I assume that your concepts include the various particles such as the polyneutron, Erzion, etc. but Rossi has never mentioned any of these. They may be involved in the LENR process, but I suspect that Rossi has never used those terms within his postings.
I too have found that he is careful to reveal actual portions of his design but sometimes it is nearly impossible to know exactly how to interpret his descriptions. He divulged a great deal of useful information concerning the PWM operation of his original ECAT that I found to be applicable within my thermal models. It was with this information that I was able to convince myself that it is indeed possible to control a large amount of thermal power with a much smaller quantity. His actual duty cycle works within my computer model when I make certain reasonable assumptions. I was able to achieve a COP of 6 in this manner. It is important to carefully interpret the words that he uses when he writes and that is why I request that we are careful to not add our own ideas to what is revealed unless acknowledged in our text. So far I do not see any proof that he currently is using 1 drive device to handle 15 others. That may be the case, but his latest patent does not reveal that structure. It might make sense to use this design if the COP of the new devices is 15 or greater except for one situation. My models show that you need extra power to get over the 'hump' before the gain maxes out to 15. The required drive for each to overcome the 'hump' is too great unless driven a few at a time. Dave -----Original Message----- From: Axil Axil <janap...@gmail.com> To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com> Sent: Wed, Dec 2, 2015 7:49 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:LENR reactors need magnetic confinement That is what the Rossi says I have found that Rossi doen not make misstatements when it comes to egineering details. When his product are finally revailed, this pre release statements are consistent with the product. Also, synthsys of all available experimental data lends insight to what Rossi says. Magnetic confinement of ENPs comes from various ENP theories including the tachyon, the leptonic monopole, the polyneutron, and the Erzion...all ENPs and all informative as to how the cause of LENR behaves. On Wed, Dec 2, 2015 at 7:30 PM, David Roberson <dlrober...@aol.com> wrote: That is what the Rossi says! Unfortunately, we do not have any of the other patents to review at this time to determine how his new device is structured. Until that happens it is wise for us to make it clear that we are speculating on a particular issue so that everyone understands that that is the situation. When you state with authority that 1 device is driving 15 others people are left with the impression that Rossi has made that clear in his writings. I have kept a close watch on his journal and do not recall ever seeing that mentioned. In this case I was beginning to think that perhaps I have missed one of his postings, which turned out not to be the case. My models are based upon what Rossi has actually stated and I need to keep that information accurate. Can I count on you and others to make a point to state that you are speculating on a new configuration concept unless it is actually written by Rossi? Thanks, Dave -----Original Message----- From: Axil Axil <janap...@gmail.com> To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com> Sent: Wed, Dec 2, 2015 5:32 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:LENR reactors need magnetic confinement Joseph November 5th, 2015 at 12:20 PM Dr Andrea Rossi, Congratulations for US Patent and for the 146 patents pending and in the making. The story of your life can explain why you are able to do this and work in your plant in the factory of the customer for 16 hours per day. You are unique. J. Andrea Rossi November 5th, 2015 at 11:25 PM Joseph, Thank you, but if the results will be positive, this will be due also to the work of our Team and also of the great family of this blog, from which so much I have learnt and of Prof Sergio Focardi and Prof Norman Cook, whose book has put the theoretical bases to the evolution of my work during these last 6 years. If the results will be negative, obviously, the responsibility will be totally mine, because I am the one that has taken all the decisions on the battlefield. Warm Regards, A.R. Sorry, there are 146 other patents pending. On Wed, Dec 2, 2015 at 4:48 PM, David Roberson <dlrober...@aol.com> wrote: That was 2 years ago before the patent was granted. Do you see anything within the patent that fits into this form? Rossi is required to supply information that is adequate to construct one of his systems if his patent is to have value. It is quite clear that his patented device has nothing resembling a driver module that is different for the other modules. Please point that out within the written patent. Rossi appears to be playing cat and mouse with Hank! There is nothing like this in the patent that I have seen. Dave -----Original Message----- From: Axil Axil <janap...@gmail.com> To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com> Sent: Wed, Dec 2, 2015 3:17 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:LENR reactors need magnetic confinement Hank Mills December 29th, 2013 at 2:34 PM Dear Andrea, The information you are sharing is facinating. While we wait for the full reports, it gives us something to think upon. 1 – If the mouse over stimulates the cat so it runs around in circles continually, not going back to sleep, does the cat always explode? 2 – Have you ever witnessed the cat running around in circles for extended periods of time, not needing any extra stimulation, but remaining stable? 3 – Other than heat from the mouse, is anything else stimulating the cat during the drive or self sustain periods? It may not work for the hot cat, but I wish there was some low power method of keeping the cat stimulated. For example, like the 100 watts of radio frequencies that kept the one megawatt plant in self sustain mode. 4 – By how many degrees on average does the surface of the cat vary from the end of the drive stage to the end of the self sustained stage? Andrea Rossi December 29th, 2013 at 6:10 PM Hank Mills: 1- no 2- confidential 3- no 4- the temperature of the Cat raises when the Mouse is turned off, lowers when the Mouse is turned on Warm Regards, A.R. On Wed, Dec 2, 2015 at 3:07 PM, Axil Axil <janap...@gmail.com> wrote: Rossi has provided a comprehensive explanation of the Cat and Mouse reactor clustering method in bits and pieces throughout his Q&A blog. One of them explains how the shutdown of power from the Mouse causes the Cat to be stimulated. I now take this to mean that when Rossi shuts off a magnetic confinements field coil that keeps the ENP inside the mouse, the Cats take off because the ENPs can then get into the Cats to stimulate the LENR reaction. On Wed, Dec 2, 2015 at 2:46 PM, David Roberson <dlrober...@aol.com> wrote: I have also seen the reference to the 16 reactors. The question is whether or not 1 is the driver with 15 following devices. Where did you see anything about a special type of driver device among the other 15? Did Rossi state this or is it entirely your assumption? Dave -----Original Message----- From: Axil Axil <janap...@gmail.com> To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com> Sent: Wed, Dec 2, 2015 2:12 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:LENR reactors need magnetic confinement Roland Bob • 17 hours ago Hi Bob, Each 250kVA module is composed of 16 reactors; we were all confused about this till Rossi revealed the structure a few days ago after the photos and mockups were published. From: Rossi on the E-Cat’s Modular Future: E-Cat X Units Can Combine to Make Power Plants of Any Size On Wed, Dec 2, 2015 at 1:42 PM, David Roberson <dlrober...@aol.com> wrote: Axil, where did you see a description of the tiger? I do not recall any reference to the use of one module to drive the other 15. Dave -----Original Message----- From: Axil Axil <janap...@gmail.com> To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com> Sent: Tue, Dec 1, 2015 10:40 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:LENR reactors need magnetic confinement It has be recently revealed that each 250kVA E-Cat tiger reactor module is composed of 16 reactors. Only one of those reactors is a powered activator(mouse). The other 15 are drones driven by the activator. The activator produces a reaction catalyst that drives the other drones. I say that the reaction catalyst is the magnetic Exotic Neutral Particle(ENP) that becomes mobile as its energy content level reaches a self sustaining threshold. At low temperatures the alumina tub reactor shell that all these reactors are comprised of confines the ENP. But as all these reactors heat up, the alumina shell becomes electrically conductive. At high temperatures, the alumina becomes magnetically transparent and this allows the ENP to leave the activator an enter the drone where the ENP catalyzes the LENR reaction. http://www.thevalvepage.com/valvetek/heater/fig1.gif Electrical conductivity Vs, temperature. On Tue, Dec 1, 2015 at 7:02 PM, Axil Axil <janap...@gmail.com> wrote: The so called Erzion phenomenon was discovered in a series of electrolytic experiments marked by unexplained changes in a pool of cooling water outside of the catalytic cell. After 40 minutes of electrolytic cell operation, water on the tungsten anode side of the cooling vessel started loosing its transparency. Water on the stainless steel cathode of the pool of cooling water remained transparent, at the same 40 C temperature. A sample of bubbly water, removed from the anode side, was tested for induced gamma radioactivity. No such radioactivity was found in it; the sample became transparent after 24 hours. Attempts to reproduce the long-term loss of cooling water transparency with other electrolytes, and under different electrical discharge conditions, were not successful. But the effect was highly reproducible when experimenting with the tungsten-anode electrolytic cell and the 7 M KF electrolyte containing 50% of heavy water. That cooling water on the outside of the electrolytic cell's glass reactor shell at the right side (see Figure 1) is close to the anode while cooling water on the left side is close to the cathode. The disappearance of bubbles, after the electrolysis, was very slow (half-life of about 10 hrs). Attempts to explain the phenomenon in terms of cavitation, and other ultrasonic effects, were not successful. The only satisfactory explanation was possible within the framework of the erzion model. Authors believe that bubbles are produced through the action of neutral Erzions. The Erzons phenomenon behavior is consistent with the magnetic based Exotic Neutral Particle(ENP). To begin with, the glass container is transparent to the magnetically based ENPs both optically and magnetically. The LENR reaction that keeps the ENPs viable produce the vapor that forms the water bubbles. The ENPs become energetically self sufficient in the water of the cooling pool where the ENPs remain viable for hours. If the Erzons phenomenon is produced by magnetically based ENPs, an iron plate placed just on the outside of the glass wall adjacent to the anode would prevent the ENPs from exiting the glass electrolytic cell. With the ENPs blocked from travel, bubble production would be eliminated. On Tue, Dec 1, 2015 at 5:37 PM, Axil Axil <janap...@gmail.com> wrote: In my opinion, the fundamental nature of the Rossi effect is based on magnetism. The catalytic particle that produces the reaction is magnetic in nature. This particle is produced by heat pumping and EMF stimulation. The nature of this Exotic Neutral Particle (ENP)is reflected by the behaviour of the E-Cat itself and reflect how the E-Cat operates. The ENP can exist at low energy pumping where the energy coming into the particle is equal to the energy leaving the particle. This is similar to the way Rossi keeps his reactor under control. Too much external energy pumping will result in the E-Cat going critical. The same process of over pumping happens with the ENP. Overpumping brings it to the stage where it becomes self-sufficient requiring no additional EMF input. The energized ENP can get EMF from the environment around it not requiring external heat or EMF simulation to be applied. The same is true for the E-Cat. When the E-Cat is subcritical, it requires heat and EMF stimulation to be applied. But when it is "over stimulated" it begins to meltdown since it has become independent from externally applied stimulation. The ENP can live as long as it can catalyze energy production from the material around it. The ENP can live for days on its own as it brings in energy from the environment to sustain its internal LENR reaction processes. Magnetic confinement increases efficiency of the reaction. Such confinement saves the externally applied energy that produced the ENP from being wasted. The ENP can leave the reactor if the material that makes up the reactor enclosure is transparent to the optical and magnetic nature of the ENP. This might be why electrolytic cells have difficulty in sustaining powerful LENR reactions. In this case, the ENPs escape the glass beaker reactor enclosure and all the input energy that was pumped into the ENP is wasted to the environment. outside the electrolytic cell. If the cell is made of material that can contain the ENP both optically and magnetically, the reactor will be efficent. Alumina is antiferromagnetic and will confine magnetic particles thy to escape the reactor shell. Another method of ENP confinement that Rossi might use is a solenoidal confinement coil that keeps the ENPs away from the reactor walls in the center axis of the reactor.
