On Wed, Sep 21, 2016 at 6:11 PM, a.ashfield <> wrote:

> 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
> Can-we-talk-about-Homlid/
> 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