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<mailto: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<mailto:janap...@gmail.com>> >To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com<mailto: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<mailto: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
