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.

On 9/21/2016 5:29 PM, Axil Axil wrote:
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

    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

    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.

        On 9/20/2016 4:40 PM, Axil Axil wrote:

            September 20, 2016 at 7:28 AM
            Dear Andrea Rossi:
            Update of the work on the QuarkX?

            Andrea Rossi
            September 20, 2016 at 8:29 AM
            Still in very good standing, but also still dangerous.
            Working mainly on safety issues now.
            Warm Regards,

            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