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

  • I’d like to welcome Professor bjhuang who has joined the forum. It’s an honor to have him here.


    Dear Professor, we have members here with access to SEM /EDAX equipment for analyzing samples. You were asked after your presentation if you had found evidences of damage to the metallic components of the cavitation chamber. The main reason behind that question is that other researchers have found evidence of potential elemental transmutation in the damaged areas of metals subject to cavitation.


    It would be interesting if you could share your thoughts on this aspect of the research.

    I certainly Hope to see LENR helping humans to blossom, and I'm here to help it happen.

  • I appreciate very much all you guys for doing a great job, some of you even spent whole life on LENR.


    I am very happy to read the comments from Curbina who says that I am “delving in uncharted waters" but following the scientific evidence. The word “notorious” excess of heat generation is interesting to me as I am working outside the box. And the story of the conspiracy theory is what I never thought. For me, nothing to loss since only less two years to work on LENR before my retirement.


    JedRothwell’s comments and information are valuable too since I don’t know much about those LENR companies’ inside story.

    Cavitation Energy Systems, lnc may be worth to follow (http://cavitationenergysystems.com/ ).


    In my ICCF22 presentation, “During the Q&A session at least two persons asked if I had found any evidence of mechanical damage and/or transmutation in the copper pipes that compose the cavitation chamber of the machine”.

    My answers to Q&A in ICCF22:

    1. No transmutation was studied. Hope some scientists can help us in the future. We need some more funding to do the science work.
    2. Copper ion was found in the condensed water of hot steam. Probably comes from copper tube erosion. The condensed water was thought good for health, able to fast cure wound healing etc as claimed by the company B (but I doubt that).
    3. The VCS machine can run continuously for 2 years (12 hr per day) for making water to sell. No copper damage was observed.
    4. One thing I can disclose here. The water scaling inside copper pipes of steam generator in VCS is quite different from the experience in steam boilers. Scaling still occurs even using the feed water treated by a strict industrial water purification process. This confused us. We have to do some science work on that.
    5. We have run three equipment with possible LENR. One failed to observe COP>1. The other one (VCS) presented in ICCF22 has COP>1. The third one is designed by me using different mechanism shows COP>1. This machine is much simpler than VCS. We are carefully and repeatedly calibrating all instruments for final check before making conclusion and publishing. Even the digital power meter for measuring heating power was carefully calibrated using a thermometry designed by ourselves.

    As I said in ICCF22, I came across to study LENR just by chance. The LENR machine looks familiar to me but the theory is not. It seems the phenomena pf cavitation, micro-bubbles, intense implosion are common to them. As an engineer, we don’t have to understand everything inside but just utilize it with well-developed reliable, efficient, and cheap equipment. Just like the metal stuffs made thousand years ago and is exhibited today in museums. In 2000 years ago, there existed no “material science”. The “technology” made them ! The user generally knows nothing inside about what they utilize. "Science" will follow up the "technology".



  • Many thanks for your comments Professor Huang!


    I was struck in particular for your observation of scaling with boiler grade purified water. That would be really interesting to have both chemically analyzed and also observed with a SEM.


    I am also thrilled to know you designed your own device and are testing it for excess heat production. I assume you intend to patent it therefore can't disclose much at this stage, but is really good for us to know you are doing that level of research and that you are taking all the necessary steps to confirm the excess heat in a way that can´t be disputed (be sure anyway, that it will be disputed!!!) :D

    I certainly Hope to see LENR helping humans to blossom, and I'm here to help it happen.

  • JedRothwell’s comments and information are valuable too since I don’t know much about those LENR companies’ inside story.

    Cavitation Energy Systems, lnc may be worth to follow (http://cavitationenergysystems.com/ ).


    I do not know anything about this Cavitation Energy Systems company in Florida.


    Anyone interested in cavitation should read the papers by Roger Stringham, such as:


    https://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/StringhamRwhenbubble.pdf

  • A couple of weeks ago I quoted an economics book, "The Worldly Philosophers" describing events in 1666:


    The question has come up whether a guild master of the weaving industry should be allowed to try an innovation in his product. The verdict: "If a cloth weaver intends to process a piece according to his own invention, he must not set it on the loom, but should obtain permission from the judges of the town to employ the number and length of threads that he desires, after the question has been considered by four of the oldest merchants and four of the oldest weavers of the guild." One can imagine how many suggestions for change were tolerated.


    This attitude is still with us today. It is how scientific peer-review and Hollywood movie script writing are done, which is why most research and most movies are a stagnant repetition of what you have seen before. Here is quote from J. Schlefer "Truth, beauty, and peer review," Technology Review October 1990:



    Peer review is widely seen as the modern touchstone of truth. Scientists are roundly drubbed if they bypass it and "go public" with their research. Science writers count on it as the test for

    what to report on. Artists hold it up as the rebuttal to Sen. Jesse Helms, who would distribute arts funding according to his own morality. Ming Cho Lee, a professor at the Yale School of Drama,

    huffed in a letter to the New York Times: "The only criterion artists or arts organizations must meet to be entitled to my money is that they pass the vigorous scrutiny and evaluation of a

    panel of their peers, based on a standard of artistic excellence."


    Peer review is doubtless useful to help evaluate articles for journals focused on a particular discipline and as one mechanism, albeit fallible, to allocate grants. But our society often wants to

    see peer review as a mechanical certification of truth for which no one has to take responsibility. No such mechanism is conceivable. . . .