Shoulders, Yuri Popatov, Roger Stringham, James Griggs, Tom Bearden, Dennis Letts, James Patterson, Tadahiko Mizuno, Randell Mills, George Miley and Mitchell Swartz -- all without success."

Please give the dates, location of testing, and experimental numbers, and the communication to you from either Scott Little or Hal Puthoff stating as to exactly which "work" of "Mitchell Swartz" was "tested", and how, "without success". I also want copies of these purported experiments which you claim "tested" my "work".

Attention is directed to the fact that Scott Little had not worked on our technology before 3/2007 based upon his email to me and others, and since that time, we have not shared our technology (and of it) with him.

So, Mr. Krivit, as before, this is a serious matter, and this letter will demonstrate for the record again, that in the past you have not answered our complaints regarding your previous bad behavior, but instead you hid.

Such further non-substantive unresponsive, incomplete, behavior by you Mr. Krivit, in the light of your libelous statement as pose as 'journalist' for your newsletter, will not be tolerated but is becoming quite close to exceeding anyone's reasonable threshold for judicial economy.

Dr. Mitchell Swartz

cc: JET Energy legal file re: Steven B. Krivit and the New Energy Institute Inc. for false statements, libel, and plagiarism

May 16, 2007

Swartz's response to a New Energy Times article which stated that Earthtech had tested the work of Mitchell Swartz without success.

Dec. 28, 2009

Observations of Swartz's Behavior by New Energy Institute Board Member

Subject: RE: Mitch Swartz Strikes Again
Date: Mon, 28 Dec 2009 11:35:04 -0600

Steven, and the NEI board.

I’ve gathered through the Vortex-l grapevine that Mr. Swartz has established a well-known pattern of intimidating anyone whom he has perceived as somehow disrespecting his professional stature - such as within the CF community. Lately I’ve seen evidence (particularly in terms of what has been sporadically posted out on Vortex-l) that some individuals are finally publicly expressing their frustration. Some are finally defending themselves.

I gather Swartz’s behavior, in the past, has been more-or-less suppressed or downplayed primarily in order to protect the “community,” or perhaps because to “look the other way” was considered the lesser of two evils. After all, who wants to step into a hornet’s nest of potentially expensive legal wrangling with someone whom I gather has acquired a reputation of being relentless once he has you in his cross-hairs.

Nevertheless, it would seem that some individuals are finally no longer willing to sweep Mr. Swartz’s behavior under the rug. This can NOT be an easy decision for anyone embark on. To “come out of the closet” involves the expenditure of a great deal of valuable time and “psychic energy”, energy that ideally would rather be spent in better pursuits. Perhaps the continued strategy of ameliorating Swartz’s objectives needs to be reevaluated. Perhaps it’s also time NEI consider the ramifications of taking a firmer public stand on this issue as well.

Please understand, I’m just thinking out loud here, but I am beginning to wonder if it might be a valuable service to publicly document Mr. Swartz’s tactics. There would be an important reason for doing so – TO (1) ALERT THOSE WHO HAVE NEVER HAD ANY DEALINGS WITH MR. SWARTZ, TO (2) ALERT THOSE WHOM ARE CONSIDERING ENTERING INTO SOME KIND OF PROFESSIONAL RELATIONSHIP WITH MR SWARTZ, TO (3) BE AWARE OF WHAT THEY COULD BE GETTING THEMSELVES – BASED ON THE DOCUMENTED EXPERIENCES OF THOSE WHO HAVE PRECEEDED THEM.

The purpose would STRICTLY be to address Mr. Swartz’s documented behavior/tactic of intimidating others. No one is interested in questioning or criticizing what I presume is Mr. Swartz’s ongoing research. In the latter respect I assume Mr. Swartz’s ongoing research is still considered important and worthy of analysis to the rest of the community. That aspect of Mr. Swartz’s contributions must remain untouched.

I’m currently under the opinion that Mr. Swartz will continue to behave in the manner that he does, using the same psychological tactics of intimidation because, to put it bluntly, they have worked well for him in the past, so why not continue to exploit a tactic that seems to work well! I suspect Mr. Swartz will only consider reevaluating such tactics if he begins to realize it may cost him more in the damaging of his own professional/legal reputation as compared to those whom he is attempting to threaten professionally & legally.

I may be wrong on this point but I’m under the impression that there is now a sufficient amount of accumulated documentation out there to adequately warn others of Mr. Swartz’s occasional behavior.

[Member of the NEI Board]

Oct. 28, 2011

Krivit E-Mail to Swartz Regarding Krivit's Fact-Checking with DTRA Report Author

Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2011 14:05:44 -0700
To: Mitchell Swartz <>
From: web2 <>
Subject: DTRA Report Correction
Cc: xxxxx

Dear Mitch,

I saw your note (see image below) on your Web site a few days ago.

So I called up George Ullrich, the author of the DTRA report and left a message on his machine. I asked him if my corrections to his paper were accurate.

He just called me back, two minutes ago. He said that not only did Widom speak, as I correctly noted, but also my other correction, that Kim did not speak, was accurate as well.

In case you would like Ullrich to help you jog your memory, you might call him, here is his phone number: 703.875.0977.

Thank you,


Nov. 10, 2011

Swartz's E-Mail to New Energy Times' Sponsor

From: Dr. Mitchell Swartz []
Sent: Wednesday, November 09, 2011 8:52 PM
To: [NEI Sponsor]
Subject: SPAWAR closure

[To NEI Sponsor,]

[Libelous content removed.]

SPAWAR is closed down for LANR/CF despite it would help protect US all.

[m [Mitch Swartz]

Nov. 25, 2011

Krivit E-Mail to Swartz Regarding Swartz's Letter to New Energy Times' Sponsor

Dear Dr. Swartz,

I am writing to you in regard to the Nov. 9 e-mail you sent to xxxxx, knowing full well that he was my sponsor.

[My sponsor], and many other people, wanted to know the truth about Rossi and he encouraged me to go to Italy to find out and report the facts. I have done so and I continue to do so.

For reasons which only you know, you have been one of Rossi's biggest promoters. You - a scientist - have been more than tolerant of Rossi's unscientific behavior and his nearly complete lack of scientific data; you have been uncritically promoting Rossi on your Web site.

On Nov. 9, I published a blog article that was critical of the Rossi news coverage by Fox: "Poor Journalism by Fox News on Rossi Story."

In this article, I made six corrections to facts, two of them regarding SPAWAR.

In response, you sent the following e-mail to my sponsor the same day:

From: Dr. Mitchell Swartz []

Sent: Wednesday, November 09, 2011 8:52 PM
To: [NEI Sponsor]
Subject: SPAWAR closure

[To NEI Sponsor,]

[Libelous content removed.]

SPAWAR is closed down for LANR/CF despite it would help protect US all.

m [Mitch Swartz]


In this e-mail, you have made several factually incorrect statements, you have made one serious omission, and you have mischaracterized my actions.

Your actions follow other equally inexplicable and incorrect statements that you have made recently. You published on your Web site your claim that my corrections to the DTRA report were inaccurate. How you expected to get away with suggesting that Allan Widom, in the flesh, did not speak and give a presentation at this meeting, which you also attended, boggles my mind.

These are the facts and, for whatever reasons, you have distorted them.

Steven B. Krivit
Editor, New Energy Times

Dec. 2, 2011

Notes Regarding Swartz's Confusion about SPAWAR LENR Research Status

I learned today that SPAWAR San Diego did, in fact, receive a directive to cease its LENR research. It had nothing to do with Mitchell Swartz's confusion about New Energy Times' attempt to get facts on the story.

The decision was caused by the Navy's swift reaction to being associated by John Brandon of Fox News, however wrongly, to Rossi and, as Fox News called it, a possible hoax.

Had Brandon spoken with the press officer at SPAWAR, he would have learned that there was "no truth at all" to the rumor that SPAWAR was interested in buying Rossi's alleged device. Instead, Brandon got his rumor about SPAWAR from Sterling Allen, who, when he's not writing stories about "free energy," writes stories about President Obama being teleported to Mars.

On the other hand, Swartz, apparently, doesn't mind being associated with Rossi and in fact, a glance at his Web site indicates that Swartz is one of Rossi's biggest promoters.

Dec. 21, 2011

Krivit Confirms Corrections with DTRA Report Author

Subject: Re: DTRA Energetics Workshop

Hi Steven:

Just to close the loop on the issue your raised about Alan Widom’s presence at the DTRA Workshop. I checked with several of my colleagues and their recollection is the same as mine. Widom was in attendance and did make a presentation.

Regards, George

Dec. 21, 2011

Krivit Confirms Corrections with DTRA Report Author

Subject: Re: DTRA Energetics Workshop

Hi George,

I do appreciate the second confirmation. Apparently some of Widom and Larsen's competitors "don't remember" Widom speaking there.

Thanks and happy holidays,