Experimentation will answer all these questions for us. On Tue, Jun 9, 2015 at 7:41 PM, David Roberson <[email protected]> wrote:
> 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 > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Axil Axil <[email protected]> > To: vortex-l <[email protected]> > 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, <[email protected]> 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 >> >> >
