Language:
To browser these website, it's necessary to store cookies on your computer.
The cookies contain no personal information, they are required for program control.
the storage of cookies while browsing this website, on Login and Register.
 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

Custom Search

### Author Topic: A SIMPLE ELECTRIC HEATER, WHICH HAS EFFICIENCY GREATER THAN 1  (Read 221226 times)

#### gyulasun

• Hero Member
• Posts: 4139
##### Re: A SIMPLE ELECTRIC HEATER, WHICH HAS EFFICIENCY GREATER THAN 1
« Reply #105 on: April 24, 2019, 11:46:24 PM »
Hi George,

You can do several manipulations on mathematical equations or inequalities as long as the math rules are observed.
On manipulations I mean you can divide by, multiply by, add to or substract numbers from both sides, the equation symbol between both sides of the equation remains correct (or the inequality symbol does not change direction),  again this is so as long as the rules for doing the manipulations are not broken (like multiplying both sides of an inequality by say a negative number).  But you surely know these, the point is this:
You again returned to those equalities and inequalities, and I wrote which ones I think to be correct for characterizing the process.

So I can again repeat, for the last time, that this is all that I can comment on your theoretical or hypothetical math questions. Please understand this. I will not consider your posts any more when you include such attempts.

By the way, how can you expect anybody here to give opinion, to interpret your experimental results which are not known? How can help be given?

What opinion can be given on the obvious: if the input DC voltage is decreased across a resistor, the input current also decreases proportionally ? (provided a liquid resistor remains pretty closely linear in its electrical conductivity behaviour which let's suppose can be maintained).   So what?

Gyula

#### George1

• Hero Member
• Posts: 884
##### Re: A SIMPLE ELECTRIC HEATER, WHICH HAS EFFICIENCY GREATER THAN 1
« Reply #106 on: April 25, 2019, 09:09:08 AM »
Hi Gyula,
------------------
1) You are right, of course. I will not argue with you -- experiments have to confirm theory -- no doubt about this.
2) At the same time however in our previous posts we use simple formulas, (a) which are based on experimental facts and (b) which have been working successfully for 200 years. And simple mathematical operations (not manipulations -- we would not agree with this definition) with these simple formulas unambiguously show that under certain conditions standard water-splitting electrolysis has COP > 1. That's all. Simple and clear.
3) We keep performing experiments.

George

#### gyulasun

• Hero Member
• Posts: 4139
##### Re: A SIMPLE ELECTRIC HEATER, WHICH HAS EFFICIENCY GREATER THAN 1
« Reply #107 on: April 25, 2019, 03:54:54 PM »
Hi George,

Yes the word 'operation' is better to use here than 'manipulation' when dealing with mathematical equations or inequalities etc.  Mathematics has its own special technical terms and my word selection was not fortunate.

And I did not mean using 'manipulate' negatively (it certainly has a negative meaning too) but if you look it up in big dictionaries, it has the 'handle' or even the 'edit' meanings too.

Good luck in performing the experiments, it surely takes time and no need for any hurry.

Gyula

#### George1

• Hero Member
• Posts: 884
##### Re: A SIMPLE ELECTRIC HEATER, WHICH HAS EFFICIENCY GREATER THAN 1
« Reply #108 on: April 26, 2019, 02:04:22 PM »
Hi Gyula.
------------------
Thank you for your reply. And thank you for your good will and patience. You are a real friend.
------------------
Now let me report what we have done until now.
We found a bunch of several identical PEM water-splitting electrolyzers at a distance of 500 km from the place we live. The related manufacturer was again Proton Onsite.
------------------
Most important specifications of this type of electrolyzer are as follows.
Name: C10 Hydrogen Generation System.
Power consumption rate: 68.9 kWh/kg.
Water consumption rate: 9L/hr.
Electrical supply: 342 to 456 VAC, 3 Phase, 50 Hz.
------------------
And here is our step-by-step experimental procedure.
------------------
1) We tested one single electrolyzer. The voltage applied was 400 VAC, 3 Phase, 50 Hz. The experimental results coincide in general with the above mentioned specifications.
------------------
2) We connected two electrolyzers in parallel. After that we connected another two electrolyzers in parallel too. After that we connected in series these two couples of connected-in-parallel electrolyzers (we used long wires of big cross-section, because the electrolyzers were situated in different rooms) thus forming a series-parallel circuit consisting of four identical  electrolyzers.
------------------
3) The voltage applied to the circuit was again 400 VAC, 3 Phase, 50 Hz. The test results were as follows.
3A) Power consumption rate: 68.9 kWh/2 kg.
3B) Water consumption rate: 18 L/hr.

4) And here is what we get for COP.
4A) 68.9 kWh/kg = 248040000 J/kg and LHV of hydrogen = 120000000 J/kg.
4B) Joule's heat = 248040000 - 120000000 = 128040000 J. ( This equality is assumed to be true according to your requirements.)
-------------------
4C) COP for the single-electrolyzer case (item 1) is given by:
COP = (128040000 + 120000000)/(248040000) = 1.
------------------
4D) COP for the four-electrolyzers-circuit case (items 2 and 3) is given by:
COP =  (4 x ((128040000/4) + (120000000/2)))/(248040000) = 2 > 1.
Note 1. Hydrogen generation. Each single electrolyzer generated 0.5 kg/hr and the four electrolyzers generated together 2 kg/hr.
Note 2. Cooling agent consumption. The cooling agent consumption rate for each single electrolyzer decreased 4 times. But the electrolyzers were 4 (four) in number and thus the cooling agent consumption rate remained the same.
Note 3. Water consumption. Each electrolyzer consumed 4.5 L/hr but the electrolyzers were four in number and consumed together 18 L/hr.
-------------------
(Only please don't ask me how did we manage to perform all the above described experiments. It costed us a lot of money, time and effort. Three members of our team (two colleagues and I) had to cover several times a distance of of 500 km (back and forth) in order to carry out the tests. Fortunately, part of our travelling group was the mentioned-in-my-previous-posts retired Hogen 6m operator who helped us a lot by using his contacts and his technology skills.)
-------------------
So it is as if evident that whatever to do the water-splitting electrolysis has always COP > 1.

George

#### gyulasun

• Hero Member
• Posts: 4139
##### Re: A SIMPLE ELECTRIC HEATER, WHICH HAS EFFICIENCY GREATER THAN 1
« Reply #109 on: April 26, 2019, 11:40:28 PM »
Hi George,

You again ask me to comment on test results you wrote in the above post. The problem is I can see test results again which are lacking a few simple additions like I indicated in my Reply #90 for your previous test results in your Reply #87.

Putting this otherwise,  in fact, you did not include any convincing  'proof'  other than text and readers here have no way of checking them unless they perform such test themselves.

Please do not get offended, it is not my intention to offend anyone, just read through my Reply #90 and think it over what simple questions I posed in it back then which did not turn out from the experimental results and you still have not reflected on them, probably never will because back then you attempted again to come along with doing the mathematical operations on the equations and inequalities.

Please understand that it is not me to whom you would need to prove the COP > 1 result with measurements, I am not an 'authority',  just a person with a certain scientific background and common sense.

It looks like nobody else is interested in this topic and I consider withdrawing too.  I am simply running out of patience towards this thread, it has been enough.  I really wish you good luck to be able to design and actually build a practical electric heater which measurably produces a COP > 1 result.

Gyula

#### George1

• Hero Member
• Posts: 884
##### Re: A SIMPLE ELECTRIC HEATER, WHICH HAS EFFICIENCY GREATER THAN 1
« Reply #110 on: April 27, 2019, 12:51:01 PM »
Hi Gyula.
--------------
1) Nobody else is interested in this topic because most people here are not enough qualified like you in order to get the essence of the problem. This is for sure. (Actually I doubt that there is a lack of interest. I am sure that there are certain people who carefully keep an eye on our dialogue without interrupting.)
2) We keep performing experiments. One question related to the experimental approach. Can we use ready table values for electrolytes' conductivities? These values are experimentally proved and verified and can be trusted. What is your opinion?
Regards,
George

#### George1

• Hero Member
• Posts: 884
##### Re: A SIMPLE ELECTRIC HEATER, WHICH HAS EFFICIENCY GREATER THAN 1
« Reply #111 on: April 30, 2019, 09:18:06 AM »
Hi Gyula.
-----------------
Yesterday all members of our team gathered together and after a long discussion we reached a decision. We abandon our intention to perform calorimetric experiments. It will take too much time, money and effort and, most important, we do not have at our disposal a high-tech calorimetric laboratory in which to carry out precise tests according to your requirements. Instead let us write down again (for a last time!) our theoretical considerations.
-----------------
1) A standard solid resisitor is connected to a standard DC source. COP of the system is just equal to 1 and is given by
V = I x R  <=>  V x I x t = I x I x R x t  <=>  COP = 1.
-----------------
2) A standard liquid resistor (a standard electrolyte, which is used in a standard water-splitting electrolysis) is connected to a standard DC source. COP of the water-splitting electrolysis process is bigger than 1 and is given by
(V - v) = (I - i) x R  <=> (V - v) x (I - i) x t = (I - i) x (I - i) x R x t  <=> (V - v) x (I - i) x t < ((I - i) x (I - i) x R x t) + (Z x (I -i) x t x (LHV))  <=>  COP > 1.
-----------------
(Note. Definitions for V, v, I, i, R, t, Z, hydrogen LHV and hydrogen HHV can be found in our previous posts.)
-----------------
3) IT IS EVIDENT that there aren't any theoretical contradictions, incorrectnesses and inconsistensies in the above theoretical considerations. HEREAFTER WE ARE OPEN FOR THEORETICAL DISCUSSIONS ONLY as we need time and money for a further experimental perfection of some of our 10 (already) basic inventions, which have nothing to do with electrolysis.
-----------------
4) As mentioned in our first post the above theoretical considerations are an absolutely free technology/scientific information, which can be used absolutely free by anyone for designing and manufacturing of real heaters based on water-splitting electrolysis. We will be glad if somebody manages to do a good business by building and selling such water-electrolysis-based heaters. And we hope that this successful man/woman/company will contact us and will support our charity initiatives.
-----------------
5) And one small question at last. Do you have some friend/colleague who is an expert in the field of computer simulation of real mechanical systems? (This is related to another topic of ours in this forum which is called "IS THIS A REACTIONLESS DRIVE OR A PERPETUAL MOTION MACHINE?".) Such computer simulations can be found for example in the two inks below:
https://www.myphysicslab.com/
https://www.mathworks.com/products/simmechanics.html
------------------
Regards,
George

#### gyulasun

• Hero Member
• Posts: 4139
##### Re: A SIMPLE ELECTRIC HEATER, WHICH HAS EFFICIENCY GREATER THAN 1
« Reply #112 on: April 30, 2019, 11:47:11 PM »
Hi George,

Unfortunately, I cannot advise for you anyone competent in computer simulation of mechanical systems.

I respect your team's decision. Hopefully, either this or the other 10 ideas of yours will bring you success and nevertheless some income too.

Gyula

#### Floor

• Guest
##### Re: A SIMPLE ELECTRIC HEATER, WHICH HAS EFFICIENCY GREATER THAN 1
« Reply #113 on: May 01, 2019, 12:46:46 AM »
@   George
It seems to me that this entire topic has been blown up, made overly complex.

While I can see the reasonableness in not spending many thousands of dollars upon
a one  time usage of HHO generators and other equipment. I do not see any reason for
your not having presented a great deal of experimental results / data, from some much lower
cost experiments (your own). Then seek peer review, later.

Expert or not

Electrical energy input (DC via a watt meter) very simple.

temperature / measurements of electrolyte and liquid  volume of electrolyte (just before and after, also insulate it). also very simple.

measure the temperature of outputted gases (HHO and water vapor).  Less simple but still very do able.

Remove water vapor / freeze the gas mixture.

measure volume of the removed water / calculate the caloric content it had before it was frozen / add these calories to the calories gained in the electrolyte during electrolysis.

measure the HHO gas volume.... or not

Raise the temperature of the dry HHO to the previous temperature (before freezing)

measure the HHO combustion caloric output.

add the calories gained in the electrolyte during electrolysis to the calories gained by the HHO combustion.

Compare these to the electrical energy input.

Some margin of error statement.

Your not likely to acquire an accidental heat content increase, any where in the process...... unless its during the reheating of the HHO.

Undesired heat losses would NOT contribute to an OU conclusion, but rather would serve to
validate any OU measurement results.

Seems, if not simple, none the less very doable.

floor

#### George1

• Hero Member
• Posts: 884
##### Re: A SIMPLE ELECTRIC HEATER, WHICH HAS EFFICIENCY GREATER THAN 1
« Reply #114 on: May 02, 2019, 08:32:34 AM »

To Gyula.
-------------------
Hi Gyula,
Well, I myself was strongly against stopping performing experiments but the majority of our team insisted on stopping doing all tests. I had to obey our team's majority decision. Nevertheless after some time I will try very carefully to convince the colleagues to start performing experiments again.
And thank you again for your patience and good will.
I will write to you in the nearest future in order to inform you what happens.
Regards,
George

#### George1

• Hero Member
• Posts: 884
##### Re: A SIMPLE ELECTRIC HEATER, WHICH HAS EFFICIENCY GREATER THAN 1
« Reply #115 on: May 02, 2019, 09:09:46 AM »
To floor
-------------------
Hi floor,
------------------
As I wrote already to Gyula I myself was strongly against stopping performing experiments but the majority of our team insisted on stopping doing all tests. I had to obey our team's majority decision. Nevertheless after some time I will try very carefully to convince the colleagues to start performing experiments again.
---------------
About your step-by-step instruction for performing experiments. Well, some steps seem to be really doable and some steps seem to be quite difficult to be done. And in some instruction steps I cannot understand what exactly do you mean. Nevertheless I will consider carefully your last post and will write to you in the nearest future. Because some questions appear already.
----------------
Regards,
George

#### George1

• Hero Member
• Posts: 884
##### Re: A SIMPLE ELECTRIC HEATER, WHICH HAS EFFICIENCY GREATER THAN 1
« Reply #116 on: May 02, 2019, 09:47:47 AM »
To Gyua, to floor and to all other guys, who are interested in the topic.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Let me reproduce part of the last meeting's discussion of our team. One of the colleagues said almost literally the following.
BEGINNING OF THE CITATION
"An obvious paradox exists in the present-day scientific community.
On one hand, all modern physics conceptions are based on various and endless sets of sophisticated, non-understandable and unintelligible equalities, inequalities, formulas, expressions, equations, inequations, etc. And everybody accepts them to be true and nobody wants any experimental proofs for their validity. (And even Nobel prizes are often won for these fantastic mathematically-based theories which have nothing to do with reality.)
On the other hand, we suggest several simple, clear and understandable equalities and inequalities, which simply gather together previously obtained true experimental facts, being considered wrongly in isolation until now. And again some people here want experimental proofs for the validity of facts which have been proving to be true within a period of 200 years.
How's that? Do you understand this? Isn't this a paradox?"
END OF THE CITATION
Well, I will not comment my colleague's opinion. But whatever to say his opinion is logical and reasonable.
Regards,
George

#### lancaIV

• elite_member
• Hero Member
• Posts: 4980
##### Re: A SIMPLE ELECTRIC HEATER, WHICH HAS EFFICIENCY GREATER THAN 1
« Reply #117 on: May 05, 2019, 01:46:19 PM »

#### tinu

• Hero Member
• Posts: 630
##### Re: A SIMPLE ELECTRIC HEATER, WHICH HAS EFFICIENCY GREATER THAN 1
« Reply #118 on: May 05, 2019, 07:35:52 PM »
@George1,

Try https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrolysis_of_water :
"Electrolysis of water is the decomposition of water  into oxygen  and hydrogen gas due to the passage of an electric current. The reaction has a standard potential of −1.23 V, meaning it ideally requires a potential difference of 1.23 volts to split water."

Emphasis on: potential difference of 1.23 volts.
Thus, if your electrolysis cell runs at, let's say, 2V and 1A, the power required is obviously 2W. However, the Joule heating is only (2-1.23)V x 1A = 0.77W. The difference of 1.23V x 1A = 1.23W goes into the generation of hydrogen and oxygen.
Fortunately, besides theory there is also a less than 10\$ simple setup/experiment that everyone can do at home to check the above. No fancy equipments are needed. If you need help with it, please ask.
I'm really sorry to keep giving you bad news but it's just simple physics and electrochemistry here, not rocket science.
The mistake you did this time was the miss use of  Joule heating fundamentals. Here it is: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joule_heating. Have a look at Formulas/Direct Current and check with the above.

Best regards.

#### George1

• Hero Member
• Posts: 884
##### Re: A SIMPLE ELECTRIC HEATER, WHICH HAS EFFICIENCY GREATER THAN 1
« Reply #119 on: May 06, 2019, 10:56:11 AM »
Hi tiny,
But you are making an obvious mistake. The generated power is equal to 0.77 W and the consumed power is equal to 0.77 W too. Actually "the countervervoltage" (which is due to the electrode potential/overvoltage) plays the role of small battery that is connected in opposite direction to the main DC source, i.e., plus to plus and minus to minus. Imagine that the main DC source has a voltage of + 1,23 V. Then what will be the value of the consumed/generated power? Answer: just equal to zero.
Besides if the voltage of the main DC source is much bigger than 1.23 V, then the hypothetical (and wrong!) effect, in whose validity you try to convince us, is absolutely negligible.
--------------
And it is also evident for me that you have not read carefully our previous posts. Please read carefully our previous posts as well as the text below, which contains the essence of our concept.
=============================================
There are four experimental facts which have been proving to be true within a period of 200 years and whose validity is beyond any doubt. These four experimental facts are as follows.
--------------
1) Experimental fact 1: (V - v) = (I - i) x t. This is the Ohm's law for any electrolyte.
--------------
2) Experimental fact 2: (V - v) x (I - i) x t = (I - i) x (I - i) x R x t. This is the Joule's heat law for any electrolyte.
--------------
3) Experimental fact 3: m = Z x (I - i) x t = mass of the substance, which is generated in the process of electrolysis. This is the first Faraday's law of electrolysis.
--------------
4) Experimental fact 4: hydrogen LHV = 120000000 J/kg.
--------------
The validity of the above four experimental facts is beyond any doubt.
(Note. Definitions for V, v, I, i, R, t, Z, LHV and HHV can be found in our previous posts. Tinu, please read them carefully!)
--------------
What to do further? We have only to gather together the above four experimental facts. We have only to perform a simple sequence of only two simple operations.
--------------
Operation 1. We multiply m by LHV and get the heat A, which is generated by burning/exploding of hydrogen of mass m, that is, A = m x (LHV).
--------------
Operation 2. We simply add A to the right side of the equality in item 2, thus transforming it into inequality, that is,
(V - v) x (I - i) x t = (I - i) x (I - i) x R x t   <=>  (V - v) x (I - i) x t < ((I - i) x (I - i) x R x t) + A
--------------
The last inequality unambiguously shows that the standard water-splitting electrolysis has COP, which is bigger than 1, that is, COP > 1.
--------------
Simple, clear and understandable. Only two simple operations in a row.
--------------
George