Peter Davey Heater

[EMdevices]

Personally I would say  a COP > 1.5 or so,  at least.     Why?  Because a 1.02 or 1.09 or 0.98 COP, given the inprecision of the measurement equipment is not enough to make a case of OU if the uncertainty in the measuring equipment is not determined rigurously.  In a serious scientific writeup, complete with uncertainty calulations ,  I would get excited at even a 1.00001 COP,  but from a backyard tinkerer like myself and NerzhDishual,  you better throw in a heafty margin of error   LOL  

He thinks he's within the watt meters precision, perhaps he is but I doubt it...uncertinty calculations are quite involved from what I can remember and require propagating the uncertinaty through the calculations (if calculating something)

We are  beyond the precision of the  watt meter. Uncertainty calculations should had been performed

...hmmmm, i wonder how much extra NerzhDishual's preliminary COP = 1 results would have to get, for them to be something magical?!? 


keep on truckin', guys
sandy
Doc Ringwood's Free Energy site  http://ringcomps.co.uk/doc

[nul-points]

Personally I would say  a COP > 1.5 or so,  at least.     Why?  Because a 1.02 or 1.09 or 0.98 COP, given the inprecision of the measurement equipment is not enough to make a case of OU if the uncertainty in the measuring equipment is not determined rigurously.  In a serious scientific writeup, complete with uncertainty calulations ,  I would get excited at even a 1.00001 COP,  but from a backyard tinkerer like myself and NerzhDishual,  you better throw in a heafty margin of error   LOL  

LOL  ...i was teasing you EM!   

NerzhDishual has only just started experimenting with this device & already he's getting COPs just either side of 1 - i think we all realise that more investigation & greater precision will be needed

however, using the very same argument ("given the inprecision of the measurement equipment...etc", you cannot state with certainty that more accurate results will necessarily show COP < 1 either

it would be negligent of us to walk away from finding out which is true!

be well, take care all
sandy
Doc Ringwood's Free Energy site  http://ringcomps.co.uk/doc

[Sprocket]

Well, I decided to have a shot at this.  No bells available, so I went with two SS measures, one inside the other (yep, I've been raiding the kitchen again )  Working with 230V AC, I started out with a 5A fuse, and was quite surprised that it didn't blow - at first!  When the water begins to boil, the current increases big-time, and it blew.  Exchanging this for a 13A solved the problem...

Some results:

My electric kettle is rated between 1850-2200W and with a full-load of about 1.75L, it takes 320 seconds to boil.  Using my gizmo, the same quantity takes 105 seconds.  So no instant-boiling...  Unfortunately, I don't have a clamp meter, and although my multi-meter's fuse is rated to 10A, I didn't want to risk blowing it, so no current reading.  However, as both the kettle and the gizmo use 13A fuses, and the kettles rated power usage is about 10A, I think it is reasonable to assume that even my first attempt is more efficient power-wise - at least that's my take on it!  I tried various things such as leaving the inner part loose, and a few attempts at adjusting its placing, but it didn't seem to have any effect.  Neither did the way it was orientated in the water, though with no holes to let the bubbles out, I tested it right-side-up most of the time...

My first impression is that maybe it is just more efficient to boil water this way...

[ramset]

SPROCKET   NICE thats a BIG difference   you going to put an in line meter on both   Chet  [ silly question]

[nul-points]

Well, I decided to have a shot at this.  No bells available, so I went with two SS measures, one inside the other
...
My electric kettle is rated between 1850-2200W and with a full-load of about 1.75L, it takes 320 seconds to boil.  Using my gizmo, the same quantity takes 105 seconds.
...
I tried various things such as leaving the inner part loose, and a few attempts at adjusting its placing, but it didn't seem to have any effect.  Neither did the way it was orientated in the water, though with no holes to let the bubbles out, I tested it right-side-up most of the time...

supports ND's findings on orientation & looseness

Working with 230V AC, I started out with a 5A fuse, and was quite surprised that it didn't blow - at first!  When the water begins to boil, the current increases big-time, and it blew.  Exchanging this for a 13A solved the problem...

that's very interesting, because you'ld expect the current to go down when bubbles started reducing resistive water path between electrodes!

My first impression is that maybe it is just more efficient to boil water this way...

NerzhDishual measured his kettle at 94% efficient, i believe - so if your test-rig was "maybe ... just more efficient to boil water" that might only leave a few % margin for it to be better, before it starts getting into OU territory!

i think you'll find efficiency can be increased more still by having the live & neutral electrodes almost completely enclosed inside an earthed casing - ie. a vented 'boiling chamber'

forest's results should be interesting in that area

i hope forest's sphere is vented - and not towards him!!

nice testing Sprocket!!

all the best
sandy

Doc Ringwood's Free Energy site:  http://ringcomps.co.uk/doc