Nanortech,  Inc.                 

June 8, 2016  
  Click Here

Nanortech Home

Clean Energy Production

• NANOR Technology

NANOR Open Demo


• PHUSOR Technology

PHUSOR Open Demo


• Cherry Technology

JET Energy




 Latest News

Nanortech seeks Research Proposal from Potential Strategic Ally

Nanortech Inc. is seeking an R&D/funding proposal which focuses on improving the power gain, better material control, and increased production rate of these components. This strategic alliance will promote that effort for a transformational improvement in energy production. Proposals can be sent to Jeff Tolleson  at

Nanortech seeks Production Engineer

Nanortech  Inc. seeks a production engineer with composite and nanomaterial & metallurgic/ electrochem proc. background & manufacturing experience in an ISO environment.  Contact Jeff Tolleson  at

 Upcoming News

Nanortech Anticipate Pre-Order List

Nanortech anticipates it will be setting up a pre-order list by Fall 2016. Unfortunately, there is not at present the capacity to make these components generally available in the short term.




            Open Demonstration of Dry LANR Technology at MIT
     NANOR®-type generated Clean Energy Technology can create an energy gain of up to 80 times more than is put in.      The Carbon Footprint is zero.

                           JET ENERGY 2003 LANR OPEN DEMONSTRATION AT MIT       

The MIT ICCF-10 JET Energy, Inc. Lattice-Assisted Nuclear Reaction (LANR) Demonstration
 Shown at ICCF-10 at MIT, Cambridge, MA, August '03], the JET Energy, Inc. Demonstration system produced excess heat over five days.  Videos and other data were shown to hundreds of visitors demonstrating how this system is different from other systems.  The energy gain was ~2.7 in 2003.


JET Energy, Inc. - ICCF-10 Demonstration



From "COLD FUSION", the "21st Century" radio show on 4/18/04, by Dr. Bob Hieronimus with guests Dr. Eugene Mallove and Dr. Mitchell Swartz.

        Dr Mallove:  "The existence of the cold fusion demonstrations [the JET Thermal Product ICCF10 Demonstration unit and the students from Oregon under Prof. Dash] at MIT warmed my soul because MIT is our alma mater, our mutual alma mater. Dr. Swartz and I are both MIT graduates.  We are disappointed very greatly by its hot fusion people attacking cold fusion.  So this conference and demonstration was sort of redemption, you might say.  I mean here we had at MIT a working reactor that was within a few thousand feet of the Tokamak hot fusion laboratory which has consumed something like approximately a half billion dollars federal funds over the last 15 years. The hot fusion graduate students have learned this or that but the program is going absolutely no where. And here just a few thousand feet away in a public setting, attended mostly by people who were attending the ICCF-10 conference but including many other members of the public, there was a working cold fusion reactor. 
 The overall experience was positive and that fact, historically, will never be erased at this point.  In the year 2003, an actual working cold fusion reactor of significant performance, and very accurately measured performance, was done by an MIT graduate, namely Dr. Swartz, at MIT."


Dr. Swartz:  "The cold fusion demonstration experiment at MIT during the last International Cold Fusion Conference (ICCF-10)  in August 200 involved a cold fusion device, called a "Phusor", which was operated for seven days  at MIT, during the week of ICCF-10 in Cambridge.  And during the week, we had a mean excess power gain, compared to the ohmic, control of 2.3.  That is a 230 percent increase of observed energy released compared to the ohmic resistor control which is defined as 100 percent.  The range of electrical input powers ranged from about 120 milliwatts up to 1.5 watts.  Now the interesting part was that the purpose of the open-house experiment was to demonstrate the "optimal operating point" of these cold fusion reactions.  The public and attendees responded and there appeared to be somewhere between 150 and 200 people on the afternoon of Tuesday who came to MIT from the ICCF-10 meeting. Drs. Mallove and Hagelstein invited all of Boston, in fact, through advertisements in the Boston Globe."

"The purpose of the MIT and ICCF-10 demonstration was both to exhibit and examine two things. First, we wanted to find out if we could make one of these devices portable.  Second, the purpose of the week-long demonstration was to teach the attendees and visitors about the existence of the optimal operating point in driving these cold fusion systems.  And what I mean by that is the following; the optimal operating point is the peak system operation point in the input power axis, and that region is called a "point" because it is quite narrow. Thus, one reason for the difficulty in obtaining successful cold fusion experiments is that the performance of one of these cold fusion devices usually has a discrete, narrow, region of electrical operation. It is so narrow that if you attempt to operate a cold fusion device outside of that region, its performance drops drastically.  In 1989."

"I think Martin Fleischmann and Stanley Pons inadvertently and unintentionally appeared to make cold fusion appear easier to achieve than it actually is.  However, cold fusion is rather difficult to obtain. Cold fusion was missed in the beginning in 1989 by many people who tried to reproduce it.  Tried but failed because they did not recognize many important issues including loading, material preparation, and the optimal operating point."

"So the purpose of the demonstration at MIT was to teach the visitors and the attendees the presence of this optimal region of cold fusion device operation by demonstrating to the people assembled for ICCF-10 Cold Fusion Conference this behavior involving peak performance of a cold fusion device."

"During the demonstration, we changed the operating characteristics of this device by raising the applied voltage, in 50 volt increments, from approximately 200 volts up to 800 volts across the system. We watched the power generated, the device performance, fall. When, eventually, the demonstration's applied voltage increased to 700 to 800 volts, the device performance was even less than that of the ohmic control resistor, meaning that there was no more excess heat.  The excess heat returned when the applied voltage was decreased back towards 200 volts.  That demonstration of the optimal operating point was the second purpose of the demonstration. The achievability of cold fusion was the first.  I think in the future we will determine whether the optimal operating point performance of the cold fusion device as taught, was learned by the visiting audience.  But certainly the appearance of excess heat by cold fusion was seen by hundreds of people and was thereafter well reported."     

LANR Technology

PHUSOR® and NANOR® are registered trademarks.

NANOR® -type LANR technology, and PHUSOR®-type LANRtechnology, and other discussed IP herein is protected by U.S. Patents D596724, D413659 and other Patents pending.

Nanortech, Inc.     


Your Free Downloads


Copyright © 2016    Nanortech, Inc.