Polariton Coherent Light and Rossi’s Cat and Mouse

The following post was submitted by Axil Axil

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.


Could the mouse be a poloriton laser? A highly efferent laser has been developed that produces coherent light that uses electricity as a stimulant. In his Mouse, has Rossi developed a deep infrared polariton laser driven by EMF? At one time Rossi was developing a natural gas driven reactor where natural gas combustion produced heat for his reactor. But that design did not work. The heat produced by the gas was not coherent.

The Hot cat reactor has an alumina shell that is transparent to infrared light in the LENR reactive range. Could the Mouse be producing light that gets through the alumina shell of the Cat to stimulate the Cat?

The light produced by the Mouse can be tested for coherence by using Spectroscopy. If the line produced by the light is monochomatic, that is, produces a single sharp line in the spectrograph, the infrared light is coherent.

Axil Axil

  • Alain Samoun

    Maybe,it is just an IR laser that stimulates the fuel when the energy output goes down?

    • Axil Axil

      In order to produce a self sustain mode, a positive feedback process must be in place. This is not possible to impliment using a commersial IR laser. There must be a process that produces more LENR stimulation DIRECTLY without any energy transformations and/or removal from the NAE than it takes to produce the LENR effect. The IR laser must be produced naturally inside the NAE and be over unity.

      • the SSM mode, which is in fact a “mono stable” mode (pulse mode) demand 2 things to the E-cat system.

        one is that there is a positive feedback loop, not too fast, that trigger a runaway heating.
        another is a slower stronger negative feedback loop, that stops the runaway before it have destroyed the reactor.

        with a toymodel I could do that simply with two loops.

        one is simply a loop where temperature increase reaction which produce heat, which increase temperature, at a pace controled by heat capacity, and reduced by heat dissipation.

        another is a mysterious hypothesis that some state variable integrates the temperature and reduce the efficiency of the reaction .

        imagine for example that with temperature the NAE get slowly destroyed, burned… or that fuel leaks faster with temperature…

        with those look, the system shows a kind of oscilating patter.
        if there is non linearities that prevent the system to bounce back when cooler, then it behave like E-cat SSM…
        you send a pulse of heat, the reactor start a runaway phase, which is dampened and reverted after sometime, until the reactor get colder and need heat to restart.

        • Axil Axil

          Surface Plasmon polaritons (SPP) lose much energy through dispersion of EMF as their energy is radiated away at various RF frequencies. But the SPP has a non linear gain mechanism that balances this dispersion loss to maintain its structure over extended time (up to 150 picoseconds).

          The SPP lives in a constant state of loss via dispersion and gain by nonlinear amplification.

          The nanoparticle aggregates that support the formation of SPPs might break down over time and the elements that form these aggregates might require occasional reformation back into nanoparticles via another temperature/pressure fluxuation cycle.

        • Mats002

          Me too looking for a simple explanation to the self-oscillation. What about the co-deposition process makes the oscillation like this: Li or LiAl (or some other alloy possible from the fuel content) boil at about 1300 C, parts condensate on Ni microparticles as nanoparticles, this starts LENR microbursts (popcorn) and more heat add more co-deposition of nanoparticles giving a runaway, but when too hot no condensation to nanoparticles occur, LENR microbursts stops and will not start again until temp low enough for more co-deposition of nanoparticles. This would be the outer slow (seconds up to minutes) temp cycle for ssm of about +/- 50 C. Then looking at the underlying reason for microbursts is another story of SPP:s forming and oscillating in a much higher frequency of IR coherent laser light interacting with bosons making ultra-slow-neutrons and so on. Simple as that! 😉

          • Mats002

            Here is a story for how SPP makes heavy electrons which makes ultra-slow-neutrons then fusion starts: http://coldfusionnow.org/wikipedia-beyond-cold-fusion-a-journey-into-the-depths-of-wiki-science/

          • Axil Axil

            When the reactor core reaches a stable thermal condition, all the dipoles vibrate together as driven by the isothermal(even) heat. When this happens, a state of super radiance sets in.

            In quantum optics, superradiance is a phenomenon that occurs when a group of N emitters, such as excited atoms, interact with a common light field. If the wavelength of the light is much greater than the separation of the emitters, then the emitters interact with the light in a collective and coherent fashion. This causes the group to emit light as a high intensity pulse (with rate ∝ N2). This is a surprising result, drastically different from the expected exponential decay (with rate ∝ N) of a group of independent atoms (as in spontaneous emission). Superradiance has since been demonstrated in a wide variety of physical and chemical systems, such as quantum dot arrays and J-aggregates.[ The effect has recently been used to produce a polariton superradiant laser.

            To simplify all the dipoles acted like a single huge dipole. The input power that comes into the reactor feeds all the dipoles equally. All the nuclear energy that the dipoles produce is shared equally among all the dipoles. The dipoles release the same amount of heat like there was a single huge dipole instead of many individual dipoles performing the same dance step.

      • James Andrew Rovnak

        Do you really mean negative thermal feedback ie increase in temperature shuts down some local high energy micro burst regions, Just maybe? these Hot E-Cats just don’t want to run away with temperature or we wouldn’t have (ssm) operation ever, is my experience & take! jim

        • Axil Axil

          All the local high energy micro burst regions are moderated by super radiance.

          When in a state of super radiance, input power is equally shared between all the nanobursts. Once in the super radiant state the reactor does not blowout. But it will melt down because all the NAE will go into overunity at the same time and at the same point. Super radiance means that each individual nanoburst acts in a globle asemblage. A meltdown is a global quantum mechanical process.

    • Axil Axil

      The trick that provides control in the latest E Cat designs is to seperate the fuel load and only stimulate a minor fraction of it with EMF. This fraction is not capable of a runaway reaction since it can only produce a near unity COP. The major part of the fuel load is stimulated using the coherent heat produced by the minor fraction of the fuel load that was exposed to EMF.

      There are many ways that the fuel load can be seperated physically in order to reduce EMF stimulation to the minor fraction of the fuel load below the blowout limit.

      Summary example:

      Minor fraction stimulated by EMF.(ie 2/3 grams in one partition)
      Major fraction simulated by coherent Infrared produced by the minor fraction.(ie 3 grams in 5 partitions)

      • James Andrew Rovnak

        I think fuel is homogeneously distributed, now micro burst might be pretty far apart & are easily shut down by thermal excursions maybe ie thermal self regulation & how many micro bust you start ie determines power level maybe & how you shutdown a compete or partial (ssm) – blow the flame out with sharp temporary external power input & slide down to shutdown. Incidentally presence of decay products can be seen in all long term cool downs with their extended shutdown time constants & even (ssm) plateau as Chines have found & Parkhomov on one test, No Axil Axil? your friend an admirer Jim

        • Axil Axil

          Rossi said:

          Andrea Rossi

          June 16th, 2015 at 7:31 PM


          Looking at the derivatives I would answer more like popcorns, looking at the integral I would say piece of charcoal.

          Warm Regards,

          Sibilla Cumana

          IMHO, “Looking at the derivatives” means that LENR occurs in the E Cat in many powerful nanobursts. Each LENR nanobursts reaction is discrete. There are many individual powerful bursts. When the reaction is looked at in derivatives, many discrete events are seen. S the reaction increases, the number of nanobursts increase. This is when control is in danger and the blowout danger is great.

          If the reactor survives, the reaction matures and a state of Bose condensation is established. When the reaction gets to this state of maturity, it is looked at as an integral, these many individual events occur at a constant nanoburst rate and on the average produces a smooth production of energy over a extended time frame that is at a maximum at the start but fades over time.

          When Bose condensation sets in, a state of super radiance is established. Each nanoburst effects all the others so that blowout is no longer a problem.

          For example, Parknomov blowout many reactors, but just by luck one survived the blowout phase. Once super radiance set in, blowout is no longer a problem because the nanoburst moderate each other in a super-atom averaging process…the nanobursts talk to each other through quantum mechanics. In this super radiant stage the nanobursts essentially have the same energy output based on quantum mechanical averaging.

          What Rossi has done is make sure that the mouse survives the initial nanoburst phase by keeping the COP of the mouse very low. The mouse will always make it to the super radiant stage. The mouse transfers the quantum mechanical super atom Bose condensate condition to one or more Cats. These Cat do not face the danger of the nanoburst stage. All the Cats become super radiant. The Cats become very productive in a state of global shared Bose condensation.


          When many individual reactors are controlled in a sequence where the initial burst from the reaction drives the next reactor to produce a quantum mechanically average global burst delayed in time and so on around in a cycle of maximum to miniatum reaction intensity over many reactors, a relatively constant amount of power can be produced.

  • Ted-X

    Just to comment on two facts and to provide one speculation: Facts:
    1. Oscillating temperatures are used 2. Nanoparticles of Nickel seem to be important. Speculation: One component essential to the LENR (Niclel + LiAlH4system) is lithium carbonate or CO2 (or contamination of Ni + LiAlH4 with acetone or contamination with carbon dioxide from the air).
    “THEORY”: Oscillating temperatures cause formation of Ni-nanoparticles via volatile Ni(CO)4 or nickel-semicarbonyls on the surface of niclel crystals. While at higher temperatures more Ni(CO)4 forms, at lower temperatures Ni precipitates from the gas phase (or forms Ni-nanoparticles on the surface). Precipitation from the gas phase under the eCat conditions forms nanoparticles of nickel. So, the nanoparticles of nickel are continuously generated due to the oscillating temperatures.
    Now the speculation:
    presence of carbon and oxygen “contamination” in any form (CO2, LiCO3, even acetone or CO2 from the ambient air) is needed, as they will form a certain amount of carbon monoxide under the thermodynamic equilibrium of eCat conditions. SOME carbon monoxide is needed for the formation of a small amount of the volatile nickel carbonyl.
    The LiCO3 approach can be tested by the replicators, and IF I am right, they will see an enhancement in the LENR effect.
    The “chopped EMF” will still be important.

    • Axil Axil

      “Nanoparticles of Nickel seem to be important. ”

      Nanoparticles of Nickel cannot form because the Rossi reactor can operated for at least a year or more without a fuel reload. In addition, Particle 1 of the Lagano test data showed no change in the nanowire surface features. If there was nickel nanoparticle production, the nickel micro particles would be quikely erroded away. Nanoparticles of lithium, carbon, hydrogen, and other elements form continuously when the temperature is just right.

      The Parkhomov nickel microparticles are of very pore quality. These microparticles contain a huge amount of carbon from an incomplete manufacturing process. The carbon is not cleaned from the nickel. This carbon contmination makes the Parkhomov powder special when used for LENR. The carbon content was 10% to 15% of the nickel by weight accordubg to the MFMP powder analisys.

      In the Lagano test, the fuel load contained a large amout of carbon that was consumed by the LENR process because there was little to no carbon found in the ash.

      The physical charactoristics of Lithium carbonate:
      Melting point: 723 °C (1,333 °F; 996 K)
      Boiling point: 1,310 °C (2,390 °F; 1,580

      makes this compound a good candidate for nanoparticle production in the Hot Cat.

      The Nuclear Active sites are on the surface of the nickel micropowder as the nanoparticles of various elements and compounds from and find their way onto the surface of the nickel micropowder and aggragate there.

      • Ted-X

        I was saying that the oscillating temperatures will cause formation of nanoparticles of nickel. The process is similat to crystallization with oscillating temperatures: dissolving followed by precipitation. The surface structures do not have to be affected, but I think that the surface has changed in the Lugano test. Lithium carbonate will most likely decompose even before melting… if not, a chemical equilibrium (thermodynamic) will be established, where part of the LiCO3 will decompose into LiO and CO2. CO2 will form CO, LiO will form LiH; all in a thermodynamic equilibrium, with continuous inter-conversions. Oscillating temperatures will always form nanoparticles of Nickel in the eCat system having carbon monoxide. I agree that the nanoparticles of niclel will form on the surface of nickel powder.

      • James Andrew Rovnak

        Interesting now what about oscillations in glow observed during test. Clearly large temperature upset are occurring in active the micro burst regions of fuel. Remembering the energy density of this fuel is beyond our experience.

    • James Andrew Rovnak

      Interesting I shall think more on this. 2/4 sec glow oscillations in GS3 15 sec Glow oscillations in Denis Vasilenko’ recent tests that puzzle me. Thought controller limit cycle obvious?

      • Axil Axil

        Some sort of control cycle in the controller may have set in. If this happened, the cycle would have been also seen in the power feed to the reactor.

        If the variable glow was just due to a temperature change cycle, the maximum and minimum differential range would have been very large. If this glow cycle was not caused by varying input power, this cycle is very important to understand because it was produced by the LENR reaction.

  • Axil Axil

    There is a huge amount of EMF amplification involved in nanoparticle aggragation. The amlification is proportional to the size difference between a 10 micron particle and a 1 nanometer space between nanoparticles, That is a gain of 10,000. the micropartical is a dipole antenna that receives heat energy from a wide volume that surrounds it.

    Fusion is the result of huge energy concentration where the energy gathered by the microparticle is concentrated into a sub nanometer spot. In addition, this EMF is freqency converted from heat into x-rays and XUV which is another means for EMF power amplication.

  • James Andrew Rovnak

    Yes Dave, sure we have negative feedback in temp excursions!

  • Stephen

    Has NMR and and in particular MRI been considered deeply in the context of LENR? I have just been reading the Vortex mail archive regarding the e-cat stimulus and idea has been raised there:


    It seems interesting to me as in some ways there seems to be parallels especially with MRI. If I understand right for MRI we have an alternating magnetic field of specific frequency for the stimulated nucleus such as Li, and the process involves disturbing this aligned state with EM pulse.


    Could the magnetic field generated by the heater element be sufficient for this? I appreciate this MRI normally uses very strong magnetic fields. If stronger fields are required may be SPP are a possible source for local used effects.

    • Axil Axil

      If an ideal magnetic wave form is applied to a proton in the nucleus, the spin of the proton can receive energy from the magnetic spin field if the impedance of the two waveforms are matched. This added energy can increase the energy level of the proton enough to transform the proton into a neutron. About 400,000 electron volts of added magnetic spin energy are required to transform a proton into a neutron inside the nucleus.

      This EMF mechanism is the way isotopic shifts occur in LENR.

      It is important to understand that the magnetic waveform that excites the proton must be of an ideal matching character to get the proton to transform. Not any old magnetic waveform will do this job.

      • Stephen

        Thanks again Axil, would this process require an intermediary meson or lepton pair to be generated to preserve conservation of nucleus states or would the specific magnetic resonance be sufficient to flip the state of the proton to neutron? (or quark state in the standard model)?

        • Axil Axil

          IMHO, the specific magnetic resonance would be sufficient to flip the state of the proton to neutron. I have a reference for this that was used in an earlier post.

          • Mats002

            What about those guys: Muons (mu mesons aka heavy electrons) Muons are denoted by μ− and antimuons by μ+. Muons were previously called mu mesons, but are not classified as mesons by modern particle physicists (see History). Muons have a mass of 105.7 MeV/c2, which is about 200 times the mass of an electron.

          • Axil Axil

            The mesons will ecentually become Muons through decay. It is impossible to tell what particles are nucleated without experiement but it is likely that the fusion occuring is centered on the actions of muons.

          • Stephen

            Thanks Axil, I will try to find the earlier post I find your points are always worth good consideration. Following this concept a bit. Would the flip the other way from neutron to proton without emission of beta be theoretically possible given a correct resonance or would this be prohibited due to the energy released in a change in that direction?

          • Axil Axil

            When protons and neutrons are together, thay form a stable configuration, Because they as so close together, the vacume produces pions in the space between them. This caues the identities of the protons and neutrons to flip because the pion produces a color change.


          • Stephen

            Thanks Axil, yup I have always liked that concept, it appeals to me somehow as an aspect of or a way to view the subatomic interactions rather than just in terms of the W boson as an intermediary. I suppose the these pions were the kind of mesons I was thinking about above.

  • Stephen

    Could this be the source of Andrea Rossi’s Genius 😉 :


    With due respect for the man his dedication and his faith in greater things.

  • James Andrew Rovnak

    Or the apparent asymmetric glow in Rossi Hot E-Cat here?


  • James Andrew Rovnak

    Then there is the asymmetric glow again in the Hot E-Cat in Rossi’s tests. Local LENR to me with micro burst in one spot more or less producing energy! Does he move the spots around with input power or do addition spots appear as power is increased in (ssm) LENR process – this asymmetric glow is seen over & over again in many experimenters replication attempt. Also glow pulsating in 2 to 15 Hz range.


    Just maybe we should run a little lumped parameter model in parallel with these test computing the presence of LENR power generation in parallel with external power input. Inputs would be measured temperture & best power input estimate and output would be LENR power estimate. Additional detail of Ni isotope, LI plasma, hydrogen generation (pressure) etc could be hypothesized ahd compared with LENR energy estimate in separate or combined analytical time domain computaions. This would be similar to previous time domain computations that saw unexplained heat after power trip indicating decay heat in extinguishing (ssm) LERN power generations external power input.


    • Mats002

      Jim, I just read the Penon presentation you linked at MFMP FB, very clever work, that seams to be a good way of rule out where the origin of energy can come from. The Rossi HotCat Penon report approach should be useful also for going deeper into the origin of energy which by reason and also described in Widom-Larsen theory should be very local fast eruptions of IR gamma radiation. A scenario based model can show if plausible, but making real measurements in experiments should be needed also.