Good point about the Schaeffer similarity, Chris.
http://www.rexresearch.com/schaeffe/schaeffer.htm However, when you throw in "Griggs" (and the other pump anomalies) and then add-in all of the sonoluminescence material which is out there, it would be a losing cause for the government or military to try to limit the information at this stage - and actually this is the kind of thing worth promoting by DoE - especially if the Clem engine can use unprocessed vegetable oil as a fuel (as opposed to processed biodiesel). The problem, and it is far from a true problem - is that aside from actual combustion, the gain from cavitation alone is minimal. Griggs nor Schaeffer never claimed a high COP, usually near 1, but even 1.2 - if that number proved to be a rock-solid gain, is truly momentous in terms of new physics. We must conclude that it even 1.2 too unreliable to achieve on demand, however, given the overwhelming evidence (or lack thereof). The importance of micro-combustion added-on to cavitation (this is a personal opinion) . is that the combination effectively seems to convert the mechanics of the device into being no longer a true "heat engine", since the Carnot efficiency exceeds the theoretical maximum for heat engines. Still - that does not guarantee a commercial niche for it, since a lot of interested manufacturers had a look at the Clem engine, and turned it down many years ago. There are often downsides that inventors try to hide, and this may be the situation. From: Chris Zell [mailto:[email protected]] You could add the Schaefer device to this cavitation list. It produced steam very efficiently by forcing cavitation within a spinning rotor. Does anyone know the application number of the new turbine patent? I think we should all make plenty of copies before the government slaps a secret order on it and yanks it out of the public domain.
