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 <[email protected]
<mailto:[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] <mailto:[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.
