Re: [Vo]:One imaginary Future for dense hydrogen

[Mats Lewan]

Jones, 
I tried to express a similar concept in a more 'popular' way in this blog post: 

http://animpossibleinvention.com/2015/02/10/time-to-dispel-the-streetlight-paradox-of-energy/

Bottom line -- sooner or later, efficient access to energy stored in matter 
will make scarcity of energy be a non-issue. 

Mats

> 23 okt 2015 kl. 19:19 skrev "Jones Beene" :
> 
> 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?
> 

[Vo]:One imaginary Future for dense hydrogen

[Jones Beene]

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. :-)
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?

Re: [Vo]:One imaginary Future for dense hydrogen

[Axil Axil]

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  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  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?
>>
>>
>

Re: [Vo]:One imaginary Future for dense hydrogen

[Axil Axil]

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  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?
>
>

Re: [Vo]:One imaginary Future for dense hydrogen

[Axil Axil]

Why does the LeClair reactor produce radiation and neutrons and the  device
invented by James Griggs does not?

It’s a matter of temperature. The James Griggs device runs at an operating
temperature of 400F, whereas, the LeClair reactor is not pressurized and
does not.

Since the Hydrogen Rydberg matter is a bigger molecule than the water
molecule, it might be possible to capture the rydberg matter from the
Griggs device using a properly sized filtration device plased in the flow
of the circulating water and remove this filter as a feedstock for a laser
based or electric arc based LENR reactor. The high power potential of an
electric motor will dump a significant amount of power into the water thus
amplifying the rate of production of rydberg matter. Any level of power
could be applied to the water to speed Rydberg matter production.

The level of Rydberg matter production could be determined by exposor of a
photographic emulsion to the water filters.

Joe Papp used this method of fuel preprocessing to form a Rysberg matter
fortified water solution that he used as an explosive and fuel for his
engine.

Just like Papp did, other elements like chlorine might be added to the
water to enhance the explosive effect. Papp used a electric arc to activate
and liberate power production from his fuel.

If a nickel or silica aeroform is used as a filter, a Rossi like tube
reactor could be fueled with the powder make from the powdered aerofoam.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yh_-DUKQ4Uw




On Fri, Oct 23, 2015 at 4:27 PM, Eric Walker  wrote:

> On Fri, Oct 23, 2015 at 3:03 PM, Jones Beene  wrote:
>
> That door could open to more than energy independence.
>
>
> In this connection, if the induced-decay stuff that Robin and I were
> discussing turns out to be a thing, there are definitely military
> applications.  First one that comes to mind is powerful artillery.
>
> Eric
>
>

Re: [Vo]:One imaginary Future for dense hydrogen

[David Roberson]

Lets pray that rapid, large scale energy release by this type of material is 
not possible.   I can not imagine the death and destruction that will follow if 
some of the speculation on vortex is real.

Dave

 

 

 

-Original Message-
From: Eric Walker <eric.wal...@gmail.com>
To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Sent: Fri, Oct 23, 2015 4:27 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:One imaginary Future for dense hydrogen




On Fri, Oct 23, 2015 at 3:03 PM, Jones Beene <jone...@pacbell.net> wrote:


That door could open to more than energy independence.


In this connection, if the induced-decay stuff that Robin and I were discussing 
turns out to be a thing, there are definitely military applications.  First one 
that comes to mind is powerful artillery.


Eric

RE: [Vo]:One imaginary Future for dense hydrogen

[Jones Beene]

Mats,

 

Nice effort. Your piece will be poignant lesson to mainstream physics – should 
Holmlid be shown to be correct - that physics is still in its infancy. Notice 
that the focus could now be shifting to Holmlid and a few others, and away from 
Rossi. 

 

Rossi filled a void in a way that only a showman can, but he has not added 
anything substantive to our understanding of what is going on – other than a 
reassurance that the mainstream was wrong about LENR. In fact, historians may 
conclude that Rossi’s constant level of disinformation has done more harm than 
good, in terms of advancing an accurate understanding of the field.

 

There is far more out there which we don’t know, compared to what we think we 
know. It is almost criminal to have thrown obscene amounts of money at problems 
like the Higgs (what a waste!). Those funds are better solved by more closely 
examining what has been known and rejected for 25 years. What Holmlid has done 
(two+ decades after P) without much help, should have been done at Stanford, 
MIT, LLNL, etc in 1990-92 and would probably have been - had a few hundred 
million been invested immediately, instead of retained by arrogant 
know-it-alls, in the massively redundant boondoggle of hot fusion.

 

When the identical coin is found in two places, under the streetlight and a 
couple of blocks away, by accident in the dark – then we can say we have 
finally understood that the Universe is far more complex than anyone wants to 
believe. The LENR community may have been in the dark about many things, but 
without unwavering persistence - in pursuing a vision quest, we would not be on 
the verge of success. Many think we are on the door step now, but be careful 
what you wish for. That door could open to more than energy independence.

 

From: Mats Lewan 

 

Jones, 

I tried to express a similar concept in a more 'popular' way in this blog post: 

 

http://animpossibleinvention.com/2015/02/10/time-to-dispel-the-streetlight-paradox-of-energy/

 

Bottom line -- sooner or later, efficient access to energy stored in matter 
will make scarcity of energy be a non-issue. 

 

Mats


23 okt 2015 kl. 19:19 skrev "Jones Beene" :

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?

Re: [Vo]:One imaginary Future for dense hydrogen

[Eric Walker]

On Fri, Oct 23, 2015 at 3:03 PM, Jones Beene  wrote:

That door could open to more than energy independence.


In this connection, if the induced-decay stuff that Robin and I were
discussing turns out to be a thing, there are definitely military
applications.  First one that comes to mind is powerful artillery.

Eric

Re: [Vo]:One imaginary Future for dense hydrogen

[Axil Axil]

Why does the LeClair reactor produce radiation and neutrons and the  device
invented by James Griggs does not?

It’s a matter of temperature. The James Griggs device runs at an operating
temperature of 400F, whereas, the LeClair reactor is not pressurized and
does not.

Since the Hydrogen Rydberg matter is a bigger molecule than the water
molecule, it might be possible to capture the rydberg matter from the
Griggs device using a properly sized filtration device plased in the flow
of the circulating water and remove this filter as a feedstock for a laser
based or electric arc based LENR reactor. The high power potential of an
electric motor will dump a significant amount of power into the water thus
amplifying the rate of production of rydberg matter. Any level of power
could be applied to the water to speed Rydberg matter production.

The level of Rydberg matter production could be determined by exposor of a
photographic emulsion to the water filters.

Joe Papp used this method of fuel preprocessing to form a Rysberg matter
fortified water solution that he used as an explosive and fuel for his
engine.

Just like Papp did, other elements like chlorine might be added to the
water to enhance the explosive effect. Papp used a electric arc to activate
and liberate power production from his fuel.

If a nickel or silica aeroform is used as a filter, a Rossi like tube
reactor could be fueled with the powder make from the powdered aerofoam.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yh_-DUKQ4Uw


On Fri, Oct 23, 2015 at 1:57 PM, Axil Axil  wrote:

> 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  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  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