Cavitation Heater - Overunity

[Deleted member 16589]

My dad ran across Cavitation Heaters on the internet and I found it to be quite Interesting

What are y'alls thoughts

this video starts slow you wont miss much if you skip to 1:30

Edit: please don't comment unless you have seen the video.
also if anyone finds any other good videos on it please post.

RULES
No arguing
No neg repping on peoples opinions.
This is purely for debate

 

[Cyparagon]

So the heaters use friction, ultimately, to produce the heat. The friction is provided by an AC motor. It'd be foolish to think ANY AC motor is more efficient than a heating element.

Sorry, physics says no.

 

[Things]

OK, you have a piece of wire submerged under water, and you pass 1 volt at 1 amp through it. Ohms law will tell you that you're passing 1W of energy through this piece of wire. What does it do? Gets hot. ALL of the energy you're putting into this wire (or heating element, if you'd prefer) is being turned into heat, and is heating the water. You have 1W of electrical energy going in, and 1W of heat is going into the water as a result. It's 100% efficient.

What happens if you apply power to an electric motor? It spins, as you would expect, but it also gets warm. This warmth is energy that has been LOST inside the motor and is being released as heat. A quick Googling would reveal about the absolute highest efficiency motor we've achieved is about 92%, and typically above about 70%. This caps any device using a motor INSTANTLY to a max of 92% efficiency, and we aren't even talking about heating water yet. You've already wasted 8% of your input power (assuming you're using the most efficient motor currently available) just running the motor. Just THIS fact ALONE means this device can not be more efficient than a heating element.

Seeing as we're on the topic of efficiently heating water, there IS a way to "heat" (quotes are important here) water using less input power than a heating element, but it's generally not referred to as "efficiency". This is using heat pumps, and as you would expect, they do it by moving heat from one source to another. In the case of heat pump water heaters, they move heat from the surrounding air into the water. They are able to move more energy into the water than they actually draw in electrical power, thus the confusion as to how they can be over 100% "efficient". They're not turning the electrical power into heat (though a good portion of it is wasted as such in the compressor motor), but instead just moving it. Therefore, in order for it to be able to heat the water, it must already have an existing supply of energy in the form of heat. Even freezing cold air is still a couple hundred degrees above absolute zero, however the larger the differential, the less efficient (at moving heat, not how much power they draw) they become.

 

[Sigurthr]

My gut says they were counting the carried over kinetic energy of the input water source in the output energy without adding it to the input energy. That or they were considering only the rotational energy provided by the shaft as the input energy with no concerns for the electrical energy needed to rotate the shaft. Could even be both.

Do I believe it is over unity? No. Do I think it could be close to or even at unity possibly? Sure I can fathom that.

Application wise it could be an over all more efficient means of heating water from a combustion engine over the currently used oil -> electricity -> heat water method as the conversion of oil to electricity is not where near as efficient as the electricity to heat conversion. Skipping this and going directly from Oil to heat water could be a major benefit.

 

[Deleted member 16589]

Do I believe it is over unity? No. Do I think it could be close to or even at unity possibly? Sure I can fathom that.

Finally Someone who not stuck over the word Overunity.
I totally agree This is not Overunity But it still may be more or equally as officiant as electric heating. .

Ive been doing some research on it and It appears that this machine has a niche market.

From what I read the way this machine saves you money is if you want steam. In a conventional resistance heater/boiler you have to bring the water to a boil and store in in a vessel when you are done with the steam whatever is left in the boiler is unused and you wasted electricity making it.

This machine Makes steam in seconds and only makes it when you need it.

To recap I'm not saying this is free energy
I do not think it is Overunity for a second
But this could be a cheap way to make steam.

 

[Alaskan]

So the heaters use friction, ultimately, to produce the heat. The friction is provided by an AC motor. It'd be foolish to think ANY AC motor is more efficient than a heating element.

Sorry, physics says no.

If something really is "over unity" it is only called that because we don't fully understand how it works. I started to expound upon that idea more but decided to delete it and make my response more bullet proof against those who don't see things the same way I do - Yes I believe an "over unity" device can be made, but again, we would only see it that way if we didn't fully understand the technology.

 

[Things]

Finally Someone who not stuck over the word Overunity.
I totally agree This is not Overunity But it still may be more or equally as officiant as electric heating. .

To recap I'm not saying this is free energy
I do not think it is Overunity for a second

It CAN NOT be more efficient than electric heating. This is why people are taking the p!ss out of you. You keep claiming it's MORE EFFICIENT than electric heating which is ALREADY 100% efficient. To be MORE efficient than electric heating (in this sense, ie, direct water contact), it's overunity. Simple as that, you're contradicting yourself. Perhaps a dictionary could help you understand what overunity actually means.

How do you think steam mops instantly generate steam? Cos it definitely ain't a cavitation device. Sure, the device could perhaps work, but it offers no advantages over current technology. In fact given how little actual useful information the video contains, the instant steam thing is probably a load of cr@p too. You're trying to break the laws of physics and thermodynamics at the same time. May sound harsh but you've got so many people trying to explain to you WHY this device can't beat the efficiency of an electric heater, and you ignore them. It's high school science, cmon.

We won't even go into the fact that cavitation will eat holes in the rotor in no time flat. Look up what it does to propellers. Devices designed to use cavitation for any useful purpose are designed to not actually have any contact with the area of cavitation (supercavitating propellers). The rotor will probably last all of a week before it essentially abrades itself away, goes unbalanced, and throws itself through a wall.

 

[Alaskan]

Things, have you taken the time to explore the design to understand it yet before you dismiss it out of hand? This is an engineered device, the thing works without degrading and exploding through a wall, sure it must have some finite life time but the unit isn't exploding and being worn down that fast.

As far as the over unity idea, that could only happen if we didn't fully understand how the energy was being produced, otherwise it would be impossible to come up with something out of nothing, well... except for everything you see in the universe, theory says.

 

[Cyparagon]

From what I read the way this machine saves you money is if you want steam. In a conventional resistance heater/boiler you have to bring the water to a boil and store in in a vessel when you are done with the steam whatever is left in the boiler is unused and you wasted electricity making it.

That problem would be solved by reducing the water reserve in the boiler.

As far as the over unity idea, that could only happen if we didn't fully understand how the energy was being produced

Except we know exactly how the energy is being transferred here.
Electrical energy -> mechanical energy -> cavitation -> friction -> heat

There is NO way that can possibly be more efficient than:
Electrical energy -> heat

 

[Sigurthr]

We won't even go into the fact that cavitation will eat holes in the rotor in no time flat. Look up what it does to propellers. Devices designed to use cavitation for any useful purpose are designed to not actually have any contact with the area of cavitation (supercavitating propellers). The rotor will probably last all of a week before it essentially abrades itself away, goes unbalanced, and throws itself through a wall.

Yeah, I purposely left that whole issue out in my previous post on purpose. I figure it must be built such that it runs for a while if the 3 yr of use cited is true, but that doesn't mean it isn't being degraded over that time, or that it would measure up to conventional tech in terms of longevity.

I still think the only viable application would be engine driven steam/hot water, and that is certainly not about efficiency.

 

[Alaskan]

I don't know what the over unity claim is for, I better watch the video again, I did over a year ago but now its vague to me. I've read a science paper once where a collapsing bubble in a fluid somehow produced some kind of power beyond what was predicted possible through physics, but what power, or how it could be used, that I don't remember. I'm wondering if this is what they mean by "over unity", something to do with that phenomena? Anyone who uses those two words together for is asking to be stoned by a crowd of physicists who are so well educated they know better, to challenge their understanding of reality is a sin, our scientists are the new high priests of society today.

 

[Cyparagon]

Anyone who uses those two words together for is asking to be stoned by a crowd of physicists who are so well educated they know better, to challenge their understanding of reality is a sin, our scientists are the new high priests of society today.

If you actually mean that in any degree, you have NO idea what science is. You're fooling yourself if you think the scientific community wouldn't adore a free energy machine.

All evidence of free energy has thus-far been debunked. Anyone providing additional evidence is subject to relentless ridicule until that evidence is substantiated. And since the provision of this evidence has a track record of ZERO percent confirmation, anyone would be justified in assuming this evidence doesn't exist.

You're only doing yourself a disservice by taunting science. If you can actually PROVE anything you say, science is on your side. You are guaranteed a Nobel prize if you can successfully demonstrate a free energy machine.

 

[Things]

Things, have you taken the time to explore the design to understand it yet before you dismiss it out of hand? This is an engineered device, the thing works without degrading and exploding through a wall, sure it must have some finite life time but the unit isn't exploding and being worn down that fast. .

Yes, I'm completely aware of how the device is "supposed" to function, I don't start telling people they're wrong unless I've done my research and I'm 100% sure they are. In this case, I'm 110% sure.

"This is an engineered device" .. isn't everything? As far as I'm aware there hasn't been any longevity tests done on this device .. probably because they got laughed at when they tried to push it to people and it went no further, and for good reason too.

 

[tttonyyy]

I've watched the video, it certainly seems to produce a lot of steam. The inventor states he is not a scientist and doesn't necessarily understand all the science behind it, and the scientist that visited it stated that the measurements weren't strictly scientific and no conclusions could be drawn either way.

Based on the limited evidence from the video it would seem at face value that this device efficiently produces steam, but claiming it is more than 100% efficient is baseless, and suggests that the physics of the way it works is not properly understood. Or that the measurement of input and output energy hasn't been done scientifically; does the delivered electrical energy include power factor correction? That would really throw measurements out if not correctly understood. Who knows, we have no data to work with.

to challenge their understanding of reality is a sin, our scientists are the new high priests of society today.

Science is about refining our understanding of reality. Anyone can challenge previous assumptions if they have credible evidence, none of which has been presented in the video or anywhere I can find online.

Priests work in the realm of religion, where belief with limited evidence is the normal. I would suggest to you that the only priest-like characters in this situation are those that believe this device does not obey the reasonably well tested laws of thermodynamics.

 

[Alaskan]

My main point was the device is an engineered device and doesn't fall apart and fail, sure it has a infinite life time, as all mechanical devices do. As far as efficiency, I don't know how efficient it really is, the man who built it would know that best and anyone who would claim a much higher efficiency than it can really produce would be a fool as there are hordes of people ready to shoot at anyone who comes up with something new that doesn't fit the mold, you know that though, historically anyone on the leading edge is attacked by more educated individuals who think they know better.

 

[Cyparagon]

historically anyone on the leading edge is attacked by more educated individuals

That's how the loonies are filtered out. If their reasoning/device is sound, they have nothing to fear by being challenged.

Accepting every idea/concept put forth to you without adequate evidence doesn't mean you're open-minded, it means you're gullible.