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.

GDPR and DSGVO law

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.
Amazon Warehouse Deals ! Now even more Deep Discounts ! Check out these great prices on slightly used or just opened once only items.I always buy my gadgets via these great Warehouse deals ! Highly recommended ! Many thanks for supporting OverUnity.com this way.

User Menu

A-Ads

MN LiveCoach

Masternodes Live Coaching

Powerbox

Smartbox

3D Solar

3D Solar Panels

DC2DC converter

Micro JouleThief

FireMatch

FireMatch

CCKnife

CCKnife

CCTool

CCTool

Magpi Magazine

Magpi Magazine Free Rasberry Pi Magazine

Battery Recondition

Battery Recondition

Arduino

Ultracaps

YT Subscribe

Gravity Machines

Tesla-Ebook

Magnet Secrets

Lindemann Video

Navigation

Products

Products

WaterMotor kit

Statistics


  • *Total Posts: 513327
  • *Total Topics: 15278
  • *Online Today: 44
  • *Most Online: 103
(December 19, 2006, 11:27:19 PM)
  • *Users: 3
  • *Guests: 7
  • *Total: 10

Author Topic: A SIMPLE ELECTRIC HEATER, WHICH HAS EFFICIENCY GREATER THAN 1  (Read 34844 times)

Offline tinu

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 627
Re: A SIMPLE ELECTRIC HEATER, WHICH HAS EFFICIENCY GREATER THAN 1
« Reply #120 on: May 06, 2019, 11:33:18 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.
...

 Hi George1,
 
In case you're talking to me, please note I'm not tiny. For now, just take my word for it.
Other than that, please go do the simple experiment above. Most members here can do it for breakfast and still have some time left. I hope you are able to do it too. If not, many members can help you.

Last, but not least, please stop polluting us with utter nonsense like that right above and elsewhere. A standard liquid resistor is not equivalent with an electrolysis cell! An electrolysis cell involves a standard liquid resistor PLUS the standard potential for dissociation. If you're not able to grasp these very simple theoretical concepts, maybe a 10$/15min experiment may get you out of the state of confusion you're in right now?
 
Best regards!
 

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy


Offline George1

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 234
Re: A SIMPLE ELECTRIC HEATER, WHICH HAS EFFICIENCY GREATER THAN 1
« Reply #121 on: May 06, 2019, 11:53:28 AM »
Hi tinu,
You are trying to manipulate all of us here in this forum -- you are trying to convince us that black is white. But you are not a skillful manipulator. You have to read still more books related to the art of manipulation. I will not argue with you.
George

Offline tinu

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 627
Re: A SIMPLE ELECTRIC HEATER, WHICH HAS EFFICIENCY GREATER THAN 1
« Reply #122 on: May 06, 2019, 01:52:56 PM »
Hi tinu,
You are trying to manipulate all of us here in this forum -- you are trying to convince us that black is white. But you are not a skillful manipulator. You have to read still more books related to the art of manipulation. I will not argue with you.
George

Hi George1,

Now you start being rude, don't you think?
I'm purely stating elementary knowledge, backed up by references you can understand (wiki) and by experiments. Some of these experiments I've done by myself more than 30-35years ago as part of the learning process. Electrolysis too. Since then, I've repeated them many times with a twist. Regarding electrolysis in particular, there are several good threads into this forum you might want to study. Novel ideas, interesting approaches but ... no cigar so far. In short, you don't need to reinvent the wheel now for the sake of calling yourself an inventor. Or if you want it so badly as to satisfy your ego or to fulfill a hidden agenda you might have, please do it in a way that does not require propagating blatant untrue statements. 

And please stay to the facts, no ad-hominem attacks. Post references and/or experimental results if you have any.
Help people progress in the field if you can, instead of throwing some into dead ends by misleading them. If you cannot help, please refrain yourself, ask questions and keep on learning. This is a public forum available without restriction so I'll not allow any person (you included) to shout worldwide ever so often (almost daily in your case?!) how magnificent his/her idea are when, in fact, they are unfortunately but truly flawed. Ok? And no offense, but you reveal a level of education in physics of an undergraduate student. This is not an insult by any means (I'm also very uneducated in most of the fields except very few) but it's stated for the reason to kindly ask you to show some respect to the experts here and elsewhere as well as to every visitor coming to read us. I have a M.Sc. in physics. I understand you are an enthusiast but what is exactly your level of expertise?
 
You are welcome to argue with me.
 
Best regards!
 
« Last Edit: May 06, 2019, 04:05:59 PM by tinu »

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: A SIMPLE ELECTRIC HEATER, WHICH HAS EFFICIENCY GREATER THAN 1
« Reply #122 on: May 06, 2019, 01:52:56 PM »
Sponsored links:




Offline George1

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 234
Re: A SIMPLE ELECTRIC HEATER, WHICH HAS EFFICIENCY GREATER THAN 1
« Reply #123 on: May 07, 2019, 08:52:30 AM »
Hi tinu,
First of all please excuse me if I have insulted you in some way. I am really sorry about this.
=================
Ok, let us follow your rules.
------------------------------
Given:
V = 2 Volts
v = - 1.23 Volts
R = 1 Ohm
I = (V - v)/R = (2 - 1.23)/1 = 0.77 Ampere
t = 1 second
Z = 0.00000001044 kg/C
Hydrogen HHV = 142000000 J/kg
Hydrogen LHV = 120000000 J/kg
-----------------------------
inlet energy = (2 Volts) x (0.77 Ampere) x (1 second) = 1.54 Joules
-----------------------------
outlet energy 1 = (0.77 Ampere) x (0.77 Ampere) x (1 Ohm) x (1 second) = 0.5929 Joules
-----------------------------
outlet energy 2 = (0.00000001044 kg/C) x (0.77 Ampere) x (1 second) x (142000000 J/kg) = 1.1415 Joules
-----------------------------
COP = (outet energy 1 + outlet energy 2)/inlet energy = (1.1415 Joules + 0.5929 Joules)/1.54 Joules = 1.1262  <=>
<=> COP = 1.1262  <=>  COP > 1.
-----------------------------
In the above solution we use hydrogen's HHV. If we use hydrogen's LHV, then COP will be equal to 1.01, that is, COP = 1.01  <=> COP > 1.
Of course it is aways better to use hydrogen's HHV instead of hydrogen's LHV. We have a choice.
-----------------------------
So you see that COP again is bigger than 1, that is, we have again COP > 1.
-----------------------------
Looking forward to your answer.
George


     
 

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy


Offline tinu

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 627
Re: A SIMPLE ELECTRIC HEATER, WHICH HAS EFFICIENCY GREATER THAN 1
« Reply #124 on: May 07, 2019, 12:05:59 PM »
 Hi George1,
 
Apologies accepted.
 
Now to the subject, I said let's have 2V and 1A . You start there but immediately later you change it to 2V and 0.77A by the improper use of Ohm law. That's not correct. Let's do it right, ok? Here it goes:
 
Electrolysis require a potential drop of min. 1.23v (practically it's larger, depending on many factors). This is a forward drop of voltage, not a counter emf. It's a forward voltage drop similar (for the purpose of simple understanding only) to the forward drop of about 0.6V on a conducting diode (p-n junction). I repeat: there is no counter voltage in electrolysis!
 
The proper use of Ohm law and Kirchhoff's voltage law is:
Vps=IpsxR + Ve,
where:
Vps is the voltage applied to the electrolysis cell by the power supply (ps) that can be measured with a voltmeter, in our case Vps=2V
Ips is the current supplied to the electrolysis cell by the power supply (ps) that can be measured with am ammemeter, in our case Ips=1A
Ve=1.23V is the potential difference required for electrolysis to occur.
R is the resistance of the electrolyte (the equivalent resistance of liquid resistor) in a very simplified model.
 
In the above case, you can use Ohm law and compute R = 0.77 Ohm but this value is of little practical use because this model is over-simplified while a real electrolytic cell involves higher complexity.
 
Regardless on complexity, in our model we have:
Supplied power is Vps x Ips, as measured by the two multimeters, 2V x 1A = 2W
Meanwhile, Joule power is given by sqr(Ips) x R, in our case sqr(1A) x 0.77Ohm = 0.77W
In the same time, electrolysis requires Ve x Ips which is 1.23V x 1A = 1.23W
 
Part of the supplied power goes into heat (0.77/2=38.5%) while electrolysis efficiency in this case would be 1.23/2=61.5%. Overall COP=1.
Besides theory and correct use of the laws of electricity, you may also easily perform this simple experiment.
 
In good quality electrolytic cells, efficiency can go toward 80%, meaning that only about 20% of total energy supplied is lost, mainly as Joule heat. In fact, I saw you did reference a fine paper (http://www.esru.strath.ac.uk/Documents/MSc_2003/papagiannakis_i.pdf) where energy efficiency of electrolysis was measured between 73-84% (page 72).
 
I'm sorry but there is no overunity here.
 
Best regards!
 

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: A SIMPLE ELECTRIC HEATER, WHICH HAS EFFICIENCY GREATER THAN 1
« Reply #124 on: May 07, 2019, 12:05:59 PM »
Sponsored links:




Offline George1

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 234
Re: A SIMPLE ELECTRIC HEATER, WHICH HAS EFFICIENCY GREATER THAN 1
« Reply #125 on: May 07, 2019, 12:44:41 PM »
Hi tinu,
I am also sorry, but you are again entirely wrong. It seems to me that you are not reading at all any of our posts. Besides in one of your comments for example you claim that A is bigger than B and in the next comment of yours you claim just the opposite -- that A is smaller than B. And similar false claims and logical inconsistensies in all of your comments. Do you do this deliberately?
Please understand and accept the simple fact: there are physical processes which have COP > 1.
I am tired of explaining one and same simple thing thousands of times already.
George       

Offline lancaIV

  • elite_member
  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2859
Re: A SIMPLE ELECTRIC HEATER, WHICH HAS EFFICIENCY GREATER THAN 1
« Reply #126 on: May 07, 2019, 03:55:56 PM »
George1, you are wright : physical processes with C. O. P.  > 1., but work process meaning

                                             Energy conversion processes with eta  > 1
                                             were,are,will be unknown and never achieveable.
                          When energy has his equivalence to mass : where do you get the mass-surplus ?

The C.O.P. is conventionally only used in closed thermo-dynamic cycle circuits called heat pumps or chiller, whose devices transmit heat from point A to point B.  C.O.P <=> 1 , BUT : eta ever < 1

There are also in existance "external input-free pump"  heat pumps, using the thermo-syphon principle.
                                                             Simple heat collecting devices

From Nernst to Nernst-Planck equitation https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nernst%E2%80%93Planck_equation

You are not have a battle against us or the peers and their test result review,  you are in a battle against physical reality  !
"A SIMPLE ELECTRIC HEATER" can have several mWatt up to 10 Watts per square-centimeter surface,temperature from 50°Celsius up to 2200° Celsius :
1,23 Volt ( Nernst equitation) x low to high amperage : electrolyt ( liquid) volume : expansion ( gas,plasma)volume


Which equitations are used by a.  Friction  b. Cavitation  c. Sonolumniscence devices ?
"Free Energy" ( often abused expression)  and the definition :  https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gibbs_free_energy

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: A SIMPLE ELECTRIC HEATER, WHICH HAS EFFICIENCY GREATER THAN 1
« Reply #126 on: May 07, 2019, 03:55:56 PM »
Sponsored links:




Offline George1

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 234
Re: A SIMPLE ELECTRIC HEATER, WHICH HAS EFFICIENCY GREATER THAN 1
« Reply #127 on: May 07, 2019, 04:43:02 PM »
Hi lancaIV,
Thank you for your reply.
Good analysis, dear colleague. Would you be so polite to give us some time to consider carefully your last post?
I will write to you in the nearest future.
Regards,
George
 

Offline tinu

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 627
Re: A SIMPLE ELECTRIC HEATER, WHICH HAS EFFICIENCY GREATER THAN 1
« Reply #128 on: May 07, 2019, 05:16:12 PM »
Hi tinu,
I am also sorry, but you are again entirely wrong. It seems to me that you are not reading at all any of our posts. Besides in one of your comments for example you claim that A is bigger than B and in the next comment of yours you claim just the opposite -- that A is smaller than B. And similar false claims and logical inconsistensies in all of your comments. Do you do this deliberately?
Please understand and accept the simple fact: there are physical processes which have COP > 1.
I am tired of explaining one and same simple thing thousands of times already.
George     
Hi George1,
1. Please pinpoint my mistake now!
2. Please state a false claim and logical inconsistency in any of my comments!
3. As I said "no overunity here", please state where did I say that there are no processes of COP>1!
Please do the above now or immediately delete your post.
Thanks!

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: A SIMPLE ELECTRIC HEATER, WHICH HAS EFFICIENCY GREATER THAN 1
« Reply #128 on: May 07, 2019, 05:16:12 PM »
3D Solar Panels

Offline tinu

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 627
Re: A SIMPLE ELECTRIC HEATER, WHICH HAS EFFICIENCY GREATER THAN 1
« Reply #129 on: May 07, 2019, 05:31:07 PM »
Hi again Gyula,
And one more 81-pages research experimental work:
http://www.esru.strath.ac.uk/Documents/MSc_2003/papagiannakis_i.pdf
Ready experimental results, confirming COP > 1. Why don't we use them?
Looking forward to your answer.
Regards,
George
Hi George1,

This post is a blatant lie!
The cited paper speaks of efficiency measured between 73-84% (page 72). There is nowhere any mention about COP>1!
Why do you lie, George?
Who gave you the right to come here, lie and insult members?
Again, asking for second time, what exactly is your training and level of expertise?

Offline lancaIV

  • elite_member
  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2859
Re: A SIMPLE ELECTRIC HEATER, WHICH HAS EFFICIENCY GREATER THAN 1
« Reply #130 on: May 07, 2019, 05:48:10 PM »
Hi George1,

This post is a blatant lie!
The cited paper speaks of efficiency measured between 73-84% (page 72). There is nowhere any mention about COP>1!
Why do you lie, George?
Who gave you the right to come here, lie and insult members?
Again, asking for second time, what exactly is your training and level of expertise?
Yes and page 6 : up/ over 90% - in future- and page 20 under 100% theoretical efficiencies  !

Somebody here speaks " Hungarian"( not the Monty Python translation)   ;) and could ask them   
 https://patents.google.com/patent/WO2006038048A1/fr  what they mean with
                                               " it's efficiency exceeds extremely "

as to read in their application device description

https://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/description?CC=WO&NR=2006038048A1&KC=A1&FT=D&ND=&date=20060413&DB=&locale=#
I assume,  by given text information :

 efficiency same or < 98% University lab max
 but higher 75% industrial average efficiency ( 2004 standart)

But by high production rate AND HYDROGEN PURITY
« Last Edit: May 07, 2019, 07:51:00 PM by lancaIV »

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: A SIMPLE ELECTRIC HEATER, WHICH HAS EFFICIENCY GREATER THAN 1
« Reply #130 on: May 07, 2019, 05:48:10 PM »
3D Solar Panels

Offline Floor

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1095
Re: A SIMPLE ELECTRIC HEATER, WHICH HAS EFFICIENCY GREATER THAN 1
« Reply #131 on: May 07, 2019, 11:47:26 PM »
@George1

Given that the electrolyte container is well insulated.

1. When we electrolyze water into hydrogen and oxygen, heat is generated in the water.  The temperature of the electrolyte rises.

2. If the electrolyte is well insulated, caloric losses through its container will be minimal. 
    Those caloric losses / their rate can be measured.

3. The volume of the electrolyte decreases during electrolysis ..
           a. because water is transformed into H and O and leaves the electrolyte during the electrolysis.
           b. because water vapor leaves the electrolyte during the electrolysis.

4. The H,  the O and the water vapor all have a caloric content which they carry away from the electrolyte. 
           a. Specific calories were generated by the electrolysis process. 
           b. The transport of those calories from the electrolyte, cools the electrolyte.
           c. Those calories are still present, but they are within the water vapor and HHO gasses.

5. What is the temperature of the Water vapor / HHO gas mixture that is produced during electrolysis ?
Answer 1. It has the same temperature as does the electrolyte, at the time of it's escape from the electrolyte.
Answer 2. Its temperature will increase with time / as the temperature of the electrolyte also increases during electrolysis.

6. If the Water vapor / HHO gas mixture is well insulated, caloric losses through its container will be minimal. 
    Those caloric losses / their rate can be measured.

7. water vapor does not burn. 
    HHO will burn.

8. Water (water vapor) can be removed / trapped by freezing (passing it through a long cold tube).  The HHO
will not the freeze / be trapped.

9. The temperature of the water vapor before its separation from the HHO and the volume of the water (which we determine after
its separation from the HHO) informs us of the waters caloric content upon its production.  This caloric content was generated by the electrolysis (allowing for
initial electrolyte temperature) and should be added to the caloric increase of the electrolyte.

10. Before combustion, the temperature of the HHO should be raised to the temperature it had when it was first generated / released from the electrolyte.

               best wishes

Offline George1

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 234
Re: A SIMPLE ELECTRIC HEATER, WHICH HAS EFFICIENCY GREATER THAN 1
« Reply #132 on: May 08, 2019, 10:16:06 AM »
To tinu.
-------------------------------------
Hi tinu,
You either never read my posts carefully or you never read them at all! And you always distort my words!
1) Firstly, I have explained clearly enough that the 81-pages experimental work contains experimental data which, if properly interpreted, would inevitably
lead to COP > 1. I have never mentioned that the 81-pages experimental work directly claims that COP > 1.
2) Secondly, we admit your superiority in the field of electric engineering. OK, you are right and we are wrong. What to argue about then? Please don't be angry with us and consider the COP > 1 heater as a part of the entertainment industry.
Take it easy and be happy! :D
Regards,
George
     

Offline George1

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 234
Re: A SIMPLE ELECTRIC HEATER, WHICH HAS EFFICIENCY GREATER THAN 1
« Reply #133 on: May 08, 2019, 11:17:16 AM »
To lancaIV
----------------------
About the 81-pages experimental work -- please read my last post to tinu.
----------------------
Here are our answers to your penultimate post.
1) About eta -- you mean eta = Energy conversion efficiency, I guess. Well, this eta is actually an artificially created item, more or less. Of course in some cases its application is extremely suitable and convenient and there is no doubt about this. But in general the eta-based principle as if does not work properly. For example please consider a simple copper wire in an air environment (in your room) through which flows electric current. The wire generates only Joule's heat. The latter is transmitted in two ways -- the wire directly heats the surrounding air and at the same time generates infrared radiation which heats the surrounding objects like table, chairs, walls, carpets, etc. In this case (and in other many cases too) the transmission of energy from the heater to the surrounding environment gives eta = 100 %.
2) Important is the ratio outlet energy/inlet energy and it doesn't matter how would you call it -- COP, efficiency, etc.) 
3) About the mass-surplus. Well, there isn't any mass-surplus at all. The quantity of the generated mass strictly obeys the first Faraday's law of electrolysis.
4) About the Nernst–Planck equation. Official scientific community and conventional orthodox scientists of any ranks do their best to avoid discussing a simple obvious fact -- the Einstein's theory of relativity and Max Planck's quantum mechanics CANNOT BE TRUE SUMULTANEOUSLY. Actually, let us directly say this, these two theories are two naive hypotheses, which generate more questions than answers and all of their postulates and mathematical costructions are questionable, doubtful and unreliable. These two hypotheses clearly illustrate the severe impotence of modern orthodox science.
5) And at last one small appeal for help. I see that you are an expert in the field of physics. So would you be so polite to have a look at the other topic of ours which is called "IS THIS A REACTIONLESS DRIVE OR A PERPETUAL MOTION MACHINE"? How to calculate force Fc and deceleration d? And how would the system behave if the blue component's mass is BIGGER THAN/EQUAL TO/SMALLER THAN the black component's mass?
Looking forward to your answer.
Regards,
George

Offline George1

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 234
Re: A SIMPLE ELECTRIC HEATER, WHICH HAS EFFICIENCY GREATER THAN 1
« Reply #134 on: May 08, 2019, 11:31:56 AM »
To Floor.
--------------
Hi Floor,
Thank you for your reply.
1) Please give us some time to consider carefully your last post. What are you actually suggesting -- a logical costruction, leading to some conclusion, or a step-by-step experimental procedure? Please explain, if possible.
2) And one small appeal for help. Would you be so polite to have a look at the other topic of ours which is called "IS THIS A REACTIONLESS DRIVE OR A PERPETUAL MOTION MACHINE"? How to calculate force Fc and deceleration d? And how would the system behave if the blue component's mass is BIGGER THAN/EQUAL TO/SMALLER THAN the black component's mass?
Looking forward to your answer.
Regards,
George
 

 

OneLink