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 Members: 83453
  • *Latest: pinotto

  • *Total Posts: 512774
  • *Total Topics: 15259
  • *Online Today: 44
  • *Most Online: 103
(December 19, 2006, 11:27:19 PM)
  • *Users: 5
  • *Guests: 13
  • *Total: 18

Author Topic: A SIMPLE ELECTRIC HEATER, WHICH HAS EFFICIENCY GREATER THAN 1  (Read 31131 times)

Offline lancaIV

  • elite_member
  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2804
Re: A SIMPLE ELECTRIC HEATER, WHICH HAS EFFICIENCY GREATER THAN 1
« Reply #45 on: February 23, 2019, 02:22:45 PM »
Hello George1, http://rexresearch.com/kanarev/kanarev1.htm shows data, measurements and graphs about thermal heatgeneration and water to hydrogen/oxygen dissoziation with propagating efficiencies > 1 !
Partial over 20 years old this information changed not the "scientifical status quo".

Sincerely OCWL

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy


Online George1

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 224
Re: A SIMPLE ELECTRIC HEATER, WHICH HAS EFFICIENCY GREATER THAN 1
« Reply #46 on: February 25, 2019, 01:12:54 PM »
To lancaIV/OCWL
-------------------------
Hi lancaIV/OCWL,
Thanks a lot for your last post.
1) But this is not the same, my friend! And actually this is something entirely different! (Although as if some basic principles coincide -- in both cases it's a matter of electrolysis.) Prof. Kanarev builds expensive, sophisticated and complex devices which on their behalf generate sophisticated and complex electrochemical processes. (The latter are not studied entirely, I am sure, and there are still too many unknown things related to Prof. Kanarev's research.) Our approach is entirely different from Prof. Kanarev's approach. We do not build sophisticated and complex theories. We do not  build expensive, sophisticated and complex devices which on their behalf generate sophisticated and complex electrochemical processes. We simply take a standard ordinary electrolyzer and use it as a heat generator whose efficiency is bigger than 1. Evidently the difference between the two approaches is enormous, isn't it?
2) Anyway your last post is extremely valuable. It shows that in principle it is possible to design and manufacture an electrolysis-based heat generator whose efficiency is bigger than 1.
3) Prof. Kanarev's research is very interesting and two members of our team are studying it very carefully now.
Looking forward to your answer.
Best regards,
George       

Online George1

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 224
Re: A SIMPLE ELECTRIC HEATER, WHICH HAS EFFICIENCY GREATER THAN 1
« Reply #47 on: February 25, 2019, 02:15:38 PM »
To gyulasun
--------------------
Hi Gyula.
We are doing our best to follow your advices and recommendations.
Firstly, I keep studying hard a heavy textbook (and a few smaller manuals) in experimental calorimetry.
Secondly, in the nearest futute we plan to carry out a few extremely exact and precise calorimetric experiments according to your requirements. (And perhaps the 800-pages report will be ignored as in my poor opinion most of the tests in it are not accurate enough.)
Thirdly, we are searching now for an electrolyzer, which is newer and more reliable than the electrolyzer used in the 800-pages report.
-------------------
While preparing ourselves for the above mentioned experiments would you be so polite to have a look at the considerations below? These are as follows.
-----------------
1) Let us consider three resistors -- a solid one, a liquid one (an electrolyte) and a gaseous one (atmospheric air for example).
2) Let us apply one and same voltage V=const to each of these three resistors separately.
3) Let us assume that in all three cases we have measured one and same current I=const which flows through each of the three resistors. (The gaseous resistor, i.e. the atmospheric air, generates either a spark or a voltaic/welding arc.)
4) Therefore if the Ohm's law is true, then for any of the above mentioned three resistors are valid the equations
V/I=R (1) <=> V/R=I (2) <=> V=IxR (3)
where R=const is the ohmic resistance of any of the above mentioned three resistors.
5) Therefore if the first Joule's law (related to Joule's heating) and the basic calorimetry laws are valid, then we can write down the following equalities:
E=VxIxt=Q=IxIxRxt=C1xM1x(T1-T)=C2xM2x(T2-T)= C3xM3x(T3-T) (4)
where
t is time/time period;
E=VxIxt is the electric energy generated by the battery of voltage V=const;
Q=IxIxRxt is the heat generated by any of the above three resistors;
C1 is the specific heat of the solid resistor;
M1 is the mass of the solid resistor;
T1 is the temperature of the solid resistor at the end of the time period t;
T is the teperature of any of the above three resistors in the beginning of the time period t;
C2 is the specific heat of the liquid resistor;
M2 is the mass of the liquid resistor;
T2 is the temperature of the liquid resistor at the end of the time period t;
C3 is the specific heat of the gaseous resistor;
M3 is the mass of the gaseous resistor;
T3 is the temperature of the gaseous resistor at the end of the time period t.
-----------------------
If tested experimentally, all of the above equations have to be true, haven't they?
-----------------------
Looking forward to your answer.
Best regards,
George

     

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: A SIMPLE ELECTRIC HEATER, WHICH HAS EFFICIENCY GREATER THAN 1
« Reply #47 on: February 25, 2019, 02:15:38 PM »
Sponsored links:




Online George1

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 224
Re: A SIMPLE ELECTRIC HEATER, WHICH HAS EFFICIENCY GREATER THAN 1
« Reply #48 on: February 26, 2019, 09:14:07 AM »
The last considerations seem to be correct, don't they? Otherwise electric enginnering and calorimetry have to be destroyed. 

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy


Offline gyulasun

  • without_ads
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3996
Re: A SIMPLE ELECTRIC HEATER, WHICH HAS EFFICIENCY GREATER THAN 1
« Reply #49 on: February 26, 2019, 10:07:51 PM »
The last considerations seem to be correct, don't they? Otherwise electric enginnering and calorimetry have to be destroyed.
Hi George,

Well, you start with considerations, from which the 3rd can only be an assumption indeed and may not be correct in practice.
The problem is that in the case of an electrolyte for instance, why do you think the current would be constant?  Because the resistance of the liquid will certainly change as Hidrogen and Oxigen are created and leave from the liquid and also the temperature of the liquid will certainly increase.  Maybe I am wrong but I do not assume liquid resistance hence current during the process remains constant.  Have you or your team found it remaining constant ? Or maybe changing only negligibly ?

This changing current may also be valid for the gaseous 'resistor' and can be a constant indeed for only the 'solid' resistor type.

This then means that the Equations that are made equal to each other while are based on the constant current and resistance assumptions cannot be correct.

If you were to consider an averaged current value for the time duration during which say electrolysis is being done,  then certain Equations would be correct but no need to equate them with each other. 
This would involve either a continuous or a frequently sampled logging of current values from which  an average value can be deduced for the electrolysis, to arrive at the consumed input power hence energy.
It is okay that the voltage would be kept at a constant (stabilized) value.  Here I mention M2 (mass of the liquid) which will be changing (reducing) continuously as the H and O leave from it, have you considered this? 

Hopefully, the specific heat, C2 for the liquid would not change during the electrolysis process, I do not know. 

I mention also that in your test setup described in the paper you started out with,  the gaseous resistor is not needed to consider here in any way, it is irrevelant, no? 

All in all, with the consideration like using the average current with constant DC input voltage,
equation for the input energy taken from the DC supply would be Ein=V x Iaverage x t

Equation for one part of the output energy, heat, created in the liquid is:  Eout1 = C2 x M2 x (T2-T) 

The other part of the output energy is created by the burning hidrogen, this needs to be decided how you measure it. One possibility is to heat up a given amount of water from t1 to t2 temperature during a measured time duration.
This would involve say using a chamber relatively well isolated from the enviroment so that little heat could escape from inside the chamber as an unmeasurable loss.  Probably there are other, maybe simpler methods. Like for instance to heat up a well insulated room, from say room temperature to a higher temperature, with continuous air mixing inside the room for checking air temperature.  Also,  a good comparison for the amount of heat from the burning Hidrogen would be to use an electric heater in the same room, also starting from the same room temperature and arrive at the same higher temperature and measure the electric input energy of the heater.  This would be a double check on the energy coming from the Hidrogen burning, that is all. 

So the two measured output energies are to be added and their sum then compared to the measured input energy, to get a COP value.   

Gyula

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: A SIMPLE ELECTRIC HEATER, WHICH HAS EFFICIENCY GREATER THAN 1
« Reply #49 on: February 26, 2019, 10:07:51 PM »
Sponsored links:




Offline lancaIV

  • elite_member
  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2804
Re: A SIMPLE ELECTRIC HEATER, WHICH HAS EFFICIENCY GREATER THAN 1
« Reply #50 on: February 27, 2019, 11:01:10 AM »

Online George1

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 224
Re: A SIMPLE ELECTRIC HEATER, WHICH HAS EFFICIENCY GREATER THAN 1
« Reply #51 on: February 27, 2019, 11:16:00 AM »
To gyulasun
--------------------
Hi Gyula,
Thanks a lot for your reply.
Yes, you are right, but there are some aspects of the problem that have to be explained in detail. And here they are.
Please look at the link below and please read it carefully:
https://chem.libretexts.org/Bookshelves/Introductory_Chemistry/Book%3A_Introductory_Chemistry_(CK-12)/23%3A_Electrochemistry/23.09%3A_Electrolysis_of_Water
And here is a quote from this link:
------------------
BEGINNING OF THE QUOTE
Electrolysis of Water
The electrolysis of water produces hydrogen and oxygen gases. The electrolytic cell consists of a pair of platinum electrodes immersed in water to which a small amount of an electrolyte such as  H2SO4  has been added. The electrolyte is necessary because pure water will not carry enough charge due to the lack of ions. At the anode, water is oxidized to oxygen gas and hydrogen ions. At the cathode, water is reduced to hydrogen gas and hydroxide ions.

oxidation (anode):reduction (cathode):overall reaction:2H2O(l)→O2(g)+4H+(aq)+4e−2H2O(l)+2e−→H2(g)+2OH−(aq)2H2O(l)→O2(g)+2H2(g)E0=−1.23VE0=−0.83VE0cell=−2.06V(23.9.1)
In order to obtain the overall reaction, the reduction half-reaction was multiplied by two to equalize the electrons. The hydrogen ion and hydroxide ions produced in each reaction combine to form water. The  H2SO4  is not consumed in the reaction.
END OF THE QUOTE
-------------------
Therefore the link above actually explains everything. 
In order to maintain M2=const, T2=const, I=const and R=const in the electrolyte you have to do only two things.
Firstly, you have to add constantly only pure water (as H2SO4 is not consumed in the reaction as shown in the above link and in the above quote) in the electrolyzer thus keeping M2=const.
Secondly, you have to cool down constantly the electrolyzer thus (a) consuming constantly the Joule's heat for useful purposes and (b) keeping T2=const, I=const and R=const. (Because as you know the ohmic resistance of any electrolyte depends on temperature, that is, the ohmic resistance of any electrolyte decreases with rise in temperature. In order to avoid this you cool constantly the electrolyte thus keeping constant values for T2, I and R, respectively.)
----------------------
So having in mind the above explanations it is not necessary in my poor opinion to use such a sophisticated experimental methodology as the one you have recommended in your last post. Don't you think so?   
Looking forward to your answer.
Best regards,
George

 

 

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: A SIMPLE ELECTRIC HEATER, WHICH HAS EFFICIENCY GREATER THAN 1
« Reply #51 on: February 27, 2019, 11:16:00 AM »
Sponsored links:




Online George1

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 224
Re: A SIMPLE ELECTRIC HEATER, WHICH HAS EFFICIENCY GREATER THAN 1
« Reply #52 on: February 27, 2019, 11:31:33 AM »
To lancaIV
----------------------
Hi lancaIV.
Thanks a lot for your reply.
The links you have sent to me are extremely interesting. We are studing them very carefully now. Yes, you are absolutely right that there is an enormous and still undiscovered and useful potential in the water generating electrolysis. Obviously many people work over this technology problem. Please send to us other links of the sort, if you have any.
Looking forward to your answer.
Best regards,
George
   

Offline lancaIV

  • elite_member
  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2804
Re: A SIMPLE ELECTRIC HEATER, WHICH HAS EFFICIENCY GREATER THAN 1
« Reply #53 on: February 27, 2019, 07:41:15 PM »
Yes,  many  universities,science institutions and comercial R&D labs are working in this scene, including DOE and EU-Eureka grants or MITI !
Low cost water decomposition ( not : water generation) gives the entrance to the CO2/Methan- cycle !Solar-/Sun-/Wind-fuel as synthetic hydro-carb liquid fuel and CO2 Recycling.

Thermal,sono-,photo-,electro-lysis or plasma as water catalysator.
You do not want a simple electric heater, you want cheap energy and this many wants  !
2010- now 2019 ,......
https://www.h2-international.com/2017/06/06/high-voltage-electrolysis-possible/

Audi,Toyota,GM,Hyundai,......


Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: A SIMPLE ELECTRIC HEATER, WHICH HAS EFFICIENCY GREATER THAN 1
« Reply #53 on: February 27, 2019, 07:41:15 PM »
3D Solar Panels

Offline gyulasun

  • without_ads
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3996
Re: A SIMPLE ELECTRIC HEATER, WHICH HAS EFFICIENCY GREATER THAN 1
« Reply #54 on: February 28, 2019, 12:48:28 PM »
.....
So having in mind the above explanations it is not necessary in my poor opinion to use such a sophisticated experimental methodology as the one you have recommended in your last post. Don't you think so?   
Looking forward to your answer.
....

Hi George,

As I wrote earlier to you, I do not wish to tell you or your team how to measure the energy balance of your proposed electric heater setup for which you claim COP > 1 performance. I simply outlined a method I think would give a correct answer for such a certainly bold claim. 

Any method you find simple to determine the input and output energy quantities should be fine. There is only one thing to follow: the data entered into the correct math formulas should come from actual measurements on the setup. 

I wonder what actual data have been collected in the 800 page long report you referred to: can we ever read a 1 or 2 page long version of it?  No offense and no any pressure intended  but what is so difficult in it to collect input and output energy data and some details, once that report was done after the tests and measurements ?

Remember: you asked for comments / opinions in connection with your paper https://mypicxbg.files.wordpress.com/2019/01/pages_1-6.pdf  in your very first post of this thread.  The idea involved in the paper should deserve a really correct measurement procedure I think.   

Gyula

Online George1

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 224
Re: A SIMPLE ELECTRIC HEATER, WHICH HAS EFFICIENCY GREATER THAN 1
« Reply #55 on: March 01, 2019, 10:13:14 AM »
To lancaIV
---------------------
Hi, lancaIV.
Thanks a lot for your reply.
1) In my poor opinion a standard ordinary electrolyzer can be considered as a simple electric heater as well as a generator of cheap energy. These two properties of any standard ordinary electrolyzer are related one to another.
2) Thanks a lot for the link you have sent to me. I will cosider it carefully.
3) What are these DOE, EU-Eureka grants, MITI, etc.? Would you be so polite to give some more information about them?
4) And what about the last line of your last post: "Audi,Toyota,GM,Hyundai,......" You mean that these companies are also searching for methods of generating of cheap energy? If yes, then how to contact the correct companies' departments involved in the topic?
5) You wrote also: "...... many  universities,science institutions and comercial R&D labs are working in this scene." Would you be so polite to enumerate some of them and show the most direct links to the related departments and/or people?
Looking forward to your answer.
Best regards,
George
 

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: A SIMPLE ELECTRIC HEATER, WHICH HAS EFFICIENCY GREATER THAN 1
« Reply #55 on: March 01, 2019, 10:13:14 AM »
3D Solar Panels

Online George1

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 224
Re: A SIMPLE ELECTRIC HEATER, WHICH HAS EFFICIENCY GREATER THAN 1
« Reply #56 on: March 01, 2019, 11:24:37 AM »
To gyulasun
-----------------
Hi Gyula.
Thanks a lot for your reply.
1) Yes, I perfectly agree with you. You are absolutely right. All your comments and recommendations are reasonable and correct. And thank you for this!
2) The quality of our 800-pages report is not satisfiable. I don't like it at all. Too many incorrectnesses, too many experimental errors, whose percentage is bigger than acceptable, etc. In my poor opinion the experiments must be carried out again and I persuaded into doing this all members of our team. But this time I will take part PERSONALLY in all experimental procedures. (I am studying hard experimental calorimetry as you know from my previous posts.)
3) The first step seems to me comparatively easy -- to measure voltage V, current I and time t at the inlet, thus measuring the inlet energy.
4) The problem is how to measure CALORIMETRICALLY in a reliable and simple manner the Joule's heat generated by the electrolyzer. Any good idea is welcome.
5) Another problem is (a) how to store in a reliable and simple manner the generated hydrogen and (b) how to weigh the already generated hydrogen in a reliable and simple manner too. Or to measure the generated hydrogen's volume at a certain pressure (may be at atmospheric pressure?) and after that to calculate the hygrogen's weight? Any good idea is welcome.
6) Shall we test the hydrogen's HHV=142 MJ/kg or take it for granted?
Looking forward to your answer.
Best regards,
George
           

Offline lancaIV

  • elite_member
  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2804
Re: A SIMPLE ELECTRIC HEATER, WHICH HAS EFFICIENCY GREATER THAN 1
« Reply #57 on: March 01, 2019, 01:26:23 PM »
U. S. Department of Energy program ( New technologies and new energy concepts related)

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/ARPA-E
http://www.arpae-summit.com/
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/FreedomCAR_and_Vehicle_Technologies

European Union program :
https://www.welcomeurope.com/european-funds/eureka-302+202.html#tab=onglet_details

Japanese estatal program ( M. I. T. I.,   now M. E. T. I. )
http://www.meti.go.jp/english/
Not to forget chinese,indian, korean and russian estatal research & developments.

Comercial R&D : (petro-) chemical industry ( great hydrogen producer and user)
Shell and Exxon has been some of the greatest re-/ searcher in the renewable ( photovoltaic, windconversion)energy sector ( and are !).

And all are working together ( energy and mobility is a trillion $ market ):
https://translate.google.com/translate?hl=de&sl=de&tl=en&u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.autosieger.de%2Fshell-und-choren-zusammenarbeit-zu-sunfuel-vereinbart-article6952.html
But :
https://translate.google.com/translate?hl=de&sl=de&tl=en&u=https%3A%2F%2Fm.heise.de%2Ftr%2Fartikel%2FDer-Sprit-ist-aus-1726672.html


Nevertheless  the idea " renewable ( clean and save) fuel" is alive :https://www.autosieger.de/VW-betreibt-SunFuel-Flotte-article240.html

The semi-estatal industrial VW-trust(Included AUDI)  has thousands of R&D engineers : f. e. by participation  https://de.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/IAV and many cooperations and projects with universities worldwide.
https://translate.google.com/translate?hl=de&sl=de&tl=en&u=https%3A%2F%2Fde.m.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FIAV

Cheap heat and electricity ( in future e- producer will have to pay for surplus net-charge/ load) and price potential :
http://www.dotyenergy.com/
If you have got something real then go to international energy challenges their "showroom" and compete !
https://www.ideaconnection.com/challenges/

Offline gyulasun

  • without_ads
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3996
Re: A SIMPLE ELECTRIC HEATER, WHICH HAS EFFICIENCY GREATER THAN 1
« Reply #58 on: March 04, 2019, 12:42:17 PM »
Hi George,

Some of your questions (nr 4 or 5) can be answered by either experts from local university or college physics or chemics labs where you may also find some kind of calorimeters too and / or searching for selected solutions on the web. 

Regarding your 6th question:

Shall we test the hydrogen's HHV=142 MJ/kg or take it for granted?

Well, you do not need to test the HHV value but please study what the so called LHV is because LHV=120 MJ/kg 'only' for the Hydrogen. 

I think this lower value is valid when the 'latent' energy i.e. for instance the heat in the hot air created during burning is not utilized (while the burning Hydrogen does heat up say a given amount of water from T1 to T2 temperature during a measured time duration). 
So if you do not utilize the otherwise escaping secondary heat during Hydrogen burning, then you can use as worst case the LHV=120 MJ/kg.  Especially, if you seem to receive COP > 1 measured result with the LHV value... 

Gyula

Online George1

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 224
Re: A SIMPLE ELECTRIC HEATER, WHICH HAS EFFICIENCY GREATER THAN 1
« Reply #59 on: March 04, 2019, 02:54:36 PM »
Hi Gyula,
Thanks a lot for your reply.
-------------
The majority of our team is strongly against carrying out the experiments related to the electrolyzer's COP. This is because a certain set of reliable and precise tests would take a lot of time and money and would engage a lot of people.
-------------
Instead our team's greatest expert in electric engineering suggests the following made-of-iron logical construction which is equivalent to the most precise experiment.
-------------
1) Firstly, let us assume that the law of conservation of energy is valid for the electrolyte of any standard hydrogen-generating electrolyzer. ( No matter whether this is an amateur YouTube-presented electrolyzer or a professional laboratory/industrial electrolyzer.) Therefore we can write down the equality
VxIxt=IxIxRxt + H   (1)
where
V is the voltage of the battery;
I is the current, generated by the battery, and the current, which flows through the electrolyte;
R is the ohmic resistance of the electrolyte;
t is time;
H is the heat of burning of hydrogen.
If equality (1) is true, then we can write down the following inequality
V>IxR   (2).
Let us put together (1) and (2), that is,
VxIxt=IxIxRxt + H   (1)   <=>  V>IxR   (2).
Equality (1) and inequality (2) unambiguously show that for any standard hydrogen-generating electrolyzer if the law of conservation of energy is valid, then the Ohm's law is not valid.
-----------------
2) Secondly, let us assume that the Ohm's law is valid for the electrolyte of any standard hydrogen-generating electrolyzer. Therefore we can write down the equality
V=IxR   (3).
If equality (3) is true, then we can write down the following inequality
VxIxt<IxIxRxt + H    (4).
Let us put together (3) and (4), that is,
V=IxR   (3)  <=>  VxIxt<IxIxRxt + H    (4).
Equality (3) and inequality (4) unambiguously show that for any standard hydrogen-generating electrolyzer if the Ohm's law is valid, then the law of conservation of energy is not valid.
-----------------
In one word, according to the text above there are three possible options for any standard and ordinary hydrogen-generating electrolyzer, which are as follows.
OPTION 1. If the law of conservation of energy is valid, then the Ohm's law is not valid.
OPTION 2. If the Ohm's law is valid, then the law of conservation of energy is not valid.
OPTION 3. Both the Ohm's law and the law of conservation of energy are not valid simultaneously to some extent.
-----------------
AND WHATEVER EXPERIMENTS TO CARRY OUT THE EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS WILL BE A REALIZATION OF ONE OF THE ABOVE THREE OPTIONS.
-----------------
In my poor opinion the situation cannot be explained in a simpler and clearer manner.
-----------------
Looking forward to your answer.
Best regards,
George
     

     

 

OneLink