Mitchell Swartz
"Cold Fusion" Researcher x

Dr. Mitchell Swartz is a LENR researcher who claims to have evidence of "cold fusion." Swartz also publishes a blog called "Cold Fusion Times." He also associates with and promotes fraudsters.

Swartz has promoted the claims of Andrea Rossi, a convicted white-collar criminal with a string of failed energy ventures. Rossi has been convicted of fraud and, as of 2016, is being sued again for fraud.

Swartz has also promoted the claims of Russ George, another man who has made apparently fraudulent claims. George abandoned his D2Fusion company after New Energy Times exposed his unsupported claims of a practical "cold fusion" heater. In his next business venture, George took several million dollars from a native group off the coast of Canada called the Haida. The Haida later fired and sued George.

In 2012, Swartz made his own questionable claims of an experiment he claimed produced a "significant energy gain." The New Energy Times investigation found that Swartz' "significant energy gain" was only 80 milliwatts, the same range of heat as that of every LENR researcher who has measured excess heat for the previous 20 years.

Mitchell Swartz
Photo credit: www.alienscientist.com

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]