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 221161 times)

#### gyulasun

• Hero Member
• Posts: 4139
##### Re: A SIMPLE ELECTRIC HEATER, WHICH HAS EFFICIENCY GREATER THAN 1
« Reply #60 on: March 04, 2019, 09:34:38 PM »
Hi George,

I have some problems with your reasonings and I consider them invalid I am afraid.

1) Well, the VxIxt formula as you defined gives the input energy needed for the electrolysis and this is surely equal to the formula IxIxRxt which is the same input energy, no problem here. Of course V=IxR is also correct, (which is Ohm"s law) and if you replace V with IxR in this VxIxt formula, then you get this: IxIxRxt, so they are equal.
(In fact I do not understand why you express the same input energy with two formulas which are derived from each other?  You can express them like that, of course but here it is not needed.)

BUT if you add H to the right hand side of this equation: VxIxt=IxIxRxt,  then I do not think this is correct, because H is the output energy (you defined H as the heat of burning the Hydrogen), so:

Why would you add the output energy to the input energy in an equality formula where the left hand side is the input energy itself and the right hand side is the same input energy + output energy? Because this is what your equality (1) means to me mathematically. So this is the 1st problem.

Now you introduce inequality (2) as V>IxR and state that if you put together (1) and (2), then ... I do not repeat your text.

So the 2nd problem is that you compare (or relate) energy with voltage.  V=IxR (or V>IxR) is voltage while VxIxt (or IxIxRxt) is energy. Big difference, they are not comparable, they cannot be put together in any way, whatever you mean by "put together".

SO the energy balance (if we assume the law of the conservation of energy is valid) would be: input energy=output energy i.e. VxIxt=H and here H should include not only the energy coming from the burning Hidrogen but from the heat energy created in the electrolyte by the input energy during the t time.

2) I think Ohm's law (V=IxR) is valid for electrolysers. My only notice with this is that you need to consider the changing current through the electrolyte as it heats up during the process so this law is valid in each single moment, and in another moment say 5 minutes later, a slightly changed current flows because the resistance of the electrolyte has changed, ok? In this sense, using Ohm's law here gives not much sense in itself but this latter is a side note only.
Another side note: this is why I wrote to your earlier (when were discussing the how to measure input energy during the electrolysis) that input current should be measured either continuously or should at least be sampled frequently and calculate from those the average input current for evaluating input energy.

Now you introduce this inequality: VxIxt<IxIxRxt+H   Well, this may be correct because you relate input energy to the (same) input energy + output energy: the sum of the latter two can be higher than the input energy itself, I have no problem with this part.

And then you put your formulas (3) and (4) together (probably you mean: relate them)  i.e. (3) is voltage and (4) is energy and this cannot be done, voltage is not energy.

So I think your listed OPTION 1, 2 and 3 are not correct or valid.  (But see my side note above how Ohm"s law is valid.)

So this situation is not to be explained in theory, no need for that but the input and output energies ought to be measured and then arrive at a COP > 1 claim if the measurements prove it.  I understand this may become expensive and tiresome but I can only repeat: science is correct when claims or theories are proved by repeatable measurements.  Especially so with COP > 1 claims.

Gyula

#### F6FLT

• Sr. Member
• Posts: 394
##### Re: A SIMPLE ELECTRIC HEATER, WHICH HAS EFFICIENCY GREATER THAN 1
« Reply #61 on: March 06, 2019, 11:14:33 AM »
I agree, Gyula.
In other words, U=R*I is what sees the generator, R being the apparent resistance of the solution, not the ohmic resistance.
In the solution, we have U1=R1*I which is the part really dissipated as heat in the ohmic resistance R1, and  U1 = U-U2 where U2 is the oxydo-reduction potential. U1*I is dissipated as heat, U2*I is disspated as chemical energy for gas production, U*I is the total energy provided by the generator, not that dissipated in heat.
That's why U2 is named "reduction potential": the solution is viewed as a battery connected in series but in opposition to the generator.
Those who do not want to make the effort to study and understand, or even experiment, while thinking to be smarter than Faraday and when the well known keys to this were given a month ago, are condemned to go in circles in their faith and of course, without producing anything concrete outside the blah, blah, blah.

#### George1

• Hero Member
• Posts: 884
##### Re: A SIMPLE ELECTRIC HEATER, WHICH HAS EFFICIENCY GREATER THAN 1
« Reply #62 on: March 10, 2019, 12:02:10 PM »
Hi Gyula,
Hi F6FLT,
Thanks a lot for your replies.
My colleagues and I have been extremely busy for the last 7 days and because of this we could not pay attention to overunity.com.
We will consider very carefully your last posts and will write our answers in the very nearest future.
Best regards,
George

#### George1

• Hero Member
• Posts: 884
##### Re: A SIMPLE ELECTRIC HEATER, WHICH HAS EFFICIENCY GREATER THAN 1
« Reply #63 on: March 12, 2019, 09:13:49 AM »
To gyulasun.
-----------------------
Hi Gyuala.
Thank you again for your last post. Thank you for your reasonable and professional comments. We highly appreciate this. You are a real expert. And here are our answers.
-----------------------
1) Yes, you are absolutely right that real experiments have to be carried out. But if you consider carefully the main technical data of any industrial hydrogen-generating electrolyzer, then you will see that the electrolyzers' manufacturers have carried out actually all experiments which you are talking about in your last posts. The only exception is the lack of experimental data related to a CALORIMETRIC measure of the Joule's heat, which is generated by the electrolyte. So any good idea in this direction is welcome. (May be it's worth to think over the possibility to calculate indirectly in some way the generated Joule's heat by using the technology parameters of the electrolyzer's cooling agent.)
-----------------------
2) Yes, you are absolutely right that pure water volume decreases while electrolysis takes place. But any industrial hydrogen-generating electrolyzer has two very important sub-systems.
Sub-system 1 always keeps constant the volume of pure water inside the electrolyzer. For example the water consumption of the Hogen's hydrogen-generating electrolyzer is 5.50 L/hr (please refer to Hogen's main technical data) and sub-system 1 always keeps a constant pure water flow of 5.50 L/hr.
Sub-system 2 aways keeps a constant flow of a certain cooling agent, which on its behalf always keeps constant the temperature of the electrolyzer thus avoiding overheating. (If we use the hydrogen-generating electrolyzer as a heater however, then the cooling agent could be for example the circulating water of a certain standard water-heating system. And in addition we wil have the heat of burning of the generated hydrogen.)
------------------------
3) V=IxR. This is the Ohm's law. You agree in your last post that the Ohm's law is valid for both solid and liquid resistors (electrolytes). Therefore for any solid or liquid resistor we can write down the sequence of equalities V=IxR (1) <=> VxI=IxIxR (2) <=> VxIxt=IxIxRxt (3).
In one word, for any solid or liquid resistor the first Joule's law (related to Joule's heating) directly derives from the Ohm's law and vice versa.
Therefore for any solid or liquid resistor the electric energy, generated by the DC source, is just equal to the Joule's heat, generated by the resistor.
In addition to the Joule's heat the liquid resistor (the electrolyte) inside the hydrogen-generating electrolyzer gives a certain amount of hydrogen whose heat of burning is H, where H>0.
Let us add H to the right-hand side of equality (3). The result of this addition will be the equality VxIxt=IxIxRxt+H (4).
The last equallity (4) cannot be true however and it has to be transformed into the inequality VxIxt<IxIxRxt+H (5).
The last inequality (5) leads directly to COP>1.
------------------------
Best regards,
George

#### F6FLT

• Sr. Member
• Posts: 394
##### Re: A SIMPLE ELECTRIC HEATER, WHICH HAS EFFICIENCY GREATER THAN 1
« Reply #64 on: March 12, 2019, 10:12:15 AM »
If we are all more or less ignorant of one field or another, only those who are aware of it can progress, it is enough to learn, and the less ignorant can help while they have no time to waste with the ignorant of his ignorance, it is hopeless.

We can resume the discussion when you have made the personal effort to understand rather than persist in a ridiculous pedantic attitude repeating his act of faith, in full denial of the objections already made.

#### lancaIV

• elite_member
• Hero Member
• Posts: 4980
##### Re: A SIMPLE ELECTRIC HEATER, WHICH HAS EFFICIENCY GREATER THAN 1
« Reply #65 on: March 12, 2019, 11:46:24 AM »
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wien_effect
Ohms law in electrolysis deviation
or

as reactive metal ( ~ Argentum- family) " chemalloy" http://free-energy.ws/samuel-freedman/

#### George1

• Hero Member
• Posts: 884
##### Re: A SIMPLE ELECTRIC HEATER, WHICH HAS EFFICIENCY GREATER THAN 1
« Reply #66 on: March 15, 2019, 02:41:06 PM »
To lancaIV.
-----------------------
Hi lancaIV.
Thank you for your reply. These two links are very interesting, but they have practically nothing to do with the topic. (There is, of course, a partial relationship as it's a matter of electric processes, but that's all.)

#### George1

• Hero Member
• Posts: 884
##### Re: A SIMPLE ELECTRIC HEATER, WHICH HAS EFFICIENCY GREATER THAN 1
« Reply #67 on: March 15, 2019, 03:01:57 PM »
To F6FLT.
--------------
Hi F6FLT.
I haven't read even one reasonable comment of yours yet. Please study EXTREMELY carefully Gyula's comments, which are brilliant examples of expert analysis and high qualification.

#### lancaIV

• elite_member
• Hero Member
• Posts: 4980
##### Re: A SIMPLE ELECTRIC HEATER, WHICH HAS EFFICIENCY GREATER THAN 1
« Reply #68 on: March 15, 2019, 03:13:55 PM »
To lancaIV.
-----------------------
Hi lancaIV.
Thank you for your reply. These two links are very interesting, but they have practically nothing to do with the topic. (There is, of course, a partial relationship as it's a matter of electric processes, but that's all.)
If Ohms law deviation then calculate with Kirchhoff maths, conditionized also by https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wiedemann%E2%80%93Franz_law
"water" is a semi-metal ( metal, translated : Glanz, brill )

The chemalloy gives hydrolysis and temperature increase without outer electricity input so surplus energyis from technical view something conventional ( silver spoon in water-glas : bubbles= hydrolysis)

#### F6FLT

• Sr. Member
• Posts: 394
##### Re: A SIMPLE ELECTRIC HEATER, WHICH HAS EFFICIENCY GREATER THAN 1
« Reply #69 on: March 15, 2019, 05:13:47 PM »
To F6FLT.
--------------
Hi F6FLT.
I haven't read even one reasonable comment of yours yet.

There is a terrible gap between the subject matter of a "reasonable comment" and what you understand about it.
If you do not understand the technical objections,  we can see it here, you are unable to answer them except by idle digressions, it's your problem, not mine. Yet they are made simply and in a pedagogical effort so that they are understandable even by any undergraduate student.
I therefore advise you to ignore my future messages and consider that they are addressed only to people of good will who make the effort to acquire a basis on the subjects they are interested in.

#### gyulasun

• Hero Member
• Posts: 4139
##### Re: A SIMPLE ELECTRIC HEATER, WHICH HAS EFFICIENCY GREATER THAN 1
« Reply #70 on: March 15, 2019, 05:44:29 PM »
Hi George,

1)  You wrote: "The only exception is the lack of experimental data related to a CALORIMETRIC measure of the Joule's heat, which is generated by the electrolyte. So any good idea in this direction is welcome."
I already hinted at how it could be achieved but it involves actual measurements...  see my Reply #43 here:
https://overunity.com/18134/a-simple-electric-heater-which-has-efficiency-greater-than-1/msg531870/#msg531870
"... this then could be compared to the input energy needed for electrolyzing a known quantity of liquid (with known start and end temperatures) with a measured amount of DC power during an Y amount of time duration needed for producing the Hydrogen.  I also assume you checked the quantity of the Hydrogen received from the electrolysis during an Y time duration."

Or in my Reply #49 "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?  ... 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) "
Symbol meanings in the formula are defined by you in related earlier posts.
Then you wrote your Reply #51 in which you wrote: "such a sophisticated experiment is not neccessary".  I answered it of course.

2) Just because manufactured electrolyzers are made to compensate for say the temperature of electrolyte or consumed water or whatever as you referred to,  they clearly influence the parameters of the electrolyte within the cell or chamber in which the electrolysis is carried out.
This way they kill the simple possibility of measuring say temperature rise under a t time duration the input current creates to have a certain amount of Hydrogen. Your mentioned 'Sub-system 1' just kills that. This is true mainly for Sub-system 2, too.
Otherwise, the use of such sub-systems 1 and 2 is certainly useful in an already working system, I agree but not good at all for validation measurements you are expected to do.
So I cannot give any simpler method to solve your question on a calorimetric Joule heat measurement other than I repeated here in my quotes.

3)  On your equations or equalities:  Yes Ohm's law V=IxR (1) is valid but I must stress the current should be an averaged value calculated from measured sample values for a T time duration as I mentioned already.

Your formula (2), VxI=IxIxR is an equation but again you are making the same (input) power level equal to the same input power level: what sense does this have?

Also formula (3) VxIxt=IxIxRxt is another equation, the left side expresses input energy to the electrolyte and the right hand side also expresses the same input energy: the two are obviously equal. What is your point?

Now if you add a H heat quantity to the right hand side of your formula (3) to get formula (4), VxIxt=IxIxRxt+H, and then changing formula (4) into an inequality: VxIxt < IxIxRxt+H (5), here is what I think:
I agree that formula (4) cannot be true as you also wrote. I already wrote that the correct formula would be VxIxt=H (or  IxIxRxt=H) where the left side is input energy and the right hand side is the heat from the burning Hydrogen + the created heat in the electrolyte.
And here with these equations VxIxt=H (or IxIxRxt=H) we assume the law of the conservation of energy is valid as an initial condition.  AND whether this equation VxIxt=H (or IxIxRxt=H)  becomes an inequality like either VxIxt < H (or IxIxRxt < H) to give COP>1 or VxIxt > H (or IxIxRxt > H) to give COP<1, it can only be answered by measurements.
You cannot substitute real measurements with some manipulation of equations or inequalities to arrive at a COP>1 "conclusion",  this is nonsense.  Please understand this.
If I were cynic, I would say the point of writing your equations (2) (3) was to intruduce the validity of the rest of your formulas...
It is not only me who would ask for correct measurements to prove your COP>1 claim for your proposed setup, imagine to market your setup and imagine you would need to persuade a consumer to buy your 'product' or heating system solution: you would need to include technical specifications from which the superiority of your heating system should turn out.
And HOW could you receive proof or licence from authorities to market your heating system if you cannot prove your claims with measurements? They are not interested in your equations or inequalities.

Quote
Please study EXTREMELY carefully Gyula's comments, which are brilliant examples of expert analysis and high qualification.
Thanks but whatever "brilliant examples of expert analysis" I have tried to give you in the past two months or so, you always acknowledged them and then continued with "the how to escape the measurement" game, and this is unfortunate.
By the way, F6FLT did give you very reasonable comments, see for instance his Reply #61
https://overunity.com/18134/a-simple-electric-heater-which-has-efficiency-greater-than-1/msg532237/#msg532237
and you cannot blame him that he may not have as much patience as I have hence he gives you more criticism.

Gyula

#### F6FLT

• Sr. Member
• Posts: 394
##### Re: A SIMPLE ELECTRIC HEATER, WHICH HAS EFFICIENCY GREATER THAN 1
« Reply #71 on: March 15, 2019, 05:52:40 PM »
Quote
...
U=R*I is what sees the generator, R being the apparent resistance of the solution, not the ohmic resistance.
In the solution, we have U1=R1*I which is the part really dissipated as heat in the ohmic resistance R1, and  U1 = U-U2 where U2 is the oxydo-reduction potential. U1*I is dissipated as heat, U2*I is disspated as chemical energy for gas production, U*I is the total energy provided by the generator, not that dissipated in heat.
That's why U2 is named "reduction potential": the solution is viewed as a battery connected in series but in opposition to the generator.
...

Even more simply. Imagine you have a 5v battery with a 3 v battery connected in series but in opposition. Then you have now only 2v. So a moron would say to himself: "therefore I can charge a 5 v battery with a 2 v charger! It's overunity. I will publish my article on ou.com, and title it in capital letters "A SIMPLE ELECTRIC CHARGER, WHICH HAS EFFICIENCY GREATER THAN 1. I'm so good! I am the new Tesla!".

That's what we face: the redox potential of the solution plays the role of the opposing battery.

#### lancaIV

• elite_member
• Hero Member
• Posts: 4980
##### Re: A SIMPLE ELECTRIC HEATER, WHICH HAS EFFICIENCY GREATER THAN 1
« Reply #72 on: March 15, 2019, 06:07:13 PM »
Even more simply. Imagine you have a 5v battery with a 3 v battery connected in series but in opposition. Then you have now only 2v. So a moron would say to himself: "therefore I can charge a 5 v battery with a 2 v charger! It's overunity. I will publish my article on ou.com, and title it in capital letters "A SIMPLE ELECTRIC CHARGER, WHICH HAS EFFICIENCY GREATER THAN 1. I'm so good! I am the new Tesla!".

That's what we face: the redox potential of the solution plays the role of the opposing battery.

Hihihohohaha : IMPOSSIBLE POSSIBILITY

right or wrong polarisation by this
" A SIMPLE ELECTRIC CHARGER WHICH HAS EFFICIENCY GREATER THAN 1"
claim :https://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/description?CC=BE&NR=438189A&KC=A&FT=D&ND=3&DB=EPODOC&locale=en_EP#
Had been a bad time for inventors : WWII years and BE occupation

#### F6FLT

• Sr. Member
• Posts: 394
##### Re: A SIMPLE ELECTRIC HEATER, WHICH HAS EFFICIENCY GREATER THAN 1
« Reply #73 on: March 16, 2019, 10:58:06 AM »
Hihihohohaha : IMPOSSIBLE POSSIBILITY

right or wrong polarisation by this
" A SIMPLE ELECTRIC CHARGER WHICH HAS EFFICIENCY GREATER THAN 1"
claim :https://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/description?CC=BE&NR=438189A&KC=A&FT=D&ND=3&DB=EPODOC&locale=en_EP#
Had been a bad time for inventors : WWII years and BE occupation

This patent is the "idea" to couple a motor to a generator and hope for overunity by crossing their fingers. As for this OU heater delirium, it just lacks a magic formula like "abracadabra" for it to work.
It seems that the text of the patent was written by a 13-year-old child, it is full of spelling mistakes and childish expressions, especially on technical issues. It is not surprising that the industry has never taken anything out of this patent.
Everyone has the right to behave stupidly, but at this point, is that really reasonable? This behaviour of egocentric morons who think to be Tesla without ever having built anything that works, is completely disrespectful of others, it wastes their time.

#### George1

• Hero Member
• Posts: 884
##### Re: A SIMPLE ELECTRIC HEATER, WHICH HAS EFFICIENCY GREATER THAN 1
« Reply #74 on: March 16, 2019, 11:29:02 AM »
To gyulasun.
-----------------
Hi Gyula.