From: Eric Walker
Jones Beene wrote:
The risk/reward situation is such that 99% or four nines for
leakage is not nearly good enough. One cannot simply propose the leap that
goes all the way from partial fractionation to complete blockage.
That is precisely what is being proposed.
Then that is precisely why it is wrong.
If complete leak-proof gamma shielding is possible - we do not need LENR and
we can go directly to subcritical fission, photofission or a small scale
hybrid with a desktop accelerator - which is known, proved and reliable.
Natural uranium is two orders of magnitude cheaper than deuterium. Who needs
deuterium if gammas can be perfectly shielded by grams of loaded metal?
Whether this suggestion is amenable to you is a different
question.
Forget me. Who is it amenable to?
Answer: a handful of LENR proponents who started out in PdD and refuse to
see that Rossi is very different, or who would love to find something better
but have no option?
Where is the kilowatt PdD reactor? Cough… cough… Rossi is the future of LENR
and it is counterproductive to be lost in the past. PdD is an exercise in
futility.
But such 100 percent efficiency in fractionation is what is
implied in the PdD research.
No it isn’t. Lack of gammas ab initio is what is implied in LENR research.
The two are completely different, not different ways of saying the same
thing.
Jones
<<attachment: winmail.dat>>
