Report: ‘Stable Excess Heat’, ‘100 Per Cent Reproducible’ in LENR Experiment at Tohoku University, Japan

  • [feedquote='E-Cat World','http://www.e-catworld.com/2016/09/19/report-stable-excess-heat-100-per-cent-reproducible-in-lenr-experiment-at-tohoku-university-japan/']Thanks to reader Bob (not Greenyer) for a comment today which cites a new report by Kenji Kaneko, Nikkei BP Clean Tech Institute, translated from the orginal Japanese by Jed Rothwell and posted on the LENR-CANR website here: http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/KanekoKcoldfusion.pdf It reports on work taking place at the Condensed Matter Nuclear Science (CMNS) Department at Tohoku […][/feedquote]
  • Indeed, Pierre. Rossi was valid on prime principles as per Jed Rothwell, in 2011.


    From the comments thread:


    Quote

    Bob Greenyer US_Citizen71 • 2 hours agoI have devised an absolutely fool proof experiment that will prove inside 2 weeks the reality of LENR indisputably and live and will not need a replication, post verification or any complicated debates to convince doubters. Moreover it will have implications across many scientific disciplines.


    It first needs the cooperation of the key party, which I am in communication with - and of course, their claims need to be real.


    The first part is pretty good. The last line, not so much. Claims being real is always the stumbling block when it comes to LENR verifications.

  • Really interesting,
    unfortunally, it is not clear if it was an argon atmosphere/or not during the electric discharge ?
    It's important for my understanding.


    Maybe it is detailed bette in the scientific paper:


    http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/MizunoTmethodofco.pdf


    It seems hydrogen or deuterium

  • I'm a little confused about this. Doesn't this relate to the same method that Jed helped Mizuno with setting up calorimetry? Jed later retracted his calorimetry results on the belief that the excess heating was mostly due to changes in ambient temperature and calibration problems. Sorry if I am incorrect about this.

  • Out of curiosity, has anybody kept count of how many of these "100% reproducible LENR experiments" have been announced since 1989?


    This "100% reproducible" appears to be a comment from Frank Acland, who does not necessarily understand the scientific issues. When there is an original report claiming control of the reaction, from a series of experiments, it is sometimes said that it is reproducible. A claim from the researchers of "100% reproducibility" is rather rare. Objectively, this could not be anything more than an original report, if it has not actually been confirmed independently. What it means is that, in their work, they came to a point where every trial generated excess heat, probably. However, this could be a systematic artifact. The actual judgment, without data from confirmations, is probably impossible.


    In context, though, this is what Acland actually reports, from Iwamura:


    Quote

    Iwamura describes the project with enthusiasm. “The experimental project has only been underway for about a year, but it is going better than we expected and we already have stable excess heat. We are applying the knowledge accumulated in our research at Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, demonstrating that highly reproducible element conversion techniques can also be applied to heat generation.”


    I don't see "100% reproducible" there. "Highly reproducible" indicates that the results appear reliable to them. This, then, can be a driver for confirmation, and if the results also appear reliable to an independent group, we start getting a little bit excited. Iwamura, of course, has been working on transmutation, and has results that have some confirmation. And some disconfirmation, and I do not consider the matter settled. What would be of extremely high interest, though, is a correlation between anomalous heat and transmutation rates. This becomes direct evidence, far more powerful that a single anomaly in one set of experiments, and a different anomaly in another.


    Reviewing Pierre Ordinaire's contributions, I am seeing low value. We do need more skeptics here, the kind that will actually investigate and raise real issues, not phony ones like "what stupid idiots these CF researchers are," which is more or less the message quoted. Hence I am personally blocking that account, depending on others to quote him if he raises some issue of interest. I am not a moderator here, so I have no responsibility to read everything.

  • I could not edit that last post. Here is what it was meant to say.....


    I cannot upvote only downvote this is skew-y. I tried to attach a photo of the screen (as I am logged in) but it is rejecting it. Anyway I was going to respond to Mary Yugo above. I think that Bob G. in his enthusiasm maybe needs to decouple his belief in LENR- from the experiments that MFMP is doing. Sometimes they hurt the image of MFMP as being an honest broker. IMHO

  • Abd said: Reviewing Pierre Ordinaire's contributions, I am seeing low value. We do need more skeptics here, the kind that will actually investigate and raise real issues, not phony ones like "what stupid idiots these CF researchers are," which is more or less the message quoted. Hence I am personally blocking that account, depending on others to quote him if he raises some issue of interest."


    Remember, Abd, that who revealed that the Emperor had no clothes was not one of the nobility, but a child. Sometimes knowing too much prevents you from see the wood because of the trees.

  • This "100% reproducible" appears to be a comment from Frank Acland, who does not necessarily understand the scientific issues. When there is an original report claiming control of the reaction, from a series of experiments, it is sometimes said that it is reproducible.


    I do not think Iwamura said anything about "100% reproducible." He said it is qualitatively reproducible. He said the anomalous heat shows up as a temperature difference compared to the control runs of 70°C to 100°C. That is a broad range of temperatures which sounds like "qualitative reproducibility" to me. I do not know how much heat that represents or what the absolute temperatures are, or how often it happens. Honestly, I have no idea what is going on. I hope to learn at the conference.


    The original experiment by Mizuno worked sometimes but it did not work at other times. That is actually good news. If it works every time it is probably an artifact.

  • I read over the posted link :


    http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/KanekoKcoldfusion.pdf


    Towards the bottom of page 7, it reads :
    "Qualitatively, 100% reproducibility has been established. The future research target is
    therefore: “how to increase heat generation, and how to use inexpensive materials such as nickel
    with light hydrogen, instead of palladium and deuterium” says Hideki Yoshino, president of
    Clean Planet."


    As has been said, sometimes translations are not 100% correct or perhaps I am misunderstanding the context of "Qualitatively".
    But it does sound like Mr. Yoshino is stating that they have the ability to reproduce at will. Am I incorrect on this understanding?
    To me, this would be quite astounding if correct. ?(

  • I'm still totally confident Andrea Rossi "has the goods" in that the Rossi Effect is real and works. Nothing has changed whatsoever in that regards. The lawsuit has opened up room for my opinion about his personality and character to change, however. Depending on what FACTS are eventually revealed during the court case, I could end up despising him immensely for being repeatedly a dishonest and deceptive sleaze ball OR my opinion of him could remain approximately the same.


  • It does look like that. And I have seen that claim from others, whose detailed reports actually did look like that. I mentioned that this is not a particularly common claim. "100%" is not a precise scientific claim. How many tests? If there was one and it worked, hey, "100%". Yoshino is not quoted as saying that. This appears to be an interpretation of the author of the article.


    As Jed has pointed out, "100% reproducibility" could represent a systematic artifact. It is not particularly inspiring unless confirmed independently. So they have some effect. At what level? And moving from PdD to NiH would not be some simple, small thing, necessarily, unless they already have NiH results. The first priority would be to confirm/disconfirm that the results are not artifact. This could take some time! Scaling up is not the first priority, in my opinion. Documenting and confirming reliability would be, along with developing extensive characterization of conditions and exploration of the parameter space.