"Unreliable" yes but it was demonstrated over a much longer period than the bursts seen in Rowan confirmations of Rayney nickel and atomic hydrogen. I still contend that this process by it's very nature is destructive because it will runaway and destroy the geometry responsible for the OU. The Griggs device gives hope that the process can be damped and harnessed but the more energy produced by an individual cavity the more the energy producing geometry gets eroded. Perhaps Griggs should try tungsten or other high strength metals with high melting point? I don't think the effect can occur directly in water but his device probably alternates the contents of the cavity between water, vapor and disassociated gas atoms that is helping to cool the cavity and delay the break down. Fran
Jed Rothwell Thu, 04 Nov 2010 06:55:41 -0700 Jones Beene wrote: From the evidence and tests which were run at the time, and Jed may have more to say about this, many careful observers were open to the conclusion that Griggs may have seen OU at time, but unreliably. That is correct. It was unreliable or sporadic. When the apparent OU started up, the sound and performance changed markedly. It would sometimes last a half hour or so, but then suddenly revert. His active cavitation elements was a large rotor with milled indentations. These were not small. The device resemble an old fashioned siren. It is consistent with all we know to suggest that during the time spans that the Griggs pump worked reliably for excess heat - these coincided to self-created nano-pitting in the metal stator, and/or colloidal particles in the water. The test-bed device used a tank of dirty, rusty water. However, I think the most reliable and consistent results were reported by the county facility manager at the local fire department. The system inputs tap water and outputs hot water for the showers and other uses. So the water is clean. The device apparently produces only a small amount of over unity energy; so small that it has no economic or technological significance. When it produced excess heat, output was roughly 103% to 107% of input electricity. That is not impressive until you realize that without excess heat it is roughly 85% to 95% of input electricity because the device radiates a tremendous amount of heat and it is not insulated. The device gets hot enough that it would produce severe burns if you touched it. As far as the facilities manager and others (including me) can tell, there is error measuring input or output power. Hydrodynamics is still selling these devices and doing well. They do not advertise the fact that the machines apparently produce more energy out than in. Such claims are not good for business. See: http://hydrodynamics.com/ - Jed
