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 <mailto: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.




Reply via email to