"Friction Heater" by Gabriel

ion · 2013.02.05, 15:22:12

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.

Chet K · 2013.02.07, 01:08:10

Just a wee bump......
Gabriels Cookin some data

Thx
Chet

PhysicsProf · 2013.02.07, 03:19:53

Good points there ION.
Gabriel: Fingers still crossed, hoping for careful measurements as we've noted... and wishing you the best!

Gabriel · 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.

Each test ran for 5 hours to ensure the "top temp" was stabilized or "equilibrium" was stable.

Thank you
Gabriel

ion · 2013.02.07, 14:32:23

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.

Gabriel · 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

ion · 2013.02.07, 18:12:55

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.

Gabriel · 2013.02.07, 18:44:52

I am sure with some tweaking I can get this heater to run batter then it is.

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?

PhysicsProf · 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.

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

Gabriel · 2013.02.07, 20:19:20

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?

PhysicsProf · 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 (or identical) box?

ion · 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.

Gabriel · 2013.02.07, 22:50:44

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

Gabriel · 2013.02.07, 23:30:55

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

PhysicsProf · 2013.02.08, 00:59:49

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!

Gabriel · 2013.02.08, 01:21:20

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

ion · 2013.02.08, 01:54:45

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.

PhysicsProf · 2013.02.08, 02:15:36

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.