To get an idea about how far the muon bubble extends away from the LENR reaction, the zone of electrical interference would be the only currently known method of detection.
ME356: "Emissions (RF, electrons and UV) during the test were so strong that my control circuit was absolutely crazy even that it was 3 meters away - it is unusable." The muon bubble must extend out beyond 3 meters. DGT said that the EMI interference disabled their phone system. How wide spread that system was is not known. A EMI detector is a way that the muon bubble might be unambiguously characterized. A Spy Camera & Audio Bug Detector might pick up EMI interference or a EMI detector could be build from scratch if the R&D budget is an issue. see "Build Your Own Electromagnetic Interference (EMI) Detector" popularmechanics.com/home/how-…ference-detector-8831727/ <http://www.popularmechanics.com/home/how-to/a7614/build-your-own-electromagnetic-interference-detector-8831727/> On Thu, Sep 22, 2016 at 1:45 PM, a.ashfield <a.ashfi...@verizon.net> wrote: > Axil, > I find that to vague to able to draw any conclusions. I'm sure you recall > many people complaining if all sorts of things because they lived within a > ten mile radius of a nuclear power plant. > It not at all clear precisely what the experimental set up was. > Presumably quite different from what Rossi is doing. > AA > > > On 9/21/2016 6:30 PM, Axil Axil wrote: > > see > > https://www.lenr-forum.com/forum/index.php/Thread/3728- > Can-we-talk-about-Homlid/?postID=35868#post35868 > > > On Wed, Sep 21, 2016 at 6:11 PM, a.ashfield <a.ashfi...@verizon.net> > wrote: > >> Axil >> I don't consider a link to the thread" Can we talk about Homlid?" any >> sort of reference what so ever. >> Rossi has stated on his blog that not only is he well but, repeatedly, >> that the E-Cat does not produce significant radiation. If it had >> presumably he would be a sick man by now. >> AA >> >> >> On 9/21/2016 5:29 PM, Axil Axil wrote: >> >> See eros posts in >> >> https://www.lenr-forum.com/forum/index.php/Thread/3728-Can- >> we-talk-about-Homlid/ >> >> For Rossi, see his blog. >> >> On Wed, Sep 21, 2016 at 9:31 AM, a.ashfield <a.ashfi...@verizon.net> >> wrote: >> >>> Axil wrote: "Both both Rossi and eros has suffered serious health >>> issues when in close contact with their reactors." >>> References please >>> AA >>> >>> On 9/20/2016 5:55 PM, Axil Axil wrote: >>> >>> Rossi now joins the chorus of LENR developers who recognise the dangers >>> inherent in high power output LENR reactors. Rossi joins ME356 and eros in >>> advising caution based on their observation of LENR performance >>> characteristics. Both both Rossi and eros has suffered serious health >>> issues when in close contact with their reactors. >>> >>> On Tue, Sep 20, 2016 at 5:08 PM, a.ashfield <a.ashfi...@verizon.net> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> Axil, I doubt the QuarkX is that dangerous. It is not like it could >>>> cause a nuclear explosion. >>>> Rossi seems to think The QuarkX is the future and the real problem is >>>> him being tied up in a legal battle. >>>> In answer to a comment on anther thread, suggesting that because IH >>>> claimed they had tried and failed, consider that MIT and Caltech concluded >>>> that Fleischmann & Pons could not be replicated 0 and we now know it can >>>> be. >>>> I don't see IH giving up without getting their hands on the Quark >>>> technology. >>>> AA >>>> >>>> >>>> On 9/20/2016 4:40 PM, Axil Axil wrote: >>>> >>>>> Norman >>>>> September 20, 2016 at 7:28 AM >>>>> Dear Andrea Rossi: >>>>> Update of the work on the QuarkX? >>>>> Cheers, >>>>> Norman >>>>> >>>>> Andrea Rossi >>>>> September 20, 2016 at 8:29 AM >>>>> Norman: >>>>> Still in very good standing, but also still dangerous. Working mainly >>>>> on safety issues now. >>>>> Warm Regards, >>>>> A.R. >>>>> >>>>> If seems that LENR reactors are not as inherently safe as we all once >>>>> thought. But the safe deployment of LENR technology could still be >>>>> accommodated into the current power infrastructure. >>>>> >>>>> The development of ocean deployment of huge wind turbines will serve >>>>> LENR reactor deployment well. A safe method of LENR deployment will entail >>>>> the use of those floating platforms located just off shore. >>>>> >>>>> The technical feasibility of deepwater floating LENR platforms will >>>>> not be questioned, as the long-term survivability of floating structures >>>>> has been successfully demonstrated by the marine and offshore oil >>>>> industries over many decades. However, the economics that allowed the >>>>> deployment of thousands of offshore oil rigs have yet to be demonstrated >>>>> for floating LENR reactor platforms. For deepwater wind turbines, a >>>>> floating structure will replace pile-driven monopoles or conventional >>>>> concrete bases that are commonly used as foundations for shallow water and >>>>> land-based reactors. The floating structure must provide enough buoyancy >>>>> to >>>>> support the weight of the reactor as a function of its size and power >>>>> production rating and to restrain pitch, roll and heave motions within >>>>> acceptable limits. >>>>> >>>>> Since muon shielding is so problematic, distance from any population >>>>> is the one dependable risk mitigation method. >>>>> >>>>> The distance of LENR deployment offshore would be a function of the >>>>> range of muon travel before decay and the inverse square law dilution of >>>>> muon density together with safe muon exposure limits. >>>>> >>>>> The floating LENR reactor will be bigger than a sea buoy, but smaller >>>>> than a floating wind turbine. Robotize remote controlled maintence could >>>>> allow for human free maintenance of the LENR reactor such as refueling. >>>>> The >>>>> activated waste fuel could be dumped into the deep water or dissolved in >>>>> acid. >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >> >> > >