thanks for that patent NewAge,   
Sandy I looked at the results NerzhDishuals obtained, very good work there, yes there seems to be not much difference, interesting..


I was just thinking,  if the intent is to prevent the microcavitation due to boiling, imagine what happens if the cavitation occurs at the focal point of a sphere.   As each buble explodes into being and forms,  it sends out spherical waves outward since it displaces water, but here's the catch, the waves reflect right back and focus in the center raising the pressure and possibly re-compresing the bubbles to some extent making it harder to form.... so I can see how sonic action can be occuring and can be beneficial.... hmmmm ....    I got to look for the Thrapp heater thread and see what's being discussed there...


Oh, another thought,  on the other hand if we do want rapid cavitation to occur,  the vibrations of a plate explain that perfectly.  Imagine a plate in water and you suddenly push it one way.  What happens to one side compared to the other?   Well the pressure increases on one side and decreases on the other.   Where will rapid boiling occur now?   The side with the lower pressure !!!   Hmmmmmmm, I think I need to get invovled and build something soon ......  (here's an experiment to show this, boil some water then lift the metal pot off the stove and wait untill the boiling stops, then hit the bottom with a hard object a spoon or hamer, not to hard to break or dent the pot, and you should see boiling reignite in certain spots)

I'm reading the patent and it sounds like intermittent contact can develop, but in one paragraph he does sound like he does not want this to occur...  here's what he says on page 5 mid way ,  "Various methods can be employed satisfactorily in effecting and maintaining an electrical connection...."

EM

P.S.  I just finished reading the whole patent, and I'm dissipointed that he doesn't address the benefits of electrode vibration.   He does not say anything about proper tuning for a certian note or anything of that nature, so it appears his technology is just rapid heating based on electrical contact with a conductive liquid,  and of course this is special since if there is no water, there is no danger of overheating, unlike coil based systems that continue to generate heat and if no cooling occurs the tempeture is driven too high and fires or meldown can occur.   I think  I'm going to leave this technology alone for now, seems to be nothing magical. It's our ignorance that makes us think it's special, but I bet a thermo engineer would set us straight...  seems like the profesor in the video was right, it's the electricity passing through water that heats it up ...  oh well....

I'm taking a break from the TPU research  (just for tonight    )   and read this whole thread.

Personal Opinion:

1)  The main heating energy comes from electricity, however, sonic and convection flows play an important role as follows:

I'll check back periodically....

EM

Thank you very much EM. How's that TPU going? I think its about circulating the magnetic field to get electrical current right?

I do not agree with you on your thought that the main energy is the electricity.
Small amount of consumption is reported.
If it is, there is no point in pursuing this topic.
What's more, if this is not an urban myth the amount of water does not matter much.
This could only be true if the heating power comes from vibrations/resonance (or
something else we do not know thats there.)

I sometimes think that all these stuff (Meyer, TPU, Testatica, Davey etc.)
all are just urban myths to keep great minds like yours and other friends' here busy with
colorful dreams. Meanwhile we keep on buying gas from the price they want us to buy and electricity
from the price they like us to buy, with the hope that we will be free from all that nonsense soon.
Bedini etc. would be government agents in that case

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

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...

(http://i288.photobucket.com/albums/ll190/Sprocket_06/Photo-0113.jpg)

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

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

@nul-points - that was my next question, how efficient is your average kettle.  Wikipedia suggests over 90% so ND's measurment is likely correct.  Presuming my kettle has a 95% efficiency, (@ more then 15 yo, I doubt it!) at the very least, it takes half the time to boil the same amount of water as the kettle does, which means that it should be using twice the current - which isn't possible as they both have 13A fuses!  btw, I decided to see how long it would take almost 2L of water to boil in a plastic coke bottle with the top chopped off - got to 115sec when water started pouring out as the bottle melted - won't try that again!!!   So, some suitable glassware is also on my shopping -list...

Anyway, been playing some more.  Had a silly urge to see what would happen with a 3A fuse - 5 secs after switch on, it blew, so it clearly draws more than 3 amps!   Swapped out the inner 'bell' for a larger one (see 'dark' pic.) - couldn't detect any difference...

(http://i288.photobucket.com/albums/ll190/Sprocket_06/Photo-0114.jpg)

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...

These results look very encouraging.
Your kettle must be drawing around 8-9amps the whole time during 320 secs.
We do not know what the device is drawing but less then 10amps as the fuse did not blow.
There is a 1/3 difference in time and even if the efficiency of the kettle is 50% then we are talking about a COP of 1.5
How's that EM ? 
Moreover we do not know if the device drew a steady 9-10amps  the whole time it worked.