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

Viktor Schauberger - Comprehend and Copy Nature (YouTube documentary of 2008)

Prof. Huang: Have you been in touch with the people at Hydrodynamics? They have not discussed the excess heat from their devices for many years.

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".

here is my slides in ICCF22. Excess Energy from a Vapor Compression System 0911rev.pdf

Quote from bjhuang

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:

Quote from JedRothwell

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. . . .

I concluded as follows --

The sparge tests I did are somewhat open to question because there may be stored heat unaccounted for, in the barrel before the test begins. Some of the steady-state flow calorimeter tests seem irrefutable to me. I have not seen anyone refute them. They include tests by facility manager engineers at 3 customer sites; the test by Georgia Tech people at a customer site, Lindale Manufacturing; and the test-bed results with the gigantic flow calorimeter designed by the Dean of Mechanical Engineering at Georgia Tech.

The Lindale report is: Technical Assistance Report, The Industrial Energy Extension Service, Prepared by W. A. Meffert, P.E., Plant Code: 22143-TA, October 1991. The conclusion is pure bullshit:

"The experimental analysis indicates that the hydrosonic pump [reactor] can achieve efficiencies near 100%, (or a coefficient of performance of 1.0). This result is within the limits of the first law of thermodynamics. However, for the pump to be able to compete with fossil fuel heating equipment it would have to have coefficients of performance of 3.0 or higher due to the cost difference of fossil fuels and electricity. This is not possible with the present pump configuration."

It is far beyond the first law of thermodynamics, because no electric motor is 100% efficient, and they only measured the heat in the steam, ignoring heat from the reactor and electric motor. The reactor and motor are so large and hot, they would kill you if you were pushed against them. Obviously it is producing far more than 100% input. They cannot admit that, so they came up with this ludicrous assertion. They admit is is ludicrous in this paragraph:

"The calculations above give a first order approximation of the pump efficiency. Of the two tests, test #2 is the most interesting. It indicates that the pump is 100% efficient. In other words, the pump transfers all of the motors electrical energy into heat for producing steam. This result is somewhat suspicious because a standard 15 Hp motor is only 89% efficient in converting electrical energy into shaft work. This shaft work is the energy input to the rotor which cavitates the water, producing steam. An argument could be made that the motor losses which appear as heat are transferred to the water. However, most of the motor losses that show up as heat are dissipated to the surrounding air."

"Somewhat suspicious"?!? Give me a break!

They wrote: "A more appropriate conclusion would be that the instrumentation is not accurate enough to precisely quantify the pump efficiency. . . ."

No, that is not appropriate, because they, I and others all did blank tests and found the expected energy balance, with a COP of around 0.8.

The test bed used the best industrial instruments available. There is no chance it was "not accurate enough." It produced about 117% of input power, as I recall, ignoring losses from the electric motor and the reactor. As you would expect, the Dean refused to sign off on these results. However, as far as I know, no one found any error in them. I believe the test bed has been disassembled. The company does not want to talk about excess heat, for obvious reasons. Talking about it will bring nothing but trouble.

117% of input has no commercial or economic significance with this kind of application.

Quote from Curbina

I think a 17% excess heat, in commercial terms is significant if one is the one paying the bills, tho.

Not in a place like a carpet factory. In most factories, if they wanted to save money, they would use combustion heating, which is ~3 times cheaper than electric heating. In carpet factories, combustion heating can be dangerous, so they use electric heating. A 17% improvement would hardly register. If they could reduce all electric power consumption by 17%, that would be significant.

For residential or commercial space heating with electricity, in Georgia a heat pump is cheaper than combustion and far cheaper than resistance electric heating.

Quote from Curbina

I can’t help but sense a good deal of dissatisfaction when you talk about all this

It is dissatisfying when professionals spend a week measuring heat, they find it is 100% of input electric power, and then they come up with a cockamamie reason to dismiss the result. I'll bet it was actually 105% or something, and they "rounded it down" to 100% -- as if that could hide the fact that it was anomalous! It is intellectually dishonest. I am sure they realize it could not possibly be more than ~90%. Anyone who goes within a yard of the machine will know it radiating a terrific amount of heat, so if you measure ~100% in the fluid temperature or phase change alone, there has to be anomalous excess heat.

No only did they dismiss the result for bogus technical reasons, but they wrote: "However, for the pump to be able to compete with fossil fuel heating equipment it would have to have coefficients of performance of 3.0 or higher due to the cost difference of fossil fuels and electricity. This is not possible with the present pump [reactor] configuration." Yes, obviously. We know that. But if this is real anomalous heat, it is one of the most important discoveries in history. The fact that it cannot compete with fossil fuel is utterly inconsequential in comparison to that fact. That is a supremely stupid thing to say. It is like watching the first airplane flights in 1908 and saying, "those machines can't compete with railroad trains." (There were people who said that about airplanes, even in the 1920s.)

IMO current cavitation systems are terribly inefficient due to lack of theory driven experimentation. For example ultrasound is able to generate cavitation more effectively in the sense, that pressure wave inside tuned resonator creates bubbles repeatedly at one place and during their collapse the energy of bubbles gets partially reused. But it would also make process symmetric and I don't see any reason, why thermodynamics couldn't get violated in both ways: both in anomalous generation of energy both in anomalous consumption of it without any dissipation. Also these bubbles need to remain small as large bubbles of low surface curvature wouldn't contribute to dynamic Casimir effect too much. Maybe we should expand them with high curvature and to splash them with low curvature. Note that Slobodian cavitation heater does exactly this: it sprays oil droplets with centrifugal force and it splashes them at flat surface of rotor - this asymmetry is what could generate heat there. Cavitation rotor also doesn't make as much cavitation as it could do: its holes are filled by merely stable vacuum-water boundary, which could cavitate more wildly.