>>Force(s) cause the failure, not energy - they are two different things.
>
>You are wrong, there can be no force without energy expended, they are inexorably entwinded. This is a common misconception of many.

The misconception is in equating force and energy. They are related in some cases, but not the same. For example, distance and velocity are related, but they are not the same. Or, to give another example, meters and square meters are not the same - the have different "dimensions".

The formula that connect force and energy is one I already quoted before: energy = force x distance. For example, to pull with a force of 5 N, over a distance of 2 m, you need an energy of 10 J; to maintain a certain force without movement requires 0 J. (Some energy will be stored, due to elastic forces, but there is no continuous flow of energy.)

In theory, to break something requires a relatively small amount of energy, even if a lot of force is required, since the distance involved is small.

>Another thing to remember is that the temperature estimate of 20,000K is extremely conservative, whether it is as high as 1GK has yet to be proved, but from research articles I have read it is somewhere between 50,000K to 200,000K.
>Monitoring of the process in real life is difficult as the sensors have to survive for least a couple of hours in a very hostile environment as the ship comes up to cruise speed, as the slip cavitation is very high whilst accelerating the ship upto cruise speed and any measurement taken during this period are highly erroneous.

You can hardly take a process that is not completely understood, and whose measurement is "highly erroneous", as PROOF that energy conservation is violated.

We all know that several processes are not yet well-understood, but whether some of them are related to violation of energy conservation or not, remains to be seen.