RE: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:quite good info, but some bad news from Italy
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 distinction between cat and mouse and that there is only one charge not separate charges leads me to believe he is simply creating hot spots – perhaps the heating coil is actually heating coilS emphasis on plural and for ssm mode he only drives the central coil allowing the heat to slowly activate the surrounding region.. If I understood some similar threads there is also a global improvement for multiple reactors installed in the same shipping container wrt ssm through some extraordinary type of linkage .. I think Axil called it an EMF backbone. Fran From: Axil Axil [mailto:janap...@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, June 09, 2015 10:23 PM To: vortex-l Subject: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:quite good info, but some bad news from Italy Frank Acland October 8th, 2014 at 11:21 AM Dear Andrea, Congratulations on another report that demonstrates the reality of your invention! One question: The reactor we see in the report — is this the cat, the mouse, or the cat and mouse combined? Many thanks, Frank Acland Andrea Rossi October 8th, 2014 at 12:07 PM Frank Acland: Thank you. All combined, Warm Regards, A.R. Curiosone October 11th, 2014 at 7:23 AM Dr Rossi, I do not know if you can answer to this question, if not please spam it. Does the Hot Cat like the one tested by the Independent Third Party have two separated charges, one for the Mouse and one for the Cat ? W.G. Andrea Rossi October 11th, 2014 at 6:21 PM Curiosone: 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. Warm Regards, A.R. On Tue, Jun 9, 2015 at 10:16 PM, mix...@bigpond.commailto:mix...@bigpond.com wrote: In reply to David Roberson's message of Tue, 9 Jun 2015 19:41:45 -0400: Hi, [snip] I don't think that anyone but Rossi and his colleagues can answer that question at this time. I have read everything that he has written about the Cat and Mouse and he has not revealed any details of consequence. Why do you suppose he gave a HotCat to the independant third party testers that did not have that structure? It could be that what we are testing has that system built in and we do not realize which component is the Cat or Mouse. Rossi also states that the HotCat operates much better than the regular ECAT. How can this be true if the HotCat does not have the cat and mouse system operational? Too many statements without any valid support. Dave If I'm right about the combination being more difficult to control, and the HotCat doesn't have the combination, then it make sense that the HotCat would be easier to control. -Original Message- From: Axil Axil janap...@gmail.commailto:janap...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.commailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tue, Jun 9, 2015 7:16 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:quite good info, but some bad news from Italy How did Rossi solve his contol problem? On Tue, Jun 9, 2015 at 6:30 PM, mix...@bigpond.commailto:mix...@bigpond.com wrote: In reply to Axil Axil's message of Mon, 8 Jun 2015 23:56:45 -0400: Hi, [snip] Rossi came up the Mouse and Cat architecture to solve the control problem. Rossi cam up with the cat and mouse architecture to attain reasonable COPs. It has nothing to do with control. In fact control is more difficult with cat mouse. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:quite good info, but some bad news from Italy
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 larger quantity of active core material when compared to the other replicators(20x). 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 times what was used within the MFMP project. In spite of the greater volume to area ratio, there is no indication of permanent thermal run away. I also see that the reactor temperature read on its external surface appears to control the core activity. This is a good indication that these devices can be controlled in a reasonable manner. There is question about the rapidity of the internal power rise when the input drive is applied. I am not sure how to interpret that except for one idea. The heater has an excellent conductive path to the outside surface of the reactor chamber and I would expect that surface to heat up very quickly as the wire begins to carry power. Since the core is already 'primed' prior to this heating I think that it receives quick notice of this new input power increase by radiation through the open space between the chamber wall and the inner core. We have seen in the short time before application of this new drive signal that the core operates at perhaps 400 degrees higher than the heater driven surface once LENR is taking place. So, apparently a tiny tickle is all that the core needs to enable it to zoom off into its normal active mode. Why this device does not self destruct is a question that I would like to see answered. Is it possible that there are only a finite number of active LENR sites available at any given time and that they become exhausted during the temperature excursions that should be occurring in a run away mode? If so, then this LENR process proceeds in bursts and then a refresh time is required. The behavior just preceding that large final pulse does have that appearance if you look at it carefully. And, if this is indeed the nature of this system, then control might not be too difficult since it self regulates by cooling between bursts. We have been searching for positive feedback bursting behavior but have not found sufficient proof that it is typical behavior when a modest sized core is used. Therefore, if this is normal we must figure out what determines the number of active burst sites and how to control their numbers under dynamic conditions. If too many occur then damage might occur. Dave -Original Message- From: Bob Cook frobertc...@hotmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Wed, Jun 10, 2015 3:09 pm Subject: Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:quite good info, but some bad news from Italy 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 have merely connected the nano-structures electrically or magnetically with antenna or other means to provide good coupling among nano fuel particles. This would allow/establish resonant conditions, that in turn makes loss of mass energy and lower overall energy states necessary, consistent with the increase of entropy required for the particular system. This all happens instantly in the coherent system. (More and more data confirms veiry rapid response of LENR devices, if not instant responses. See the recent Chinese dogbone testing for rapid responses to electrical stimuli Bob Cook , From:David Roberson Sent: Wednesday, June 10, 2015 11:09 AM To:vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:quite good info, but some bad news from Italy 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 them. The trick was to ensure that enough drive units were present to offer control while being careful that once the drive is removed the other passive generators did not posses enough positive feedback among themselves to achieve thermal run away
Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:quite good info, but some bad news from Italy
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 reactor can carry N other reactors with it, they won't blow out either. Then your control problems are over. On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 4:20 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: 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 larger quantity of active core material when compared to the other replicators(20x). 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 times what was used within the MFMP project. In spite of the greater volume to area ratio, there is no indication of permanent thermal run away. I also see that the reactor temperature read on its external surface appears to control the core activity. This is a good indication that these devices can be controlled in a reasonable manner. There is question about the rapidity of the internal power rise when the input drive is applied. I am not sure how to interpret that except for one idea. The heater has an excellent conductive path to the outside surface of the reactor chamber and I would expect that surface to heat up very quickly as the wire begins to carry power. Since the core is already 'primed' prior to this heating I think that it receives quick notice of this new input power increase by radiation through the open space between the chamber wall and the inner core. We have seen in the short time before application of this new drive signal that the core operates at perhaps 400 degrees higher than the heater driven surface once LENR is taking place. So, apparently a tiny tickle is all that the core needs to enable it to zoom off into its normal active mode. Why this device does not self destruct is a question that I would like to see answered. Is it possible that there are only a finite number of active LENR sites available at any given time and that they become exhausted during the temperature excursions that should be occurring in a run away mode? If so, then this LENR process proceeds in bursts and then a refresh time is required. The behavior just preceding that large final pulse does have that appearance if you look at it carefully. And, if this is indeed the nature of this system, then control might not be too difficult since it self regulates by cooling between bursts. We have been searching for positive feedback bursting behavior but have not found sufficient proof that it is typical behavior when a modest sized core is used. Therefore, if this is normal we must figure out what determines the number of active burst sites and how to control their numbers under dynamic conditions. If too many occur then damage might occur. Dave -Original Message- From: Bob Cook frobertc...@hotmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Wed, Jun 10, 2015 3:09 pm Subject: Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:quite good info, but some bad news from Italy 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 have merely connected the nano-structures electrically or magnetically with antenna or other means to provide good coupling among nano fuel particles. This would allow/establish resonant conditions, that in turn makes loss of mass energy and lower overall energy states necessary, consistent with the increase of entropy required for the particular system. This all happens instantly in the coherent system. (More and more data confirms veiry rapid response of LENR devices, if not instant responses. See the recent Chinese dogbone testing for rapid responses to electrical stimuli Bob Cook , *From:* David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com *Sent:* Wednesday, June 10, 2015 11:09 AM *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com *Subject:* Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:quite good info, but some bad news from Italy 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 them. The trick was to ensure that enough drive
Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:quite good info, but some bad news from Italy
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 have merely connected the nano-structures electrically or magnetically with antenna or other means to provide good coupling among nano fuel particles. This would allow/establish resonant conditions, that in turn makes loss of mass energy and lower overall energy states necessary, consistent with the increase of entropy required for the particular system. This all happens instantly in the coherent system. (More and more data confirms veiry rapid response of LENR devices, if not instant responses. See the recent Chinese dogbone testing for rapid responses to electrical stimuli Bob Cook , From: David Roberson Sent: Wednesday, June 10, 2015 11:09 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:quite good info, but some bad news from Italy 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 them. The trick was to ensure that enough drive units were present to offer control while being careful that once the drive is removed the other passive generators did not posses enough positive feedback among themselves to achieve thermal run away. It was not entirely clear that this type of system structure would offer much improvement over one that consisted of normal, individually powered ECAT heat generators. I suppose you could think of my plan as being analogous to having a large oven that contains many individual thermally controlled heat generators. Each generator contributes its heat to the total system. Who knows whether or not the overall COP would be large and controllable. Dave -Original Message- From: Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Wed, Jun 10, 2015 1:46 pm Subject: Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:quite good info, but some bad news from Italy 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 added as much fuel to the fuel load as he dared. He feared that the mouse would blow out because of the heavy fuel load so he supplied a number of spear reactors to the Lagano testers. But Rossi found during product development that he could multiply the power of the “Mouse” by N times by adding N numbers of Cat elements as driven by a weakly powered mouse, a mouse with a weak fuel load. Rossi calls this Mouse and Cat coupling a resonance or his music. The Mouse actually becomes quantum mechanically entangled with each Cat element added to the reactor cluster. If you want a COP of 10, just add 10 non powered Cat elements to surround the mouse driver to form a Reactor Cluster. The Cat actually produces a high COP than the Mouse does and that surprised and pleased Rossi greatly. \ A depiction of a reactor cluster with the mouse reactor in the center driving N number of Cats. On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 1:00 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: 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 mouse actually drives the Cat into a complementary quantum mechanical state, no measurement necessary. Rossi's Cat and mouse could blow quantum mechanics apart. The Cat and mouse might share hidden local variables or the speed of entanglement might be confirmed as instantanious.. There might be a few Nobel prizes to be had in this Mouse and Cat situation. On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 10:19 AM, Roarty, Francis X francis.x.roa...@lmco.com wrote: 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 distinction between cat and mouse and that there is only one charge not separate charges leads me to believe he is simply creating hot spots – perhaps the heating coil is actually heating coilS emphasis on plural and for ssm mode he only drives the central coil allowing the heat to slowly activate the surrounding region.. If I understood some similar
Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:quite good info, but some bad news from Italy
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 mouse actually drives the Cat into a complementary quantum mechanical state, no measurement necessary. Rossi's Cat and mouse could blow quantum mechanics apart. The Cat and mouse might share hidden local variables or the speed of entanglement might be confirmed as instantanious.. There might be a few Nobel prizes to be had in this Mouse and Cat situation. On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 10:19 AM, Roarty, Francis X francis.x.roa...@lmco.com wrote: 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 distinction between cat and mouse and that there is only one charge not separate charges leads me to believe he is simply creating hot spots – perhaps the heating coil is actually heating coilS emphasis on plural and for ssm mode he only drives the central coil allowing the heat to slowly activate the surrounding region.. If I understood some similar threads there is also a global improvement for multiple reactors installed in the same shipping container wrt ssm through some extraordinary type of linkage .. I think Axil called it an EMF backbone. Fran *From:* Axil Axil [mailto:janap...@gmail.com] *Sent:* Tuesday, June 09, 2015 10:23 PM *To:* vortex-l *Subject:* EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:quite good info, but some bad news from Italy Frank Acland October 8th, 2014 at 11:21 AM Dear Andrea, Congratulations on another report that demonstrates the reality of your invention! One question: The reactor we see in the report — is this the cat, the mouse, or the cat and mouse combined? Many thanks, Frank Acland Andrea Rossi October 8th, 2014 at 12:07 PM Frank Acland: Thank you. All combined, Warm Regards, A.R. Curiosone October 11th, 2014 at 7:23 AM Dr Rossi, I do not know if you can answer to this question, if not please spam it. Does the Hot Cat like the one tested by the Independent Third Party have two separated charges, one for the Mouse and one for the Cat ? W.G. Andrea Rossi October 11th, 2014 at 6:21 PM Curiosone: 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. Warm Regards, A.R. On Tue, Jun 9, 2015 at 10:16 PM, mix...@bigpond.com wrote: In reply to David Roberson's message of Tue, 9 Jun 2015 19:41:45 -0400: Hi, [snip] I don't think that anyone but Rossi and his colleagues can answer that question at this time. I have read everything that he has written about the Cat and Mouse and he has not revealed any details of consequence. Why do you suppose he gave a HotCat to the independant third party testers that did not have that structure? It could be that what we are testing has that system built in and we do not realize which component is the Cat or Mouse. Rossi also states that the HotCat operates much better than the regular ECAT. How can this be true if the HotCat does not have the cat and mouse system operational? Too many statements without any valid support. Dave If I'm right about the combination being more difficult to control, and the HotCat doesn't have the combination, then it make sense that the HotCat would be easier to control. -Original Message- From: Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tue, Jun 9, 2015 7:16 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:quite good info, but some bad news from Italy How did Rossi solve his contol problem? On Tue, Jun 9, 2015 at 6:30 PM,mix...@bigpond.com wrote: In reply to Axil Axil's message of Mon, 8 Jun 2015 23:56:45 -0400: Hi, [snip] Rossi came up the Mouse and Cat architecture to solve the control problem. Rossi cam up with the cat and mouse architecture to attain reasonable COPs. It has nothing to do with control. In fact control is more difficult with cat mouse. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:quite good info, but some bad news from Italy
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 added as much fuel to the fuel load as he dared. He feared that the mouse would blow out because of the heavy fuel load so he supplied a number of spear reactors to the Lagano testers. But Rossi found during product development that he could multiply the power of the “Mouse” by N times by adding N numbers of Cat elements as driven by a weakly powered mouse, a mouse with a weak fuel load. Rossi calls this Mouse and Cat coupling a resonance or his music. The Mouse actually becomes quantum mechanically entangled with each Cat element added to the reactor cluster. If you want a COP of 10, just add 10 non powered Cat elements to surround the mouse driver to form a Reactor Cluster. The Cat actually produces a high COP than the Mouse does and that surprised and pleased Rossi greatly. \ A depiction of a reactor cluster with the mouse reactor in the center driving N number of Cats. [image: Thumbnail] http://thumbs2.ebaystatic.com/d/l225/m/mwc9IdmzwG6sAzvSjNZbhNw.jpg On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 1:00 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: 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 mouse actually drives the Cat into a complementary quantum mechanical state, no measurement necessary. Rossi's Cat and mouse could blow quantum mechanics apart. The Cat and mouse might share hidden local variables or the speed of entanglement might be confirmed as instantanious.. There might be a few Nobel prizes to be had in this Mouse and Cat situation. On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 10:19 AM, Roarty, Francis X francis.x.roa...@lmco.com wrote: 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 distinction between cat and mouse and that there is only one charge not separate charges leads me to believe he is simply creating hot spots – perhaps the heating coil is actually heating coilS emphasis on plural and for ssm mode he only drives the central coil allowing the heat to slowly activate the surrounding region.. If I understood some similar threads there is also a global improvement for multiple reactors installed in the same shipping container wrt ssm through some extraordinary type of linkage .. I think Axil called it an EMF backbone. Fran *From:* Axil Axil [mailto:janap...@gmail.com] *Sent:* Tuesday, June 09, 2015 10:23 PM *To:* vortex-l *Subject:* EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:quite good info, but some bad news from Italy Frank Acland October 8th, 2014 at 11:21 AM Dear Andrea, Congratulations on another report that demonstrates the reality of your invention! One question: The reactor we see in the report — is this the cat, the mouse, or the cat and mouse combined? Many thanks, Frank Acland Andrea Rossi October 8th, 2014 at 12:07 PM Frank Acland: Thank you. All combined, Warm Regards, A.R. Curiosone October 11th, 2014 at 7:23 AM Dr Rossi, I do not know if you can answer to this question, if not please spam it. Does the Hot Cat like the one tested by the Independent Third Party have two separated charges, one for the Mouse and one for the Cat ? W.G. Andrea Rossi October 11th, 2014 at 6:21 PM Curiosone: 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. Warm Regards, A.R. On Tue, Jun 9, 2015 at 10:16 PM, mix...@bigpond.com wrote: In reply to David Roberson's message of Tue, 9 Jun 2015 19:41:45 -0400: Hi, [snip] I don't think that anyone but Rossi and his colleagues can answer that question at this time. I have read everything that he has written about the Cat and Mouse and he has not revealed any details of consequence. Why do you suppose he gave a HotCat to the independant third party testers that did not have that structure? It could be that what we are testing has that system built in and we do not realize which component is the Cat or Mouse. Rossi also states that the HotCat operates much better than the regular ECAT. How can this be true if the HotCat does not have the cat and mouse system operational? Too many statements without any valid support. Dave If I'm right about the combination being more difficult to control, and the HotCat doesn't
Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:quite good info, but some bad news from Italy
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 them. The trick was to ensure that enough drive units were present to offer control while being careful that once the drive is removed the other passive generators did not posses enough positive feedback among themselves to achieve thermal run away. It was not entirely clear that this type of system structure would offer much improvement over one that consisted of normal, individually powered ECAT heat generators. I suppose you could think of my plan as being analogous to having a large oven that contains many individual thermally controlled heat generators. Each generator contributes its heat to the total system. Who knows whether or not the overall COP would be large and controllable. Dave -Original Message- From: Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Wed, Jun 10, 2015 1:46 pm Subject: Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:quite good info, but some bad news from Italy 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 added as much fuel to the fuel load as he dared. He feared that the mouse would blow out because of the heavy fuel load so he supplied a number of spear reactors to the Lagano testers. But Rossi found during product development that he could multiply the power of the “Mouse” by N times by adding N numbers of Cat elements as driven by a weakly powered mouse, a mouse with a weak fuel load. Rossi calls this Mouse and Cat coupling a resonance or his music. The Mouse actually becomes quantum mechanically entangled with each Cat element added to the reactor cluster. If you want a COP of 10, just add 10 non powered Cat elements to surround the mouse driver to form a Reactor Cluster. The Cat actually produces a high COP than the Mouse does and that surprised and pleased Rossi greatly. \ A depiction of a reactor cluster with the mouse reactor in the center driving N number of Cats. On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 1:00 PM, Axil Axiljanap...@gmail.com wrote: 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 mouse actually drives the Cat into a complementary quantum mechanical state, no measurement necessary. Rossi's Cat and mouse could blow quantum mechanics apart. The Cat and mouse might share hidden local variables or the speed of entanglement might be confirmed as instantanious.. There might be a few Nobel prizes to be had in this Mouse and Cat situation. On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 10:19 AM, Roarty, Francis X francis.x.roa...@lmco.com wrote: 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 distinction between cat and mouse and that there is only one charge not separate charges leads me to believe he is simply creating hot spots – perhaps the heating coil is actually heating coilS emphasis on plural and for ssm mode he only drives the central coil allowing the heat to slowly activate the surrounding region.. If I understood some similar threads there is also a global improvement for multiple reactors installed in the same shipping container wrt ssm through some extraordinary type of linkage .. I think Axil called it an EMF backbone. Fran From: Axil Axil [mailto:janap...@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, June 09, 2015 10:23 PM To: vortex-l Subject: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:quite good info, but some bad news from Italy Frank Acland October 8th, 2014 at 11:21 AM Dear Andrea, Congratulations on another report that demonstrates the reality of your invention! One question: The reactor we see in the report — is this the cat, the mouse, or the cat and mouse combined? Many thanks, Frank Acland Andrea Rossi
Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:quite good info, but some bad news from Italy
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 times what was used within the MFMP project. I think that if you are dealing with micro particles in a gas, the surface area is not the external surface area of the charge, but rather the sum of the surface areas of the individual particles. IOW surface area is strongly dependent on particle size. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:quite good info, but some bad news from Italy
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 thermal neutron flux is what normally determines energy output. The mechanism is the resonant matching of the frequency (particle wave length) of the neutron relative to the fission absorption frequency (related to fission cross section) of U-235. If the population of neutrons gets too hot they will not be absorbed as readily and the fissioning rate decreases. (Prompt or fast neutrons are another story. These come directly from a U-235 fission and can also cause fissioning by hitting the U-235 with lots of energy. If a fast neutron chain reaction (more fast neutrons produced than needed cause another fission) happens, the device will explode. You do not want this to happen. Thus, knowing resonances and how temperature and other parameters—electric and magnetic fields, for example—change the resonances is key to LENR device design IMHO. Bob Cook From: David Roberson Sent: Wednesday, June 10, 2015 1:20 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:quite good info, but some bad news from Italy 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 larger quantity of active core material when compared to the other replicators(20x). 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 times what was used within the MFMP project. In spite of the greater volume to area ratio, there is no indication of permanent thermal run away. I also see that the reactor temperature read on its external surface appears to control the core activity. This is a good indication that these devices can be controlled in a reasonable manner. There is question about the rapidity of the internal power rise when the input drive is applied. I am not sure how to interpret that except for one idea. The heater has an excellent conductive path to the outside surface of the reactor chamber and I would expect that surface to heat up very quickly as the wire begins to carry power. Since the core is already 'primed' prior to this heating I think that it receives quick notice of this new input power increase by radiation through the open space between the chamber wall and the inner core. We have seen in the short time before application of this new drive signal that the core operates at perhaps 400 degrees higher than the heater driven surface once LENR is taking place. So, apparently a tiny tickle is all that the core needs to enable it to zoom off into its normal active mode. Why this device does not self destruct is a question that I would like to see answered. Is it possible that there are only a finite number of active LENR sites available at any given time and that they become exhausted during the temperature excursions that should be occurring in a run away mode? If so, then this LENR process proceeds in bursts and then a refresh time is required. The behavior just preceding that large final pulse does have that appearance if you look at it carefully. And, if this is indeed the nature of this system, then control might not be too difficult since it self regulates by cooling between bursts. We have been searching for positive feedback bursting behavior but have not found sufficient proof that it is typical behavior when a modest sized core is used. Therefore, if this is normal we must figure out what determines the number of active burst sites and how to control their numbers under dynamic conditions. If too many occur then damage might occur. Dave -Original Message- From: Bob Cook frobertc...@hotmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Wed, Jun 10, 2015 3:09 pm Subject: Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:quite good info, but some bad news from Italy 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 have merely connected the nano-structures electrically or magnetically with antenna or other means to provide good coupling among nano fuel particles. This would allow/establish resonant conditions, that in turn makes loss of mass energy and lower overall energy states necessary, consistent with the increase of entropy
