[Vo]:New Record Low Solar Price in Abu Dhabi – Costs Plunging Faster Than Expected

[Blaze Spinnaker]

http://rameznaam.com/2016/09/21/new-record-low-solar-price-in-abu-dhabi-costs-plunging-faster-than-expected/

Re: [Vo]:LENR deployment methods

[Axil Axil]

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  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 
> 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 
>> 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.

>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>

Re: [Vo]:LENR deployment methods

[a.ashfield]

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 > 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
> 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.

Re: [Vo]:LENR deployment methods

[Axil Axil]

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  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 
> 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.
>>>
>>
>>
>
>

[Vo]:why I hate shoddiness

[Peter Gluck]

http://egooutpeters.blogspot.ro/2016/09/sep-21-2016-lenr-why-i-dislike.html


peter
-- 
Dr. Peter Gluck
Cluj, Romania
http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com

Re: [Vo]:LENR deployment methods

[a.ashfield]

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 > 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.