Experimental Path after Hot-Cat Replication (Michael Lammert)

The following post was submitted by Michael Lammert (AKA Dr. Mike)


Experimental Path after Hot-Cat Replication

     Within the next 3-6 months many successful replications of a hot-cat type device are anticipated.  What experimental path should be taken after these replications?  The obvious answer to this question is to continue to run experiments both to improve the performance of the reactor and to gather data that may be useful in establishing a theory of LENR.  Improving the performance of the reactor will probably be a two-step process, first determining and optimizing key parameters of operation, then applying that knowledge to design a higher power reactor optimized for delivering heat to a particular system.  Hopefully, the experiments run for parameter optimization will lead to a universal theory of LENR, which will also aid in the development of many systems that can make use of LENR heat.

It should be noted that Andrea Rossi (and possibly a few others) have already run hundreds of experiments for optimizing LENR reactors.  However, there is little hope that any of his results or results of anyone else trying to develop a commercial product will be revealed.  Perhaps the replications will result in some public funding of LENR research.  Most publicly funded work requires a fairly extensive documentation of the work done and the results achieved.   Perhaps the replications will also lead to the acceptance of LENR patent applications (if they meet all patent disclosure rules) by the US Patent Office and to the acceptance of high quality LENR papers by major scientific journals.

Preparation for Future Experimental Work

The first step in preparing to run optimization experiments should be to review the results of all existing replication work.  The quality of this review will be totally dependent on how well each replicator has documented his/her work.  It certainly would be nice if most replicators posted their results on the e-catworld.com website for peer review.  (It would also be beneficial for each replicator to send copies of their reports to the editors of Science, Nature, Scientific American, and Science News and to the head of the US Patent Office.)  My assumption is that even if someone is trying to replicate either the Lugano or Parkhomov reactors, there will be differences in both the detailed design of their reactor and the exact fuel used in their reactor.  These details in differences among replicators might be very useful to someone just starting to run optimization experiments.  Also, improving the reactor design for experimental work should be a key factor in optimizing the reactor parameters.  Enhancements seem both in Parkhomov and MFMP reactors, such as adding pressure monitoring, moving the sealing points away from the reactor hot zone, and encapsulating the fuel are several things that should be included in an experiment friendly reactor.  Based on the results of replication efforts observed thus far, the design of a reactor to be used in optimization efforts should preferentially include the following features:

  1. A port for and means of measuring pressure

The internal reactor pressure may be an important parameter in the performance of a reactor.  Also, monitoring the pressure during a qualification test of a reactor or during an experimental run could be used to determine if the reactor is leak tight.  Any abnormality in the pressure verses time or temperature for a qualification or experiment would require the reactor to be rejected or the experiment rerun in a new reactor.

  1. A port to pressurize, pull vacuum, and analyze chamber atmosphere at the end of an experiment

As part of the qualification of every reactor and prior to each experimental run the reactor should be pressurized (probably with dry nitrogen) to the maximum expected operating pressure to check for leaks.  (The test criterion might be no measurable pressure drop in one hour after initial pressurization.)  Although this won’t guarantee that the reactor won’t leak at elevated temperatures, it will verify that no experiment starts with a leaky reactor.  Although previous reactor demonstrations have shown that it is not necessary to remove the air in the reactor prior to operation, optimization experiments would be more controlled if most of the air was initially removed from the reactor.  (The reactor atmosphere would be mostly nitrogen if the reactor was initially pressure tested to 150-250 psi.)   Therefore, it is preferable that optimization experiments start with using a vacuum pump to remove most of the nitrogen from within the reactor (perhaps to a base pressure of 1 torr or less).

Note that this same port can be used to measure the residual gas at the end of an experiment, perhaps checking for helium.  Also, this port can be used in a set of experiments that compare replacing LiAlH4 as the source of hydrogen with an initial pressurization of hydrogen gas.

  1. Ability to remove the ash at the end of an experiment and maintain spatial relevance

The fuel for the reactor needs to be held within a container that can be removed intact at the end of an experiment.  It would not be possible for a reactor to be reused for multiple experiments if any fuel/ash residue remained in the reactor from the previous experiment.  Also, for some experiments it may be desirable to analyze the ash as a function of position within the reactor (both along the length of the reactor and edge to center).  If the ash is not analyzed for some experiments, it would still be a good idea to keep the ash intact for possible future analysis.

  1. Reactor sealing points distant from high temperature zone

A leaky reactor will probably be one of biggest problems in causing inconsistent experimental results.  By keeping the reactor sealing points somewhat distant from the high temperature region of the reactor, the problem of leaks can be minimized by verifying room temperature sealing with a pressurized nitrogen test and by monitoring the pressure during all experiments.

  1. Ability to wind heating coils precisely

If experimental reactors are going to be fabricated to have nearly identical input power verses temperature profiles, the heater coils will need to be formed with a fairly high degree of precision.  This will require either an automated process or a manual process that uses some type of template to maintain precise spacing of the coil windings.

  1. Heater coils with the capacity to achieve no fuel temperatures of 1250-1300oC

Although there are only a few parameters that need to be examined at 1250-1300oC, every reactor should have the input power verses temperature characterized up to this temperature range without fuel as a pre-use qualification test.  The reactor would only need to be at this high current, high temperature condition for the time it takes for the reactor temperature to stabilize at a fixed power setting.


  1. A separate coil for supplying a high frequency electromagnetic pulse/signal to the reactor

For running the optimization experiments, particularly those investigating the power supply parameters, it is desirable to separate energy supplied to the reactor as just heat from that supplied in the form of electromagnetic energy.  My recommendation for designing a reactor for experimental tests is to have one coil for supplying heat using dc power (or 50-60 cycle sine wave ac) and a separate coil that supplies energy from a higher frequency power generator.   Separate winding for supplying heat and electromagnetic energy make it easier to measure the power supplied from each energy source and enable one power source to be turned off without affecting the other power source.  It should be noted that a second winding would not be needed on the experimental reactor if replication results show that only heat is needed to drive LENR at high temperature.  Also, a single winding could be used with an electronic superposition of a heating signal and a high frequency signal provided the power contribution from each source can be measured and each source can be turned on and off independently of the other source.

  1. Method for precise placement of one or more external thermocouples

It is anticipated that the only way to build reactors with nearly identical power verses temperature characteristics is to develop a precise procedure for attaching one or more thermocouples to the reactor.

  1. Internal thermocouple

It is desirable to be able to monitor the internal temperature of the reactor near the fuel, although some design effort may be required to achieve items #1, 2, 3 and 9 simultaneously in a single reactor.

  1. Alternative temperature measurement

Although thermocouples should be adequate for monitoring reactors, a secondary temperature measurement such as IR thermal imaging could be used as a secondary method of verifying temperature.  Some modification to the reactor design might be needed so that the IR thermal imager does not have to measure the temperature of the Al2O3 cement that covers heating coils.


  1. Ability to reuse the reactor for multiple experiments

The basic experimental reactor needs to be able to be reused for multiple experimental runs to reduce the cost of the experiments, to be able to verify the reproducibility of the reactor before it is used in an optimization experiment, and perhaps as a requirement for some sensitive experiments.

  1. Reactor fabrication procedure yields reproducible reactors

Just as it is desirable to be able to reuse a reactor many times, it is also necessary to be able to fabricate nearly identical reactors.  If an experimental matrix requires 12 separate runs, it would be good to have the ability to run 3 or 4 of the experiments simultaneously in separate, “identical” reactors.  Also, if a reactor fails in the middle of a series of experiments, it would be nice not to have to rerun all previously completed portions of that experiment.  Verification of reactor uniformity will permit the use of multiple reactors in a single experiment.

Once the design of the experimental reactor is complete and the process for building it is fixed, the reproducibility of the reactors must be established.  This can be accomplished by building 5 or so reactors to spec, verifying heater wires resistances are equal, leak checking the reactors with pressurization, verifying no-fuel control heating is nearly identical by running an input power versus temperature curve, and finally verifying that fuel-loaded reactors behave statistically the same.  Any reactor with measured data statistically “out of family” should be rejected from use and the cause of the out of family data investigated.  All future reactors can be evaluated in a similar manner with their measured data adding to the statistical data base.  Note that some reasonable specs should be set on what is the maximum allowable spread in measured data among “identical” reactors.  If the spread in the data on the initial reactors is larger than those specs, the manufacturing process of the reactors will need to be improved before starting any optimization experiments.

Another issue that should be decided before starting any experiments is what is going to be the measured parameter to determine if one operating condition is better than another.  Possible measured parameters include:

  • Excess heat as a function of temperature as measured by calorimetry
  • Delta temperature of the active run input power verses temperature curve as compared to the control (no fuel) input power vs. temperature curve
  • Time period of self-sustaining heat as a function of temperature
  • Temperature at which excess heat is first observed

Other parameters might become evident as optimization experiments are run.

Although good safety procedures should have been established in replication attempts, if they weren’t, they should be implemented before any optimization experiments.   Every experiment should be run with the assumption that the reactor can explode or melt down at any time, and some strange combination of operating conditions might produce health damaging high energy neutrons or other dangerous ionizing radiation.  Appendix 1 (pages 33-36) in the Lugano report seems to serve as a good reference for what should be done for monitoring neutrons and high energy ionizing radiation.

Reactor Performance Optimization

The optimization of the fuel components and the operating conditions for the LENR reactor should be done following standard methodologies of experimental design.  It might be beneficial to those involved in running LENR experiments to review some of the concepts of experimental design (such as taught in Six Sigma training) before beginning the experiments.  Even the most basic LENR reactor is a multi-factor, multi-level device from an experimental design viewpoint.  Some of the key factors and levels to be evaluated in the Lugano type reactor include the:

  1. Ni
  2. LiAlH4
  3. Ratio of Ni : LiAlH4 weight and ratio of total fuel weight to reactor volume
  4. Importance of Li and Al
  5. Effect of adding other elements to the fuel
  6. Effect of the heater power supply and other electromagnetic pulses
  7. Effect of time, temperature, and electromagnetic pulse variables on products found in the ash and residual gas and on the self-sustaining time period

Possible experimental work that should be done to optimize the above parameters is as follows:


Although the Ni powder is surely one of the most important parameters in the reactor, it won’t be surprising if most small particle nickel powders work well.  However, if one vendor’s Ni powder is definitely better than others, it will be necessary to determine the differences in the Ni powders.   The basic experiment for evaluating different Ni powders is just to run each powder in the reactor over a range of input powers, holding all other variables constant.  If differences are noted in the experimental runs, then the Ni powders in those experiments need to be compared in morphology, nominal particle size, nominal surface area, and the impurities present.  If one vendor’s Ni powder demonstrates better results than all other tested, it would probably be beneficial to test a second sample from that vendor that was manufactured in a separate batch to verify that the vendor can consistently fabricate a best performing Ni powder.  One other investigation that would be useful would be to evaluate the effect of the Ni powder surface area using Ni powder produced by the same vendor.  For example, Umicore’s “Ultrafine Powder” (1 micron) has a surface area that is about three times that of their “2M Powder” (2 micron).


There hasn’t been much information on the LiAlH4 powder in the replication reports other than the rather large mostly Al particle shown as “Particle #2” in the fuel analysis in the Lugano report on page 44.  The experiments needed to optimize the LiAlH4 would consist of comparing the LiAlH4 powder that works in the replications to other vendors LiAlH4 powder.  If differences are found in the reactor performance, the LiAlH4 powders should be evaluated for particle size and purity.

Ratio of Ni : LiAlH4 Weight and the Ratio of Total Fuel Weight to Reactor Volume

These two factors are grouped together since a single set of experiments can probably optimize these parameters.  LiAlH4 weights at 5%, 10%, and 15% of the Ni weight could be used as one set of parameters in an experimental matrix.  The other set of factors would be 2 or 3 total weights of fuel, the total weight depending on the exact volume of the reactor (which needs to be determined to an accuracy of at least 0.1cm3).

Importance of Li and Al

Obviously, one important purpose of the LiAlH4 is to supply hydrogen, but what other roles do Li and Al play in the LENR reactor?  Possible experiments that might be run to evaluate the roles of Li and Al include:

  1. Replace the LiAlH4 with a different hydride that contains no Li or Al.
  2. Replace the LiAlH4 with hydrogen gas at a pressure that has the same hydrogen yield as the LiAlH4 (after removing residual nitrogen with a vacuum pump).
  3. Add Li and Al individually and in combination to (1) and (2) above.
  4. Repeat (1), (2), and (3) but pressure test the reactor with dry air and do not remove the air with a vacuum pump prior to beginning the active run (start runs at one atmosphere pressure of dry air).


Effect of Other Elements in the Fuel

It is quite possible that the addition of other elements to the baseline fuel mixture could significantly enhance the reactor performance.  Three elements that might be considered for investigation are Fe, C and Ti.  However, other elements a may be better initial choice for initial investigation, especially as more data is acquired.  Since it is unknown what quantity of these extra elements might be beneficial, the experimental design should encompass a wide range of quantities, perhaps 1%, 5%, and 25% of the total fuel weight.  A full matrix experiment would require 9 test runs, a baseline control run, and perhaps 2 or 3 replications.  If one wanted to also investigate combinations of any two of the elements with all combinations of weight percentages, an additional 27 test runs would be required without any replications.  An experiment such as this shows the need for reusable and reproducible reactors.  Also, it shows why one needs to use techniques from experimental design to run a partial matrix of an experiment rather than the full matrix, but still be able to acquire most of the information that would come from running the full matrix.

Effect of the Heater Power Supply and Other Electromagnetic Pulses

As mentioned earlier, a reactor with one coil winding for supplying heat and one winding for electromagnetic pulses would be a very desirable feature of an experimental reactor.  Assuming that the reactor is designed with two windings, the optimization of the signal to the second winding would have to be completed prior to running any fuel optimization experiments. Every new reactor would need to be validated using both windings.  The first experiment would need to demonstrate that just supplying power to the heater winding with a triac chopped ac signal is sufficient to demonstrate LENR replication.  The next experiment would be to run the same reactor first with dc power to the heater winding, then to run variac controlled ac power to just the heater winding.  These experiments probably will show no LENR excess heat effects.  The same reactor would then have dc or variac controlled ac supplied to the heater winding to achieve a reactor temperature of about 900oC.  A signal generator/pulse generator would be hooked up to the second winding of the reactor.  The parameters that might be examined for the signal generator are:

  1. Square wave
  • 100Hz, 1KHz, 10KHz, 100KHz, and 1MHz
  • 3-5 Different amplitudes
  1. Sawtooth wave
  • 100Hz, 1KHz, 10KHz, 100KHz, and 1MHz
  • 3-5 Different amplitudes
  1. Sine wave
  • 100Hz, 1KHz, 10KHz, 100KHz, and 1MHz
  • 3-5 Different amplitudes
  1. Triangular wave
  • 100Hz, 1KHz, 10KHz, 100KHz, and 1MHz
  • 3-5 Different amplitudes

Experimental parameters that might be evaluated for a pulse generator include:

  1. Pulse rates of 100Hz, 1KHz, 10KHz, 100KHz, and 1MHz
  2. Pulse durations of 3% and 10% of the pulse period
  3. 3-5 different amplitudes

For at least one or two of the above high frequency inputs, the frequency should be swept slowly over the entire frequency range to determine an exact optimum frequency.   All signal waveforms should be closely examined in a frequency range near this optimum frequency.  It should be noted that the power going to the second winding from the signal generator / pulse generator will have to be monitored and added to the power supplied to the heater wire to give the total input power going to the reactor.  If the reactor temperature is greater than the temperature on the control (no fuel) run for that reactor at that total input power, excess heat is being generated in the reactor.  This is one experiment where it might be possible to create a thermal runaway in the reactor.  The signal generator/ pulse generator should be turned off immediately if a rapid temperature rise is noted in any TC reading.  Lower the signal/ pulse amplitude and recheck frequency effects if rapid temperature rises are noted.  For all previously mentioned fuel optimization experiments the reactor should be run at the frequency producing the largest excess heat effect and at signal amplitudes well under any that might produce a runaway condition.

It should be noted that measuring the optimum frequency of the signal going to the second winding should be one measurement taken during the initial reactor qualification and should be a criterion for accepting the reactor for experimental use.  Another interesting experiment would be to determine if fuels with different Ni particle sizes (or distinctively different morphology) have dramatically different optimum second winding signal frequencies.  In fact, the frequency of the signal supplied to the second winding in every fuel optimization experiment should be scanned over a narrow range to determine if the optimum frequency shifts any in each experiment.  Another test that should be run with at least some of the fuel experiments that showed optimum results is to turn off the power to the heating coil and determine if the reactor temperature can be controlled by only the amplitude (or pulse rate) of the signal going to the high frequency winding.  If the reactor’s temperature can be controlled with just the high frequency signal and its power level is very small relative to the output power of the reactor, it should be possible to run the reactor at a very high COP continuously from start up until fuel exhaustion.

Effect of Time, Temperature, and Electromagnetic Pulse Variables on Products Found in the Ash and Residual Gas and on the Self-Sustaining Time Period

This last proposed experiment probably won’t benefit the optimization of the performance of the reactor but may greatly help in establishing a theory for LENR.  This experiment would use the optimized fuel mixture from previous experiments in all test runs.  Reactors would be run under the following conditions:

  • Two amplitudes of optimum high frequency pulses going to winding #2
  • Three temperatures, perhaps 850oC, 1050oC, and 1250oC
  • Four time periods, perhaps 12 hours, 2 days, 8 days and 32 days

The dc power (or variac controlled ac) going to the heater winding would be adjusted to achieve the desired set point temperature for each of the two high frequency amplitudes.  This experiment would require 24 runs plus a few extra runs for replication verification.  At the end of the time period for each run the power would be turned off and the time that the reactor maintained temperature should be measured (self-sustaining time).  The reactor residual gas would be analyzed at the end of each run and a complete analysis would be made of the “ash” at the end of each run.  For a few of the runs it may be desirable to determine the uniformity of the “ash” along the length of the reactor and from edge to center.  The results of this experiment should show isotropic changes in the fuel as a function of time for 6 operating conditions (3 temperatures and 2 high frequency amplitudes).   The self-sustaining times can also be correlated to the isotropic and composition changes in the fuel.

Scaling to a Larger Size Reactor and Operating under Load

      The information gained in optimizing the fuel and operation conditions in the experimental reactor should be helpful in building a higher output power reactor.  It is anticipated the optimum fuel components and their weight ratios would be about the same in a small reactor as a larger reactor, especially if the higher power reactor operates by primarily radiating heat.  However, building a higher output reactor will not be as simple as building a bigger reactor and adding more fuel.

One feature from the experimental reactor that needs incorporated into a higher power reactor is the ability to refuel (reuse) the reactor.  Perhaps, all that is needed to accomplish this is a port to remove the atmosphere (a large percentage He?) of the used reactor, then refill the reactor to the proper pressure of hydrogen.  The reactor design would have to be considerably more complex to enable complete refueling.

It is obvious that a reactor with ten times the output of the experimental reactor can be build by placing 10 experimental size reactors in a single box. However, each small reactor would need its own control system and further scaling up in size requires another controller for each added reactor.  Another fairly straight forward method of scaling the reactor is to form a large reactor from cascaded reactors.  (Andrea Rossi has hinted that he is using some form of cascading to build larger “hot-cat” type reactors.)  In this configuration a small reactor provides the heat for a larger reactor, which perhaps provides heat for a third larger reactor.  If each reactor has a gain of 5, the 3-stage reactor would have a total gain of 125. Although the control system would be more complicated for a 3-stage reactor than for a single stage reactor, it would be much less complicated than a control system for 125 individual reactors. If future high temperature LENR reactors are primarily driven by heat, it is quite likely that some form of cascading will be used in most larger reactors.

Thermal loading is one issue that will have an impact on the scaling of LENR reactors.  Most replication reactors and experimental reactors used in optimization experiments will be run under a “no load” condition, that is, all heat released goes into the “infinite” sink of the atmosphere.  The reactor will reach an equilibrium temperature such that that heat generated by the input power plus the heat generated by the LENR effect is equal to the heat being lost through radiation (and smaller amount through convection and conduction) to the surroundings.   In a useful device the output heat from the reactor will actually be heating something, that something being a thermal load on the reactor.  If most of the heat is transferred to the load by means of radiation, it is quite likely that the optimum operating conditions for the experimental reactor can be directly applied to a high power reactor.   If a higher power output is desired from a reactor than can be achieved through radiative energy, heat transfer through conduction and convection must be added to the system design (using the talents of thermo engineers).  It is quite likely that some of the reactor parameters that were optimized for reactors operating in a radiative mode will not be valid for a scaled reactor in which conduction and convection are important components of the heat transfer to the thermal load.  For example, more fuel would probably be needed in a reactor with a high thermal load as compared to the same reactor operating with a small thermal load.

There are several other engineering problems that will probably show up in scaled higher power reactors.  First, heat transfer from the fuel to the reactor chamber wall seems like it will be a critical factor in designing higher power reactors, particularly for reactors having higher thermal loads.  The fuel most distant from the reactor chamber wall must be kept well below its melting point.  Another possible problem in scaled up reactors is localized hot spots in the fuel mixture.  If more heat increases the LENR reaction rate, then a hot spot will continue to heat up until the fuel melts.  Localized hot spots in a scaled up reactor seems to be very similar to the problem of scaling up the size of power transistors using parallel devices (or multi-emitter devices), in which when one emitter begins to get hotter than the other emitters, the current in that emitter increases causing it to get even hotter.  This positive feedback eventually results in all of the current wanting to flow through only one of the emitters, often destroying the transistor.  The “current hogging” problem can be fixed in power transistors by adding a series resistor to each emitter.  Any rise in one of the emitter currents results in a larger voltage drop across the emitter resistor, lowering the voltage to that emitter, thereby reducing the emitter current.  A higher power reactor may need a similar negative feedback mechanism added to its design to prevent hot spot formation and propagation analogous to adding emitter resistors to paralleled power transistors.

One other problem that would probably show up in the design of a high power reactor is that if more of the heat is being carried away from the reactor by conduction (or perhaps convection) the reactor could melt down in seconds if the heat transfer from the reactor to the load stopped or decreased rapidly.   The rapid feedback needed to control the reactor temperature might be the most difficult problem to overcome in developing a high power reactor, especially if the thermal load on the reactor is not constant.   This problem could limit the maximum operating temperature of the reactor and limit the useful maximum output power of a large reactor.  Also, if the ability to shut down the reactor quickly is a necessity, the operating conditions of the reactor may need to be adjusted so that some input electromagnetic signal is always required to keep the reactor running.  Turning off this signal would have to immediately stop the LENR produced heat.

     Although it appears that considerable information and data will be available to the public on efforts for replicating LENR heat generation in high temperature reactors, it is not clear that much information and data will be available to the public from efforts to optimize reactor performance and develop higher power reactors.  Perhaps some of the ideas in this post (and ideas from those commenting on the post) will be useful to those who will be running post-replication experiments and who can share their results with the public.


  • builditnow

    Dr. Bob,
    Many thanks, very comprehensive.

    Frank, can we have these design documents in a location on your site that remains on your home page, otherwise they get hard to find over time.

    For instance, Hank Mill’s guideline,

    and the E-Cat collaboration project bookmark no longer working.

    I found it under, the date changed,

    Many thanks for all your work.

  • GreenWin

    Excellent suggestions Dr. Mike. tHX.

  • GreenWin

    Excellent suggestions Dr. Mike. tHX.

  • EEStorFanFibb

    Great work Dr. Mike!

  • Great work Dr. Mike!

  • Sanjeev

    This should go straight in the replication document.

  • HS61AF91

    how about magnetic enclosure of an e-cat, or emphasizing harmonics in investigating rf energies? Just some thoughts, brought about from reading your fantastically comprehensive way forward.

    • Dr. Mike

      Thanks for your comments. “Emphasizing the harmonics” is precisely the purpose of supplying a higher frequency signal to a second coil. Rather than depend on the harmonics in a chopped 50 or 60 cycle ac source to control the LENR effect in a reactor, supply heat with a non-harmonic source and supply a higher frequency signal separately where both the frequency and amplitude can be controlled. It would be interesting to evaluate the effect of operating a LENR reactor in a magnetic field, especially to gain knowledge on theory.
      Dr. Mike

  • John

    I agree with many or your arguments Dr. Mike. I just don’t understand why you give this huge importance to US patent office. You americans believe the world is just your country but the world is much more than that specially when a disruptive technology enters the worldwide market. what will really happen is the number one country that is China not Usa will spread the technology and NO one will be able to compete with them

    • Dr. Mike

      My issue with the US Patent Office is that their failure to keep an open mind on “cold fusion” has been a major factor in slowing the spread of the technology. China may end up being top exporter of LENR systems sometime in the future, but perhaps they would already been exporting systems if the US Patent Office hadn’t made a conscious effort to suppress “cold fusion” patents.
      Dr. Mike

  • Nigel Appleton

    Of course, in order to have “post-replication” experiments, it is first necessary to HAVE replication.

    Thus far only Parkhomov has indepently replicated Rossi’s results. Sure, the Lugano team did, but only with a reactor and fuel supplied by Rossi

    The MFMP efforts have been characterised by a comprehensive catalog of equipment failures. Well, they happen in the best-run labs, but they do seem to have been serially unfortunate.

    But I would dearly love to see someone else replicate excess heat, so that we CAN move to the “post-replication” stage

    • Sadly, I have to agree. We will not enter a ‘post replication’ phase until a specification is available that allows anyone to gather the materials required and build a reactor that consistently delivers ‘anomolous’ heat at a significant level. We still seem to be quite some way from this situation.

      Dr Mike’s comprehensive guidelines above point in the right direction, particularly regarding input from EMFs, which IMHO are probably essential to success.

      • GreenWin

        Pretty sure the Swartz/Hagelstein NANOR (ver 7 using Ni) devices produce excess heat, though at low levels. Still, IF such an entry level device was made commercially available to prove excess heat, it would do much for HS and college physics classes. Unless of course the Profs are fired for teaching heresy/forbidden tech.

        • GreenWin

          I should add that Mitch Swartz is hesitating on commercialization because the USPTO has dragged his patent apps out for years beyond norm. Why shouldn’t he give his technology away? Why do people expect to be paid for their work?

  • Dr. Mike

    My issue with the US Patent Office is that their failure to keep an open mind on “cold fusion” has been a major factor in slowing the spread of the technology. China may end up being top exporter of LENR systems sometime in the future, but perhaps they would already been exporting systems if the US Patent Office hadn’t made a conscious effort to suppress “cold fusion” patents.
    Dr. Mike

  • Herb Gillis

    We know that the Lugano fuel contained significant quantities of iron. With that in mind I would like to ask if anyone has considered using Awaruite instead of Ni. Awaruite is a natural metallic alloy if Ni and Fe, where the ratio of Ni to Fe is between 2:1 and 3:1. This material appears to have a particularly strong affinity for hydrogen.

    • Dr. Mike

      It seems quite reasonable to evaluate a Ni-Fe alloy in an experimental reactor. I would use a manufactured alloy rather than a natural occurring ore to eliminate the effects that impurities.in the ore might have on results.
      Dr. Mike

  • Thomas Clarke

    Updated code below. A few changes, mainly more description of method. Anyone wanting seriously to check these should engage with me in checking the various assumptions etc. I’ve tried to follow the Lugano calculations as far as possible while correcting the emissivity issue. Of course there are clearly assumptions and approximations they have made. that is quite proper – though they have not done a good job of estimating or explaining their assumptions.

    Take a ballpark +/-30% error in these results from known issues (for example the ridges which alter emissivity in a known fashion). I would make these figures even more accurate but I’m not sure it is worth it.

    # Name: Emissivity Calculations
    # Purpose: numerical integration of Planck Law
    # Version: 1.1
    # Python: 2.7
    # Changelog:
    # v1 -> v1.1
    # Bolometer function added to calculation (instead of assuming constant
    # in range 7.5u – 13u)
    # Description added to power adjustment approximations
    # Results printed for a range of possible inputs:
    # band emissivity, bolometer characteristics.
    # dummy run “ballpark figure” for temp explained and made weighted av of
    # surface temps. NB this is still not done properly!
    from math import exp
    from functools import partial

    import scipy.interpolate as sp
    import numpy
    import matplotlib.pyplot as plt

    #Physical constants (SI units)
    c = 2.997e8
    k = 1.38e-23
    h = 6.626e-34

    NUM_PTS = 100 # number of points for numerical integration and interpolation

    BANDL = 7.5e-6 # (wavelength SI units)
    BANDH = 14e-6 # (as above)


    # Play with these constants to show sensitivity of results to emissivity
    BAND_E_BIAS = 1.0 # 1.0 => no change, multiples (1-e) spectral values in band
    # e.g. 2 moves values up from 0.9 to 0.95, 0.8 to 0.9 etc
    # e.g. 0.5 moves values down 0.9 to 0.8, 0.8 to 0.6 etc

    REAL_E_BIAS = 1.0 # 1.0 => no change, multiplies low e values

    BOLOMETER_SKEW = ” # ” => normal, ‘high’ => high lambda bias,
    # ‘low’ => low lambda bias

    ROOM_TEMP = 21 # Centigrade


    data = {
    # datasets from report: Temp/C, Pin, Prad, Pconv, Prods, Pjoule
    # each item has as key the number of the relevant active run file or 0 for dummy
    12:[1401, 907, 2398, 428, 353, 42 ],
    3: [1256, 791, 1725, 385, 308, 36],
    0: [400, 486, 183, 133, 130, 7] #NB see note below
    # Note on dummy figures.
    # The data for the dummy run is given in different form from the active runs
    # with details of temoeratures from different segments. Rather than complicate
    # the analysis we take a surface weighted average temperature here.
    # Because convection is much
    # more important in the dummy this average is more correct for the calculation
    # of the adjustment factor than the max recator body figure.
    # It should be noted that the dummy run recalculation is therefore more “hand
    # waving than the active runs recalculation. A better job could be done by
    # considering each part separately for the dummy run – maybe that would deal
    # with the remaining difference between dummy and active runs.

    # points defining curve of alumina spectral emissivity in IR band
    # NB there is a small change in this curve with temperature which is ignored
    alumina_spectral_e_pts = sorted({ 7e-6:0.92, 8e-6:0.94, 10e-6:0.95, 11e-6:0.90,
    12e-6:0.52, 13e-6:0.53, 15.5e-6:0.28}.items())

    # points defining spectral sensitivity of IR camera within its band
    bol_sens_pts = sorted({7e-6:0.1, 7.5e-6:0.2, 8.2e-6:0.9,
    8.7e-6:1.0,9.6e-6:0.92, 10.1e-6:0.96, 11e-6:0.85,12e-6:0.5,
    13e-6:0.41 ,13.5e-6:0.31,14.2e-6:0.34 }.items())

    def bolometer_sensitivity_pts():
    return [(l, 0.0 if (l 10e-6 and BOLOMETER_SKEW==’low’)
    else x) for (l,x) in bol_sens_pts]

    # points defining the total emissivity curve for alumina used in the report
    # note this does not need to be correct, just what the report testers used
    # NB temperatures are in C not K
    rep_alumina_tot_e_pts = sorted({ 20:0.66, 200:0.7,350:0.79, 480:0.7, 900:0.48,
    1250:0.41, 1510:0.4 }.items())

    # —————————————————————————–

    def temp_to_k(tempc):
    return tempc+273

    def frange(x, y, jump):
    while x < y:
    yield x
    x += jump

    def weighted_av(a, b, yfun, wfun):
    # form weighted av of yfun weighted by wfun over range a to b
    ysum = 0
    wsum = 0
    for y in frange(a, b, (b-a)/NUM_PTS):
    w = wfun(y)
    wsum += w
    ysum += yfun(y)*w
    return float(ysum)/wsum

    def interp(t1, pts):
    if t1 pts[-1][0]:
    print ‘out of range interpolation input’,t1, pts
    for i, (temp, e) in enumerate(pts):
    if temp > t1:
    temp0,e0 = pts[i-1]
    frac = (t1-temp0)/float(temp-temp0)
    return frac*e+(1-frac)*e0

    # subfunction used to generate point data
    def fun_to_pts(a, b, fun):
    res = {}
    for x in frange(a,b,(b-a)/float(NUM_PTS)):
    return sorted(res.items())

    # —————————————————————————–

    def rep_alumina_tot_e_fun(tp):
    return interp(tp,rep_alumina_tot_e_pts)

    def real_alumina_tot_e_fun(tp):
    e = rep_alumina_tot_e_fun(tp)
    if e 0.65: e = 0.65
    if e r_target:
    r_target = rep_alumina_tot_e_fun(tp)/alumina_band_e_fun(t1)
    t1 *= 0.95
    while planck_band_ratio(t1,tp) r_target:
    t1 *= 0.999
    return t1

    # —————————————————————————–

    def interp1(pts):
    xv = numpy.asarray([x for (x,y) in pts])
    yv = numpy.asarray([y for (x,y) in pts])
    xnew = numpy.linspace(pts[0][0], pts[-1][0], 100)
    tck = sp.splrep(xv, yv, s=0,k=1)
    ynew = sp.splev(xnew, tck,der=0)
    plt.plot(xnew, ynew)
    plt.title(‘Band Emissivity’)

    # —————————————————————————–

    def pconv(dats):
    [t1,pin, prad,pconv,prods,pjoule] = dats
    # print the results for normal, biassed low lambda,
    # biassed high lambda, bolometer sensitivity (bskew)
    # and for band emissivity (band_bias) shifted higher (0.5) AND LOWER (1.5)
    # from nominal
    for band_bias in [1.0, 1.5, 0.5]:
    for bskew in [”, ‘low’, ‘high’]:
    BOLOMETER_SKEW = bskew
    BAND_E_BIAS = band_bias
    if not bskew: bskew = ‘none’
    t2 = solve(t1)
    # Note that solve(t1) finds the real temperature t2 for a given
    # reported temperature t1. We then calculate power adjustment
    # factors (arad,aconv) = power_adj(t1,t2) for the ratios of real
    # rad or conv powers to reported powers
    # We apply these factors to the report powers to find the real powers
    # The problem is that not all the reactor is at the same temperature
    # Available data for power is given as radiation, convection, rods.
    # The joule heating is a very small correction to pin.
    # The reactor body is at the headline temperature, the caps are at a
    # lower temperature. The surface areas are:
    # body = 10*1.25*e-3 = 12.5e-3 m^2
    # caps = 6*1.67e-3 = 10e-3 m^2
    # we adjust radiation and convection using the factor for the reactor
    # body which makes 55% of the surface area, nearly all of the
    # radiated power (because of the high temp dependence) and more than
    # half of the convected power. The caps power thus has the wrong
    # conversion factor applied: at a lower temperature the reduction
    # factor will be less. However for active tests this is a small
    # effect, because Prad dominates and the contribution here from caps
    # is small.
    # Note the way the dummy headline temperature is given as a ballpark
    # figure between body and caps, weighted by area.
    # For dummy test the caps contribution is larger than for Prad but
    # here the difference between the power_adj factors for the two
    # areas is small. Overall the error due to this approximation is
    # similarly small. A more accurate calculation could be done for
    # the dummy test where more data is available. However this is
    # very close for the active test powers because radiation depends
    # as T^4 and is nearly all from the reactor body.
    # See elsewhere for a fuller error analysis.
    # The rods temperature varies. We average the rad and conv factors
    # for a rough estimate. Given the rods contribution is small
    # this will suffice. We use the adjustment factor from this average
    # temperature for all the rods power.
    pout1 = prad+pconv+prods
    ar,ac = power_adj(t1,t2)
    ar2,ac2 = power_adj(t1/2, solve(t1/2))
    pout2 = prad*ar+pconv*ac+prods*(ar2+ac2)/2
    “Bias=%4s,%3.1f: %dC, %dC(real) Pin=%.1f, Pout=%.0f, Pout(real)=%.0f,”
    “COP(real)=%.3f” % (bskew, band_bias, int(t1), int(t2), pin-pjoule, pout1,
    round(pout2), pout2/float(pin-pjoule)))

    # returns pair of adjustment factors for radiation and convection
    # for given report (t1) and real (t2) temps
    def power_adj(t1, t2):
    prad_amb = real_alumina_tot_e_fun(ROOM_TEMP)*temp_to_k(ROOM_TEMP)**4
    a_rad = (real_alumina_tot_e_fun(t2)*temp_to_k(t2)**4 – prad_amb) /
    a_conv = ((t2-ROOM_TEMP)/(t1-ROOM_TEMP))**1.25
    return (a_rad,a_conv)

    def main():
    # This is a calculated set of points on the curve for the alumina effective
    # band emissivity with temperature.
    # This varies with temperature slightly due to different weighting by bolometer
    # sensitivity and black body spectrum
    global alumina_band_e_pts
    alumina_band_e_pts = fun_to_pts(100, 1600, alumina_band_e_fun_temp)

    # print the conversion data and compare with report data
    for (n,dats) in data.items():
    print n

    if __name__ == ‘__main__’:

    • GreenWin

      At this level of hand waving, one cannot be sure if yours is the work of a traffic cop or a palsied Doubting Thomas!

      • Thomas Clarke

        I agree this calculation has hand-waving. However, it actually has less hand waving than those in the Lugano report:
        (1) it corrects a clear thermography error
        (2) the results are validated by the fact that the two active tests end up with identical COP to a high precision. That is expected even with various additional errors, and a good validation that the apparently different COP here vanishes. You can tweak the various unknowns over likely ranges. It adjusts the headline COP +/- 20% or so. It does not change the fact that the two active tests end up with identical COP to within 1%. This is expected because the temperatures (correctly estimated) are very similar in the two active tests so errors tend to cancel.

        So do I think this robust? No. There are too many unknowns. This indirect method of estimating power is fundamentally flawed. But those were equally true of the original results and I don’t notice people here saying that they were hand waving – though I’d agree with you that they were!

    • Dr. Mike

      Thanks for making an effort to correct the Lugano temperature (and power out data). I’ll let the thermo engineers review your calculations for correctness. Since our last discussions I’ve been thinking about the issue that there might have been very little excess heat in the Lugano reactor given that all of the Ni appears to have been converted to Ni62 and perhaps a large portion of the Li7 seems to have disappeared (assume it was converted to He). Could it be possible that under the conditions the Lugano reactor was operated that it took almost as much energy to produce the reactions as the reactions released, resulting in little “excess” heat? If not, a COP of just a little above 1.0 would not correlate with the isotopic changes measured in the “ash”. Of all of the data in the Lugano report, the most consistent data is the Ni all being converted to Ni62 (two completely independent measurement techniques).
      One other thought . Would it be possible for MFMP to verify your temperature correction program? Since they have the same IR imaging equipment that was used in Lugano, they could compare a temperature measurement ala Lugano verses your correction to an accurate TC measurement. Also, it should be pointed out that there is no TC data presented in the Lugano.report. How did the TC data fed back to the power controller compare to the temperatures measured by the thermal imager?
      Dr. Mike

      • Andreas Moraitis

        Rossi said some time ago that they did not use TC’s to measure the inner reactor temperature:

        October 9th, 2011 at 3:30 PM

        “Dear Italo,
        We measure the temperature inside the reactor, but not with thermocouples: we invented a very good method (confidential)
        Warm Regards,

        This statement is apparently related to the older E-Cats and could therefore be out-of-date. However, going without thermocouples would seem advisable especially for the Hot-Cat. One could instead infer the temperature from the heater resistance, for example. The additional cable could then fulfil a different function (feeding internal stimulation by RF, ultrasound, or whatever).

        • Thomas Clarke

          Well, it could of course be some wire with some PTC or NTC. Probably not the heater because Inconel has very flat TC. For the purpose used precise temp measurement is not needed, so the world is your oyster.

          So I retract that this is a TC, and suppose Rossi may never had had a clue how hot this device actually gets.

        • Dr. Mike

          Both Figures #2 and #4 in the Lugano report show that a “K-probe” was used to provide temperature feedback to the power controller. A good experimentalist would have tapped into this line to cross check the temperature data from the thermal imager.
          Dr. Mike

      • Thomas Clarke

        Mike, It is in fact work in progress. I have a more accurate version that includes the bolometer response, and will edit to add that.

        It would be good to have comments/corrections – easy to make mistakes with this type of code. Anyone correcting it seriously might like the accompanying note which is fully referenced and explains the equations.

        MFMP is of course welcome to check these calculations – I’ll send the latest copy to Bob Higgins who did the original work (he has an early version).

        But – notwithstanding the fact that Bob is quite busy with otehr commitments – I’m not sure they will feel there is much point. The issue is that there remain considerable uncertainties in the data and it is very difficult to eliminate these because of the indirect way that things are calculated. Whereas there own experiments can be directly measured.

        The Lugano report does mention a TC used by Rossi’s black box to stabilise the temperature, but this was sealed and they have no information on how it worked.

        As for reactions: you can always hypothesise some set of nuclear reactions that gives any temperature you like including neutral.

        The simplest hypothesis, consistent with other LENR speculations and much LENR theory, is that the Ni captures protons (or neutrons made form protons) to make 62Ni.

        That reaction is highly exothermic because the atomic mass per nucleon is much higher for 1H (1.0078) than for all Ni nuclei, and ruled out by the lack of excess heat.

        Li as nucleon source gives 1.0023 amu / nuceon and so could generate the 62Ni from natural Ni at an excess heat 3.4X lower. This is still way above the heat observed.

        My problem with a more complex hypothesis, including other conversions is that it piles on a much larger unlikelihood. How to get even p or n capture given Coulomb barrier and without high energy reaction products is a big issue, and the standard LENR problem. How then to get other even less likely reactions of Li with Ni is a whole new big issue and one with no coherence with the rest of LENR data of theory. How simultaneously to get other endothermic reactions (what?) is equally problematic. Finally, for such a hypothesis,given some new reactions it remains unlikely that a string of nuclear reactions would coincidentally lead to zero excess heat!

        The level of implausibility here is quite staggering. You can accept the body of LENR literature as indicating nuclear reactions and still find these results inexplicable.

        So let us look at the data. The 58Ni/60Ni -> 62Ni change is incontrovertible. The samples tested had different isotopic makeup. The first sample was close to natural. The second sample was close to pure (commercially available, 98%+) 62Ni:


        The Li7->Li6 conversion is almost as incontrovertible. The samples tested had different isotopic makeup. Fractionation would be highly unlikely to produce such a change, though the 16% mass difference makes this more possible than for the Ni. The first sample had close to natural abundance. The ash had abundance close to that of the common and cheap commercially available 6Li which has 95% 6Li and 5% 7Li:

        • Dr. Mike


          Did you get a chance to review the Unified Gravity Group patent on Li-H fusion that was referenced in the comments of a recent post:


          Although I have not yet studied their theory, their experimental results show that hydrogen and lithium can fuse in a plasma at about 220eV, not the 300KeV required by conventional theory of the Coulomb barrier. (The 220eV does fit their new theory.) Although Rossi has claimed LENR theory will require no new physics, his recent proposed theory with Cook ignores the conversion of the Ni to Ni62 in the Lugano reactor. I for one would not be surprised to learn that something new in physics will be required to explain what is happening in a hydrogen loaded Ni lattice or a deuterium loaded Pd lattice.
          Dr. Mike

  • James Andrew Rovnak

    Have taken the liberty to communicate with advanced control & protection experimenter & developer. Dr Raffaello D’Andrea to explore use of his horizon based control algorithms to understand & expedite development of MFMPs LENR base power generators.
    Communication to Raffaello:

    “I believe an horizon based controller using previous small step or ramp data as a moving time predictive model would be extremely beneficial in expediting the development the subject LENR pwr control & protection algorithms at the same time weighting in pertinent parameters mentioned in the following descriptive article:
    http://www.e-catworld.com/2015/05/07/experimental-path-after-hot-cat-replication-michael-lammert/ I would be happy to discuss the subject further with you or help in exploring this area. This “New Fire” development in clean nuclear power generation would be tremendously valuable in weening the world off dependence in fossil fuel power generation & its negative effect on our environment.Your work with control & protection of quad copters could be extremely valuable in making LENR power generation a reality sooner rather than later.”

    See following for reference to his work : http://raffaello.name/biography/

    PS Micheal you have done a nice job in summarizing pertinent things to explore!

  • Bob Greenyer

    Nice work Dr. Mike.

    Really feels there is a global team on this now!

    • Dr. Mike

      I hope there are some ideas in the post that might be useful to MFMP.
      Dr. Mike

  • Bob Greenyer

    Nice work Dr. Mike.

    Really feels there is a global team on this now!

    • Dr. Mike

      I hope there are some ideas in the post that might be useful to MFMP.
      Dr. Mike

  • Thomas Clarke

    I’ve posted a later version of the code (v1.1), as requested by Mike. I’ve added as comments an incomplete
    description of the errors in applying this adjustment method to the data from the report. I’ve chosen a “rough and ready” simple method because there are systematic errors of +/- 30% or so that cannot be eliminated (and that were present in the original calculations).

    The key point from this is that the known error the Lugano authors made exactly accounts for the difference in COP between the two active tests. Whatever the many other errors from this calculation they apply nearly equally to these two tests, so the idea of a strongly temperature dependent exothermic reaction, as claimed in the Lugano Report, is contradicted by the test data here. We know that for this reactor the COP was identical to within a few % between these two tests at 700C and 780C surface temperature.

    The COP also goes down to a value that is near to 1.

    There remains a difference in COP between the dummy test and the active tests of around 30%. That could be errors in power – radiation is uncertain because emissivity is not known, convection is uncertain because the report authors made wild approximations to estimate this. For the active tests convection is not very significant because radiation dominates, for the dummy test both radiation and convection matter equally. The uncertainty in emissivity is strongest at lower wavelengths which affect active tests more than dummy tests. So broadly we have:
    convection errors: mostly affect dummy test
    radiation errors: mostly affect active test.

    However looking at the figures my feeling is that the imbalance does not come from this, though that remains very possible. Another issue is the change from Wye to Delta configuration between the two sets of test. This ups the line currents in the active tests. Because the current waveform is very spikey (crest factor roughly 4) it is not clear from the spec whether the current clamps will start to saturate on these peaks showing negative errors. If so such saturation could make for an input power underestimation for the two active tests relative to the dummy test and exactly account for the remaining 30%. The point about this error is that it will be identical in the two active tests, but different active from dummy. (The power change it seems likely from the waveforms is done by PWM hence no significant change in currents between the two active tests).

    It is satisfying that these extraordinary measurements should be explainable, though sad that such exciting results should prove to have ordinary explanations. And, for those who want extraordinary results, the 62Ni isotopic shift remains absolutely extraordinary (more so than common or garden LENR).

    • Dr. Mike

      Thanks for your work. I went back to look at the Lugano report for the Nth time and again I found something new that I hadn’t noticed before. Figures 12a and 12b (page 25) show the reactor running “during the test”. With the reactor glowing orange, this picture obviously wasn’t taken during the “450C” calibration run, Even if the picture was taken during the “1260C” active run, the reactor should have appeared white hot. Was this pointed out by others when the report first came out? I used to be able to easily judge the temperature of a diffusion furnace within 50C over the range of 900C to 1200C by just looking down the quartz tube and noting the color. My eye isn’t calibrated to the external temperature of an alumina reactor and the photo may not be reproducing the true color that would be seen by the eye, but it should have been obvious that the reactor temperature was off by hundreds of degrees. (The orange color in the photo would have been observed in a quartz diffusion tube operating at a temperature of about 950-1000C, but I have no idea how this would compare to the external color of a Al2O3 tube.)
      I don’t believe the Lugano authors are planning on issuing a revised report (even to correct the SQRT(3) factor in the RMS heater wire currents). I have to agree with you that the COP data from the Lugano report is useless and the only extraordinary results are the isotropic changes of the Ni and some changes in the Li.
      Dr. Mike

      • Thomas Clarke

        Yes, if the orange is the heater that would be a good deal higher than the surface – but there are then a whole load of additional errors in calculating temperature and heat out – which is why I don’t think much more can be done with this data.

        It was not clear to me what part of the test the photo elated to, also I’m aware that colours can look very different in photos, hence I don’t see this as strong evidence, more a “it seems likely”.

  • Dr. Mike

    Thanks for your work. I went back to look at the Lugano report for the Nth time and again I found something new that I hadn’t noticed before. Figures 12a and 12b (page 25) show the reactor running “during the test”. With the reactor glowing orange, this picture obviously wasn’t taken during the “450C” calibration run, Even if the picture was taken during the “1260C” active run, the reactor should have appeared white hot. Was this pointed out by others when the report first came out? I used to be able to easily judge the temperature of a diffusion furnace within 50C over the range of 900C to 1200C by just looking down the quartz tube and noting the color. My eye isn’t calibrated to the external temperature of an alumina reactor and the photo may not be reproducing the true color that would be seen by the eye, but it should have been obvious that the reactor temperature was off by hundreds of degrees. (The orange color in the photo would have been observed in a quartz diffusion tube operating at a temperature of about 950-1000C, but I have no idea how this would compare to the external color of a Al2O3 tube.)
    I don’t believe the Lugano authors are planning on issuing a revised report (even to correct the SQRT(3) factor in the RMS heater wire currents). I have to agree with you that the COP data from the Lugano report is useless and the only extraordinary results are the isotropic changes of the Ni and some changes in the Li.
    Dr. Mike

  • Nicholas Chandler-Yates

    people just don’t get it… the goal should not be to improve the hot cat design, at least not now, it should be to REPLICATE IT, to prove that it WORKS.
    if the recent speed of progress is any indication, everyone else is 1-3 years behind Rossi in technology and knowledge. Trying to improve on the hot cat is a fools errand because almost certainly before you get it to work more info will be released and new tech to be reverse engineered.
    The key to replication work is to give industrial heat validation, the more replications the more their credibility raises and increases the chances of them getting contracts, etc to expand their operation.

  • NCY

    people just don’t get it… the goal should not be to improve the hot cat design, at least not now, it should be to REPLICATE IT, to prove that it WORKS.
    if the recent speed of progress is any indication, everyone else is 1-3 years behind Rossi in technology and knowledge. Trying to improve on the hot cat is a fools errand because almost certainly before you get it to work more info will be released and new tech to be reverse engineered.
    The key to replication work is to give industrial heat validation, the more replications the more their credibility raises and increases the chances of them getting contracts, etc to expand their operation.