BUT!!! If this is new physics how do you differentiate between disinformation
and new physics. IMHO the only explanation for the mouse activating the
driverless cat would be new or exotic physics. It could be that COE breaks down
between disparate inertial frames that we simply can’t observe at
Thank you curiousone for your question and obtaining Rossi reply[snip] No, the
charge is the same, we have only one charge in that kind of reactor by the way:
if the ssm is not adopted, the distinction between Cat and Mouse
vanishes.[/snip]
When Rossi says that without ssm there is no
The state of affairs is described here, in more parts:
http://egooutpeters.blogspot.ro/2015/06/three-things-i-would-not-do-but-andrea.html
We want certainties!
Peter
--
Dr. Peter Gluck
Cluj, Romania
http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
Bob,
I have not reached any conclusions regarding the actual process that is taking
place within Rossi's reactors. It might be as you are suggesting, but only
further testing can confirm that.
You mention the Chinese dogbone which I find quite interesting. One issue of
note is the far
It just might just be luck. Parkhomove filled a trash can with blown out
Dogbone reactors before he got one to work. Rossi blow out hundreds of
reactors. Control means to get the reactor to work every time. When your
mouse produces a COP of 1,02 then the reactor just does not blow out. If
that
Dave, , Axil, etal--
I prefer the idea of spooky action at a distance—entanglement--coupling within
a coherent quantum system---whatever the “correct” term may be.
Keep in mind that such systems may be quite large—for example, semi conductors,
single crystals, dense plasmas, etc.
Rossi may
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EPR_paradox
Was Einstein right after all? The control of the Cat by the mouse might be
and example of Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen (EPR) quantum mechanics steering.
There is no measurement involved as required by the Copenhagen
interpretation of quantum mechanics. The
Rossi might have solved the E Cat control issue by dummying down the
Dogbone reactor to just above a COP of 1. The power of the mouse might be
adjustable by adding more fuel to the fuel load that drives the mouse. If
to much fuel is added to the mouse, it simply blows apart. In the Lagano
test he
I speculated upon a system architecture somewhat similar to this many months
ago on vortex. There the concept was that the ECATs respond to the temperature
in their local region so it is possible to place heating units at certain
locations to activate other passive core generators surrounding
I was thinking about the cat and mouse 'description' given by Rossi and an
interesting thought arose. He states that the cat and mouse concept does not
exist unless SSM is taking place. Also, he has stated that there is only one
charge in an ECAT that is using the cat and mouse process.
All
In reply to David Roberson's message of Wed, 10 Jun 2015 16:20:35 -0400:
Hi,
[snip]
At the same core temperature this device should put out that many times as
much heat energy as its smaller brothers. The surface area appears larger,
but the ratio of volume to surface area must be several
Dave--
It may be that the high temperatures cause the resonant coupling to disappear
such that the mass energy transfer to phonic energy (thermal vibrations) is
not so available.
This would be like a fission reactor with a negative temperature coeff. For
fission reactors (U-235 types) the
I sold 11 books in one day. Something happened someone said something.
Frank Z
13 matches
Mail list logo
