Storing Cookies (See : http://ec.europa.eu/ipg/basics/legal/cookies/index_en.htm ) help us to bring you our services at overunity.com . If you use this website and our services you declare yourself okay with using cookies .More Infos here:
https://overunity.com/5553/privacy-policy/
If you do not agree with storing cookies, please LEAVE this website now. From the 25th of May 2018, every existing user has to accept the GDPR agreement at first login. If a user is unwilling to accept the GDPR, he should email us and request to erase his account. Many thanks for your understanding

User Menu

Custom Search

Author Topic: Peter Davey Heater  (Read 490710 times)

edelind

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 37
Re: Peter Davey Heater
« Reply #105 on: May 20, 2008, 03:54:11 PM »
Cylinders, bells  and really all ringing things make their own harmonics but I've never tried to analyze them in a computer. It's what most people would hear as a timbre in the sound. I've always done it by ear by hearing what would be the root of the harmonic series. Maybe if you record it and post it up here I can listen and tell you what the frequency is. That (I think) is the frequency you want to be at an octave harmonic of your mains frequency. The other harmonics will be in the mains also but I think it's the main vibration we want because it will be the strongest. I could of course be completely wrong since I haven't started to experiment with this yet. :)

Here is the recorded sound:
http://www.overunity.com/index.php?action=tpmod;dl=get65

And attached here is the spectrum analysis from Audacity.
As you can see, it sees 3 first peeks at: 1619-1624Hz, 4165Hz and 7150Hz. So the main frequency seems to be 1620Hz (but it does not resonate on that emitted from speakers). I am really curious what you hear too.

Thanks

storre

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 151
    • F11 Music
Re: Peter Davey Heater
« Reply #106 on: May 20, 2008, 07:06:01 PM »
It's a G but a little sharp. 1620Hz more or less If you are using 60Hz mains then you need to make the bell a little larger to get to 1920Hz. If you are using 50Hz mains then it needs to be 1600Hz so you would be very close and would just need to grind it down to get to 1600Hz.

If you want to test it to see if it works the way it is (1620Hz) then generate a loud frequency at 50.6Hz and move up a little up and down from that until the bell rings by itself after turning off the sound. You could also try 810, 405, 202, 101. If none of those produce a ring in the bell then slide up and down the frequency range until you find what rings it. Something else that just came to mind so you could do it visually is to suspend it (careful that you suspend it without hindering it's vibrations) and let the very end of the bell touch a bowl of water. Then maybe when you hit the right Hz with your oscillator it should show up in the water as vibrations. Just a guess but worth a try.

Something that I've never understood exactly is why Thrapp and Keeley talk about tuning to the dominant. The 5th is a very strong harmonic so it may be that we have to work with the 5th harmonic instead of the octave harmonic.

What size is this bell approximately? Near the size of the pictures of Davey's bell?

edelind

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 37
Re: Peter Davey Heater
« Reply #107 on: May 20, 2008, 07:27:30 PM »
Thank you for the suggestions. I will test further and let you know (I have 50Hz here ;) )

Regarding the 5th harmonic, I honestly does not know what this is exactly (maybe you brief us). My knowledge about resonance came not from music, but from self developing traditional theories. As our ancestors knew, everything is based on resonance in this Universe and works by getting energy from it when resonating. Following this theories, the human being is the most advanced OU device (when he resonates at his peeks, huge quantities of energy is drawn from the Universe into the inner being, making miracles possible). Anyway, my point is that all of those traditional (meaning old and proved) theories mostly use octave harmonic for getting resonance outside the base frequency. Maybe this is just the way things work. See some complex theory regarding octave harmonic, the law of 7 and the music at Gurdjieff.

The size of my bell is about 5-6cm (aprox. 2 inches) (almost identical with this one - using only the top cover: http://www.amazon.com/Dimension-Classic-Bicycle-Crown-Emblem/dp/B000WW206S )

epeirce

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 4
Re: Peter Davey Heater
« Reply #108 on: May 20, 2008, 09:55:23 PM »
hello,
first time poster here.
as a musician, this topic really grabbed my interest. yes, if you tune your guitar properly, your low E string will make your high E string vibrate. it is two octaves higher. the b string will also vibrate and also the A string. this is what makes acoustic instruments sound so beautiful. but there is a couple things to consider:
 
1. on the guitar, the harmonics get more sharply out of tune as you move down the neck towards the nut. if you tune a piano, which has a much bigger range than piano, you don't tune the octaves exactly. in other words, your A above A 440 is not tuned 880. you tune it a little sharp. and as you work your way up the keyboard each note is tuned a little more sharper than the last. so...do we want the bells tuned exactly one or more octaves up or down or do we tune our bells like a piano? do we need to tune them to each other at all?

2. is 50hz a magic number for water? will 60hz do the same thing here in the states?

thanks,
e

 

storre

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 151
    • F11 Music
Re: Peter Davey Heater
« Reply #109 on: May 20, 2008, 11:03:34 PM »
hello,
first time poster here.
as a musician, this topic really grabbed my interest. yes, if you tune your guitar properly, your low E string will make your high E string vibrate. it is two octaves higher. the b string will also vibrate and also the A string. this is what makes acoustic instruments sound so beautiful. but there is a couple things to consider:
 
1. on the guitar, the harmonics get more sharply out of tune as you move down the neck towards the nut. if you tune a piano, which has a much bigger range than piano, you don't tune the octaves exactly. in other words, your A above A 440 is not tuned 880. you tune it a little sharp. and as you work your way up the keyboard each note is tuned a little more sharper than the last. so...do we want the bells tuned exactly one or more octaves up or down or do we tune our bells like a piano? do we need to tune them to each other at all?

2. is 50hz a magic number for water? will 60hz do the same thing here in the states?

thanks,
e

 

One problem with the piano is it's designed to play in 12 keys so the intervals are not exactly according to perfect ratios unless you use 'just' tuning which a piano doesn't. I think this is partly why they stretch tune it. I also use to tune pianos and it's done this way to make the harmonics more harmonious I guess. It would just sound richer when tuned correctly but I think it's all a set of compromises to allow an instrument to play in all 12 keys. I think people's ears have mostly gotten use to it and I've wondered if some players compensate for it when playing solo or with a few other instruments that can be played in a more 'just' type of tuning such as fretless string instruments or wind instruments that have flexible tuning. Well getting off topic here a little but I think we need to just test these bells with the objective to get them to ring when hit with a lower frequency that I think is on octave harmonic but something I haven't confirmed yet with testing. As you say, it works clearly with pianos and guitars and for my ear it works best when they are exactly in tune either in unison or octaves. The second string seems to ring louder that closer it is in tune to the first string.

I don't think 50Hz is a magic number for water but I think the electricity connected to the bells needs to be in a frequency that some how matches the natural frequency of the bell. So far we are assuming that it's an octave relation since his bells seem to be 1600Hz or the 5th octave of 50Hz but there could be more to it than this. Maybe 50Hz will connect with another upper frequency/different harmonic better. Maybe something to what we keep hearing Keeley and Thrapp say "tuned to the dominant". I know the dominant chord in music really strongly pulls to the tonic or root of the song so maybe that is our ears way of hearing what might be a strong attraction of the 5th/dominant harmonic to the root.

What I plan to do when I get my bells is start testing as if it's an octave relation but if it doesn't work then I will try them all until one causes it to ring the loudest and then try to figure out what the ratio is between the two frequencies. Then we can make it work at any mains frequency or any frequency if you want to generate your own via electronics.

NerzhDishual

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 588
    • FreeNRG.info
Re: Peter Davey Heater
« Reply #110 on: May 21, 2008, 01:36:03 AM »


Hi Edelind (and others witty people).

Thanks for your experiments and for your .wav file.

I was Just wondering:
Giving back the bell his own 'sound' (= set of frequencies) is, perhaps,  not a so good idea.

Actually, you give it back the sound you would get when you play a guitar with a plectrum.
Please think about the 'Hawaiian Steel Guitar' versus Hard Rock Guitar.

The freqs could (should) be the same but not the 'Attack Decay Sustain Release'.
This ADSR is a very important part of any sound. I used to compose acousmatic music.
When AC plugged this bell is not so harshly solicited.

Best

Paul-R

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2086
Re: Peter Davey Heater
« Reply #111 on: May 21, 2008, 04:46:16 PM »
Is 50hz a magic number for water? will 60hz do the same thing here in the states?
thanks,
e
You must tune to whatever frequency YOUR electricity runs at. Yes, 60 hz.
(or 120, 240, 480 etc.). A bicycle bell runs at near the 480 mark.


resonanceman

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1579
Re: Peter Davey Heater
« Reply #112 on: May 22, 2008, 02:13:33 AM »


As far the outer bell, I am not sure if it must be tunned too, but the most important thing is to have the same shape and to find (by successive tests) the correct distance between the two bells, so the vibrations emitted by the inner one to reflect into the outer one and return back to it, in phase (i.e. making a stationary wave). This way an avalanche of resonance effect will occur and the energy transfered to water will rise suddenly and huge, with the same small input. This is the beauty of resonance!


Edelind

I like the  idea  of   the cone shaped  bells

I know that they  will not ring as long .........but  they  may  work better  over all in spite of not  ringing as well

getting the  space  between the  rounded  bells  right   is a very big job .

The mouth of the bells stay the same  distance   apart,   only the  distance  at the centers  changes  .
To truly   adjust  the  distance   the bells are apart   while keeping the  distance  between the walls   the same you  would need  a new bell made for each  test . 

Also  ..... with  round bells   you  will always be  working  with harmonics  between the  different sized  bells .   
Cone shaped bells   could  all be tuned to the  exact same  frequency 




I also  question  if  tuning  the  sound   of the bell ringing  will help .       I don't think it will ring  the same  under water .     It is  clear  from the videos  that   it  doesn't make an audible  ringing  sound .

gary

NewAge

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 28
End of guessing - here's the original Davey's patent
« Reply #113 on: May 22, 2008, 08:49:28 AM »
Here's the original patent of the "Elecrtical Immersion Heater": http://archive.beinsa.info/Heating/92428.pdf
It looks quite different than the bysicle bell design and reminds me somehow the Stanley design or a Joe cell.

edelind

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 37
Re: Peter Davey Heater
« Reply #114 on: May 22, 2008, 01:17:19 PM »

Edelind

I like the  idea  of   the cone shaped  bells

I know that they  will not ring as long .........but  they  may  work better  over all in spite of not  ringing as well

getting the  space  between the  rounded  bells  right   is a very big job .

The mouth of the bells stay the same  distance   apart,   only the  distance  at the centers  changes  .
To truly   adjust  the  distance   the bells are apart   while keeping the  distance  between the walls   the same you  would need  a new bell made for each  test . 

Also  ..... with  round bells   you  will always be  working  with harmonics  between the  different sized  bells .   
Cone shaped bells   could  all be tuned to the  exact same  frequency 




I also  question  if  tuning  the  sound   of the bell ringing  will help .       I don't think it will ring  the same  under water .     It is  clear  from the videos  that   it  doesn't make an audible  ringing  sound .

gary

Yes, I know what you are saying. I am also aware of the fact that changing the distance between two rounded bells will generate different distances between their walls. But I hope that for small distances this effect to be small enough to allow an acceptable quantities of stationary waves. I am still waiting for my stainless steel spheres to start testing (I will cut them in half, not testing with spheres, like in the last Davey video).

Still, I think cone shaped bell it's an interesting idea and may be indeed a step further, along with all the advantages you already mentioned.

Regarding the sound in the movie, I think it's normal that there is none, as the heater is only made to vibrate when inserted into water. And the vibration energy is completelly transformed into heat, so there is nothing to be heard (and even with a speaker, 50Hz is rather difficult to hear and I doubt that a such poor quality video will ever make such sound audible). We only use the sound to calibrate the inner bell.

Also, a final thought, the resonance of the bell is only a matter of its shape and of its internal composition, not of the surrounding medium. The medium will only tell how the vibration propagates (or is used). For example, here the vibration is converted to heat (brownian move), in air it may be heard as a sound, and when placing a finger on it, it will be transfered to the finger.  But the bell will still resonate as his own frequency, even poor. And I remember that Davey said that with the heater you can heat ANY type of liquid, so it's obvious that the liquid does not change the resonating frequency of the heater.

@NewAge Thank you for that patent. I'll check it too as soon as possible.

resonanceman

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1579
Re: End of guessing - here's the original Davey's patent
« Reply #115 on: May 22, 2008, 05:15:06 PM »
Here's the original patent of the "Elecrtical Immersion Heater": http://archive.beinsa.info/Heating/92428.pdf
It looks quite different than the bysicle bell design and reminds me somehow the Stanley design or a Joe cell.

NewAge

Thanks for  the patent link

I havn't read it yet, but   you are right     it does  look like a Joe  cell


gary

resonanceman

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1579
Re: Peter Davey Heater
« Reply #116 on: May 22, 2008, 05:46:54 PM »
Yes, I know what you are saying. I am also aware of the fact that changing the distance between two rounded bells will generate different distances between their walls. But I hope that for small distances this effect to be small enough to allow an acceptable quantities of stationary waves. I am still waiting for my stainless steel spheres to start testing (I will cut them in half, not testing with spheres, like in the last Davey video).

Still, I think cone shaped bell it's an interesting idea and may be indeed a step further, along with all the advantages you already mentioned.

Regarding the sound in the movie, I think it's normal that there is none, as the heater is only made to vibrate when inserted into water. And the vibration energy is completelly transformed into heat, so there is nothing to be heard (and even with a speaker, 50Hz is rather difficult to hear and I doubt that a such poor quality video will ever make such sound audible). We only use the sound to calibrate the inner bell.

Also, a final thought, the resonance of the bell is only a matter of its shape and of its internal composition, not of the surrounding medium. The medium will only tell how the vibration propagates (or is used). For example, here the vibration is converted to heat (brownian move), in air it may be heard as a sound, and when placing a finger on it, it will be transfered to the finger.  But the bell will still resonate as his own frequency, even poor. And I remember that Davey said that with the heater you can heat ANY type of liquid, so it's obvious that the liquid does not change the resonating frequency of the heater.

@NewAge Thank you for that patent. I'll check it too as soon as possible.

Edelind

Good luck with   your  stainless spheres.

:)

Personally  I  don't think it  is physical ringing  ......I think  electrical  resonance is more likely to  do the trick.

Your   belief  that the bell will ring the same under water  is interesting .
I agree that  it will still resonate at the  same frequency , but I think the  water would have a very strong dampening effect  .
Anyone out there have a bell and a swimming  pool?
If  you are right   a person should  be able  to ring the bell  under water  and  not hear it from  above the water . 
They  would also  be able to hear  it  if  they  are under water .



As far  as this device  being able to heat ANY liquid ,   I  serously doubt that .   
So far everything   I know about has  some kind of exceptions .   Gravity  never stops ...........but things  still fly .
If  you had typed  this  statement  out  without  capatolising  the "any" I would have let  it go without commenting  .



gary

NewAge

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 28
Re: Peter Davey Heater
« Reply #117 on: May 22, 2008, 08:18:42 PM »
OK, let's move back a little bit. We know only about a bell shaped heater prototype. However now we have the patent and we see a "Joe Cell" type heater. So it is clear that he initially used bells but later on pefected the design with cylindrical tubes, as seen in the patent. Which makes sense, because the uniform tube shape is much easier to tune than a bell.

Now, back in the 40s he did not have much choice but go throuogh trial and error untill geting the tubes in resonance. Today we have computers and all kind of simulation softwares, so something tells me it's wiser to do the maths first and calculate the size and thickness of a device similar to the one on the patent instead of guessing. Anyone capable of doing this?

storre

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 151
    • F11 Music
Re: Peter Davey Heater
« Reply #118 on: May 22, 2008, 08:30:18 PM »
OK, let's move back a little bit. We know only about a bell shaped heater prototype. However now we have the patent and we see a "Joe Cell" type heater. So it is clear that he initially used bells but later on pefected the design with cylindrical tubes, as seen in the patent. Which makes sense, because the uniform tube shape is much easier to tune than a bell.

Now, back in the 40s he did not have much choice but go throuogh trial and error untill geting the tubes in resonance. Today we have computers and all kind of simulation softwares, so something tells me it's wiser to do the maths first and calculate the size and thickness of a device similar to the one on the patent instead of guessing. Anyone capable of doing this?

Or we can have a race :) Computer against the rest of us ;) Either way we win :) Why in the videos of him laterly where he appears to be in his 90s does he have what seems like the 2 bell design type? Seems doing it with tubes would be easier to construct and tune. Does he have any other patents? Maybe earlier or later designs that would clue us in as to the key to getting it so efficient.

resonanceman

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1579
Re: Peter Davey Heater
« Reply #119 on: May 22, 2008, 08:46:24 PM »
OK, let's move back a little bit. We know only about a bell shaped heater prototype. However now we have the patent and we see a "Joe Cell" type heater. So it is clear that he initially used bells but later on pefected the design with cylindrical tubes, as seen in the patent. Which makes sense, because the uniform tube shape is much easier to tune than a bell.

Now, back in the 40s he did not have much choice but go throuogh trial and error untill geting the tubes in resonance. Today we have computers and all kind of simulation softwares, so something tells me it's wiser to do the maths first and calculate the size and thickness of a device similar to the one on the patent instead of guessing. Anyone capable of doing this?


I don't think that we can assume what he started with or what he ended up with .
If  in the 90s he only had a bell type device  handy   that is what he would use   for a video

If you look at the  patent .   the  tubes are held by there ends .
That is not the way that they would be held  if  physical resonance  was  what was doing the work .

For physical  resonace  the  tubes should  be held  about 1/3 of the way from the ends . ( from my  observations )




I do remember reading somewhere that   a capacitor made with tubes  can have over unity  effects .


gary