To get an idea about how far the muon bubble extends away from the LENR
reaction, the zone of electrical interference would be the only currently
known method of detection.

ME356: "Emissions (RF, electrons and UV) during the test were so strong
that my control circuit was absolutely crazy even that it was 3 meters away
- it is unusable."

The muon bubble must extend out beyond 3 meters.

DGT said that the EMI interference disabled their phone system. How wide
spread that system was is not known.

A EMI detector is a way that the muon bubble might
be unambiguously characterized.

A Spy Camera & Audio Bug Detector might pick up EMI interference

or a EMI detector could be build from scratch if the R&D budget is an issue.

see "Build Your Own Electromagnetic Interference (EMI) Detector"…ference-detector-8831727/

On Thu, Sep 22, 2016 at 1:45 PM, a.ashfield <> wrote:

> Axil,
> I find that to vague to able to draw any conclusions.  I'm sure you recall
> many people complaining if all sorts of things because they lived within a
> ten mile radius of a nuclear power plant.
> It not at all clear precisely what the experimental set up was.
> Presumably quite different from what Rossi is doing.
> AA
> On 9/21/2016 6:30 PM, Axil Axil wrote:
> see
> Can-we-talk-about-Homlid/?postID=35868#post35868
> 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
>> 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