I have been clamoring for an automated Hot cat replication process using a software driven experiment controller that would allow for a time unlimited experimental capability. This change in the control process is meant to address the one flaw in the replication experimental strategy: the extremely short duration of the replication attempts as a consequence of the finite tolerance of the experimenter to endure a long test.
In the Lugano test, an automated feedback system controlled the test for at least ten days before the LENR reaction eventually set in. This lack of experimental endurance by MFMP and others could be responsible for the lack of positive Lugano replication results.
To be a valid replication, a gestation period of up to 10 days at low power should be put into action before a reduction of input power consumption should be expected. MFMP is fooling themselves as to what a valid Lugano test replication should look like. An initial startup phase of up to a fortnight should be planned for. After the 10 day startup period there was a gradual period of downward adjustment in the input power over a unspecified period of time. It is not surprising that MFMP is not seeing the results that were reported in the Lugano report.
As stated in the Lugano report as follows:
“Upon completion of the gradual startup process procedure, the thermal camera indicated an average temperature for the body of the reactor of 1260°C, while the PCE recorded an electric power input to the Ecat fluctuating at around 810 W. Although we had been informed that the E-Cat was capable of operating at higher power values, we had previously decided to keep to the lower value, and for almost 10 days no adjustments to the apparatus were made.
“After this initial period, we noticed that the feedback system had gradually cut back the input current, which was yielding about 790 W. We therefore decided to increase the power, and set it slightly above 900 W.
“Thereby, we also obtained an important second measurement point. In a few minutes, the
reactor body reached a temperature close to 1400°C. Subsequent calculation proved that increasing the input by roughly 100 watts had caused an increase of about 700 watts in power emitted. The speed with which the temperature had risen persuaded us to desist from any further attempt to increase the power input to the reactor. As we had no way of substituting the device in case of breakage or melting of internal parts, we decided to exercise caution and continue operating the reactor at ca. 900 W.”