The "problem" of excess energy in cavitation heating commercial products

  • The scientists are not afraid or against change. You cannot question their reality, because reality is programming that goes deep into the unconscious. Eric Kandel said that almost 90% of human activity is unconscious.


    When we tell scientists about GUTCP they rage out. They ignore. They go ballistic. They do so without evidence, or they seek out evidence for their own reality, because it questions their deepest programming.


    When you repeat a phrase many times, you actually start to believe it. Muslims are terrorists. Black people are dangerous. Religion is for stupid ignorant people who don't believe in science. Quantum Mechanics is the greatest theory in the history of science. Quantum Mechanics is the greatest theory in the history of science. Quantum Mechanics is the greatest theory in the history of science. Repeat that, and add in many years of training to even make sense of it, you have brainwashing.


    Question a person's reality and they generally don't like you. They lash out, they are emotionally hijacked. They try to assert their reality. Often their reactions are just plain ignorant or illogical - but they don't even see that. They use a mental shortcut to justify their emotional reaction - which is based on the fear of being a fool, being taken for a ride, being stupid, being duped, and enabling a scam of sorts by giving it attention.


    Here is what a climate scientist said to me yesterday - after he spent oh...1 hour reading about this ....


    To give Mills the benefit of the doubt, I don't think he is necessarily a fraud, since that implies he's knowingly deceiving people -- rather, he's simply self-deluded. From what I can gather it seems that he's yet another of the droves of well-intentioned but tragically misguided people....I wish it was credible but I simply can't ignore the lack of real evidence for it. ...Please do not contact me regarding this topic again....

  • Quote

    To give Mills the benefit of the doubt, I don't think he is necessarily a fraud, since that implies he's knowingly deceiving people -- rather, he's simply self-deluded.


    This is my opinion as well, nevertheless I'm still following his progress closely. In addition there are many things in common of hydrino model with overunity during cavitation.

  • For example, we have closed plastic bottle of coke saturated with carbon dioxide under equilibrium pressure. We drop the bottle on the floor and in this moment the pressure rises (the bottle gets visibly hard and some gas evolves in form of thick foam). Why? How can pressure of gas in oversaturated solution raise above equilibrium pressure?

  • This is my opinion as well, nevertheless I'm still following his progress closely. In addition there are many things in common of hydrino model with overunity during cavitation.


    Your programming is deep. You choose to label someone a fraud but you follow their progress closely. In real life, for people with street smarts, if someone tries to take your wallet, your mind, or worse your heart you run.


    And duh - cavitation generates a plasma - atomic hydrogen - atomic hydrogen undergoes resonant transfer reaction - remember the reaction that Eindhoven, University of New Mexico, the US Military, MIT Lincoln lab, Moscow, Chalk River, Thermacore, and many more reproduced>>>> ya that t

  • I didn't call anyone fraud in similar way, like your pathoskeptic climatologist friend. Mills can be simply confused with his own ideas. This still may not prohibit him in generation of some excess of energy - just not with hydrino formation. BTW I've spent studying of BLP process way more time than just one hour. We discussed him for example here - his publications are one long list of delusions. Anyway, this thread isn't about Mills - but about possibility of overunity during cavitation.


    Once again - we have closed plastic bottle of coke saturated with carbon dioxide under equilibrium pressure. We drop the bottle on the floor and in this moment the pressure rises (the bottle gets visibly hard and some gas evolves in form of thick foam). Why? How can pressure of gas in oversaturated solution raise above equilibrium pressure? Very trivial question indeed.


    Please note that after while the gas released will get re-absorbed and the pressure inside bottle will spontaneously drop again. But the expanded volume of gas can do an usable work inbetween: it rises toward surface of liquid, so that we can collect it with floater which would exert an usable work in this way. Everything what we are supposed to do after then is just wait for re-absorbtion of gas and shake the vessel again. A new portion of gas will release, it will raise floater again and the process can repeat itself.

  • For example, we have closed plastic bottle of coke saturated with carbon dioxide under equilibrium pressure. We drop the bottle on the floor and in this moment the pressure rises (the bottle gets visibly hard and some gas evolves in form of thick foam). Why? How can pressure of gas in oversaturated solution raise above equilibrium pressure?


    Because much of the carbon dioxide in a factory sealed pop bottle is stored as liquid carbonic acid due to the relatively high pressure in the bottle as prepared by the pop factory. A good shake or impact imparts enough energy to release carbon dioxide from the carbonic acid, increasing the CO2 pressure. If left alone, the new excess pressure of carbon dioxide will return the carbon dioxide to carbonic acid, and the pressure will reduce again. This is also why all of the CO2 does not try to escape at once (leaving one with a flat drink) the moment the pop is opened.

  • Quote

    A good shake or impact imparts enough energy to release carbon dioxide from the carbonic acid, increasing the CO2 pressure


    This is exactly the interesting moment for me. Which effect forces the carbon dioxide to leave the safety of fluid?

  • The overunity effect should be observable in very simple arrangement, for example during escapement of bubbles from narrow capillaries submerged into water. One its possible mechanism is attributed to dynamic Cassimir effect, i.e. radiation pressure which follows fast accelerating phase interface. This effect was also attributed to anomalous heat observed during sonofusion. The similar effect could explain another anomalous devices, which for example utilize radiation source fast moving with respect to unmovable interfaces (Kapanadze, EMDrive). With respect to possible overunity mechanism, cavitation devices pose following problems:


    1) their bubbles are relatively large. We can expect largest overunity effect when bubbles are still small, which highest curvature possible

    2) cavitation is induced by hydrodynamic friction and pressure gradients, which are energy dissipative effects. It may not represent a problem for generation of heat generation, but yield of more useful mechanical work will be undoubtedly affected by it

    3) cavitation is symmetric effect, when bubbles implode, the portion of energy may get lost. The asymmetric bubblers like ROSH should give a better yield.

    4) High surface tension and permeability fluids like mercury or another molten metals should give larger effect.


  • RE: https://gaia-energy.org/en/es-…-mach-dich-energieautark/

    https://novam-research.com/res…erechnung_1-Juli-2019.pdf (does anyone read German?)


    Let me get this straight. This perpetual motion machine which looks like a bunch of buckets of air and water rotating, is drawing upon zero point energy.


    They say it makes kW of energy in a small setup. So we can string together some buckets and air and solve ALL ENERGY NEEDS ON THE PLANET... and that a century of engineers missed out on this?


    Why are we still sitting here discussing anything about LENR? If this is true we should all immediately go out and build our own bucket and air devices and save the earth.


    Every person on this board should take notice.

  • Howzat?


    Fill it (bunker) with water close tightly & ignite a strong shock waves! Shock waves (= asymmetric compression of a media) are the origin of many interesting physical phenomena as e.g. in the Cola case in one dimension space is expanded and pressure relaxed what leads to bubble formation. In the bunker case the bubbles maintain the pressure.

  • They say it makes kW of energy in a small setup. So we can string together some buckets and air and solve ALL ENERGY NEEDS ON THE PLANET... and that a century of engineers missed out on this?

    Oh come on this is an obvious con - especially when you see the mugshot of Rossi on one of the websites it linksto - E-Cat Deuschland or whatever.

  • Quote

    All Energy Needs On The Planet... and that a century of engineers missed out on this? Why are we still sitting here discussing anything about LENR?


    LENR is more problematic than it looks at the first sight. We have indicia of LENR initiation and neutron formation by mechanical impacts, which could be easily scaled up. Even if it couldn't lead to development of chemical triggers for thermonuclear bombs (which I doubt), the USA government afraids of selectivity of reaction of Li with deuterium, which could lead to cheap enrichment method for thermonuclear warheads. From similar reason I also guess Unified Gravity disappeared from the web. The problem of LENR simply is, people are still idiots and even if it would be completely harmless by itself, it opens ways for classical dirty fission and fission devices worth of terrorist regimes attention.


    With compare to LENR, overunity looks like more distant and abstract target, but it also looks perfectly safe. It also seems for me, that it shouldn't affect thermal equilibrium of planet in future, because it don't violate 1LOT - only 2nd one. From scientific responsibility point the overunity thus looks more palatable for me.

  • The strange thing about ROSH device principle is, it repeats itself in many, at least two dozens of another patents of all countries. The problem with replication of ROSH device is similar to Jed Rothwell's problems with scientific replication of cavitation: all physicists who could do it responsibly would avoid this device like devil the cross. The only reliable independent replication which I'm aware of has been made by Andrii Slobodian from Infinity SAV and found not working. But Slobodian didn't make exact replica of ROSH device, which reportedly utilizes very small bubbles. His replica generated very large bubbles and it's thus not so surprising for me, that it didn't actually work. But Slobodian also works on another principle, based on spraying of small oil droplets with centrifugal turbine. InfinitySAV Ltd has built 5 disks of different shapes and materials, and the logarithmic spiral shaped disk made of special alloy demonstrated the best results: at 10,000rpm and 250W of electricity consumption, the prototype reportedly generated about 20,000 kcal (~ 23.26 kWh ?) of heat. However, the actual generation of heat does not happen at the nozzles due to jet propulsion, as most people would think. It actually occurs somewhere inside the disk during splashing of droplets. There it's possible that heat is actually generated by slow oxidation of working fluid. (Slobodian reportedly uses hydraulic oil used in helicopters) on air under high dispersion, so that careful validation would be needed. Here I'd recommend to check, whether really no oxidation of oil occurs there.