Finally magnetic heater DIY for FREE

[MarkE]

here is my math with given data:
this is input:

time	temp	kwh
19:26	15	4108.3
19:31	88.5	4108.8

output:

Oil coeff	ΔT	ΔkW	Δtime
1.8 kJ/kg.C	73.5 C (88.5 - 15)	0.5 kWh (4108.8 -4108.3)	5 min

and now Qinput = Qoutput
this is output:
18 liters water x 0.858 kg/liter(massa of oil)  = 15.4 massa kg x 1.8 kJ/kg.C x 73.5 C =  2043kJ
input of electricity:
0.5 kWh

and now we have input of 0.5kWh  and output of 2043kJ

Before you reported your input electrical energy at 0.8kWh.  Now that we all agree that 18 liters of oil heated by 73C is around 0.50 - 0.55kWh you report that your input electricity is 0.5kWh.  How do you explain the change in your reported electrical input?

Submersible resistance heating elements are 98%+ efficient and very low cost.  Your device is an eddy current brake.  It's efficiency heating the thermal transfer oil is hindered by the efficiency of the motor, and the heat conduction and radiation of the copper block.  Even just putting thermal insulation around the expensive copper block would help.  But the whole thing is economically ridiculous due to the cost and losses of the motor.

If you want a non-contact system: use ingot iron for the thermal transfer block inside insulation surrounded by induction coils.  If you design the induction coils properly, then you can get 95% - 99% plus power transfer into eddy currents in the iron.  Induction heater design is old, very well-understood art.

[MarkE]

the water if I want to see how much oil is in there then there is 18 liter, but in the copper part there are three other walls inside so it can be less then 18 liter thats why I would say 17 liter
and in the attachment I will place drawing of copper part

Fill it and then drain it into a measuring container.

[MarkE]

hi dakanadaka,

It's interesting using N,S,N,S poles of neo magnets to heat up metal similar to induction heater except that the magnetic field is set by the strong magnets which the field seems to last like forever.

I think i have seen the original video somewhere in youtube.I do believe this is a good way to heat up water and then playing with rpm in order to maintain to a preset heat.

I do wonder if you put magnet on both sides it would create even more change in magnetic flux which would heat up water via the metal in shorter amount of time.
This technique seems to be more efficient than a induction heater.

I do wonder if the typical induction heater can be replaced by a flat disc motor(with step up gear) which is rotating those neo magnets(which cover the surface area of disc) under a rather thin metal pan.

But it is an induction heater.  The changing magnetic field comes from the moving magnets.  It is otherwise known as an eddy current brake.  Bury heating elements in a heat exchange block that is well insulated and you'll spend a lot less money and get much better results.

[magpwr]

But it is an induction heater.  The changing magnetic field comes from the moving magnets.  It is otherwise known as an eddy current brake.  Bury heating elements in a heat exchange block that is well insulated and you'll spend a lot less money and get much better results.

hi MarkE,

There is no "heat exchange or transfer" involved in this type this induction heater concept regardless if it's is using magnets or pancake coil with litz wire since the metal pan(thin or thick) itself is getting hot.

It's the primary reason why induction heater is more efficient than a typical heating element design since heat exchange part is eliminated.

[MarkE]

hi MarkE,

There is no "heat exchange or transfer" involved in this type this induction heater concept regardless if it's is using magnets or pancake coil with litz wire since the metal pan(thin or thick) itself is getting hot.

The copper structure most definitely performs as a heat exchanger to the oil thermal transfer fluid.   Eddy currents heat the copper block and the block rejects heat to the oil running through the inside of the block and air surrounding the block.

It's the primary reason why induction heater is more efficient than a typical heating element design since heat exchange part is eliminated.

You are wrong on both accounts.  Properly wired and located, resistance heating elements are 98%+ efficient.  Induction heating is useful in many circumstances where the thing that we want to heat is something other than fluid captured within the heater, such as:  water in a pot, or some piece of metal that we are working.  The copper block that is your heating element is also your heat exchanger to the oil heat exchange fluid. 

If you were to throw away the motor and magnet disc, and instead mount one or more resistance heaters in the copper block, and then insulate the copper block, your power efficiency would improve substantially, and your costs would drop dramatically.