Ponderations on Cavitation (Updated with impressive results from a paper of 2018)

I keep looking at these tables from Omasa’s patent application and reviewing the process as is presented and performed on video,

to see where the source of error could explain such changes in elements present in the solution.

In our small project we are already seeing evidence of this being possible with cavitation periods of 5 minutes that produce significant changes of concentration of one participant reactant, and showing that one initially absent element appears.

I proposed the project basically to see if this was possible at all, and answer my own curiosity about it, while at the same time producing results with an experimental design that could remove some, if not all, of the usual criticisms to published works that have seen similar results. The use of chemical solutions instead of solid targets removes a number of objections from the start, as characterization of liquid solutions composition can be very accurate and contaminations easily discarded, all of this thinking from the chemical analysis point of view.

We still have a lot of work to do to be able to confirm such observations exhaustively, but seeing results on the early runs is something that even if expected, is still tantalizing.

Quote from Wyttenbach

This is boring as no analysis of the heavy water/tritium is shown....Also no changes for 10,20,60 minute run...

I understand you mean that as sarcasm to some extent. But let's assume that all the new elements come as contamination of the D2O and Tritium, just for the sake of the analysis.

What is by far more intriguing to me is the reduction in the initial concentration of Cs in the solution, which has not been diluted, neither precipitated, sequestered in other precipitates (no precipitates at all are formed) and of course has not been vaporized or somehow made volatile at those temperatures. 1900 mg/l of Cs vanished, when the cavitation is performed with D2O, and 2820 mg/l when its performed with tritium containing water.

Where does the Cesium go!?

Of course a time response curve would be wonderful, but it would require a more complex experimental approach as the sampling would be constantly changing the volume of the solution.

Anyway, you have to put this into context as Dr. Omasa didn't even know he was cavitating the solutions, he uses a frequency of 175 Hz for the motion of the vanes, but they generate ultrasound through resonance (if I recall correctly the MFMP measured between 20 to 28 Khz with the hydrophone inside the solution being vibrated).

Dr. Omasa just observed that the solutions experienced changes through time, he never even attempted to know exactly why.

Quote from Alan Smith

BTW, Roger S. Stringham has joined the forum, (Welcome, Roger!) and he probably knows more about this topic than almost anybody else in the world. I hope he finds time to comment.

I very much look forward to hear from him, also, his published work and patents are also fascinanting.

Quote from Wyttenbach

Depends on the jar used. Glass exchange reactions are possible.

I do not exclude transmutations at all. But most experiments are done by dilettantes, that always leave behind many questions and doubts.

Doing precision MS is expensive. So details must be given about how the measurements have been done.

You gave me some good laughs Wyttenbach, haven't read the word "dilettante" in a good while.

But please consider that an error of that magnitude would be easily seen in the methodology applied, and a glass ion exchange of that magnitude would certainly alter the properties of the glass to a macroscopically noticeable level. In the case of Omasa he had the samples analyzed by an external laboratory, so if the samples were not adulterated purposefully, the measurements can be considered to be precise enough.

Anyway, precisely for that kind of mistrusts is that we are doing experiments with controls (same reactives in the same type of reaction chamber but with non cavitating conditions of strirring and equivalent energy input), precisely to dispel that kind of criticism, which I understand when we are talking about differences of a couple of mg/L but not when we are talking about grams per liter.

Quote from Wyttenbach

6.7mg Cs ... you will not find this (tiny crystal somewhere) in your jar even with a magnifying glass. 6.7g would be something else...

The starting concentration of Cs was 6.7 g/L (6700 mg/L) and the amount of liquid usually involved in a Omasa test is at least 1 liter, and up to 5 liters, due to the size of the vibrating vane apparatus. We are talking here of the disappearance of 2,82 grams of Cs in one liter, that would not be easy to miss, hence my certainty to say that it would be macroscopically easy to see.

Quote from Wyttenbach

And how can 2 grams disappear as these do not shine up in other elements? Just 100mg are seen.

This is what I miss: Serious equations of transformation as given by Urutskov and others.

The cumulative masses of the new elements as per Omasa’s reported results is 0,3 grams/liter. You can’t assume that they measured every new element created, but a subset of them, a subset that was relevant from practical embodiment purposes. A part of the new elements is possibly gaseous and therefore lost to the atmosphere.

I doubt a mass balance has been done but it could reveal if there’s a net mass loss, while analyzing for all other elements is possible but probably not done by lack of relevance for a patent application.

As per precise theory prediction, that’s something that requires first to do a lot more of observation to find the underlying mechanism. Parkhomov’s tables provide a general reference of what can be expected from the elements in play but a more fundamental mechanism will take a good while to be developed.