LENR Startup Clean Nuclear Power Launches Website, Announces Plans

Thanks to AlainCo for sharing this interesting news about Clean Nuclear Power.

Clean Nuclear Power is a Swiss startup company with the goal of developing clean LENR energy. CNP’s new website gives some interesting information about the company, including about patents granted and applied for.


Here is a quote from their website:

On August 5th, 2014, under the aegis of the company Clean Nuclear Power based in Lugano in Switzerland, a patent was issued by the Italian Ministry of Economic Development. At its core lie the prospects for power sources based on LENR or LENT (Low Energy Nuclear Transmutations).

Currently, two further applications are being processed : one by the United States Patent and Trademark Office in relation to the registration of the patent in the US territory and one by the European Patent Office in relation to the registration in the European territory.

At the heart of the prototypes created there is a lithium cylinder wrapped around a palladium hybrid current carrying rod, but at the same time insulated from it.

Such device is so efficient that within 1 gram of appropriate material successfully transformed lies a truly gigantic discovery : in just one hour, over a billion megawatss of power can be produced!

The key players involved in CNP are two well-known physicists in LENR circles, Yogendra N. Srivastava and Allen Widom, both of Northeastern University in Boston, Massachusetts. The CEO is Filippo de Jorio, whose background is in finance and securities trading.

Information on CNP’s website indicates that the company is the pre-production phase — they state that their first goal is to develop a proof-of-concept model ‘to demonstrate that the experiments and the theory are correct, safe, controllable and reproducible.’ The next goal is the building of prototypes, before they are able to start production.

So it appears there will be a lot of R&D work to do before the company can demonstrate products (although in the quote above they mention ‘prototypes created’), and at this point they presumably will be seeking investors to help fund these operations.

85 Replies to “LENR Startup Clean Nuclear Power Launches Website, Announces Plans”

    1. I wonder what they mean with this… 10^15 watts/hour is quite an amount of energy. Please correct me somebody if i calculated wrong but wouldn’t that mean, 1 gram is the equivalent of 663 tons of TNT?

        1. Didn’t we work out one day that TNT was mass equivalent to a cheeseburger in energy content? (chemical, not E=MC^2) Or was that thermite? The exciting difference being the self-contained oxygen content of TNT and thermite compared to a cheeseburger.
          663 tons of TNT is equal to 453 barrels of oil.

          1. Depends on how fast you digest them. Digest a cheeseburger in less than a second… and…. kaboom!

      1. Right. You would need to annihilate 40 kg of matter in order to produce 1 billion MWh. Either they have corrected Einstein (less likely) or they have just been sloppy.

    1. Their new website has a nice design , but the text looks like a copy paste job, especially the spelling of watts and mixing time (1 hour) with power units. So it can be a typo and they mean a billion watts, not a billion MW.

      Perhaps this patent has more info (thanks to Alain for the link) : http://www.google.com/patents/WO2013108159A1?cl=en

      Note that the recipe has now familiar elements ( Lithium, Nickel, Copper, Palladium, Titanium,) and they also use HF EMF in the range of THz. ( 1-10 microns).

      Anyway its good to see that they have commercial goals.

  1. OT: 22passi blog is claiming to have identified the site of Rossi’s plant. This can be a 1st April joke, but who knows 😀
    See the always open thread for link and translation.

  2. Very bold claims for a pre-proof of concept company.

    Has there ever been an experiment? Can anyone point to one that has been done by this group, is there any records of experiments on LENR-CANR.org, I am aware of lots of presentations relating all kinds of things to Widom-Larson theory, but have they ever designed an experiment to test it and what was the outcome? I’d be very interested in any replicated success if they have it.

    1. In one of those videos NASA put out they showed a little chequer board on which they were carrying out experiments to test the Widom-Larson theory. Maybe someone has seen those results at least?

          1. Not to my knowledge, but Joseph Zawondy may have evidence to support (or not) the Widom Larsen theory. Maybe someone nearby could ask Joseph Zawondy – Frank?

          2. I am in no way saying they don’t have evidence, I am just saying I personally have not heard that they do and am putting the call out

      1. In their patent APPLICATION, the say “The second point allows the explanation of the small quantity of radiation measured during the experiments and the presence, outside Rossi’s reactor, of peaks of high-energy radiation only at the beginning and at the end of the operations, as measured by Prof. Francesco Celani (Istituto Nazionale di Fisica Nucleare – INFN – Frascati) during the experiment of 14th, January 2011 (see http://22passi.blogspot.com/2011/08/celani-risponde-sulla-misura-dei-gamma.html ).”

        Which is the hall-mark of this group, referring to selected real observations with the aim of proving theory, rather than designing and running an experiment designed to specifically test the theory.

  3. Can you extract that much energy from that small an area over that period of time without extremely loud booming noises?

    1. Ophelia, perhaps you may appreciate my little serious and informative joke from the other day, that nobody understood, Ha.?
      What do you think all those Gamma Ray bursters from our Galaxy are, that science cannot understand, Ha?

        1. Ophelia, think how many civilizations at our level of technology, CERN, Cold Fusion etc. that we witness going up in a Gamma Ray Burst. Ha.

          1. I honestly hope this is a joke, too much power from too small a space too quickly, it wreaks of weaponization.

  4. I mean WTF? The most important sentence on this web site is: “Such device is so efficient that within 1 gram of appropriate material successfully trasnformed lies a truly gigantic discovery : in just one hour, over a billion megawatss of power can be produced!” and there are so many things wrong with it that I’m tempted to just ignore it as an April Fools joke. But the players are real and the web site looks real enough so I’ll bite.

    * obvious spelling errors

    * units are wrong — power is an instantaneous measurement — over an hour a certain amount of **energy** is produced and that could be expressed as megawatt-hours (MWh)

    * but even of we let that slide a billion megawatt-hours is just a huge number and has to be a typo. The characteristic energy production and power of LENR so far is approximately ~8.3 GWh/kg @ ~2 MW/kg (see http://lenrftw.net/comparing_energy_sources.html). They are claiming 8 orders of magnitude better energy production than that. Ummm. No.

    Sorry this company goes in the not credible pile for me unless/until they can counter this poor first impression.

    1. I tried to look it up on the “Who Is” site. Its privacy is protected but click on this for as much as it does reveal.


      – It would be an awful lot of trouble to go to for an April Fool’s joke and Widom and co could sue for being held up to ridicule.

      – So, its probably genuine but with the webmaster and/or editor about to be sacked for all those typos, incorrect units and other blunders you’ve noted above.

    2. this is an error in the writing (I exchanged with yogi), added by an enthusiastic writer…
      will be corrected soon…

      the real claim is a prototype, using lithium and palladium….

  5. It sounds to me like an April joke for LENR believers, if not than the timing is ill-chosen for these bold claims.

    1. I suspect you are right, it is comical that it appears to be being financed by someone who has a massive, published CV that shows not a hint of scientific experience. And that claim, oh dear, who ever made this site needs to fess up as it is tangentially denigrating at least two real people. The site appears to be mocking finance workers and known LENR researchers at the same time.

  6. I think as always I shall keep a very open-mind and wait for Evidence to show itself, no abuse, no debunking, no denial etc. just like every scientist should think on every subject.

  7. It is most interesting and to me fascinating that after the many examples of subjects debunked by closed-minded scientists in history that have then become Fact, Cold Fusion being only one of the latest, still many continue to have a first reaction to deny and debunk.
    The human condition is certainly one of conundrums and contradictions.

        1. (There are no Facts. We went over that once…)
          I was referring to the completely open mind comment.
          That the completely open mind can never wrong, is wrong. It will be full of s**t more than truths (with a small t). Simply because there is more of the former than the latter.

          1. Obvious, you always make illogical unfounded statements of “opinion” would you like to in any way give your scientific argument against my indisputable basic logical fact that —— ” the completely open mind can never be wrong”, is in error”.
            That then would at least earn you some respect if your argument is convincing and would give me the opertunity to agree I am Wrong.

          2. The completely open mind must never choose whether something is right or wrong. A decision makes a distinction between whether something is right or wrong on any given subject. Therefore it can never be right nor wrong. By lack of making the distinction between right or wrong, it can never be wrong.

          3. Obvious, you clearly agree with me totally.
            Putting up pages of hand waving and rhetoric is what scientists do when they have lost the argument.
            Let me suggest what most people fear a short series of straight forward questions and answers from us both.
            Are we talking basic science or philosophy?
            Do you agree that science knows nothing at a philosophical level and must work at the practicality of this reality level, unless invoking the Quantum, when all bets are off?

          4. Actually George, I think I agree with your last statement.
            I was just considering another thought: There once was a discussion about whether the moon is there when no one looks. Of course, for a human approximation, it must be. However, if you were a neutrino, the existence of the moon at all would be not only be seriously in doubt but probably falsifiable altogether, if the neutrino were never to encounter a single atom of it while even passing through it. Even though for us it is sure to be there.

          5. Obvious, being fairly wrong for somebody like me is as rewarding as being fairly right, only progress and Truth matter in science etc.
            Any other way just leads to the kind of mess we are experiencing with Cold Fusion etc.

          6. As it always seems to be for some reason, it ends up that I must be That Guy that stirs up the common paradigm, ruffling feathers and knocking sticks and fluff from the nest all over, then has to go do some impossible thing just to prove that something is so. (I have done these sorts of things a few times, so my version of impossible is a somewhat less inclusive set than perhaps for some others). So I will do my best at the next adventure in making such a CF-LENR thing work. Clearly, and as unassailable as reasonably possible. Just Because. Maybe partly for you, so you can enjoy your wine and perhaps serve some just deserts to those that bother you with “such and such is impossible because I don’t see one somewhere”. Perhaps then, on the interweb, various personas will have to admit that “If George was right about this, then he must be correct about all else he says…”.
            Or I will kill it, or some parts of it, if that is the result. I don’t mind being Wrong, for otherwise, I would not know what Right looks like.
            With a partly open mind,

          7. Obvious, if you and I are just genuinely trying to improve things, then we are not all bad.
            Please always “attack” in context any comment I put up, as that is how we all learn.
            Much of science, it is True I think, does not want to learn just make out by “opinion” that it knows everything and is never wrong, which of course is just comical.

          8. While kicking the nest around, I will try to not knock the nest from the tree, or snap the supporting branches. I fear I may have sent a cuckoo to raid Mr. Parkhomov’s nest, by acting too rashly in explaining myself, when I should have attempted to contact him first. I think the thing would have been found anyways: the net is full of sharp eyes. Better now than at Padua, I’m sure. But I feel bad about it. It seems to have taken on more of a life than I intended. I hope he will accept my apology for my rashness. If he doesn’t, I will understand.

  8. We produce 50 neutrinos per second from the radioactive calcium in our bodies? Maybe I’m wrong but that sounds very April 1 to me.

    1. 50 neutrinos isn’t many, compared to avogadro’s number which is about 22 orders greater, or the number of atoms in your body (according to google) which is 4 orders greater than that (about 7 e 27). Many, many more neutrinos pass through us from the sun.

      1. there is one neutrino per beta decay… not many, 50Bq per human…

        wrom wikipedia

        “For example, the roughly 0.0169 g of potassium-40present in a typical human body produces approximately 266,000 disintegrations per minute, which equates to about 4,400 disintegrations per second or 4.4 kBq of activity.”

        but if you differentiale neutrno from antineutrino

        ” About 89.28% of the time, it decays to calcium-40 (40Ca) with emission of a beta particle (β−, an electron) with a maximum energy of 1.33 MeVand an antineutrino. About 10.72% of the time it decays to argon-40 (40Ar) byelectron capture, with the emission of a 1.460 MeV gamma ray.[1] and a neutrino. The radioactive decay of this particular isotope explains the fact that argon is the cheapest totally inert gas available. Very rarely (0.001% of the time) it will decay to 40Ar by emitting a positron (β+) and a neutrino.[2]”

        this gives 440 neutrino/s from P40

        negligible from the shower coming from the sun

  9. Let’s bracket for a moment the possibility that this is an April fool’s joke and assume that claims of 1 billion watts in an hour is likely a typo. A couple of things:

    1. This page shows that CNP was founded in March, 2011 by Srivastava, Widom and de Jorio. So even if the website is a gag, the company itself appears to be real. (Which suggests that the page is indeed real, even if there are errors…) https://www.kompany.com/p/ch/50140154946

    2. Has nobody else noticed that this company is located in Lugano — as in “the Lugano report”? I would bet dollars to donuts that the Lugano test was carried out in facilities provided by CNP. Google maps has their address as Via Greina 2 and lists them as a ‘chemical company.’ (Their address BTW is the same as de Jorio’s finance company, Medigest, which is also one of the investors in CNP.) https://plus.google.com/103285980834321061901/about?gl=il&hl=en

    3. I’m going to go out on a limb and speculate that the physicist that Rossi has been working with on a (soon to be published?) theory paper might be Yogendra Srivastava. Judging from his 2012 talk at CERN, he seems to have a lot of things about LENR figured out…including the SPP aspect and piezoelectric materials. And he has published in respected journals on a wide range of topics.

    1. CNP is a real startup, and they joined LENRG since the beginning.
      their site is not recent, but it is rebuild recently.

      the claim of energy density is bogus typo, but the rest is just what you can expect from such a startup.
      patent application, lab prototype to be used for a POC… and much work to do for prototype and industrialization…

      1. It should say patent application, NOT patent, it is materially misleading. Widom and Larson have a patent but more focussed on radiation shielding.

          1. This should be made clear, mainly because the Italian patent system is quite different.

          2. this is what I understood from their text, even if I don’t understand what the “Italian Ministry of Economic Development” is doing with patent (maybe is it hosting Italian patent office?)

            “On August 5th, 2014, under the aegis of the company Clean Nuclear Power based in Lugano in Switzerland, a patent was issued by the Italian Ministry of Economic Development. At its core lie the prospects for power sources based on LENR or LENT (Low Energy Nuclear Transmutations).

            Currently, two further applications are being processed : one by the United States Patent and Trademark Office in relation to the registration of the patent in the US territory and one by the European Patent Office in relation to the registration in the European territory.”

  10. On the website, there is a mechanism to send a message. So, I sent them something similar to the following:

    “1 gram of appropriate material successfully transformed lies a
    truly gigantic discovery : in just one hour, over a billion megawatts of
    power can be produced!


    1 megawatt = 1,000,000 watts
    1 billion = 1,000,000,000 (US)

    This means 1 billion megawatts = 1,000,000,000,000,000 watts of power is produced over 1 hour from 1 gram of fuel.

    So, either:

    1. This is an April Fool’s joke
    2. There has been a mistake somewhere in entering the information onto the website
    3. You are producing enough power to power a warp drive

    While I hope it is 3. and fear it is option 1., I believe it is probably option 2. Can you please confirm which it is…

    or, words to that effect.

  11. Here’s a question: at 1:30 on this video from last year’s MIT Cold Fusion Colloquium, Mitchell Swartz shows a chart on energy densities. The top horizontal bar on the chart is the ‘theoretical limit’ from a LENR (nuclear?) source. I can’t make out the scale on the x-axis, so I can’t tell, but it seems like the theoretical limit of LENR may be orders of magnitude more than the best LENR results. Can anybody read it? (And yes I realize at the bottom of the comments somebody points out that the maximum output from 1 g of matter is 25GWh (25 billion [U.S.] watt-hours). Maybe the website meant 1 billion watt-hours but wrote 1 billion mega watts per hour by mistake?


    1. As is commonly known the flux capacitor requires 1.21 jigowatts (AKA gigawatts) of electric power to operate. How many DeLorean time machines is 1 g capable of powering up?

      1. Well with an average run time of about ten seconds that is 12.1 GW seconds per run.

        25 GWh x 3600 seconds/h / 12.1GW seconds per run equals 7438 runs

        Those must have been the lightest banana peels in the world that he pulled out of Marty’s trash.

  12. First cause for concern: they don’t have a competent engineer who knows the megawatt is not a unit of energy. Jeez!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *