Davey Sonic Boilers -- and Controls. Experimental results and discussion.

[PhysicsProf]

  PS -- I do think replication and scaling up are important.  To this end, my next goals are to test Stainless Steel (SS) vessels that will be cheaper and easier to obtain than the crucibles I've been using (which I purchased from a chemistry-supply stockroom).  I'm hoping the yield will also increase as I try different things. 

I feel confident in the methods for measuring Einput and Eoutput, but always open for suggestions.

Note that with the last tests, two iron bells, the input power is 310 W and the output is 134% higher; so the net "anomalous input" power is about 100 Watts!  where is it coming from?? 

[poynt99]

Steve,

Interesting that you should mention stainless steel. I was about to propose the following test:

Dispense with the bell shape electrodes for now, and cut a number of SS plates, say 1.5" x 3" in dimension. Drill a 1/4" hole in each end and stack say 6 plates together with a nylon bolt and nuts for spacers. Connect every second plate to HOT and the other to NEUT. Try a test.

If you get similar or better results, then this is a little more accessible for everyone to try. It would also dispense with the notion that bell-shaped electrodes are required, and it may also dispense with the notion that they are resonating in some way.

.99

[PhysicsProf]

Steve,

Interesting that you should mention stainless steel. I was about to propose the following test:

Dispense with the bell shape electrodes for now, and cut a number of SS plates, say 1.5" x 3" in dimension. Drill a 1/4" hole in each end and stack say 6 plates together with a nylon bolt and nuts for spacers. Connect every second plate to HOT and the other to NEUT. Try a test.

If you get similar or better results, then this is a little more accessible for everyone to try. It also dispenses with the notion that bell-shaped electrodes are required, and it may also dispense with the notion that they are resonating in some way.

.99

Good idea.  I would tend towards discs, avoid sharp points on plates.  Anyway, hope others will jump in, the water is fine!
PS -- a Kaloric electric kettle gets you started for less than $25 bucks, and a 3000 gram scale is adequate, for about 11-16 bucks.  And a grid watt-hour meter; I like the WANF from ebay, about $20.   That's all you need for the boiling tests.  Oh, and some bubble-wrap for the kettle helps too.  Cheap and easy!  and amazingly repeatable.

Attached photos of SS items -- IKEA is a great source for symmetrical SS vessels to try; I bought these a couple of months ago...

Caution -- I will be traveling towards Maryland starting Monday; birth of a grand-daughter!  So lab-time will be curtailed for a while... sigh...  I might be able to do something in Md however..

[Chet K]

@All
I contacted our friend ION he is a moderator here .
I Had asked him to have a look and contribute if he could [he's an honest level headed man with a very good grasp on the things we are discussing here]

Below is his reply

=================
Chet,

I am in the middle of a health crisis right now, so can't participate at this time. I do however see a few errors in the test methods being performed with the resistive heater versus the boiler.

Main problem is that steam production is not a scientific method, because of the concentration of energy between the electrodes, steam production is much more likely in the Davey type vessel, as opposed to a resistive heater, which will have to heat the entire vessel before steam can be produced.

The body of water in the Davey boiler does not have to heat up to 212 degrees before steam is produced, only the small area of water between the electrodes.

In the resistive heater, the entire body of water will need to rise to 212 before steam can be produced because of convection currents that tend to circulate and distribute heat from the resistor throughout the vessel.

This effect does not occur with the Davey type boiler because of the intense concentration of energy and trapping of the heat allowing very localized boiling while the rest of the chamber can be relatively cool.

To test apples against apples, compare the Davey boiler to a pair of well insulated close spaced electrodes immersed in the water with just the uninsulated tips of the wires in close proximity.

If you were trapping all the heat (and steam production) and merely measuring temperature rise of the water in the vessel, you would be closer to a scientific test with your existing method.

So steam production alone is not a true measure of the efficacy of the devices.

Consider as an example an old fashioned coffee percolator, where only a small amount of water is heated to the steam point, while the rest of the water remains cold or slightly warm. Compare that to the same wattage trying to heat the entire amount of water in the pot, it will take much longer to get to the steam point.

If you post this reply I will gladly answer a few questions on my view of the experiment.

Regards, ION
---------------------------
Sir
I pray you a speedy recovery!!

THX
Chet

[PhysicsProf]

  It is kind of ION to comment on the private-group experiments and methods.  However, I would like his opinion AFTER he better understands the method.  
First, please note that the with this system, the greatest effect appears in my experiments during boiling, not simply during raising the temperature of water (below the boiling temp).   I have presented results in both temperature regimes from the same sonic boiler system.  It will not do, therefore to require that the experiment be performed below boiling temperature.  This should be clear from the data I have already presented.  But on to the most important misunderstanding --

ION writes:

The body of water in the Davey boiler does not have to heat up to 212 degrees before steam is produced, only the small area of water between the electrodes.

In the resistive heater, the entire body of water will need to rise to 212 before steam can be produced because of convection currents that tend to circulate and distribute heat from the resistor throughout the vessel.

This effect does not occur with the Davey type boiler because of the intense concentration of energy and trapping of the heat allowing very localized boiling while the rest of the chamber can be relatively cool.

NO!

This is incorrect, because (as I explained before) the entire volume of the water is heated TO BOILING TEMPERATURE, using the resistive coil at the bottom of the electric kettle (EK), BEFORE the tests of evaporation begin.  That is, I raise the water to a vigorous boil using the EK with the lid closed, quickly measure the mass, THEN insert either the resistive coil (control) or the 2-bell system, and begin the test, with the watt-hour meters now recording the input energy.  There is a small loss due to the time involved in weighing and inserting the heater element, but this loss is evidently small as expected because the control experiment runs at 93 - 98% efficiency (in boiling).

IOW, I am measuring the amount of evaporation that occurs AFTER the entire volume of the water has been heated to essentially the boiling temperature for BOTH control and DUT.  To suggest otherwise misrepresents the method terribly.  

Now that the method is better understood, that the entire volume of water BEGINS essentially at boiling temp for all runs and that the insulation is good, I would like to hear if ION will explain if his objection still applies, or not.


PS -- Chet, did you ask ION to read the entire thread here, so he could correctly understand my method before critiquing it?  It appears he did not read it...  I guess I'm a little uneasy about what you have done.

[Chet K]

Steve
I apologies for the misunderstanding .When we first discussed  using this venue we addressed The Moderator issue ,and I thought we agreed since ION would be able to read the thread
He should be welcome to comment [if he actually reads it].



Thx
Chet

EDIT
Ok ,I have had some time to think about this....

Over the years I have grown to understand that there are men involved in these forums for many different reasons.
It seems in  life, every one has an agenda. .
Our Agenda here is to make this world a better place ,not bigger cars or Tv's, houses and so on.......
My point is we need assets to do this  "People assets" ,men we can trust to the utmost!!

We are so few in such a big world ,We cannot afford to distance our selves from men of like mind ,It will stifle our cause!
The three moderators here are such men. Knowledgeable, sincere and dedicated men,just like yourself Steve.

At this moment I feel vulnerable ,in need of help ,with few men of like mind in my life,men I can trust.
at Times That trust requires faith ,Faith in our creator as well as our fellow man.

I trust ION ,and wish him a speedy recovery !

Sorry for the awkward moment here............
Chet
PS
His comment did help clarify one thing to me ,it should have been profoundly obvious but I am not the brightest bulb.

Of the two different techniques being used here ,one is inherently a steam maker ,from the moment you turn it on regardless of the water temp.


 

[PhysicsProf]

  OK, Chet, but still waiting to hear from ION then why the method was misrepresented in his critique.

On March 4th, I stated the method I think clearly:

Results follow, comparing evaporated-water-mass for the Kaloric EK control, and for the 2BSB system.  What I did is to run for 19 kW-hrs for each run, both control runs and SB runs. First, I heated the water to boiling using the EK, then weighed the water quickly on the mass scale, then did the boiling run putting 19kW-hrs into the control OR the SB, then quickly weighed the water again on the mass scale to determine the weight lost due to steam production.

Actually, I thought my post of 28 February 2012 was already quite clear on this point:

I found using the control that if I would first heat the water to near boiling with the lid closed, then weigh the vessel, then proceed with boiling -- then weigh again, the input electrical energy agreed with the output heat as determined from the mass evaporated:

Qevap = 2261 J/g * delta-mass  (the mass of the evaporated water) ...  "

So how could this method be mis-construed?  And, more importantly, what if anything is wrong with this method (pre-heating the water to essentially boiling temperature   BEFORE taking the measurements described)?   and is there a better method when boiling is involved?  I'm always open to new ideas for making measurements!

[Chet K]

Steve
Are you aware of this?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VOQbVD7F1f4

Self runs after start up, 1000 liters per day.

THX
Chet

[PhysicsProf]

Steve
Are you aware of this?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VOQbVD7F1f4

Self runs after start up, 1000 liters per day.

THX
Chet

Informative vid, but it takes input power, recovers SOME of the output energy so that it runs very efficiently (according to the vid).

Why do you say "Self runs after start up"?    do you mean ou?

[Chet K]

Steve
I see gen 5 on this latest vid, I know this started off as a sterling engine [Gen 1]
As I watched the vid He speaks about it only needing power fo start up and then it works in a closed loop

Did you hear that part? I am working [of course ] but I will run the Vid again and mark the spot!
Thx
Chet
EDIT

I see now he speaks of needing only 2% of the power it would normally take to accomplish this.

[ion]

Chet said:

Of the two different techniques being used here ,one is inherently a steam maker ,from the moment you turn it on regardless of the water temp.

I will try to clarify a response as time permits, but Chet has got the idea. The resistive heater is always at a slight disadvantage due to convection currents that slow the boiling process, not so with the Davey boiler.

This is just my opinion in a reply to Chet's PM. I have read most of the thread and understand the methods being used.

Carry on, we can agree to disagree.

[NerzhDishual]

Hi People,

I have made some others measurements.
I have not been able to get a 'correct' COP.
My new COPs  are between 0.6 and 0.75 if my memory serves me right
(even when I take account of the room temperature increase).

This is less than a mere kettle.

Prof Jones is having very interesting results with non-tuned devices.
Just cups if I'm not mistaken.

For any 'OU' device, the question is: where does the extra energy  come from?

My question would be: where does the energy vanish?
When you get a COP of 0.17 as I did (with the "ball" full of air) you are allowed
to ask such questions. RU not?

More to come ASAP.

Very Best,
Jean

[PhysicsProf]

I will try to clarify a response as time permits... The resistive heater is always at a slight disadvantage due to convection currents that slow the boiling process, not so with the Davey boiler.

This is just my opinion in a reply to Chet's PM.....

Great -- will await your clarification.  Please recall that I have holes in the top of both bells in my 'best' devices, to enhance convection, so perhaps this convection is not so unlike the IMMERSION resistive heater that I use.  What differs greatly is the efficiency between the control and the 2-bell system.

ION:  Do you understand and agree that all the water in the vessel is PRE-HEATED to essentially boiling temperature BEFORE any testing is done, or do you still "Disagree" on that critical point?

[PhysicsProf]

Hi People,

I have made some others measurements.
I have not been able to get a 'correct' COP.
My new COPs  are between 0.6 and 0.75 if my memory serves me right
(even when I take account of the room temperature increase).

This is less than a mere kettle.

Prof Jones is having very interesting results with non-tuned devices.
Just cups if I'm not mistaken.

For any 'OU' device, the question is: where does the extra energy  come from?

My question would be: where does the energy vanish?
When you get a COP of 0.17 as I did (with the "ball" full of air) you are allowed
to ask such questions. RU not?

More to come ASAP.

Very Best,
Jean

Jean, getting efficiency of near 1 for the control is a good indication that your insulation is good as well as input energy measurements.
A COP of 17% is not understood...   where does the energy vanish?  -- is the right question.  Is something (a wire perhaps) in the air and very hot?
LOWER than

[Slider2732]

Still looking for a good nylon bolt here, but have had a thought, picture attached.
Several areas stand out - the hole requirement, compactness, resilient metals, simplified reliable construction. Also, the wish stated to see just whether the bells need in fact to be bells.
On taking apart an old hard drive for parts yesterday, I looked at the platinum platters and wondered what you think of using them ?
They are 3 1/2" diameter and would allow for a flattened assembly, if indeed they worked.
Arranged just like the bells, one on top of the other, such a system would be akin to an HHO bubbler, 2 same metal plates, high voltage and current passing between.  

Best wishes for your road trip Steve and to your daughter and the little'un

[PhysicsProf]

 Thanks, Mark.  
I'm impressed by those platinum platters!   One could use two, or several as .99 suggested -- alternating hot and neutral.  What are the platinum platters made of actually?  (not platinum I assume    )

  The nylon bolts and nuts and spacers I have found at two hardware stores; the third did not carry them.  I used two nuts on the single bolt, BETWEEN the 2 iron bells, thinking this would allow for adjustment later...

[ion]

ION:  Do you understand and agree that all the water in the vessel is PRE-HEATED to essentially boiling temperature BEFORE any testing is done, or do you still "Disagree" on that critical point?

Yes, I agree. But container losses will have more of an effect on the resistive heater and will have little effect on the Davey unit as explained below.

While the numbers look encouraging, the next step in rigorous scientific analysis is to examine the test setup and how differences could account for the higher steam output of the Davey device versus the electric immersion heater.

!) The Davey bells represent a batch process, whereby a very small amount of water is subjected to an intense electric potential at the apex of the bells, where most constriction occurs. As the water in this region is heated and bursts into steam, it quickly rises to the rim area of the bells and exits as steam bubbles. Cold water rushes in to fill the vacant space and the next batch begins. This occurs rapidly and would appear to be continuous.

The Davey device is affected only slightly by the surrounding water temperature and is relatively unaffected by losses through the container walls. It will produce steam almost instantly wether immersed in cold, warm or hot water.

2) The resistive heater can be considered a continuous process rather than batch process, as the entire volume of water is involved in the temperature rise to the steam point, and losses through the container walls impedes steam production due to convection currents that circulate and conduct through the container walls to the outside world. Heating from the resistive element occurs over a large area along the immersion heaters surface and is not concentrated as in the Davey Bells. This puts the resistive heater at a slight disadvantage. The container losses in this case provide a slight drag on the boiling process.

Were this experiment bringing in COP's of 3 or 4 to 1, I might not question the test method with such scrutiny, but a 30% improvement leads me to look at the differences.

From the beginning, I have stayed out of the Davey thread, because I saw that many were impressed by the videos of the bubbling steam rising out of the water as he demonstrated the devices. I saw that this would take a long time to heat the surrounding water, in fact, a good deal of it would be evaporated before it approached 212 F, again due to the nature of the batch process, and it's efficiency at producing steam bubbles.

As POYNT recommended, consider running the Davey unit against a pair of closely spaced plates. I would recommend a pair of concentric cylinders, closed off with an insulating means at one end. Both of these methods would be more  like a batch process and similar to the Davey Bells.

Not trying to rain on anyone's parade, but opinions and input have been requested by Prof Jones, so feel completely free to disregard this input.

Best Regards, ION

PS To Prof......have you any measurements of the thermal loss of your container? What power input to the resistive heater is required to maintain the water very close to the steam point (just below) for an extended period? perhaps a few hours? This will give us an idea of the Watts lost to the outside ambient.

Also an accurate cross sectional mechanical drawing of the Bell assembly would be a big help. Thank you.

[PhysicsProf]

  I have just a short time before our travel begins.  I call you attention to the attached photo -- showing the actual immersion heater used in the latest tests and two of the 2-bell systems.  

 Glad to see that you agree that the entire water volume was pre-heated, ION, for this is the case.  This is the part that I disagree with:

ION:  
2) The resistive heater can be considered a continuous process rather than batch process, as the entire volume of water is involved in the temperature rise to the steam point, and losses through the container walls impedes steam production due to convection currents that circulate and conduct through the container walls to the outside world. Heating from the resistive element occurs over a large area along the immersion heaters surface and is not concentrated as in the Davey Bells.

On the contrary, the immersion heater heats the area just around it -- very much like the 2-bell system.  Both involve heating in a concentrated area along with convection. If anything, the immersion heater is smaller than the 2-bell system; I expect the heating therefore to be concentrated around it.  They are immersed to approx the same depth.  Even power inputs are similar, at approx 300 W as I reported before, for the runs a few days ago.

Therefore, I ask you to reconsider the above statement, given the photographic information -- along with the fact that the control and DUT have approx. the same POWER and therefore the same time-duration for experiments -- and therefore close to the SAME heat loss through the walls (which are covered in TWO layers of bubble-wrap insulation).   The fact that the control comes in close to unity for efficiency shows that the heat loss (during the short run) is small.

I certainly agree that a cop of 2 or 3 would simplify the analysis, of course.   Working on it.....
 And I invite others to jump in.

I am taking some experimental gear, and in about 8 days I hope to resume experiments.

[ion]

Lets look at it another way. Instead of steam production lets say we wished to rise the water in each container to near boiling from a cold start. We could put thermocouples or thermometers in the water to measure rate of rise. I prefer thermocouples because you can chart the race with a two pen chart recorder or other PC based data acquisition system.

The Davey Bell system will be quickly making steam bubbles, very little heat energy of each bubble will be exchanged to the water when one considers the surface area of a bubble compared to the energy of the interior volume of a bubble. As new rushes of cold water replace the escaping bubbles, there will be some mild preheating of the water as it enters the chamber, there will not be appreciable convection currents established, as the new batch of steam produced will mostly be lost at the surface of the water.

The thermocouple in this chamber will show a very slow rise in temperature, since most of the heat is lost when the bubble bursts on the surface and escapes. If there was a way to capture all of this energy e.g by using a tall thin chamber such that all of the steam energy is conducted to the water, causing the bubbles to eventually collapse and condense into the water, the picture might be different.

In the resistive heater, whether you can see them or not, convection currents will be established immediatly, but no steam will be produced until you rich the "brick wall", the 100 C or 212 F point. I say brick wall because the amount of energy required to cross into the boiling point is much larger than any other incremental temperature along the rise.

Generally, the resistive heater will be far more efficient at heating the water in the vessel, as it does not have to deal with steam losses until the boiling point is reached.

Generating steam for both methods, and weighing the containers afterwards would be a perfect method if the generating means were somewhat similar. I am merely stating that they are different and will yield different results.

On the contrary, the immersion heater heats the area just around it -- very much like the 2-bell system.  Both involve heating in a concentrated area along with convection. If anything, the immersion heater is smaller than the 2-bell system; I expect the heating therefore to be concentrated around it.  They are immersed to approx the same depth.  Even power inputs are similar, at approx 300 W as I reported before, for the runs a few days ago.

I will have to disagree with your disagreement of my assessment  of the amount and degree of convection in each case, as I have explained.

Please carry on and best of luck with your research in this area......and remember the Devil is in the details

[Slider2732]

Some while ago. someone in the ###### Earth Light thread at EF said there was a platinum coating on those drive platters and to try them out in salts cell batteries. I did, the platter material was naff lol. So, it's been of interest to find out more about the construction.

Wiki was fine for an overview:  

The material of the main magnetic medium layer is usually a cobalt-based alloy.

And later:

Platters are typically made using an aluminium or glass and ceramic substrate. In disk manufacturing, a thin coating is deposited on both sides of the substrate, mostly by a vacuum deposition process called magnetron sputtering. The coating has a complex layered structure consisting of various metallic (mostly non-magnetic) alloys[clarification needed] as underlayers, optimized for the control of the crystallographic orientation and the grain size of the actual magnetic media layer on top of them, i.e. the film storing the bits of information. On top of it a protective carbon-based overcoat is deposited in the same sputtering process. In post-processing a nanometer thin polymeric lubricant layer gets deposited on top of the sputtered structure by dipping the disk into a solvent solution, after which the disk is buffed by various processes

If nothing else, that's a lot of different natural resonant frequencies I would imagine.
Even so, we're looking at an easily sourced material if such platters work.


I welcome your views ION, you're a much friendlier chap than some in the larger community, the arguments are balanced and rational. Stepping through your points is a very valid requirement and i'm glad to see the need to do so, before any public announcement has been made.
A more effective morning coffee maker is my drive. On a cold morning, If it used the same power, in the same time frame, but produced an actually hot coffee then it would trounce on my store bought one !  

[PhysicsProf]

  The immersion heater that I used, shown clearly in the photo last posting, dips about 2-3 inches below the surface of the water, and I have about 1-1.5 liters of water, top diameter in the calorimeter is about 4".

Steam forms quite quickly around this immersion boiler, even when the water is not so hot.  When you get feeling better, why don't you try it?  Costs about $7 via Amazon as I recall (I've had this for months now).  Be sure to use about a liter or so of water in a tall vessel, as I've shown in photos.  Experimentally, I don't find that the behavior is as you describe:

Generally, the resistive heater will be far more efficient at heating the water in the vessel, as it does not have to deal with steam losses until the boiling point is reached.

If you're really saying the immersion heater "does not have to deal with steam losses until the boiling point of the water generally in the vessel is reached"  -- then that just plain is false.  Sorry, but I have to go with the experimental evidence.   I've worked with this immersion heater for some time now.

I think this little heater would work fine in a CUP of water, if you stirred it a bit.  That's a different situation!!

If I can't get the cop up near 2, I might try another calorimeter.  But the fact remains that the efficiency measured with the immersion heater shown in the photo, with pre-heated water as explained repeatedly, is close to unity as expected.  It is not significantly heating up the water in the vessel generally before boiling!

Gotta run!

[NerzhDishual]

Hi everybody, salve a tutti hag Demat d'an holl,

@Ramset,
My only "Agenda" -appart from taking care of my family as far as I can- is, at least, to test
an obvious overunity device and to announce my 'finding' in one fringe publications.
At best to replicate such an apparatus.
At "more best" to invent my own appliance.
Just before I die.
I do not need any (more) fame and/or money.
In the average, the Universe was kind for me (for the moment?).
I'm very far from being a saint: smoking and boozing are not 'unfamiliar' to me.
Anyway, Shrouds have no pockets and a lot of lost greedy souls roam the Beyond (IMO).

-------------------------
I do agree with ION:

... only a small amount of water is heated to the steam point, while the rest
of the water remains cold or slightly warm.

I have shown this it 2 vids.
http://www.freenrg.info/4SJ/Exp1_320-240.mp4
http://www.freenrg.info/4SJ/Exp2_320-240.mp4 

BTW: for my part, healt-wise, I highly abuse of C vitamin.
-------------------------------------
I also do agree with Prof. Jones and his way of conducting his experiments.
No need to repeatedly explain, please,
I had the same idea.
Unfortunately, with the Savic's Sonic Boiler, it is not possible.

Actually, I have made another pdf file about the Ohmic resistance of the (inactive) Sonic Boiler
(inserted in a kettle) depending upon the temperature of the water.
It is on:
http://www.freenrg.info/4SJ2/SB_Resistance_Vs_Temperature.pdf
--------------------------
Now, might I suggest to Prof. Jones to try this very simple experiment?.
For my part, I have not done it yet. But I will.

Put, for example, 600 grams of water in your electric kettle.

Use your best table scale to weight the kettle and the water.
Plug this kettle on the grid.

BTW: a French saying: "Cela fonctionne mieux quand c'est branché"
= It works better when plugged. 

Let this water boil and evaporate for a while.
Please, switch off the power supply.

Wait for a while just to not be burned.
Weigh the Kettie and the water. Jot this number.
Wait for about one hour.
Weigh the Kettie and the water. Jot this number.
Wait for about another hour.
Weigh the Kettie and the water. Jot this number.
Wait for about another hour.
Weigh the Kettie and the water. Jot this number.
Wait for about 12 hours (or more).
Weigh the Kettie and the. Jot this number.

Sorry, this will impede you to use your favourite kettle for a while.

No further comment for the moment.

Very Best,
Jean

[PhysicsProf]

  Well said, Nerzh (Jean).

And sure, I'm willing to try your experiment... as soon as I get finished traveling and visiting so I can set up a little experiment!  It will probably be a few days at least.
As long as you keep the LID ON, so the vessel is covered, the weight loss due to evaporation should be small (otherwise significant IMO).  We'll see -- I like experiments, you see.

Steve

[PhysicsProf]

I noted:  "Steam forms quite quickly around this immersion boiler, even when the water is not so hot."  However, while traveling, I regret that I'm not in a position to quantify this statement at the moment -- because the things I would need to make measurements are packed away.  So I should add that caveat and not state this too strongly.   I have not done many experiments with the immersion boiler in "not so hot" water -- only when the water was pre-heated to essentially boiling using the built-in resistive heater at the bottom of the Kaloric electric kettle.  This is where I generally start when taking data with the little immersion heater suspended near the top of the water in the vessel -- and where I start generally with the sonic boiler also.  Then, in both cases, the boiling begins right away; near the surface where the heat in each case is concentrated.

If I started with water well-below the boiling temp (which is about 93 C at my altitude at home), then the analysis for calculating heat output would be significantly more complicated than what I have recently shown.  In that case, which I have avoided in recent experiments by pre-heating the water as explained, then I would have to add
Q = 4.19 * mass of water heated * (Tfinal - Tinitial).

THAT would be problematical, because "mass of water heated" would be the issue -- I would have to add stirring etc to get the entire volume heated with either the little immersion heater (which is suspended near the surface of the water) or the sonic boiler (also suspended near the surface of the water), as well as using the above equation ALONG with the equation for Qboiling.  I don't want to mess with all that; but could do.  I don't see why that would help though.

By pre-heating the entire volume of the water to essentially boiling, I can simply measure the mass of vaporized water as I have explained.  Then with the volume of water pre-heated in both cases, the boiling around the heating element (immersion heater or Davey boiler) is indeed almost immediate.   And the result for the immersion element is that the cop is nearly unity, which gives me some confidence in the reliability of this method.

[NerzhDishual]

@Prof Jones,

Yes, I definitely agree with your methods.

This Sonic Boiler is just given me headaches.
Even by taking account of the room temperature increase (about 0.6 Celsius degrees)
and the volume of the small piece where I make my experiments (about 25 m^3), all my new
COPs are pathetically under Unity.

So, I have ordered 2 one meter/5mm diameter nylon threaded rods,a bunch of bolts, spacers, washer of
the same metal. I have also a load of cups and a drilling machine that are just waiting to be used.

So more to come, ASAP, about my onw Sonic Boilers.

Now, if you want to increase your COP, it suffice to wait, saying, one day, before weighting your water.

You can consult:
http://www.freenrg.info/4SJ2/Kettle_Water_Weight.pdf
http://www.freenrg.info/4SJ2/SB_Water_Weight.pdf

It is not the first time (it happends each time) that I notice this phenomenon.
No, IMO, it is not a matter of evaporation.

Very Best,
Jean