Peter Davey Heater

[forest]

It's all about cavitation I think.However I'm not sure if our current schematic of Davey device is correct. Who said that two hemispheres must be assembled that way ?

[Paul-R]

There seems to be a disagreement of sorts on what multiple of the fundamental frequency should be used, a hugely important number imo, if only from the work point of view, as the bell will have to be ground down to this frequency...
Having got no positive results with 1000Hz

You won't get results with 1000Hz.

The essence of the Peter Daysh Davey system is that the two bells are tuned, very accurately,
to the frequency of the AC mains that is being used, or one or more octaves up on that
frequency. This is crucial.

In America, using 60 hz mains, the bells must be tuned to
60 (impossibly big bells)
120
240
480 (A real possiblity - between the 6th and 7th frets up the top string of a guitar)
960 etc etc

In Europe, using their 50 cycles per second AC mains supply, une to
50
100
200
400 (between the 3rd and 4th frets up on the top string of a guitar.
800
1600 etc etc

The bells must be in tune when they are assembled on the
rig. (i.e. you shouldn't tune them and expect them to still be in tune when
tightened up on rods with washers etc.

In theory, it is possible to tune a bell to 400hz whilst listening to a 50 hz hum.
But it is not as easy as it seems. Musicians can, but ordinary mortals
may have difficulty.

This stuff matters.
Paul.

[DOCV]

I keep on seeing the wrong information being given about harmonics.
It is like this
if your fundamental frequency is 50hz as with the AC mains then the resonant frequencies are multiples of that. ie 50 , 100, 150 , 200 and so on. Not as is being stated by some as 50, 100, 200, 400

In the USA it is 60, 120, 180, 240 etc.. NOT 60, 120, 240, 480

Read up on resonances and harmonic waveforms.
Also for those who understand physics it is - see pic attached

So 1000Hz is a resonant of the fundamental 50Hz

[DOCV]

If this thing draws 4 amps @ 240V (I live in Christchurch New Zealand - it's 50Hz 240V here) then that is 960 Watts.  If it rises to 8.6A - that's 2064 Watts.

There is something seriously wrong if you can't boil a cup of tea very quickly with 2kW!  I believe there is a principle here that requires serious research, but I suspect the recent media release is disinformation designed to mislead researchers.  I was tempted to look up Peter Davey - but decided against it.  His phone number is unlisted.  I could find his house and go see him - but he's 92.  I don;t expect to gain much.  Maybe he is being manipulated in his old age to cover up the truth?  The wierd stuff published by "Dr Jan Pajak" appears to be delusional, sad and fairly creepy.  But he gives good reason to be very suspicious of this recent unearthing of Peter Davey's invention.  So if he's right, I don't want to tangle with the government spooks.  And if "Dr Jan" is the spook (disguised as a whacko) I don't want to tangle with something our government might be trying to smear at the moment.  Either way - something is very dubious about this whole thing, and I doubt we can find the truth without experimenting with the basic acoustic principle.  Or waste your time frying water with high current AC mains power ... it's your choice.

I'm a musician, and I know about tuning and resonance.  I can get a house shaking with a carefully tuned bass or synth note.  How much energy would that take by any other means?  And that's with air-coupling!  Think about that for a moment ... there is great power in resonance if you tune it right.  Get a musician involved if you don't understand this part.

If there is any overunity in this device, it's from the acoustic effect - which is what Peter Blake has said all along.  I just think his big mistake was to try to use AC power - but back in the 1940's there wasn't the electronic solutions we have today.





 

C'mon greendoor, what i have seen from kiwis (if the all blacks are any indicator) is that you are tough group of people. Go down and see Peter, not that i think he'll give out any deatails, as he is still waiting for that elusive investor (after 70 years), but see what he will give, and quickly post it on the forum. As for the spooks... whats the worst that they can do... send you to Australia for a month, actually worse still, send you for 2 months.

[storre]

I keep on seeing the wrong information being given about harmonics.
It is like this
if your fundamental frequency is 50hz as with the AC mains then the resonant frequencies are multiples of that. ie 50 , 100, 150 , 200 and so on. Not as is being stated by some as 50, 100, 200, 400

In the USA it is 60, 120, 180, 240 etc.. NOT 60, 120, 240, 480

Read up on resonances and harmonic waveforms.
Also for those who understand physics it is - see pic attached

So 1000Hz is a resonant of the fundamental 50Hz

The harmonics I quoted are included when you calculate it as f1, f2, f3, f4 etc

50, 100, 150, 200, 250, 300, 350, 400, etc
50, 100, 200, 400, etc

or

60, 120, 180, 240, 300, 360, 420, 480, etc
60, 120, 240, 480, etc

There are of course many other harmonic intervals AND inharmonic (partials) especially in bells.

I'm a sax player also and I know that the octave overtones are easier to produce without using the octave key than the other overtones. Flute is the same but clarinet overblows at the 12th interval instead of the octave.

Since we still don't know exactly how this works, we should try all size bells that are near the size he was using while adjusting the distance between the bells.

I finally found a machine shop that is going to make me various size bells from ss and also brass so I hope to get started on this soon.