PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?

[JouleSeeker]

Hello again Professor - and compliments of the season.

I see you've been busy debunking this new claim.  Well done. [snip]

Kindest regards,
Rosemary Ainslie

What are you talking about, Rose?  I did NOT debunk the tuned-sonic boiler claims, not at all.  I explained that I was not surprised that my preliminary results show an efficiency close to unity -- because, as I clearly stated, I did not TUNE the device at all.  Further, I referred to these data as a "baseline" run. 
Now about testing your device, I'm willing to take a look.  I'll send you an email.  But somehow you have got to stop twisting what I say into something that I did not say at all.

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Hello Professor,

Just a few points.

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

I wonder if it wouldn't be better to call it SBSP(Serbian Professor) lest his initialising all this get lost in the 'noise'?

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

And this.  That Pinput and Poutput - is really confusing and entirely non standard terminology.  All the more irritating as you then resolve your numbers in Watts which is not 'P' anything at all.  Professor - there is nothing wrong with the standard model's standard terminologies.  I believe Poynty Point has been rather more successful than is merited in introducing that PIN POUT nonsense.  And, while the most of us are already struggling with physics I'm not sure that we're helped by an introduction of these rather strange acronyms.  You see the problem I hope?  If POUT exceeds PIN then PIN must have been initialised by POUT. Much better to simply reference the source of the input energy compared to the dissipated energy.  That way there are no confusions.  If you need to impose an acronym - then, perhaps it would be as well to define your terms.

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.

And this.  How can you claim that level of accuracy when the machine is measuring hundreds of watts with an instrument that measures in the Kilowatt range?  Possibly it will work as a comparative measurement.  But I'm not sure that the number is entirely reliable.  Perhaps you can put our minds at ease on this point.

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.

And this.  Would it not have been better to let the experiment cool to it's initial temperature before you ran the second test?  If this assumption is simply wrong then I'm sure that there would be others too, who would like to understand this better.  May we impose on you to explain this?

You see this I hope.  There are those of us who are entirely unqualified.  And we would prefer to follow the rarefied thinking behind all you professionals.  It would help us all understand things better.  And it really doesn't add much more time to write INPUT than it does to write PINPUT.  I'd have thought.

Kindest regards,
Rosemary

[JouleSeeker]

  Waiting for the water in my test device to cool back to room temp would have taken a long time, Rose, so I let it cool to 98F (body temp LOL) then I started up the DUT again for the tests.  I don't think it would have made much difference really, starting the second run at 98F or 70F... especially since the device was not tuned at all.

  It is a good suggestion, heard also on other forums, to simply use ENERGY input and energy output, which I will do in the future -- although evaluating the power consumed by the device is also useful IMO.

 

[NerzhDishual]

Hi Prof. Jones,

Thanks for reactivating This Peter D. Davey's device.

Why did I stop working on this device? 
Just because I was disappointed by my results.
And also, perhaps, because a lack of perseverance. 
Anyway, I continue to believe that this device is worth to be tested with a positive mind.

Would I reconsider?
Yes, of course.

-------------------------
I agree with your your method. I used a similar one.
I got some "COP = Coefficient Of Performance" more than 0.9.
I also measured few "COP" slightly > 1 but, IHMO, these are measurements errors.
I did not use any calorimeter.

I only considered the initial and final (tap) water temperature and the volume of the said water to calculate "what was going out" assuming that my kinda "Kill-a-watt" meter was able  to tell me "what was going in" with enough accuracy. Actually, with a mere boiler I did not get unusual results.

I use prudent "inverted commas" just because I noticed that writing some appellations immediately rose some stinging remarks.

Just in case, my page :
http://freenrg.info/Sonettes_Davey/calcul_sonette.htm

I did not try any "input current frequency" tuning.
I just tried different "boilers" pathetically hoping to stumble upon a good tuned one.
I mean: a boiler that resonate at an upper harmonic of 50 Hz (in Europe).

I also tried to figure out the main "self freq" or some devices (in air).
http://freenrg.info/Sonettes_Davey/Freq/

This should be useless as the "self freq" of a device is not the same in water than in air. Is it?

Tired to blow too many "main fuses", I also built a fuse box allowing only "input amps" < 15.
With this limitation I did not try to boil water but I could perform some electrolysis at the same time.

--------------------

Now, I guess that I should experiment:
Inverse osmosis filtered water.
Distilled water.

If you have any suggestion, I would be pleased to experiment.

Very Best

[Magluvin]

  although evaluating the power consumed by the device is also useful IMO.

Absolutely.  If the circuit(not the source or the load) consumes, as in heating of resistors, semiconductors(needing heat sinks), these data are very important.

Lets say we have 10w in and 9w out, that doesnt "necessarily" mean that 3w couldnt be dissipated by the circuit. Especially if OU is what we are looking for. ;]

Mags