Seems this "corner of the forum" is getting quiet, except for mbrownn and Hiwater...
This based on a post I made at Lasersaber's "new" forum; which I recommend for your consideration:
http://laserhacker.com/forum/index.php?topic=81.0#new
A clever fellow named Gabriel claims:
QuoteFriction heater running in my house
There is a light oil between the disks, that gets hot.
He writes at EF on 31 Oct 2012: http://www.energeticforum.com/renewable-energy/12565-friction-heater-running-my-house.html
QuoteQuote
This friction heater I have built costs me around 5 cents a hour to run @ 14 cents a kilowatt. The inside temp of my house is at 70F day and night, the out side is around 30F to 10F. That would be a delta T between 40F and 60F. My house is around 1250 sq. ft.
Here is my youtube Chanel where I post my videos on it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RQjPSsIWDvg&feature=plcp
Also a thread at OU with additional info:
http://www.overunity.com/13068/friction-heater-running-in-my-house/new/#new
Not necessarily claimed to be tapping a previously unused energy source; but interesting. I'd like to see measurements of input and output energy.
First the JR crossover by LS, now this! lots of cool stuff going on.
Happy experimenting.
--Steve
Yes, watching this intently...
The disc machining seems to be what limits replicators. Though, I read that someone has about 30 coffee can bases that they've kept and were wondering if those could be used. If so, it may open things up.
Quote from: Slider2732 on 2012.12.04, 03:31:03
Yes, watching this intently...
The disc machining seems to be what limits replicators. Though, I read that someone has about 30 coffee can bases that they've kept and were wondering if those could be used. If so, it may open things up.
Thanks for watching this, slider. I wonder if one could start with a smaller size of discs, then cut holes in the centers... Build with say 10 disks. A smaller model for testing...
Gabriel said he has a version that fits inside a Coke can size...
Here is Gabriel's latest vid --
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RbuZRn9duYE
Very impressive, IMHO! I like the direct drive and the quiet running!
A controlled calorimetric evaluation would be great. I've offered to Gabriel to help e.g. by a calorimetric measurement.
My daughter is coming home tomorrow from a wonderful service/teaching mission and the family is gathered to greet her (in Maryland).
Mid- next week, I return to the home lab (finally, after long travels). I truly look forward to tests again! Hope to help out with this and the Mike Nunnerley device soon after return.
--Steven J
He should put the whole assembly in a large sturdy cardboard box or other large container(to simulate a very small room).
Measure ambient and temp at the top of the box. Subtract the two. This is the rise over ambient.
Compare this to a small heater drawing approximately the same power. (run off a Variac to adjust power input or parallel large resistors or lamps as a heater to obtain equivalent power drain to the DUT)
Use a small fan to lightly stir the air.
Consider the power factor in the motor drive power, not just VxA.
This is the "fixed loss to ambient" method.
If we arrive at the same end temperature, we can consider the losses to ambient to be the approximately the same and therefore can determine the first cut efficacy of such a device. No hocus-pocus.
This is a comparative method of approximation and works well.
Quote from: ION on 2013.01.17, 17:23:55
He should put the whole assembly in a large sturdy cardboard box or other large container(to simulate a very small room).
Measure ambient and temp at the top of the box. Subtract the two. This is the rise over ambient.
Compare this to a small heater drawing approximately the same power. (run off a Variac to adjust power input or parallel large resistors or lamps as a heater to obtain equivalent power drain to the DUT)
Use a small fan to lightly stir the air.
Consider the power factor in the motor drive power, not just VxA.
This is the "fixed loss to ambient" method.
If we arrive at the same end temperature, we can consider the losses to ambient to be the approximately the same and therefore can determine the first cut efficacy of such a device. No hocus-pocus.
This is a comparative method of approximation and works well.
Hello,
I am going to have to make a box that would be the right size for the heater in my house. I guess I will use 8, 100 watt light bulbs or I have a 1500 watt electric heater i could use.
I am going to have to talk my wife into letting me take the heater out in the shop for a few days ;D She will just have to turn on the Monitor Kerosene heater.... That will cost me $40 just for a week of running. >:(
Well anyways I will make this box and report back with the results as soon as I can. It may take a few days or so.
Thank you
Gabriel
Gabriel
Welcome to the forum,don't let the wife and kids catch cold or you'll be in the dog house!!
HHMmmm. "Dog house calorimetry" :)
?
Your a good man thanks for being here,I suspect we'll have a good time replicating!
Thx
Chet
Quote from: Oilpiggy on 2013.01.17, 23:22:23
Hello,
I am going to have to make a box that would be the right size for the heater in my house. I guess I will use 8, 100 watt light bulbs or I have a 1500 watt electric heater i could use.
I am going to have to talk my wife into letting me take the heater out in the shop for a few days ;D She will just have to turn on the Monitor Kerosene heater.... That will cost me $40 just for a week of running. >:(
Well anyways I will make this box and report back with the results as soon as I can. It may take a few days or so.
Thank you
Gabriel
Welcome to our forum, Gabriel! A warm welcome.
Note that visitors to the bigger forum cannot SEE your posts in the Freedom Energy portion here -- but they CAN see posts in the general area and also in the "SHOUT BOX".
I look forward to working with you!
I would very much like to do a replication of your device. Will need some pointers and (if possible) some help with parts...
Thanks again for joining us,--Steven J
Yes, looking forward to seeing your results Gabriel.
.99
When using the fixed loss to ambient method, the box should be large enough that it does not duly overheat, compromise the motor function or be a fire hazard.
If you live in a cool climate, best then to operate it outdoors also as a safety precaution.
Do you have any idea at this time of the estimated heat output of this device including motor dissipation?
Quote from: ION on 2013.01.18, 01:32:14
When using the fixed loss to ambient method, the box should be large enough that it does not duly overheat, compromise the motor function or be a fire hazard.
If you live in a cool climate, best then to operate it outdoors also as a safety precaution.
Do you have any idea at this time of the estimated heat output of this device including motor dissipation?
Hello ION,
Thanks for the tip, would hate to have a unwanted bonfire on my hands ;) Unless I had the hotdogs and marshmallow on hand O0
It does get kinda cold at this time of the year, " in the teens " so I think this would be best to at night with out the influence of the sun, don't need any passes solar heat messing with the out come.
As far as the high temp I can control that, I will have it set to 250F. I was running this at 300F but was getting oil vapors at that temp.
So I will keep the heater 200F to 250F for this small space and testing. I have found some "sweet" spots for the run of this heater but I will have to make some changes to get it back there.
Thank you
Gabriel
More with regard to ION's test with a cardboard box -- but which I'd rather not post on the "public" thread --
As I wrote a while back, I'm going to fix up a small room in our new basement, to serve as a test chamber for Gabriel's device. We close on the house next week. A control would be run an electric-resistance heater at the SAME POWER input...
I will also have the entire basement available for tests, and I like ION's suggestion for a cardboard box running at constant input power, and determining at what temp the box stabilizes (heat flow out equals input energy-flow). This can be compared with the stabilization temp. for the resistance-heater at the same input power.
+1 yea I like it as well.
I will have to wait a few days for some more coins in the pocket for the other temp probes needed for this test. I am running on a thin line with my tool funds at this time until I get my new lathe. Same old story " Time and Money " I guess I will have to get a small fan as well for moving the air.
Gabriel
If you could do me a kind favor?
do you have total input data on the device from Cold to full warm up? KWH data ? [start temp ,stop temp]
total time to final temp would be good to know also.
Also your oil type?
and volume of oil in the device at the time of test.
when I get home Sunday I'm gonna play a bit ,maybe make some French fries ^-^
I'm at work till then so time is tight.
thx
Chet
Ps
Funny I was running late when I answered your post this AM on the main forum [,bad nights sleep to blame].
I did not realize at the time you were not in the freedom section.
Oh well........
Its all good !!
Gentlemen:
If you choose to test only the surface heat producing oil/disc mechanism against a "control" metal container, and exclude the motor generated heat, you might want to be very careful if you decide to use oil in your "control".
I recommend against such a practice (using oil) as it is totally unnecessary and dangerous. You need only put your resistive heater in a metal container of the same surface area as the DUT. The heat generated has no where to go except to the walls of the "control". Use wire with insulation that can withstand the high temperature that will be generated in the "control".
Be sure that the "control" is not sealed tightly, you want some of the expanded air to escape through small holes to prevent pressure buildup and an explosion.
Remember this is not a test of the complete device and motor heat must be added for final comparison.
ION
I suppose there will be a few more questions on your test protocol here .
Well for starters......
How would that work ?
We will have a value [total input] for the DUT as well as start stop temp data.[total rise]
How to compare the data of a resistor in an Air manifold with equal surface area?
I could understand the Input being doable ...after that I'm lost?[air Verses Oil??]
thx
Chet
Seems we have a lot of data available already in this "electric heating of oil efficiently" department?
Pitco Frialator Model E14B Electric Fryer Performance Test
It occurred to me last night that I had done some repair work on the fryer at this facility one night [Yes I do everything here ].
The Chef and I discussed time to heat quite a bit ,its a small "fryer" however I was amazed at the slow "time to Heat" time with all that input energy?
after pondering this I am even more encouraged By Gabriel's device.
Thx
Chet
QuoteHow to compare the data of a resistor in an Air manifold with equal surface area?
I could understand the Input being doable ...after that I'm lost?[air Verses Oil??]
thx
Chet
"x" number of square inches of surface area of the DUT will radiate heat to the ambient at a certain rate resulting in a certain measurable surface temperature.
A resistor or lamp placed into the empty container will also heat the identical number of square inches of surface area to a measurable temperature, so we adjust and measure the input power to arrive at the same temperature as the DUT.
Then we note power required in the "control" to produce the same surface temperature "rise over ambient".
Both tests will need to be adjusted for ambient.
Then we know how much power is required to produce the identical surface temperature "rise over ambient" in the "control"
Again this does not take into account wasted heat due to inefficiency of the motor or turbulence produced by the motor fan and coupler, but in the final analysis this needs to be considered.
This is why a test chamber as I originally proposed eliminates some of the guesswork.
P.S. Using a "fryer" as a control poses difficulties as they are either double walled or insulated to some degree, so you only have one surface efficiently radiating to ambient (top of the oil). This cuts way down the radiative surfaces, so the fryer will come to temperature rapidly. This is not an equal comparison. The identical container should be used in both tests with identical radiative surface area.
In the next day I will have the heater set up for the testing. I am going to use the " BOX " test.
The heater I called on at my local store was sold out ( after they told me they had it ) and the only one left was a 1500 watt one for a horse troth, to big to fit into my heater.
I am just going to tape some boxes, that should work.
I will track the time, temp rise, ambient air temp, box top temp and KWHs. this test will be done at night in my shop.
I was thinking of 2 sets of tests. One with the heater start temp at ambient air temp. and the other with the heater already at running temp.
I know we need to get started on replicate this on your guys end so let me know when we want to start. I have some parts made up ready to go. O0
Quote from: Oilpiggy on 2013.01.20, 01:55:39
In the next day I will have the heater set up for the testing. I am going to use the " BOX " test.
The heater I called on at my local store was sold out ( after they told me they had it ) and the only one left was a 1500 watt one for a horse troth, to big to fit into my heater.
I am just going to tape some boxes, that should work.
I will track the time, temp rise, ambient air temp, box top temp and KWHs. this test will be done at night in my shop.
I was thinking of 2 sets of tests. One with the heater start temp at ambient air temp. and the other with the heater already at running temp.
I know we need to get started on replicate this on your guys end so let me know when we want to start. I have some parts made up ready to go. O0
Very generous of you again, oilpiggy! As for me, I would very much like to do a replication soon using the direct drive method you have shown and preferably a DC motor, although I have a decent 120V AC motor right now.
"When" ? -- I will be back to a 'home lab' environment on 24th January and it would be great to start on that day or soon after.
Pls let me know costs including shipping costs, I don't at all want to burden you financially.
Thanks again.
Gabriel
I will be doing several time to heat tests using the measurement equipment provided by Steve today
I would also like to add "mass" to the mix [your steel components] do you have an approximate
weight on the "wet" components?
also is your manifold ferrous or nonferrous?
This will be an unsanctioned event :), as pointed out by those who know better we have significant heat loses in the motor [need model and manufacter info to calculate] could be as high as 25% loss to heat.
I am playing here ATM just to get familiar with the OIL and how it reacts to input heat.....I may be trying oil in some other experiments here in the near future.
Thx
Chet
PS
I must add,The way your new drive system is configured {very nice] ION pointed out a small water Drum would be another alternative for calorimetry now![30 gal]
then the test would just be straight Calorimetry [not fixed loss to ambient]
suspend the Manifold into the drum and proceed.....
If you get the manufacturers specs on the motor the loss's can be calculated or should already be available on their spreadsheet.
all things considered SWEET calorimetry method.
THank you ION
O0
Of course your Control would need the mass and such that I am adding to my test also![I believe ION pointed that out to me].
As an example, my 1/2 HP motor draws 1047 Watts from the mains, corrected for power factor. 1/2 HP at the shaft =372.85 Watts.
Here is the curve for a typical induction motor efficiency vs loading. I could not find the exact curve for my motor.
Draw your own conclusions.
Quote from: ION on 2013.01.21, 15:13:21
As an example, my 1/2 HP motor draws 1047 Watts from the mains, corrected for power factor. 1/2 HP at the shaft =372.85 Watts.
Here is the curve for a typical induction motor efficiency vs loading. I could not find the exact curve for my motor.
Draw your own conclusions.
ION, I would like to understand this, but I don't think I do.
Lets say the loading is approx 100%, so the eff from your curve is about 87%. I think I understand that, and a 13% loss from grid input power -- to HEAT in the motor -- seems reasonable.
Then what is this about "1047 Watts from the mains, corrected for power factor. 1/2 HP at the shaft =372.85 Watts."
1. This appears to have an eff of approx 373W/1047W = 36%, which seems UNreasonable. No where does your eff curve show such a low eff. Pls explain.
In this case --
2. Does a regular Utility-provided power meter show the ACTUAL power -- or does it need a correction for power factor?
3.. Does a regular Kill-a-watt power meter show the ACTUAL power -- or does it need a correction for power factor?
Pls explain -- and thank you!
PS -traveling again today, on my way home. so responses may be delayed.
Quote from: PhysicsProf on 2013.01.21, 15:45:47
ION, I would like to understand this, but I don't think I do.
Lets say the loading is approx 100%, so the eff from your curve is about 87%. I think I understand that, and a 13% loss from grid input power -- to HEAT in the motor -- seems reasonable.
Then what is this about "1047 Watts from the mains, corrected for power factor. 1/2 HP at the shaft =372.85 Watts."
1. This appears to have an eff of approx 373W/1047W = 36%, which seems UNreasonable. No where does your eff curve show such a low eff. Pls explain.
In this case --
2. Does a regular Utility-provided power meter show the ACTUAL power -- or does it need a correction for power factor?
3.. Does a regular Kill-a-watt power meter show the ACTUAL power -- or does it need a correction for power factor?
Pls explain -- and thank you!
PS -traveling again today, on my way home. so responses may be delayed.
I am not a motor expert, and I am still researching the subject and reporting my findings. The terms we need to use are Apparent Power (VxA) and Real Power (PF x V x A)
Point 1: This does seem unreasonable. My motor is driving an air compressor. The readings change slightly as the loading changes (as air pressure builds in the tank). The nameplate rating is 1/2 HP, 3450 RPM, 9.8 Amps @ 115 Volts. This is a capacitor start motor as far as I can tell.
My measurements using a Kill A Watt meter reflected 12.4 Amps at 115.7 Volts with a power factor of 0.73 or 1047 Watts real power. I agree this seems way more inefficient than the chart which I lifted from an online image and does not represent my particular motor as I stated in another post. It is probably more indicative of large HP motors which tend to be more efficient rather than fractional HP motors. My research shows that a capacitor start/run motor of fractional HP can be as low as 50 to 65%. I am still investigating this issue. I think WW has much more experience with motors and should chime in on this.
Point 2: As far as I know,
residential meters bill for real power not apparent power. I believe commercial and industrial customers are billed for apparent power (pure VxA). This I believe provides the incentive for large users with reactive loads to clean up their act by installing compensators to rebalance the phase angle and "correct" the power factor.
I have tested this by unplugging everything in my house so that the meter stopped. Then I put a large AC capacitor across the line. The readings of my meters showed about 8 amps @ 120 Volts or 960 apparent Watts being drawn, but my house meter did not budge, demonstrating that at least this customer is not billed for apparent power. (pure reactive) By the way, the capacitor stayed cool for the duration of the test, showing no real power dissipated even though 960 Watts of apparent power were circulating. The power factor read very nearly "0".
Point 3: Most Kill A Watt meters show both VxA (apparent power) and power factor corrected Watts (real power)
Still investigating. The point of the chart was meant to show that there is a "sweet spot" loading of the motor, and operating off this point reduces the efficiency of the shaft horsepower transfer, thus more heat is dissipated and therefore radiated by the motor.
Very helpful, ION -- thank you!
This especially:
QuotePoint 2: As far as I know, residential meters bill for real power not apparent power. I believe commercial and industrial customers are billed for apparent power (pure VxA). This I believe provides the incentive for large users with reactive loads to clean up their act by installing compensators to rebalance the phase angle and "correct" the power factor.
I have tested this by unplugging everything in my house so that the meter stopped. Then I put a large AC capacitor across the line. The readings of my meters showed about 8 amps @ 120 Volts or 960 apparent Watts being drawn, but my house meter did not budge, demonstrating that at least this customer is not billed for apparent power. (pure reactive) By the way, the capacitor stayed cool for the duration of the test, showing no real power dissipated even though 960 Watts of apparent power were circulating. The power factor read very nearly "0".
Excellent test. I'm setting up a room/lab with a residential power meter which I purchased and which will be used only FOR TESTS, so I don't have to turn off the whole house (each testing time, LOL).
QuotePoint 3: Most Kill A Watt meters show both VxA (apparent power) and power factor corrected Watts (real power)
If I push the "KW-H" button, is the thing registering power-factored corrected energy? (or not?)
Your Kill A Watt meter should read real power used on the KWH setting (the KWh totalizer).
Apparent power will be read on the VA setting if your meter has one. Most KILL A WATT meters have this. This is a real time measurement, not totalizer.
To double check I am running a test with a large AC capacitor of 120 uF (118.8 uF measured) and am using my Kill A Watt meter to log real power.
Reactance at 60 Hz. is 22.328 Ohms
The current drawn is 6.150 Amps, Voltage is 122.8, power factor is zero, apparent power is 755.22 Watts
Real power is 3.9 Watts (dielectric loss as this is not an "ideal" capacitor). This loss can be modeled as a small resistor in series with the capacitor. We will be able to find the value of this resistor by the ratio of real power to apparent power. We will also be able to compute the leading current vs voltage angle.
I will run this for one hour and see what is read on the KWh totalizer. After 15 minutes it is still zero.
Edit: After 1 hour my KWh total is 0.003, proving these meters read and totalize real power not apparent power. Capacitor is 10 x10 x14 cm. and is still at room temperature.
Edit: After 2 hours KWh=0.006 Capacitor is still at room temperature. I suspect most of the loss is in the wire (slightly warm) attaching the capacitor to the meter.
Some very Raw Data
The device run was started at 90F Control [ C.C 500 watt resistive
all runs 0.1KWH input on EZ Killowatt meter = Same as device
oil volume 2 gals Type 304 SS vessel = Same as Device +30 lbs steel
Start 90F Stop 110 elapse time 5 min start 47 stop 66
start 110 stop 135 5 min 40 sec 66 91 [little time Prob]
Start 135 stop 160 6 min 30 sec 91 108
start 157 stop 187 7 min 15 sec 108 125
start 180 stop 206 6 min 50 sec 125 135
start 201 stop 231 5 min 40 sec 135 150
start 225 stop 260 7 min 10 sec 150 167
start 250 stop 283 8 min 15 sec
total temp rise 197 F total temp rise 120 F
total input 0.8 KWH Total input 0.8 KWH
total time 51 min Total time 97 min
Ambient Temp 54F Ambient Temp 36 F
Comments from Control Guy [Me]
we ran this very rushed test to establish some comfort with technique and materials involved
as well as any little issues that might arise
*Ambient Temp and input power of control not equal with device run [to be corrected manana ]
Device runs at 1300 watts to start [cold oil] goes down to 8-850 at op temp [has been down to 500 Watts in some testing]
I ran one 500 watt immersion heater[control run] ,will play with another 500 for 1000 watt total tomorrow.
also I had to run outside do to "smelly oil" [also correct Manana]
*Device input to be monitered and noted at regular intervals during run .
device start temp and control start temp to be "same".
It has been reccomended by those that know better to run in a 30 gal Drum of water,
Gabriel is going to check availability of "drum" manana.
Comments welcome
[remember I can't be fired [Yet} C.C
thx
Chet
So after tracking the Watts drop over Temp rise and Time,
I ran the Heat core for 0.300 KWh non stop. Started at 146F with that VA @ 1470 and Watts @ 1255 give or take a few.
Ended run @ 205F, VA @ 1155, and Watts @ 929 give or take a few. Time elapsed was around 16 min.
The watts drop is more rapid after 180F. @ 250F to 280F I have seen the watts as low as 500.
This all depends on how the Core is setup to run. If I wanted to I could make it run @ 250 watts but at the price of losing temp rise over time.
Now after getting more then one email from a friend about running run caps inline with this motor I have, I am forced to give it a try. He claims it will make it run on less inline AMPs thus lowering the watts being used. I don't know much about all this but its worth trying and its something I can do at my shop.
Thank you
Gabriel
GReat to have quantitative results in this arena! Thanks ION, Gabriel and Chet.
A few comments, questions follow:
Quote from: ION on 2013.01.22, 14:44:10
Your Kill A Watt meter should read real power used on the KWH setting (the KWh totalizer).
....
Edit: After 1 hour my KWh total is 0.003, proving these meters read and totalize real power not apparent power. Capacitor is 10 x10 x14 cm. and is still at room temperature.
Edit: After 2 hours KWh=0.006 Capacitor is still at room temperature. I suspect most of the loss is in the wire (slightly warm) attaching the capacitor to the meter.
ION -- very informative. What would happen to the V-A versus true Power if you "drove" a big inductor instead of a cap?
And -- can a load ever "trick" a residential meter, so that the true power consumed is actually more than the meter measures? (NOT that I want to do this! I don't, but would avoid a pitfall.)
Also -- Question: how do you measure 0.003 KWh (3 Watt-hour) with a Kill A Watt meter? mine only goes to 0.01 (10 Watt-hour) precision.
Chet and Oilpiggy --
Let me start with this observation -
Quote from: Oilpiggy on 2013.01.24, 03:38:43
So after tracking the Watts drop over Temp rise and Time,
I ran the Heat core for 0.300 KWh non stop. Started at 146F with that VA @ 1470 and Watts @ 1255 give or take a few.
Ended run @ 205F, VA @ 1155, and Watts @ 929 give or take a few. Time elapsed was around 16 min.
The watts drop is more rapid after 180F. @ 250F to 280F I have seen the watts as low as 500.
This all depends on how the Core is setup to run. If I wanted to I could make it run @ 250 watts but at the price of losing temp rise over time.
Now after getting more then one email from a friend about running run caps inline with this motor I have, I am forced to give it a try. He claims it will make it run on less inline AMPs thus lowering the watts being used. I don't know much about all this but its worth trying and its something I can do at my shop.
Thank you
Gabriel
It looks like you're seeing an effect correlated with the decreased viscosity of the oil as the temp rises -- in essence, less "friction" as the oil viscosity decreases. Makes sense I think.
The really interesting effect is seen in your data posted by Chet above, where we see greater increase in Temp (what I call "Delta-T") for the SAME INPUT ENERGY = 0.01 KWh, as the oil temp rises. This may be due to some change in the specific heat of the oil, but I don't think so.
More data should help sort this out.
No conclusions reached yet, except that the data from Oilpiggy's device are interesting!Here are a few notes on the data so far:
Some very Raw Data 5W 40 oil ambient start 54F
The device run was started at 90F Control [ Roll Eyes 500 watt resistive immersion heater
all runs 0.1KWH input on EZ Killowatt meter = Same as device
oil volume 2 gals Type 304 SS vessel = Same as Device +30 lbs steel [for device internals]
Delta-T Delta-T
Start 90F Stop 110 20F elapse time 5 min start 47 stop 66 19F
start 110 stop 135 25F 5 min 40 sec 66 91 25F [little time issue here [long run]
Start 135 stop 160 25F 6 min 30 sec 91 108 27F
start 157 stop 187 30F 7 min 15 sec 108 125 17F
start 180 stop 206 26F 6 min 50 sec 125 135 10F 15 minutes
start 201 stop 231 30F 5 min 40 sec 135 150 15F 15 minutes
start 225 stop 260 35F 7 min 10 sec 150 167 17F 13 minutes
start 250 stop 283 33F 8 min 15 sec
total temp rise 197 F total temp rise 120 F
total input 0.8 KWH Total input 0.8 KWH
total time 51 min Total time 97 min
Ambient Temp 54F Ambient Temp 36 F
-- much higher average rise in Temp (197F versus 120 F) for the same quantity of oil; but variations in insulation etc. probably a factor(s).
The control needs to duplicate the test device as well as possible (insulation, fins or no fins on the container, etc.)Please carry on! we learn through the process of acquiring and analyzing data.
Hey guys.... what would be a Electric meter at a cheap price.... saving for my new Lathe O0 With that being said I only like to buy a tool one time so not cheap in quality just in price ;D
It would be nice to have my cake and eat it too.
I found a metal trash can on line at my local ACE, how many gallons of water are we going to use for the test?
Quote from: Oilpiggy on 2013.01.24, 04:38:05
Hey guys.... what would be a Electric meter at a cheap price.... saving for my new Lathe O0 With that being said I only like to buy a tool one time so not cheap in quality just in price ;D
It would be nice to have my cake and eat it too.
I found a metal trash can on line at my local ACE, how many gallons of water are we going to use for the test?
1. I like the intertek meter: http://www.ebay.com/itm/US-Plug-Power-Energy-Watt-Volt-Amps-Meter-LCD-Monitor-Analyzer-Overload-Display-/230882467728?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_2&hash=item35c1aadf90
for about $15.89 with free shipping.
Gives 3 digits past the decimal for KW-h, that is, it reads to watt-hours.
I've checked this against the Kill-a-Watt meter several times, and the agreement is within about 6%. My Intertek meter turns to 0.010 KWh first, then the Kill-a-watt meter turns to 0.01 KWh shortly thereafter (is what I've observed repeatedly).
If one is looking for an effect of say 115% or so, this meter gives a good indication. (I have other power meters for use if one wants more accuracy for further checking; the cost goes up.)
I've used the WANF power meter also; but it sometimes gives "screwy" readings and I don't trust it as much as the Intertek (and the Kill-a-Watt with lower precision).
2. Testing with the device in a WATER bath is a great idea. Allows one to use standard calorimetric methods,
Q = 4.19 * (mass of water bath) * (rise in temp, deg-C)
as I've before explained in more detail. Even if you are not measuring the heat output (loss) in heating the motor, you get a very good idea of the power delivered to the water! So this is a conservative approach, very good approach IMO.
I've worked with water calorimetry for years.
BEST wishes! looking forward to further results.
Quote from: PhysicsProf on 2013.01.24, 03:50:17
GReat to have quantitative results in this arena! Thanks ION, Gabriel and Chet.
A few comments, questions follow:
ION -- very informative. What would happen to the V-A versus true Power if you "drove" a big inductor instead of a cap?
And -- can a load ever "trick" a residential meter, so that the true power consumed is actually more than the meter measures? (NOT that I want to do this! I don't, but would avoid a pitfall.)
Also -- Question: how do you measure 0.003 KWh (3 Watt-hour) with a Kill A Watt meter? mine only goes to 0.01 (10 Watt-hour) precision.
A large well designed inductor would produce the same result i.e. near pure reactive load, but in this case current would lag voltage by 90 degrees instead of leading as in the case of the capacitor.
To my knowledge, you cannot "get at or make use of" reactive power to do any "work". As soon as you try, you wind up producing a resistive component, which will be metered. I have developed some interesting circuitry to attempt to get around this. No success thus far, but I will share when my research is complete.
I used the Intertek (no model # but as shown in your link) power meter, and compared it to the Kill A Watt P4400 (without cost entry). Thus far they both seem to be similar and satisfactory, except the Intertek has greater
resolution on some measured parameters and allows cost entry.
Note: When starting a new test you need to reset the Intertek with the small recessed button or it will remember elapsed kW from a prior test. Powering the meter off does not reset the meter, as it has a small internal battery backup. Sometimes this "memory" can be a handy feature e.g. running a test over days when the power might be interrupted momentarily.
I also fully agree that the calorimetric method for testing is best and can yield the accuracy we are looking for, however, including the motor dissipation becomes difficult, which is why I suggested the "small room" method, which is a strictly comparative method.
http://www.tutelman.com/golf/measure/precision.php
Gabriel
A suggestion on Oil for todays test ,you had said "vegetable" ? lets try to keep it the same.
For container....
Laundry tub?
Tubberware storage tub?
Something perhaps the wife has things squirreled away in the attic [Aunt tilly's old hanky collection container]?
At least 20 gals should be minimum?[the more the merrier]
I hate buying things I don't need to do tests.
True we have to be safe ,[plastic containers can get soft and"yield/fold" at higher temp]
However I have found a few well placed support Boards here and there fix that issue.[temp dependent of course] also we can run tests at "safer" temps a few times?
The biggest issue is your Cooling fins or my "lack there of".
can you post a still of the container fin arrangement? and brief dimension info on fin size and space?
Suggestions from anyone that can read here for Stifling the heat fins effect are more than welcome.
Thx
Chet
PS
ION
Thank you for your help and links!
Those plastic tubs used to cool 1/4 or 1/2 keg aluminum beer barrels should be close to what you need. Plus you have another use when the weather warms up.
Thanks for replies, ION -- I see we agree.
Quote from: ION on 2013.01.24, 16:02:59
Those plastic tubs used to cool 1/4 or 1/2 keg aluminum beer barrels should be close to what you need. Plus you have another use when the weather warms up.
LOL ;)
OK
So I just came in a little early tonight to clean up last nights mess, the test was spur of the moment
Tings got a little sloppy :-[
Sorry about the burnt Oil smell in here Poynt and Peterae it should go away in a couple years! O0
AnyHoo
Tonights event will be "water" Calorimetry [a sanctioned "Boil Off" governed by the house rules]
Both manifolds will be Immersed in 15 gals of 54F water. [stirred feverishly during run?]
The big "G" will be running his Wee Beasty with a start temp of 90 F [just like last night]
The run will be nonstop to Redline [0.8 KWH] Input measurements will be monitered and noted at every 10 degree "oil vessel Temp" rise.all thru his EZ Killowatt Meter.
The underDog [me} will be running Two old school 500 watt resistive heaters thru an EZ [Maybe the wanf?} Killowatt meter.
WE do have some concerns regarding the Shut down? We will both have BooKoo Heat stored at that point far in excess of our water temp.
Seems like a cool down could be part of test protocol?
Or Flip em and Rip em? [Shut off and remove pronto]
Comments Please Approx 2hrs to run time.
Thx
Chet
Quote from: ramset on 2013.01.25, 00:59:10
...
Tonights event will be "water" Calorimetry [a sanctioned "Boil Off" governed by the house rules]
Both manifolds will be Immersed in 15 gals of 54F water. [stirred feverishly during run?]
The big "G" will be running his Wee Beasty with a start temp of 90 F [just like last night]
The run will be nonstop to Redline [0.8 KWH] Input measurements will be monitered and noted at every 10 degree "oil vessel Temp" rise.all thru his EZ Killowatt Meter.
The underDog [me} will be running Two old school 500 watt resistive heaters thru an EZ [Maybe the wanf?} Killowatt meter.
WE do have some concerns regarding the Shut down? We will both have BooKoo Heat stored at that point far in excess of our water temp.
Seems like a cool down could be part of test protocol?
Or Flip em and Rip em? [Shut off and remove pronto]
Comments Please Approx 2hrs to run time.
Thx
Chet
The WANF meter should be fine (accuracy for KWh's within about 6% from my experience with it) for these tests -- fine with immersion (resistive) heaters.
With FIFTEEN gallons of water and 0.8 KWh of input energy, there should be no problems that I can foresee.
Let's look at the expected heat rise, with "no losses" -- one watt-hr = 3600J, 1 KWh = 3.6MJoules.
Q = 0.8KWh = 0.8 * 3.6MJ = 2.9 MJ
Now the equation I have in memory from doing calorimetry with water is
Q (heat) = 4.19 * mass of h2o in grams * (Temp change in deg-C), then the answer is in Joules
Gotta run for a little while, will come back with the equation in "strange units" -- gallons and deg-F... :)
Oy Vey
House rules ...........
Metric :-[
Sorry Forgot
I keep trying to change the world {and the rules].
Just in the NickoTeen Steve!!
About ten minutes to "gentlemen start your Buckets"
Change do to overflow issue new size water displacement
45 liters
Management apologizes for any inconvenience caused by this last minute change
OK, you measure the Temp-rise in deg-F and calculate the energy put into the water (Q) using this equation:
Qout (in Joules) = 4.19 * (gallons H2O*3785g/gallon) * (temp-rise in deg-F *5/9degC/deg-F)
. = 8811 * (#gallons) * (Temp-rise in deg-F)
It would be easier if you have a button on your temperature probe to measure deg-C rather than deg-F.
I.e., raising 2 gallons of water 1 deg-F implies you put in about 17621 J = 17.62 KJ.
and compare with
Qin (in KJoules) = (measured KWh) * 3600 since 1 KWh = 3600 KJoules, so 0.8 KWh = 2900 KJ.
(unless I made some error in converting units... easy to do...)
While I was typing:
Quote from: ramset on 2013.01.25, 03:19:37
Change do to overflow issue new size water displacement
45 liters
Management apologizes for any inconvenience caused by this last minute change
OK, this is metric which is easier for many (including me) -- 45 liters = 45,000 g = 45Kg of water.
Now if you have a "Deg-C" button on your temp probe, pls use that! and we're all set, Chet! :)
Of course :)
Control oil/Heat vessel 304 SS contains 2 gal 30 w motor oil ** no cooling fins on oil Vessel
Control water manifold "plastic" Contains 45 liters water [beer cooler thingy]
2 - 500 Watt immersion heaters
Wanf Killowatt meter
Open top run ,constant hand stirring through out test [both Oil and water]
45 liters
Start
Start TEMP water 7 C Oil 23.6 C Ambient 14 C
0.1 KWH 8C 35C
0.2 10.1 43C
0.3 13 53
0.4 13.7 58
0,5 13.9 58.6
0.6 14.1 62.1
0.7 15.3 63
0.8 16.6 63.8
Ambient Temp 14C
total run time 50 minutes
total input 0.8 KWH
watt draw 978 W
Test results, ;D
45 liters in a 55 gallon drum
Open top run ,constant hand stirring through out test ( just water only )
0.100 KWH per set
watts water temp
0.1 1324 9.444 C
0.2 1266 10.555 C
0.3 1278 12.222 C
0.4 1234 13.333 C
0,5 1226 14.444 C
0.6 1216 16.111 C
0.7 1204 17.222 C
0.8 1225 18.888 C
water start temp 7.222 C
water end temp 18.888 C
Ambient air start temp 11.111 C
Ambient air end temp 12.222
Oil start temp 32.222
Oil end temp 38.333
total run time 37.40 minutes
total input 0.8 KWH
watt draw start 1440 W
watt draw end 1225 W
Quote from: ramset on 2013.01.25, 04:28:28
Of course :)
Control oil/Heat vessel 304 SS contains 2 gal 30 w motor oil ** no cooling fins on oil Vessel
Control water manifold "plastic" Contains 45 liters water [beer cooler thingy]
2 - 500 Watt immersion heaters
Wanf Killowatt meter
45 liters
Start
Start TEMP water 7 C Oil 23.6 C Ambient 14 C
0.1 KWH 8C 35C
0.2 10.1 43C
0.3 13 53
0.4 13.7 58
0,5 13.9 58.6
0.6 14.1 62.1
0.7 15.3 63
0.8 16.6 63.8
Ambient Temp 14C
total run time 50 minutes
total input 0.8 KWH
watt draw 978 W
OK -- thanks for the data, Chet! Let's look just at the water-calorimetry part for starters, see how we do.
0.8 KWh input energy = 2900 KJ.
Output heat picked up by the water:
Q = 4.19 * 45,000g (H2O) * (16.6 - 7)C -4.19*45kg *9.6DegC = 1810KJ output to water only.
The efficiency just to the water is 1810/2900 = 62%, which is reasonable and a good start!
Perhaps fins on the oil vessel would be good... But a comparison with the Gabriel device can be made also!
Chet you should do the same test but with out the oil. Put your heaters in the water and see what the out come would be.
Just a thought..... ???
Good point, Oilpiggy -- I've done many of these calorimetry tests with the immersion heaters directly in the water, and find that when the vessel is well-insulated, I get Eout/Ein = efficiency = 0.94-0.99, very repeatably. This makes an excellent control run and test of the meters etc.
Now to look at Oilpiggy's data -- thanks for posting!
Quote from: Oilpiggy on 2013.01.25, 05:02:40
Test results, ;D
45 liters in a 55 gallon drum
Open top run ,constant hand stirring through out test ( just water only )
[good!]
0.100 KWH per set
watts water temp
0.1 1324 9.444 C
0.2 1266 10.555 C
0.3 1278 12.222 C
0.4 1234 13.333 C
0,5 1226 14.444 C
0.6 1216 16.111 C
0.7 1204 17.222 C
0.8 1225 18.888 C
water start temp 7.222 C
water end temp 18.888 C
[temp rise 11.666 C]
Ambient air start temp 11.111 C
Ambient air end temp 12.222
Oil start temp 32.222
Oil end temp 38.333
total run time 37.40 minutes
total input 0.8 KWH
watt draw start 1440 W
watt draw end 1225 W
Again, Let's look just at the water-calorimetry part for starters, see how we do.
0.8 KWh input energy = 2900 KJ.
Output heat picked up by the water:
Q = 4.19 *45kg *11.7DegC = 2,206 KJ output to water only.
The efficiency just to the water is 2206/2900 = 76%, which is reasonable and a good start!
I suggest insulating the water-containing vessel, and a plastic vessel is better than metal.
How much oil did you use, Oilpiggy? One can then check on the Qoutput to the oil, which adds to the total Qoutput.
The heat core was filled with 2 US gallons of 100% organic soy oil.
Well
I Passed out ......
Seems like the rest of the crew Too
Even Steve seems to have run out of lead in his pencil?
So Steve.....Whats the oil Q
Quote from: ramset on 2013.01.25, 12:42:21
Well
I Passed out ......
Seems like the rest of the crew Too
Even Steve seems to have run out of lead in his pencil?
So Steve.....Whats the oil Q
2 gallons soybean oil = 15.36 lbs = 7.0 Kg. The specific heat for soybean oil is 1.97, so the
Oil Q = 1.97 * 7.0Kg * 6.1 degC = 84.1 KJ
Add to Qwater-heating:
Qliquids = 2206 + 84 = 2290KJ
The efficiency, electrical energy to Qliquids, is
2290/2900 = 79%, which is reasonable and a good start also.
Steve
My Oil was 30 W {Recycled}
The Oil I tryed to buy for the run was going to be almost 40 dollars .
One thing is certain Gabriels device Gets The heat out to the environment much better than the smooth drum I am running. [yes I know]
I am picking up supplies today for a few projects ,If I get a chance I will stop By a friends who has scrap Elec motors [very large] with cooling fins built in.
Perhaps a large case with a Gabriel Disc stack inside will be the next Test !
Thx
Chet
I ran the my Friction heater while I was sleeping with the same setup for the test runs. ( same oil, same 45 liters of water, same 55 gallon drum )
Run time was 8 hours 17 minuets
Water start temp: 17.777 C
Water end temp: 44.444 C
Total KWHs: 7.500
start ambient air temp: 11.666
end ambient air temp: 13.333
Watts start: 1390- 1400
Watts end 850- 825
{I did not check the oil temps in side the core at start and stop.}
Thank you
Gabriel
Quote from: ramset on 2013.01.25, 16:53:25
Steve
I am picking up supplies today for a few projects ,If I get a chance I will stop By a friends who has scrap Elec motors [very large] with cooling fins built in.
Perhaps a large case with a Gabriel Disc stack inside will be the next Test !
Thx
Chet
Chet,
If you are going to use a motor case you will have to make sure that the ID will match the OD of the static discs. In other words you can not have oil passing by the out sides of the discs.
The motors I have around the house with cooling fins on them are cast Iron and if you ask me not a really good way to dissipate heat, more made that way for the cost of production.
Is there a local metal Fab shop around you? If so, look in there scrap bin you will be surprised what they recycle, and they sell it cheap. I get a lot of my metal supplies that way.
To have a 8" OD roll up is cheep as well.
I would still like to see the test done with just the emergent heater in the 45 liters of water.
Thank you
Gabriel
Gabriel
Thx for the cylinder tolerance info!
In my other testing on Heaters ,it is routine to run resiistive controls ,I only work in water ![so far ^-^ ]
However, as you wish..........
As Steve says all data is good.
My gut tells me it will be very telling ! [one liter water raised 120 F with 0.1 KWH input is my line in the sand for the happy dance !}
I will start in ten minutes [I just emptied that Vessel :(
I'm going to do a static no stir test first and then setup a stir test [automated].
Keep you posted.
Chet
** 45 liters resistive heat water only special request test
Ambient 12 C
water 11 C
Input 1020 [odd last nights was 978??]
Input down to 945 W at 0.14 KWH [volts 115 were 119 at start up]
This experimenter having "compulsive stirring issues" [so far I have resisted..........?]i
Data for 45 liter 0.8 KWH input resistive heater [950 Watt ] Water only immersion test. [no stir]
Ambient start 12C stop 12 C [big shop :)]
Water start 11 C stop 22 C
Run time 50 Minutes
Quote from: Oilpiggy on 2013.01.25, 18:37:33
I ran the my Friction heater while I was sleeping with the same setup for the test runs. ( same oil, same 45 liters of water, same 55 gallon drum )
Run time was 8 hours 17 minuets
Water start temp: 17.777 C
Water end temp: 44.444 C
Total KWHs: 7.500
start ambient air temp: 11.666
end ambient air temp: 13.333
Watts start: 1390- 1400
Watts end 850- 825
{I did not check the oil temps in side the core at start and stop.}
Thank you
Gabriel
Glad to help out (was gone all afternoon helping others; sorry for delay).
Note yesterday's numbers for comparison:
Quote0.8 KWh input energy = 2900 KJ.
Output heat picked up by the water:
Q = 4.19 *45kg *11.7DegC = 2,206 KJ output to water only.
The efficiency just to the water is 2206/2900 = 76%, which is reasonable and a good start!
Today you have 7.5 KWh input, over 9 times the input 0.8KWh yesterday; same 45 liters of water; but temp rise is less than 3 times that of yesterday (not 9 times) -- so efficiency is way less. Here are the numbers:
7.50 KWh input energy = 27,000 KJ.
Output heat picked up by the water: (temp rise 26.7 degC)
Q = 4.19 *45kg *26.7DegC = 5,034 KJ output to water only.
The efficiency just to the water is = 5,034/27,000 = 19% much less than yesterday's result... Probably a lot of loss of heat to the air/environment during the long run.
Quote from: ramset on 2013.01.25, 21:19:25
Data for 45 liter 0.8 KWH input resistive heater [950 Watt ] Water only immersion test. [no stir]
Ambient start 12C stop 12 C [big shop :)]
Water start 11 C stop 22 C
Run time 50 Minutes
OK, Chet, let's see:
0.8 KWh input energy = 2900 KJ.
Output heat picked up by the water:
Q = 4.19 *45kg *11DegC = 2,206 KJ output to water only. Yesterday the temp rise was 11.7degC... today 11 degC, so the eff will be less today:
The efficiency, energy to heat the water is 2206 /2900 = 72%.
(Why not stir?)
Both of you -- please consider adding INSULATION around the water vessel, such as bubble-wrap.
Steve
Last nights Oil and water run [which you already analyzed]
Repost here:
Open top run ,constant hand stirring through out test [both Oil and water]
45 liters
Start
Start TEMP water 7 C Oil 23.6 C Ambient 14 C
0.1 KWH 8C 35C
0.2 10.1 43C
0.3 13 53
0.4 13.7 58
0,5 13.9 58.6
0.6 14.1 62.1
0.7 15.3 63
0.8 16.6 63.8
Ambient Temp 14C
total run time 50 minutes
total input 0.8 KWH
watt draw 978 W
Today Gabriel asked me to do a Water only run with the same conditions
I raised the water 11 C today
Yesterday I raised the 45 liters water 9.6 C plus raised 2 gals of oil 40 C at the same time?
and my Eff was higher than today?
Just seems Odd to me , I expected much more of a temp rise?
I suppose as you say the loss to ambient must be huge?{same ambient temp as yesterday though??]
No stirring ?
Thx
Chet
Chet,
I think you are losing heat mainly to the ambient environment, yes. There may also be smaller measurement-accuracy issues (much smaller I expect).
The way to test that HYPOTHESIS, insulate your vessel and run again.
To get a better handle on these issues, I ran this evening two simple tests, using a PLASTIC vessel for my new (cheap) Osterizer as the "calorimeter vessel", bought for the purpose of such experimentation.
Test 1: 300 W immersion heater in 1600 ml water, input energy = 10 Watt-hours (0.010 KWh) = 36,000J.
Temp rise from 14.6C to 19.8C measured with my TK probe (thermocouple type) = 5.2C temp increase.
Then QtoWater = 4.19 * 1600g * 5.2C = 34,860J
And Eff = 34860/36000 = 97%. Very reasonable, and indicates low losses to the environment over a few minute run.
(That's another thing you can do Chet -- reduce the run time, to reduce losses to the environment)
Test 2: Using the blender itself, the spinning blades, as a "friction heater." Why not, as a test?
As before, 1600 ml water, input energy = 10 Watt-hours (0.010 KWh) = 36,000J.
Temp rise from 19.8C to 22.5C measured with my TK probe (thermocouple type) = 2.7 C temp increase.
Running at high+blend speed (quite high for this blender), just in water. Around 300W so run length about the same as with the immersion heater "control". (This is also a type of control run, using the blender to convert electrical to mechanical energy, then mechanical energy to heating the water.)
Then QtoWater = 4.19 * 1600g * 2.7C = 18,100J
And Eff = 18100/36000 = 50%. (See how this works? its easy really.)
I think a 50% efficiency in heating the water with the spinning blades is reasonable -- here most the "lost heat" is lost in the motor getting hot, I think.
Would attaching Gabriel's disks to this motor and running (in water, or in oil) give higher yields??
Can we see how a SIMPLE device such as this, with Gabriel's disks in place of the blades and other needed modifications, could produce a conclusive demonstration? The simpler the better IMHO.
Note that Gabriel's device yesterday showed a calculated Eff of about 79%, which is higher than the simple "spinning blades" device (a blender) which I tested, eff ~ 50%.
I may try heating vegetable oil instead of water tomorrow, and do the same two tests as above...
Lots of fun... we're learning as we go and that's great!
Summary
Gabriel test [post 44] input 2900 KJ Total Transfer 2260 Eff 79.%
Control Test[post43] input 2900KJ Total transfer 2364 Eff 79.05%
Steve please Check
Thx
Chet
Quote from: PhysicsProf on 2013.01.25, 05:08:20
OK -- thanks for the data, Chet! Let's look just at the water-calorimetry part for starters, see how we do.
0.8 KWh input energy = 2900 KJ.
Output heat picked up by the water:
Q = 4.19 * 45,000g (H2O) * (16.6 - 7)C -4.19*45kg *9.6DegC = 1810KJ output to water only.
The efficiency just to the water is 1810/2900 = 62%, which is reasonable and a good start!
Perhaps fins on the oil vessel would be good... But a comparison with the Gabriel device can be made also!
Chet, your oil (post 43) went from 23.6 to 63.8 C = temp rise of 40.2 C.
2 gallons oil = about 7 Kg. The specific heat for the oil is approx 2, so the
Oil Q = 2* 7.0Kg * 40.2 degC = 563 KJ
To water, there was 1810KJ in your test (my post 45), so total =2373 kJ
and
Eff = 2363/2900 = 82%.
Which is close to your 79% (I may have approximated something in my calc?) -- the agreement is good.
Quote from: ramset on 2013.01.26, 12:02:25
Summary
Gabriel test [post 44] input 2900 KJ Total Transfer 2260 Eff 79.%
Control Test[post43] input 2900KJ Total transfer 2364 Eff 79.05%
Steve please Check
Thx
Chet
In summary, my calcs show about the same as your summary above, with
Gabriel's test (post 44) Eff 79%
and
Chet's control (post 43) Eff 82%.
Note that my control with immersion heater in water in a plastic blender-vessel showed Eff = 97%.
My test with the blender blades heating the water in the same vessel, showed Eff = 50%.
Steve
The heat loss at the motor is not in this figure [could be as high as 50% of input ],The real point here is the immersion heaters have been shown to run
at 97% .
So we know what they do,regardless of leaky vessels and such ,if the parameters are similar between the two tests
[in this case 3000 miles apart],this test will give a good indication of Efficiency in Gabriel s device down in the oil [W/out Motor calc].
If we were testing the efficiency of our vessels ability to retain heat , well... that's another test.
All things considered
Good stuff
Thx
Chet
Well
It has been suggested that I collect more info ...
The surface area of all parts at heat transfer points between water and oil ...between air and water.
there will also be a point where there are loss's at the oil /air interface [top of oil vessel].
to underestimate these heat transfer points and their ability to effect the calibration between these two runs would be unwise
in the long run.
That being said ,I will do a more precise mock up even the water vessel material ["control" was plastic, Gabriel "steel" drum]
will be the same.
The MFG info on the motor will be needed for Calcs on motor Loss to heat?
If it is decided that there is a big disparity here I will do another Run for a better calibrated Control]
The run will include "SLOW"spinning stir disc of similar mass to Gabriels device in the oil [drive mechanism will not be part of Caloric measurements].
Comments welcome [as always]
thx
Chet
Chet asked me to analyze these older data, which I will do just looking at the heating of the 2 gallons of oil:
Quote from: ramset on 2013.01.24, 02:24:08
Some very Raw Data
The device run was started at 90F Control [ C.C 500 watt resistive
all runs 0.1KWH input on EZ Killowatt meter = Same as device
oil volume 2 gals Type 304 SS vessel = Same as Device +30 lbs steel
Start 90F Stop 110 elapse time 5 min start 47 stop 66
start 110 stop 135 5 min 40 sec 66 91 [little time Prob]
Start 135 stop 160 6 min 30 sec 91 108
start 157 stop 187 7 min 15 sec 108 125
start 180 stop 206 6 min 50 sec 125 135
start 201 stop 231 5 min 40 sec 135 150
start 225 stop 260 7 min 10 sec 150 167
start 250 stop 283 8 min 15 sec
total temp rise 197 F total temp rise 120 F
total input 0.8 KWH Total input 0.8 KWH
total time 51 min Total time 97 min
Ambient Temp 54F Ambient Temp 36 F
197F rise = 109.4 C rise
0.8 KWh = 0.8* 3600KJ = 2880 KJ input energy
Output with device for the above 51 minute run, looking only at the oil:
Q = 1.97 * 7kg * 109.4C = 1,509 KJ
Eff = 1509/2880 = 52%
The control had a temp rise of 120F = 66.7 C
Q = 1.97 * 7kg * 66.7C = 920 KJ
Eff = 920/2880 = 32%.
INTERESTING. These data suggest the following --
1. Pls go back to this basic set-up
2. Insulate the vessel so that it does NOT lose heat to the environment (as little as possible) -- eg., wrap it in fiberglass insulation if you have some.
3. Re-run the CONTROL run.
If you can at least DOUBLE the observed efficiency, conversion of electrical to heating the oil, to 64% with the immersion heater, or so, then you are ready to re-run the device in the same container.
4. Re-run the device, and pls let me/us know the numbers, that is the temperature rise for both the control and the device.
(This test is not quite definitive, due to conditions of the disks present in one case and not the other, but it will be progress -- I hope encouraging progress.)
yes.... will do butttttt
The Powers that be { the wife } wish for the heater to be back into the house. Happy wife = Happy husband O0
Like the bible says " so let it be written so let it be done " It's back in the house ;)
I am sure after a week or so I could withdraw the heater to the shop once more for some more testing.
I seen that you sent me an Email at my other address. Use Frictionheater@hotmail.com
Thank you
Gabriel
Gabriel,
The is strong consensus that a fixed loss to ambient run needs to be done,I am setting up a 1000 watt and 1500 watt control [either or?]
in a large box out side on an extra cold night [actually will be enclosed in my outside shop free from wind ]
I will see if we can get the start temp "hot" and proceed from there.[I will ask?]
this way you can just take the unit outside with out having to shut down the heater and cool your whole house down.
It should not take long ,you may need to pick up another thermometer for the box too
I will see how that goes and get the info to you,we may find with the temp in the teens a simple fridge size box will do?
Thanks for all you are doing here !!
Chet
This will be a week or so on my end before I will do this. How big of a box are you going to be testing? I have a 1500 watts space heater I could run both tests on my end if you like?
I just picked up an old dryer box that is 31"x28"x47" tall.
The "big box" method is meaningful, when done in comparison to a control.
Meanwhile, I've replaced the water in my vessel with soybean oil and learned a few things that may be helpful as we go forward.
I used my 300W immersion heater immersed in the oil, stirring it with the heater while adding 10 Watt-hours = 36,000 J.
Start temp of 1600ml (1472g) soybean oil = 19.0C.
What I noticed when finished was that -despite some stirring - there was a LARGE temperature gradient between top and bottom of the oil (in the plastic vessel):
Top: 38.4C
Bottom: 21.1C
Taking these at face value (incorrect!) but for instruction purposes, we would find that the heat out Q and efficiency are:
Top: 38.4C -19C = 19.4C rise => 56260J out =Q => Eff = 156% !
Bottom: 21.1C -19C = 2.1 C rise => 6090 J output => Eff = 17%
A huge difference, and neither is correct! so we see a CAVEAT when measuring temps especially in oil -- a large gradient of temp is found in the oil.
Note: I performed several runs like this getting "strange" high and low Eff values, until I realized that the result was depending on WHERE I position the Thermocouple temp probe. Clearly I needed to do thorough stirring before temp measuring, and still check temp top and bottom.
So then I quickly stirred using a plastic knife with motion up to down and back up, trying to mix the oil thoroughly.
Now the temps were about the same, 30.5C top and 30.3C bottom.
Then we find:
Stirred temp: 30.4C
Stirred results: 30.4-19C = 11.4C so Q = 1.97 * 1472g * 11.4C = 33060 J out
Eff = 33060/36000 = 92%, which is reasonable for the control and shows how to do it (IMO).
Fixed loss to Ambient test happening here tomorrow for the Gabriel device [his data already in]
"Control" being assembled in AM for afternoon test.
Thx
Chet
Great, Gabriel and Chet!
It would be best to measure the power consumed by the control (and by the device separately), and not just assume that a 1000W heater is actually pulling 1000W. That should be easy enough.
Also, say the device draws 800W and the box reaches a steady temp of 60F (for example). It still would be important to circulate the air inside with a fan, so that the temp is fairly uniform and the temp probe provides a decent sampling of the temp.
Then, ideally, one would run a "control" with a regular resistive heater such that it reached (about) the SAME temp as the device reached at equilibrium (60F in this example). This can be done by varying the power of the heater. Hopefully a heater will have settings, e.g., 750W, 1000W, 1250W, 1500 W -- one still needs a power meter to measure the input power accurately. To get finer input-power control, one can use a Variac and plug the power meter directly into the variac (I've tested accuracy down to about 70VAC on the Variac output -works fine).
To continue the example, if the resistive heater requires 1200W to reach the same equilibrium temp in the big box as the device at 800W, then you really have something!
Hope these ideas help.
Looking forward to results.
Running a tad behind on Control ATM [my 750 Watt control run]
Gabriel had a 4C disparity, 44C vs 48 C on his control experiment
Device input 745 Watts temp 44C [max against ambient]
he used a 1500 watt heater [all he has] for control same box same ambient
1500 watts input 48C [max against ambient].
I have been running behind over here [getting bits and pieces shipped out for the other projects]
Later
Chet
This is what I am going to to do.... I cant find a 800 watt heater but they do sell 1000 watt and I have my 1500 watt heater, with my Friction heater running around 750 watts this is not a match... So, I will make my Friction heater run @ 1000 to 1500 watts to make the match for this "Ambient loss" test. Are you guys ok with this?
I have been out of town for the last week or so and I am leaving again out of town this Friday for the weekend. I have 3 days to make this happen so let me know if this will work.
Thank you
Gabriel
Quote from: Oilpiggy on 2013.02.05, 04:28:11
This is what I am going to to do.... I cant find a 800 watt heater but they do sell 1000 watt and I have my 1500 watt heater, with my Friction heater running around 750 watts this is not a match... So, I will make my Friction heater run @ 1000 to 1500 watts to make the match for this "Ambient loss" test. Are you guys ok with this?
I have been out of town for the last week or so and I am leaving again out of town this Friday for the weekend. I have 3 days to make this happen so let me know if this will work.
Thank you
Gabriel
Yes -- matching input powers and measuring temp reached in the box (at temp-equilibrium), makes a good test -- as long as you measure the actual input power using a kill-a-watt meter (or similar) and have some sort of fan to circulate/MIX the air to avoid temp-gradients in the air.
The other test I would recommend if you have time, is to first run your friction heater as is (at around 750 Watts; measure the input power) and note the equilibrium temp of the air reached in the box. Then run run the 1000 W heater (again measure the input power) and see what temp it reaches (i.e., at equilibrium). Is this temp higher or lower than reached with your friction heater? This test alone will tell us much!!
Good luck, Gabriel! "fingers crossed..."
I agree with Steve on this...operating at the lower power input might be better so you don't overheat the box, which has rather small interior volume compared to a room.
The resistive heater will have very low mass, so will heat the box quickly, while the friction heater will require some soak time to bring the large mass of iron and oil up to temperature, so it will be required to allow the friction heater to soak through by running for an extended time period.
You can match power input by using a heavy duty dimmer or Variac on your resistive heater, but I'm not sure how the KAW meter will handle a phase fired circuit (dimmer) and still read true Watts. I will have to test this factor for future reference.
Just a wee bump......
Gabriels Cookin some data O0
Thx
Chet
Good points there ION.
Gabriel: Fingers still crossed, hoping for careful measurements as we've noted... and wishing you the best!
Fixed loss to Ambient test with Electric resistive heater @ 740 watts
Ambient air Start: 50F Ambient air End: 51F
Box Temp Start: 50F Box Temp End: 115F
I am running the same test with my friction heater and will post as soon as it is done.
Both tests will be done in the same box in my shop out of the wind and sun, with as little to no influences to effect the results of the test.
Each test ran for 5 hours to ensure the "top temp" was stabilized or "equilibrium" was stable.
Thank you
Gabriel
Quote from: Oilpiggy on 2013.02.07, 04:26:02
Fixed loss to Ambient test with Electric resistive heater @ 740 watts
Ambient air Start: 50F Ambient air End: 51F
Box Temp Start: 50F Box Temp End: 115F
I am running the same test with my friction heater and will post as soon as it is done.
Both tests will be done in the same box in my shop out of the wind and sun, with as little to no influences to effect the results of the test.
Thank you
Gabriel
Thank you for this data. One vital item is the duration of the test.
If I were plotting it, I would use a paper chart recorder or digital data acquisition system to acquire temperature data. This would allow you to see the ballistics of the temperature curve. Such information would allow you to determine if the system has "soaked" or reached temperature equilibrium.
Lacking this, you could take a temperature measurement at intervals and plot the result on a piece of graph paper.
I can surmise that due to the increased mass of the friction system, the curve will look different, and the danger is that the test may be prematurely ended before temperature equilibrium has occurred. In this case it is necessary to extend the the test period through several time constants to be sure the system has "soaked" and temperature has stabilized.
The aim of the "fixed loss to ambient" method is to hold both the control and the friction heater at an identical power input e.g. 700 Watts for an extended time period and let each system "settle". Data of total elapsed kWHr's can be a double check of the system provided each runs at exactly the same power input (small differences will be cumulative so we need to take care to insure this), but the important data is the final temperature rise over ambient after soaking.
Fixed loss to Ambient test with Friction heater @ 740 to 750 watts
Ambient air Start: 48F Ambient air End: 49F
Box Temp Start: 50F Box Temp End: 121F
The watts on the my friction heater started around 800 watts and at the end of the test it was 690 watts
I would of posted this last night but I fell asleep :-\
Each test ran for 5 hours to ensure the "top temp" was stabilized or "equilibrium" was stable.
Thank you
Gabriel
So we have a delta 64 degrees F for the resistive heater vs. delta 70 degrees F for the friction heater or roughly 8.6% gain over resistive.
Friction heater started higher, ended lower in wattage so it is difficult to find the average without a time / temp curve, but we can use 745 Watts for now.
Due to the changes in power used, and difficulty in exact measurement, it might be premature to declare a clear winner but this is a rough COP =1.086
I'm optimistic that with a little tweaking we can perfect our measurement technique. Thus far the results look encouraging as a reasonable test.
I am sure with some tweaking I can get this heater to run batter then it is. O0
The thing about my friction heater is that the longer it runs the lower the watts input it takes to maintain or increase the heat out put. This will always be the case while testing this heater.
Now I can do things to make the watts ranger smaller or higher, but this will also effect the heat out put.
What other testing would you propose?
Good news!
Questions --
1. Do you have a fan running to circulate/mix the air in both cases? This may seem secondary, but I think mixing is important -- I know its important with water calorimetry! (many times have checked this)
2. Do you use a power-meter (Kill-a-Watt or equivalent) to track the power? If so, it will also track the KW-hours, and this is really what one would like to record, for both the control-heater and the friction-heater (FH).
That way, you don't have to worry about the fact that the FH is lowering its power draw -- what matters is, the total input energy.
Recording the total input energy for the control is important also.
EDIT: For the above tests for total input energy, one would want to
run for say 4 (or 5 to equilibrium) hours, and record EACH HALF HOUR:
0. Starting Temp in box (and ambient in room)
1. KW-h used up to that time AND temperature in box and in room.For both the control and separately for the FH.
That should do it!
3. Another measure is the input power to MAINTAIN 121F -- what is the power drawn by the FH
at that stage?
Carry on -- good work!
Steve
Quote from: Oilpiggy on 2013.02.07, 16:04:46
Fixed loss to Ambient test with Friction heater @ 740 to 750 watts
Ambient air Start: 48F Ambient air End: 49F
Box Temp Start: 50F Box Temp End: 121F
The watts on the my friction heater started around 800 watts and at the end of the test it was 690 watts
I would of posted this last night but I fell asleep :-\
Each test ran for 5 hours to ensure the "top temp" was stabilized or "equilibrium" was stable.
Thank you
Gabriel
Quote from: PhysicsProf on 2013.02.07, 19:39:16
Good news!
Questions --
1. Do you have a fan running to circulate/mix the air in both cases? This may seem secondary, but I think mixing is important -- I know its important with water calorimetry! (many times have checked this)
2. Do you use a power-meter (Kill-a-Watt or equivalent) to track the power? If so, it will also track the KW-hours, and this is really what one would like to record, for both the control-heater and the friction-heater (FH).
That way, you don't have to worry about the fact that the FH is lowering its power draw -- what matters is, the total input energy.
Recording the total input energy for the control is important also.
For the above tests for total input energy, one would want to run for a fixed time, say 4 hours, and record start and end temps.
3. Another measure is the input power to MAINTAIN 121F -- what is the power drawn by the FH at that stage?
Carry on -- good work!
Steve
Q; 1. Do you have a fan running to circulate/mix the air in both cases?
A; Yes, the same CFM.
Q; Do you use a power-meter (Kill-a-Watt or equivalent) to track the power? If so, it will also track the KW-hours, and this is really what one would like to record, for both the control-heater and the friction-heater (FH).
A; Yes, I use a Kill-A-Watt meter. "I will run this test one more time and record the KWH consumed."
Q; 3. Another measure is the input power to MAINTAIN 121F -- what is the power drawn by the FH at that stage?
A; The watts on the Kill-A-Watt meter was reading 690 watts to maintain the 121 F box temp.
This being seen it is clear the longer the test runs for the more efficient the friction heater will be. Hence why one would want to turn it on and leave it on while running this in a home.
I will have to wait until tonight to run the next round of tests.
Should we put a set time on this test that is longer then the 5 hour run time as last time? or keep it at 5 hours?
Looking good! glad you have the fan mixing the air.
5 hours is plenty; but if you can possible -- record EACH HALF HOUR:
0. Starting Temp in box (and ambient in room)
1. KW-h used up to that time AND temperature in box and in room.
(For both the control and separately for the FH.)
I'm a little uneasy about one thing -- are you using two DIFFERENT boxes for the tests with
A- the control and
B- the FH?
Or the SAME (or identical) box?
As the copper windings in the motor warm up, the resistance will go up and the power input will go down a bit.
Also the viscosity of the oil will change as it warms up thus changing the loading on the motor and the power usage.
The stirring fan / motor will also add a small heating effect to the air inside the box, perhaps just a few watts. As long as it is the same fan / motor in both cases, it will be ok.
Quote from: PhysicsProf on 2013.02.07, 21:41:24
Looking good! glad you have the fan mixing the air.
5 hours is plenty; but if you can possible -- record EACH HALF HOUR:
0. Starting Temp in box (and ambient in room)
1. KW-h used up to that time AND temperature in box and in room.
(For both the control and separately for the FH.)
I'm a little uneasy about one thing -- are you using two DIFFERENT boxes for the tests with
A- the control and
B- the FH?
Or the SAME box?
It is the same box
Quote from: ION on 2013.02.07, 22:38:12
As the copper windings in the motor warm up, the resistance will go up and the power input will go down a bit.
Also the viscosity of the oil will change as it warms up thus changing the loading on the motor and the power usage.
The stirring fan / motor will also add a small heating effect to the air inside the box, perhaps just a few watts. As long as it is the same fan / motor in both cases, it will be ok.
Same fan, same box, same everything guys... just different heaters.
OK... This will be the last test... or is there anything else that should be added? No need to keep doing the same test over and over, so lets get it all in this one last shot.
If I need to do the same test more then one time, for the sake of repeatability, then that is fine. But lets get it all on the table now.
I need a clear and cut list of (everything) that will need to be recorded. I guess what I am saying is that I need one person to say,"this is what I need from you Mr. Peterson,"
and I will deliver what you ask.
What I would like to say is... I could care less about the winning, as long as people can use this, that is a win for me. Now lets prove it, or disprove it, and move on and get it to the people who need it.
I am making the same size heater out of Aluminum for better heat transfer for the use with a water jacket and radiator. With it will be with Peltier chips and run caps to fine tune the motor with power feeding back into the system making it even cheaper to run. Hence making a resistive heater old news as it should of been a long time ago.
There are so many things that can be done with this to make not only run better, but also make it more useful in real world application.
{Recap}
Clear list of everything to record. Would pictures help? or a short video?
Thank you
Gabriel Peterson
Quote from: Oilpiggy on 2013.02.07, 23:30:55
Same fan, same box, same everything guys... just different heaters.
OK... This will be the last test... or is there anything else that should be added? No need to keep doing the same test over and over, so lets get it all in this one last shot.
If I need to do the same test more then one time, for the sake of repeatability, then that is fine. But lets get it all on the table now.
I need a clear and cut list of (everything) that will need to be recorded. I guess what I am saying is that I need one person to say,"this is what I need from you Mr. Peterson,"
and I will deliver what you ask.
What I would like to say is... I could care less about the winning, as long as people can use this, that is a win for me. Now lets prove it, or disprove it, and move on and get it to the people who need it.
I am making the same size heater out of Aluminum for better heat transfer for the use with a water jacket and radiator. With it will be with Peltier chips and run caps to fine tune the motor with power feeding back into the system making it even cheaper to run. Hence making a resistive heater old news as it should of been a long time ago.
There are so many things that can be done with this to make not only run better, but also make it more useful in real world application.
{Recap}
Clear list of everything to record. Would pictures help? or a short video?
Thank you
Gabriel Peterson
First, Starting Temp in box (and ambient in room) and of the device (including oil) also. Edit: take temp one hour before the start of the test, with the device OR the heater inside, then again just at the starting time. Everything should be very close to "ambient room temperature" to begin with. Thus, there should be no temp-rise from that first one hour before the run actually starts.
Then one would want to run for five hours, and record EACH FIFTEEN MINUTES:
1. KW-h used up to that time AND temperature in box and in room,
2. Also, the Watt-reading with each half-hour record.
3. Video of the running, and please take a short vid with at each 15-minute interval, showing the watts at that time, and the accumulated KW-h reading on the Kill-a-Watt meter. I would recommend that the first 15 minutes be recorded continuously, from start (showing temps) to 1st measurements -- both with the FH and the control.
These records at 15-min intervals would be kept for both the control and separately for the FH. We need then to plot the data and compare the FH with the control data.
Gabriel, as a scientist I can tell you that in addition to YOUR tests, if you seek "PROOF",
it will be necessary for an independent scientific laboratory to do testing, using their own instrumentation.Independent repeatable measurements are the key to good science.
I now have a room set up now where there is a residential power meter (with revolving wheel, to give better than 1 KW-hour accuracy typical residential meters) as well as a Kill-a-Watt meter and an Intertek power meter. I also have three different independent means of measuring temperature. And I happen to have considerable experience with calorimetry, although air calorimetry is admittedly new (and one might think of a way to do conventional water calorimetry). If I can be of help, let me know.
Again, congratulations!
Steve,
When do you want to run with this?
I feel I have done what I can do on my side to "Prove" all there is.
I am looking forward to what is next to "Prove" what some people will accept as "real".
I have no doubt you can take this to the next step of testing.
Thank you
Gabriel Peterson
530-440-2585
Nothing to hide everything to share O0
Steve;
For water calorimetry, perhaps the friction head can be fitted with a submersible pump motor (impeller removed and shaft coupler fitted).
This would allow the entire assembly to be paced deep into the water, therefore taking into account motor heat.
It should not be hard to find a suitable vessel and insulate it on all sides, maybe even fitted with an insulated lid.
Comparison to an immersion heater should then be possible, and precise measurement would be much easier.
OK -- I accept and glad to help out, Gabriel. I really appreciate your approach and sharing attitude -
QuoteI am looking forward to what is next to "Prove" what some people will accept as "real".
I have no doubt you can take this to the next step of testing.
Thank you
Gabriel Peterson
530-440-2585
Nothing to hide everything to share
I'll give you a call re: details. The main question I see is whether to do the "next step of testing" with your device as is (but aren't you using it for heating?) or a replication.
-ION: good point! A water-submersible motor is just the ticket.