It is my consideration that the mouse incorporates a driver that produces a spiked magnetic field of short duration. The magnetic field reacts with the cat’s nuclear magnetic dipoles to change their allowed energy states. A high frequency RF signal causes the group of nuclei so influenced to change thing energy states which have resonant absorption matches the RF signal, and which also matches the Ni lattice. These electronic resonances are associated with atomic spin quanta states as are the nuclear energy states associated with nuclear spin states—the ones affected by the mouse magnetic field.
IMO the new science is that mass associated with spin energy of the affected nuclei is transferred to phonic energy of the atomic scale lattice as heat, all controlled by limiting the number of nuclei being stimulated at one time. The loss of mass energy is consistent with generation of new nuclei with lower binding energy per nucleon. Energy and angular momentum are conserved by the new entities that are created in the reaction, including photons and neutrinos that may escape detection at this time. Bob Cook From: Axil Axil Sent: Thursday, June 18, 2015 12:34 PM To: vortex-l Subject: [Vo]:Cat stimultion Regarding:”To this , Allan Kiik has asked: So, if Rossi is telling the truth, does this put down the ideas about any kind of quantum condensate or spin-glass forming as the basis of the reaction”? In his blog comments, Rossi tells us that the “Mouse” and the “Cat” are two separate fueled modules. Only the mouse receives input power. Rossi also tells us that the mouse stimulates the Cat. The Cat produces almost all of the power since the Mouse has a COP of just over 1. The question that is central to this method of stimulation is as follows: “How does the Mouse stimulate the Cat”. I would dearly like to see an experiment designed to answer this question. I feel that there is new physics involved in this stimulative process. I believe that the “mouse” is producing a “quantum condensate” that somehow is affecting and stimulating the Cat possibly though the transfer of coherent heat energy. These energtic bursts in power are at the very core of Rossi’s control problem. The Rossi reactor module that receives input power seems to be susceptible to extremely energetic bursts in the LENR reaction produced by discontinuities in the AC current that drives the input heater. Open source replicators have seen these bursts blowout their reactors when these reactors have a full fuel load. However, when the fuel load is significantly reduced to 1/3 of the standard fuel load, the bursts seen are contained by the structure of the reactor. It seems that the way power is applied to the reactor affects how the LENR reaction behaves. Rossi has found a way to overcome this problematic blowout behavior. When the Cat is stimulated by the mouse, the LENR reactor does not burst and a blowout does not happen. The Mouse acts as a kind of stimulation filter to mellow the effects of the EMF stimulation. It may be that the heat produced by the mouse is coherent. Heat applied by a flame is most probably ineffective in stimulating the LENR reaction. I am interested in seeing how this Mouse and Cat stimulation process works and therefore hope that an experiment is configured to explore this issue.
