PopularFX
Home Help Search Login Register
Welcome,Guest. Please login or register.
2019-04-20, 03:39:44
News: A feature is available which provides a place all members can chat, either publicly or privately.
There is also a "Shout" feature on each page. Only available to members.

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 [12] 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21
Author Topic: Serbian Professor Savic Sonic water heater replication COP 12  (Read 279613 times)
Group: Elite
Hero Member
******

Posts: 3465
It's turtles all the way down
I agree with MH, there are some errors that should be addressed.

First, the LSB (least significant bit) error roundoff of the temperature meter could easily throw the COP below 1.00.

Those meters are notoriously inaccurate at the low end of the scale, and chances are the specified error is as a percentage of full scale. Errors around zero are usually not specified.

Some of these meters do not even have suitable reference junction compensation, or reference junction tracking. Just holding the meter in your hand can throw the reading off, should you accidentally heat the reference junction (the end that plugs into the meter).

Further, these meters typically use a type "K" thermocouple, one of the worst for low end measurement.  Chromel / Alumel (type K) is usually used for high temperature measurement, up to 2000 F.

So a COP of 1.05 is to be expected given the imprecise instrumentation used for the test.

Considering the above, and using a bathtub as a thermal chamber, I think it is amazing that he was able to get a reading within 5% of the actual value i.e. COP= 1.00

But then again, if you wait for that LSB to flip up or down, you can bias your test result in the desired direction.

Unless you have access to a high quality electronic thermal measuring instrument, you might be better off using a calibrated mercury thermometer.

Alternately one of those cheap indoor outdoor thermometers might serve as they use thermistors instead of thermocouples so don't suffer reference junction problems. They are designed to be fairly accurate over the range of 0 to 100 F. Also they read in tenths of a degree so can bury the LSB error by one order of magnitude.

Over this range, doing the measurements in degrees F and manually converting to C afterwards will improve granularity errors.

Can anyone find an English language manual for the ELRO M990, so I can look further into this?


---------------------------
"Secrecy, secret societies and secret groups have always been repugnant to a free and open society"......John F Kennedy
   

Group: Elite
Hero Member
******

Posts: 1859
ION,

That meter uses the volt/ohm/ma + & - terminals for the t-couple connection and a dedicated switch position for temperature. Meters fitting that description have cold-junction compensation and a separate sensing circuit to convert the tiny t/c output to something useful.

The volt accuracy is +/- .5% of reading +/- 2 digits (used to display temp).

The temperature accuracy is +/- 3% between -20C and ~1000C

I have a EU made meter with the same specs. The temperature measurement is only trustworthy within about 1C at room temperature.

And Yes, they most certainly come with a type K - not good for accuracy in those temp- ranges.


---------------------------
"As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain; as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality." - Einstein

"What we observe is not nature itself, but nature exposed to our method of questioning." - Werner Heisenberg
   
Group: Guest
Ion and WaveWatcher:

Thanks for your comments and expertise about the temperature measurement limitations and accuracy tolerance issues for the multimeter assuming that it's based on thermocouple technology.  I simply assumed that a medium-grade multimeter would add a cheapo temperature measurement system to add to the feature set and it looks like I was correct.

Our esteemed professor PhysicsProf made the following comment:

Quote
But you're right that over 1hour 5minutes, there will be a large heat loss from the large bath!

Can you put your "heater" into a plastic bucket or something, and insulate the container? (E.g., bubble-wrap).

Firstly, I think we agree that a modern bathtub would make a reasonably decent thermal chamber over a one hour period considering you are heating a huge thermal mass of water, 125 liters - 125 kilograms - 275 pounds of water.  The key assumption is that it's a modern bathtub.  Secondly, if you look at the start and end temperatures you notice that the heater heated up cool water to approximately ambient temperature.  That makes perfect sense because the water flowing out of your cold water tap is typically below ambient!  Note that means that during the test you could expect heat from the surrounding environment to flow into the the thermal mass of water, not out!

MileHigh
« Last Edit: 2011-12-30, 21:06:42 by MileHigh »
   
Group: Elite
Hero Member
******

Posts: 3465
It's turtles all the way down
Here is a chart showing limits of accuracy for "K" type thermocouple and other types. Add this to the meter inaccuracy and you may have a problem.  If all we need are relative readings, the problem goes away.

We still have the rather low uV output of the K thermocouple to deal with, and as I said earlier, this can be problematic when considering cold junction errors, which will effect measurement repeatability.

WW: Thanks for the specs on the meter.  I doubt that the T/C preamp used in those cheap meters has the thermal uV   stability to insure repeatable readings.



---------------------------
"Secrecy, secret societies and secret groups have always been repugnant to a free and open society"......John F Kennedy
   

Group: Elite
Hero Member
******

Posts: 1859
Thanks for posting the chart. I had almost forgotten why we use RTD's at the lower ranges  ;D

I have a NIST traceable Fluke & type T probe kit. Taping the type K & T together is interesting. Even after 30 minutes to stabilize the K varies from the T by as much as 1.2C.

Plus and minus  :D

Part of that may be because the T has a faster reaction time.


---------------------------
"As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain; as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality." - Einstein

"What we observe is not nature itself, but nature exposed to our method of questioning." - Werner Heisenberg
   
Group: Guest
On a lighter note, I keep on correcting my typos and there was one big mistake, I stated "watts" when it should have been "watt-hours."

It's amazing how difficult it is to spot your own typos, especially if you just made a posting.  When you read your eyes skim the text and you barely actually look at the individual words.  There a cool thing where you can read whole sentences no problem as long as the first and last letters in each word are the right letters.  The letters within the words themselves can be junk text and you can still read at high speed no problem!

Then when you are reading your own freshly-written prose your brain is playing it back as you read it, and it renders your mistakes so that they are almost invisible.

That's a double-whammy and it can blind you to your own jarring errors sometimes.

Going back to the subject at hand and sorry I will repeat some themes to hammer some points home:

So Chet, Slovenia, Boguslaw, Daemonbart and other replicators, the thread needs more data.  Even though Cherryman's results are showing that the universe is unfolding as it should, to be scientific you still want to accumulate more test results, preferably from multiple replicators.  Cherryman could also do another few test runs as a suggestion.  Again, I am hammering home the point, stop the pie-in-the-sky talk on the thread and do experiments and collect data and analyze it together as a team.  At least that's the best case scenario from my perspective.  If nobody on the thread has a peep to say about Cherryman's first bathtub test run then it's the same old crap one more time and it's intellectually dishonest.  Don't fall into the trap of brainwashing yourselves by ignoring data that you don't like, deal with the data both good and bad as it comes in and discuss it among yourselves.  Another trap is to invest 95% of the energy on the thread in discussing how to do the physical replication or to free energy speculate and only invest 5% of the energy on the thread in actual testing and discussing the results.  That's totally wrong and it's a formula for failure.

Chet, you have stated a few times now that some testing is being done professionally.  Do you really have to be so cryptic?  Can't you just tell us the plain facts about this?  We don't need to know about the costs, just what is being done.

MileHigh
« Last Edit: 2011-12-31, 09:10:37 by MileHigh »
   
Sr. Member
****

Posts: 328
Paul-R:

We are in Monty Python or "Jeux Sans Frontières" territory now.   You told me to look at the spreadsheet as an indicator of some data showing the circuit works.  But the spreadsheet showed no electrical input power calculations at all, so the spreadsheet contained no data at all showing that the circuit worked.  And you say, "Who cares?"

There are two power input options, Dickhead. You takes yourt choice. Read the spreadsheet.

Why am I bothering to reply?
   
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3016
Paul
Cranial Phallus??
I don't believe we can evolve to that level?

We are going to have a lot to talk about this New Year!!

And we most certainly are going to need each other ...And trust each other...

Have a safe and happy New year!!

Chet

   
Group: Guest
Paul-R:

Quote
There are two power input options, Dickhead. You takes yourt choice. Read the spreadsheet.

Yes I missed that the second time round looking at your sloppy spreadsheet.  Chet's data is junk because of the granularity issues in his kilowatt-hour measurements like 0.03, 0.04, 0.07 KWH.  That's just been discussed in detail but that hasn't registered in your flaccid head at all, has it?

The spreadsheet data is useless and there was no point in you even making reference to it.

MileHigh

   
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3016
 So Prince Charming
 you don't like my test data??

You trying to hurt My feelins??
Your gonna need a bigger Hammer! [and a smidge more credibility in the experimenting department]!

Pretty easy quarterbacking from the couch??

Besides we all know the ultimate test for OU .... The mother of all tests ....the one where you don't need any meters [my favorite]

The Loopty Luuu
Why Not??

Chet


   
Group: Guest
Chet:

You're right, I don't like your test data.  It has nothing to do with your feelings or you personally.  You yourself should not like your own test data.  This is not about hammers or testing credibility, it's about the critical scientific analysis of the facts.  Any serious experimenter should be able to reject his or her own test data without it affecting their ego.

The first credible round of test data is clearly showing you that there is no over unity but you haven't commented on it yet.  It's like you are in denial.  I had quit the whole thing but decided to comment because finally after several months someone did a credible test.

If you haven't actually paid for the outside testing yet and it's going to cost you a lot of money I would strongly recommend that you cancel and save your hard-earned money.  I will just repeat that it's possible that a "crazy" person in Serbia is orchestrating all of this for his or her mental masturbation and all of you are jumping through hoops like trained seals.  That would be most unfortunate.  I hate the "looney bin" aspect of some threads and the thread on EF is a classic example.

Anyway, I'm done!  Good luck and try to get people to generate more valid data but the chances of this project going anywhere are zero.

MileHigh
   
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3016



Happy 2012...........


« Last Edit: 2012-01-01, 02:11:30 by ramset »
   
Group: Guest
Happy 2012...........

Thanks. As 2012 is supposed to be the last year, this one of the end of the world, I encourage every one to hurry up about free energy  ;)

Happy new year to every one !

   
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2436
My prediction for 2012 -- the following statements by MH will end up in the trash bin this year:


1.  Anyway, I'm done!
[This one you can control, MH, but I'm predicting you'll be back to attack or retract]

2.  Good luck and try to get people to generate more valid data but the chances of this project going anywhere are zero.
[We'll see.  We have 12 months to prove you wrong.]

MileHigh

Nothing against you personally, MH.  Just putting a little challenge out there on January 1st!

   
Group: Guest
Chet

Will be around all day.. I tried but it must be a fax line.   ;]

Mags
   
Group: Guest
PhysicsProf:

"Back to attack" is an unfair characterization of my comments.  I can talk tough but I am not attacking.  I am just stating the facts with some force and giving honest appraisals of the test results.

The thread started in the beginning of September and it was only at the end of December that we saw the first credible test results and those results show no over unity.  That's thanks to a new person that showed up recently.  If he didn't show up we might still be waiting for credible test results come Springtime.

It's been two days now since the test results came in showing no over unity and there have been no comments from the main participants in the thread with the exception of you.  Your comment about a large heat loss over one hour and five minutes is wrong.  Your comment, "a cop of about 2 is very impressive for the bath" baffles me because I don't see any data anywhere to suggest that.  That "reality disconnect" happens all the time in the threads.

There is no "12 month clock" on the sonic water heater.  Rather, multiple replicators in the thread need to generate credible test data and then discuss it.  You need multiple test results to arrive at a conclusion, just like any other experiment.  That could in theory be done within a month or two and then this whole thing could be put to bed and everybody could move on.  I would be delighted to see that happen but my confidence is low.

That's just my plain straightforward appraisal of the current state of affairs in the water heater thread.  I don't see any point in commenting further about goings on in the EF thread because I know how these things play out.  The chances of the replicators generating credible data over the next few months are slim, and the thread will chug along going nowhere.  It's really unfortunate that people seemingly cannot follow through and simply take the required steps to complete the project and arrive at a conclusion.

MileHigh
   
Group: Guest
What if...

If we have an LC circuit, L being the heater, and C a capacitor, we can make it ring with tuned input. As heat increases, the freq of resonance will change, so our input will have to change with it. Not an issue.
If we can follow the resonant change as the heater changes temp, we should have very efficient heating, being there is nothing killing the resonance, like trying to extract from the ringing LC via electrical or magnetic, which kills off the ring.  ;]

Mags
   
Group: Guest
My prediction for 2012 -- the following statements by MH will end up in the trash bin this year:
...

Is it necessary to show us your trash bin? Every one has his own trash bin. For instance in mine there is:
http://pesn.com/2011/05/27/9501835_Steven_E_Jones_demonstrates_overunity_circuit/
It didn't even need a prediction for 2012. 2 hours have been enough to experiment and see there was not OU in such a circuit. Of course nobody realized a successful replication.

As I see not one convincing experimental proof of the sonic water heater, it will surely finish in the same place.

   
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3016
Exnihiloest

You Know beyond all doubt that we can Harvest Power from the sea of energy that surrounds us [consumes us]
If you don't you wouldn't be here!

People used to believe we couldn't live forever ,We are a device that has a built in limiter... the cells don't rebuild themselves as well !!
They are getting a grasp on that too.............
What used to be considered lunacy is slowly becoming reality!!

Pay attention ,,,Things are different Now!!

Chet

 
   
Group: Guest
What if...

If we have an LC circuit, L being the heater, and C a capacitor, we can make it ring with tuned input. As heat increases, the freq of resonance will change, so our input will have to change with it. Not an issue.
If we can follow the resonant change as the heater changes temp, we should have very efficient heating, being there is nothing killing the resonance, like trying to extract from the ringing LC via electrical or magnetic, which kills off the ring.  ;]

Mags

I don't understand this post at all. How can you compare this contraption to an LC cct?
For a start there is absolutely no evidence of anything resonating at a tuned frequency, and as the only frequency available is that of the mains supply, how could a frequency follow temperature changes?  ???  I really wouldn't worry about 'killing' resonance as there is no resonance to kill in the first place.

I'm always amazed by how many people simply believe this stuff and then take it upon themselves to passionately defend it, when there is not one single shred of evidence to support the various claims. Savic has a stated that neutrinos are the reason this works and at one point also that a specific frequency in the MHz range came into play. Yet none of this has created even the slightest pause for thought for the likes of Chet, Slov, etc., they simply carry on oblivious. The mind boggles.  C.C

I'm totally with MH, I'd put good money on this never coming to anything - other than in the minds of those folk not prepared to see past the nonsense.

In fact I'd put good money on this going the way of Mike Nunnerley's (None Electrolytic Splitting of H2O) and Murakami's (Ionization and Water Fuel) threads on EF, where both were hyped up to be the next big thing (and defended vehemently by lame-brain sheep when challenged), only to fade quietly away when all the big, clever talk and promises came to nothing. But no doubt Mystic Murakami, the great spiritual leader that he is, will write another book entailing the secrets of how to do it... so all is not lost.  C.C
   
Group: Guest
Farrah

My post was of just a simple idea that might work.  Lets say that we fiddle with a heater and a cap, till we find the right cap so that resonance is happening when the element is at full desired temp in water.

So, cold start up, with the cap in place, resonance is not happening yet. The element just acts like a heater. Then as the element heats up, the LC comes closer to the target resonant freq desired.


Its pretty simple.  If you have an LC that is resonant at 1khz, and apply input of 995hz, you will see a drastic drop in input as compared to what is happening in the LC. But as we all know, if we try to draw energy(electrical or magnetic) from the LC in conventional manors, the resonance is killed off. (only if we try to draw from it continuously  ;]  later on that )

But if we are only trying to extract heat, from the L(heater), we are not killing off the resonant function of the LC.

My idea is different from the one described for this thread. Never said it was the same. My idea just sprung from the ideal of heating water with resonance, and the water is just the energy extractor, not part of the resonant circuit

Mags
   
Group: Guest
Mags:

How about you draw and post an LC circuit that illustrates what you are talking about?  We assume the input to the circuit is an AC voltage source and we assume that the resonant frequency of the LC circuit is the same frequency as the AC voltage source.  Then draw a simple timing diagram - show a few AC input cycles and below those AC cycles show other waveforms that show what your circuit is doing.  You are free to choose to show whatever waveforms that you deem relevant to illustrate how the circuit works.  Keep in mind that you are supposed to show how the water is being heated, so that information should be conveyed in your waveforms.

Please try doing that, it would be appreciated.  You said that it's pretty simple, even a hand-drawn sketch that you photograph and then post would be great.

MileHigh
   
Group: Guest
MH

Will do soon.  At lunch right now.

It is just a theory Mh.  Havnt tried yet.

Mags
   
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2436
  What I like about the sonic boiler approach is that one measures the temperature rise of water, which gives the Q (and from that the output power) rather directly.  One does have to stir the water etc.  -- but the measurement is straightforward.

   I've decided to start experiments along this line myself, to "immerse" myself as it were and learn the ropes and pitfalls.
   Too bad you don't do actual experiments, MileHigh -- or will you?
   
Group: Guest
PhysicsProf:

I don't experiment but my skill set is quite good.  I am more competent on an electronics test bench than 98% or more of the experimenters that you see on the forums.

I assume that you are mentioning "Q" in reference to the filter quality factor.  That's ridiculous.  The whole thing is complete nonsense, there is no Q factor, and I was hoping the participants in the thread would figure that out for themselves by doing some test runs but that's not happening.  There isn't a single shred of evidence that this thing works and there is no logical reason whatsoever for it to work.  The technical information and comments from the Serbian "professor" are pseudo technical gibberish and nonsense.  However, you have already endorsed this project.  If I had encountered you for the first time and knowing your background I would have been in complete and total shock but I know better now.

MileHigh
   
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 [12] 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21
« previous next »


 

Home Help Search Login Register
Theme © PopularFX | Based on PFX Ideas! | Scripts from iScript4u 2019-04-20, 03:39:44