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 238730 times)

#### George1

• Hero Member
• Posts: 884
##### Re: A SIMPLE ELECTRIC HEATER, WHICH HAS EFFICIENCY GREATER THAN 1
« Reply #255 on: December 29, 2019, 01:55:06 PM »
Still no objections?

#### George1

• Hero Member
• Posts: 884
##### Re: A SIMPLE ELECTRIC HEATER, WHICH HAS EFFICIENCY GREATER THAN 1
« Reply #256 on: January 04, 2020, 09:12:45 AM »
I am sending again our post of March 26, 2019, 10:39:21 AM.
"Please have a look at the book "Solved Problems in Physics", 2004, Volume 2, p. 876, solved problem 12.97. The author of this book is Prof. S. L. Srivastava (Ph.D.)
--------------------------
For your convenience I am giving below the text of the problem and its solution.
--------------------------
12.97. In the electrolysis of sulphuric acid solution, 100 mg of hydrogen is liberated in a period of 20 minutes. The resistance of the electrolyte is 0.5 Ohm. Calculate the power consumed. Electrochemical equivalent of hydrogen is 1.044 x 10 -8 kg/C.
Solution: The power consumed is equal to 31.86 W.
Prof. S. L. Srivastava stops here his calculations.
(The related solution's set of equations is not given here in order to save time and space. This set of equations however can be found in the book or in the link above.)
--------------------------
The above solved problem has a potential which can be developed further. And here it is.
1) Let us calculate the inlet energy, that is, inlet energy = (31.86 W) x (1200 s) = 38232 Ws = 38232 J.
2) Let us calculate the current I. The current I is given by I = (m)/(Z x t) = 7.9 A,
where
m = 0.0001kg of hydrogen
Z = electrochemical equivalent of hydrogen
t = 1200 s
3) The Joule's heat, generated in the process of electrolysis is given by
Q = I x I x R x t = (7.9 A) x (7.9 A) x (0.5 Ohm) x (1200 s) = 37446 J = outlet energy 1.
4) HHV of hydrogen is 142 000 000 J/kg. Therefore the heat H, generated by burning/exploding of 0.0001 kg of hydrogen, is given by
H = (142 000 000) x (0.0001) = 14200 J = outlet energy 2.
5) Therefore we can write down the equalities:
5A) outlet energy 1 + outlet energy 2 = 37446 J + 14200 J = 51646 J
5B) inlet energy = 38232 J.
6) Therefore COP is given by
COP = 51646 J/38232 J = 1.35  <=>  COP = 1.35  <=>  COP > 1.
------------------------------
Constant pure water and cooling agent supply could keep constant the electrolyte's temperature, heat exchange, mass and ohmic resistance, respectively.
Besides 0.0001 kg of hydrogen (and the related amount of the already split pure water) is small enough and can be neglected as a factor influencing the electrolyte's temperature, mass and ohmic resisitance.
-----------------------------
And one more interesting fact.
Literally the same solved problem can be found in an old Russian (still from the Soviet times) book "Сборник задач и вопросов по физике", 1986, p. 130, solved example problem 71. The authors of this book are Р. А. Гладкова and Н. И. Кутиловская. In the Russian version the data is a little different, that is, time is 25 minutes, the amount of generated hydrogen is 150 mg, Ohmic resisitance is 0.4 Ohm and the calculated power is 37 W.
Russians also stopped their calculations at 37 W.
Our further development of the Russian version led to COP = 1.37, that is, we have again COP > 1.
-----------------------------
Therefore the text above unambiguously shows that it is a matter of exact experimental data which is in perfect accordance with theory. Because I cannot imagine that three highly qualified experts in physics (yet strongly separated by time, space and nationality) would have made one and same mistake three times in a row. This is impossible!"
-----------------------------
Do you have any theoretical (ONLY THEORETICAL!) objections against the text above?
YES OR NO?
-----------------------------
Regards,
George

#### George1

• Hero Member
• Posts: 884
##### Re: A SIMPLE ELECTRIC HEATER, WHICH HAS EFFICIENCY GREATER THAN 1
« Reply #257 on: January 11, 2020, 08:58:42 AM »
Deep silence again? Obviously no objections?

#### kolbacict

• Hero Member
• Posts: 1418
##### Re: A SIMPLE ELECTRIC HEATER, WHICH HAS EFFICIENCY GREATER THAN 1
« Reply #258 on: January 16, 2020, 12:25:08 PM »
did such an experiment. Three phases of 230v were connected to the three plates.Alternating current, no diodes. But gas is coming, though not enough.My thoughts are that in the case of three phases, there is unidirectional rotation, as in an electric motor.Such an impromptu direct current.

#### lancaIV

• elite_member
• Hero Member
• Posts: 5233
##### Re: A SIMPLE ELECTRIC HEATER, WHICH HAS EFFICIENCY GREATER THAN 1
« Reply #259 on: January 16, 2020, 01:13:46 PM »
George,

1/2 nominal voltage ~ 1/3 power consume

15 Watt nominal ~ 5 Watt real consume per bulb + instead 4,3 calories/hour 4,9 calories/hour heat emission
a little gain
Improveable ? Working with voltage conversion :

Behind each consumed Wh electricity is invested " primary energy", this is the base number for a total OU or UU dynamic cycle efficiency !
In Germany : 1 KWh EE ~ 1,8 KWh PE ergo 180% thermodynamic efficiency need to reach Unity

Electrical gains, f. e. by power factor correction,does not mean linear physical gains :
comparison here before/after electrical input and pump power or lamp output
https://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/description?CC=TW&NR=200627764A&KC=A&FT=D&ND=3&date=20060801&DB=EPODOC&locale=de_EP#
The electrolyzer transformer efficiency, water( or other electrolyt with/-out salts ) temperature + flow and pressure, these are all specific functions whose change efficiency numbers :
Transformer specific changes :

#### sm0ky2

• Hero Member
• Posts: 3948
##### Re: A SIMPLE ELECTRIC HEATER, WHICH HAS EFFICIENCY GREATER THAN 1
« Reply #260 on: January 16, 2020, 03:47:37 PM »
George

Why are you seeking an objection?
And what is it that you wish to be objected against?

Objections to the amount of Hydrogen generated?
Objections to the electrical portion of the energy input?

Objections to the pretense under which it is presented?

Objections to the choice of acidic electrolyte?

Or are you explicitly seeking an explanation of the total energies
of the electrolysis reaction PH curve, with comprehensive data collected
for every known acid or base?
Perhaps with side by side experimental analysis of photolysis, sonic disintegration,
thermal decomposition, and magnetolysis under under comparable PH conditions?

How much time do you have to learn this field of research?
And if it were presented to you, would you even want to learn it?

————————————————————————————————————-

I don’t have the patience to be your teacher. So to the above you are left

But if you want the short answer, by dissolving the acid in water you are
forming hydronium and Hydrogen sulfide.
Released during electrolysis is Hydrogen, oxygen, and sulphur dioxide gas
Depleting the electrolyte which is pretty heavy given the low resistance per
electrode spacing in the book.
(By heavy I mean a very saturated aqueous solution)

As the electrolyte is depleted resistance increases, this is partially countered
by a decreasing volume of water. Circuit current is closely monitored, to keep
resistance constant throughout the experiment. Water and electrolyte must be
continuously added to sustain the reaction.

Other acids can be used, which are safer, more stable,
and have a lower decomposition rate.
If an organic acid is used, electrolyte cost becomes negligible.
Comparable Hydrogen production decreases because it is not as
large % of the decomposition byproducts.
But the reaction can be sustained for longer time without adding more acid.

HCL + salt can exceed production rates of H2SO4 with the cost of a faster
depleting electrolyte and a more dangerous chlorine gas byproduct.

The energy used in the formation of the acid and its compounds during the
reaction are easily calculated and play a major part in the breaking of ionic bonds.
depending on the temperature and particular conditions of electrolysis, recombination
energies may also need to be accounted for.
As new compounds are often formed during decomposition.
This also affects the stoichiometric balance of H2 : O.
Which will then require additional Oxygen input to reclaim the Hydrogen energy.

#### sm0ky2

• Hero Member
• Posts: 3948
##### Re: A SIMPLE ELECTRIC HEATER, WHICH HAS EFFICIENCY GREATER THAN 1
« Reply #261 on: January 16, 2020, 05:11:54 PM »
When comparing Hydrogen energy efficiency, there are apples, oranges, and bananas.

1) electrochemical energy: electrolysis : fuel cell recombination
2) electroreactive energy:  electrolysis : using reactants in subsequent chemical reactions
3) thermochemical energy:  electrolysis : heat of combustion

In the first scenario we compare apples to apples...
In the second we are using reactivity to save energy in another process.
In the 3rd, we are using the intense internal heat caused by recombination
and this 3rd scenario is mathematically advantageous.
In an ICE, there are problems with the increasing temperatures.
Making the implementation problematic.
However, in another Carnot cycle, similar to a steam cycle or sterling type
even at 50%, the thermal energy exceeds the electrical energy consumed.

I am not in a position to challenge the BTU equation, as my argument would
simultaneously negate the validity of every other constant I chose to use to
mathematically prove my theory.
But I believe what we consider “heat” is a local condition.
meaning one Kelvin here may not be 1 Kelvin elsewhere in the universe.

What we measure in “BTU” is a change in heat, from our perspective.
and the heat generated during combustion is based on the universal condition
not our local temperature measurement.
Resulting in a variance in our value of “energy”.

This is further troubled by our choice of initial pressure before the combustion
event. Which greatly affects the temperature reached at the peak of the explosion.
Also, it is technically not an explosion, but an implosion.
The explosion we experience is the intense emission of heat in the form of a flamelike
plasma water vapor, that occurs moments after the implosion.
It is essentially “ionic-fusion”.

#### George1

• Hero Member
• Posts: 884
##### Re: A SIMPLE ELECTRIC HEATER, WHICH HAS EFFICIENCY GREATER THAN 1
« Reply #262 on: January 18, 2020, 09:02:17 AM »
Hi everyone,
Please have a look again at our post of January 04, 2020, 09:12:45 AM.
Do you have any theoretical (ONLY THEORETICAL!) objections against (1) COP = 1.35  <=>  COP > 1 (this is our further development of Prof. Srivastava's basic problem) and against (2) COP = 1.35  <=>  COP > 1 (this is our further development of Russian professors' basic problem)? YES OR NO?

#### George1

• Hero Member
• Posts: 884
##### Re: A SIMPLE ELECTRIC HEATER, WHICH HAS EFFICIENCY GREATER THAN 1
« Reply #263 on: January 25, 2020, 09:28:54 AM »
Deep silence again?
I will repeat again the question of my previous post. Do you accept the theoretically proved simple fact that (1) COP = 1.35  <=>  COP > 1 (this is our further development of Prof. Srivastava's version of the basic problem) and that (2) COP = 1.35  <=>  COP > 1 (this is our further development of Russian professors' version of basic problem)? YES OR NO?
George

#### George1

• Hero Member
• Posts: 884
##### Re: A SIMPLE ELECTRIC HEATER, WHICH HAS EFFICIENCY GREATER THAN 1
« Reply #264 on: February 01, 2020, 09:13:33 AM »
Deep silence again? And still no answer within a period of two weeks?
1) I will repeat again the question of my previous post. Do you accept the theoretically proved simple fact that (1) COP = 1.35  <=>  COP > 1 (this is our further development of Prof. Srivastava's version of the basic problem) and that (2) COP = 1.35  <=>  COP > 1 (this is our further development of Russian professors' version of basic problem)? Yes or no?
2) In one word, it is obvious that any standard hydrogen-generating electrolyzer can be considered as a heater, which has efficiency (COP) greater than 1. Do you accept this simple fact? Yes or no?
George

#### lancaIV

• elite_member
• Hero Member
• Posts: 5233
##### Re: A SIMPLE ELECTRIC HEATER, WHICH HAS EFFICIENCY GREATER THAN 1
« Reply #265 on: February 01, 2020, 12:55:37 PM »

#### George1

• Hero Member
• Posts: 884
##### Re: A SIMPLE ELECTRIC HEATER, WHICH HAS EFFICIENCY GREATER THAN 1
« Reply #266 on: February 08, 2020, 09:28:48 AM »
Hi lanca IV,
Well, we are talking again about different things.
1) The first link of your last post is about a nanoscale heat engine which exceeds standard efficiency limit. Ok, this only confirms the fact that efficiency bigger than 1 is perfectly possible. At the same time however this nanoscale heat engine has an entirely different principle of operation and for the present is practically an unconfirmed hypothesis. THE GERMAN SCIENTISTS NOWHERE DECLARE CLEARLY AND UNAMBIGUOUSLY LIKE US THAT ANY STANDARD HYDROGEN-GENERATING ELECTROLYZER CAN BE CONSIDERED AS AN ELECTRIC HEATER, WHICH HAS EFFICIENCY GREATER THAN 1!
2) The second link of your last post is about a nanoscale heat transfer 100 times stronger than previously thought. Well, I will not argue about this. May be true, may be not. But the article considers HEAT TRANSFER and we are talking about HEAT GENERATION. These are obviously two entirely different things.
----------------------------
So let us focus again on the target.
----------------------------
3) I will repeat again the question of my last post. Do you accept the theoretically proved simple fact that (1) COP = 1.35  <=>  COP > 1 (this is our further development of Prof. Srivastava's version of the basic problem) and that (2) COP = 1.35  <=>  COP > 1 (this is our further development of Russian professors' version of basic problem)? Yes or no?
4) In one word, it is obvious that any standard hydrogen-generating electrolyzer can be considered as a heater, which has efficiency (COP) greater than 1. Do you accept this simple fact? Yes or no?
George

#### lancaIV

• elite_member
• Hero Member
• Posts: 5233
##### Re: A SIMPLE ELECTRIC HEATER, WHICH HAS EFFICIENCY GREATER THAN 1
« Reply #267 on: February 08, 2020, 02:23:48 PM »
Yes,it is acceptable  ! Personally and by common science !
Electrolyzing is as cracking process also heat generating  !

Sincerely
OCWL

poste scriptum : the global science is not in search for C.O.P. greater 1 hydrolysiss processes,these are existent,but mostly based by expensive elements and/or rare earth/Lanthaniden or by expensive equipment,to reach the point : high C.O.P. - ON DEMAND- hydrogen output production by lowest/competitive to alternatives costs  !

#### George1

• Hero Member
• Posts: 884
##### Re: A SIMPLE ELECTRIC HEATER, WHICH HAS EFFICIENCY GREATER THAN 1
« Reply #268 on: February 15, 2020, 09:33:49 AM »
Hi lancaIV,
1) Oh, I am EXTREMELY pleasantly surprised that at last you personally accept the simple fact that any standard hydrogen-generating electrolyzer is actually an electric heater which has efficiency bigger than 1. You are a brave person! Congratulations!
2) But you are ABSOLUTELY WRONG that the mentioned in the above item 1 simple fact is accepted by the common science! ON THE CONTRARY, IT IS SEVERELY DENIED! Can you show us some publication, article, any written text, you tube clip, etc., which unambiguously and directly tells us that any standard hydrogen-generating electrolyzer is actually an electric heater which has efficiency bigger than 1?
3) In your last post you wrote:"... but mostly based by expensive elements and/or rare earth/Lanthaniden or by expensive equipment...". But this is not true! I would absolutely not agree with this! Hydrogen-generating electrolysis is in general one of the most cheap industrial processes! For example sea water hydrogen-generating electrolysis is extremely simple and cheap! (Not to mention and enumerate other methods of simple and cheap hydrogen-generating electrolysis.)
George

#### lancaIV

• elite_member
• Hero Member
• Posts: 5233
##### Re: A SIMPLE ELECTRIC HEATER, WHICH HAS EFFICIENCY GREATER THAN 1
« Reply #269 on: February 15, 2020, 01:01:11 PM »
To 3) cheap " a.grey b.blue c.green" hydrogen production is something to defined :
you mean costs fob  source or costs for user/consumer :
new canadian startup Proton Technologies "Hygenic Earth Energy" project costs estimation : 0,1-0,5 US\$/ Kg

Solarthermic hydrolysis in the arabian Peninsula for 1,5 -0,8 US\$/Kg

judbarovski.livejournal.com CO2-emission free hydrogen 0,5 US\$/Kg

To compare with crude oil : 1 barrel ~ 1600 KWh ~ 42,6 Kg hydrogen

Production process costs about 0,5 US\$/Kg means simi!ar costs like actual shale gas market price !

January 2020 1 MMBTU shale gas : 2 US\$

1 barrel crude oil ~ 5,46 MMBTU shale gas ~ 11 US\$ barrel- equivalent

Shale gas prices actually without "carbon credit" CO2-certification costs are equivalent with 0,25 US\$/Kg hydrogen production costs  !
When we treat shale gas like natural gas - related CO2 emission -  per MMBTU and
calculate by E.U. "carbon credit"- taxation program

for shale gas we have with 25 Euros/tonCO2 certifcation costs and 55 Kg CO2 emission per MMBTU  an environmemtal related tax price increase about 1,375 Euros per MMBTU
or 7,5 Euros (~ 8,25 US\$) CO2-tax per barrel -equivalent shale gas  !

Conclusion :
19,25 US\$/ barrel-equivalent shale gas included CO2-tax is the target of  " cheap green hydrogen" !

~  45 US\$cents/Kg green hydrogen comercial market price

As energy-user it will be easier to generate electricity -on demand-with a generator which delivers 1 KWh electricity ≤ 1,5 US\$cents ~ 24 US\$/ barrel-equivalent electricity ( CO2-tax free )

To store hydrogen is costly ! And the handling with this gas dangerous !Hydrogen as fuel emitts vapor : the greenhouse gas NR 1 in the GHG-ranking  !

To 1) and 2) a technical C.O.P. higher 1 is nothing special, but it is not a physical C.O.P. and the physical transformation process efficiency  is  smaller-same 1=100 per centum
C.O.P. ,efficiency ? : solarlight + titanoxid + water  :  physical ? chemical ? technical  ?

« Last Edit: February 15, 2020, 04:12:43 PM by lancaIV »