What experiment proves or disproves this posit? On Thu, Jun 18, 2015 at 4:10 PM, Bob Cook <[email protected]> wrote:
> 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 <[email protected]> > *Sent:* Thursday, June 18, 2015 12:34 PM > *To:* vortex-l <[email protected]> > *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. > >
