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
