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 University, Japan where researchers are reporting successful production of excess heat in experiments that are apparently still ongoing.

Here’s an excerpt from the article:

Clean Planet has invested in joint research with Dr. Mizuno’s company Hydrogen Engineering Application and Development Company (Sapporo). Research professor of Tohoku University Iwamura and his colleagues’ first efforts were to reproduce the experiment devised by Dr. Mizuno, and they have made steady progress in observing “excess heat.”

The technique works like this. There are two wire-like palladium electrodes arranged in a cylindrical chamber, with the periphery surrounded by a nickel mesh. [5] High voltage is applied to the electrodes, causing glow discharge. After this treatment the electrodes are heated (baked) at 100 ~ 200°C. As a result, the surface of the palladium wire is covered with a film made up of a
structure of nanoscale palladium and nickel particles.

After processing in this way to activate the palladium surface, the chamber is evacuated, while being heating up to several hundred degrees with a resistance heater. Deuterium gas is then introduced at high pressure (300 ~ 170 Pa), enough to sufficiently ensure contact between the palladium and deuterium. Then, “excess heat” exceeding the heat from the resistance heater input power is observed. When researchers introduce deuterium gas in the same apparatus under the same conditions but without doing the activation treatment first, excess heat is not observed. The excess heat causes a temperature difference ranging from about 70 ~ 100°C.

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 hadn’t seen this report until today, but it does sound like the establishment of the CMNS at Tohaku is bearing fruit with some demonstrable method to produce excess heat which the authors say is “100% reproducible.” I imagine this work will be of interest to all followers of LENR, and especially to replicators.

  • N810

    Why isn’t this all over the front page of news papers worldwide ?

    • Tobben Heibert

      Because there have been too many false news and disapointments

    • sam

      Sent a link to Science Daily blog.

    • US_Citizen71

      Because you need something like the Moscow demonstration in ‘The Saint’ to get the media giants attention these days. Until someone closes the loop in a dramatic way do not expect to hear about it on the 5 o’clock news.

      • Bob Greenyer

        I 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.

        • Ged

          Dun dun duuuuun. I look forward to this and the key party. Hopefully they will play nice!

          • Bob Greenyer

            It is a truely beautiful thing – I hope they play nice to – it will be the coolest experiment ever.

          • He bust his stick he shred…

            I have the impression that momentum is building up considerable faster during the last weeks towards the “Moscow demonstration” mentioned by US_Citizen71 above. It would be very deserving if the MFMP would bring this thing home!

          • Jamie Sibley

            Are you able to disclose who’s work you will be replicating. I’m sure that information does not need to remain secret. If you are confident that the previous works of this researcher are the easiest to display proof of could fusion, disclosing the name would allow others to start planning their own replications of that persons work.

          • Bob Greenyer

            I will when ready in the next two weeks. It will not remain secret, but I need to get everything together so that I don’t have to answer a million and one individual questions.

          • Michael W Wolf

            lol, well you may already have let that cat out of the bag.

        • Bob

          I applaud the confident attitude and intention! However… many (including many legitimate researchers and reviewers) will still require replication and verification. Replication is not a bad thing! The real break through is if your experiment is fool proof, then it can be replicated! This is what has been missing from LENR/CF and is the base cause of all the debate.
          P&F were experts. They did have successful experiments and data. However, even they themselves could not replicate at will. If they had been able too, then we would be driving CF powered cars by now! 🙂
          So again, I really am anxious for the next month and as always am very supportive of the MFMP’s team and work. But I would encourage that plans for replication be not be too far removed or dismissed!

          • Bob Greenyer

            Well the challenge is the apparatus has components that I suspect the originator would consider proprietary – but it does not matter, seriously, the data will speak for itself and could not in any other way be fabricated. It would do its job in 2 weeks but could run (according to the claimant) for 3, 6 ,9 months and doubters could bring their own equipment in to verify what the data says – and the data will say, LENR is real and it is a matter that affects a broad range of scientific disciplines.

            Don’t worry about our plans – they are iterative, focussed and progressive – as ever, dealing each challenge and question that arises.

            But seriously, the experiment I will describe – if the claimant is representing his previous work accurately – will be a slam dunk – you will see.

            The experiment would be a replication of the originators claims and so in itself be a replication. The data will not be a subject of opinion simply because of what the data tells you and there will be evidence in the ash if the claimants claims and previously published work is accurate.

          • f sedei

            Suddenly, I am wide awake again. Thanks to you.

          • Warthog

            NO experiment is ever “replicated at will”, that isn’t true even of mass-produced and sold items. ALL technology/experiments will sometimes fail. LENR “has” been replicated years ago by any honest rules of science. Any one saying that is not the case is simply lying, or quoting someone who is lying.

          • R101

            then we would be driving CF powered flying cars by now!

            Fixed that for you Bob 🙂

        • Gerard McEk

          Bob, you speak in riddles. How can you be sure it will ‘prove indisputably the reality of LENR’? Have you done the test already secretly for yourself on the toilet?;)

          • Bob Greenyer

            Hahah – the tests, according to the claimant and the published work is already known to many. It is the most recent work (also published) that if presented in the right way will be absolute categorical proof of LENR – it could not be seen any other way – even when looking at the live stream.

            It is so elegant – I need to package all my thinking that supports the experiment but I am right now trying to prepare for ICCF-20 whilst at the same time helping Aarhus Uni break ground and also making a presentation about a very important publication we are going to test the claims of in the coming months.

        • invient

          Bob, just tell me, are these the weeks where decades happen?

        • Steve Savage

          Love what you are doing Bob, however this sounds a lot like some Stoern demos? They never seemed to go well.

          • Bob Greenyer

            This is NOTHING like Stoern – really, not even close. During the experiment – people could come and check it if they cant accept the evidence of their own eyes and what they formerly believed to be “laws of physics” – it will be conclusive even without needing to see it, that is the real beauty.

            It will also work at room temperature.

            If the claimant is being economical with the truth then his lack of willingness to participate would speak volumes, but he is a respected individual I have met a number of times over several years and responded inside 12 hours to my initial request and after saying that it was an interesting proposition, he only talked about obvious practicalities and previous commitments. He even immediately offered to come and lecture about the underlying experiment to Aarhus.

            The nature of the data cannot be a matter of opinion – the physics community will be apoplectic trying to explain it away – and they will not be able to – it will be SO MUCH FUN to watch them squirm. Moreover, the ash will confirm the live experiment for any that would dismiss it as smoke and mirrors (which would be stupid to give the nature of the data).

          • roseland67

            Bob,

            Transmutation will be “unbelievable” 🙏🏻

          • DrD

            Very interesting, can’t wait.
            Sounds like it might be a “closed system”?

          • Bob Greenyer

            Ideally it will be hermetically sealed and operate at room temperature.

          • DrD

            Hi Bob,
            Actually I was meaning “closed loop” as in output driving the input with no other input. That makes a very convincing proof if it can be achieved over a long enough time and easily shown there’s no secret enegry source but not so easy in practice.
            Just guessing

          • Bob Greenyer

            let’s just say it is cooperative.

          • Bob Greenyer

            Actually, this is better than even a closed loop. In a closed loop – the criticism would be of the live feed, that the power monitoring is some how faked.

            This experiment will have data that every physicist would consider impossible and therefore not possible to fake, and since it would be streamed beginning to end from a closed system – it could only be considered as real. If they still considered it fake, or smoke and mirrors they can be invited to apply their own monitoring to the untouched system – lastly, if they do not even believe their eyes, the ash which can be sampled in batches – will prove the live experiments data.

          • GiveADogABone

            The fate of Tantalus:
            Tantalus was a Greek mythological figure, most famous for his eternal punishment in Tartarus. He was made to stand in a pool of water beneath a fruit tree with low branches, with the fruit [a scientific proof] ever eluding his grasp, and the water [no reaction without it] always receding before he could take a drink.

            PS: I forgot about the venting – quite right.

          • Axil Axil

            Dear Bob,

            take an EMI meter with you and check how far out the bubble of EMI extends. If you get neurological systems, get far away from the experiment.

          • Michael W Wolf

            Don’t start Steve. 🙂

        • georgehants

          Bob this sounds very much like a demonstration of the first electric light bulbs, any resemblance.
          http://energy.gov/articles/history-light-bulb

          • Bob Greenyer

            No – it is much bigger than a single problem solution – as I say, it will have wide implications across many scientific fields.

          • georgehants

            Thanks Bob, but I meant as you seem to be describing in your answer below, a demonstration that like a light bulb, it is self-evident in that one can see clearly and un-arguably that it either works or it does not.
            Good luck, as that would be the Evidence that Cold Fusion needs to escape it’s cage and roar into life.
            Allowing for the cruel keepers with their whips and rifles doing everything they can to put it back in the cage for their own personal gain.

          • Bob Greenyer

            I get your point – and yes, it will be like a light bulb in that you can’t deny that it works.

        • Timar

          Is ‘the key party’ Me356?

          • Bob Greenyer

            No – it is a party with many serious publications of high quality to stand behind and has been researching in this field nearly as long as Me356 has been alive

          • Timar

            Piantelli.

          • Bob Greenyer

            Nope and that is the last reply of this kind.

        • Bruce__H

          Sounds terrific! I am an LENR skeptic and like many skeptics I would love to be proven wrong.

          I hope you will maintain your devotion to transparency under all possible outcomes. I have no fears at all that you would try to hide any lack of success in the trial — the track record of the MFMP speaks for itself on this score. Instead I am worried that if the party you are in communication with decides to back away at some point we would not hear the details of what happened.

        • Michael W Wolf

          Wow Mr Greenyer, that is big news. I can’t wait.

        • roseland67

          Great Bob,

          So, Monday, October 3, I will look for your article, (but first, I’m gonna short the oil market😎).

        • protn7

          Good luck, I hope your research is successful.
          I’ve encountered a lot of problems finding researchers to work on my experiments. I found a world class plasma physics lab that is doing part of my proposed project. In two years or less, we will know if the Ikegami chemonuclear fusion theory is accurate and if my reactor design can provide greater than break even energy.

          • Bob Greenyer

            Fantastic – keep going! I like the handle by the way – very Cockcroft and Walton.

        • David Brossa
          • Bob Greenyer

            The balls could be H2 D2 exchange – it is not that.

            No – this is MUCH more convincing and visual – and convincing to the people that need to be convinced like physicists before this field will really hit main stream.

      • clovis ray

        i will admit there has been a lot of crying wolf,

        • Michael W Wolf

          I don’t think it is crying wolf. It is just not enough excess heat to keep the skeptics at bay. It doesn’t mean they haven’t had excess heat.

      • Michael W Wolf

        Not only that, if it is nominal excess heat, skeptics will dismiss it. The Japanese had better move to nickel. 🙂

    • Ophelia Rump

      They are waiting for permission from MIT.

  • Monty

    wow. nice one. i hope somebody is going to tell these japanese scientists that since there is no theoretical explanation for this phenomenon the measurements they made cant be right. 😉

    • Bob Greenyer

      They have an explanation as I said in my pre-Aahus live video.

      In very many paragraphs in their patent application, they say that “heavy electrons” are formed in the highly loaded, optimally constructed nano structures.

      • Fyodor

        Bob, does mfmp have the resources/information necessary to do a replication of the Tohoku University test?

    • clovis ray

      Nice, one Monty, we all know that this is impossible, right.

    • roseland67

      Monty,

      That will be the natural reaction,
      (mine also), but theory is NOT the
      “end all, be all”.

      IF, my experiences, experiments and observations are repeatable, reproducible
      And accurately measured, then they MUST trump existing theory.

      Can’t say for sure yet, but let’s hope it’s time for a new theory.

    • protn7

      Of course, burning wood provided useful heat even in the times when they believed the phlogiston theory. Theory and experimental results can be separated.

  • Tobben Heibert

    Because there have been too many false news and disapointments

  • sam

    Sent a link to Science Daily blog.

  • Dr. Mike

    As stated in the paper this system is a gas phase version of the original Pons-Fleischmann electrolytic cell so it is not a surprise that reproducible excess heat has been achieved. The formation of the Pd and Ni nanoparticles on the Pd wire appears to be the main factor in achieving reproducible excess heat. However, the excess heat produced is relatively small, limited to a naturally occurring reaction rate of deuterium fusion when the nanoparticles become fully loaded with deuterium. What needs added to this system is a driving force that can increase the deuterium reaction rate above the naturally occurring rate for fully loaded nanoparticles. The obvious choice for a driving force would be some type of EMF pulse since this technique is apparently being used by Brillouin Energy in their LENR devices.

    • Warthog

      “However, the excess heat produced is relatively small, limited to a
      naturally occurring reaction rate of deuterium fusion when the
      nanoparticles become fully loaded with deuterium.

      Really??? Since when??? The whole meme of the skeptics is that no such phenomenon occurs, and the “naturally occurring reaction rate” is ZERO.

      • Dr. Mike

        Warthog,
        Anyone who has reviewed the publications of Pons and Fleischmann and the many other who have duplicated and added to their research will not doubt that deuterium fusion naturally occurs in a Pd-deuterium electrolytic cell when the deuterium loading approaches 1.0.
        Dr. Mike

        • Josh G

          Yes but didn’t Steven Jones show the ‘naturally occurring’ rate in such cases is too small to account for the excess heat.

          • Dr. Mike

            Josh G,
            I can’t answer your question because I am not familiar with Steven Jones’ work. I would assume his results are based on a calculation, that calculation being only as good as the assumptions made to make the calculation. In the Pons – Fleischmann experiment, once the Pd was loaded with sufficient deuterium, excess heat was generated with no additional driving force. The “naturally occurring rate” for the system depends on the deuterium loading factor, which can be measured, and lattice structure of the Pd (maybe the suface structure in particular). Since the effect of the Pd lattice and lattice defects is not yet fully understood in LENR theory, it would not be possible to calculate a naturally occurring reaction rate.
            Dr. Mike

        • Warthog

          Well, having reviewed “many” publications at LENR-CANR.ORG, “I” certainly believe their experimental results, but the pathological skeptics sure don’t.

          Question….do you mean “non-muon-induced” fusion??? (unless Axil is right, and the true mechanism is actually a highly efficient way of producing muons).

          • Dr. Mike

            Warthog,
            I would guess that the skeptics have not really carefully examined the worldwide publications of experimental work on LENR devices. At least the US Patent Office now realizes that LENR is real!

            My meaning of the term “fusion” is very generic- just the combination of two deuterium ions to form He. I have not yet seen sufficient experimental data to confirm a theory of what is really happening in LENR reactions. Perhaps the term “fusion” will not be appropriate once LENR is well understood.

            Dr. Mike

          • Warthog

            “My meaning of the term “fusion” is very generic- just the combination of two deuterium ions to form He.”

            Gotcha. That is pretty much my position as well. Though it is possible to argue that given the fact that there are a very small number of free muons around, there “should” be a non-zero background of fusion events happening in the deuterium-rich palladium matrix. I just want to be clear that wasn’t what you were referring to, but to “real fusion” (whatever it turns out to be).

          • Daniel Vogler

            Per article in link

            Many theories have in common a focus not on a reaction between the two atoms, but rather between a collection of atoms in a phenomenon known as a “multi-body reaction” that occur simultaneously. This is proposed to occur in metals in which electrons and protons are densely packed and the Coulomb barrier is shielded by some principle, which gives rise to catalytic effects.

          • Warthog

            Some sort of multi-body phenomenon pretty much “has” to be what is happening. And it has to involve not only allowing the prospective fusing nuclei to “get together”, but also dissipating the mass-energy loss/conversion in a way that does not involve emission of high-energy gammas or neutrons for the vast majority of the energy liberated.

            (and please pardon the run-on sentence above!).

          • Axil Axil

            Actually the LENR reaction is based on proton and neutron decay. Muon catalyzed fusion is a side reaction.

          • Zephir

            Well, it isn’t – the proton decay is extremely rare, the neutron decay very fast instead

          • bachcole

            I read long ago that the half-life of a proton was 10^50 years. That’s a number fun to wrap one’s mind around. Golly, even if that were micro-seconds it would be very similar to eternal for all practical purposes.

          • Axil Axil

            Why doesn’t the neutron decay when it is connected to the proton?

          • Zephir

            because it gets compressed with surface tension of the resulting atom nuclei in similar way, like the neutrons inside the neutron stars

          • Axil Axil

            How could the deuterium nucleus have all that compression? Try again?

          • Zephir

            Like every droplet composed of another particles: the smaller it gets, the higher surface tension pressure emerges inside it. Which is why the binding force is so high for small nuclei, between others.

        • Axil Axil

          High loading in palladium produces nanocavities. It is nanocavities where metalized hydrides form.

    • Axil Axil

      It may not be the nanoparticles but instead, the nanocavities that are formed by the spark discharge that support the LENR reaction.

      Muzuno conditions his nickel and palladium surfaces with a spark to produce nanocavities,

    • Zephir

      The palladium and nickel must still remain somehow interconnected, or the Ni nanoparticles would work in the same way even at the inert substrate. From this reason I recommend to consider nickel atoms implantation as detailed above.

  • Bob Matulis

    I like the fact that they have an easily testable variable. That is, running the experiment with and without deuterium. If the experiment can be run multiple times changing that one variable and consistently a higher temperature is found with the deuterium that is scientifically significant. The comparative temperature in this case is what matters rather than having to prove COP etc.

    • Josh G

      Deuterium is not the variable. Treating the palladium is the key change.

      • Bob Matulis

        Thanks for the clarification. I misread the report above.

      • Warthog

        Correct, but this approach also apparently allows Ed Storms “nuclear active environment” to be generated with 100% reliability. Which, in turn, will allow it to be studied directly, and probably optimized a great deal.

        • Josh G

          Yes, it’s revolutionary. Though reportedly the SPAWAR co-deposition approach is/was also 100% reproducible.

          • Warthog

            Yes (though some have claimed otherwise on the 100%). But the co-dep approach is still electrochemical, and thus limited in maximum temperature without huge engineering problems from pressure.

            And at risk of adding an element of non-science….as I read about the experimental setup, it just “feels right”.

  • Bob Matulis

    I like the fact that they have an easily testable variable. That is, running the experiment with and without deuterium. If the experiment can be run multiple times changing that one variable and consistently a higher temperature is found with the deuterium that is scientifically significant. The comparative temperature in this case is what matters rather than having to prove COP etc.

    • Josh G

      Deuterium is not the variable. Treating the palladium is the key change.

      • Bob Matulis

        Thanks for the clarification. I misread the report above.

      • Warthog

        Correct, but this approach also apparently allows Ed Storms “nuclear active environment” to be generated with 100% reliability. Which, in turn, will allow it to be studied directly, and probably optimized a great deal.

        • Josh G

          Yes, it’s revolutionary. Though reportedly the SPAWAR co-deposition approach is/was also 100% reproducible.

          • Warthog

            Yes (though some have claimed otherwise on the 100%). But the co-dep approach is still electrochemical, and thus limited in maximum temperature without huge engineering problems from pressure.

            And at risk of adding an element of non-science….as I read about the experimental setup, it just “feels right”.

      • roseland67

        Josh,

        What is the energy used to treat the palladium, Also to pressurize the deuterium.
        Probably not important in the grand scheme of this potential, but should be included in any “net energy budget”.

        • Josh G

          Good points!

  • Gerard McEk

    I believe this is great! The details are presented in the ICCF20 I hope, that’s next week. I look forward for it.

  • Gerard McEk

    I believe this is great! The details are presented in the ICCF20 I hope, that’s next week. I look forward for it.

  • clovis ray

    Hi, Guys.
    Let’s see, they, say( heater. Deuterium gas is then introduced at high pressure (300 ~ 170 Pa), enough to sufficiently ensure contact between the palladium and deuterium. Then, “excess heat”)
    summed up rather quickly i would say, nevertheless, they could be onto something, just before
    The ICCF20 as Gerard mentioned, and we have heard this said many times, i myself am getting gun shy, they did mention Mitsubishi heavy, in their favor , it will be interesting to see what will happen when someone replicates, Dr. Rossi’s device,and the rossi effect, it won’t deter his progress, leonardo will be far in the lead, but will give his lawyer team more work, they should just be warmed up, and ready to go, after taking care of I/H.
    Darn, are we having fun yet. it’s just going to get better, stay tuned,,,, more popcorn, or peanuts please.

    • Michael W Wolf

      We fans of LENR seem to get nothing but good news lately. Even with the Rossi lawsuit. Soon there will be a boneyard for skeptics of LENR. Dr Machio Kaku is on my list and he will eat his words. You know Kaku, supporter of the theory of everything….. cept LENR.! lol

      • bachcole

        Intelligence, as it is conventionally understood and tested for, does not correlate with creativity or paradigm nimbleness. Society is making a mistake not recognizing this fact and putting people like Machio Kaku on a pedestal. I am reminded of the intellect god Stephen Hawking (who is even smarter than Machio Kaku, who is very much smarter than I am). I have never heard him ever say anything about how he tried to heal himself. Perhaps he has been working at it and has helped himself and didn’t bother to tell us. But it would not surprise me in the least knowing eggheads that he didn’t even try. That does not show a good ability to look outside of the box or take responsibility for one’s own being, including but not limited to one’s own health. This all demonstrates that there are many kinds of intelligence. Knowing that black holes will some day evaporate in billions of years doesn’t strike me as a very important kind of intelligence. Developing a useful cold fusion device seems very practical to me.

      • Mats002
    • bachcole

      Popcorn has too many carbs for me. I would prefer a kefir smoothie with plenty of spirulina and raspberries. (:->)

  • pg

    Anyone knows about the COP?

    • bachcole

      Yeah, that is sort of the most important thing. Without a COP > 1.00 it is useless that it is 100% reliable.

      • Frank Acland

        By definition excess heat means COP greater than 1, but in this case we don’t know the energy in/out yet.

      • Warthog

        Not correct. If ANY device can demonstrably cause fusion reactions at “…a few hundred degrees…” with 100% experimental repeat-ability it is extraordinarily important no matter what the COP. COP then becomes simply a matter of engineering. But the article does indicate over-unity performance.

        • TVulgaris

          The COP pretty much HAS to be >1, otherwise the heat can’t be construed as “excess”, the rest, as you point out, is engineering for performance. What is ringing very loud klaxons for me is this is the same “technique” (read, device and regimen) they have achieve full control now for elemental transmutation.

          • Warthog

            “Then, “excess heat” exceeding the heat from the resistance heater input power is observed.”

            Above is the direct statement from the translated article…heat output is greater than applied heater input power. However, if one can produce nuclear fusion at “a few hundred degrees” it is just as much a violation of known physics at a COP of say 0.9 as at a COP of 9..

          • georgehants

            Good news, but if this report does not contain all of the information necessary for MFMP or anybody skilled in the art to replicate openly their claimed effect, then it is just another claim such as Rossi’s etc.
            The first people to publish an open, repeatable method to produce an over unity Cold Fusion are the ones who will claim all the glory etc.
            Bob from MFMP below reports that they may be in position to give such a demonstration and report shortly.
            Best wishes to everybody involved in Cold Fusion, but only an open, freely reproducible, claim will take the prize.

          • Sandy

            James A. Patterson patented a cold fusion device that included small plastic beads coated with layers of nickel and palladium and nickel. So I am not surprised that the successful experiment conducted at Tohoku University involved palladium wire “activated” with “nickel particles”.

  • pg

    Anyone knows about the COP?

    • bachcole

      Yeah, that is sort of the most important thing. Without a COP > 1.00 it is useless that it is 100% reliable.

      • Frank Acland

        By definition excess heat means COP greater than 1, but in this case we don’t know the energy in/out yet.

        • Michael W Wolf

          Yea, I don’t think our Japanese friends would report 100% reproducible and not be greater than 1.

          • bachcole

            That’s true. But I would still prefer that they actually said that, and even better if it could be confirmed.

      • Warthog

        Not correct. If ANY device can demonstrably cause fusion reactions at “…a few hundred degrees…” with 100% experimental repeat-ability it is extraordinarily important no matter what the COP. COP then becomes simply a matter of engineering. But the article does indicate over-unity performance.

        • TVulgaris

          The COP pretty much HAS to be >1, otherwise the heat can’t be construed as “excess”, the rest, as you point out, is engineering for performance. What is ringing very loud klaxons for me is this is the same “technique” (read, device and regimen) they have achieve full control now for elemental transmutation.

          • Warthog

            “Then, “excess heat” exceeding the heat from the resistance heater input power is observed.”

            Above is the direct statement from the translated article…heat output is greater than applied heater input power. However, if one can produce nuclear fusion at “a few hundred degrees” it is just as much a violation of known physics at a COP of say 0.9 as at a COP of 9..

          • roseland67

            TV,
            Saw that, but I did not interpret the element transmutation to be replicated, did I miss that?

  • Ophelia Rump

    They are waiting for permission from MIT.

  • Ophelia Rump

    That is a game changer, now if only the game would change.

    • Bob Greenyer

      If criminal politicians and bankers start getting put behind bars – I think we have a good chance of changing things.

      OR

      We just do it in spite of those that would suppress it.

      • Thomas Kaminski

        Since it was first baked in a vacuum, I guess 300 Pa would be a big pressure change over ambient…..

  • Ophelia Rump

    That is a game changer, now if only the game would change.

    • Bob Greenyer

      If criminal politicians and bankers start getting put behind bars – I think we have a good chance of changing things.

      OR

      We just do it in spite of those that would suppress it.

  • Warthog

    NO experiment is ever “replicated at will”, that isn’t true even of mass-produced and sold items. ALL technology/experiments will sometimes fail. LENR “has” been replicated years ago by any honest rules of science. Any one saying that is not the case is simply lying, or quoting someone who is lying.

  • roseland67

    If it is truly 100% reproducible, scalable, safe and cost effective, then yes, it could be a game changer.
    Would very much like to see Bob @ MFMP
    Use the same BOM, build instructions, testing procedures and get the same results.

    Would be really incredible if there were replicated, measurable element changes also.

  • R101

    then we would be driving CF powered flying cars by now!

    Fixed that for you Bob 🙂

  • bachcole

    I am feeling very positive about this, and I expect great things in the future. However, if I understand the report properly, they are comparing ingredient A with ingredient B and saying that that means “excess heat”. I would feel much more certain if they divided the output by the input and called that “excess heat”. I understand that measuring output can be a bi1ch.

  • bachcole

    I am feeling very positive about this, and I expect great things in the future. However, if I understand the report properly, they are comparing ingredient A with ingredient B and saying that that means “excess heat”. I would feel much more certain if they divided the output by the input and called that “excess heat”. I understand that measuring output can be a bi1ch.

  • Pavlos Sirinides

    Is the dormant MFMP Mizuno (2013) experiment related to this one?

    • Bob Greenyer

      No – this is an older Mizuno replication.

      We will announce how we are planning to replicate this family (Canon / Clean Planet / Dielectric Barrier Discharge DBD – German Patent) in the coming week.

  • Josh G

    Good points!

  • Barbierir

    I see on pacermonitor that IH counterclaims have been updated, maybe they found Bass?

  • Barbierir

    I see on pacermonitor that IH counterclaims have been updated, maybe they found Bass?

  • Bob Greenyer

    No – this is an older Mizuno replication.

    We will announce how we are planning to replicate this family (Canon / Clean Planet / Dielectric Barrier Discharge DBD – German Patent) in the coming week.

  • Joseph J
  • Thomas Kaminski

    If I am not mistaken, 300 Pa is really a low pressure, not a high pressure. Maybe they meant kPa?

    • bachcole

      That is like 300/100,000 of an atmosphere, if I am not mistaken. I wondered about that also. The only way that it makes sense is that they mean 300 Pa over ambient pressure. Otherwise I am confused.

      • Thomas Kaminski

        Since it was first baked in a vacuum, I guess 300 Pa would be a big pressure change over ambient…..

  • sam

    Generoso
    September 20, 2016 at 8:16 AM
    Dr Andrea Rossi:
    I think that the replication made by the University of Japan of your effect is very important.
    Congratulations,
    Generoso

    Translate
    Andrea Rossi
    September 20, 2016 at 8:34 AM
    Generoso:
    I will say something after reading the report.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • Private Citizen

    Read the link and saw no info on ash analysis.

    Curious, to announce “excess heat” 100% reproducible for one year, describe in some detail the technique, but hold back on really key isotopic ash evidence.

    Looking forward to seeing hard data.

    • bachcole

      And also the COP.

    • Warthog

      Some sort of multi-body phenomenon pretty much “has” to be what is happening. And it has to involve not only allowing the prospective fusing nuclei to “get together”, but also dissipating the mass-energy loss/conversion in a way that does not involve emission of high-energy gammas or neutrons for the vast majority of the energy liberated.

      (and please pardon the run-on sentence above!).

  • Private Citizen

    Read the link and saw no info on ash analysis.

    Curious, to announce “excess heat” 100% reproducible for one year, describe in some detail the technique, but hold back on really key isotopic ash evidence.

    Looking forward to seeing hard data.

    • bachcole

      And also the COP.

  • georgehants

    Good news, but if this report does not contain all of the information necessary for MFMP or anybody skilled in the art to replicate openly their claimed effect, then it is just another unverified claim such as Rossi’s etc.
    The first people to publish an open, complete, repeatable method to produce an over unity Cold Fusion are the ones who will claim all the glory etc.
    Bob from MFMP below reports that they may be in position to give such a demonstration and report shortly.
    Best wishes to everybody involved in Cold Fusion, but only an open, freely reproducible, claim will take the prize and if that is MFMP with open-science, then my celebration will be double that for any patented claim, designed to make a few rich and keep the vast majority poor.

    • Sandy

      James A. Patterson patented a cold fusion device that included small plastic beads coated with layers of nickel and palladium and nickel. So I am not surprised that the successful experiment conducted at Tohoku University involved palladium wire “activated” with “nickel particles”.

  • Bob Greenyer

    The balls could be H2 D2 exchange – it is not that.

    No – this is MUCH more convincing and visual – and convincing to the people that need to be convinced like physicists before this field will really hit main stream.

  • Bob Greenyer

    Fantastic – keep going! I like the handle by the way – very Cockcroft and Walton.

  • bachcole

    Just for fun, folks, keep in mind that the pronunciation that you probably derive from the spelling of any foreign language, especially one that is very “far” from English, is NOT the pronunciation that the native speakers are doing conversationally. In fact, it is almost certain that even if a native Japanese non-English speaker were to pronounce ANY Japanese word in your face, you would not be able to understand what he/she just said to you. This includes “Tohoku”, “Yokohama”, etc. etc. etc. Even if you knew what the word was that was coming in a sentence, it is still likely that you wouldn’t be able to know which word it was that you were expecting. In fact, you will have trouble distinguishing between one word and another when you are being spoken to.

    I often watch also while my wife is watching Korean dramas. They give the text in English of what is being said, and often someone’s name is pronounced or some English word is pronounced. But when I compare the text with what I am hearing via the audio, I am completely stumped.

    Here’s the thing. It is us-centric to think that other people say the same sounds that we do, so it is foolish to think that they are going to spell their English version of their words in a way that makes it perfectly clear what their sounds are for their words. The “th” sound; fo-get about it. That is pretty rare in the rest of the world. They don’t have the same consonant sounds. They don’t have the same vowel sounds. It is very nice that Japanese have a consistent spelling in English for their words, but don’t expect that in many other languages. Arabic does not have a consistent spelling in English for their words. As an old dude, I have had to endure numerous spellings of Qaddafi, the former dictator of Libya. Even the name of their Holy Book has gone through at least two English language spelling versions; but I guarantee that their pronunciation has not changed much. This is the case with most non-IndoEuropean languages. In my wife’s native tongue, I see various spellings for the same word.

    So, the bottom line is that when, not if, some of you guys travel to Japan for an LENR conference, it would be a good idea to take an Japanese vocal-to-vocal, vocal-to-text, and text-to-vocal translator app. Both they and you will appreciate it. But don’t expect it will be easy to pronounce their words, no matter how good the app is.

    When I first met my wife, I tried to say their version of “Oh my God”. I had heard it numerous times. I ended up saying their version of “I masturbate.” Do you understand now? (:->)

    • Ged

      A good case in point is the Japanese “r”. Japanese does not actually have the English r or l sounds, and English physically does not have the Japanese “r” sound (it is made with the part of the tongue between the English d and l, which is physically unused in English). It is a unique sound that English speakers often confuse for r or l. It has taken me a lot of work to train the muscles to be able to make the Japanese “r”, and I still can’t enunciate it with full fluidity yet (especially “re”). And if course, this isn’t even considering dialect variations.

      But, it is good to note as a general rule of thumb that native Japanese usually appreciate it when foreigners try to speak in their language, rather than forcing them to use the foreigners’. Doesn’t matter how bad one is at it, most people will be much more amiable and willing to help if you try to talk to them in Japanese first, even if you have to resort to English or apps in the end. It is simply seen as respectful and polite.

  • bachcole

    Just for fun, folks, keep in mind that the pronunciation that you probably derive from the spelling of any foreign language, especially one that is very “far” from English, is NOT the pronunciation that the native speakers are doing conversationally. In fact, it is almost certain that even if a native Japanese non-English speaker were to pronounce ANY Japanese word in your face, you would not be able to understand what he/she just said to you. This includes “Tohoku”, “Yokohama”, etc. etc. etc. Even if you knew what the word was that was coming in a sentence, it is still likely that you wouldn’t be able to know which word it was that you were expecting. In fact, you will have trouble distinguishing between one word and another when you are being spoken to.

    I often watch also while my wife is watching Korean dramas. They give the text in English of what is being said, and often someone’s name is pronounced or some English word is pronounced. But when I compare the text with what I am hearing via the audio, I am completely stumped.

    Here’s the thing. It is us-centric to think that other people say the same sounds that we do, so it is foolish to think that they are going to spell their English version of their words in a way that makes it perfectly clear what their sounds are for their words. The “th” sound; fo-get about it. That is pretty rare in the rest of the world. They don’t have the same consonant sounds. They don’t have the same vowel sounds. It is very nice that Japanese have a consistent spelling in English for their words, but don’t expect that in many other languages. Arabic does not have a consistent spelling in English for their words. As an old dude, I have had to endure numerous spellings of Qaddafi, the former dictator of Libya. Even the name of their Holy Book has gone through at least two English language spelling versions; but I guarantee that their pronunciation has not changed much. This is the case with most non-IndoEuropean languages. In my wife’s native tongue, I see various spellings for the same word.

    So, the bottom line is that when, not if, some of you guys travel to Japan for an LENR conference, it would be a good idea to take an Japanese vocal-to-vocal, vocal-to-text, and text-to-vocal translator app. Both they and you will appreciate it. But don’t expect it will be easy to pronounce their words, no matter how good the app is.

    When I first met my wife, I tried to say their version of “Oh my God”. I had heard it numerous times. I ended up saying their version of “I masturbate.” Do you understand now? (:->)

    • Ged

      A good case in point is the Japanese “r”. Japanese does not actually have the English r or l sounds, and English physically does not have the Japanese “r” sound (it is made with the part of the tongue between the English d and l, which is physically unused in English). It is a unique sound that English speakers often confuse for r or l. It has taken me a lot of work to train the muscles to be able to make the Japanese “r”, and I still can’t enunciate it with full fluidity yet (especially “re”). And if course, this isn’t even considering dialect variations.

      But, it is good to note as a general rule of thumb that native Japanese usually appreciate it when foreigners try to speak in their language, rather than forcing them to use the foreigners’. Doesn’t matter how bad one is at it, most people will be much more amiable and willing to help if you try to talk to them in Japanese first, even if you have to resort to English or apps in the end. It is simply seen as respectful and polite.

      • Zephir

        Actually the Slavic “r” is even harder than the English one, so we can say, the Czech “r” has no equivalent in English, not to say Japanese. A good example of the funny Czenglish pronounciation of “r” consonant is here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FcuKjBiYSyI – from this example you may get an idea, how the English sounds for native Japanese speakers.

  • Zephir

    IMO the nickel atoms implanted beneath the palladium surface are the key here. The baking of electrodes has its meaning after ion implantation, as it heals the lattice broken with impacted ions. The palladium provides necessary hydrogen/deuterium oversaturation – but there were always reports that the actual LENR runs at the foreign atoms (Ru, Rh) embedded into the palladium lattice and the actual palladium purity has been fuzzy factor of LENR success often. At any case, the economically viable LENR should be able to run without surplus of palladium. IMO the nature of nickel film isn’t crucial here, otherwise the whatever else substrate could be used.

    Otherwise this study is worth to study in this extent http://newenergyandfuel.com/http:/newenergyandfuel/com/2012/04/11/a-synopsis-of-the-miley-lenr-theory/palladium-nickel-layers-for-hydrogen-clusters-in-lenr/

  • Zephir

    IMO the chains of nickel atoms implanted beneath the palladium surface are the key here. The baking of electrodes has its meaning after ion implantation, as it heals the lattice broken with impacted ions and enables their migration at the grain boundaries. The palladium provides necessary hydrogen/deuterium oversaturation – but there were always reports that the actual LENR runs at the foreign atoms (Ru, Rh) embedded into the palladium lattice and the actual palladium purity has been fuzzy factor of LENR success often. At any case, the economically viable LENR should be able to run without surplus of palladium. IMO the nature of nickel film isn’t crucial here, otherwise the whatever else substrate could be used.

    Otherwise this study is worth to study in this extent http://newenergyandfuel.com/http:/newenergyandfuel/com/2012/04/11/a-synopsis-of-the-miley-lenr-theory/palladium-nickel-layers-for-hydrogen-clusters-in-lenr/

  • artefact

    From Quantumheat (MFMP):

    LENR LIVE proposal 2: The smoking gun

    http://www.quantumheat.org/index.php/en/home/mfmp-blog/533-lenr-live-proposal-2-the-smoking-gun

  • roseland67

    Mizuno is not Rossi,

    Was their exact experiment replicated by other team members?
    Was the energy used to treat the palladium and vacuum chamber subtracted from the excess heat energy gain?
    Did they see transmutation?
    If so what was it?