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 <janap...@gmail.com> 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 <janap...@gmail.com> 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 <jone...@pacbell.net> 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? >>> >>> >> >
