See eros posts in

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.

Reply via email to