Gents -- one more thread; not meaning to proliferate threads, but this is an important one IMO. For several weeks, I have been experimenting with heating measured amounts of water to determine output energy, using a control resistive heater; also with a few configurations of the "Davey-type Sonic Boilers". The Davey heaters are discussed more in a thread at EF.com started by David Fine:
http://www.energeticforum.com/renewable-energy/8999-peter-daysh-davey-water-heater-query.html
Nerzh Dishual is abreast of the situation as well, and has been doing related experiments in Brest, France. (Sounds like a great place to visit, Nerzh! I've been to France quite a lot in years past, but not to your town yet...) Hopefully he'll describe some of those tests and experiments which he has done.
The method is quite straightforward, applying the equations:
Qheating = 4.186 J/g-degC * mass of water heated * (Tfinal - Tinitial)
and for water vaporized, we have:
Qvaporization = 2260 J/g * mass of water vaporized.
The last several days, I've been doing runs with a "control" heater, shown in the photo.
Mains power monitored by two "kill-a-watt" meters; one measures the energy consumed in kW-hrs, and the other the power being consumed during the run. A stop-watch is used to keep track of the time required for the kW-hr monitor to go from zero to 0.01 kW-h (=36000 J). That is the sensitivity of this meter; but I have another on order that will go to 0.001 kW-h (3600J).
The control water heater, a simple resistive coil (see photo) is rated at 300 W and runs at 301-303 W, and requires 1m58 to 1m59 seconds to use 0.01 kW-hr; which is all consistent, so the meters check out and agree.
Water temp measured by a Fluke 52K/J meter (thermocouple) and checked with an IR temperature probe; agreement there is OK (the IR push-and-read monitor varies more than I like, not as accurate).
An example run from 15 February 2012 involves heating 2000 g of water in a plastic container; I will soon go to styrofoam for better insulation. The temp rise was 3.3 deg C in 1m58 s, 36kJ input.
Qinto-water = 4.19 * 2000g *3.3C = 27.7 kJ.
Efficiency = 27.7/36 = 0.77.
The same resistive heater in a 530 ml plastic container showed a temp rise of 12.0 C in 2min,
Qinto-water = 4.19 * 430g *12.0C = 26.7 kJ.
Efficiency = 26.7/36 = 0.74.
About the same – shows the approximate error bar ~ 4%.
Today I did a run with two "bells", as shown in the photos. A "Davey boiler" type of set-up, but no "tuning" was tried. Not sure how to do the tuning on this!
120V with the "hot" wire applied to the inner bell and the neutral wire to the outer bell (it's also safer this way!). The two bells were then mostly immersed in the 530 ml of water, as shown in the second photo.
The temp rise was from 7.1 C to 19.7 C (after stirring), a rise of 12.6 C. So calorimetry shows:
Qinto-water = 4.19 * 430g *12.6C = 28.0 kJ.
Efficiency = 28/36 = 0.78 .
Which is consistent with the control run. Nothing to write home about yet!
I'm a little surprised that I'm not closer to unity with the efficiency, since the resistive heat should go into the water; but I will use a styrofoam container in the near future. The home-lab room temp is about 52F.
Comments welcomed!
Especially, Nerzh Dishual – results from your runs would be most welcomed!!! Both your control runs and your runs with the Davey device sent to you by Prof. Savic (at my request) are interesting and worth sharing! Tell about the efficiencies you're getting with your "electric kettle" (commercially purchased), would you?
Still having fun,
Steve
Nerzh -- inspired by your electric kettle results (which I hope we'll see here), I went ahead and purchased a couple of these electric kettles from Amazon (free shipping!! to my little rural town). Photo shows the inside of one of them.
Also, I want to see whether these "off-the-shelf" units provide efficiency n = 1 approximately.
Further! the container can be used to house experimental devices, and I can put the SAME Watt-hours into the same container with the "built in heater" and compare rather directly with the heating by the DUT...
Lots of fun!
Hopefully my electric kettles will come Monday so those tests can proceed.
I want to thank Jean-Yves (Nerzh) for doing experiments in parallel on his electric kettle in France -- and especially for his patience in trying to get the "Davey device" sent to him by Prof. Savic, working. So far the efficiency of Prof Savic's DUT is about unity or less, nothing like was implied when I purchased the device!
But Jean-Yves continues to try to get it working, over the last several weeks, and I appreciate his efforts. I'm going to attach a photo or two, and you can see that the device which was sent is corroded far from pristine. Maybe it worked in the past? It looks like it has been used a lot, but that is the DUT that was sent.
I should also note that both of us have had some difficulty communicating with Prof Savic, and some of this can be ascribed to the difficulty translating from the Serbian.
If you have read the thread at EF, you know that DaemonBart made progress on this "Serbian sonic boiler" aka the "Davey Device". I'm still hoping he will share more of his results, to benefit mankind!
On that note, I just learned that a dear friend of mine (Yeah Samaka) from Mali (Africa) is now running for President of Mali! He wants to benefit the families in his country, many of whom are destitute. The attached photo shows Yeah and me (I'm the white guy ;) ) with the Solar Funnel Cooker I developed for families in third-world countries about TWELVE YEARS AGO. The photo was taken about 6-7 years ago. And now here is my friend running for president of Mali!
Let me assure you -- HE and the folks in Mali will be very interested in Freedom Energy. And "Hurry up" I hear them say! For example, many dental and medical procedures we take for granted depend on electricity...
Hi People,
All my results are here (these are not secret folders but not too public also):
1) http://freenrg.info/4SJ/
In this folder, the file "Serbian_Translation.html" is just showing that I could be able to catch some smattering of the Serbian language.
About the .mpx vids: no measurement here. The mp4 files are too huge. The mp2 file is more manageable but it is just for the fun.
2) http://freenrg.info/4SJ2/
In this folder, the file "UnAnswered_Questions.pdf" will show that I'm often in the dark.
3) http://jeanyves.hervouet.free.fr/4ProfJ/
In this folder, the file "NRG_METERS_TESTS_V1.pdf" is not finished.
4) http://jeanyves.hervouet.free.fr/Za_Prof_Savic/
I beg to differ with Prof. Savic about frequencies measurements. Hence these files.
Without our exchanged e-mails, these files would not be of too much help.
In a nutshell #1: Prof Savic is telling me (as far as I can catch it) that:
The frequency of the "cup" (pehara) is 400 Hz
The frequency of the "ball"(lopta) is about 1000 hz.
I strongly disagree with him. To me:
The frequency of the "cup" (pehara) is about 1600 Hz
The frequency of the "ball" (lopta) is about 2200 or 5000 Hz depending upon this ball is 'alone' or 'embedded 'in the device.
>>> In a nutshell #2: all my (poor?) measurements do not show any obvious "OU".
Of course: all remarks, questions, criticisms are requested.
Very Best,
Jean-Yves (Nerzh)
"
Jean-Yves, are you sure we're not in 1/4 wavelength territory ?
400Hz to 1600Hz - you are running at 4x cycle to Prof Savic's measurements....forgive my ignorance regarding the topic up til recently, but the figures screamed at me a resonance condition mismatch, similar to radio wave propagation.
If the true 'full wave' figure for the second section were 4000Hz, did that cycle rate produce nothing of interest ? and could that mismatch with nothing to show be because of a need to retune, based on the evident wear of the device ?
Again, please do forgive my ignorance, but can tuning be employed by using a copper coil within the cup and/or ball ?
By using a system partially related to the methods that Dr. Stiffler uses in his SEC circuits, the thought occurs that mismatches could be tuned out, resonance returned, by varying the cross induction properties of the device parts.
Good questions, Mark -- I'll let Jean respond as he has time.
Earlier I talked about measuring input and output energy for Davey-type devices. I'd like to revisit this -- how can we be CERTAIN that the energy meter plugged into the mains truly measures the total energy delivered to the device as input energy?
QuoteEarlier post: Mains power monitored by two "kill-a-watt" meters; one measures the energy consumed in kW-hrs, and the other the power being consumed during the run. A stop-watch is used to keep track of the time required for the kW-hr monitor to go from zero to 0.01 kW-h (=36000 J). That is the sensitivity of this meter; but I have another on order that will go to 0.001 kW-h (3600J).
The control water heater, a simple resistive coil (see photo) is rated at 300 W and runs at 301-303 W, and requires 1m58 to 1m59 seconds to use 0.01 kW-hr; which is all consistent, so the meters check out and agree.
...
[/quote]
One way to double-check the input energy measurement would be to run from a LARGE cap or capacitor bank, running an inverter if AC is needed. (Pulsed DC might work...)
Then the input energy can be determined in a straightforward way,
Einput = 1/2 C (Vfinal^2 - Vinitial^2)
Comments on this concern would be appreciated.
Steve
The control run with the Resistance heater should set the mark for the boiler.
It has been found that these kilowatt meters are remarkably accurate when compared to some very expensive commercial meters.
Chet
Quote from: ramset on 2012.02.21, 21:30:13
Steve
The control run with the Resistance heater should set the mark for the boiler.
It has been found that these kilowatt meters are remarkably accurate when compared to some very expensive commercial meters.
Chet
Thanks, Chet -- and along those lines as mentioned also in post #1, I've received the electric kettles I ordered and I've done more control experiments. Also received a new K-type thermocouple thermometer and another digital cooking thermometer that seems quite accurate -- compares well to the thermocouple thermometer. And I solved a mystery noted in post #1; I wrote:
QuoteI'm a little surprised that I'm not closer to unity with the efficiency, since the resistive heat should go into the water;
I was getting efficiencies around 74-77% in those controls, today 95-98%! I found that (to my surprise), the Fluke thermocouple thermometer used in post #1 was way off, compared to the two new thermometers described. Again today the Fluke gave efficiencies around 75%, while the new K-type thermocouple thermometer and digital cooking thermometer gave good agreement and efficiencies in the electric kettles around 95-98%. This is now believable to me, given that the heat from the resistor coils should go directly into the water, and I wish to emphasize the following I've learned from these experiments:
1. Have redundant (preferably at least 3) temperature-probes, to check against each other to make sure there is not a problem in temperature measurements (as I found with the old Fluke K-type that I had borrowed).
2. I also use two energy-monitoring meters as described in post #1, and I've ordered one more. Again, its important to check these by redundant measuring devices.
3. The water needs to be stirred vigorously before taking temp measurements. Even so, it seems wise to have the temp-probes in different locations, and to compare results obtained with the two probes.
4. A "standard" electric kettle makes a convenient control and gives efficiency near unity. Thanks to Nerzh for this idea.
5. Record data and questions in a bound log-book (I'm doing that).
6. Measure water volume using a graduated cylinder -- I have a 500 ml graduated cylinder I bought last week. I found that the electric kettle markings are not completely accurate, when I filled each kettle with 2 times 500 ml from the graduated cylinder.
You might be interested in some data from today's control runs. I'll provide these in my next post, so I can post the control-data also at EF.
Just to ensure I'm on the same page here Steve, is this initial testing being done to see if a quantity of water brought to boil (or some target temperature) uses less energy (kw-h) in the Davey device compared to a standard electric kettle?
Am I close?
.99
QuoteAnswer by PhysicsProf (oops -- I meant to put into a separate post, thought I had done so!)
Basically, yes, we can make such direct comparisons. Also, we have a quantitative measure using these calorimetric methods to determine efficiency for any given device.
Thanks to .99 and Peterae for allowing us this space as a "private forum"! since you two as forum moderators may read our posts, I ask that you respect the privacy of this forum area (I'm confident you will do so), and I for one welcome your comments here!
Today's data plus two photos are posted at EF (don't want to repeat here):
http://www.energeticforum.com/renewable-energy/8999-peter-daysh-davey-water-heater-query-60.html#post181079
Having tested out two good thermometers and two vessels with built in heaters, and two input-energy meters, I decided to go ahead with a test of my Davey-type device, shown in the attached photos. Built a few weeks ago... but I was put off by the low efficiency based on the Fluke meter (which turned out to be way off), until I got replacement meters as described above.
Left -- you see the inside, showing the two bells, about 1 cm apart. Each has a wire, the outer is neutral and the inside is hot-AC 120V.
Assembly using nylon bolt and nuts and spacer. Nylon nuts also hold the wires to the bells. One hole on top for all this assembly... Essentially no gap for steam to escape, which I'm beginning to regret because the device gives a boiling sound and hiss with about 5-10 seconds, even with fairly cold water. Also, after the runs, I have to stir and bob the thing up and down, trying to get the hotter water between the bells to mix with the 1 liter in the vessel.
Also, the water is warm after stirring, but the outer bell (at least) is very hot to the touch, much hotter than the surrounding outside water -- I touched it to find out. Also, sitting there, even after stirring with a plastic spoon, the temp on both temp probes rises for roughly 1.5 minutes.
So is the water heating due to its resistance (ohmic heating of the water), or does the metal heat up more, then heat the water? probably both. But why does the metal get so hot?
I'm just going to tell you the temps I found and you can calculate if you want efficiencies -- with the caveat that the water may not have been thoroughly mixed despite my efforts, because of water "trapped" between the two bells.
Run 1: K-type TES thermometer rose 10.0 C while the Taylor digital probe rose 12.6 C. These temps after about 2 minutes from the end of the run, and after stirring to try to reach equilibrium but apparently I did not. I don't know why the difference. Eff appears to be greater than one; I ran it again.
Run 2: TES rose just 8 deg C (which would be eff less than 1) while the Taylor probe rose 15.5 deg C -- this after stirring! Weird.
All I can say is, I need to do more runs and measurements. Tired tonight.
Also, I'm thinking about putting a small hole in the outer bell, to allow water to circulate better when the device is raised and lowered in the water and to let steam escape. But this will change the natural tone of the bell a little...
PS -- these are chemistry crucibles of two diff sizes, and both have a nice ring when held lightly and struck. The tone of each is very roughly B-flat as I did this near the piano and found a rough match. Thus, near 240 Hz -- in air.
I have no idea what happens to the fundamental tones in water, good question.
Any thoughts???
I'm sure that mbrownn might raise an eyebrow too, that stores are not packed to the rafters with kettles. They are woefully rare here in the USA !
In England, steam locomotives were often referred to as kettles.
After reading this page: http://www.totalizm.pl/boiler.htm but having not yet read all of the Energetic Forum thread, a few questions and thoughts arise of hopeful use.
Luckily my 'mistake' purchase of a 1980's Wilcom T296 20Hz to 20kHz generator could prove to be VERY useful. the old girl can sweep pure tones over user set ranges, over whatever timeframe is wished.
Am I right in thinking that at a certain frequency, a metal bell shape will audibly resonate ? In which case, tuning to harmonics of 60Hz should be possible (will have to check that we are on 60Hz not 50Hz). One may imagine that a PC soundcard would do the same job to detect the state of tune of a bell.
Has anyone merely obtained 2 bicycle bells and tried them ? I might well take that route :)
To be tested, but, as water heats and becomes steam, the properties of the resonance will change (perhaps). At some point, a bell that is too 'flat' in tuning within water, may raise in resonant pitch, brighten, due to the changing state of the water. If both bells simultaneously brighten at the exact boiling point of water, then can we imagine a superheating of that steam ? My theory, is that the bubbles which we are all familiar with during the 90-100C transition to steam may individually 'ring the bell' and individually become supercharged by the electrical flow.
Heck, I dunno, more reading and some bell finding required :)
Steve,
Even with your best efforts, you may be getting air trapped within the bells, and this you probably don't want. I think one or two small holes in the top of each should resolve that problem.
.99
Quote from: Slider2732 on 2012.02.22, 10:36:41
I'm sure that mbrownn might raise an eyebrow too, that stores are not packed to the rafters with kettles. They are woefully rare here in the USA !
In England, steam locomotives were often referred to as kettles.
After reading this page: http://www.totalizm.pl/boiler.htm but having not yet read all of the Energetic Forum thread, a few questions and thoughts arise of hopeful use.
Luckily my 'mistake' purchase of a 1980's Wilcom T296 20Hz to 20kHz generator could prove to be VERY useful. the old girl can sweep pure tones over user set ranges, over whatever timeframe is wished.
Am I right in thinking that at a certain frequency, a metal bell shape will audibly resonate ? In which case, tuning to harmonics of 60Hz should be possible (will have to check that we are on 60Hz not 50Hz). One may imagine that a PC soundcard would do the same job to detect the state of tune of a bell.
Has anyone merely obtained 2 bicycle bells and tried them ? I might well take that route :) ...
Good points, Mark. Say, how much POWER can that Wilcom signal generator put out? a few hundred watts would be awesome! and a tunable frequency generator with high power output is what we need alright...
If I recall correctly, Mr. Davey back 60 years ago started out using bicycle bells...
Note that I'm keeping the outer bell neutral (ground) for safety reasons!
Thanks, .99, I will add a hole or two... Yesterday I also bought some metal MESH which I might try for the outer "bell"... This will allow water and bubbles to flow freely, but will not "ring" IMO like the bells do.
Attached is the CHEAP and GOOD Type-K thermometer I purchased for this expt -- recommend it if'n you want to jump into this project. Also, the Kaloric electric kettle on Amazon was cheap.
Today I experimented again with the 2-bell device discussed yesterday -- many more careful measurements.
I found that the holes already in the bells allowed water to go in and out fairly rapidly -- one could hear the sound of air moving as the bells were immersed or lifted from the water. Also, before measuring the water temps today, I always LIFTED the bells OUT of the water so that the water INSIDE them would join the water in the vessel -- then I further stirred this water... and then took temp measurements.
Today the results were completely consistent with those obtained with the control measurement. To save time, will re-post here most of what I posted at EF just now:
________________
Thank you, quantumuppercut:
Quote from: quantumuppercut;181182Nice work professor,
I like your approach, slow but solid. Suppose we just jump to the bad fluke and depends on those data which gives 76%, it would be unfair. What even worse is if that bad reading was 97%. lol
This is an example how the community can gain reputation from mainstream, succeed or not.
Well said.
Today I did some testing with a build I did using 2 "bells", chemistry crucibles with a hole drilled in the each base, joined together at the bases with a nylon bolt + nylon nuts and spacer. See photo on the right. The distance between bells is approx. 1 cm, OD of the outer bell is 6 cm. The pitch of each bell when struck is approx. B-flat (compared with the tune on my piano), roughly 240 Hz. The mains provided 120 V and the input power was measured by two "kill-a-watt" meters in series -- approx. 1200 W during operation in water.
I ran with the bells until the energy meter registered 0.01 kW-hr (= 36,000 J) input energy, then I took temp. measurements.
For the control -- described also above -- I used the built-in coil of the electric kettle, shown in the photo on the left.
The water volume was measured at 1222 ml using a graduated cylinder.
I observed temp rise of 7.0 deg C for 36kJ input electrical energy; so we find:
Qinto-water = 4.186 * 1222g *7.0C = 35.8 kJ.
Efficiency = 35.8/36.0 = 99%.
Consistent with unity... can't get much closer. Control run with the SAME water, using the built-in resistive coils in the Kaloric vessel, gave the same result...
Overall, to be expected -- but I sure would like to try a WORKING Davey device! :wall: I'm still trying...
The Wilcom has a built in speaker and output is only 1 watt or something fully cranked. However, that doesn't stop me feeding it to, erm, whatever's not been taken apart yet :)
It's got audio outs and all should be quite simple to hook up.
Thanks for all these readings - they'll most definitely help when joining in on this project.
Congratulations on reaching that 99% figure ! totally different method and yet that sort of efficiency, it's nothing to sneeze at O0
With not being a fan of old mucky mains electricity, considering it dangerous and outdated...am planning a route which may or may not do anything. HV will be created by a flyback and variable pulse width/ duty cycle circuit (555 type but using a 74 series chip). The HV will be in resonance with a fundamental of the frequency of the bells to be trialed. The theory goes that it's not the amperage doing the boiling work, it's the frequency of the water molecule vibrations.
In such a way, these systems 'should' be able to make water boil using far less input power.
Also delivering the bonus side effect of my wife's eyebrows lowering to their normal height.
I'm in daily search of abandoned bicycles...not rare around here and there's part of one in our backyard, which I took the rubberized handles off to fix an arcade machine.
Here's a sort of pic of the Wilcom, just to see her vintage. I was running wireless energy tests with a Dr. Stiffler SEC replication at the time and that project was what a signal generator was intended for.
Hi People,
Very sorry, I did not take the time to read this thread. :-X
I just sent all my 'results' (or absence thereof) to Prof Jones only.
This ain't exchanging (and polite). I have just figured it out right now.
I must be kinda schizo sometimes. :P
You know what? Prof Jones is just an 'inverted dictator'...
I will soon copy and past all my previous related (Very) Savic's Sonic Boiler ((V)SSB) emails to Prof Jones on an .html page. I will also do my best to answer the questions I was asked.
-----------------
My last 'adventure' with the (V)SSB:
This afternoon, during a new experiment, this long plastic rod began to melt! (pictures to come).
Fortunately the upper wire was still in fuzzy contact with the "cup". I could see some nice sparks! God forbid, I continued up to 5 minutes.
Unfortunately, my COP is discouraging. Yes, one can argue that it was obtained with a near broken device.
I used 600 grams (Scale) of water and 75 wh (NRG meter). My estimation is that 25 Wh was used to rise the upper water layer up to 100° and (75-25 = 50 wh) was consumed for the evaporation of the said water.
After having read my coming .html page you will see why, IMO, "estimation" is the only way to
approximate this SSB COP.
A quick calculation, *after* the experiment shown that my estimation was not too bad.
Actually, as far as I caught it (AFAICI), the amp. consumption, during the evaporating stage
(5 minutes), was stable (2.4/5) amps.
Now: 230 volts * 2.5 * 5 * 60 /3600 =/= 48 wh (cosine phi = 1 (AFAICI too)).
With this 48/50 Wh I was able to evaporate 58 grams of water.
Now, you need 2261 joules to evaporate one gram of water.
= 2261/3600 = 0.628 Wh to evaporate one gram of water.
= 0.628/0628 = 1 Wh to evaporate 1/0.628 =/= 1.6 grams of water.
So, with, saying 49 Wh, I should have been able to evaporate 49* 1.6 =/= 78 grams of water.
It was not the case. COP =/= 58/78 = 0.74....:((
Or, Is it just the inverse???
-----------------
You know what?
I'm very pleased to have un purposely broken this device. Now, I feel more free.
I have just ordered 2 (20 cm) 5 mm diameter screwed nylon rods and adjusted nuts.
So, I soon will be able to repear (and improve?) the SSB.
Nylon is more stiff that this shabby cheap plastic (5.5 mm diameter) screwed rod.
Sorry, but 5.5 mm diameter is the kind of 'trick' that impedes an accurate replication.
Actually 5.5 mm is a very rare diameter. But, I can deal with 0.5 mm.
I will also remove these ugly rubber washers and replace them with nylon nuts and washers.
This will allow a more easy and accurate tuning of the gap, and will avoid to 'damp' the sound(s)
(should this be needed???).
More to come and very Best,
Jean
Thanks, Jean (Nerzh), for the update ... I've appreciated your work on this, and glad to hear that you will be replacing the old plastic bolt and rubber washers due to the "experience" you had... You might show the photo you showed me of the washer that was split/ruined -- as the device came to you (from Serbia).
Yes, hopefully with re-newed parts, Prof Savic's device may function better! Please keep us posted.
"inverted dictator"? you mean, standing on my head?? lol. C.C
@Prof Jones,
By "'Inverted' Dictator" I just meant: a person that does not impose/dictate his conditions.
Sorry for my English. :-\
I should have said: inversed/upside down/contrary/antithetical/opposed/counter/negative
Why do I say that?
Just because you kept suggesting me to post on this forum.
Just because these suggestions were so gentle and subtle that I did not catch your messages!
Actually "Inverted" has another meaning. LOL. :-\ :-[ :)
I did not mean "perverse despot" but just the opposite ;D
Beware the language barrier!
-----------------------
Ok , I will show the pictures.
Actually I, now, will post all my (shabby- for the moment?) results here.
Very Best,
Jean
Hi 'OU' blokes,
Why, IMO, "estimation" is the only way to approximate the (Very) Savic's Sonic Boiler (V)SSB COP?
Because:
The SSB is only heating up to 100° (Celsius) a thin upper water layer above his "ball".
So, you can not use any regular NRG calculations.
According to Prof. Savic his (Bl')SSB is only 'OU' while evaporating water.
One of his (Google-translated) email:
"Heat water to 100 degrees Celsius and then begin to measure the vapor
for 5 minutes and measure the power consumption for 5 minutes.
This is a true COP sonic boiler"
So, you just(?) have to put it in boiling water before monitoring any Energy Input.
Unfortunately, putting this SSB in a kettle, for example, until the water is boiling
before unplugging the kettle and connecting this SSB to the grid and monitoring any NRG input
just blown up my main grid fuse (faster than light, or so, just a guesstimate).
My personal nice "fuse box" did not react. Same for the "room(s) fuse".
Actually, I made one experiment: if you put this (passive) SSB in a kettle and
monitor the resistance between his 2 wires you will see that this resistance
will drop to 00.00 ohm (according to my meter).
Please see my vids on:
http://www.freenrg.info/4SJ/
So, what can I do?
The only way that the SSB resistance is not zero is when this SSB have boiled the water by itself.
Why?
Because: this water resistance between the "cup" and the "ball" of the (f'-Bl')SSB is zero *only*
when the water is boiling *and* when the ($*3)SSB is "passive".
*But* when this water temperature increasing is made by an active (a running) SSB it is not
the same picture at all!
In fact, this SB creates a tiny ("pulsating") vacuum?/gas(hho)? layer between the "cup" and the "ball".
So, there is a resistance between the two parts of the device.
So, the deal is: boiling the water with the (f')SSB itself.
OK! No accurate NRG input measurement can be made.
Else: exploding you main grid meter?
In the next issue of this NerzhDishual's Epic SSB Magazine, I will tell you about frequencies measurements.
Very Best,
Jean
lol-- I appreciate you explanation of "inverted" in this case, Jean, and your sense of humor!
Yes, I see that you have run into problems when trying to BOIL water with the SSB. I have done a number of exercises just raising the temp of water reported above, but not boiling yet. I will undertake boiling soon (but tomorrow I must travel, so I think Tuesday)... I must say it is strange that you blew the "main grid fuse" when boiling using the SSB.
Thank you for posting results, and for keeping at this SSB! I wonder when you replace the bad parts with nylon parts, if it will function better. Hoping so -- je l'espere bien.
Nerzh -You had me laughing heartily with those posts...looking forward to more O0
I would certainly recommend both damping and non-damping the device. My belief (having not even seen one of these LOL) is that the vacuum between the 2 balls is critical. But, not a true vacuum, not even a partial vacuum, instead it is the sonic hyper-drive resonance area, which only looks like a vacuum !
It's where the 'magic' happens, the superheating. Every time the water travels into that area it is abducted by (aliens) the wall of resonance and instantly transformed into steam. Hence, it would appear to be devoid of water. The area may well pulsate, the eye seeing a harmonic of the operating frequency.
If Mr. Savic's boiler doesn't work like that then perhaps he should be abducted by aliens.
I see no reason why CERN shouldn't contact you for advice by the way, I believe a 'loose cable' was how TPTB bought off the faster than light DOUBLE experiment results >:-)
28 Feb 2012 -- I performed some experiments regarding BOILING, both in the control experiment (using an electric kettle and bringing a measured amount of water to boiling) and with my two-bell sonic boiler (2BSB).
CONTROL run was instructive. Attached photos show the Kaloric electric kettle once again. Note that the jug can be simply removed from the electric-power-supply-base. This makes measuring the weight of the jug and jug+water (shown on the right) straightforward, with no cord to worry about. The weight/mass scale can handle up to 5000 g, which is plenty for these experiments (so far).
Measuring the weight of the jug+water, I was rather surprised at how much evaporation took place AFTER boiling had been reached, if the jug was left sitting with lid opened. Tens of grams evaporated over a period of about a half hour, observed.
Also, water mass is lost during the warm up to near 100C also. These are important effects, significant to the measurement of efficiency. I can see how ERRORS could easily be made! Water spitting out of the vessel (as water, not steam) is another potential problem causing measurement error.
Having observed the magnitude of these easy-to-make errors, I re-emphasize that any claims of ou need to be checked by an independent person or lab. And a CONTROL absolutely MUST be run, the same way that the DUT run is performed.
I found using the control that if I would first heat the water to near boiling with the lid closed, then weigh the vessel, then proceed with boiling -- then weigh again, the input electrical energy agreed with the output heat as determined from the mass evaporated:
Qevap = 2261 J/g * delta-mass (the mass of the evaporated water)
As Nerzh showed, since 3600 J = 1 W-hr, then we can express this equation for Qevap in terms of W-hours:
Q evap = 2261J/g *1 W-hr/3600 J * delta-mass
= 0.628 W-hr * delta-mass in grams.
For the control run, heating the water using the Kaloric electric kettle itself plugged into the energy meter, the mass just before the 2BSB run was 1991g and just after, 1947g, for a mass change of 44g. So
Qevap = 0.628 W-hr * delta-mass in grams = 0.628 * (1991g - 1947g) = 29.5 W-h (output energy).
The input electrical power I measured with a watt-hour meter, which I calibrated recently by measuring temperature rise in water and determining Q that way, see equation in an earlier post, as well as comparing with another brand of watt-hour meter for consistency. The watt-hour meter that reads down to 0.1 W-hr is about 4% high, so that is a minor correction easy to make.
The input power was then measured as 29.8 W-hrs for the control, which is in very good agreement:
calculated efficiency is n = energy-out/energy-in = 29.5/29.8 = 99%.
I like this method, then I applied the same approach, weighing the water before and after and this time using the 2bellSB, and found:
Qevap = 0.628 W-hr * delta-mass in grams = 0.628 * (1742g - 1700g) = 26.4 W-h (output energy).
The input energy from the calibrated energy meter 22.3 W-h, so there appears about 18% excess during boiling, using the 2-bell device I built. I just don't know though... Nerzh, do you have any boiling results yet??
Of course, I ran the experiment again, longer this time. Unfortunately -- there as a bright flash and a circuit breaker was thrown. I found that the data on the energy meter was lost... I found the scar where one bell had managed to touch the other, no doubt under the force of steam pressure between the bells. I can recover, but that's all for tonight... it's late here...
PS -- my dear wife took some video for me during the most recent 2BSB run this evening, so we could record the "hissing" sound the 2-bells make. Got that pretty well, but it was too dark (late evening run) to see much. The boiling was intense just before the two bells made contact, shorted out. That flash we did NOT capture on video however (ran out of battery).
@Slider2732
Thanks a lot for your witty comments. Yes, I do agree with you!
The "vacuum" between the 2 balls (= the "cup" and the "ball") is critical. Actually, according to my last speculations, this "vacuum" seems to be the only thing that really matter.
As soon as I'm able to repear the SSB (with the nylon rod) I will first put This SSB upside down
(= "ball" up and "cup" down) in a water beaker just to try figuring out what is going on.
I decided to forget all what Prof. Savic said to me. I'm writing a pdf file about my new (freed mind) conjectures.
These just are hypothesis. So, I guess that I will not see any Black helicopters (stuffed with nasty Grey aliens)
in my area (for the moment).
More seriously: IMO, you are on the right track.
-------------------------
Quickly divulging my "findings":
The "ball" does not really "vibrate".
Please listen to: http://www.freenrg.info/4SJ/Ball.wav
(http://www.freenrg.info/4SJ/Ball.wav)
The main freq of the cup is about 1600 hz.
1600/50 =/= 32.
http://www.freenrg.info/4SJ/Cup.wav (http://www.freenrg.info/4SJ/Cup.wav)
The only frequency that seems to be important is the frequency of the "cup".
The grid freq. (50 hz) would be the freq. of the "hammer" that hits the cup.
This cup has his own freq that should (roughly?) match the grid freq.
Why roughly?
1) Just because the SSB's cup is "as-it" and seems not to have been "doctored" (filed for ex).
This cup is just from an old fashioned 2 bells alarm clock (see attached picture).
Now, If I were an old-fashioned-alarm-clock-builder, I would use (approximate) 'natural' tones
(G6 = 1568 Hz) to wake up people.
2) Just because this SSB is claiming a 'moderate' COP (about 3). So it just no needs to be too
accurately tuned (frequency wise). BTW: this would suggest that the Q-factor is not so huge.
If you have been good I will let you hear my last musical improvisation using some of these
alarm clock cups. Obviously, natural tones are used.Kidding appart: the ball is also from these 2 bells old alarm clock.
Some cold welding mastic (see attached picture) has been used to glue these 2 bells.
------------------------------------
The other thing to consider is the distance between the cup and the ball.
This distance seems to be critical. More to come about this.
========================================
@Prof. Jones
No, I have not any more boiling result yet, as this ($"#)SSB is out of order (melted rod).
You can bet I will make these experiments ASAP...
Quote"Also, water mass is lost during the warm up to near 100C also.
These are important effects, significant to the measurement of efficiency.
I can see how ERRORS could easily be made! Water spitting out of the vessel
(as water, not steam) is another potential problem causing measurement error."
I also do agree with that! You're preaching to the choir. :)
Anyway, even with a moderate cop (3), all these measurements errors will be of much less importance.
Would they not?
--------------------------------------
At present, I have to confine myself to presumptions and (almost) 'fuzzy' experiments.
With the help of this very forum members we should succeed.
Very Best,
Jean
(http://www.freenrg.info/4SJ/Old_fashioned%20_Alarm_clock.jpg)
(http://www.freenrg.info/4SJ/J-B_Weld.jpg)
Good points, Jean -- and yes:
Anyway, even with a moderate cop (3), all these measurements errors will be of much less importance.
Would they not?
Agreed; but I still like to exercise care in measuring of course, as I see you do also.
I don't know much about the 220V power across the pond -- do you have a "neutral" and a "hot" wire as we do west of the pond?
If so, do you connect the "neutral" wire to the ball or the outer bell?
This is a "hot" thread ...we're on Page 2 :)
In the United Kingdom it's the same system, except 240V and bigger wall plugs. I always find that American plugs work their way out of the wall and want to just drop on the floor...which is kinda what we're attempting to achieve in any case.
Jean, this was pure GOLD for information -
Quotethe ball is also from these 2 bells old alarm clock
I have a small collection of vintage clocks, that were bought from yard sales over the last couple of years and 95% of which now run. 4 of them have bells on and the fact that those 4 are all awaiting external cosmetics restoration is a blessing for this project. I can zap the bells like there's no tomorrow and could just sand them back down or repaint them if they ended up back on the clock !
Good work, Mark. Seems like a guy has to grow some bells to participate in this project! ^-^
@Prof Jones,
Yes, we have a "neutral" wire and a "hot" (= Phase) wire.
The colors norms are:
Neutral = blue.
Hot (phase) = any color except blue, yellow, green.
Ground = yellow and green.
Please see attached pictures.
The first picture is from Prof. Savic.
---------------------------------------
@Slider2732
Good building....
For my part I use the demo version of Cool Edit96 to find the frequencies.
You can find it here:
http://freenrg.info/4SJ/cool96.zip
Very Best,
Jean
(http://www.freenrg.info/4SJ/SavicPhoto1.jpg)
(http://www.freenrg.info/4SJ/Phase_Neutral.jpg)
Thanks, Nerzh, for the photo of the mains -- that is clear. I wonder if connecting P to the outer bell would make a difference? since that is more likely to "vibrate " ? just a thought.
I could try running Cool Edit in Wine (running Ubuntu Linux here), but I think it's where the Wilcom audio freq generator comes into this...and gives the 1980's old girl a definite free energy role :D
It'll also drive me to work through the frequency sweeps it's capable of.
Hmm, resonant cavity. I'd think the mains frequency to be the leader and the strongly evident main component frequency. Such that, it goes to the ball part. In the Davey video demo we see he has the ball encompassing the whole unit...reminding me of the thing that snaked around trying to look for humans in the house, in the 1990's War Of The Worlds movie.
The vacuum area draws in the water, the steam is of higher pressure and so is ejected, replaced by the cooler water and hence setting up the vacuum area.
I'll have to review the video again, but that would need a slot around the ball part.
The bell has to hit the natural frequency of the water and, we're told, water doesn't have one. More that it exhibits a natural frequency only because of what it is surrounded by....not sure on that whole textbook thought.
If we picture a large flat piece of wood in a bathtub and then slosh back and forth, at some particular rate the sloshing is amplified so much that the water exits the bath and on to the floor. Goldilocks again - too fast and the wood would fight itself to move, to slow and the energy imparted isn't great enough to get the water to exit the bath.
I'm seeing that as the effective resonance condition of the frequency in the chamber.
Kinda liking the idea that the frequency is a multiple of 7.8Hz, because water properties, especially nano magnetics are something of an interest.
If the mains is at 60Hz, then that would be 468Hz. Could one of you chaps possibly try that frequency ?
Prof Jones - I note your crucibles resonate at 240Hz. The device of Davey's appears to be quite small and, so, if the crucibles were 1/2 sized, they would approximate 468Hz. Just a random observation. I used to be a campanologist in my teens, hence bell ringing goes back a long way LOL
First of all, some pictures here:
http://www.freenrg.info/4SJ/Some_SSB_Pictures.html
---------------------------------
@Prof. Jones,
Yes, it was also my 'intuition' that connecting the Phase (hot wire) to the "cup" seemed more
appropriate... I will also try this configuration.
---------------------------------
@Slider2732
QuoteIf we picture a large flat piece of wood in a bathtub and then slosh back and forth,
at some particular rate the sloshing is amplified so much that the water exits
the bath and on to the floor. Goldilocks again - too fast and the wood would fight
itself to move, to slow and the energy imparted isn't great enough to get the
water to exit the bath.
Appetizing food for thought. Thanks. O0
Juts a question please? Does Goldilocks utter gobbledygook?
-----------------------------------
I was wrong when I said that the "cup" of the Savic's Sonic Boiler was not tuned.
So the Q factor should, in fact, be high.
Actually, I tried to clean this cup and I saw that there was some mastic or painting around its 'edge'.
Before cleaning, the main freq of the cup was about 1610 Hz.
While cleaning, I removed some material and the freq drop to about 1580 Hz.
I added a small quantity of this cold welding mastic and now the cup freq is about 1600 Hz.
So, if the tunings have to be very accurate we're not out of the woods yet.
(in French we say 'brambles' (and even 'inn') instead of 'woods')...
That is why I'm wondering whether it would be not more judicious to kinda "tune the grid frequency"
with a "
Variable Frequency Pure Sine Wave Power Inverter"
(12 Vols DC to 110 to 220 AC / 50 to 400 Hz)...
This apparatus is not available on EBay of course.... :-\
Another half backed idea would be to use a sampler to record some (or one) frequency(ies) and to play them back to the Sonic Boiler with an audio amplifier. I must confess that I do not master all the electronic technical issues of my 'delirium'.
-------------------------
In fact, all what we all need here are some bl' ù£^"& theoretical clues.
Prof. Savic does not give so much precisions. He insists that the "cup" freq is 400 Hz and the "ball" freq 1000 Hz. No way! = sorry but I strongly beg to differ...
Very Best,
Jean
Nerzh:
QuoteThat is why I'm wondering whether it would be not more judicious to kinda "tune the grid frequency"
with a "Variable Frequency Pure Sine Wave Power Inverter"
(12 Vols DC to 110 to 220 AC / 50 to 400 Hz)...
Good idea... A while back, a friend and I in town played with an inverter, but could not see a way to vary the Freq much... If you find a way, let us know!
What I can do easily is to vary the Voltage... with my variac. ;)
4 March 2012, about 10 am mountain time. Carrying on then with the experiments, I have confirmed and extended the results reported 28 Feb 2012:
Quote from: PhysicsProf on 2012.02.29, 06:11:10
28 Feb 2012 -- I performed some experiments regarding BOILING, both in the control experiment (using an electric kettle and bringing a measured amount of water to boiling) and with my two-bell sonic boiler (2BSB).
CONTROL run was instructive. Attached photos show the Kaloric electric kettle once again. Note that the jug can be simply removed from the electric-power-supply-base. This makes measuring the weight of the jug and jug+water (shown on the right) straightforward, with no cord to worry about. The weight/mass scale can handle up to 5000 g, which is plenty for these experiments (so far).
[snip for brevity]
I like this method, then I applied the same approach, weighing the water before and after and this time using the 2bellSB, and found:
Qevap = 0.628 W-hr * delta-mass in grams = 0.628 * (1742g - 1700g) = 26.4 W-h (output energy).
The input energy from the calibrated energy meter 22.3 W-h, so there appears about 18% excess during boiling, using the 2-bell device I built.
I purchased four more bells as shown in attached photo, left two of nickel and right two of iron. Purchased from a chemical-supply stockroom. I had a machinist friend drill TWO holes in each of these bells, one for the nylon-bolt to hold 2 bells together and pass the wire, and one to allow steam to escape.
I decided to basically replicate the previous two-nickel-bell build, with two holes now, rather than drilling two holes in the original 2-bell system (which I built several weeks ago). Second photo shows the new 2 bell sonic boiler (2BSB) held over the Kaloric electric kettle previously described. Third photo shows the 2BSB placed in the water in the Kaloric EK.
Photos also show two electric-mains power/energy meters used for these experiments (input power and energy).
Results follow, comparing evaporated-water-mass for the Kaloric EK control, and for the 2BSB system. What I did is to run for 19 kW-hrs for each run, both control runs and SB runs. First, I heated the water to boiling using the EK, then weighed the water quickly on the mass scale, then did the boiling run putting 19kW-hrs into the control OR the SB, then quickly weighed the water again on the mass scale to determine the weight lost due to steam production.
Run Control or SB Measured Delta-mass (due to steam production)
1. SB 41g
2. SB 37g
3. Control 18g
4. Control 20g
5. SB 35g
6. Control 20g
Thus, in each case the 2-bell sonic boiler caused a greater steam production than did the Kaloric control.
I find these data quite compelling -- and repeatable! So the replication confirmed the results I obtained in February.
If you see an error, pls let me know. I can't find an error, , but I do plan to put better insulation around the Kaloric kettle to cut down on heat losses to the room through the walls of the container -- By comparing the SBoiler and Control runs, in the same kettle-container, such effects should be pretty much equal between the control and the SB device runs. I also plan a build with the iron crucibles. It would be interesting if the nickel in the crucibles/bells I've been using is important (proton-capture on nickel anyone, like e-cat??? I don't think so... ;) )
I also have two short videos, one recording the tone produced when the outer bell is struck, and the other recording the peculiar hissing sound made by the device during boiling (and showing the set-up in operation). I will try to post these videos.
I should note that in my build of this 2-bell device, I went back and looked at photos of Peter Davey's original 2-bell device and tried to pattern my construction after his original. See drawing; see http://www.rexresearch.com/davey/davey.htm .
I wonder whether Davey is still alive; his invention goes back roughly sixty years! He would be about 96 years old now.
I do not mean to step on anyone's toes here; just proceeding cautiously and as a curious scientist, building on the work of Peter Davey. Please keep these results inside the group. As I've noted before, my wish is not to make a lot of money (a fair/modest return to inventors/builders is great), but rather to get this new technology out for the blessing of mankind as quickly as possible.
Besides Peter Davey (!), I wish to acknowledge contributions to my effort especially by Nate J and Les K and Abe C, who live in town and who have made good suggestions.
@Prof. Jones
Yes, a Variac....
IMO, it should be also be possible to find a way to vary the freq.
I have found a lot of web pages about inverters circuits.
Suffice(?) to embezzle/hijack the frequency generator part of the Circuit.
This is a little bit over my head but I could be helped with an 'OU' phone-friend of mine.
An ('OU') phone-friend is a guy that you have never meet but only got it touch with at phone.
It is the magic of 'OU' researches and researchers.
For example, I was given, by a 'normal' friend a phone call of a guy who is interested in HHO generation.
I didn't know him. I phoned him and we spent more than one hour at phone.
I must add than, contrary to myself, this person, in the 'real' live, is not know as a very talkative
individual...
------------------
Your results look very very interesting. O0
I would be prudent and not give any precise COP number.
Anyway:
Just consider the means.
SB = (41 + 37 + 35) / 3 = 37.7
Control = (18 + 20 + 20) / 3 = 19.3
Of course, the COP is not 37.7 / 19.3 but this can been seen as an Increased Efficiency Ratio
(or something like that).
Now, please consider:
Your control can not be 'OU'. OK?
The efficiency of your control can not, also, be less than, saying, 60%.
Unless you are using a non 'conservative' control device (Div(EK) <>0). No? :o
Now: 37.7 * 0.6 / 19.3 > 1.
Would the efficient of your EK only be 51% that 37.7 * 0.51 / 19.7 = 1!
So, IMO, this is 'OU' Prof Jones!
Else #1: have you noticed that the 'standard deviation' of the SB is far more important than
the control? This, IMO, shows that, contrary to you EK, your SB is not a 'dead' device.
Else #2:
According to my Table Scale and some measurements, the weigh of a plastic beaker filled with 'hot' water
(hot > 50/60°) is not the same than the weight of the same beaker with ''cold' water (cold <20°).
It can vary of about 1% ore more.
For Ex: in my last experiment: 626 grams Vs 620 grams.
The plastic beaker by itself weigh 185 grams. Is it the plastic?
So, Prof Jone all your result bode well.
My last one too!
http://freenrg.info/4SJ/More_Results/Encouraging_Results.html
I got a COP of 1.4???
Very Best,
Jean
.
I may be able to help you fellows with mains frequency conversion.
If you know the top end amperage required, then the following idea can be scaled to suit the throughput.
The basis, is something like the Jeanna's Light or a recent circuit by Sergdo on OU.com.
The power comes in, can come from anywhere - solar, batteries, whatever we choose and the output is frequency dependent on a variable pot. For mains current abilities, the circuit could be driven from a car battery.
You may have heard large toroids singing away in some peoples videos....using the pot, you can vary that frequency, from upwards of 20kHz, to as low as a few Hz. That singing is the inverter frequency.
In common with anything, size dictates the frequency, it being much easier to have a very large toroid tune down to the lower Hz while listening to it. The frequency becomes easily audible when inverting to 120V ranges with using, say, the toroid from the neck of a CRT computer monitor.
The circuit is very simple and very effective AND might just offer frequency tuning abilities for these experiments with the Davey boilers :)
Best thing, to me anyway, is that a 1.5V AA battery can run a normally mains powered 2W LED lightbulb !!!
So we're looking straight away at perhaps avoiding the need for a plug in the wall.
If one bell input is the mains frequency and from a traditional plug, then the inverter circuit can supply whatever frequency we wish to use for the other bell.
If both bells ran via 2 inverter circuits, then both become tunable, both become able to be powered by much smaller sources of power like a car battery.
Who knows, maybe at resonance and with the correct inverter frequencies, we may be able to boil water with a flashlight battery :)
With now seeing that a size such as 0.9" toroid can deliver at least the voltage, if not the amps due to wire gauge, we may imagine a larger toroid fitting under a traditional household kettle. In such a way, the kettle becomes a full Davey boiler, but looks to the mainstream market just like a traditional kettle.
Here's a pic of one of my inverters running, the whole circuitry fits around the screw terminal of the unaltered household bulb:
(http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a129/slider27/100_0090-1.jpg)
Here''s a video demo, just to see how simple the circuit is and to see it in operation for potential Davey boiler uses:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vmgerjLztkc&feature=youtu.be
On my previous video, which shows the audible 'benefits' for tuning the frequency, one viewer just posted in answer to another viewer and it's related:
-----------------------------------
@spicer41282
You can build a JT circuit to resonate at various frequencies, depending upon your coil and capacitors you add. You can intentionally keep the resonant frequency real low ... for a nice pleasing HUM ... or high ... say 30khz or greater to be above human hearing. It might bother your dog though.
morpher44 2 hours ago
-----------------------------------
Here's that video, shows quite clearly how the audible tuning would need no speaker, external circuitry etc:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=afilkouuiJo&lc=v_eEVzpNnfRkC2NJSr3so12yQkcUFM3KhFQaZtqbS5A
I hope the idea is of merit and use.
First, the video of my 2-bell device boiling water (apparent OU) yesterday is shown here:
http://youtu.be/Nezjc-0DxcE
Replicates the 28 feb experiment, but with holes in the bells.
Very short -- less than 15 seconds. Notice the distinctive hissing sound.
Mark -- can we come up with variable freq output at about 500-800 W? that's what is needed here...
BUT -- as I tuned the bells to approx 240 Hz (as explained), the 60 Hz from the mains seems perhaps to be working.
I will soon try varying the voltage, and other bells.
Good continued work, Nerzh/Jean! let me replY IN CAPITALS.
Quote from: NerzhDishual on 2012.03.04, 21:23:31
@Prof. Jones
Yes, a Variac....
IMO, it should be also be possible to find a way to vary the freq.
I have found a lot of web pages about inverters circuits.
Suffice(?) to embezzle/hijack the frequency generator part of the Circuit.
This is a little bit over my head but I could be helped with an 'OU' phone-friend of mine.
-- OK, GOOD IDEA.
...
Your results look very very interesting. O0
I would be prudent and not give any precise COP number.
Anyway:
Just consider the means.
SB = (41 + 37 + 35) / 3 = 37.7
Control = (18 + 20 + 20) / 3 = 19.3
Of course, the COP is not 37.7 / 19.3 but this can been seen as an Increased Efficiency Ratio
(or something like that).
YES, I AGREE.
Now, please consider:
Your control can not be 'OU'. OK?
The efficiency of your control can not, also, be less than, saying, 60%.
Unless you are using a non 'conservative' control device (Div(EK) <>0). No? :o
NO, THE CONTROL SHOWS EFF < 1; YESTERDAY, ABOUT 70% FOR THE CONTROL.
Now: 37.7 * 0.6 / 19.3 > 1.
Would the efficient of your EK only be 51% that 37.7 * 0.51 / 19.7 = 1!
So, IMO, this is 'OU' Prof Jones!
IT APPEARS SO. MORE TESTING TOMORROW! (SUNDAY, TIME WITH FAMILY ETC)
Else #1: have you noticed that the 'standard deviation' of the SB is far more important than
the control? This, IMO, shows that, contrary to you EK, your SB is not a 'dead' device.
GOOD POINT; THE SB IS NOT A 'DEAD' DEVICE.
Else #2:
According to my Table Scale and some measurements, the weigh of a plastic beaker filled with 'hot' water
(hot > 50/60°) is not the same than the weight of the same beaker with ''cold' water (cold <20°).
It can vary of about 1% ore more.
For Ex: in my last experiment: 626 grams Vs 620 grams.
The plastic beaker by itself weigh 185 grams. Is it the plastic?
I PUT THE HOT-WATER CONTAINING VESSEL ON A PIECE OF STYROFOAM ALWAYS, ABOUT 1 CM THICK. THE WEIGHING DEVICE MAY BE HEAT-SENSITIVE, BUT THIS SOLVES PROBLEM.
So, Prof Jone all your result bode well.
My last one too!
http://freenrg.info/4SJ/More_Results/Encouraging_Results.html
I got a COP of 1.4???
YES, GOOD WORK -- YOUR COP FROM SAVIC' "FIXED-UP" DEVICE LOOKS MUCH BETTER THAN THE ORIGINAL! I ENCLOSE ONE OF YOUR PHOTOS OF THE ORIGINAL CONDITION BELOW.
Very Best,
Jean
SO WE CARRY ON -- WITH IMPROVED POSITIVE RESULTS! THANKS, JEAN.
-- STEVE
Great to see a video - have subscribed.
QuoteMark -- can we come up with variable freq output at about 500-800 W? that's what is needed here.
I'll get onto it!
A power MOSFET, such as the MJE13009 can handle the approx 6-7A current and the mains voltage (datasheet - http://www.datasheetcatalog.org/datasheet/stmicroelectronics/5294.pdf)
I'm seeing the power handling as 110W max though and that confuses.
I have another large split toroid and will see what happens with that transistor, but may run at 12V then 24V initially :)
Thanks, Mark and Jean! let us know of your progress... O0
So I've completed more experiments, 5 March 2012, since Saturday with the positive results, I wrapped the calorimeter I'm using in bubble wrap to better insulate it, to see whether this would improve the measured efficiency while running the resistive-heater control. See photo. I also refined the measurement regarding the input energy needed to bring the water to boiling temperature, just before beginning each VAPORIZATION run.
With these refinements, I wanted to see whether the efficiency in the CONTROL would be close to unity as expected -- and whether my little 2-bell device would continue to show "interesting" effects. Here are the results, in order that the data were acquired, again comparing evaporated-water-mass for the Kaloric-kettle/calorimeter control, and for the 2BSB system inside the SAME calorimeter. What I did today is to run for 17 kW-hrs for each run, both control runs and SB runs. First, I heated the water to boiling using the electric kettle, then weighed the water quickly on the mass scale, then did the boiling run putting 17kW-hrs into the control OR the SB, then quickly weighed the water again on the mass scale to determine the weight lost due to steam production.
Run Control or SB Measured Delta-mass (due to steam production)
1. Control 24 g (1748 g to 1724g)
2. SB 39 g
3. SB 33 g
4,5,6 Controls 23 g, 25 g, 25 g
7. SB 36g
Note that the control runs are in reasonable agreement, somewhat more variation with the sonic boiler -- but still, in each case the 2-bell sonic boiler caused a greater steam production than did the control. So the replication with refined "calorimeter" confirmed the results I obtained on 2 March and in February.
Now let's look at the efficiency n = Eoutput (heat) / Einput (electrical):
Control: Q out = 0.63*24.3g-vaporized = 15.3; n = 15.3 (output W-h)/16.5 (input W-h) = 93%.
So still some losses in the system but not bad.
Now for the 2-bell device I built based more-or-less on Davey's original design, the efficiency from the measurements;
Average of three device runs = 36 g vaporized; @ 0.63 W-h per gram vaporized:
2bell-sonic boiler: Q out = 0.63*36g= 22.7 W-h; n = 22.7 (output W-h)/16.5 (input W-h) = 138%.
Remarkable.
I performed another device-run after adding more water, and inputting 20 W-h this time; then the mass-drop of the water was 1701g to 1658g, 43 grams lost due to vaporization, so
Q out = 0.63 * 43g = 27.1 W-h
and
n = 27.1/ 20 = 136%, confirming the earlier results.
Oh, and also used a paper towel above the vessel to catch water-droplets; the mass increased from 7g to 8g, so the spitting is estimated at about a gram, having a small impact on the above results. Both the control and the device spit some water out, but the water level is roughly 10cm below the top of the vessel so much of the ejected liquid (from boiling action) would tend to fall back into the vessel.
E.g., the last result would go from 43g to 42g, and Qout to 26.5, so n= 26.5/20 = 132%.
Observation: I also note that a black powdery residue builds up on the bells especially hear the mouths of the bells as the device runs. I suspect this is a nickel oxide... I wiped this off with a paper towel from time to time as I think this might affect performance.
Whew! what fun! O0
But I had some bad news today also, from one of the "angel donors"... best put that on the "prize" thread...
That is great news Steve! I am really impressed. i have been going over all the info on the energetic forum page, and now here. I am glad to see you are making progress. I will post when i have some thoughts on the subject!
Hi blokes,
First of all, I have made a new web page about some of my "Spe_cal_culations" (TM ;))
http://jeanyves.hervouet.free.fr/NDS/Speculations.html (http://jeanyves.hervouet.free.fr/NDS/Speculations.html)
Slow (but free) web server.
I do like playing with (non random) numbers.
I also hate... some things.
I will shut my bl' f' French critical - nit picking - "theoretical(ly?)-oriented" inclinated big mouth.
Breton people are just 'mockers' and 'derisory'.
So, please imagine French + Breton?
Anyway. Guess what? Perhaps, after exchanging with you, would all of us be able to build
a kinda SSB while understanding what we are doing instead of trials and errors?
Actually, IMO, errors are indispensable but to many random trials are boring especially
when you have to reinvend a still existing sort of wheel.
-------------------------------
@Slider2732
Thanks for you videos.
Thanks for you offer.
Thanks for all, BTW. :)
I would need a continuous variable frequency pure sinus inverter that can deliver
up to 4 amps (about 1000 VA). IMO, This is not so easy to design. Is it?
------------------------------------
My 'COPs' (nothing to do with any Law Enforcement Officers) are those of a skeptic.
I'm not a skeptic (Free-Energy-wise) but I prefer to be very pessimistic.
Actually, the temperature of my room was also increasing and I do not take account of this.
Yes, I must insulate the beaker.
For the moment, I just want to see what is going on. I can see some 'huge' air 'bubble' ('water rim')
between the "Cup" and the "Ball". Sometimes it bursts rapidly, sometimes it is more stable for a while.
This is a clue.
-------------------------
I have measured 2 news cops. My 4 last measurements:
COP #1 1.4. Needs to be confirmed. Configuration Number 1 was used
COP #1 0.17 with the same configuration (Number 1) as #1 but a with a "ball" full of air.
COP #3 0.7 With another configuration (Number 2).
COP #4 0.68 with the same configuration(Number 2) as #3
This shows that the SSB efficiency is very depending upon the configurations (see pictures).
In MY bl' Opinion:
In the configuration Number 1 the cup can transmit its vibrations to the ball (and reciprocally).
In the configuration Number 2 the two "electrodes" are kinda "mechanically 'appart'".
(http://freenrg.info/4SJ/SSB_CONFIG_N1_Sm.jpg)
(http://freenrg.info/4SJ/SSB_CONFIG_N2_Sm.jpg)
Very Best,
Jean
Quote from: Armagdn03 on 2012.03.06, 21:02:10
That is great news Steve! I am really impressed. i have been going over all the info on the energetic forum page, and now here. I am glad to see you are making progress. I will post when i have some thoughts on the subject!
Good to hear from you, Andrew. Would like to hear your thoughts!
Good to hear from you also, Jean! I agree:
Guess what? Perhaps, after exchanging with you, would all of us be able to build
a kinda SSB while understanding what we are doing instead of trials and errors?
@Prof. Jones and Everybody,
Your own devices strongly seem to be 'OU'. Perfect! And thanks a lot for that.
IMO, you are on the right track.
Now, your devices are just made out of some 'fuzzy' parts. Or what?
In my bl' f' froggy Opinion (IMBFFO), with some frequencies tunings, you should be able
to multiply your COP by a consistent factor.
I think that I might have discovered - this very day - (hence not still tested)
some SSB secrets.
IMBFFO, these 'secrets' are:
It must be an Air?/HHO?/Else?/(void?-No!) gap between the 2 'electrodes' (even at 'rest').
The 2 'electrodes' must be in mechanical tight touch.
The 'gap' between the 2 'electrodes' must be in accordance of the wavelength relative to the
speed of 378 m/s.
http://jeanyves.hervouet.free.fr/NDS/Speculations.html
If the freq. of the grid is FG.
If the (main) freq of the first electrode is FE1
If the (main) freq of the second electrode is FE2
FE2 > FE1
You must (= it would be very nice (COP-wise) to) have:
FE1/FG = an integer number
FE2/FG = an integer number
FE2/FE1 = an integer number
Now, these considerations are just out of some of my (successful? and failed)
experiments and my playing with Prof Savic (shuffled?) numbers.
All comments, questions, criticisms are welcome, of coarse.
Very Brest,
Jean
Jean -- I can see that you have given the SB matter a great deal of thought. It may be that the frequencies should be varied and in proper ratios as you suggest... as I often say, "theory guides, experiment decides."
What particularly caught my attention was your link to the drawings you did of the SB, various versions. I attach one of these here for discussion. Let me start with this question -- did you do this drawing in September 2011? and if so, was it based on Prof Savic's design, or whose?
Hey Prof. Jones!
This picture is from Prof. Savic.
I'm Capricorn ascendant Virgo.
As soon as I see any information (picture or else) that could be of any help that
I store it in my computer. I'm also able to retrieve this information.
Astrologically wise:
I have also Neptune in my First House (for Music) and Uranus in my 10Th house
(for computer programming skills)..
I spare you my nasty moon in Scorpio... >:-)
Very Best,
Jean
I have dust in my house, does that count ? :)
FANTASTIC news on the 138% !
QuoteThis is not so easy to design. Is it?
I've been looking at such high power sine wave oscillators and need to work through what will work, rather than what will trip circuit breakers. The fave idea is a simple enough MOSFET flip/flop, with capacitor smoothing of what would be square wave output. Changing out capacitor values could, feasibly, introduce anything from sine to square if needed. Sharp snaps would seem prevalent in many areas of research, so is just an idea for incorporation.
But I do apologise for slowness, not been very well the last couple of days (wife thinks it's anxiety) and so have been a little less intense.
Take 'er easy, Mark! I find that exercise helps me reduce anxiety when I feel it rising (happens sometimes).
I have posted a private video from the 2-bell sonic boiler runs on 5 March 2012: http://youtu.be/N5y5B-8ndiw .
Friday, 9 March 2012. Today I constructed another 2-bell system, this time using iron crucibles (smaller nested inside the larger), again joined together using nylon nuts and a bolt.
Inner bell "hot", outer bell neutral wire. I wanted to see whether the iron Davey would work as well as the Nickel system. These are approx the same size, iron bells a little smaller. Will provide photo.
Nutshell, as it is late here: vaporized mass for 20 W-hrs was 42g, then 43 g. 42.5g X 0.63 = 26.8 W-h output. n = 26.8/20 = 1.34 (!) (The nickel bells gave approx. n = 1.38; both Ni and Fe are magnetic materials BTW.)
Still could hardly believe it, so I thought of another control. This one using the suspendable resistance heater I had purchased, placed in water in the SAME container/calorimeter. Important check, because now both the control and the 2-bell system are suspended (one at a time!), about the same depth in the water.
Also -- turns out the control used abt 300 Watts, the 2-Fe-bell-SB used about 310 Watts, so very close to the same time for the runs. Same input power and energy; we compare directly the output energies observed.
I was pleased at the similarity between control and 2-bell system. Anxious to try the control, did so.
Control Results: vaporized mass for 20 W-hrs (SAME on energy meter as for the 2-bell device): 34g, 29g, 28g, 33g, 31g. Average 31 g ==>
31 g X 0.63 = 19.5W-h output. n = 19.5/20 = 98%... very good, expected for the control runs.
Output energy comparison, 26.8 W-h / 19.5 W-h = 137%.
Wow, everything looking good. Does anyone want to try this? Easy to set-up really, once you have the bells to do it!! :D
Photos tomorrow ; its nearly midnight here.
Excellent O0
Just had a thought - Is it inherent to the bell system to get such results, or could that be a less than efficient comercial kettle ?
Am just so very impressed with how the bells work, that one has to wonder what a sceptic would leap to !
All i'm short of for an alarm clock bells test run is a nylon bolt and nut. But, hmm, will dig about. I wouldn't mind a short on a 1.5V AA, but mains is mains. The heat sensors etc are something I don't have.
My aim, is to simply make a coffee with something home built and it would be immediately practical. So yes, will be joining in.
Quite oddly and as a personal drive for efficiency, the first coffee of the morning comes through my present coffee maker as stone cold. It has to sit on the hotplate for about 15 minutes til it warms up. I have completely no idea how the water can raise up through the tube thing if it isn't being heated. Quite often, the method is to boil water on the stove for that first one, while the coffee maker slowly begins it's day :-\
Also, materials do have a huge importance, for the longevity of any practical solution system. We don't want folks having to replace corroded bells or having to throw cleaning agents in every couple of weeks. I'm sure that's an obvious, but was wondering such things within battery experiments and the way that deterioration level is increased with battery use. Therefore, 120V through these bells will presumably see rapid oxidation and erosion of the metals, even though made of the same metals. At least I probably need a clarification on that thought.
A 'sacrificial anode' may be a route if longevity issues do arise, something that people with especially harder water supplies would benefit from. At the most, they would pull the strip out every now and again and replace.
Quote from: Slider2732 on 2012.03.10, 09:59:00
Excellent O0
Just had a thought - Is it inherent to the bell system to get such results, or could that be a less than efficient comercial kettle ?
Am just so very impressed with how the bells work, that one has to wonder what a sceptic would leap to !
....
Indeed, it is an important question -- how do you PROVE anything to a skeptic? (do you need to??) OR, to your self? -- that is more important.
Think about this, though -- where does the heat from a resistance-water-heater go, if not into the water? see photos. I'm getting efficiencies of electrical-energy-into-heat of over 90% routinely now, with the insulated container, using two DIFFERENT controls. Some heat is lost in the wires etc, less than 8% according to the measurements. And the two different controls agree (to within about 5%). But maybe they are BOTH wrong by over 33%? And maybe the input energy meters are also BOTH WRONG? Or the weight scale (which is repeatable to about a gram) is off in measuring CHANGE in mass by over 33%? That's what it would take to over-turn the results above that I've presented.
I don't know that you could ever convince a skeptic, but that's a matter more of psychology than of science perhaps. Yet to convince myself and those who are scientific in their approach, I suppose I would need:
1. Higher efficiency, well above errors in measurement. If 134% or 138% is not enough, perhaps 200%? or 300%?
2. Replicated in four independent labs, all seeing over 200% efficiency? would that do it?
2. How about -- a self-runner? Extract output energy, convert to electricity in such a way as to self-run the device AND run a load at the same time. That would be the gold-standard, I suppose.
Comments? Can we ever be convinced, or convince others regarding freedom energy, with (1) above? or do we NEED a self-runner? would even that be convincing to "skeptics"??
If we get to the point where the device is heating your house and the bills are down by a factor of THREE (say), does it really matter if the "skeptics" are convinced or stop their derogatory comments?
PS -- I do think replication and scaling up are important. To this end, my next goals are to test Stainless Steel (SS) vessels that will be cheaper and easier to obtain than the crucibles I've been using (which I purchased from a chemistry-supply stockroom). I'm hoping the yield will also increase as I try different things.
I feel confident in the methods for measuring Einput and Eoutput, but always open for suggestions.
Note that with the last tests, two iron bells, the input power is 310 W and the output is 134% higher; so the net "anomalous input" power is about 100 Watts! where is it coming from??
Steve,
Interesting that you should mention stainless steel. I was about to propose the following test:
Dispense with the bell shape electrodes for now, and cut a number of SS plates, say 1.5" x 3" in dimension. Drill a 1/4" hole in each end and stack say 6 plates together with a nylon bolt and nuts for spacers. Connect every second plate to HOT and the other to NEUT. Try a test.
If you get similar or better results, then this is a little more accessible for everyone to try. It would also dispense with the notion that bell-shaped electrodes are required, and it may also dispense with the notion that they are resonating in some way.
.99
Quote from: poynt99 on 2012.03.10, 16:50:31
Steve,
Interesting that you should mention stainless steel. I was about to propose the following test:
Dispense with the bell shape electrodes for now, and cut a number of SS plates, say 1.5" x 3" in dimension. Drill a 1/4" hole in each end and stack say 6 plates together with a nylon bolt and nuts for spacers. Connect every second plate to HOT and the other to NEUT. Try a test.
If you get similar or better results, then this is a little more accessible for everyone to try. It also dispenses with the notion that bell-shaped electrodes are required, and it may also dispense with the notion that they are resonating in some way.
.99
Good idea. I would tend towards discs, avoid sharp points on plates. Anyway, hope others will jump in, the water is fine!
PS -- a Kaloric electric kettle gets you started for less than $25 bucks, and a 3000 gram scale is adequate, for about 11-16 bucks. And a grid watt-hour meter; I like the WANF from ebay, about $20. That's all you need for the boiling tests. Oh, and some bubble-wrap for the kettle helps too. Cheap and easy! and amazingly repeatable.
Attached photos of SS items -- IKEA is a great source for symmetrical SS vessels to try; I bought these a couple of months ago...Caution -- I will be traveling towards Maryland starting Monday; birth of a grand-daughter! So lab-time will be curtailed for a while... sigh... I might be able to do something in Md however.. ;)
@All
I contacted our friend ION he is a moderator here .
I Had asked him to have a look and contribute if he could [he's an honest level headed man with a very good grasp on the things we are discussing here]
Below is his reply
=================
Chet,
I am in the middle of a health crisis right now, so can't participate at this time. I do however see a few errors in the test methods being performed with the resistive heater versus the boiler.
Main problem is that steam production is not a scientific method, because of the concentration of energy between the electrodes, steam production is much more likely in the Davey type vessel, as opposed to a resistive heater, which will have to heat the entire vessel before steam can be produced.
The body of water in the Davey boiler does not have to heat up to 212 degrees before steam is produced, only the small area of water between the electrodes.
In the resistive heater, the entire body of water will need to rise to 212 before steam can be produced because of convection currents that tend to circulate and distribute heat from the resistor throughout the vessel.
This effect does not occur with the Davey type boiler because of the intense concentration of energy and trapping of the heat allowing very localized boiling while the rest of the chamber can be relatively cool.
To test apples against apples, compare the Davey boiler to a pair of well insulated close spaced electrodes immersed in the water with just the uninsulated tips of the wires in close proximity.
If you were trapping all the heat (and steam production) and merely measuring temperature rise of the water in the vessel, you would be closer to a scientific test with your existing method.
So steam production alone is not a true measure of the efficacy of the devices.
Consider as an example an old fashioned coffee percolator, where only a small amount of water is heated to the steam point, while the rest of the water remains cold or slightly warm. Compare that to the same wattage trying to heat the entire amount of water in the pot, it will take much longer to get to the steam point.
If you post this reply I will gladly answer a few questions on my view of the experiment.
Regards, ION
---------------------------
Sir
I pray you a speedy recovery!!
THX
Chet
It is kind of ION to comment on the private-group experiments and methods. However, I would like his opinion AFTER he better understands the method.
First, please note that the with this system, the greatest effect appears in my experiments during boiling, not simply during raising the temperature of water (below the boiling temp). I have presented results in both temperature regimes from the same sonic boiler system. It will not do, therefore to require that the experiment be performed below boiling temperature. This should be clear from the data I have already presented. But on to the most important misunderstanding --
ION writes:
QuoteThe body of water in the Davey boiler does not have to heat up to 212 degrees before steam is produced, only the small area of water between the electrodes.
In the resistive heater, the entire body of water will need to rise to 212 before steam can be produced because of convection currents that tend to circulate and distribute heat from the resistor throughout the vessel.
This effect does not occur with the Davey type boiler because of the intense concentration of energy and trapping of the heat allowing very localized boiling while the rest of the chamber can be relatively cool.
NO!
This is incorrect, because (as I explained before) the entire volume of the water is heated TO BOILING TEMPERATURE, using the resistive coil at the bottom of the electric kettle (EK), BEFORE the tests of evaporation begin. That is, I raise the water to a vigorous boil using the EK with the lid closed, quickly measure the mass, THEN insert either the resistive coil (control) or the 2-bell system, and begin the test, with the watt-hour meters now recording the input energy. There is a small loss due to the time involved in weighing and inserting the heater element, but this loss is evidently small as expected because the control experiment runs at 93 - 98% efficiency (in boiling).
IOW, I am measuring the amount of evaporation that occurs AFTER the entire volume of the water has been heated to essentially the boiling temperature for BOTH control and DUT. To suggest otherwise misrepresents the method terribly.
Now that the method is better understood, that the entire volume of water BEGINS essentially at boiling temp for all runs and that the insulation is good, I would like to hear if ION will explain if his objection still applies, or not.PS -- Chet, did you ask ION to read the entire thread here, so he could correctly understand my method before critiquing it? It appears he did not read it... I guess I'm a little uneasy about what you have done.
Steve
I apologies for the misunderstanding .When we first discussed using this venue we addressed The Moderator issue ,and I thought we agreed since ION would be able to read the thread
He should be welcome to comment [if he actually reads it].
Thx
Chet
EDIT
Ok ,I have had some time to think about this....
Over the years I have grown to understand that there are men involved in these forums for many different reasons.
It seems in life, every one has an agenda. .
Our Agenda here is to make this world a better place ,not bigger cars or Tv's, houses and so on.......
My point is we need assets to do this "People assets" ,men we can trust to the utmost!!
We are so few in such a big world ,We cannot afford to distance our selves from men of like mind ,It will stifle our cause!
The three moderators here are such men. Knowledgeable, sincere and dedicated men,just like yourself Steve.
At this moment I feel vulnerable ,in need of help ,with few men of like mind in my life,men I can trust.
at Times That trust requires faith ,Faith in our creator as well as our fellow man.
I trust ION ,and wish him a speedy recovery !
Sorry for the awkward moment here............
Chet
PS
His comment did help clarify one thing to me ,it should have been profoundly obvious but I am not the brightest bulb.
Of the two different techniques being used here ,one is inherently a steam maker ,from the moment you turn it on regardless of the water temp.
OK, Chet, but still waiting to hear from ION then why the method was misrepresented in his critique.
On March 4th, I stated the method I think clearly:
QuoteResults follow, comparing evaporated-water-mass for the Kaloric EK control, and for the 2BSB system. What I did is to run for 19 kW-hrs for each run, both control runs and SB runs. First, I heated the water to boiling using the EK, then weighed the water quickly on the mass scale, then did the boiling run putting 19kW-hrs into the control OR the SB, then quickly weighed the water again on the mass scale to determine the weight lost due to steam production.
Actually, I thought my post of 28 February 2012 was already quite clear on this point:
QuoteI found using the control that if I would first heat the water to near boiling with the lid closed, then weigh the vessel, then proceed with boiling -- then weigh again, the input electrical energy agreed with the output heat as determined from the mass evaporated:
Qevap = 2261 J/g * delta-mass (the mass of the evaporated water) ... "
So how could this method be mis-construed?
And, more importantly, what if anything is wrong with this method (pre-heating the water to essentially boiling temperature BEFORE taking the measurements described)? and is there a better method when boiling is involved? I'm always open to new ideas for making measurements!
Steve
Are you aware of this?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VOQbVD7F1f4
Self runs after start up, 1000 liters per day.
THX
Chet
Quote from: ramset on 2012.03.11, 17:10:49
Steve
Are you aware of this?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VOQbVD7F1f4
Self runs after start up, 1000 liters per day.
THX
Chet
Informative vid, but it takes input power, recovers SOME of the output energy so that it runs very efficiently (according to the vid).
Why do you say "Self runs after start up"? do you mean ou?
Steve
I see gen 5 on this latest vid, I know this started off as a sterling engine [Gen 1]
As I watched the vid He speaks about it only needing power fo start up and then it works in a closed loop
Did you hear that part? I am working [of course ] but I will run the Vid again and mark the spot!
Thx
Chet
EDIT
I see now he speaks of needing only 2% of the power it would normally take to accomplish this.
Chet said:
QuoteOf the two different techniques being used here ,one is inherently a steam maker ,from the moment you turn it on regardless of the water temp.
I will try to clarify a response as time permits, but Chet has got the idea. The resistive heater is always at a slight disadvantage due to convection currents that slow the boiling process, not so with the Davey boiler.
This is just my opinion in a reply to Chet's PM. I have read most of the thread and understand the methods being used.
Carry on, we can agree to disagree.
Hi People,
I have made some others measurements.
I have not been able to get a 'correct' COP. ???
My new COPs are between 0.6 and 0.75 if my memory serves me right
(even when I take account of the room temperature increase).
This is less than a mere kettle.
Prof Jones is having very interesting results with non-tuned devices.
Just cups if I'm not mistaken.
For any 'OU' device, the question is: where does the extra energy come from?
My question would be: where does the energy vanish?
When you get a COP of 0.17 as I did (with the "ball" full of air) you are allowed
to ask such questions. RU not?
More to come ASAP.
Very Best,
Jean
Quote from: ION on 2012.03.11, 18:57:23
I will try to clarify a response as time permits... The resistive heater is always at a slight disadvantage due to convection currents that slow the boiling process, not so with the Davey boiler.
This is just my opinion in a reply to Chet's PM.....
Great -- will await your clarification. Please recall that I have holes in the top of both bells in my 'best' devices, to enhance convection, so perhaps this convection is not so unlike the IMMERSION resistive heater that I use. What differs greatly is the efficiency between the control and the 2-bell system.
ION: Do you understand and agree that all the water in the vessel is PRE-HEATED to essentially boiling temperature BEFORE any testing is done, or do you still "Disagree" on that critical point?
Quote from: NerzhDishual on 2012.03.11, 20:54:17
Hi People,
I have made some others measurements.
I have not been able to get a 'correct' COP. ???
My new COPs are between 0.6 and 0.75 if my memory serves me right
(even when I take account of the room temperature increase).
This is less than a mere kettle.
Prof Jones is having very interesting results with non-tuned devices.
Just cups if I'm not mistaken.
For any 'OU' device, the question is: where does the extra energy come from?
My question would be: where does the energy vanish?
When you get a COP of 0.17 as I did (with the "ball" full of air) you are allowed
to ask such questions. RU not?
More to come ASAP.
Very Best,
Jean
Jean, getting efficiency of near 1 for the control is a good indication that your insulation is good as well as input energy measurements.
A COP of 17% is not understood... where does the energy vanish? -- is the right question. Is something (a wire perhaps) in the air and very hot?
LOWER than
Still looking for a good nylon bolt here, but have had a thought, picture attached.
Several areas stand out - the hole requirement, compactness, resilient metals, simplified reliable construction. Also, the wish stated to see just whether the bells need in fact to be bells.
On taking apart an old hard drive for parts yesterday, I looked at the platinum platters and wondered what you think of using them ?
They are 3 1/2" diameter and would allow for a flattened assembly, if indeed they worked.
Arranged just like the bells, one on top of the other, such a system would be akin to an HHO bubbler, 2 same metal plates, high voltage and current passing between.
Best wishes for your road trip Steve and to your daughter and the little'un :)
Thanks, Mark.
I'm impressed by those platinum platters! One could use two, or several as .99 suggested -- alternating hot and neutral. What are the platinum platters made of actually? (not platinum I assume :D )
The nylon bolts and nuts and spacers I have found at two hardware stores; the third did not carry them. I used two nuts on the single bolt, BETWEEN the 2 iron bells, thinking this would allow for adjustment later...
QuoteION: Do you understand and agree that all the water in the vessel is PRE-HEATED to essentially boiling temperature BEFORE any testing is done, or do you still "Disagree" on that critical point?
Yes, I agree. But container losses will have more of an effect on the resistive heater and will have little effect on the Davey unit as explained below.
While the numbers look encouraging, the next step in rigorous scientific analysis is to examine the test setup and how differences could account for the higher steam output of the Davey device versus the electric immersion heater.
!) The Davey bells represent a
batch process, whereby a very small amount of water is subjected to an intense electric potential at the apex of the bells, where most constriction occurs. As the water in this region is heated and bursts into steam, it quickly rises to the rim area of the bells and exits as steam bubbles. Cold water rushes in to fill the vacant space and the next
batch begins. This occurs rapidly and would appear to be continuous.
The Davey device is affected only slightly by the surrounding water temperature and is relatively unaffected by losses through the container walls. It will produce steam almost instantly wether immersed in cold, warm or hot water.
2) The resistive heater can be considered a
continuous process rather than batch process, as the entire volume of water is involved in the temperature rise to the steam point, and losses through the container walls impedes steam production due to convection currents that circulate and conduct through the container walls to the outside world. Heating from the resistive element occurs over a large area along the immersion heaters surface and is not concentrated as in the Davey Bells. This puts the resistive heater at a slight disadvantage. The container losses in this case provide a slight drag on the boiling process.
Were this experiment bringing in COP's of 3 or 4 to 1, I might not question the test method with such scrutiny, but a 30% improvement leads me to look at the differences.
From the beginning, I have stayed out of the Davey thread, because I saw that many were impressed by the videos of the bubbling steam rising out of the water as he demonstrated the devices. I saw that this would take a long time to heat the surrounding water, in fact, a good deal of it would be evaporated before it approached 212 F, again due to the nature of the batch process, and it's efficiency at producing steam bubbles.
As POYNT recommended, consider running the Davey unit against a pair of closely spaced plates. I would recommend a pair of concentric cylinders, closed off with an insulating means at one end. Both of these methods would be more like a batch process and similar to the Davey Bells.
Not trying to rain on anyone's parade, but opinions and input have been requested by Prof Jones, so feel completely free to disregard this input.
Best Regards, ION
PS To Prof......have you any measurements of the thermal loss of your container? What power input to the resistive heater is required to maintain the water very close to the steam point (just below) for an extended period? perhaps a few hours? This will give us an idea of the Watts lost to the outside ambient.
Also an accurate cross sectional mechanical drawing of the Bell assembly would be a big help. Thank you.
I have just a short time before our travel begins. I call you attention to the attached photo -- showing the actual immersion heater used in the latest tests and two of the 2-bell systems.
Glad to see that you agree that the entire water volume was pre-heated, ION, for this is the case. This is the part that I disagree with:
QuoteION:
2) The resistive heater can be considered a continuous process rather than batch process, as the entire volume of water is involved in the temperature rise to the steam point, and losses through the container walls impedes steam production due to convection currents that circulate and conduct through the container walls to the outside world. Heating from the resistive element occurs over a large area along the immersion heaters surface and is not concentrated as in the Davey Bells.
On the contrary, the immersion heater heats the area just around it -- very much like the 2-bell system. Both involve heating in a concentrated area along with convection. If anything, the immersion heater is smaller than the 2-bell system; I expect the heating therefore to be concentrated around it. They are immersed to approx the same depth. Even power inputs are similar, at approx 300 W as I reported before, for the runs a few days ago.
Therefore, I ask you to reconsider the above statement, given the photographic information -- along with the fact that the control and DUT have approx. the same POWER and therefore the same time-duration for experiments -- and therefore close to the SAME heat loss through the walls (which are covered in TWO layers of bubble-wrap insulation). The fact that the control comes in close to unity for efficiency shows that the heat loss (during the short run) is small.
I certainly agree that a cop of 2 or 3 would simplify the analysis, of course. Working on it.....
And I invite others to jump in.
I am taking some experimental gear, and in about 8 days I hope to resume experiments.
Lets look at it another way. Instead of steam production lets say we wished to rise the water in each container to near boiling from a cold start. We could put thermocouples or thermometers in the water to measure rate of rise. I prefer thermocouples because you can chart the race with a two pen chart recorder or other PC based data acquisition system.
The Davey Bell system will be quickly making steam bubbles, very little heat energy of each bubble will be exchanged to the water when one considers the surface area of a bubble compared to the energy of the interior volume of a bubble. As new rushes of cold water replace the escaping bubbles, there will be some mild preheating of the water as it enters the chamber, there will not be appreciable convection currents established, as the new batch of steam produced will mostly be lost at the surface of the water.
The thermocouple in this chamber will show a very slow rise in temperature, since most of the heat is lost when the bubble bursts on the surface and escapes. If there was a way to capture all of this energy e.g by using a tall thin chamber such that all of the steam energy is conducted to the water, causing the bubbles to eventually collapse and condense into the water, the picture might be different.
In the resistive heater, whether you can see them or not, convection currents will be established immediatly, but no steam will be produced until you rich the "brick wall", the 100 C or 212 F point. I say brick wall because the amount of energy required to cross into the boiling point is much larger than any other incremental temperature along the rise.
Generally, the resistive heater will be far more efficient at heating the water in the vessel, as it does not have to deal with steam losses until the boiling point is reached.
Generating steam for both methods, and weighing the containers afterwards would be a perfect method if the generating means were somewhat similar. I am merely stating that they are different and will yield different results.
QuoteOn the contrary, the immersion heater heats the area just around it -- very much like the 2-bell system. Both involve heating in a concentrated area along with convection. If anything, the immersion heater is smaller than the 2-bell system; I expect the heating therefore to be concentrated around it. They are immersed to approx the same depth. Even power inputs are similar, at approx 300 W as I reported before, for the runs a few days ago.
I will have to disagree with your disagreement of my assessment of the amount and degree of convection in each case, as I have explained.
Please carry on and best of luck with your research in this area......and remember
the Devil is in the details
Some while ago. someone in the ###### Earth Light thread at EF said there was a platinum coating on those drive platters and to try them out in salts cell batteries. I did, the platter material was naff lol. So, it's been of interest to find out more about the construction.
Wiki was fine for an overview:
QuoteThe material of the main magnetic medium layer is usually a cobalt-based alloy.
And later:
QuotePlatters are typically made using an aluminium or glass and ceramic substrate. In disk manufacturing, a thin coating is deposited on both sides of the substrate, mostly by a vacuum deposition process called magnetron sputtering. The coating has a complex layered structure consisting of various metallic (mostly non-magnetic) alloys[clarification needed] as underlayers, optimized for the control of the crystallographic orientation and the grain size of the actual magnetic media layer on top of them, i.e. the film storing the bits of information. On top of it a protective carbon-based overcoat is deposited in the same sputtering process. In post-processing a nanometer thin polymeric lubricant layer gets deposited on top of the sputtered structure by dipping the disk into a solvent solution, after which the disk is buffed by various processes
If nothing else, that's a lot of different natural resonant frequencies I would imagine.
Even so, we're looking at an easily sourced material if such platters work.
I welcome your views ION, you're a much friendlier chap than some in the larger community, the arguments are balanced and rational. Stepping through your points is a very valid requirement and i'm glad to see the need to do so, before any public announcement has been made.
A more effective morning coffee maker is my drive. On a cold morning, If it used the same power, in the same time frame, but produced an actually hot coffee then it would trounce on my store bought one !
The immersion heater that I used, shown clearly in the photo last posting, dips about 2-3 inches below the surface of the water, and I have about 1-1.5 liters of water, top diameter in the calorimeter is about 4".
Steam forms quite quickly around this immersion boiler, even when the water is not so hot. When you get feeling better, why don't you try it? Costs about $7 via Amazon as I recall (I've had this for months now). Be sure to use about a liter or so of water in a tall vessel, as I've shown in photos. Experimentally, I don't find that the behavior is as you describe:
QuoteGenerally, the resistive heater will be far more efficient at heating the water in the vessel, as it does not have to deal with steam losses until the boiling point is reached.
If you're really saying the immersion heater "does not have to deal with steam losses until the boiling point of the water generally in the vessel is reached" -- then that just plain is false. Sorry, but I have to go with the experimental evidence. I've worked with this immersion heater for some time now.I think this little heater would work fine in a CUP of water, if you stirred it a bit. That's a different situation!!
If I can't get the cop up near 2, I might try another calorimeter. But the fact remains that the efficiency measured with the immersion heater shown in the photo, with pre-heated water as explained repeatedly, is close to unity as expected. It is not significantly heating up the water in the vessel generally before boiling!
Gotta run!
Hi everybody, salve a tutti hag Demat d'an holl,
@Ramset,
My only "Agenda" -appart from taking care of my family as far as I can- is, at least, to test
an obvious overunity device and to announce my 'finding' in one fringe publications.
At best to replicate such an apparatus.
At "more best" to invent my own appliance.
Just before I die.I do not need any (more) fame and/or money.
In the average, the Universe was kind for me (for the moment?).
I'm very far from being a saint: smoking and boozing are not 'unfamiliar' to me.
Anyway, Shrouds have no pockets and a lot of lost greedy souls roam the Beyond (IMO).
-------------------------
I do agree with ION:
Quote... only a small amount of water is heated to the steam point, while the rest
of the water remains cold or slightly warm.
I have shown this it 2 vids.
http://www.freenrg.info/4SJ/Exp1_320-240.mp4
http://www.freenrg.info/4SJ/Exp2_320-240.mp4
BTW: for my part, healt-wise, I highly abuse of C vitamin.
-------------------------------------
I also do agree with Prof. Jones and his way of conducting his experiments.
No need to repeatedly explain, please,
I had the same idea.
Unfortunately, with the Savic's Sonic Boiler, it is not possible. :-\
Actually, I have made another pdf file about the Ohmic resistance of the (inactive) Sonic Boiler
(inserted in a kettle) depending upon the temperature of the water.
It is on:
http://www.freenrg.info/4SJ2/SB_Resistance_Vs_Temperature.pdf
--------------------------
Now, might I suggest to Prof. Jones to try this very simple experiment?.
For my part, I have not done it yet. But I will.
Put, for example, 600 grams of water in your electric kettle.
Use your best table scale to weight the kettle and the water.
Plug this kettle on the grid.
BTW: a French saying: "Cela fonctionne mieux quand c'est branché"
= It works better when plugged. :)
Let this water boil and evaporate for a while.
Please, switch off the power supply.
Wait for a while just to not be burned.
Weigh the Kettie and the water. Jot this number.
Wait for about one hour.
Weigh the Kettie and the water. Jot this number.
Wait for about another hour.
Weigh the Kettie and the water. Jot this number.
Wait for about another hour.
Weigh the Kettie and the water. Jot this number.
Wait for about 12 hours (or more).
Weigh the Kettie and the. Jot this number.
Sorry, this will impede you to use your favourite kettle for a while.
No further comment for the moment.
Very Best,
Jean
Well said, Nerzh (Jean).
And sure, I'm willing to try your experiment... as soon as I get finished traveling and visiting so I can set up a little experiment! It will probably be a few days at least.
As long as you keep the LID ON, so the vessel is covered, the weight loss due to evaporation should be small (otherwise significant IMO). We'll see -- I like experiments, you see.
Steve
I noted: "Steam forms quite quickly around this immersion boiler, even when the water is not so hot." However, while traveling, I regret that I'm not in a position to quantify this statement at the moment -- because the things I would need to make measurements are packed away. So I should add that caveat and not state this too strongly. I have not done many experiments with the immersion boiler in "not so hot" water -- only when the water was pre-heated to essentially boiling using the built-in resistive heater at the bottom of the Kaloric electric kettle. This is where I generally start when taking data with the little immersion heater suspended near the top of the water in the vessel -- and where I start generally with the sonic boiler also. Then, in both cases, the boiling begins right away; near the surface where the heat in each case is concentrated.
If I started with water well-below the boiling temp (which is about 93 C at my altitude at home), then the analysis for calculating heat output would be significantly more complicated than what I have recently shown. In that case, which I have avoided in recent experiments by pre-heating the water as explained, then I would have to add
Q = 4.19 * mass of water heated * (Tfinal - Tinitial).
THAT would be problematical, because "mass of water heated" would be the issue -- I would have to add stirring etc to get the entire volume heated with either the little immersion heater (which is suspended near the surface of the water) or the sonic boiler (also suspended near the surface of the water), as well as using the above equation ALONG with the equation for Qboiling. I don't want to mess with all that; but could do. I don't see why that would help though.
By pre-heating the entire volume of the water to essentially boiling, I can simply measure the mass of vaporized water as I have explained. Then with the volume of water pre-heated in both cases, the boiling around the heating element (immersion heater or Davey boiler) is indeed almost immediate. And the result for the immersion element is that the cop is nearly unity, which gives me some confidence in the reliability of this method.
@Prof Jones,
Yes, I definitely agree with your methods.
This Sonic Boiler is just given me headaches.
Even by taking account of the room temperature increase (about 0.6 Celsius degrees)
and the volume of the small piece where I make my experiments (about 25 m^3), all my new
COPs are pathetically under Unity. :-[
So, I have ordered 2 one meter/5mm diameter nylon threaded rods,a bunch of bolts, spacers, washer of
the same metal. I have also a load of cups and a drilling machine that are just waiting to be used.
So more to come, ASAP, about my onw Sonic Boilers.
Now, if you want to increase your COP, it suffice to wait, saying, one day, before weighting your water. :)
You can consult:
http://www.freenrg.info/4SJ2/Kettle_Water_Weight.pdf (http://www.freenrg.info/4SJ2/Kettle_Water_Weight.pdf)
http://www.freenrg.info/4SJ2/SB_Water_Weight.pdf (http://www.freenrg.info/4SJ2/SB_Water_Weight.pdf)
It is not the first time (it happends each time) that I notice this phenomenon.
No, IMO, it is not a matter of evaporation.
Very Best,
Jean
Hey guys. I have read over many many posts now concerning this device, Lots of great info, lots of great experimentation and exploration. My question is.....What is the mechanism for gain!!! I do not see a working theory yet on how this can hit resonance at mains freq, and even if it could, how does this translate into an energy gain? I have many ideas on where to go, but would like to hear why people think this behaves the way it does?
My guiding theoretical idea is a simple one -- steam formation /bubbling causes the bells to "ring" at their natural frequencies. But why that should 'pull in' what I should like to call "Tesla energy", I do not know.
I think Jean "the musician" may have a theory, Jean?
To me, and a solid experimental result is worth a dozen theoretical speculations... BUT sometimes a theoretical model can be a GREAT help to guide to better experiments!
PS -- still traveling, computer contact very limited (when I find time AND local wifi).
Hi Prof Jones and People,
No theory. I wish I had one. Perhaps have I some clues?
I'm wondering whether this is not just a matter of mechanical resonance and standing waves?
---------------------
Actually, with mechanical resonance Tesla could perform amazing things. Could he not?
For ex:
Tesla's oscillator: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tesla%27s_oscillator (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tesla%27s_oscillator)
Nikola Tesla's Earthquake Machine: http://www.excludedmiddle.com/earthquake.htm (http://www.excludedmiddle.com/earthquake.htm)
Mainstream Science does not consider resonance as 'OU'. My (poor?) common sense does not agree. :-X
-------------------------
In fact, we have at least 2 frequencies.
The freq of the grid - the "prime mover"?- (60 Hz for USA and 50 Hz for Europe, for ex.)
The main freq of one cup.
In the Savic's Sonic Boiler (SSB) the ball does not really vibrate and seems to act as a kinda "wall". IMO. In the Prof. Jones's Sonic Boiler (PJSB) we have a second "cup" that is really vibrating also.
My take is that the main freq(s) of the cup(s) should be integer multiples of of the grid freqs.
50: 100, 150, 200, 250, 300 ...500 ...
60: 120, 180, 240, 300, 360 ...600 ...
Now, perhaps, some Intermodulations and cross-modulations would do the "mechanical resonance" job?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intermodulation
http://users.tpg.com.au/users/ldbutler/Intermodulation.htm
The difference between intermodulation and cross-modulation
http://www.edaboard.com/thread23049.html
Now, have the main freq(s) of the cup(s) to precisely match the previous numbers?
I dunno. Perhaps one secret is that inter/cross modulations could give some low earth freq (about 7 Hz). In that case, and without strong theory or fortunate luck ('mojo') huge COPs would be out of reach???
--------------------
About standing wave and according to what Prof Savic could had scarcely and 'cryptly' disclosed: I might have found a relation between the "gaps" between the 2 part/electrodes of a sonic boiler.
In some pictures of his "empty beer can sonic boiler", prof Savic gave very accurate mysterious gaps: 2.1 mm and 2.52 mm. BTW, he also gave a gap of 1.725 mm ??? Should come from any other calculation.
If the speed of sound in boiling water is 1512 m/s
According that:
Lambda = V / F
Lambda (meters) = wavelength
V = speed (meters/ seconds)
F = frequency (Hz).
Should you consider 1/4 wavelength.
Lambda/4 = (1512/(60 * 300)) /4 = 0.0210 m = 2.10 mm
Lambda/4 = (1512/(50 * 300)) /4 = 0.0252 m = 2.52 mm
Multiplying freqs does not make sense to me.
BTW: 2.10 mm gap was given for Europe (50 Hz) and 2.52 was given for USA (60 Hz).
Pictures from Prof Savic are here:
http://jeanyves.hervouet.free.fr/NDS/Speculations.html (http://jeanyves.hervouet.free.fr/NDS/Speculations.html)
No comment = I will shut my Big F' Bl' Froggy French Critical Nasty Derisive Mouth. :)
------------------
Now, People, please, make your own theory...
The principles, most of time, are very simple. The results can, of course, be very very complicated.
For example: you can design a black and white table plotter 2D software with just 3 basic instructions.
- Pen Up
- Pen Down
- GoTo X,Y
Very Best,
Jean
Hello Chaps,
In the the very famous(?) "Marché Saint Martin" of Brest/Brittany/France
I came across a very nice INOX 0.5 liter Thermos bottle. One Euro.
The Savic's Sonic Boiler (SSB) just perfectly fit in it.
So, I will be able to perform some new measurements.
But, please, do not hold your breath!
It sounds like (pun intended) that the SSB and me are not friends.
Anyway, I definitely not give up and will try some SB of my own.
This will be absolutely open source, of course.
Very Best from Brest,
Jean
"Anyway, I definitely not give up and will try some SB of my own." -- HURRAY!
That is my feeling also, Jean.
And I agree that multiples of the basic (50 or 60 Hz) makes sense, along with differences, to make "beat frequencies."
PS -- my daughter went into the hospital, in labor, yesterday. So we changed some plans and came directly to her house yesterday.
My wife and I are taking care of her four children, but at least I'm settled for about 2 weeks, and have decent computer contact!
Also some experimental equipment.
PS 2 -- I was informed today that my colloquium talk at BYUniversity was recently canceled... and I was given the name of an administrator to contact when I asked why. Hmmm.... suppression? I will try to reach him soon.
'
The announcement from a web page of the university is attached fyi. Note that I was before INVITED to speak on alt-energy; now the talk has been canceled. Strange?
Could it be simply that the Uni has old fashioned views on energy ? One of those cases of it not being in the science books, so therefore is folly. Depends which corporations donate too, though I know nothing of finances in the USA for such places.
It's certainly a case in point though for a demonstration to be given, just to make the folks stop a second and wonder for longer.
About Moray. I was reading from several sources recently and his diodes popped up time after time. Most was just chatter, but a couple of times I read of his liking for Radium and other radioactive substances introduced to those diodes. Could emissions from the diodes have gone a long way to the performance within his device ?
I have always wondered too, is there ever a case where radioactive resonance is achieved ? I've no idea, but it seems logical that a particle emitting at a constant rate can rattle a containing chamber into a feedback loop condition. I would also imagine it to be something well known and that I just don't know the name of ???
Linking to the boilers though, and I will keep this brief. In aviation there is a system of lift that was developed by the Horten brothers in Nazi Germany. Their flying wing gliders used the principle and, so successfully, that Northrop engineers spent quite some time examining a WWII captured jet engine equipped Horten IX V3 (Garber facility at the Smithsonian being restored now) which proved valuable in the design of the B2.
Bell shaped lift is easy to picture. It's little to none at the edges of wings, increasing toward the mid section, in the shape of a 2 dimensional bell.
So, how does this relate to sonic boiling of water ?
Well, water molecules at the sides will have the least distance to travel, but will also have the least energy. They can't resonate very far on their own. But, they are in contact with the tuned bell, they have a frequency of vibration. What they can do, is push the next inward molecule by a small amount. The power of any push relates to the dimensions of the bell and the Watts being introduced. You can see, how a 'child on a swing' analogy can run, when the Wattage is sufficient to begin a large enough push of molecules toward the middle area of water. As the distance toward the middle decreases, the particles travelling to the middle will meet those coming from the other edge and resonate, in harmony, ramping the forces to the opposite sides.
All the while, the heated water is rising, into the rest of the bell shape.
As the diameter of the bell decreases, the intensity of the 'waves of energy' increases.
We have an OU possibility, based on resonance and also the reason for the bell shape.
The intensity is where we expect it to be, at the top of the bell, just as the lift of the Horten aircraft was centered on the nose.
That's one theory anyway :)
Perhaps the above is quite similar to Jean's theory...I just haven't the mental abilities to put those sorts of equations into print !
Hi People,
@Prof. Jones: IMO, for the moment, Mainstream Science is very reluctant to admit any 'OU' (= COP >1) (over the definitive impossibility of 'Perpetual Motion' - Is not any atom in "perpetual" motion? )... Excepting COPs of heat pumps and fridges :P
But Times (They) Are (a-) Changin(g). No?
-----------------
@Slider2732
Thank you very very much for pointing out this German Invention. Food for thought. Peter D. Davey was an aircraft fighter pilot who discovered his device while observing anomalous heat in his cup shaped cockpit. This is the story.
Googling "Horten brothers" gives a lot of pages.
I'm not sure to understand you fully yet (= I'm sure to not understand you fully :-X) but I will try. Perhaps one or 2 sketchings could be hepfull?
Please, do not under estimate your mental abilities...
BTW: I have no theory....
Just few speculations and common sense ideas.
IMO, the "theory" is not so complicated.
More precisely: the "theory" could be complicated but the basic recipe should be simple (or is it just the opposite?)
I do not want to too (2-2) pontificate but:
Theory first = Hertzian waves.
Basic recipe = Ruhmkorff coil + Branly-Lodge "Coherer" = Very Old Radio.
Basic recipe first= Stream engine.
Theory after = Sadi Carnot.
So...
-----------------------
I have not been inactive.
As I often go to the Brest's Saint-Martin Market, I have purchased one more 1.5 liters Thermos
Bottle (10 Euros); a big Inox cup (one Euro); 3 nice Inox kinda "fruit dishes" (0.5 Euro each)
from which I can get 3 cups.
I should have more than 12 different cups, for the moment.
Pictures to come soon.
I have also ordered and received an accurate digital thermometer (GTH 175/PT).
For ex: http://www.erichsen.de/physical-measurement/handheld-instruments/digital-precision-pocket-thermometer-gth-175-pt/view?set_language=en (http://www.erichsen.de/physical-measurement/handheld-instruments/digital-precision-pocket-thermometer-gth-175-pt/view?set_language=en)
I wish I were a fitter and had a turning lathe.
I could purchase a small one. Unfortunately dealing with precision is over my fingers
and my mind.
----------------
Did I already tell you this (sorry for repeating myself)?:
I made a lot of random experiments with my own interpretations/replications? of the Peter Daysh Davey Boiler.
If my memory serves, my COPS were from 0.9 to 1.1 when just heating water.
I was not even aware that the 'magic' begins when you evaporate the said water.
Thanks to Prof Savic for pointing this out.
I was not even aware that you need 2261 (+-1?) Calories to evaporate one gram of water. Right?
I was not even aware that I was so dumb.
It is a Cosmic Rule = you just can judge your cleverness with you own discernment (or inversely, of course).
I stop here my delirium.
More ASAP and Very Best,
Jean
Great to hear from you, Nerzh! always with worthwhile insights -- and sense of humor! You're certainly right regarding mainstream science...
Today, I got back into experiments on the Davey device. First the control using the immersion heater I brought with me -- in the same calorimeter as before, which I brought with me. See photo.
The result was consistent with what I got back in Utah --
Control: 29 g of water vaporized with 20 W-hours of heat put in. Efficiency for the control, approx. 94%.
All this is good.
I had 4 grandchildren watching, helping -- budding scientists!
AFter they went to bed, I pulled out the two-bell system I brought with me. It is a bit more dangerous than the immersion heater IMO, so I waited till they went to bed.
The 2-bell system I brought is not my best one, but performed well enough.
2-bell device: 36 g of water vaporized with 20 W-hours of heat put in. Efficiency for this device, approx. 120%.[/b]
I'm still happy to invite any/all to jump in -- the water is fine! I have brought various bells with me to try more builds as time permits out here. My daughter has the baby inside still... she came back home from the hospital for further "natural waiting" you see.
Still doing a lot of traveling... sorry I haven't posted much.
However, yesterday before the trip, I put together another Davey-style sonic boiler. Hope to test it soon; watching the grand-children!
Definitely Off Topic.
Just to add one message to the thread.
Musics that could trigger emotions.
Spanish:
Yasmin Levy - La Alegria
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RXUqioIc1yY
French (Canadian):
Zachary Richard - Jean Batailleur 2005
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5EHur93dA_U
Breton:
Denez Prigent - An Hini A Garan
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1uBR6KpB8j8
Gwella soñjou a-berz Jean.
I had a bad flu... ugh! just getting over it. And things getting busy here again -- Daughter is going into the hospital this evening, to be induced; so my dear wife and I have the grand-kids starting then. (Plus had some car trouble... water pump... what fun...)
Anyway, bottom line, I won't be on much here, for a while. Please feel free to post if you wish! or on the other forums.
Nerzh gave me a vid- link, that talked about back EMF. Very good, then the prof went on to talk about induction-heating. Basically, the plate is a transformer-primary, lots of windings, and the pan sitting on top is just ONE winding -- so gets a very high current. MAGNETIC pan, so skin depth of the heated area is shallow -- and HIGH resistance! clever.
Then I realized that the two - bell system I've described above will have an inductive heating component... and this may be quite important... back EMF and all that. The bells are attracted strongly by a perm-magnet -- I checked. Anyway, just a thought -- bye for now.
Steve
@Prof. Jones,
Best wishes for your daughter
For avoiding the flu, personally, I ingest about 3 to 5 grams of natural C vitamin each day.
About the link, here it is:
Physics 12 June 3 U9L4 Back EMF
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dSb_-m6QVcc
About another musical link. Sorry . I can not help:
LAST OF THE MOHICANS - Royal Scots Dragoon Guards.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BR-csWS1bcM
Very Best,
Jean