In the light of the Chernobyl reactor disaster, and the insights that we can glean from it, the best LENR reactor design, IMHO, is a LENR molten salt LENR fission reactor.
In professional nuclear engineering, it is well understood that fission produces 100 times more energy per reaction mare or less than fusion, but fission produces relatively few neutrons to keep the reaction going. On the other hand, fusion is weak at producing energy but generates neutrons by the boatload. If an abundant source of muons is available, the lack of neutron production that drives the fission reaction is not a concern anymore. A single muon will produce 200 MeV per muon fission reaction vs. 3 MeV for fusion. So a muon fission reactor is very rich and efficient in energy production and a muon fusion reactor is energy poor. So a muon fission reactor is the way to go because it is about 100 times more energetic than of fusion reactor at producing energy per muon. For example, if the QuarkX produces as many muons as I think that it does, It will require only a few QaurkX reactors inside the core of a molten fluoride salt based thorium reactor to produce a ton of high quality heat energy. Rossi said that 20 watts of electric power is produced by his old 100 watt QUARK reactors Assuming a low voltage of 1 volt, 20 watts means 20 coulombs of electrons are produced a second. If one muon decays to one electron not counting muon escape from the QuarkX, then (20) (6.25 x 10^18 electrons) or about 10^20 of muons per second is produced by 100 watts of QuarkX power production. This assumes that most of the atoms in the molten salt blanket are thorium atoms. That much neutron flux would support a 100 megawatt nuclear reactor on a single reaction per muon basis. But Muons might generate 150 fission and/or fusion reactions per muon. Just a few QuarkX reactors can push out a lot of power and also confine muons inside the reactor thereby utilizing muon production at high efficiency.
