I was looking at the Clean Planet website and a figure caught my eye:
They claim that 1g of Hydrogen can produce 1,000,000kJ of energy or 10,000x that of natural gas. If this was true, a 10kW(heat) reactor would use 1g of hydrogen in about 28hours. They are off by 100,000%.
While I was looking at the website, my computer gave me an ironic error:
I got a good laugh from this...
More than 10000 ... is kind of true.
Much more is truer,
theoretically, 
hopefully we will see "COPs" > 10 within a year
Lol but either their device is 1000x less efficient than ours or they can’t do simple math…
Typo
True
Correct
Please edit
They claim that 1g of Hydrogen can produce 1,000,000kJ of energy or 10,000x that of natural gas. If this was true, a 10kW(heat) reactor would use 1g of hydrogen in about 28hours. They are off by 100,000%.
Based on the assumption of converting all Hydrogen mass to energy and/or Helium?
This is not what is claimed.
More details of their numbers can be found in this publication.
QuoteConcluding Remarks
New type of excess heat experiments using a nano-sized metal multilayer composite and hydrogen gas have been performed based on the permeation-induced transmutation experiments with multilayer thin film and excess heat experiments with nano-particles. Anomalous Excess energy generation using nano-sized multilayer Cu/Ni metal composite and Cu/Ni metal with third material (CaO, Y2O3) composite were observed. Maximum released excess energy reached 1.1 MJ and average released energy per absorbed total hydrogen was 16 keV/H or 1.5 GJ/H-mol. It cannot be explained by any known chemical process and suggests that the observed heat generation must be of nuclear origin. Many analysis methods have been applied to identify what kind of reactions occur by the interaction of the nano-sized multilayer metal composite with hydrogen gas.
The papers of Iwamura indicate transmutations, so this is probably the source of excess heat.
The current figures seem based on these practical results from their research setup, so, the rate of transmutations that occur.
I would love to see proof of others achieving similar or better results, not only words.
It’s quite difficult to do these measurements when making several watts or several dozen watts. We need kW/MW class reactors to get the proper resolution…but three orders of magnitude is quite an uncertainty factor. First one there gets the best data. The race is on.
Well, sometimes when a race is on , a third can win too 
competition is a good thing
They claim that 1g of Hydrogen can produce 1,000,000kJ of energy or 10,000x that of natural gas. If this was true, a 10kW(heat) reactor would use 1g of hydrogen in about 28hours. They are off by 100,000%.
I think it is a little less than 100,000%. This source says hydrogen fusion produces 630 million MJ ("630 trillion joules") So 1 g produces 630,000 MJ. More like 63,000%.
https://www.astronomy.ohio-sta…drogen%20to%20get%20water
I believe deuterium fusion (D+D) produces 345,000 MJ/g. This source says: 3.45×10^14 J/kg (Table 1, Cat-DD). If I have done my arithmetic right, that's 345 million MJ/kg.
http://projectrho.com/public_html/rocket/supplement/ComparisonFusionAntiproton.pdf
Based on the assumption of converting all Hydrogen mass to energy and/or Helium?
This is not what is claimed.
Good point. The above estimate is for converting all hydrogen to energy and helium. Or all deuterium to energy and hydrogen.
Graph from one of Clean Planet's presentations gives a bit more clarity on this.
I posted it earlier in this thread:
Here they show the theoretical value (small red dot to the upper right of the graph, indicated by 理論憊) and the energy density of QHE.
The QHE density is represented by the bigger red ellipse in the center of this graph. As mentioned earlier QHE density here represented is derived from practical experiments (hence the wide range). The centers of both circles differ a factor of 1000 roughly.
QHE is obtained by metal stacks through which hydrogen is forced.
The only public information of what causes QHE can be derived from Iwamura's publications where e.g. transmutations are reported. They still report that they do not exactly know the details of the physics.
To add some of my own thoughts: I do not exclude that excess heat is also produced by the formation of ultra dense hydrogen (condensation energy of Rydberg Hydrogen matter and maybe even transmutations caused by subatomic particles produced by decomposition of ultra dense hydrogen). It's probably a mix of effects at a controlled slow rate, mainly controlled by heater temperature.
Graph from one of Clean Planet's presentations gives a bit more clarity on this.
It says 1,000倍以上, which means "more than 1,000 times."
Also, 桁違いにエネルギー密度が大きい: orders of magnitude higher energy density.
The recent test by Oxford-based JET laboratory with their 150 million degree test would seem to confirm these results. Pity their tokomak experiment could only heat 50 or so kettles. Hot fusion like ITER seems to be going no-where!
I just want every research’s to read my papers on the nucleus model and if they read the paper they must find the correct nucleus model.
I always based on the experiments and theory of other researchers. And I interpret the meaning and correlation by myself and I found the correct theory. I am frustrated by the fact that all of researchers believe what everyone believes and Rutherford Fermi insisted.
But now transmutation experiment show that d is two protons not proton and neutron by Iwamura’d experiment but Iwamura has not found the cause of this because he is the traditional student of traditional physics.
What I want you is to read my paper on the nucleus model.
Nucleus is to be constituted by proton and internal electron and neutron is to be proton-electron pair in the tight bound state
Greetings. I would like to start by saying I like your model for the deuteron. But my interest is the model for the alpha particle.
Let me start it for you if I may. Hang the four protons on the corner s
Sorry about that, but I,be been fighting with this phone and couldn't edit it. So, hang the protons at the corners of a tetrahedron. Put one electron in the center. That by the way is trivially shown to a stable configuration. The question is, where to put the other electron? What does your theory say? Thanks
An article cited from Linkedin
In Japanese
Not much for me, but maybe some cana analyse what is said, behind the paywall...
QuoteClean Planet develops 2 safe, stable, and inexpensive "quantum hydrogen energy" that does not emit We are continuing research with Tohoku University and preparing for practical use. The number of patents obtained is 48, and we aim to contribute to the heat utilization of a carbon-free society by putting it into practical use from a small boiler.
Great, this means Clean Planet will soon be building LENR systems in the form of central heating boilers? Then, presumably scaling up will occur to replace coal or gas-fired power stations. But, unfortunately, I don't believe that the energy cost of electricity will ever be free, in fact all known present fission reactors produce the most expensive form of electricity. If we want to 'go green' seriously, then we as a nation, must pay the price for it.
Perhaps already posted.
A google translated version of the website that Ahlfors shared:
Note that the mechanism of quantum diffusion of clean planet is totally incorrect. But it can have a good mechanism due to the compression at grain boundary of No small grain whic has so many site to compress D2 and not affected by external electric field of conventional metal surface cold fusion. So I like this tools very much.
Cold fusion ca be caused by the compression of D2at the site of the metal and for clean planet case it is No fcc so no T site to compress and I believe that grain boundary of small numbers grain cause the compression of D2.
You can find my post of the mechanicsm of cold fusion in this forum post.
nkodama - a much simpler expression for CP cold fusion is the relativistic equation E=mc^n! That is all there is to it! What type of energy released is down to the experimenter, and the calorimetry used is simply a way of converting the digital, all-or-nothing nuclear events into infra-red (heat), protons or neutrons or muons or gamma rays released into a long-lived analogue signal. Our aim it seems is thus trying to find a way to enhance the signal to noise in LENR's. Catalysis as shown by Leif Holmlid looks like the best way!
