http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Daps&field-keywords=spectrscope
spectrascope for about $5 On Thu, Jun 18, 2015 at 4:23 PM, Axil Axil <[email protected]> wrote: > 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. >> >> > >
