Toyota Transmutation Paper Published

The Japanese Journal of Applied Physics has published a paper by researchers from they Toyota Central Research and Development Laboratories report being able to replicate work by Yasuhiro Iwamura of Mitsubishi Heavy Industries and others in which nuclear transmutations were obtained.

The abstract of the recently published article reads:

To investigate the nuclear transmutation of Cs into Pr reported in this journal by Iwamura and coworkers, we have measured the amount of Pr atoms in the range as low as ∼1×1010 cm-2 using inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometry for Cs-ion-implanted Pd/CaO multilayer complexes before and after deuterium permeation. The amount of Pr was initially at most 2.0×1011 cm-2 and it increased up to 1.6×1012 cm-2 after deuterium permeation. The increase in the amount of Pr could be explained neither by deuterium permeation-stimulated segregation of Pr impurities nor by external contamination from the experimental environment during the permeation. No increase in Pr was observed for permeation with hydrogen. These findings suggest that the observed increase in Pr with deuterium permeation can be attributed to a nuclear origin, as reported by Iwamura and coworkers, although the amount of the increase in Pr is two orders of magnitude less than that reported by them.

Having researchers from two major Japanese corporations report the achievement of low energy nuclear transmutations would seem to indicate a significant achievement and lend further credence to the LENR being an important field of study.

  • Dullard

    When a replication result is half the original value, that does not invalidate both studies. It suggests an uncontrolled variable. Uncontrolled variables should not be unexpected in ground breaking research, most of the easy answers were gone 50 years ago.
    Such an uncontrolled variable once controlled and fine tuned, could result in significantly higher values than either of the original tests. There is no point in replicating the same tests without progress and noting each time that the result varied once more. Original work needs to be done to advance the science.

    • AlainCo

      good remarks.
      Transforming failures and variations into evidence of absence is one of the key fallacies of the denying physicists…

      the most stupid is that any engineer with some historical knowledge of his own domain, know that…

      for scientists and engineers only lack of honesty can make people follow that reasoning.

      as you say, the good news is that if some huge variation are observed, probably because of uncontrolled parameter, it give the serious hope of improving much above the best of the results

  • AlainCo

    Juts for your information, I just realized that
    JJAP is a peer reviewed journal
    – thus Toyota paper is peer-reviewed http://jjap.jsap.jp/link?JJAP/52/107301/
    – that the Mitsubishi/Iwamura paper http://jjap.jsap.jp/link?JJAP/52/107301/ was published in JJAP too, thus peer reviewed

    this is replication of LENr experiment, with both experiment published in peer reviewed journal.

  • MIJ

    http://www.slideshare.net/lewisglarsen/lattice-energy-llc-toyota-confirms-mitsubishi-transmutation-of-cs-to-proct-31-2013

    Very nice W-L LENR theory explained by experimental data.
    Also confirmed Nagaoka’s 1925 gold production experiment (maybe the first LENR experiment of history).

    • Alan DeAngelis

      On slide 28 it says it takes 0.38 MeV to make two neutrons
      from an electron and a deuteron. Actually it takes 3.01 MeV.

      Energy equivalences of rest masses of:

      Deuteron: 1875.612793 MeV

      Electron: 0.5109906 MeV

      Neutron: 939.56563 MeV

      D + e > 2 n would require 3.01 MeV

  • Foks0904 .

    I can see how skeptics will discredit this: “It’s not in Nature or Science. Therefore it’s worthless!”

    • AlainCo

      your forecast are validated … I’ve heard that on a forum…

      they are more and more locked in groupthink, this mean they are so sure to be superior, that the cleaim any dissenter is corrupted, and use unethical way to enforce the prevalence of their position.

      see what happen on wikipedia. The most vomitting, is that if they cannot use violence the are nice in surface and lanipulate the system like tobacco attorneys… I see that on wikipedia. They abuse the rules to hide fact, and strangely forget to apply their own tule to what they like.

      • Colibric41AC

        Salut AlainCo, çà serait pas mal de faire une traduction en français. Cette news là me semble assez sérieuse pour que je diffuse un peu dans les coms des merdias. Comme celle de st micro.

        • AlainCo

          non, comme ils disent sur hardware.fr, il n’y a rien de nouveau. C’est vrai, c’est bon, comme le reste qui est ignoré.

          Comme ils disent sur Wikipedia, Elforsk n’est pas un source indépendante.

          Ils accepterons les articles scientifiques quand Science le décidera. Ils accepterons les mots de Elforsk quand un journal le dira. Or, jamais Science, ni les média ne parleront de fusion froide, sauf quelques accidents que l’on traitera de WP:Fringe.

          Il y a de bien meilleures preuves qui sont ignorées.

          La révolution viendra de la finance.

          http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/2/5aef99a8-37f2-11e3-8668-00144feab7de.html#comment-5657442

          —-Translated

          — Colibri41AC

          AlainCo Hi, here it would not hurt to do a translation into French.

          This news there seems serious enough that I diffuse a bit in the comments of “shit-media”. Same for STMicro.

          — AlainCo

          no, as they say on hardware.fr, there is nothing new. That’s right, this is good, as the rest is, yet ignored. As they say on Wikipedia, Elforsk is no independent source. They will accept scientific papers when “Science” decide. They will accept the words of Elforsk when a newspaper will tell. and neither Science nor the media will ever talk about cold fusion, except some accidental journalists that they will dismiss with WP:Fringe. There are much better evidences which are ignored.

          The revolution will be in finance.

          http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/2/5aef99a8-37f2-11e3-8668-00144feab7de.html#comment-5657442

        • AlainCo

          en parlant de hardware .fr je vins juste de me faire troller

          – parce que les gars ne comprennent pas que le secret d’un réacetru est dans un rétroaction négative

          – parce que j’ai demandé lourdement à un gars de lire avant de critiquer

          http://forum.hardware.fr/hfr/Discussions/Sciences/reparle-fusion-froide-sujet_33854_11.htm#t36045969

          — Tr:
          I’ve just been banned temporarily from a forum, because
          – guys think they are smart but don’t understand that fission reactors secret is in a negative retroaction
          – because I asked strongly to a guy to read before making critics.

  • GreenWin

    Interesting. We are often told to respect only papers that have cleared the full academic club called “peer review.” This paper has done just that. Which begs the question, is the peer reviewed Toyota replication more or less believable than the Elforsk-Levi E-Cat validation??

  • Pekka Janhunen

    The article seems to be behind a paywall. Judging from the abstract, it’s written in a credible-sounding tone. That the Pr production was found to be 2 orders of magnitude less than in the original work is somewhat disturbing, however, because it leaves open the possiblity that maybe the original 100 times larger result was due to an unknown measurement error, which in turn leaves open the possibility that perhaps a similar hypothetical error mechanism (unknown to both groups) is also responsible for the present anomalous results. So it seems that more research is needed to settle the topic.

    • Sanjeev

      Looks like they used a different (and better) mass spectrometer, see ref [1]. So the chances of committing the exact same error are less. May be the differences in experimental setup is the reason for less yield.

      They still got 8x more Pr, which is significant. They cross checked with H2, where they found no increase. This survived the peer review, which again strengthens my confidence.
      The fact that they got fusion (or lenr) at low temperature is more important than how much transmutation happened….Its good to see lenr in mainstream (lent rather).

    • AlainCo

      this may explay why NRL could not confirm the Iwamura result.

      Artefact for Iwamura are possibilities. Uncontrolled factor in the reaction also… like for the heat…

      Nit the most stoneproof evidence, but giver the pile of undoubtful evidence in calorimetry and tritium, this result have nothing extraordinary… it should enter the realm of replicated experiments… but as any scientific results, there is no guaranty to stay there.

  • Curbina

    Sorry to be the nickpicker, but the thread title has an ovbious typo: transumtation –> transmutation.

    About the article, I remember that Hot Fusion, if ever achieved, was always heralded as the solution for the shortage of raw matters, as we could simply produce new ones from existing abundant elements. LENR also seems to have that possible outcome, we need just to master it.

    • Job001

      Theoretically, of course, yes, transmutation happens, if we ignore the practical, the time required and the enormous quantity of heat for any significant quantity of material created.

      Example, 1cc of water is about 1E23 atoms vs 1.6E12 atoms of Pr formed by this experiment or on the order of 1.6E12 / 1E23 = 1.6E-11 or roughly speaking about 16PPT parts per trillion(simple back of the envelope math, ignoring exact MW, specific gravity, time, etc.)

      In summation, it is the heat that has value, the transmuted product does not except perhaps for certain exceptionally rare isotopes.

    • Sanjeev

      The yield is tiny, and after years and years of operation you may get one gram or so of transmuted element.
      However, its possible that in future other lenr mechanisms are discovered where there is more transmutation and less heat. This will spin off a totally new industry and a new technological era.
      People have barely scratched the surface for lenr.

  • Alan DeAngelis

    Could the Cs to Pr transmutation be due to the following consecutive
    Oppenheimer-Phillips reactions and beta decays taking place?
    Perhaps they could look for the gamma rays that accompany
    these beta decays.

    Cs(133) + d > p + Cs(134) 4.7 MeV

    Cs(134) > Ba(134) + e-

    Ba(134) + d > p + Ba(135) 4.7 MeV

    Ba(135) + d > p + Ba(136) 6.9 MeV

    Ba(136) + d > p + Ba(137) 4.7 MeV

    Ba(137) + d > p + Ba(138) 6.4 MeV

    Ba(138) + d > p + Ba(139) 2.5 MeV

    Ba(139) > La(139) + e-

    La(139) + d > p + La(140) 2.9 MeV

    La(140) > Ce(140) + e-

    Ce(140) + d > p + Ce(141) 3.2 MeV

    Ce(141) > Pr(141) + e-

    • Job001

      This was very sophisticated science and included gamma ray GE detectors. Reference prior report: http://newenergytimes.com/v2/conferences/2012/ANS2012W/2012Iwamura-ANS-LENR-Paper.pdf
      See figure 2 experimental setup and their conclusion; “The observed transmutation processes must belong to a new category of nuclear reactions in condensed matter.”

      • Alan DeAngelis

        Thanks for the link.

    • Pekka Janhunen

      But a problem is that Cs-134 half-life is 2 years.

      • Alan DeAngelis

        Yeah, good point. So
        the Cs(134) will be there long enough to undergo a (d,p) reaction.

        Cs(133) + d > p + Cs(134) 4.7 MeV

        Cs(134) + d > p + Cs(135) 6.5 MeV

        Cs(135) + d > p + Cs(136) 4.6 MeV

        Cs(136) + d > p + Cs(137) 6.1 MeV

        Cs(137) + d > p + Cs(138) 4.7 MeV

        Cs(138) > Ba(138) + e- half life 33minutes

        Ba(138) + d > p + Ba(139) 2.5 MeV

        Ba(139) > La(139) + e- half life 83 minutes

        La(139) + d > p + La(140) 2.9 MeV

        La(140) > Ce(140) + e- half life 1.7 days

        Ce(140) + d > p + Ce(141) 3.2 MeV

        Ce(141) > Pr(141) + e- half life 25 seconds

      • Alan DeAngelis

        PPS
        Just another route:

        Cs(133) + d > p + Cs(134) 4.7 MeV

        Cs(134) + d > p + Cs(135) 6.5 MeV

        Cs(135) + d > p + Cs(136) 4.6 MeV

        Cs(136) + d > p + Cs(137) 6.1 MeV

        Cs(137) + d > p + Cs(138) 4.7 MeV

        Cs(138) + d > p + Cs(139) 2.2 MeV

        Cs(139) + d > p + Cs(140) 3.3 MeV

        Cs(140) > Ba(140) + e- half life 63.7 seconds

        Ba(140) + d > p + Ba(141) 4.0 MeV

        Ba(141) > La(141) + e- half life 18.3 minutes

        La(141) > Ce(141) + e- half life 3.92 hours

        Ce(141) > Pr(141) + e- half life 25 seconds