Muons, if they osuffer the same ccur in LENR reactions will be a real problem for LENR+. The technology will suffer the same issues as fission reactor technology minus one big disadvantage--raidioactive waste. However, that relative advantage IMHO would be significant with respect to current nuclear power. It would put lots of nails in the coffin of current nuclear technology.
Bob Cook ________________________________ From: Axil Axil <janap...@gmail.com> Sent: Saturday, November 12, 2016 11:06 AM To: vortex-l Subject: Re: [Vo]:Holmlid, Mills & muons Unsolicited observations of identical experimental consequences lends credence to the production of a common causative reaction. For example, Defkalion saw not advantage in reporting a major problem that they suffered in the testing and demonstration of their system that later ture up in other systems. ME356 explained why his testing instruments and sensors were malfunctioning 3 meters away from his reaction. This is very similar to what Defkalion had reported. Now Holmlid tells why such observations are a result of muon production. Now, the picture becomes a little clearer, a common thread can be drawn to the point that if ionization production is not observed in a LENR experimental situation, then the power production of the reaction and even its existence is rightly questioned. On Sat, Nov 12, 2016 at 1:48 PM, Brian Ahern <ahern_br...@msn.com> wrote: > Toomuch credit is being given to Me356 andDefkalion. For that matter, Mills > also has a troublesome history. His latest announcement seems curiously like > a 'Me too' response to . > > the E > > The discussion seems to accept the fraudulent claims and empowers them. If > this was a legalaction we would refer to the 'alledged energy production'. > > ________________________________ > From: Jones Beene <jone...@pacbell.net> > Sent: Saturday, November 12, 2016 1:15 PM > To: vortex-l@eskimo.com > Subject: RE: [Vo]:Holmlid, Mills & muons > > -----Original Message----- > From: Axil Axil .... If LENR is heavily deployed in a high density urban > housing situation, then a dense field of general muon interference will > produce a impossible to shield zone of electronic and electrical failure. > -------- > > There is a well-known way to mollify this problem affordably, and provide > extra energy at the same time. Lead itself is way too expensive. > > The idea is to capture muons in a thick jacket around the reactor. Very > thick. The only way to do this cheaply is specialty concrete. > > 10 feet thickness of specialty concrete which is made with the addition of > iron ore and lead ore to Portland cement will convert 90% of muons into low > grade heat. Copper tubing can remove the heat. Not fancy, but ideal for > places like northern China and Russia which can use lots of low grade heat. > A dollar of lead ore is superior to $100 of lead metal. > > >
