Re: [Vo]:LENR deployment methods

[Axil Axil]

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"

popularmechanics.com/home/how-…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
>
> https://www.lenr-forum.com/forum/index.php/Thread/3728-
> 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
>>
>> https://www.lenr-forum.com/forum/index.php/Thread/3728-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 r

Re: [Vo]:LENR deployment methods

[a.ashfield]

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

https://www.lenr-forum.com/forum/index.php/Thread/3728-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


https://www.lenr-forum.com/forum/index.php/Thread/3728-Can-we-talk-about-Homlid/



For Rossi, see his blog.

On Wed, Sep 21, 2016 at 9:31 AM, a.ashfield
mailto:a.ashfi...@verizon.net>> 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
mailto:a.ashfi...@verizon.net>> 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

Re: [Vo]:LENR deployment methods

[Axil Axil]

see

https://www.lenr-forum.com/forum/index.php/Thread/3728-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
>
> https://www.lenr-forum.com/forum/index.php/Thread/3728-
> 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.

>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>

Re: [Vo]:LENR deployment methods

[a.ashfield]

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

https://www.lenr-forum.com/forum/index.php/Thread/3728-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
mailto:a.ashfi...@verizon.net>> 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.

Re: [Vo]:LENR deployment methods

[Axil Axil]

See eros posts in

https://www.lenr-forum.com/forum/index.php/Thread/3728-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.
>>>
>>
>>
>
>

Re: [Vo]:LENR deployment methods

[a.ashfield]

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.

Re: [Vo]:LENR deployment methods

[Axil Axil]

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.
>>
>
>

Re: [Vo]:LENR deployment methods

[a.ashfield]

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.

Re: [Vo]:LENR deployment methods

[Stephen A. Lawrence]

So now we're posting science fiction here?

(Or does stuff from Rossi count as pure fantasy rather than sci-fi?)

On 09/20/2016 04:40 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.

[Vo]:LENR deployment methods

[Axil Axil]

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.