Clean Planet Ltd (Japan) updates

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/363696764_New_MHE_Experiments_by_D-System

Another perhaps negative comment on the Clean Planet data.

In the high temperature system they now have two ways to estimate excess heat:

(1) radiation (with errors - they use a control to reduce them)

(2) coolant output temperature.

They say they do not use coolant because it has a long time constant. Understandable. But for overall excess power generation estimation that is surely just fine. Look at the 3 day long flat parts of figure 7, showing oil temperature very accurate for time longer than 9 hours, on tests run for 72 hours.

Therefore - it would be most interesting to look at the oil out temperature as a cross-check on their high temperature work. After all, the oil output temperature is a proxy for the real deliverable they want - significant excess output power over long periods.

It is IMHO a great shame that they do not disclose the overall excess power estimates they get from this.

It is good to know that if they ever wished to convince the scientific community they had something then this extra more accurate info could be added (always assuming it is positive).

Quote from THHuxleynew

It is IMHO a great shame that they do not disclose the overall excess power estimates they get from this.

You have to bear in mind that Professor Iwamura is the academic end of a commercial enterprise, Clean Planet, Miura, and (somewhere in the background) the Japanese government and Mitsubishi Heavy Engineering all have a piece of this. I was amazed I got him to say as much as he did.

Quote from Alan Smith

You have to bear in mind that Professor Iwamura is the academic end of a commercial enterprise, Clean Planet, Miura, and (somewhere in the background) the Japanese government and Mitsubishi Heavy Engineering all have a piece of this. I was amazed I got him to say as much as he did.

That is a fair excuse - I agree - but you will admit it can equally be used by commercial early-stage companies as a way to make their progress seem more than it is.

We will see.

I think if saying anything in a detailed paper you would normally want to say - even if as an offhand remark - that your calorimetry has shown overall power excess > 1.5X at power in of 100s of W over days (or whatever) just as a ballpark statement that you are serious and into development phase. That is not revealing any secrets, merely making it clear you are real.

The argument that people pretend not to be real to discourage competition is a problematic one!

Quote from Alan Smith

I was amazed I got him to say as much as he did

tm 5.24 we would like to aim mobile type car robot aeroplane...

the energy/wt ratio is a bit more than fission ... without the neutrons..

https://ijisrt.com/assets/upload/files/IJISRT21AUG335.pdf

Nano metal particle is promising if it is a composite that ceramic nano metal with holes, in which metal is embedded to prevent transformation to bulk from nano metal.

The issue is the trigger of cold fusion and potential control.

Cold fusion need the potential control on the reaction surface but composite nano metal particle cut the current path.

More importantly, heater they use unintentionally change the potential.

You will review my papers, which I explain my Conceptualized reactor for nano metal particle.

Quote from Alan Smith

Clean Planet, Miura, and (somewhere in the background) the Japanese government and Mitsubishi Heavy Engineering all have a piece of this. I was amazed I got him to say as much as he did.

I was also amazed. I expect the people at Miura, Mitsubishi and the Japanese government are displeased. You will not hear anything from them.

Quote from THHuxleynew

I will be happy to accept that: if the trait could be characterised in a positive way?

It leaves open, then, the question of whether I or anyone else is a pseudo-skeptic - don't think I can answer that till I know what the term means.

I think that pseudo-skepticism is reflexively contrarian and self assured.

I don't think many here would object to genuine skepticism. The LEC thread, for instance, is full of skepticism, doubt and attempts to explain the LEC prosaically.

But to my mind, for what it's worth, skepticism should proceed outwards from epistemic humility. That is to say, you humble yourself re: your own capacities first, you appreciate the limits of your own knowledge first, and then you proceed outwards.

This way, you are humble and skeptical of others work because you have properly interrogated the limits of your own capacities, and you thus appreciate how hard it is to be sure of much of anything; how long and hard you must work to do anything of value, and how easy it is to make mistakes. This is a kind of skepticism born from, for the lack of a more apposite word, an empathy - for oneself and for others.

At the risk of being abrasive, this is not the timbre of the skepticism you bring to this forum. You had never heard of Iwamura until ICCF24, and I recall, when I asked you some time ago what you made of SPAWAR, you hadn't heard of them either. You mishandle the names of the groups you refer to. You half watch presentations and then hold forth on them. Sometimes it seems like your only engagement with the substance of LENR is through whatever document you've popped up to dissect. You repeatedly state that you’re interested in the field, and yet you seem to have spent little time traversing the literature on your initiative.

To me, at least, this doesn't feel like a particularly epistemically humble way to operate.

It would be easy to mistake a hostility to one’s instantiation of their skepticism for a hostility to skepticism in general.

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Noriyuki-Kodama-2/publication/354142363_Mechanism_of_Cold_Fusion_with_Nano_Metal-Particles_and_Conceptualized_Reactor_to_Control_the_Nano-_Metal_Particle_Potential/links/6127121b035d5831d772619d/Mechanism-of-Cold-Fusion-with-Nano-Metal-Particles-and-Conceptualized-Reactor-to-Control-the-Nano-Metal-Particle-Potential.pdf

Proper paper,

you use an US oscillator on your thin film probably not for the old fashion cavitation

Quote from nkodama

https://www.researchgate.net/p…al-Particle-Potential.pdf

Quote from orsova

At the risk of being abrasive, this is not the timbre of the skepticism you bring to this forum. You had never heard of Iwamura until ICCF24, and I recall, when I asked you some time ago what you made of SPAWAR, you hadn't heard of them either. You mishandle the names of the groups you refer to. You half watch presentations and then hold forth on them. Sometimes it seems like your only engagement with the substance of LENR is through whatever document you've popped up to dissect. You repeatedly state that you’re interested in the field, and yet you seem to have spent little time traversing the literature on your initiative.

That is not abrasive, but it is wrong

We all have different styles.

I am naturally forthright and argumentative with intellectual opinions. It may occasionally be arrogant - but I apologise when I get things wrong, ask for correction, am very open to it. You don't see that as often as I'd like because not many people here bother to engage with the arguments - for example in the foamgate thread where no-one bothered to look at the video (or if they did that - they did not comment specifically on it). It required no special knowledge or cleverness to do that. Remember if I seem to argue strongly that I am very often proposing arguments that everyone else here disagrees with, and argues against.

This works for me because I am at the same time more careful and polite with emotional arguments than most (my posts here I think bear that out well). I think it is bad manners, and deeply wrong, to personalise, etc. I don't mean I never do it, I am only human, but I have a lot of patience with people who do not agree with me, and even tolerate quite a bit of personal abuse (I get a lot here). I do not throw accusations of fraud around (I have said many things about Rossi, they have all been verifiably court-of-law true).

I think such an approach is the only one that works with science. You get contradicting views. They need to be shared, tested, etc. Not putting forward contradictory views harms everyone.

I'd criticise you if, when dissecting a document, you let your prejudices about LENR color your analysis of that document. When looking at one document I do indeed treat it alone. How can I not?

That is the big difference between me and most here. Most will, based on a broad knowledge of other LENR claims, have an expectation that certain things are likely (which any normal scientist would consider very unlikely) low energy transmutations, excess heat at nuclear levels, high energy particles.

You maybe think I have no broad knowledge of LENR because I do not bring such prejudices into the analysis of a single paper. I challenge you on knowledge of the key issues in LENR, as determined from appraisal of a wide range of the literature. I don't think you will find me wanting. (Not that I know as much on any specific topic as the experts working in it - of course not ).*

In addition I do not remember stuff. Because I go into things in detail when interested there are a lot of details. This is not my day job and I forget stuff that happened 4 years ago (like foamgate where I had to remind myself of the posts then). I have been looking at LENR for maybe 10 years. First seduced by Widom Larsen theory, which alas has not panned out. We all have strengths and limitations - I will look at things anew from first principles more than most - against that I do not remember stuff that does not cohere, like names, technical terms, dates, etc.

Anyway - 'umble I'm not. Humility - in the sense of admitting the real uncertainty of the world and distrusting my own conclusions - I have as much as others. Why do you think that when I cannot think of an error in an experiment with anomalous results I continue to be unsure? None of us have such godlike knowledge - and whole groups of people similarly miss things.

Case in point: those Tritium results.

I had a list of possible things to check.

Jed pointed out one more (2c I called it after that). Jed referenced the excellent old work done on dealing with very low level lithium contamination issues. There is no way I can better that: though I can summarise an apply it. And I expected there to be such detailed work.

Even then I am pretty fallible. I realise I kept on forgetting one key issue: T2 or TH gas will be selectively retained in liquid because it is heavier (by a lot) than H2 (or maybe vice versa - I am hazy on it). Anyway such physical methods of isotopic concentration are especially important with T vs H because of the 3 X mass difference.

I write down these lists of things because it helps me to think, an I naively imagine it will help others to think. No because I believe they are complete (even though they are all I can think of at the time).

The lack of humility comes from many others on this forum who argue that because none of us can see an error in an experiment - therefore there can be no error. Foamgate again is an example where an obvious error is missed (dismissed!) by everyone except ascoli. Jed's comments on that thread show who great knowledge often field goes with preconceived notions which in that case prevented him from seeing ascoli's point.

* Of course in science usually there is a lot of theory you need to understand to make sense of experiment. You then do interopret experiements in the context of other experiments. In LENR there is almost no such theory. The theories there are (ideas really, NAE etc) have very little value in analysing experiments because they do not predict outcomes, nor are they quantitative. There is not even an agreed idea from experiments of which nuclear transformations are likely - except that it is usually (not always) ones to stable products that therefore do not provide certain evidence of transformation. This may change - we all hope that - but when it does LENR will be a real scientific field rather than a corner of work looking at experimental anomalies. You can see the people at ICCF24 who are hoping to do that. I applaud it. Until that happens no-one has any right to tell me my views of the likelihood that LENR anomalies are actually LENR are any less valid, or more likely to mean I am mentally unhinged, I would have saying that of the rest of you. Don't stop you from doing it though!

Quote from orsova

I recall, when I asked you some time ago what you made of SPAWAR, you hadn't heard of them either.

I have spent more time looking at those alpha track papers than you. I bet. But I never remember the weird names - and SPAWAR I am vague about because they have done multiple things (the CR39 alpha stuff is the only one I remember well) - I care about the things not the name.

Cold fusion has a lot of confusion like this posting because so many experiment and it’s mechanism has not been discussed.

Confusion is caused by the incorrect nucleus model.

The mechanism of cold fusion is the compression of covalent bond of D2 at metal surface T site to transition of electron from n=1 to n=0, which is the deep orbit. But this deep orbit has not been introduced to the nucleus model: neutron is a pair of proton and electron in deep orbit of n=0.

Therefore correct nucleus model must be discueed by nuclear physics and particle physics society not only by cold fusion society.

Correct nucleus model proved by transmutation experiment by cold fusion

Correct nucleus model proved by transmutation experiment by cold fusion neutron to be tightly bound protonelectron pair and nucleus to be constituted by protons and internal electrons and no neutrinos exist| International Journal of Innovative Science…

Google translate

株式会社クリーンプラネットの転職・求人情報一覧｜エン ミドルの転職

転職成功者続出！株式会社クリーンプラネットの転職・求人情報一覧ページ。各専門分野に精通する転職のプロ、コンサルタントがサポートする日本最大級のキャリア転職情報サイト。年収800万円以上の高年収、管理職、スペシャリストの求人、非公開求人スカウトも多数。

mid-tenshoku.com

Quote from David Nygren

Google translate

https://mid-tenshoku.com/agency/a-3723/job-list/

5 new job openings, seems like things are getting more serious now.

Several jobs in clean planet website.

Your link is the job of clean planet.

->it must not be the job of university researchers.

In their website they started the production stage of power generators but this stage need the different company not the venture company from university.

clean planet started the product of power gererstor by themselves by hiring the engineer of plant design, but I do not think it is a good direction. I think Miura should design the power gererstor.

Clean planet is a group of academic researchers thus, they do not have the capability to design the tool by themselves.

Quote from nkodama

https://www.cleanplanet.co.jp/recruit/

Several jobs in clean planet website.

Your link is not the job of clean planet.

I have to disagree, the translated version of the link that David Nygren posted clearly shows that Clean Planet is offering 5 positions. Most probably they are also listed in Clean Planet’s own website, but that doesn’t mean they are not posting the job offers in other sites.

The job is not the cold fusion but design the plant or power generator for the product but thus job is not the job of university researchers so it has very high risk. Usually for this case venture company use a company who is doing this kind of design and development. Thus at the glance of job description I thought that jobs were not by clean planet but other company.

However, I checked their web site and found the similar jobs.

I believe that this direction must have a huge risk because clean planet has no experience to design the product they have design the experimental tool. The requirements are totally different and Sono managers can not check the quality of the design.

My partner has the experience to develop such kind of tool and know well about the market.

Quote from nkodama

I believe that this direction must have a huge risk because clean planet has no experience to design the product they have design the experimental tool.

Clean planet is really just an 'umbrella company' that brings money and experts in various aspects of the work together. Tohaku University for the science, Miura for the engineering development and (eventually) Mitsubishi zaibatsu for mass production.

I think between them they could probably manage to peel a grape if required..

Quote from Alan Smith

Clean planet is really just an 'umbrella company' that brings money and experts in various aspects of the work together. Tohaku University for the science, Miura for the engineering development and (eventually) Mitsubishi zaibatsu for mass production.

I think between them they could probably manage to peel a grape if required..

I think Mitsubishi must design the production tool of power generator because they are good at design and production of power generator.

Why did clean planet decide to design by themselves???????