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 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
