Clean Planet CEO Yoshino Makes Impact at MIT Conference Presenting Mizuno’s LENR Research

Clean Planet, a Japanese startup has emerged as a possible leading LENR company after a presentation by the company’s CEO Hideki Yoshino at the LENR Colloquium at MIT. Mr. Yoshino gave a presentation about the work of Tadahiko Mizuno titled “Replicable Model for Controlled Nuclear Reaction using Metal Nanoparticles”. Mizuno participated in the presentation via Skype.

I am not very familiar with Mizuno’s work, and slides or videos of the presentation have not yet been released, but some reports of the presentation have been posted on vortex-l. Here is what Steve High, an attendee at the meeting wrote about the presentation:

First Saturday afternoon presenter was Mizuno being represented by a young Japanese scientist [Hideki Yoshino]. Their reactor : nickle mesh surface prepped by exposure to plasma discharge. Reactor consists of prepped nickel mesh heated by resistance with pressurized deuterium gas. The device able to measure the composition of gases by atomic number in real time. Results: 1) excess heat as soon as deuterium pumped in ie no loading needed. 2) 75 watts excess heat over thirty five days. 3) gas composition monitored during run (as atomic number): 4 (D 2) progressively decreased 3 (?tritium- they couldn’t say) rose and fell as an intermediate product, 2 (that would be H2 or atomic D) rose as the final product.

Also on vortex-l, Jones Beene wrote:

Brian Ahern [who also presented at the MIT meeting] told me that this was the potentially the most important presentation he saw this day, not only for the present results (10s of watts) but because the next two planned iterations at 1 kW and 10 kW where not only imagined but actually shown in pictures as prototypes, indicating that they were near the testing stage.

An LENR system that can produce killowatts of excess heat brings it into the commercial arena, and it could be that Clean Planet, using Muzino’s technology, are going to be a significant player in the LENR marketplace. One area in which they are currently ahead of Industrial Heat LLC, is that they have a web site(!) which gives some basic information about the company and its personnel.

For more information about the Mizuno LENR system, see here for a poster created by Jed Rothwell.

  • georgehants

    Frechette, thanks again, it seems none of the other scientists on page wish to discuss with you on this topic, so I an left wondering why every time a measurement of Cold Fusion devices comes up, there are pages of disagreement.
    Best

  • clovis ray

    all in good fun, guys lol “boy howdy” things are getting interesting huh, i’ll be looking for a press conference before very long, its the next stop, i hope they plan a great celebration with lots of fan fair, with awards given away, and promises being make about the fair way they will handle this discovery, and that no one is to be left out , and that everyone can share in this great thing, called the new fire.

  • Sanjeev

    Slides are now available on the coldfusionnow.
    Picture of 1KW reactor is shown.

  • clovis ray

    Ok yesterday, how mant said i diden’t know what i was talking about when i said this,

    clovis ray • a day ago

    It wouldn’t surprise me if they have been building e-cats as fast as possible and already have plants of different sizes ready to launch when the report is out,5

    Edit

    Reply

    Share ›

  • http://www.lenrnews.eu/lenr-summary-for-policy-makers/ AlainCo

    They are probably business angel team, associating investors with researchers like Mizuno.
    I know that most business are very shy and on one side they don’t want to give a million except for a final product (like e-cat), but on the other they don’t dare to invest 100k in just research.

    with some “middlemen” , creating structure where scientists and investor feel comfortable, industrial feel more comfortable to buy seom research for few 100k, and why not few million as a total.

  • Kim

    Andrea Rossi is reporting at minimum 12 years of running time (collectively)
    of his E-cat machines.

    Respect
    Kim

    • artefact

      “Andrea Rossi
      March 25th, 2014 at 11:02 AM
      Achi:
      Very difficult to answer. We produced many E-Cats, each of them has been
      tested for months… I should take out all the data sheet of any of them
      and make the sum…I havo no time to do this now.
      But considet hundreds of E-Cats each of one having made a minimum of 1,000 hours.
      Warm Regards,
      A.R.”
      http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=841&cpage=4#comment-931018

      • Achi

        That’s what I was speculating. The potential number of collective hours is in the hundreds of thousands and millions. A one mw plant racks the hours exponentially because of how many units it is comprised of. I’m so glad he answered my question. It gives us an idea of all the work going on behind the scenes.

  • Andreas Moraitis

    On their “projects” page they say that they are concerned with muon catalyzed fusion. I wonder how they want to create the muons in an economic way. Usually the production of muons costs more energy than can be gathered from the fusion process.

    • Andreas Moraitis

      Just an idea: Maybe they got the funding for that project from an official institution (muon fusion is unsuspected) and are examining in reality something else? Hydrino-based fusion, for instance? That would be quite similar, if possible (with a big “if”).

  • Oceans2014

    unfortunately the website content has little to offer and the images on the website are so large that loading the site was a problem, maybe once again someone will pay attention to the small details that add credibility.

  • Christopher Calder

    Great news. Don’t forget to add this company to the LENR list.

  • Barry8

    Ruby Carat has put up audio tracks (vids will soon be put up) of all the speakers from the Colloquium http://coldfusionnow.org/2014-cflanr-colloquium-at-mit-audio-files/#prettyPhoto including Tadahiko Mizuno w/ Hideki Yoshino.

  • Bernie777

    Thanks Admin, good report, this could force IH to put up a web site soon.

  • Gerard McEk

    Glow discharge is indeed a method to give a metal surface a ‘nano particle’ structure. although the shown structures look more line micro meter size. I saw only palladium test material. Was nickel also tested? Does it show the same behavior? As far as I could see on the graphs, the heat production was not very usable long, so I do not see why they are so overly optimistic about this, but I may have missed something they have said in the conference.

    • Sanjeev

      That poster thing is old, I guess. The actual presentation mentions nickle mesh which gave 75 W excess for many days. Nickle mesh weighed only 20 grams. The audio at coldfusionnow is there, but not very informative as you can’t see the slides. It does sound like a combination of Rossi and DGT techs.

      There are also some rumors of them being funded by a billionaire and 10KW prototypes, which got my attention. As I said, this could blow away every other lenr co in a few years time. Its Japan, they will get clearances, patents in days and production can start in weeks……(thats the image I have for Japan).

      Any Japanese spies lurking here ? Please feed us.

  • Andreas Moraitis

    The detected atomic mass numbers leave a plenty of room for speculation. I guess that it will be difficult to find out what’s really going on without performing additional analyses. At any rate, their experiment seems to be an important step towards the solution.

    • http://www.lenrnews.eu/lenr-summary-for-policy-makers/ AlainCo

      The claimed results seems to go reverse to Ed Storms and even WL or CEC proposed theories…
      but as said it measure only approximated molecular weight…
      We need more measures and more precise…

      I understand why Defkalion tried to buy/design a continuous flow mass spectrometer…

    • Job001

      A quadrupole mass spec leaves little to no room for speculation. Some communication speculation is shown here because this study was about “Replicable Model for Controlled Nuclear Reaction using Metal Nanoparticles” rather than incidentally about released elements.
      Tadahiko Mizuno has other reports dealing with greater specificity for element testing. see
      http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/MizunoTmethodofco.pdf
      the last report referenced is
      “Transmutation Reaction in Condensed Matter”

      • Andreas Moraitis

        Maybe they used alternatively H2 and D2 (as they did in the experiments which are described in the paper) and that’s the reason for the ambiguities.

  • georgehants

    I notice that many scientists who read these pages and are only too happy to comment when the discussion concerns how many Megawatts it takes to boil a kettle of water etc. they rarely seem able to respond to the Wonderful topics concerning the progress of Cold Fusion etc.
    I also note that from the discussions on these pages of the measurements of energy in and energy out of any tested device it apears that science does not have a clue how to accurately do this.
    How then have our wonderful scientists been so easily able to deny and debunk every report of OU in history without having the means to measure such small gains?

    • Frechette

      “I also note that from the discussions on these pages of the measurements of energy in and energy out of any tested device it appears that science does not have a clue how to accurately do this.”

      You are painting scientists with too broad a brush. Heat measurements of output energy through the use of calorimeters is well understood in chemistry as practiced by scientists and engineers of the field. It is one of the basic tools at their disposal. The measurements performed by Michael McCubre at SRI, for instance, as well as others are accurate, reproducible, and reliable.

      Input energy because it is in the form of electric is probably one of the easiest to accomplish since it involves measurement of current, voltage and time. Accuracies of better than 1% are a piece of cake. Been there done that.

      • georgehants

        Frechette, thank you for answering, there are very few scientists who can bring themselves to answer a direct Factual question, they usually seem to head for the nearest and safest place to hide.
        I said —-
        “I also note that from the discussions on these pages of the measurements
        of energy in and energy out of any tested device it appears that
        science does not have a clue how to accurately do this.”
        —-As I am not a scientist, It will need other scientists on page to answer your reply, I only made the observation of my above.
        I ask, if it is as you say no problem, then why have there been a thousand pages of argument regarding the measurement problem (not the Quantum measurement problem) on this Website.

        • Warthog

          The problem mostly stems from the fact that most physicists don’t know much about calorimetry. It is not a tool they normally use. Chemists use it routinely, and are thus less likely to make errors due to faulty technique. And in the past, the quantities of “excess heat” were often very small….so you needed high sensitivities. But in a case like the Nanor, where the inputs are in milliwatts and the output in watts, even a high-school kid could do it.

          • http://www.lenrnews.eu/lenr-summary-for-policy-makers/ AlainCo

            Beaudette state that physicists abandonned calorimetry to the chemist in the 50s

            Miles in his paper comparing the calorimetry of Miles & Longchampt with the one of harwell, MIT and Caltech, gives the accuracy of F&P cell: 0.1mW

            http://newenergytimes.com/v2/conferences/2012/ICCF17/papers/Miles-Examples-Isoperibolic-Calorimetry-ICCF17-ps.pdf

            “Abstract—The Dewar isoperibolic calorimetry developed by Fleischmann and Pons can achieve an accuracy of ±0.1 mW. This accuracy requires the use of seven power terms to adequately describe the rate of enthalpy flowing into and out of the calorimetric system. The isoperibolic calorimetry reported by Caltech, MIT, and Harwell neglected important power terms leading to large errors.

            Conclusions

            The accuracy of electrochemical isoperibolic calorimetry should approach the accuracy of the cell and bath temperature measurements. For the Fleischmann-Pons isoperibolic Dewar calorimetry, this accuracy limit is ±0.01% or ±0.1 mW. The cold fusion controversy traces back to the poor calorimetry and methods of data analysis used in the Caltech, MIT and Harwell studies.

            Important calorimetric terms were omitted in their experimental analyses. Even today, the reports of large errors for isoperibolic calorimeters are due mainly to the errors made by those conducting the experiments. These errors often include the neglect of important calorimetric terms, poor design of the calorimetric cells, large errors in temperature measurements, and inadequate analysis of the calorimetric data.

    • Zeddicus Zul Zorander

      Science in general has to answer some tough questions after CF turn out to be true worldwide. What bugs me most of all is how many other “fringe” science is out there being ridiculed that may actually turn out to be revolutionary. Heck, we may have figured out Warp Drive already 🙂

      OT: There’s seems to be an avalance of (new) firms all reporting (near) breakthroughs and definite over unity. Dare I hope this year will be the year of the big CF breakthrough?

      Good to see you’re still with us George!

      • Warthog

        “Science in general has to answer some tough questions after CF turn out to be true worldwide.”

        Not really. Just physicists. It has been largely chemists that have kept CF alive. Most other sciences/scientists don’t have a clue what the argument is about and simply defer to the physicists as the knowledgeable experts.

    • Pipmon

      Perhaps because they only speak of that which they know. They leave speculation to the speculators, but not to worry, there’s plenty of those. 😉

      • georgehants

        Hi Pipmon, would you like to put up one general thing that science knows.
        Now that would be interesting to see.

        • Pipmon

          Boring things, like “the latent heat of vaporization of water at standard atmospheric pressure is 2260 Kj/Kg”. Not at all exciting, and worse it references other arcane notions such as Joules and Kilograms etc…
          What is really needed is a bold sally into “time travel” or similar where all reference posts are lost! Then one can really let loose.