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 <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]> > 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. >>> >> >> > >
