About Steven B. Krivit and New Energy Times

Citations to Krivit’s Books, Publications, and Conference Presentations
Citations of Krivit and New Energy Times in the News Media

Exploring Low-Energy Nuclear Reactions (LENRs)

Steven B. Krivit is an analyst, author, speaker, and film producer who specializes in low-energy nuclear reaction (LENR) research. He has written more than a thousand news articles on nuclear science research, four books, and a dozen peer-reviewed journal articles and encyclopedia chapters.

Publications and Encyclopedias

Krivit is the leading author of review articles, encyclopedia chapters, and books about LENRs. He was invited to write and edit for the Royal Society of Chemistry, Elsevier, and John Wiley & Sons. He was an editor for the American Chemical Society 2008 and 2009 technical reference books on LENRs, as well as the editor-in-chief for the 2011 Wiley Nuclear Energy Encyclopedia. His most recent books are the highly acclaimed three-volume Explorations in Nuclear Science series: Hacking the Atom (Vol. 1), Fusion Fiasco (Vol. 2), and Lost History (Vol. 3). In 2004, Krivit wrote a book called The Rebirth of Cold Fusion, and by 2008, Krivit announced that the book was obsolete.

Krivit’s LENR Reference Site contains more than 700 Web pages and 2,000 PDF documents about LENRs, including basic information, scientific references, investigation reports, historical references, and archives.

In the Media

Krivit has been quoted or cited on LENRs in the U.S. and international news media, and he has appeared on television and radio discussing LENR research. Although he is a strong proponent of LENR research, Krivit has also conducted investigations that uncovered significant misleading claims in the field.

Speaking Engagements

Krivit has provided briefings and lectures on LENRs in the U.S. and internationally, in universities at the undergraduate and graduate levels, and at physics, nuclear, chemistry, and technology conferences.

Summary of the 1989 “Cold Fusion” Conflict

The LENR field evolved from a provocative announcement in 1989 by electrochemists Martin Fleischmann (1927-2012) and Stanley Pons. They claimed to have performed a benchtop experiment that produced net energy from a nuclear reaction. Specifically, they initially attributed the thermal results to a hypothetical room-temperature nuclear fusion process. Jerry Bishop, a journalist with The Wall Street Journal, confused the Fleischmann-Pons experiments with another type of room-temperature experiment that, in 1956, had been called “cold fusion.” To the dismay of Fleischmann and Pons, whom Krivit has personally met, the term stuck to them. The early years of the “cold fusion” conflict led to perhaps the most bitter and divisive clashes in modern science history.

One major reason for the initial conflict was that the scientific community faulted Fleischmann and Pons for their initial incorrect hypothesis. Physicists were quick to point out that the experimental results reported by the two electrochemists were inconsistent with well-established nuclear fusion theory. This criticism was excessive because a) incorrect hypotheses are a normal part of the scientific method and b) Fleischmann and Pons proposed the only explanation that they could imagine. Over time, further analysis and work of other scientists pointed to neutron-based reactions rather than to a fusion reaction.

A second major reason for the initial dismissal of the new field was that, within a month of the initial announcement, members of the scientific community attacked the credibility of Fleischmann and Pons’ heat measurements. The leader was Nathan Lewis, a professor of chemistry at Caltech. He issued a press release on April 27, 1989, declaring that Fleischmann and Pons had simply fooled themselves and that there was no novel heating effect. Four days later, at the May 1, 1989, American Physical Society meeting, Lewis held a press conference and told journalists – unequivocally – that Fleischmann and Pons’ experiments had demonstrated an energy loss rather than an energy gain. A few hours later, in the scientific session, he told 1,800 physicists the same thing. The following day, the news had spread worldwide: It was all a mistake; there was no reason to hope for a new source of energy. That was the established, accepted narrative for more than three decades.

Tragically, as discovered only in 2023, it was Lewis who had made critical errors in his analysis of Fleischmann and Pons’ heat measurements. Correct calculations show that all nine of their original experiments had produced net power. For 34 years, Lewis’ undetected errors delayed the recognition of this new field of science, discouraged research into a possible new source of carbon-free energy and caused irreparable damage to the reputations of Fleischmann and Pons.

Debunking the Persistent Belief in a “Cold Fusion” Process

Within weeks of their initial claim of fusion, Fleischmann and Pons appropriately pivoted their hypothesis to a “hitherto-unknown nuclear process,” but this shift went largely unnoticed by protagonists and antagonists alike. From 1989 to the present, believers in the theory of “cold fusion” persist despite the mismatch between established theory and experimental evidence. Scientists who were not open-minded about a new type of nuclear reaction used the mismatch as their basis for denial.

By 2008, Krivit had identified eight experimental facts showing this mismatch. He presented his findings on Aug. 20, 2008, at the American Chemical Society national meeting. In sum, the specific nuclear products observed in LENRs, along with their pairings, energies, and probabilities, do not match the products observed in thermonuclear fusion. However, experimental evidence confirms that some kind of nuclear reactions are taking place in LENRs. In 2010, Krivit’s analysis found that one of the most frequently cited assertions of experimental proof for “cold fusion” had been fabricated.

Recognizing the Widom-Larsen Theory

Starting in 2005, Krivit began looking at new an idea proposed by theorists Allan Widom (1941-2023) and Lewis Larsen (1946-2019). The Widom-Larsen theory proposes a mechanism for LENRs that is based on electroweak interactions, which are a part of the Standard Model of physics. In November 2005, Krivit was the first person to report on the Widom-Larsen ultra-low-momentum neutron-catalyzed theory of low-energy nuclear reactions. This theory provides the first and only viable explanation to date for the nuclear phenomena observed in LENRs, suggesting that ultra-low momentum neutrons are the key.

Establishing LENRs

The term LENR was introduced by first-generation LENR scientists George Miley and John O’Mara Bockris in 1995. However, most of their peers continued to use the term “cold fusion,” partly out of habit and partly to assert their belief in room-temperature fusion.

From 2008 to 2016, Krivit led efforts to identify the field and research as low-energy nuclear reactions rather than “cold fusion.” By 2020, the term LENR had gained broader acceptance. It allows for various interpretations of the underlying process or processes without invoking the dubious room-temperature fusion hypothesis.

In 2015, Krivit collaborated with the U.S. Library of Congress to develop distinct library subject-matter headings: a refinement of the one for “cold fusion” and a new one for LENRs. In 2016, Krivit published the first U.S. books under the new LENR cataloguing heading.

Lost History of Transmutation Research

While performing research for his book Hacking the Atom, Krivit uncovered an entire body of atomic research that had been forgotten and omitted from history and science books. In the 1910s and 1920s, years before scientists had developed an understanding of the nuclear structure of the atom, many low-energy-input experiments were reported under the term transmutation. It was, in fact, a prequel to the modern era of LENR research.

In 1910s and 1920s, this transmutation research was known by scientists and by the general public. It was reported in popular newspapers and magazines, such as the New York Times and Scientific American. Papers were published in the top scientific journals of the day, including Physical Review, Science, and Nature. Prominent scientists in the U.S., Europe, and Japan and even Nobel Prize recipients participated in this research. They reported anomalous production of noble gases and increases in the abundances of rare metals.

However, the experimental results could not be explained by any scientific theory or principle. The results were difficult to replicate and generally were assumed to be the result of experimental error. By the 1930s, it was all dismissed as error. In his book Lost History, Steven Krivit is the first person to have critically examined and reviewed the early 20th century transmutation research. Krivit credits Robert A. Nelson and his publication Adept Alchemy for leaving behind the bread crumbs that helped Krivit find this long-forgotten history.

Rutherford Nitrogen-to-Oxygen Transmutation Myth

While conducting research for his book Lost History, Krivit stumbled on a 70-year myth that credited physicist Ernest Rutherford with the discovery of the first artificial transmutation. The credit belonged, instead, to a research fellow working in Rutherford’s laboratory named Patrick Blackett. The myth started with Rutherford, who, in 1932, began claiming the discovery for himself.

In January 2017, Krivit contacted prominent scientific and academic institutions in an effort to correct the recorded history. Scholars at the American Institute of Physics, Atomic Heritage Society, Cambridge University, Imperial College London, the Institute of Physics Digital Education, the Nobel Foundation, the Royal Society of Chemistry, the Royal Society, University of California Santa Barbara, the University of Manchester, and the U.S. Department of Energy concurred with Krivit. Although the Nobel Foundation removed the discovery credit from Rutherford’s biography page, it was the only institution to refuse to reassign the credit to Blackett.

Krivit is directly acknowledged on the American Institute of Physics Web site and the Chemistry Views Web site. He was invited to contribute a letter to the Proceedings of the Royal Society A and cited by the U.S. Department of Energy. Krivit was credited by the following representatives: David Surman, the interim chair of the AIP Board of Directors; Malcolm Longair, the director of Development of the Cavendish Laboratory at the University of Cambridge; Tom Whelton, dean of the Faculty of Natural Sciences at Imperial College London; Martin Schröder, vice president and dean, University of Manchester; and Eric Boyle, chief historian, Office of History and Heritage Resources, U.S. Department of Energy.

Magnetic Confinement Fusion Reactor Power Myths

While conducting research for his book Fusion Fiasco, Krivit discovered a widespread discrepancy about the most powerful fusion reactor result of a 16 MW fusion output. This record-setting experiment took place in the Joint European Torus (JET) reactor. At the time, JET was universally believed to have consumed only 24 MW of input power. Krivit found that it actually required at least 700 MW of electrical input power. This led Krivit to realize that a similar discrepancy had developed about the projected result for the International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor (ITER). The claims about these reactors are the subject of Krivit’s 2011 film “ITER, The Grand Illusion: A Forensic Investigation of Power Claims,” released on April 11, 2021, on Vimeo and YouTube.

ITER had been widely reported as designed to produce thermal power from fusion at a rate 10 times greater than the input power the reactor is designed to consume. From 50 megawatts of input power, proponents of ITER claimed the reactor would produce 500 megawatts of thermal power from fusion.

Krivit’s investigation shows that, accounting for conversion losses, and normalizing input and output values for an apples-to-apples comparison, the ITER reactor, if it works correctly, will be equivalent to a zero net-power reactor. After Krivit published this information on Oct. 6, 2017, major international scientific and government organizations corrected their public statements.

Inertial Confinement Fusion Reactor Power Myth

On August 29, 2021, Krivit was the first to report the real input energy, 400 MJ, required to operate the bank of 192 lasers at the National Ignition Facility (NIF). Many news organizations had reported that the NIF experiments consumed only 2 MJ.

Fusion Reactor Fuel Illusion

For at least 50 years, fusion scientists had been telling the public, elected officials, and private investors that the fuel for nuclear fusion is “abundant, virtually inexhaustible, and equally accessible to everyone, everywhere.”

Krivit uncovered, and was the first to report, that tritium, one of the fuel components that would be required for nuclear fusion reactors, did not exist in nature as a natural resource. In a follow-up news report, Krivit broke the news that the proposed idea to breed tritium from lithium is unworkable because there is no environmentally acceptable and legal method of enriching the required quantities of the lithium-6 isotope. Billions of dollars in public and private investment are committed to developing fusion power technology despite the fact that the fuel for such reactors does not exist.

Donate

Make a tax-deductible donation to New Energy Times via our fiscal sponsor Media Alliance, a federally designated 501(c)(3) tax-exempt organization.