Correct mechanism of Cold fusion of Clean planet

I would propose that cold fusion in deuterium saturated conducting metals, is actually a stripping reaction that is catalysed by debye shielding during Cooper pair interactions.

In a deuterium saturated metal lattice carrying current, the spatial location of metal ions is continuously shifting, as local variations in electron density draw ions closer together. This results in regions of net positive charge. The orbitals of deuterium atoms close to these regions will distort and electrons will be drawn towards them. This will pull the deuterium atom towards the region of positive charge. At the same time, the protons within the deuterium nuclei will orient away from the positive charge region. However, the momentum of the electrons is greater than zero, and they will provide debye shielding allowing the metal nucleus and deuteron to approach one another to a greater proximity than orbital interactions would ordinarily allow. The stripping reaction is driven by strong nuclear force. As the nuclei achieve greater proximity, the probability that stripping will occur by quantum tunnelling increases.

Calliban

You might find the following paper by Dubinko et al of interest. Basically it posits that (for example) Deuterium moves into gaps in a 'less than perfect' lattice, and that these gaps are then re-occupied by metal atoms- a kind of mini-collider mechanism.

By means of molecular dynamics simulations it is demonstrated that moving discrete breathers (DBs) can be excited in pure bcc metals such as V, Fe and W. For each of the three metals, the following properties of the DBs are estimated: the frequency as the function of amplitude, the degree of spatial localization and the maximum propagation velocity. For the three studied metals, DB frequency lies above the phonon spectrum and increases with increasing DB amplitude. DBs in vanadium are much more spatially localized and robust than in iron and tungsten. Application of the presented results to the DB-induced mechanism of the void ordering under irradiation is discussed.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/268753278_Moving_discrete_breathers_in_bcc_metals_V_Fe_and_W

To give some additional details, these DBs are in fact electronic clusters but amplified compared to those of phonons, generating an electronic screening to explain nuclear reactions.

But, at least according to Leif Holmlid's work, these 'electron clusters' as you say, are in reality negative muons which go on to catalyse further in a cascade, further nuclear fusion reactions. What we really need is a way of controlling (i.e. slowing down) the fusion cascade rates of reaction. With present technology all we have is 'all-or-nothing' digital bangs, miniature fusion reactions in LENR-deuterium-loaded materials which thus far are not controllable but sum to give just-detectable increases in the analogue signal which generates a small amount of excess heat. We need to find a way of reliably controlling the LEN rates of reaction, which I might say could be achieved with a hybrid-fission-fusion system which is proven to work as such in the modern day hydrogen bomb.

A question to any resident quantum mechanics experts on this board. From what I remember from undergraduate materials science, the Schrodinger equation tells us that the position of a particle within a system can be described in terms of a probability density function. This probability declines exponentially as distance increases from the most probable position. However, it never quite declines to zero, suggesting that there is a small but real probability that two deuterium nuclei in a heavy water molecule will fuse even under standard conditions, because a tiny but real proportion of their probability density functions overlap. If true, this would suggest that nuclear fusion is taking place in ordinary water under standard conditions, but at an infinitesimal rate that is so slow that it would be difficult to detect. Even this a true description of reality?

Quote from Calliban

A question to any resident quantum mechanics experts on this board. From what I remember from undergraduate materials science, the Schrodinger equation tells us that the position of a particle within a system can be described in terms of a probability density function. This probability declines exponentially as distance increases from the most probable position. However, it never quite declines to zero, suggesting that there is a small but real probability that two deuterium nuclei in a heavy water molecule will fuse even under standard conditions, because a tiny but real proportion of their probability density functions overlap. If true, this would suggest that nuclear fusion is taking place in ordinary water under standard conditions, but at an infinitesimal rate that is so slow that it would be difficult to detect. Even this a true description of reality?

Not an expert, but expect to see random fusions here but probably none detected.

The Sudbury Neutrino Detector (Courtesy of SNO)

A wide-angle view of the detector interior (Courtesy of SNO)

The SNO detector target consisted of 1,000 tonnes (1,102 short tons) of heavy watercontained in a 6-metre-radius (20 ft) acrylic vessel. The detector cavity outside the vessel was filled with normal water to provide both buoyancy for the vessel and radiation shielding. The heavy water was viewed by approximately 9,600 photomultiplier tubes (PMTs) mounted on a geodesic sphere at a radius of about 850 centimetres (28 ft). The cavity housing the detector was the largest in the world at such a depth,^[6] requiring a variety of high-performance rock bolting techniques to prevent rock bursts.

Sudbury Neutrino Observatory - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

This is a very nice pdf presentation by the crew that operate SNO...they mention that their !,000 tonnes of D2O with a ticket price of $3M is on loan only, they paid $1.00 for that.

https://www.nobelprize.org/uploads/2018/06/mcdonald-lecture-slides.pdf

Calliban - this question of probability density overlap between protons or deuterons cannot be accounted for by the SM of nuclear physics. Which is why we are all making progress in studying cold fusion which begins from 0 degrees Kelvin, runs through a superconductive phase just above, say at 0.00000001degrees K, where we have a well-described metallic H or D phase, which is quenched as the temperature rises to say 10 degrees K when both H and D form molecular H2 or D2 by acquiring electron clouds. For cold fusion, catalytic formation of negative muons (as described by Leif Holmlid) bypasses this requirement of ultra-cold temperatures, the iron/potassium oxide catalyses (i.e. lowers the activation energy delta G) for the fusion reactions to occur at a comfortable room temperature.

The mathematicians lobbying makes us believe that we can solve everything with mathematics. Objectively, this could be true if we knew all the parameters to take into account for a given problem. The more complex the problem, the more unknown variables there are. But these impostors, some of whom are Nobel Prize winners, have found the solution, the famous "constant"..

Your probabilistic reasoning is wrong, there is a minimum energy threshold to trigger a nuclear reaction. Also the reasoning that if we wait long enough, even in a glass of water there will be nuclear fusions or fissions, this is wrong !

Only if the nuclei are unstable from the start, we will have transmutations.

Quote from Calliban

A question to any resident quantum mechanics experts on this board. From what I remember from undergraduate materials science, the Schrodinger equation tells us that the position of a particle within a system can be described in terms of a probability density function. This probability declines exponentially as distance increases from the most probable position. However, it never quite declines to zero, suggesting that there is a small but real probability that two deuterium nuclei in a heavy water molecule will fuse even under standard conditions, because a tiny but real proportion of their probability density functions overlap. If true, this would suggest that nuclear fusion is taking place in ordinary water under standard conditions, but at an infinitesimal rate that is so slow that it would be difficult to detect. Even this a true description of reality?

Quote from Daniel_G

Jed the information provided doesn’t specify the investment amount but the price per share x the total number of shares gives the valuation of the company. So if they invested $50m for 5% of the company then they would be valued at $1b. One would logically think that Mitsubishi did their DD.

Okay. So it does not mean they invested $1 billion. They might have invested $1 million, or $50,000 for a small fraction of the company. The screen you showed above does not show what percent Mitsubishi invested. You posted the URL to the source of that screen. That website does not allow full access without a password. It covers up most of the data. So I do not know what it says. Does it tell you how much Mitsubishi invested?

No Jed the investment amount was not disclosed which is not uncommon but Mitsubishi Corp. isn’t going to invest anything under $10m I would say. Likely some multiple of that. I have some classmates in upper management of Mitsubishi and an old friend is an external auditor for them so I’m trying to find out.

Yes that link was a free peak at a paid service. We could try paying for the service also to get more details.

I’ll report back if we find out more.

Quote from Daniel_G

https://initial.inc/companies/A-28208

I would be inclined to be circumspect about that number.

Financial data aggregation sites are hit and miss, often get things wrong, or present things inaccurately. These numbers are calculated automatically, and there's no way to audit them. It's likely that Clean Planet's capital structure is relatively complex by this point, and I'd be concerned about how a service like the above might handle and / or misinterpret that.

Certainly, given that this is not an official corporate document, I would be wary of bandying it around, lest it prove incorrect.

Quote from JedRothwell

Okay. So it does not mean they invested $1 billion. They might have invested $1 million, or $50,000 for a small fraction of the company. The screen you showed above does not show what percent Mitsubishi invested. You posted the URL to the source of that screen. That website does not allow full access without a password. It covers up most of the data. So I do not know what it says. Does it tell you how much Mitsubishi invested?

You can track roughly how their funding is progressing by looking at the evolution of the 'capital' line under the Clean Planet heading in their press releases (sum the two amounts).

https://www.cleanplanet.co.jp/cms/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/CP_MEC_PressRelease_20190128_EN.pdf

https://www.cleanplanet.co.jp/cms/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/CP_Miura_PressRelease_20190515_EN-1.pdf

https://www.cleanplanet.co.jp/cms/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/220708_CP_MC_PressRelease_EN.pdf

Quote from orsova

I would be inclined to be circumspect about that number.

Financial data aggregation sites are hit and miss, often get things wrong, or present things inaccurately.

Certainly, given that this is not an official corporate document, I would be wary of bandying it around, lest it prove incorrect.

The data here is a matter of public record. I found additional details showing the official business department registration date and also the investment amount of about 2b yen or about $14m usd

Japanese companies usually split investments into capital and reserve capital for tax purposes. It looks like they are burning about $2-$3m a year with 12 employees and have raised only about $20m in total but at the $1b valuation as mentioned previously.

Quote from Daniel_G

Japanese companies usually split investments into capital and reserve capital for tax purposes. It looks like they are burning about $2-$3m a year with 12 employees and have raised only about $20m in total but at the $1b valuation as mentioned previously.

'Capital surplus' refers to the amount raised in excess of the par value of stock issued, which I understand to be a different thing to 'reserve capital'.

I deleted my prior comment, but I still harbour concerns about your $1b valuation, and I really would urge you to at least give the company the opportunity to confirm/deny it before suggesting it be used in advertising materials, papers etc by third parties.