The following interview was carried out by me with Me356 via email on Sept 11, 2017.
What are you focusing on in your work with LENR these days?
I am trying to simplify manufacturing process in the way that the most work can be done by machining, at least semi-automatically. This will minimize possible deviations from required model to achieve same results across the units. Initially everything was done by hand, especially welding, where the most errors can be made.
What is the scale of your operations with LENR — how many people working with you on it?
If we count also workers in external companies it could reach at least one hundred people that are directly involved with the reactors.
What kind of performance are you getting from your reactors in terms of power output and COP?
I would rather not answer, because without a proof it would look like a tales. But I can say that we have achieved SSM some time ago and thus COP is equal to infinity in certain periods.
We are traying to improve the technology all the time as there is much higher potential left. It looks like we will be able to double the COP after latest findings. Question is how safe it will be.
What insights can you share with replicators in terms of getting reliable LENR reactions?
We have found that once you put a transition metal in the hydrogen, sooner or later there would be some nuclear reaction. Unfortunately these are not detectable without carefull fuel analysis.
So the main task is to increase area where the reactions can occur. You do not have to buy expensive equipment as it can be all done with what you probably have at home. To encourage replicators I can say, that very likely you have already made some sort of nuclear reactions even if no excess heat was seen. Maybe you will be surprised. Excess heat is the last thing you will produce. The main issue is that you will need expensive analysis to show the results.
Piantelli, Focardi, and now Mizuno have all documented that proper pre-treatment to ensure a clean fuel surface is essential in addition to various methodologies to force hydrogen absorption and release to create an “excited” exothermic state. Could you share a fuel treatment routine that could be used by other researchers to start obtaining excess heat in their replications?
Their methods are good. To get excess heat you only have to proceed exactly according the instructions. Some can be also combined and improved. If you have a good microscope you can see immediately that what you are doing is correct or not. Without checking it is only guesswork. The major factor that is usually not mentioned is time. You will need more time than anticipated for the preparation. I recommend to start with as simple reactor as possible. You can get excess heat with e.g. nickel and protium alone. Adding other compounds mean adding next sources of errors.
Could you describe how monoatomic hydrogen interacts with the fuel of a reactor to enhance the excess heat effect?
It may not provide any excess heat. But its production will very likely lead to a nuclear reactions that can be utilized, converted to a heat. I wish to not provide any theory, since there are too many out there.
How are your reactors in terms of safety?
I am convinced that they are safe. At least with conventional measuring devices there is no detectable radiation.
Will you be selling heaters, and if so what will their size and cost be?
Yes. There will be various units for a different purposes but the universal one has dimenension 80x80x500 mm. Cost will be around 400 USD per unit where family house will need 2 – 4 of these units.
What do you think about Rossi’s E-Cat QX based on what has been reported so far?
I think that it is good evolution step. It brings simplicity and higher performance based on better understanding of LENR process. I was playing with nearly identical design 2 years ago and I was very satisfied. In the last days we have tested very similar devices (with a modifications based on QX) again with very good results.
What happened when the MFMP visited that caused the null result?
The reactor was far from ready. It was actually success that it was at least in condition that it was. But it was only one we were able to test in this way. We both knew about major problems days before it was tested. So we were both prepared for any results. It was not prepared for any conclusive testing. I was strongly appealing to not get into a similar situation months ago before the test, but unfortunately it happened. I don’t want to cause any harm and I consider it closed, lesson learned.
Do you plan to invite MFMP to test your reactors in the future?
Any group can arrive to test, but only once it is ready. To prevent any possible failure and weak points a proper communication and strict terms must be held.
How soon do you think it will be before you are able to host a group to test your work, under the strict conditions you mention?
This time will come as soon as the reactor will be ready for sale. Now I can see no reason to make it sooner. Actually it can help us to make it at the right time. The best for us is to make measurements by third parties under NDA which is/will occur repeatedly for the certification process.
How soon do you think it will be before you have a product ready for sale to the public?
It is dependent on the certification company. If it will take longer than anticipated we are ready to find other legal way. For testing purposes we can produce as much units as needed.
Have you patented your process, if so, when do you think it will be published?
No, after long thinking my conviction is that this technology should not be patented and is only money/time wasting. Patent can protect intellectual property only to a small degree. It is just enough to change design little bit and you are not encumbered by a patent. There is always room for it. What if the reactor is made by metamorphosing materials that can change shapes? Moreover there are countries where patents are irelevant. These countries need this technology urgently.
For public discussion:
In the attachment I have shared some photos. Here you can see direct evidence of reactions that are occurring even outside the reactor. Even on the carbon adhesive tape of the sample holder for SEM.
The sample was taken from device that we are using for fuel preparation. This device can produce active fuel from any transition metal.