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.
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
