Why are Rossi's patents and intentions important, in the context of validating his CMNS claims? What the world is waiting for is a protocol which allows reputable scientists to replicate his results, and to obtain similar (+/- 30%) results. That would be a tremendous contribution, much more valuable than tens of his patents.
Ludwik Kowalski (see Wikipedia) =================================================== On Dec 2, 2015, at 7:49 PM, Axil Axil wrote: > 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. > > > > > > > > >
