http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J6OZykbnLQw
This demo shows how nanoparticles of water clusters can be reacted into heat in an auto catalectic converter. The HHO is the source of the nanoparticles "mouse" On Sat, Mar 15, 2014 at 4:54 PM, Axil Axil <janap...@gmail.com> wrote: > The Rossi reactor is currently configured into two functional parts, the > "mouse" whose function it is to produce nanoparticles, and the "Cat" whose > function it is to catalyze these nanoparticles in a LENR reaction. > > We can duplicate these functions by providing a nanoparticle source > (mouse) and a nanoparticle reactor (Cat). > > It is always better to "buy and tie" then to build from scratch. > > Any device that can produce fine nano sized droplets from a liquid capable > of supporting solid nano material will do. This atomization function will > support the Mouse function. > > I would recommend adding potassium carbonate to the Mouse colloid to > support the "secret sauce" function of Rossi's reactor. > > These possible mouse devices include a nebulizer, electric paint sprayer, > air brush, diesel fuel injector. > > I like the diesel fuel injector because it may produce a cavitation effect > during atomization. > > The Cat function might well be supported using a catalytic converter from > a late modeled car either new or slightly used. > > Engineers are doing some great stuff in the design of modern auto > catalytic converters as follows: > > > http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CCgQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fphys.org%2Fnews204827696.html&ei=Ea0kU-e-EOWu0AG7qICoBg&usg=AFQjCNEXBT3yWSArLp8LfqHup2wCHoDFwA&sig2=txtrtVqF-Ff1ij4rs7QThw > > Warm the auto catalytic converter to 400C, and inject a stream of > nanoparticles formed by the Mouse into it. > > You may want to use heavy water to support the Mouse colloid as a way to > produce tritium as a LENR tracer which marks the onset of LENR activity. > > > > > On Sat, Mar 15, 2014 at 4:37 PM, James Bowery <jabow...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> On Sat, Mar 15, 2014 at 11:43 AM, Edmund Storms <stor...@ix.netcom.com>wrote: >> >>> On Mar 15, 2014, at 10:30 AM, James Bowery wrote: >>> >>> 3) Identify which theories make predictions about modifications to the >>> experimental protocol (establish a range of hypotheses). >>> >>> >>> I find that all the present accepted theories conflict either with >>> behavior in LENR or with established natural law. I suggest we need to >>> start over. >>> >> >> Assuming that by "present accepted theories" you refer to the hysterical >> attempts to explain LENR to which we are continually exposed, I would >> suggest that there is a very simple treatment of this disease: >> >> "If your theory doesn't have an explanation for the success of this >> experimental protocol, then its no good. If your theory does have an >> explanation for the success of this experimental protocol, then there >> should be a range of modifications to the experimental protocol that your >> theory predicts will produce a range of predicted results. Enumerate said >> modifications in terms of the economy of: 1) Detecting the predicted >> results and 2) The discriminatory power of those results in terms of >> competing theories. If you cannot so enumerate such modifications, shut >> up." >> >> >>> >>> 4) Based on plausibility and economy, experimentally test as many of >>> these hypotheses as practical. >>> >>> >>> Tests are being run, but they are based on obviously flawed theories. >>> What next? >>> >> >>> 5) Increase understanding of the NAE based on the results of these >>> experiments. >>> >>> >>> What good are the results from a flawed theory? >>> >> >> I have now defined my terms in sufficient operational detail to entail >> answers to these last two questions. >> >> >
