BUT!!! If this is new physics how do you differentiate between disinformation and new physics. IMHO the only explanation for the mouse activating the driverless cat would be new or exotic physics. It could be that COE breaks down between disparate inertial frames that we simply can’t observe at the macro scale because of the square law but becomes possible at the nano scale when the inverse cube of Casimir suppression is placed in opposition with the square law of isotropy.
From: Axil Axil [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Tuesday, June 09, 2015 10:14 PM To: vortex-l Subject: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:info for June 9, 2015 “something has happened that triggered your negative views on what Andrea Rossi is up to re that test and report.” The weight of logic became so great, that it broke the camels back. We use experimental information to define the dots and then we try to connect them. When false information is fed to us, the job of putting it all together becomes exponentially more difficult. When we get a new item of information, we must now ask, is this true information or is it a bit of planted disinformation. When the Lagano report came out, we were told that the testers brought the outside temperature of the reactor up to 1400C during the latter stages of the test. We knew that the core of the reactor would need to produce a temperature far above the melting point of nickel to produce a outside reactor temperature of 1400C. Yet Rossi said nothing even though he had run extensive tests to characterize the dogbone reactor. Rossi had never seen the outside of his reactor hit 1400Cin all the many tests that he ran on the Dogbone, and he would of had to made very sure what the Dogbone would do in the Lagano test in his in-house preparatory tests. He knew it was impossible for the reactor to get that hot. Yet he said nothing and let the report of this bad data stand. Rossi also knew that the Dogbone could not produce all that power or produce a COP as high as 3.6. After a time, MFMP showed that the temperature readings had to be high because they calibrated the Lagano temperature sensor. MFMP stated that the main gage of reactor performance was invalid. Yet the Lagano test team said nothing and Rossi remained silent. Then we find out that the mouse produces a COP of just over 1 and that the mouse is the activator of the reactor cluster. So the Dogbone must be a mouse. The adjusted COP from the Lagano test based on the error in the measured temperature was something under 2. Rossi tells us: “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.” Since the Cat and the Mouse are the same, and the mouse has a COP just over 1, then the Cat must also have a COP that also is just over 1. If follows that all powered Dogbone reactors must have a COP that is just over one. To get a COP of 3 or more, Self Sustained Mode (SSM) must be invoked. And yet Rossi says nothing about any powered Dogbone type reactor who claims a COP above 3. The conclusion logic forces upon us is that any experimenter who claims a COP for a Dogbone type reactor that is not just over 1 must be in error or is intentionally producing bad data. On Tue, Jun 9, 2015 at 2:34 PM, Peter Gluck <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: My friends,, http://egooutpeters.blogspot.ro/2015/06/just-info-for-june-9-2015.html I was busy with campaigns re LENR and itd futured, however the info sent, if you look to video's and use a bit of Google Translate is quite remarkable. Peter -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
