Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, Ltd.: Element conversion was listed in the Technical Report nano multilayer film deuterium transmission method

  • @sengaku on his blog cite a publication of MHI


    http://amateur-lenr.blogspot.fr/2016/08/blog-post.html



    here is the English version
    http://www.mhi.co.jp/technology/review/pdf/e524/e524106.pdf


    I see many things to notice.
    First is a public corporate report on the subject.
    Second is a new generation following Iwamura, but not subordinate.
    Third is an interesting result : "Therefore, it is considered that under the present experimental conditions, the transmutation phenomenon occurs in the area of about 10 nm or less under the surface. ",
    and fourth: " In many cases, the transmutation has been observed in elements with a low electronegativity such as alkali metal and alkali earth metal, and there is a possibility that chemical properties affect this phenomenon. "



    maybe there is a link with the recently published patent application, under review.

  • Mitsubishi HI is the company that distinguished itself, in the last few years, by selling an incredibly expensive steam heat exchanger to the California San Onofre Nuclear Power plant. This device then leaked massively and caused the shut down of the entire multi-billion dollar plant, leaving behind huge debts and massive amounts of high level radioactive waste. Several lawsuits are ongoing because Mitubishi and the SDG&E utility, using incomprehensible "logic", decided that the long suffering rate payers would bear the cost instead of the investors and owners. Mitsubishi refuses to refund the cost and pay for the damage.


    http://www.sandiegouniontribun…0/san-onofre-anniversary/


    http://www.latimes.com/busines…tzik-20150906-column.html


    I am pretty sure I would not believe anything this company claims without a whole lot of additional evidence and verification.

  • Alain, many different journalists have covered the situations. MHI is clearly at fault here, to the tune of several billion dollars for which they refuse to be responsible. The tax payers are going to be left with much of the final bill including disposing of tons of nuclear waste with varying half lives, some of them in the thousands of years.

  • Classic "Mary Yugo": Doesn't bother to look at the science, proceeds directly to ad hom. (...ad corp?)


    MHI turn over $40b, and are basically responsible for the Japanese space program, but "Mary" doesn't feel the need to read the paper because She "would not believe anything this company claims without a whole lot of additional evidence", and all because of some ongoing contractual dispute.


    The mind boggles.

  • The San Onofre plant debacle is hardly a "contract dispute". What monumental stupidity and ignorance to say something like that. It is the failure of a billion dollar piece of equipment (including design and installation, all by MHI) and this gross incompetence caused the premature retirement of a multi-billion much needed facility.

  • MHI had a clause written into their contract which limited their total liability to a set amount of money. SCE claim that they are out of pocket, want more money off MHI, and are currently in arbitration... THATS A TEXTBOOK CONTRACT DISPUTE. And it sounds to me like SCE are more at fault for signing a such a dumb contract in the first place.


    Stuff breaks, shit happens. Do you also ignore the work of NASA, since the Columbia and Challenger disasters?


    What really amuses me about "Mary Yugo" though, is that she constantly repeats things like:


    Quote

    I would believe large well known companies like Tesla [who are much smaller than MHI], Google (who adopted the Bloom Box) and General Atomics, to name a few.


    ...But as soon as a well-known multi-national company like MHI does endorse LENR, she starts thinking up silly reasons that she can just ignore them, and not only that, she starts broadcasting her silly ideas to anyone who will listen.


    It's called moving the goalposts, and it is an obvious hallmark of a psuedoskeptic.

  • Quote

    The new method of nuclear transmutation is a simple method of nuclear transmutation that uses Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, Ltd.’s (MHI) original nanostructure multi-layer reactional film (hereinafter, reactional film) to transmute elements at low energy cost. So far, transmutation from cesium (Cs) to praseodymium (Pr), from barium (Ba) to samarium (Sm), from strontium (Sr) to molybdenum (Mo), etc., has been observed. If this technology is established, it is expected to contribute to society in the field of detoxification treatment of radioactive waste including the transmutation of radioactive cesium into a harmless nonradioactive element in the future.


    I don't see here anything more substantive than Iwamura's contentious results. That his ideas have been bought by a company is fairly normal. it can be done in the hope that something good will come of it. It means (perhaps, but not certainly) that more work will be done to follow up his experiments. In that case we should expect clearer new results, or not. Thus far (the pdf linked here) the results seem very similar to original and contentious (for example, where is the analysis to show the claimed Pr does not come from an artifacts - ion cluster etc).


    I don't see that a company has much interest in validating this, they will do things just hoping something can be found which is commercial. If this is all artifact they will fail.

  • I don't see that a company has much interest in validating this, they will do things just hoping something can be found which is commercial. If this is all artifact they will fail.


    This is the normal path of exploratory R&D, surely? You try an idea, and if it fails you try another one. Patents are not always part of that meme though. But there is an incentive at work - because of the Fukushima legacy - which MHI feel a certain amount of guilt over because they signed off Tepco's plan to put the pump room below ground level, they have a HUGE incentive to work out remediation methods.

  • A few people who are then permitted to publish their results in the official "Mitsubishi Heavy Industries Technical Review" and include statements such as:


    Quote

    "The new method of nuclear transmutation is a simple method of nuclear transmutation that uses Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, Ltd.’s [technology] to transmute elements at low energy cost. So far, transmutation from cesium (Cs) to praseodymium (Pr), from barium (Ba) to samarium (Sm), from strontium (Sr) to molybdenum (Mo), has been observed."


    "Since then, MHI has been obtaining experimental data which support the existence of this phenomenon and increasing the yield obtained by the transmutation reaction. At the same time, several experiments to reproduce the experimental results using MHI’s method were conducted mainly by domestic research organizations, and the transmutation from Cs to Pr has been confirmed."


    ENDORSE - "declare one's public approval or support of".


    Sounds like they publicly approve of the above statements, seeing as how they officially published them and all.

  • I have no idea about the nature of that research. Probably THHuxley is right about what he said about it. And it does not seem to support either claims for Pd-D "cold fusion" as per P&F (even though it involves Pd and D) or those for Ni-H LENR. What's the relevance of their supposed transmutations to the current discussions?


    Publication in company rags means nothing. Elforsk published a glowing report about Rossi in its official magazine. It supported Rossi-related transportation and possibly equipment expenses. Several of us wrote the CEO of Elforsk explaining the high probability that Rossi was a fraud and why. See any glowing endorsements from Elforsk (or material support for Rossi) since? I got a nice polite email response from Magnus Oloffsson and he referred the matter to one of his engineers. I can only surmise that what that individual discovered doing his own background research on Rossi was every bit as unsavory as what I reported to them. This will turn out to be another case of anonymous and pseudonymous internet pathological skeptics (LOL) actually saving huge sums of money for a very large company which was headed in the wrong direction and didn't seem to know it.

  • Quote

    A few people who are then permitted to publish their results in the official "Mitsubishi Heavy Industries Technical Review" and include statements such as:


    Companies have many cutting edge technologies that they hope will pan out, but may be rubbish. This is treated as one of them. Not, as is considered here, a technology which is real will revolutionise physics and the energy industry.


    Maybe Iwamura shares the view here - but you would expect the guys in charge of the company magazine to take reports from Iwa's group just like others.

  • @zeus46
    As I said before, I have no interest in claims for small, low level, low power LENR effects. I know nothing about those, I care little about them, and I don't evaluate them. So what? While I am not qualified to evaluate small effects, I am amply qualified to assess claims for high power production --claims like those of Rossi, Defkalion, Brillouin, Nanospire and Miley. And those claims are sorely wanting in credibility.

  • @"Mary", you have made this point endlessly. If it is actually true, why do you feel the need to offer your opinion on things you "know nothing about"?


    You try to dismiss all LENR research with ad homs, essentially saying that all LENR researchers are mistaken or untrustworthy. If someone questions that stance, you always say you are actually not interested in the scientists research. So I ask you again: Why do you always feel the need to comment on it?


    @THHuxley, MHI clearly consider it real.


    In their paper they actually question whether "this technology [will become] established", not if "it might be rubbish".


    That's a big difference.

  • Quote

    ...essentially saying that all LENR researchers are mistaken or untrustworthy...


    If I said that, which I very much doubt, I didn't mean it. Many LENR researchers are honest. They are most often not mistaken in reporting their data. In my opinion, at low levels of power, they are likely to be mistaken about their interpretation of their data to mean a new energy source has been found. This would be due to all sorts of factors including measurement and calibration errors and unknown sources of heat and gas leakage and many other things.


    Even a misguided and gullible individual like Lewan can be and he is almost certainly honest and well meaning. So where did I say what you allege? I'd like to go back and correct it. If I said it, of course.

  • It's not a direct quote, hence my use of "essentially saying".


    Two quick examples would be your first post to this topic where you state Mitsubishi HI are completely untrustworthy for very specious reasons, and also every time you state that we cannot trust anything McKubre does because of his interest in the Papp engine.

  • Oh! And to you, that is the same as saying "...... all LENR researchers are mistaken or untrustworthy... ". I see why you have comprehension problems. I stand by those views you cited, by the way. But I never said what you said I did about LENR researchers. If McKubre is not a WOOWOO, I don't know who is. Most intelligent people can read for less than hour about Papp and his "engine" and are able to dismiss it as the ravings of a lunatic and a con.

  • I'm sure I could find plenty more examples, if I could really be bothered to wade through your almighty deluge of facile posts about a subject you "know nothing about / care little about / are not qualified to evaluate".


    And you stand by the fact you ignore/distrust all of Mitsubishi IH's work, due to an unrelated cockup? Talk about the ravings of a lunatic..

  • What is convincing in Iwamura experiments are :
    -( it is replicated by Toyota
    - the Ps (and alike) observation are anticorrelated with initial species, evolving with time
    - Ps is bound to surface


    anyone claiming it is an artifact would require a solid theory because simple contamination by balance or gloves does not behave that way.
    It remind me the conspiracy theory of Gary Taubes.


    even artifact theories need to be self-coherent and respect basic laws of physics.