Mitsubishi Reports Toyota Replication [of Iwamura's LENR transmutation of elements]

New Energy Times ^ | December 7, 2012 | Steve Krivit

[TXnMA]

Dec. 7, 2012 – By Steven B. Krivit –

Researchers from Toyota Central Research and Development Laboratories performed an independent replication of a Mitsubishi low-energy nuclear reaction transmutation experiment, according to a physicist from Mitsubishi Heavy Industries speaking at the American Nuclear Society LENR session on Nov. 14 in San Diego, Calif.

The physicist, Yasuhiro Iwamura, told the ANS audience that the Toyota researchers confirmed that nuclear changes from one element to another took place without the use of high-energy nuclear physics. Most scientists who have not followed this field closely consider such profound claims inconceivable. Toyota used a LENR deuterium-permeation transmutation method that Iwamura invented.

Iwamura has been working with this LENR method for 14 years. He said that one of his LENR transmutations was closely but not identically replicated by Toyota. Osaka University and Iwate University previously reported similar replications.

[Kevmo]

The relevance is... we have been moderated by someone who thinks that asking for a Mazerati at this point in time is a legitimate question.

[Wonder Warthog]

"However, I note that the index to Beaudette's book does not even have an entry for the eminent LENR 'researcher', "Rossi"..."

Well, since his second edition was copyrighted in 2004 (book upstairs, me downstairs...and too lazy on a Saturday morning to check), that is sort of understandable (and a plus in favor of his credibility, no???)

[Wonder Warthog]

"As you probably know, even we "heavy hitters" mostly did our earliest research in makeshift fashion. However, those of us who went on to become "credentialed professionals" soon learned that sloppy setups are detrimental to both accuracy and repeatability (not to mention safety)."

"Even the simple and inexpensive expedient of fastening all components down to a common plywood substrate and immobilizing and minimizing wiring and tubing connections considerably improves reliability of results (and experimenter safety).

"Researchers who habitually ignore such simple discipline merely display disregard for quality results and self-label themselves as unprofessional "hacks"... The rest of us learned better lab practice.

I think the typical approach (at least in my case) is to do a "quick and dirty" first pass on a pretty crude breadboard, and if there is any indication of a positive result, to then invest in a more sophisticated/rugged/verifiable setup. I probably miss some positives this way due to experimental crudity. And of course, it is all a balance of what equipment you have and can lay hands on.

But a number of retired CF investigators have built "home rigs" that would be the envy of many "hard-core" labs (see Storms setup----drool, drool, drool).

[Wonder Warthog]

"Transmutation is nothing new (and it is not the same as "cold fusion"). It's done all the time to make radioisotopes for biological research. I want to know how this guy from Mitsubishi claims to have done it. I seem to recall reading something last night about how this is being developed as a means of dealing with nuclear waste, and not as an energy source."

Production of radioisotopes involves either a fission reactor or a particle accelerator (very high energy processes). The radioactive resulting materials are then typically affixed to an ion-exchange bed, and "milked out" as needed.

Iwamura has done it by simply forcing the passage of a flux of deuterons through a layered matrix of palladium and his target material...a very LOW energy process. And according to existing theory....totally impossible. Energy of the deuterons is in the eV range, far too low to "force penetration" of the Coulomb barrier. So how do those deuterons (or other particles) get into the nucleus of the target material???

Though this is not the normally conceived "cold fusion", it suggests quantum mechanically modulated effects that are similar.

[exDemMom]

I've asked for similar information regarding all the thousands of LENR replications that Kevmo claims. Kevmo said he'd rather clip his toenails than provide it.

Yes... from what I can tell about where some of those claims are published, the claims are as credible as Rossi himself. There's nothing yet in a peer-review journal.

I'm really curious about this deuterium process. It's hard to figure out what is going on without being able to examine reaction stoichiometry, along with some more detailed reaction parameters. I'm thinking along the lines of reaction diagrams with arrows pointing all over the place, showing where specific electrons/other small particles go during transition states, etc. I found the paper linked at post #46 to be rather scant of such details.

I'll withhold judgement without knowing more. Unlike Rossi, that Iwamura guy doesn't have the behavior traits that trigger my "red flag" warnings. I do not see this transmutation process as having applicability for energy production, either.

[Wonder Warthog]

“Yes... from what I can tell about where some of those claims are published, the claims are as credible as Rossi himself. There’s nothing yet in a peer-review journal.”

“Elemental Analysis of Pd Complexes: Effects of D2 Gas Permeation” Jpn. J. Appl. Phys. Vol. 41 (2002) pp. 4642–4650
Part 1, No. 7A, July2002 The Japan Society of Applied Physics

Full paper available at:

http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/IwamuraYelementalaa.pdf

[TXnMA]

What is it about "...well enough to explain it in a patent application" that you don't understand?

Flame physics is well understood, is accepted as "prior art", and is used all the time in designing engines. LENR physics is not (yet) well understood.

Can you comprehend the difference?

~~~~~~~~~

You display a knee-jerk, paranoid defensive attitude worse than that of a long-tailed cat in a room full of (actively) rocking chairs.

There seems to be no way to have a pleasant, conversational exchange with you.

And it definitely does your "cause" more harm than good. Think about it, FRiend...

[TXnMA]

Your problem; not mine...

[betty boop]

To me, the excitement in this is potential understanding of transmutations / formation processes for heavy element development inside deuterium-rich, fusion-powered stars.... IMHO, cosmological theory and the “big bang” explanation of Creation (of the Earth) just got a whole lot more real....

Oh my, did they ever!

Alamo-Girl, I'll be sure to write to my astrophysicist friend, just in case he may have missed this.

A question, dear TXnMA: Am I correct to infer that you believe the Biblical Creation refers to the Earth system only? I have to wonder at that; for my intuition/belief is that the Biblical Creation refers to the entire Universe.

Which is believed — from our present spacetime coordinates — to be something like 13.7 billion years old (??? — this number keeps changing); and the Earth, 4.5 billion years old....

Just wondering.

Anyhoot, these findings re: LENR are mind-boggling, and may portend a potential paradigm shift in science going forward.

Thanks to Wonder Warthog and Kevmo for the valuable links. In one of the articles I read, this paradigm shift was described as the impending marriage of chemistry and physics — but that physics continues to be a reluctant party at the wedding. :^)

Aw shucks: Just follow the evidence where it leads....

Thank you ever so much TXnMA, dear brother in Christ, for posting/hosting this amazing article/discussion!

[TXnMA]

I (reading "grabs" from Amazon) missed the obvious timing factor.

But, no, I wouldn't call ignoring the work of a "prominent" (as in "sticks out like a sore thumb") laborer in the field to be, necessarily, "a plus in favor of his credibility". Doing so would be akin to certain "Us vs Them" attitudes at "E-Cat" -- or "New Energy and Fuel" -- or on certain FR threads -- but with "opposite polarity".

I would hope an author you hold out as exemplary would show better objectivity and balance...

[TXnMA]

I expect that "quick and dirty" first trials of ideas are nearly universal. (They are with me...)

But, by the time one decides the experiment is worth extensive -- and repeated, multi-run -- data acquisition, things should be locked down quite solidly to eliminate extraneous variation.

And, certainly, before public demonstration or video recording the setup for publication (even on YouTube) that certainly should be the case.

Good experimental technique is well-recognized; sloppy technique (justly) bears its own stigma.

[TXnMA]

BTW, if you have a link to Storm’s work, I would appreciate it.

[Alamo-Girl]

\ In one of the articles I read, this paradigm shift was described as the impending marriage of chemistry and physics — but that physics continues to be a reluctant party at the wedding. :^)

Aw shucks: Just follow the evidence where it leads....

I second that!

Thank you so much for sharing your insights, dearest sister in Christ, and for reaching our to your astrophysicist friend!

[TXnMA]

"A question, dear TXnMA: Am I correct to infer that you believe the Biblical Creation refers to the Earth system only? "

LOL!! NO!! I thought you knew me better than that! I'm shocked! '-)

I was merely alluding to whence came the (periodic table) "dust of the ground" elements to which I often refer -- and which are featured in Genesis 2:7...

[betty boop]

LOL!! NO!! I thought you knew me better than that! I'm shocked! '-)

It's just that I am a very close reader of texts, dear brother in Christ.

I DO "know you better than that." But "strangers" might be confused.

And so I am very grateful that you have put the matter to rest: "I was merely alluding to whence came the (periodic table) "dust of the ground" elements to which I often refer — and which are featured in Genesis 2:7."

We have more fun than cats!!!

Thank you so very much for writing, dear brother in Christ!

[betty boop]

Thanks so much for the professional, “inside view” dear brother in Christ! What you said stands to reason throughout.

[Moonman62]

From your link:

The released energy for eq. (1) can be estimated by mass defects if we postulate that four deuterons react with Cs. About 50.5 MeV should be released per reaction. Figure 4(a) shows that there exist about 1014 atoms of Pr at the surface of the test piece because the reaction surface area is 1.0 cm2. Therefore released energy can be estimated to be 800 J. The average power is calculated to be 1.8mW when the reaction time is assumed to be 120 h. Even if 1.8mW were released as heat during the experiment, we could not detect or notice the released heat.

That doesn't look good for energy production or Rossi the Fraud. The amount of heat produced is below their ability to detect it. They also detected no gamma rays, nor were they able to detect the amount of D2 consumed.

It's a curious result, though. The paper is 10 years old.

[TXnMA]

(Trying to respond to multiple comments: #104, 105 and earlier ones...)

BTW, I agree with Wonder Warthog that there is no similarity between production of isotopes via common high energy methods, and the very low energy transmutation effects reported by Iwamura.

~~~~~~~~~

Perhaps the diagram I (belatedly) posted in #50 would be helpful.

Let me point out that (although I don't quite comprehend the functionality of the structure) that Iwamura deposits his target material atop a substrate composed of multiple, alternating thin films of Pd and CaO -- and then forces ("permeates") deuterium through the stack (at relatively low T, P, and [as a tested variable showing positive results] accelerating voltage).

He does explain that CaO was chosen for its low work function, and reports on two other "barrier" materials: Yittria (WF >2 -- which does "work") and MgO (work function >3) -- which produces no transmutation effects. (Specific numerical WF data is in the video, but is difficult to random-access...)

After he discussed work functions, Iwamura muttered as an aside or under his breath, something about "apparently requires an electron-rich environment". (Obviously, an English transcription of his talk is badly needed...)

I agree with exDemMom about needing quantitative stoichiometry data, but much of Iwamura's measurement data is in mass spec plots which are good qualitatively, but only provide quantitative estimations via relative peak amplitudes.

~~~~~~~~

FWIW. I expect that Iwamura's demeanour would be far more impressive and credible were he presenting in Japanese. In the 1960s. I was conversant in Japanese -- but, even then, I would have felt like a stumblebum trying to make technical presentations in the language.

~~~~~~~

Iwamura presented three envisioned applications of his process:

1) Transmutation of dangerous radionuclides from nuclear waste into stable species

2) Production of rare/valuable metals ( W -> Pt, Os)

3) Generation of heat energy.

He referred to the third application more than once -- implying that he had observed the effect and was confident of its reality -- but emphasized that his specific charter was to concentrate on nuclear waste disposal.

[Moonman62]

3) Generation of heat energy.

In the 2002 paper linked to in post #106 he wasn't able to detect any heat. Is he able to detect heat now?

[TXnMA]

Iwamura talks about heat generation about five minutes into his talk, and at the very end. In neither case is he very specific. But on the earlier slide, he shows a portable energy source with heat exchanger driving a generator.

That leads me to interpret him as saying that at least one of the transmutations has been observed to produce significant heat.

Sorry -- my imagination doesn't carry me beyond that... I suggest you watch the video for yourself -- even with the audio off if you can't follow Iwamura'a "JEnglish" -- because his slides are primarily where the information resides...