PopularFX
Home Help Search Login Register
Welcome,Guest. Please login or register.
2021-02-28, 12:52:07
News: Registration with the OUR forum is now by invitation only.

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 294043 times)
Group: Ambassador
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3468
To Whom it may concern,
It looks like we'll be going to a "Bench"[moderated] venue for the  Boiler Calorimetry Run !
Trying to get that set up with a few other members on the Bench also!

THX
Chet

   
Group: Professor
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2810
I am well Professor, thanks. :)

If you wish, you may write something up or edit the existing terms and conditions to suit your request. Send it to me via PM, and we'll go from there. Thanks for helping out.

.99

OK -- I will write something up and submit to you the proposed (minor I think) changes.  Thanks!
   
Group: Professor
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2810
  OK, I have some first results from my sonic boiler (call it SBSJ1) set up, as shown in photo attached.

   I will show my method for determining Pinput and Poutput and the results, and invite comments on both.

  I have a CEN-TECH P3 "Kill-a-watt" meter that displays KW-H to 0.01 accuracy.  I ran this P3 meter with a load until it just turned on the display to 0.05 KWH.  Next I ran my SBSJ1 device until it reached boiling (which stirs the water), stopped registering the time elapsed with a stop-watch, 62 seconds.  I quickly measured Temperatures inside the inner bell and between the inner and outer bells using an infrared temp probe and took an average Temp.

I let the sbsj1 cool (to 98F) and ran a second time with the same measurements, and this time the P3 turned to 0.06 KWH, so I stopped the run there to take measurements, 31s.  The total elapsed time was 62+31 = 93 s.

By using the P3 JUST AS the reading turns to a higher value, increasing by 0.01KWH, I believe the accuracy is quite good, probably within 10% with this method.

Consider a 100W bulb for 1 hour = 0.1 KWH.  Thus, 0.01 KWH in 1/10th hour = 6 minutes = 360 s.
Here in my experiment we have 0.01 KWH in 93 seconds, so the power is more than 100W, and I calculate:
Pin = 360s/93s X 100W = 387W.

Next, to calculate the output power, first I calculate the heat-energy Q calorimetrically, using the Temp-rise in the water.
Q = Cg X m X (Tfinal - Tinitial).

For the first run of 62 s, Tfinal - Tinitial = 147Fahr - 83F = 64F = 36Celsius temp rise.
For the second run of 31 s, Tfinal - Tinitial = 145F - 98F = 47F = 26Celsius temp rise.


Here, Q = 4.18 [J/g-C] X 125g X 36C = 18810 J for the first run, and
     Q = 4.18 [J/g-C] X 125g X 26C = 14120 J  for the second run.
Total heat measured, Qtotal = 32930 J in 93 s, so
Pout = Q/total-time = 32930J/93s = 354W.

Which is less than Pinput.

Finally, I calculate the efficiency n = Pout/Pin = 354W/387W = 0.91


Any comments on the method or the results?  

NOTE: Typo corrected -- cooled to 98 deg F after the first run, not 93F.  Thanks.
« Last Edit: 2012-01-07, 18:02:52 by PhysicsProf »
   
Group: Elite
Hero Member
******

Posts: 3541
It's turtles all the way down
Nice job, professor.

Looks like the "Kill A Watt" resolution error problem won't go away unless a larger volume of liquid and much longer soak time is used.

What type of infra-red thermo measurement device are you using? Emissivity issues could affect measurement accuracy, but if all you want is repeatability, it may suffice provided it is in a fixture at a controlled distance from the source.

I would prefer a temperature probe or mercury lab thermometer immersed in the liquid.

Continuous gentle stirring of the liquid using a small motorized paddle would also be helpful.

Could you provide a sketch of the dimensions of the vessel and the cylinders?

Thank you.



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

Posts: 805
Professor,

glad to see you testing, so the "peanut gallery" can have something to critique!     :D


I'm a little confused about your method.    You said that you ran the P3 with a load up to 0.05 kWh,  then connected to the water bath and ran it until water boiled and recorded 62 seconds.   Is that the total time?  Is the load that you used initially to bring it to 0.05 kWh  the water bath itself or another load?  I'm confused.  Maybe you bring it up to 0.05 then go one up to 0.06 kWh?


My suggestion is to calculate Joules, and forget about working with power.

The Joules you put in the water is a very straight forward calculation and does not require you to use a stopwatch, the instrument already did that for you.


Qin =  (kWh from P3 instrument) x (3.6e6 J/kWh) = (0.01 kWh)x(3.6e6 J/kWh) = 36 kJ

COP = Qout/Qin = 32.9 kJ / 36 kJ = 0.914  or  91.4%  efficiency.     (I used your number of Qout)


see, no time involved in this calculation, and it's much simpler and less confusing.    :)


(2nd suggestion.   Don't use an infrared thermometer, but one that can be immersed in water and do stir the water like Ion suggested, for more accurate results we know that a seriously insulated calorimeter is the way to go, but I'm sure you know that, and this is just a rough experiment.)

Error:  
Quote
For the second run of 31 s, Tfinal - Tinitial = 145F - 98F = 47F = 26Celsius temp rise.

You said you let it cool to 93 deg,   why are you using 98 deg?

EM
« Last Edit: 2012-01-07, 17:56:16 by EMdevices »
   
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1749
@PhysicsProf
Quote
Any comments on the method or the results?  
I would just like to note that an efficiency of 0.91 relates directly to the accuracy of the measurements because it is impossible that this system can be less than 100% efficient if energy is conserved. Therefore we can know that we have 100% accuracy in our measurements when the efficiency reaches 100%, 100% is the baseline.
Regards
AC


---------------------------
Comprehend and Copy Nature... Viktor Schauberger

“Progress is impossible without change, and those who cannot change their minds cannot change anything.” George Bernard Shaw
   
Group: Ambassador
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3468
The Design?

Steve One thing I would like to add ....you are not testing the device that is described in this thread !

Or attempting to "tune" in any way?

Is this correct?
Thx
Chet
   
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 805
Good point Chet,  I think all experiments of this nature should also record the underwater sound, and any possible resonant frequencies determined.
   
Group: Professor
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2810
Excellent points, all.  Chet -- no attempt to "tune" this as yet, just a basic  baseline run.  
  Mostly testing the methods.

AC-- agreed the n should be close to 100%; there are some losses due to steam, conduction to the air and pyrex-glass safety container etc.
 
ION -- agreed, stirring and a better temp probe.  Outer bell (a nickel crucible) is 65 mm at the topOD and  70 mm tall; inner bell is about 39 mm tall and 39 mm OD at the top.


Professor,

glad to see you testing, so the "peanut gallery" can have something to critique!     :D


I'm a little confused about your method.    You said that you ran the P3 with a load up to 0.05 kWh,  then connected to the water bath and ran it until water boiled and recorded 62 seconds.     Is the load that you used initially to bring it to 0.05 kWh  the water bath itself?  Another load?  I'm confused.  Maybe you bring it up to 0.05 then go one up to 0.06 only with the water bath?

The load was the device itself; then I let it cool before the tests.  In the future, I may use a light bulb to bring P3 to a starting value.


My suggestion is to calculate Joules, and forget about working with power.

The Joules you put in the water is a very straight forward calculation and does not require you to use a stopwatch, the instrument already did that for you.


Qin =  (kWh from P3 instrument) x (3.6e6 J/kWh) = (0.01 kWh)x(3.6e6 J/kWh) = 36 kJ

COP = Qout/Qin = 32.9 kJ / 36 kJ = 0.914  or  91.4%  efficiency.     (I used your number of Qout)


see, no time involved in this calculation, and it's much simpler and less confusing.    :)

Good suggestion -- although power of about 400 W is useful also IMO.  I like using Joules.

(2nd suggestion.   Don't use an infrared thermometer, but one that can be immersed in water and do stir the water like Ion suggested, for more accurate results we know that a seriously insulated calorimeter is the way to go, but I'm sure you know that, and this is just a rough experiment.)

Right -- agreed.

Error: 
You said you let it cool to 93 deg,   why are you using 98 deg?

EM

Typo -- cooled to 98 deg F.  Thanks.
   
Group: Guest
Congratulations PhysicsProf you are definitely advancing the state of the art with respect to this project.

I have a few suggestions.

1.  I am not 100% sure, but perhaps wrapping the outside walls of your beaker in tinfoil would reduce the heat loss due to infrared radiation by reflecting some of the radiation back into the container.  I am really not sure in the sense that the tinfoil itself will be at the same temperature of the beaker walls and I assume it will radiate heat also.  Of course we know that a thermos uses this principle but I may be missing something.  It has to do with the infrared emission rate of glass vs. foil vs. temperature and stuff like that.

A simple test would be to just let the beaker full of hot water sit on your bench on top of a piece of Styrofoam and monitor the water temperature loss vs. time.  Then do the same thing with the beaker wrapped in tinfoil and see if there is a significant difference.

2.  Since the Kill-a-Watt meter is integrating energy over time there is nothing stopping you from doing 10 or more consecutive test runs with the same setup and comparing the total electrical energy to the total heat energy.  Just don't reset the Kill-a-Watt meter between runs.  That is a "Plan B" way of working around the granularity issue, as compared to using a very large container of water.  A very large container of water by definition would still be a superior way to go though because it's ratio of volume to surface area will always be much better than the small beaker.

3.  If you were a real keener, you could measure the thermal capacity of the beaker itself and factor that into your measurements.

You are correct that you want to do light stirring of the water.  You can't forget that the stirring itself will heat up the water, although not by very much.  It's still a good practice to try to keep the stirring to a minimum.

Chet:

The "tuning" is just pie-in-the-sky wishful thinking or a con being pitched to you by the Serbian dude, take your pick.  As more data comes in this will become readily apparent to you.  The poor enthusiasts on EF still haven't commented on PhysicsProf's results.

MileHigh
   
Group: Ambassador
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3468
MH
Quote:
The "tuning" is just pie-in-the-sky wishful thinking or a con being pitched to you by the Serbian dude, take your pick.  As more data comes in this will become readily apparent to you.  The poor enthusiasts on OU still haven't commented on PhysicsProf's results.
-----------------------------------------------------
MH
I want so bad to retort...........
All I will say is...... this type of talk should be refrained from in this venue!
Please respect the efforts and time being spent by others to properly vet this device!
With all respect
Chet
   
Group: Guest
I have a new revision to my first suggestion.

Let's assume for the sake of argument that you have measured the heat capacity of the beaker itself so you can factor that into your calculations.  Alternatively, you don't even have to measure it.  You know the mass of the beaker and if you know the exact type of glass it is made with then you can look up the specific heat for that glass material.

Let's also assume for the sake of argument that you get a decent improvement with the tinfoil wrapped around the beaker.

So the final coup de gras would be to wrap two thin layers of insulating foam around the tinfoil.  I am sure that you have seen the thin pink stuff that is used as packing material.  Even two layers of small-bubble bubble wrap would do the trick.

10+ runs with a beaker wrapped in tinfoil and two thin layers of insulating material would be awesome.

Chet:

I will refrain from talking about the tuning for now but I can suggest some quid pro quo.  When the results come in showing no magic COP then you talk about that, deal with the issue and don't bury your head in the sand.

MileHigh
   
Group: Guest
I can agree with MH on insulating the test container. Ions stir statement triggered that for me. Losing heat through container conduction over time can spoil the accuracy of the tests.

I dont know if the have wide mouth thermos bottles. Aluminum foil might allow heat to disperse quicker.

Automotive parts stores have fiberglass wrap for containing heat from exhaust headers and fire wall heat shielding. Some also have an aluminum coating to help reflect heat. But aluminum foils, unless fine polished like the surface of a thermos bottle, are not a great reflector.  You can look it up where foil is compared to mylar.

If significant heat is created, the water will somewhat stir or cycle itself, so a bit of added stir wont hurt. Especially to quicken the temperature rise of the volume of water as a whole, for accurate measurement purposes.

Im also in agreement with using temperature probes or lab grade merc thermometers.   I wonder if when using the infrared temp meter if water and glass refraction can affect the measurement.

Mags
   

Group: Administrator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3719


Buy me some coffee
I personally would not worry too much about losses, you will always have them, the important thing is to understand the efficiency losses at different room temperatures for a know resistive load, then when it comes to test a possible OU candidate (DUT) then you should be getting higher results if OU, i would standardize all tests to a set time period.

So if you know a resistive load is 96% efficient at 25 Degrees C during a 1 minuet test and then a DUT is 94% or 98% then further test to home in can be done, you see you could spend the rest of your life improving the flask to get as close to 100% efficient and it's not important.

That's just my thinking chaps, i have not done anything like this   :)

   
Group: Ambassador
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3468
   
Group: Guest
The thread is "heating up" har har...

This one goes out to Slovenia, noting that he is also a member here.  Quoting you:

Quote
Can Tuning
Can needs to be tuned to 50 Hz for EU and 60 Hz for USA. When properly fitted with the right ring and gap, the can will play at a higher level. If I recall right, 300 Hz for EU and 400 Hz for USA. That's from memory. If it is tuned properly to Mr. "C"s specs, it will operate at a COP of 10 for EU and COP of 12 for USA.

You can't get away with just saying something is true and expect people to believe you.  You have to show test results and have at least three separate people reproduce the tests with multiple test runs that show their data is confirming what you are alleging.  The presentation of the data has to be honest and credible with all of the details shown and not minimalist and cryptic.

Quote
OU
We have people on this forum who are getting OU with these principles. I won't mention any names, but they are getting it. The key is to tune the tube to the appropriate frequency either by sanding or electronic means. If you get it tuned to the right frequency and then you get your ring the right gap, then you will enjoy OU. The dimensions of the ring are important too as well as the diameter and thickness of the tube metal.

You have to mention names, even if they are just anonymous Internet forum handles.  At least that's a start.  I can say, "I know somebody that puts pink elephants in the sky every second Tuesday over the center of Greenland," and my statement is just as valid as yours.

So far Slovenia, the only two credible test results are Cherryman's bathtub test and PhysicProf's test done today.  Both tests show no over unity.  You might say, "But the tests were done without tuning so they don't count."  My response to you is bring it on.  Let's see somebody present credible results with the "tuning" done and let's see what the results look like.

This has been going on for more than four months.  For four months you have been talking about getting over unity and saying that it is possible and nobody has shown over unity at all.

Welcome to the real world, I don't think many will dispute my description of the current state of affairs.  When nobody can demonstrate over unity, I challenge you to acknowledge this issue and discuss it, just like I am challenging Chet to do the same thing.

Chet has an action plan to follow-up with a person that he is working with that is claiming COP 7.  That person is supposed to present credible data without actually showing what the device itself looks like.  If that actually happens we will see how it works out.  Your claims of anonymous people getting over unity should follow the same process, a credible presentation of the data without necessarily having to see the device itself.  Of course it would be preferable if they showed the device.

I just don't buy into the claim that "shadowy anonymous replicators that are members of the Energetic Forum have successfully replicated the device with COP 10 or COP 12."  Why do they have to hide?  It's not credible and these forums are supposed to be places where people openly share setups and procedures and test data.  Why is it when some of them allegedly have good results that they have to hide in the shadows?  How come you allegedly know them and can drop big hints that the system works but you can't mention their names?  Like I said, welcome to the real world.  People on these forums are sick to death and tired beyond belief of hearing that "somebody has it working but they have to remain anonymous and they are not going to share information about their setup, test procedures, or test data."  People are sick of this and you are part of the problem when you make statements like this.

Finally Slovenia, I challenge you to comment on the results whether they be good or bad.  You have not commented on the two credible results so far that show no over unity.  If you yourself want to be credible, then you have to comment on all of the test data, good and bad.

MileHigh
« Last Edit: 2012-01-08, 03:59:19 by MileHigh »
   
Group: Ambassador
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3468
MH
You have to chill !
You asked for a test ...........its coming!!
stop throwing stones around !

THX
Chet
PS
Sonic Boiler Data Posted at this Forum
50 liter of water rise 30 deg celsius in one h, = 1500 X 4,18 = 6270 kJ
6270 / 3600 = 1,74 kWh

Input energy 360W = 360 Wh = 0.360 kwH

COP = 1,74 / 0,360 = 4,83

True COP = 4,83 X 1,2 = 5,8 (I have about 20% loss from test tank)

This setup based on IKEA thermos.

Kind rgds D

Another

I have done many temperature tests and doing it almost everyday! I will post the requested data later today.. 60l temp rise in 5 min with 1kW input.

That will be the same as 83Wh, with""" resistance heater""" and no loss the water should rise 0,87 K, in real it will rise only 0,7x0,87 = 0,6 K

We will see what I can do with my sonic setup

Kind rgds D


Results!
I promised to post results for """sonic boiler:""""

5 min 1kW, temp rise in 60l water: total input from grid = 83 Wh, temp rise = 4,2 K. Result with resistance heater 0,6 K. COP = 4,2/0,6 = 7  

Kind rgds D

------------------------------
Summary

Identical Input power...... Identical time  Same volume of water

Resistance heater temp rise 0.87k    Cop= 0.6

Sonic boiler temp rise 4.2k   Cop  =  7
-----------------------------------------------------------------
There MH
Here are some test results from MONTHS ago!!

The movie is coming
sit down and shut up or I'll have the usher throw you out!!
Chet
   
Group: Guest
Chet:

That stuff that you scrounged from the EF thread is not credible.  Some of that is from Daemonbart and it's no good.  Each one of those instances of reported data was tragically flawed and it's time to get real.  Like I said, Cherryman and PhysicsProf are the only people that have presented credible data so far.

It's time to stop the fantasy games Chet where people say almost anything and you agree with them no questions asked.  You are a grown man.  We need credible testing and data and I look forward to seeing improvements on this front.  Anything reported that resembles the vague and incomplete and cryptic results that Daemonbart has reported will be dismissed out of hand, or, a follow-up listing of questions can be generated for the person to respond to in order to make their data credible.

It's just a question of presenting reasonable scientific data, no more or less than that.  Look at PhysicsProf as an example.  He showed a picture of his setup, described his procedure, and presented his data in a credible fashion.  Don't tell me that other contributors to the thread can't do that.

MileHigh
   
Group: Ambassador
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3468
You drew a line in the sand....
A fresh start!
See its right over there [Chet points to post 348]

A new Day... a new way !!
You set the criteria We said "Good Start"!!
Stop running over to the other side of the line!!
Thats cheating!!

Technical  Foul!!
Play Nice ,You made the rules don't break them or everybody else will think they can too!
BTW
All of the above examples were from D
And since my crystal ball is in the shop And he never "Movied" his tests ,I can Only ASS U ME how he actually performed them!
But thats gonna change!

THX
Chet
   
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 805
This is a comment on the Witts water heater thread that was just started but is locked.   

What was posted there is inaccurate.   Watching the video should convince that what I'm saying is more accurate.  This is a frame grab from the video.  There is a resonator on the side of the sphere that he talks about.  He also talks about the probe at the top, and mentions the principles of acoustic resonance inside the sphere, principles he learned from the work of Keely.

EM
   
Group: Guest
Separated at birth?   ;D

   
Group: Ambassador
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3468
@EM
I moved it and then I  locked it because once I started reading the explanation from the professor!![on Witts]
I realized that certain people here would absolutely be incapable of restraint [and it would almost be Cruel on my part to expect such].

That being said I see it was still to irresistible for said person "Not to cross the line"!
!!!!


OK
Little more movie info!!
Looks like it will be a matinee for us in the east
The plot includes An Oldy but Goody... "old style "  inductance meter that runs 24 laps per KWH [remember the old round disc meters]
Several other Old style meters are in the mix too

along with a potpourri of new style stuff

I'm working  Now
I have much more to say about the Movie [good news]
Later
Chet
PS
We are going to have a refresher on theater edicate ..................  
« Last Edit: 2012-01-08, 14:33:04 by ramset »
   
Group: Ambassador
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3468
OK
Some history
The movie you are going to see sometime today is being presented By a man who knows what it takes to heat water!! He has been Designing and tweaking heat pump systems
most of his Life ,A consummate professional with the Work Ethic and standards [scrutiny] necessary to make real time real world advances in his field!!
Heretofore these advances came at Flea gas levels ...thus the equipment and techniques required to "SEE" results worth pursuing ,had to be very sensitive and quite familiar to the user.

You are in his playground Now !!! Decades of experience doing this kind of thing!!

This could not have been scripted any better by Spielberg!

I must also say the level of scrutiny here has absolutely got to be professional and honest,No Tomfoolery and such can be tolerated!

How it works can be argued in another venue ...All I'm asking is some professional courtesy !!

More comments to follow I'm sure
Chet
PS
I would also like to add ....There is absolutely no way this man is playing games with this.
what he sees is real ...whether it can be attributed to some other explainable condition [reactive power etc etc]
remains to be seen?
I personally as you know have no knowledge of how this could be?
Thats why some of you are here!
PPS
I have to add this Reactive power statement of mine ....Is in all probability ignorance on my part!!
This gentlemen made an observation on Professor Savics Tea kettle heater that explained his familiarity with these types of  open water inductive  heaters.
While he felt they could show some interesting things ,,,They could not do what todays Heat pump tech can do!

I am not referring to the "sonic Boiler"   but the little round one that Branislov is holding in the pic.

 
« Last Edit: 2012-01-08, 16:56:46 by ramset »
   
Group: Professor
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2810
Chet -- thanks for the phone call. 

.99 / Peter -- I would be happy to set up a thread on my bench for this movie that Chet mentions and the discussion to follow, as also suggested by Chet.   Does this work for you, or is there a better venue?
   

Group: Administrator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2897
It's not as complicated as it may seem...
Your bench is fine if it's ok with you.
   
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 2021-02-28, 12:52:07