Replicating the "mouse" not "cat"

I disagree with that position from evidences of Ferrara experiments.

The ferrara experiment gave massive heat and COP was above 2...
It you eliminate the absurd theory of scam conspiracy, the ferrara test is the best calorimetry result. We all know that there is no chemistry possible at this level, and since Lugano calorimetry is uncertain, Ferrara give a good indication of what can do the E-cat.

In Lugano it would be suicidal to give a reactor with a COP below 2, and the fact that [lexicon]IH[/lexicon] did not warn on the report, is because it looked like their expectation. It is not the interest of [lexicon]IH[/lexicon] to have a report that is wrong, and whether they would have seen an incredible result they would have warned the physicist, discretely.

there is only two hypothesis.
One, the skeptic, is a gigantic conspiracy, mirrors and smoke with stage magic, which is impossible with Lugano procedure. E-cat is not a trick, stop dreaming. No body is stupid enough, even a deluded guy, to provide a non working device to physicist, or to let them alone with a trick.

Now if you eliminate the absurd, the only hypothesis is that Ferrara test proved good COP, and Lugano test proved good confidence in a convincing COP (>2), and huge isotopic shift (that is unusual for Rossi).

The problem with that analysis is that it demand to consider both hypothesis seriously, their consequences and conditions, and long reasoning to eliminate the impossible, involving scientific but also human factor reasoning. Hybrid deduction is not so easy. Pure science, or pure human reasoning, don't work here.

however there is surely many trick to make the fuel sustain high temperature, work reliably, endure month of heating and loading...
When you see the time it took for Rossi to propose demo that don't fail, with COP above 3 you see it is not an easy job.

This is why I am patient on the replications under progress, as it will be a long research. No experiments today is without flaw.

Songsheng Jiang experiments is the best experiment, but is anyway a failure (1 or 2 TC failed).
Parkhomov launched the expectation, but the results are suffering from dubious calorimetry.
MFMP is only intriguing...

It is the beginning. All of the experiments need improvement, on the calorimetry, on the reliability...

Rossi in some excahges said that the mouse was only useful when in SSM, which in fact is in pulsed mode.
I have my own guess theory, based on the modest knowledge on control science when I was younger.

the E-cat seems to be a device that above some temperature go in runaway mode, a positive feedback system.
the SSM mode show that there is something that counter the positive feedback after sometime.

the SSM is in a way that :
the reactor is cooler, and positive feedback is not enough to sustain the reaction.
some heat launch a process that is self catalytic, and a runaway starts slowly
heating is stopped and runaway continue.
however meanwhile a slower but stronger negative feedback grows in influence and slowdown the heating,
the negative feedback get dominant and trigger a down runaway
without heating the reactor would cool down.

the negative feedback is linked to a state variable of the reactor, which is not temperature, and which evolve slower than the temperature and the positive feedback. No idea what it is, only guess (loading ratio, NAE density, NAE efficiency).

in control science we would say that the system have two loops.
one positive feedback is clearly linked to temperature, which is the integration of power.
the second negative feedback is linked probably to an integral of temperature...

in a way I could say :

more temperature make more power
power increase the temperature
temperature decrease a mysterious variable
this mysterious variable makes more power

if you have a spice simulator you may even test that idea.

loading ratio, or NAE structure are good candidate for the mysterious variable... temperature logically can make hydrogen escape the nickel, and can wear out reversibly the NAE...
Look at the analysis of Edmund Storms in that paper...
He propose a phenomenological model for the reactor, at the end.
http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/StormsEexplaining.pdf

now what is the mouse ?
I suspect it is just two subsystem with different loop parameters. result may be to cumulate the phase shift of each system, so that it is globally more stable...

the two system may not be two components as we imagine, but maybe two populations of powders, with different parameters...