Interview with Hank Mills on the Lugano E-Cat Report, Replication Efforts

Below is an interview I conducted with PESN correspondent Hank Mills about recent developments with the E-Cat and upcoming replication efforts. Hank has been a long-time follower of the E-Cat, and has written extensively about it on (His most recent articles on the E-Cat can be found here)

  • Pekka Janhunen

    Very good interview, Hank Mills. You have done your homework. You are a good spokesperson for propagating the matter.

    • Christopher Calder

      Hank did a great job. I suggest that the dam of denial now has a serious hole in it. The dam is holding but weakening. The mainstream scientific community has made no major public statements, but in private I believe many, if not most, take the test very seriously and are getting nervous. What Hank failed to talk about are the other major LENR companies that may have major announcements, new independent test results, etc., in the weeks and months ahead. A critical mass of pressure behind the dam is building, and I think we are near the point where the dam will burst wide open and everything will come out in public, including the MIT cover-up scandal and the pig headed blockade of scientific progress being conducted by the US Patent Office.

      You can help by writing Albert Gore’s Climate Reality Project,

      the Green Party, Greenpeace, and every major environmental group you can think of plus your representatives in Congress. Ask them to put pressure on Obama to call the US Patent Office and tell them to stop the discrimination against LENR products. If Rossi and others had patents, they would be much more open about revealing their technical secrets.

      • maybe I’m an awfully negative guy, but I don’t think that you name the people who can help us solve the problem, instead of preventing us to kill their business…

        I rather bet on the consumers to follow us. japanese, cargo makers, car makers, plane manufacturers, concrete producers, food industry, farmers, citizens…

        anyway , maybe I’m wrong because darden seems to be playing in that club.
        future will say.

        • Christopher Calder

          Every action has a reaction. Here is a letter I sent a number of news organizations, politicians, environmental groups, etc.
          Please do what you can to end the US Patent Office’s discrimination against Low Energy Nuclear Reaction (LENR) products that can replace all fossil fuels while producing no greenhouse gas emissions or radioactive waste. Pig headedness at the US Patent Office can be overcome by one presidential phone call. Does Barack Obama really want a low cost, reliable 24-7-365 replacement for oil, coal, and natural gas? Does he want China to get LENR products to the marketplace before the USA? That may happen unless he acts to support LENR intellectual property rights.

          Christopher Calder – nonprofit food security advocate

    • LCD

      Okay if Pekka says so then I’ll have to listen to it. Truthfully I wasn’t planning on doing so.

  • hunfgerh

    Why CF needs a RT-superconductor? The Lugano Report contains the following hard facts. In an E-CAT a nuclear reaction takes place: The base materials of the E-Cat is converted to higher isotopes of the base material. Further, the E-Cat produces more heat than is possible by a chemical reaction. Gamma radiation, neutron radiation was not measured.
    Furthermore, all speak quite naturally on e-capture by protons. An explanation of how something runs out is not given. Why? The statement was delivered several times. From the mass difference of the following reaction (p + + e- + E –> n + v) the amount of energy for neutron formation can calculated. It is for the e-capture (K-capture) 0.78 MeV. On the other hand, the ionization energy of hydrogen is 13.6 eV. Not targeted energy supply> = 13.6 eV thus leads the hydrogen ionization and is therefore always counterproductive for a neutron production. A prerequisite for e-capture in addition to the amount of energy is the direction of the applied energy. To push the s-electron into the core a spherically symmetric force, which pushes the electron via core is necessary. The necessary power can be realized by a spherically symmetric electron density around the nucleus. The mutual repulsion of the electrons in this case pushes an electron into the nucleus. The realization of the high electron density is required in a dynamic field (current flow), high current densities, which can be realized only with corresponding superconductors.
    You can also discuss here about endlessly or simply confirm the results of DE102008047334B4 by independent institutions.

    • Andreas Moraitis

      Electron/neutron capture could indeed play a role in this game. But LENR seem to include an entire zoo of possible reactions. How would you explain, for example, the depletion of 7Li in Rossi’s latest reactor? If 7Li would capture a neutron (with the subsequent path >> 8Be >> 2 4He), one could expect to see fairly strong gammas (6-7 MeV). 7Li + p fusion (analogous continuation, no gammas) looks more plausible in this case, although the question how the Coulomb wall is overcome remains open. Maybe the “neutrons” are “virtual neutrons” (protons with “shielding” electrons), and the electrons are expelled from the nucleus after the reaction?

      • hunfgerh

        You said it “LENR seem to include an entire zoo of possible reactions”.

        Electron capture: Electron capture leads to a shift in Neutrons and protons (Neutrons + 1, protons – 1): z. B: H –> n; 28 Ni –> 27 Co

        Dependent from wether the new element isotop is stable or not it decays by radiation into other elements

        Neutron capture: Neutron capture leads to a shift only in neutrons, building of higher isotops of the elment: H + n –> D + n –> T + n –> “Q”;
        28/58Ni + n –> 28/59Ni + n –> 28/60Ni + n –> usw.

        Instabel Isotops can decay to other elements: “Q” –> He + ß-

        What exactly happens in praxis depends maybe from outer conditions?
        To research this is duty from public financial systems.

  • Buck

    This was an excellent interview. It is well worth the time. For example, Hank did a great job of describing the faulty logic of the skeptics who have been trying to tear down the results of ITPR2.

  • BroKeeper

    Perhaps obvious to others, one thing that struck me personally was Hank’s insight of nuclear reaction presence verses any other known reactions. He mentioned by simply observing an E-Cats
    temperature decreased much slower than a dummy’s temperature without a catalyst after the controlled input was removed. This can only assert a self-sustained capability of operation occurring from nuclear reactions considering its small size.

  • Zeddicus Zul Zorander

    Have to say this is a much better interview than the Sterling interview a little while ago. Hank also seems very well informed, which makes this a good story to listen to.

    Well done, Frank.

  • BroKeeper

    Lurker123, Darden, Rossi & Co. has hedged their bets that trump those points. It is China. China is immune from these concerns. The Chinese government is only stable as its masses and answers only to its society’s rest. They know the E-Cat is the only quick resolution to their dirty fossil fuels literal stranglehold on its society. Darden and Rossi’s altruistic values are deeper than their pockets, a characteristic highly favored in Chinese people’s complementary yin/yang philosophical beliefs. Another ace they have is the US Defense’s need for inexpensive, compact, clean and safe energy to power their futuristic advanced technological vehicles and weapons. They can only hold the LENR genie in the bottle so long and hidden from public view without chancing public outcry if held too long. There are many other factors one should consider before conspiracy theories are contrived.

    • Sanjeev

      Colonization of Mars will be extremely difficult without a LENR energy source. LENR can enable life in space and other planets. I guess no one will oppose it for this purpose, not even the oil co.s, as long as they have their captive customers here.
      Space applications are a good excuse to start developing LENR. No interests are harmed in this sector. Of course the tech will “spill” into other areas slowly. It will be a soft launch rather than total disruption.

      • we want LENR Fusione Fredda

        So many points make sense. The “naive” interpretation is, perhaps, just as powerful as the pessimist’s theory.
        Rossi knows full well the power of companies that trade, distribute, dominate the big fossil fuel industry: he was thrown in jail after inventing a system which interfered with some of the mafia’s economic interests (waste management). The mafia, obviously lobbying freely in Italian politics, operated in such a way to CHANGE THE LAW. Look at Italy’s current politics: the same happens today. Nobody invests in Italy because the laws keep changing, amid a horrifically slow-mo Kafkian judicial system.
        Do we think that governments around the globe are honest or fend for the future of humanity? No. Each government looks to economic domination, where not to individual benefits, without ever – to this day – fully factoring the environment in the equation.
        This is where Lurker123 is completely right on some potential harm that could come LENR’s way.
        The force of naiveté lies in the internet, in its numbers, in its language, English.
        In mercatu veritas, Rossi says: the more people are informed worldwide trough the internet about LENR, the more companies are able to replicate LENR effects mechanizing them into usable devices, before the laws are changed by corruption in both realms (like the EU law on ‘justified oblivion’), the bigger is the chance that LENR might be accepted. AlainCo in LENR-forum has stressed the psychological aspects of denying a theory that is foreign to conventional wisdom (
        This is exactly the Galileo Galilei example that Rossi simply gave: it took the Church (it could be called the legal system of yesteryear) 350 years to make the first admiission it might have been wrong: it was 1992!
        We are all waiting for that “That’s the press, baby” moment. But that implies the verified operation of scores of LENR-related machinery.

      • malkom700

        When it is a beneficial thing then its implementation is only a matter of management. The first may be oil companies and countries that will invest in the project.