Clean Planet Ltd (Japan) updates

    Announced by Clean Planet Inc. on LinkedIn:

    Photon radiation calorimetry for anomalous heat generation in NiCu multilayer thin film during hydrogen gas desorption

    Photon radiation calorimetry for anomalous heat generation in NiCu multilayer thin film during hydrogen gas desorption
    In order to investigate the anomalous heat effect (AHE) in NiCu multilayer thin film, photon radiation calorimetry has been developed. Three types of photon…
    doi.org

    Quote from Rob

    Does anybody know where to find the discussion area for this paper?

    I had a conversation with Kasagi about it at ICCF25 and follow the Japanese groups very closely.
    Is there a particular question you have about there experiments and there approach to there QHe system?
    Maybe I could help answer it?

    Quote from Diadon Acs

    I had a conversation with Kasagi about it at ICCF25 and follow the Japanese groups very closely.
    Is there a particular question you have about there experiments and there approach to there QHe system?
    Maybe I could help answer it?

    No, sorry for not being more clear. I know these pre-print servers are used to allow for discussion and prevent the possible censorship of the peer-review process, so now that we have this LENR paper on arxiv, I'm wondering where I can see those discussions (if anywhere).

    Quote from Rob

    I know these pre-print servers are used to allow for discussion and prevent the possible censorship of the peer-review process, so now that we have this LENR paper on arxiv, I'm wondering where I can see those discussions (if anywhere).

    There is some internal quality control involved when accepting papers for Arxiv publication. But, as far as I know, Cornell don't host any forums for external parties to discuss papers (other than for the volunteer moderators - which are private).


    Content Moderation - arXiv info


    They do, however, operate a "comments on" publication service:


    Policies for specific content types - arXiv info

    "The most misleading assumptions are the ones you don't even know you're making" - Douglas Adams

    Edited 3 times, last by Frogfall ().

    Quote from Rob

    No, sorry for not being more clear. I know these pre-print servers are used to allow for discussion and prevent the possible censorship of the peer-review process, so now that we have this LENR paper on arxiv, I'm wondering where I can see those discussions (if anywhere).

    I'm afraid we are it until more attention is put on the topic outside the military sector.
    How do we communicate these things easily and draw more mass attention on the subject to the masses is quite a challenge it seems?
    The more we can unify across the globe on these issues the greater chance they will take hold outside the private sector from my point of view.
    Perhaps time will prove me incorrect in my assessment of the state of affairs we currently find ourselves?

    https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/2311/2311.18347.pdf


    I have previously noted (and no-one here has disagreed AFAIK) that scientific papers from Iwamura shown as supporting Clean Planet's claims did not merit the excitement (from some) here, nor in any way support their commercial claims to be working on excess heat generating reactor. Of course, they can be working on it - without it working. But the press releases made it seem that a reactor that worked possibly existed.


    This new paper is alas more of the same, it makes distinctly underwhelming - in the context of CP's commercial ambitions - claims (calculated excess heat 5W is roughly 15% of input power 30W) from a system where that calculation is very indirect and uncertain. It interested me because of the difficulty I had initially in understanding it. So here is my attempt at doing that.








    The calorimetric system used in this paper consists of an evacuated chamber containing a sample (with electric heater embedded) which is affixed via a holder (which would contain wires to power the heater). The sample is heated to around 900K. It is very clear that the whole system is designed to make radiant power transfer predominant. That is absolutely fine, but it requires some care with the calorimetry.


    1. There are various unknowns which must be inferred - emissivity & temperature of sample and holder

    2. In this system the temperature of the sample and holder is not well controlled, nor even directly measured. Instead the input power is controlled - this determines (via various unknown parameters) the temperature - from which the expected radiant power out can be compared with measured radiant power out.

    3. From the numbers here, the sample power emission is roughly 10X smaller than the holder power emission. Thus differences in holder emission between control and active runs are 10X more significant than equivalent errors in sample emission.

    4. You might think that the fact that eqns (1) neglects the power transfer from environment back to holder and sample, is problematic. It is lax that it is not considered in the equations. To 1st order it is ok. You would expect the reverse power to be scaled by emissivity in the same way as the forward power. you would expect it to be approximately 2% of the power transfer in the other direction as calculated by (270/(900+270))^4. Therefore this does not seem to be a problem and indeed I don't think it is a problem. It will be included inferred the conductive power constant C.

    5. You might wonder how the linearisation works, given the T^4 term in radiant power! That is because it cancels: the sample and holder temperature varies nonlinearly with Pin. The radiant power out varies nonlinearly with temperature in the opposite way. The paper claims that for given conditions that are met, the linearisation is good. I can accept that - although it would need checking especially because of 3. which means that the holder, with temperature varying in a complex way through its surface, makes a term 10X the sample power out so small errors in this get magnified.


    1. - 5. make this system quite difficult to analyse and the very short description in the paper really puts a high burden on the reader. However 1. - 5. do not themselves provide any obvious error. although they do cast some uncertainty on any conclusions that further more careful analysis would need to check.


    The main take home from them is to be careful with errors in QH (the holder emitted power). This is 10X the sample emitted power.


    Stated in the paper (top of 2nd screenshot) is that in excess heat generation during desorption of H2 generally changes emissivity by 10% (a factor of 0.9) and that this is incorporated into the equation (2). Obviously, from the linearised (2), this difference in emissivity between control and active experiments is important. We can quantify this. The 10% variation in sample radiant power (Qs ~ 3W Fig 3) due to emissivity (beta factor) is ~300mW - insignificant compared with apparent excess heat of 5W Fig 5 from Ni(5)Cu(1) sample.


    One thing missing here is control for the holder characteristics perhaps being different in the H2 and no H2 systems. After all, holder radiant output is 10X sample radiant output so any change here would have 10X the effect on the numbers.


    For these results a 15% change in overall holder emissivity could generate the data.


    However - I'm not sure that is the right solution. Such an error would be likely to be proportional to QH (and therefore Pin since QH ~ Pin). The shown error is roughly constant with Pin and therefore we should look for some error related to the sample temperature not the radiated power. Which leaves a complex poorly characterised system delivering results which are not immediately obvious.


    One interesting - not understood by me, not explained by Kasagi et al - fact. The differences between Ni and NiCu control samples show that a fixed QS change of approx 300mW - not a change varying with QS. I'd like to understand what that is. Different emissivity should make a difference proportional to Qs. Perhaps if this question is resolved, we would be closer to understanding the apparent excess in the active system.


    One variable too complex for me to analyse without simulations and more data than is in this paper is the possibility of thermal resistance inside the sample/heater leading to non-uniform sample temperatures across the sample surface. Thus higher thermal resistance might make the outer areas of teh surface lower temperature and therefore reduce the emitted power. That effect could maybe make for these constant errors? I've no idea.


    The paper claims that radiant power calorimetry has some advantages over calorimetry based on temperature measurements. That is true - if you look at Iwamura's previous experiments - but you can see from the uncertainties and assumptions here why it is so seldom used! The data here, given the uncertainties, would be more useful if we had temperature measurements as well as more information about the variables - e.g. exact pressure in the various control and active systems, thermography across the sample or different embedded thermocouples to determine temperature change over surface, etc.


    THH

    Quote from gerold.s

    Did you consider in your argumentation, that obviously an R type TC is used to control heater temperature?

    The characterisation given is based on constant Pin, not constant temperature. I expect they did have a thermocouple. But they have not used it to characterise the system so we can gain no additional information from it.

    Quote from Paradigmnoia

    So, no change?

    It would be nice if they made it easy for us to know if there has been a change, instead of us having to dig for it. A simple "this is what we said last year, and this is what we improved on, or didn't" would suffice. That includes both their research, and PR departments.


    MFMP has been a good example for others to follow on being totally open. But understandably, those based on a business model, have other factors to consider.

    Quote from Shane D.

    It would be nice if they made it easy for us to know if there has been a change, instead of us having to dig for it. A simple "this is what we said last year, and this is what we improved on, or didn't" would suffice. That includes both their research, and PR departments.


    MFMP has been a good example for others to follow on being totally open. But understandably, those based on a business model, have other factors to consider.

    A jaded view might be that the company is a charity to fund LENR stuff disguised as a business so that the inevitable research=investment losses can be more easily written off against profits from somewhere else.

Subscribe to our newsletter

It's sent once a month, you can unsubscribe at anytime!

View archive of previous newsletters

* indicates required

Your email address will be used to send you email newsletters only. See our Privacy Policy for more information.

Our Partners

Supporting researchers for over 20 years
Want to Advertise or Sponsor LENR Forum?
CLICK HERE to contact us.