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 221385 times)

#### George1

• Hero Member
• Posts: 884
##### Re: A SIMPLE ELECTRIC HEATER, WHICH HAS EFFICIENCY GREATER THAN 1
« Reply #615 on: May 01, 2021, 11:48:47 AM »
The text below is a copy of our post of April 24, 12:50:36 PM. (The text below has been published many times in this forum topic.)
----------------------------
Have a look again 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.
Prof. S. L. Srivastava's solution is given below.
Prof. S. L. Srivastava's solution consists of two lines only.
LINE 1. Current through the electrolyte is given by I = (m)/(Z x t).
LINE 2. Power consumed = (I) x (I) x (R) =  ((m)/(Z x t)) x ((m)/(Z x t)) x (R) = 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.)
--------------------------
WE DEVELOPED FURTHER PROF. SRIVASTAVA'S SOLVED PROBLEM IN A NON-STANDARD MANNER.
OUR FURTHER DEVELOPMENT OF PROF. SRIVASTAVA'S SOLVED PROBLEM LED TO COP > 1.
HERE IS THE ESSENCE OF OUR APPROACH.
--------------------------
1) Let us calculate the inlet energy, that is, inlet energy = (31.86 W) x (1200 s) = 38232 Ws = 38232 J.
2) The Joule's heat, generated in the process of electrolysis is given by
Q = (I) x (I) x (R) x (t) =  ((m)/(Z x t)) x ((m)/(Z x t)) x (R) x (t) = (31.86 W) x (1200 s) = 38232 Ws = 38232 J = outlet energy 1.
3) 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 = (HHV) x (m) = (142 000 000) x (0.0001) = 14200 J = outlet energy 2,
where
m = mass of the released hydrogen
HHV = higher heating value oh hydrogen
4) Therefore we can write down the equalities:
4A) outlet energy 1 + outlet energy 2 = 38232 J + 14200 J = 52432 J
4B) inlet energy = 38232 J.
5) Therefore COP is given by
COP = 52432 J/38232 J = 1.37 <=> COP = 1.37 <=> COP > 1.
------------------------------
IMPORTANT NOTE. 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 the same COP = 1.37, that is, we have again the same COP > 1.
-----------------------------
IMPORTANT NOTE. The text above must be evaluated (SOLELY AND ONLY!) by highly qualified experts (Ph.D.) in electric engineering. Otherwise nothing will come out of it.
-----------------------------
=================================
P.S. Isn't there at least one brave member of this forum who dares to say that any standard water-splitting electrolyzer is a device, which has COP greater than 1?

#### George1

• Hero Member
• Posts: 884
##### Re: A SIMPLE ELECTRIC HEATER, WHICH HAS EFFICIENCY GREATER THAN 1
« Reply #616 on: May 05, 2021, 09:53:14 AM »
Where is the brave new technologies pioneer spirit in this forum? What happens here?

#### George1

• Hero Member
• Posts: 884
##### Re: A SIMPLE ELECTRIC HEATER, WHICH HAS EFFICIENCY GREATER THAN 1
« Reply #617 on: May 07, 2021, 01:08:02 PM »
Still no comments? As if nobody in this forum wants to save some money while heating his/her house during winter season?

#### George1

• Hero Member
• Posts: 884
##### Re: A SIMPLE ELECTRIC HEATER, WHICH HAS EFFICIENCY GREATER THAN 1
« Reply #618 on: May 09, 2021, 11:21:47 AM »
The text below is a copy of our post of April 24, 12:50:36 PM. (The text below has been published many times in this forum topic.)
----------------------------
Have a look again 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.
Prof. S. L. Srivastava's solution is given below.
Prof. S. L. Srivastava's solution consists of two lines only.
LINE 1. Current through the electrolyte is given by I = (m)/(Z x t).
LINE 2. Power consumed = (I) x (I) x (R) =  ((m)/(Z x t)) x ((m)/(Z x t)) x (R) = 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.)
--------------------------
WE DEVELOPED FURTHER PROF. SRIVASTAVA'S SOLVED PROBLEM IN A NON-STANDARD MANNER.
OUR FURTHER DEVELOPMENT OF PROF. SRIVASTAVA'S SOLVED PROBLEM LED TO COP > 1.
HERE IS THE ESSENCE OF OUR APPROACH.
--------------------------
1) Let us calculate the inlet energy, that is, inlet energy = (31.86 W) x (1200 s) = 38232 Ws = 38232 J.
2) The Joule's heat, generated in the process of electrolysis is given by
Q = (I) x (I) x (R) x (t) =  ((m)/(Z x t)) x ((m)/(Z x t)) x (R) x (t) = (31.86 W) x (1200 s) = 38232 Ws = 38232 J = outlet energy 1.
3) 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 = (HHV) x (m) = (142 000 000) x (0.0001) = 14200 J = outlet energy 2,
where
m = mass of the released hydrogen
HHV = higher heating value oh hydrogen
4) Therefore we can write down the equalities:
4A) outlet energy 1 + outlet energy 2 = 38232 J + 14200 J = 52432 J
4B) inlet energy = 38232 J.
5) Therefore COP is given by
COP = 52432 J/38232 J = 1.37 <=> COP = 1.37 <=> COP > 1.
------------------------------
IMPORTANT NOTE. 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 the same COP = 1.37, that is, we have again the same COP > 1.
-----------------------------
IMPORTANT NOTE. The text above must be evaluated (SOLELY AND ONLY!) by highly qualified experts (Ph.D.) in electric engineering. Otherwise nothing will come out of it.
-----------------------------
=================================
P.S. Isn't there at least one brave member of this forum who would dare to say that any standard water-splitting electrolyzer is a device, which has COP greater than 1? We (our team) are really surprised.

#### George1

• Hero Member
• Posts: 884
##### Re: A SIMPLE ELECTRIC HEATER, WHICH HAS EFFICIENCY GREATER THAN 1
« Reply #619 on: May 12, 2021, 03:05:02 PM »
Any standard water-splitting electrolyzer has a COP, which is bigger than 1. Why don't you accept this simple truth?

#### George1

• Hero Member
• Posts: 884
##### Re: A SIMPLE ELECTRIC HEATER, WHICH HAS EFFICIENCY GREATER THAN 1
« Reply #620 on: May 12, 2021, 04:29:30 PM »
Still no comments? Deep silence again?

#### George1

• Hero Member
• Posts: 884
##### Re: A SIMPLE ELECTRIC HEATER, WHICH HAS EFFICIENCY GREATER THAN 1
« Reply #621 on: May 15, 2021, 12:16:29 PM »
Any standard water-splitting electrolyzer has a COP, which is bigger than 1. This the truth, if you accept the validity of Prof. S. L. Srivastava's solution.

#### George1

• Hero Member
• Posts: 884
##### Re: A SIMPLE ELECTRIC HEATER, WHICH HAS EFFICIENCY GREATER THAN 1
« Reply #622 on: May 16, 2021, 12:49:23 PM »
Still no public recognition of our concept? What happens here?

#### George1

• Hero Member
• Posts: 884
##### Re: A SIMPLE ELECTRIC HEATER, WHICH HAS EFFICIENCY GREATER THAN 1
« Reply #623 on: May 17, 2021, 03:42:52 PM »
Deep silence again? Really surprised!

#### George1

• Hero Member
• Posts: 884
##### Re: A SIMPLE ELECTRIC HEATER, WHICH HAS EFFICIENCY GREATER THAN 1
« Reply #624 on: May 18, 2021, 09:28:57 AM »
Any standard water-splitting electrolyzer has a COP, which is bigger than 1. Isn't there at least one brave member of this forum who dares to accept this simple obvious truth?

#### George1

• Hero Member
• Posts: 884
##### Re: A SIMPLE ELECTRIC HEATER, WHICH HAS EFFICIENCY GREATER THAN 1
« Reply #625 on: May 19, 2021, 09:55:17 AM »

#### George1

• Hero Member
• Posts: 884
##### Re: A SIMPLE ELECTRIC HEATER, WHICH HAS EFFICIENCY GREATER THAN 1
« Reply #626 on: May 20, 2021, 09:48:02 AM »
Please look again at the link https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xX14NK8GrDY&ab_channel=PeterAxe and at the related comments section. In this comments section an egghead-wiseacre, whose pseudonim is Dark Light 2.1, does his/her best to reject obvious truths. This person Dark Light 2.1 is a real clown! Please follow this discussion, if you like. Seems to be interesting.

#### George1

• Hero Member
• Posts: 884
##### Re: A SIMPLE ELECTRIC HEATER, WHICH HAS EFFICIENCY GREATER THAN 1
« Reply #627 on: May 21, 2021, 10:07:59 AM »

#### George1

• Hero Member
• Posts: 884
##### Re: A SIMPLE ELECTRIC HEATER, WHICH HAS EFFICIENCY GREATER THAN 1
« Reply #628 on: May 26, 2021, 02:33:30 PM »
COP > 1 for any standard water-splitting electrolysis process. Looking forward to your comments.

#### George1

• Hero Member
• Posts: 884
##### Re: A SIMPLE ELECTRIC HEATER, WHICH HAS EFFICIENCY GREATER THAN 1
« Reply #629 on: May 28, 2021, 09:21:51 AM »
Still no comments? Deep silence again? Very strange.