Cavitation Heater - Overunity

VisibleGreen · Jul 23, 2015

I believe in overunity. I also believe that anyone who invents such a device is quickly dealt with and silenced.
Most misinterpret overunity as perpetual which isn't the case. The overunity device doesn't create more energy out of a lesser amount of energy but rather "harvests" more energy than it requires to operate. I think that's where a lot of the confusion is.

Things · Jul 23, 2015

Except, in this device, it's not harvesting energy from anywhere, so overunity or free energy machine, doesn't matter, it's still less efficient than electric water heating.

Towards the end of the first video the "actual scientist" even states they didn't record enough meaningful data to prove their claims, and lack of data seems to be a pretty common trend in the overunity/perpetual/free energy community, doesn't it? I mean, if they actually provided meaningful data people would realize it's not actually an overunity/perpetual/free energy device, and that's no fun!

People talk shit all the time, until I can see the data, it's just another whack job trying to claim he's better than the laws of physics.

Alaskan · Jul 23, 2015

Don't box me into that group, I am telling you that this technology works, efficiency, that's not my argument. The only way I can see something to be more than 100% efficient is if it somehow taps into zero point energy where there is an abundance of power, if we could just do so. As far as loonies claims not coming to fruition, Einstein was considered a loony and severely discredited by most of mainstream science, the most educated and well trained people there were laughed at his ideas, but in time, they proved to be correct. This guy is no Einstein and this is just a mechanical contraption, no real comparison there, but my point is, given time, some of the ideas you might reject now, very well may prove true. I wouldn't put my bets on this one though

There was a manufacturer who was going to build a machine based on the same principles as this one, so this isn't new, but they found it wasn't economically feasible to market for the following reasons, their response:

Griggs formed a company, called Hydro Dynamics Inc, to develop and market his patent for the hydrosonic pump. The company did have plans to build and sell units for home heating installations, and in fact some units were so employed in the area surrounding the manufacturing facility and results were observed. The company has since abandoned their plans to sell home heating units, and have issued the following explanation concerning their hydrosonic pump, which is also called a Shockwave Power Reactor, or SPR:

"Thank you for your inquiry in regard to heating water and/or making steam. Our company no longer markets the device for these applications. Although the device is efficient, in most all water heating applications it is difficult to economically justify a device from a capital or operating point of view. The SPR is about 98% efficient from a shaft point of view and about 90% overall when coupled with a standard 92% efficiency motor, while standard boiler is about 87%, but gas or oil are generally 50% cheaper on a btu basis when compared to electricity, as electricity is an expensive and highly refined fuel when compared to gas, coal or oil. While electricity is competitive there are electrical resistance heaters that are much cheaper and approach 99% efficiency. When we heat fluids there generally has to be some mitigating factor to justify the premium in capital and operating cost. The system can heat water, but there are numerous competing technologies that can heat water and make steam that are much less capital intensive and often cheaper to operate. Because of this we ceased marketing home/residential heating systems and generic steam systems.

Cyparagon · Jul 23, 2015

VisibleGreen said:
Most misinterpret overunity as perpetual which isn't the case.

Most would define overunity as perpetual. A search on wiki for overunity redirects to perpetual motion. And pretty much all hits for overunity on google are in respect to perpetual/free energy. Arguing everyone else has the definition wrong isn't constructive.

VisibleGreen said:
I believe in overunity... The overunity device doesn't create more energy out of a lesser amount of energy but rather "harvests" more energy than it requires to operate.

So... you believe in photo-voltaic cells, wind turbines, peltier generators, and campfires?

All of these "harvest more energy than they require to operate", but you'd have a hard time finding someone that defines a peltier element as an "overunity device".

Alaskan · Jul 23, 2015

Nothing can be over unity unless there is some source to produce that, and if so, then it isn't over unity, right? If a device produces more power than you put into it and qualifies for overunity, it could only be if we didn't fully understand it enough to see where that energy is coming from. I am not saying such a device cannot exist, I hope one can. Sometimes we make discoveries we learn how to use without fully understanding the mechanism.

Earlier, I wrote a comment about energy from collapsing bubbles, I did a quick google search and found this:

Temperature inside collapsing bubble four times that of sun

What if something like this is happening inside that device and adding heat? I have seen nothing to indicate this is what is happening, or myself have any reason to think the device really is "over unity", but if collapsing bubbles can create heat, I'm wondering if such might be possible as a way to get more heat out than the energy put in, some way or another. At least, by appearances, once understood, not really, of course.

Things · Jul 23, 2015

No one is disagreeing that the device can indeed heat the water, the energy has to go somewhere, and eventually through friction it will be turned into heat (and indeed, how the device works), but the fact that it's driven by an electric motor, which are still not really even close to being 100% efficient, means that it can not be any more efficient than just using electricity to heat the water directly, ie, through a heating element.

The cavitation is a direct result of the motion produced by the motor, therefore any energy released or converted in the cavitation (or bubbles, as you call them), is being derived from the motor. I have no idea how effective cavitation actually is at heating water, because no one actually uses it for that in the real world, but just the motor losses alone mean it's not really useful electrically.

On the other hand, as Sig said, perhaps it may have some merit running on some sort of fossil fuel engine where running a generator then a heating element could perhaps be less efficient than running this device directly, but seeing as we have 0 actual data on it, who knows if it even works at all.

VisibleGreen · Jul 23, 2015

Cyparagon said:
Most would define overunity as perpetual. A search on wiki for overunity redirects to perpetual motion. And pretty much all hits for overunity on google are in respect to perpetual/free energy. Arguing everyone else has the definition wrong isn't constructive.

So... you believe in photo-voltaic cells, wind turbines, peltier generators, and campfires?

All of these "harvest more energy than they require to operate", but you'd have a hard time finding someone that defines a peltier element as an "overunity device".

You assume too much

Alaskan · Jul 23, 2015

I have doubts about the over unity claim, unless there is something going on I don't understand with energy from bubbles collapsing, as in the article I linked to. Another thing, if it really was overunity, I believe it wouldn't remain an obscure technology nor would have that company who was going to make one given up on it.

Things said:
No one is disagreeing that the device can indeed heat the water, the energy has to go somewhere, and eventually through friction it will be turned into heat (and indeed, how the device works), but the fact that it's driven by an electric motor, which are still not really even close to being 100% efficient, means that it can not be any more efficient than just using electricity to heat the water directly, ie, through a heating element.

The cavitation is a direct result of the motion produced by the motor, therefore any energy released or converted in the cavitation (or bubbles, as you call them), is being derived from the motor. I have no idea how effective cavitation actually is at heating water, because no one actually uses it for that in the real world, but just the motor losses alone mean it's not really useful electrically.

On the other hand, as Sig said, perhaps it may have some merit running on some sort of fossil fuel engine where running a generator then a heating element could perhaps be less efficient than running this device directly, but seeing as we have 0 actual data on it, who knows if it even works at all.

doubleone44 · Jul 23, 2015

The thing with the bubbles collapsing is, yes, it create enormously high temperatures, however, such a small amount of atoms are affected, that the total energy (which is really what we're looking at for boiling water) is a lot smaller, so there is no "energy out of nothing". It's just that heating a very small amount of stuff to a very high temperature only requires a mediocre amount of energy. The amount of energy in vs out remains around the same (probably a bit less due to IR radiation)

Alaskan · Jul 23, 2015

I had that thought on my mind too, too much mass for the effect to add much heat.

Deleted member 16589 · Jul 23, 2015

Things said:
seeing as we have 0 actual data on it, who knows if it even works at all.

Heres some information Directory:Cavitation Heaters - PESWiki
and heres some more with data
Click here

Cyparagon · Jul 23, 2015

Alaskan said:
Temperature inside collapsing bubble four times that of sun

Sure... several atoms for several nanoseconds. Net energy is still tiny.

Similarly, a SEVENTEEN GIGAWATT LASER PULSE might sound impressive until you learn the pulse duration is fourteen femtoseconds with a repetition rate of 4 Hz.

lazerman121 said:
Heres some information Directory:Cavitation Heaters - PESWiki

How do we reconcile that wiki's claim "The energy conversion in a cavitation heater has well known advantages in industrial applications where the working fluid can be damaged by contact with heating elements with a significant temperature differential", and a peak temperature of 20,000 kelvin in Alaskan's link?

Alaskan · Jul 23, 2015

Maybe I shouldn't have said anything about this device

Cavitation Heater - Overunity

VisibleGreen

0

Things

0

Alaskan

0

Cyparagon

0

Alaskan

0

Things

0

VisibleGreen

0

Alaskan

0

doubleone44

0

Alaskan

0

Deleted member 16589

Guest

Cyparagon

0

Alaskan

0

Online statistics

Forum statistics

Share this page