More... See
http://pieeconomics.blogspot.com/p/cavitation-radiation.html The reason why radiation is seen in cavitation is that there is not enough heat available in a water envirnment to setup a entangled ensemble of SPP black holes to counter the radiation produced in the spp formation process using super absorption. So if you want to produce water based rydberg matter using cavitation, be very careful of radiation and neutron exposure. On Fri, Oct 23, 2015 at 1:39 PM, Axil Axil <[email protected]> wrote: > It is more complicated that just hydrogen rydberg matter. The same rydberg > matter principle applies to any alkali metal. There is even more element > that this principle applies to. And water can form this stuff too. Remember > that Holmlid uses the tried and true potassium catalyst that thermicore > used way back in the day. Holmlid is just showing us the tip of the iceberg. > > I speculate that we can use an old washing machine pump to build a > cavitation system whose ash is just as LENR active as Holmlid's matter. > > On Fri, Oct 23, 2015 at 1:19 PM, Jones Beene <[email protected]> wrote: > >> A provocative question: >> >> If we accept Holmlid’s research suggesting dense metallic hydrogen can >> be disintegrated by a laser pulse; and therefore – that this reaction can >> return mass-energy of about 6x10^23 GeV per mole of hydrogen, then what >> is the value of this fuel? This amounts to about 10^14 Joules per gram. >> >> Or stated another way, how much value -added to hydrogen gas - will the >> market allow for the ultimate fuel (which, after all, is the energy >> equivalent >> of matter-antimatter)? As the field of “cold spallation” evolves, >> perhaps we should become prepared for a scenario where hydrogen (from >> water-splitting) is converted into dense hydrogen using robotics in >> giant factories - and sold to the highest bidder – which of course is >> NASA and DoD. >> >> Of course, it will heavily taxed and be illegal to produce at the home >> Lab, due to profits to be reaped by Daddy Warbucks. That will not stop >> vorticians and assorted alternative-energy scofflaws from making a few >> nanograms here and there (the new moonshine?). >> >> Imagine NASA redesigning the Space Shuttle to burn dense hydrogen. This >> gives us an idea of its value to the highest bidder. >> >> The Space Shuttle weighed 165,000 pounds empty. Its external tank weighed >> 78,100 pounds and its two solid rocket boosters weighed 185,000 pounds empty >> , each. If – with the switch to dense hydrogen, the takeoff weight could >> be reduced to essentially the Shuttle itself plus extra shielding, then >> a reduction of say 75% in mass happens off the top – making the Shuttle >> lighter than most passenger planes. Suddenly, it becomes feasible to take >> off horizontally from an airstrip instead of vertical lift-off, even >> with the extra weight for gamma shielding. >> >> Each solid rocket Shuttle booster held 1.1 million pounds of fuel- LOX >> mass 1.39 million pounds. LH2 mass: 234,000 pounds. Total fuel mass was >> almost 3.85 million pounds. Total energy available 3.4x10^12 joules. Cost >> per launch – don’t ask. >> >> As you may notice, the shuttle required less energy to reach orbit than can >> be extracted from that gram of dense hydrogen when fully disintegrated ! >> Whoa. No wonder there are a few skeptics out there, present company >> included. Kind of ironic that the first skeptics of cold spallation are >> the basically the same individuals who complain so loudly about the >> skepticism of cold fusion. J >> >> Bottom line, there is a good argument that dense hydrogen (assuming Holmlid >> is right) will be the most valuable commodity of the next decade… is this >> the “next big thing” or has yours-truly been sampling moonshine of the >> retro-variety? >> >> >
