Hi George,

Well, if you repeat an experiment and presumably measure a few things, it is desirable to include some more details besides you have given in the above text. 

I think of, for instance, the DC voltage amplitude and the measured current you had to provide for 20 minute, you wrote nothing about these. 
This involves using either a separate voltage and a current meter like two DMMs or perhaps such meters are built into a DC power supply if you used such type.

A glass bodied mercury thermometer merged into the electrolyte or say the use of an infra thermometer is also missing from your report: it would be more convincing you check temperature of the electrolyte, after stirring up the electrolyte a little to insure more or less equal temperature for the whole quantity inside the container. 

One more question: how did you measure the electrolyte had indeed 0.5 Ohm resistance between the 2 electrodes?

It would also be good to see your setup in one or two snapshot pictures taken any time within the 20 minute long operating time. The pictures would show the meters together with the glass container and its electrodes.
 By the way what material the two electrodes you use are made of?
The inclusion of these all would be a bit more scientific than your written text.

Now comes the most important question: how do you know the quantity of the liberated hidrogen during your test was pretty close enough to 100 mg what the Professor calculated in his textbook example (what he gave as an exercise for his students)? 
You or we know nothing about the test circumstances the Professor had for his example regarding how the electrolyte temperature hence the 0.5 Ohm resistance changed. (It is obvious that from the students point of view the circumstances of such tests are irrelevant, they are 'happy' to use a math formula and calculate say the input power to solve the question.)
You may say I am nit-picking with you but I am not: all these are valid details and questions that such experiment, once performed, should include in a report.  I mean not specifically reporting for me but for the scientific world whenever someone claims an unusual statement.  It is not me who doubts any COP > 1 result here but those professors, MS and Ph 'Doctors' who have already missed this recognition (a 'simple' ego question) you seem to have figured out so they simply will want to fully neglect you unless you show rock stable measurement results. 

And as I already said if a new electric heater is to be produced and marketed, operating on your idea, then specifications for such heater should be provided, from which any higher efficiency than that of the other heaters already on the market should clearly turn out.  Till this is not proved by measurements your claim remains a claim however the common sense or logics suggests otherwise. 
I am still interested in the titles and authors of those scientific papers you have referred to if you do not mind.

Gyula

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 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

Well, the author of that work used a Proton Exchange Membrane, do you have such device?  The thesis surely includes useful pieces of information, no doubt. 

George,  reading several of your posts, you seem to do quasi everything to convince members  or readers "logically"  that all the work have already been done earlier and you try to imply in most of your 'mathematical' answers that no need to do further tests.

I understand that it is hard to do correct tests, it needs time and resources for sure and as I wrote much earlier, I do not urge you.  I just try to keep you on a 'scientific' track from which you are often attempt wandering off.   

But obviously, you can do it on your own way.  My take on your claim is that it is possible but until not proved by correct measurements, it is just a claim.  Such is science.

Gyula

Hi again Gyua.
Only a small addition to the P. S. of my last post. The expert must be able to do things similar to the ones that are shown in the links below:
https://www.myphysicslab.com/springs/collide-spring-en.html
https://www.myphysicslab.com/springs/dangle-stick-en.html
https://www.myphysicslab.com/springs/collide-blocks-en.html
https://www.myphysicslab.com/
Please help, if possible.
Looking forward to your answer.
Regards,
George

Hi Gyula.
Two members of our team seriously undertake to perform the water-splitting experiments. It will take some time however.
-------------------
While waiting for the experimental results let us recapitulate again all theoretical (ONLY THEORETICAL!) considerations until now.
-------------------
1) A standard DC voltage source of voltage V is connected to a standard solid resistor of ohmic resistance R. We can write down the following equalities:
V = I x R  (1)  <=>  V x I x t = I x I x R x t  (2)
where
V is the voltage of the DC source;
I is the current flowing through the resistor;
R is the ohmic resistance of the resistor;
t is time.
Simple and clear.
-------------------
2) The situation changes a little however if we replace the solid resistor of ohmic resistance R with a liquid resistor (electrolyte) of the same ohmic resistance R. In this case we have to adapt a little equalities (1) and (2). We can write down the following equalities and inequalities:
V - v = (I - i) x R  (3)  <=>  (V - v) x (I - i) x t = (I - i) x (I - i) x R x t  (4)  <=>  (V - v) x (I - i) x t < ((I - i) x (I - i) x R x t) + (Z x (I -i) x t x (LHV))  (5) <=>
<=>  V -v < ((I -i) x R) + (Z x (LHV))  (6)  <=>  0 < Z x (LHV)  (7)  <=>  0 < 1.2  (
where
v is the "counter-voltage" due to electrode potential/overvoltage; (V - v) is practically equal to V because v is much smaller than V and can be neglected;
i is the current decrease due to v; (I - i) is practically equal to I because i is much smaller than I and can be neglected;
Z is the electrochemical equivalent of hydrogen; Z = 0.00000001 C/kg;
LHV is the lower heating value of hydrogen; LHV = 1.2 x 100000000 J/kg.
--------------------
The "magic" inequality ( unambiguously shows COP > 1. Do you have any theoretical (ONLY THEORETICAL!) objections against inequality (?
Looking forward to your answer.
Regards,
George

I don't know why my last post was sent three times in a row. It's not my fault.
George

Hi Gyula.
Thank you for your reply.
1) Yes, common sense is not science. Correct! We keep performing experiments. It will take some time.
2) But if equation V x I x t = I x I x R x t = H is correct, then what happens with Joule' s heat? Where does it go? Does it disapper somewhere or what? Curious to know. Looking forward to your answer.
Regards,
George   

Hi Gyula.
Thank you for your reply. Perfect explanations! I understand everything.
----------------------------
Let me report what are we doing now.
We are intensively performing now a set of experiments just in accordance with your instructions. But the experiments generate another new question and WE NEED HELP TO INTERPRET THE RELATED EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS which again coincide with our theoretical concept. And here is this new question. (Actually this is an old idea of ours which we check up in the course of experiments and which has even one more additional and more sophisticated variation. The latter will be revealed in future posts, if necessary.) 
----------------------------
1) In accordance with your last post let us assume hypothetically that equality V x I x t = (I x I x R x t) + (Z x I x t x (LHV)) is valid.
2) And now let us decrease n times voltage V where R = const and n > 1. This inevitably leads to decreasing of I n times too. In one word, we have now voltage (V/n) and current (I/n) where (V/n) is still bigger than v and (I/n) is still bigger than i. Therefore BASED ON EXPERIMENTAL DATA we can write down the following equality and the related inequality:
V x I x t = (I x I x R x t) + (Z x I x t x (LHV))  <=> (V/n) x (I/n) x t < ((I/n) x (I/n) x R x t) + (Z x (I/n) x t x (LHV)).
The last inequality unambiguously shows again that COP > 1.
So you see that an entirely different approach leads again to the same final result which is again COP > 1.
---------------------------
What is your opinion?
Looking forward to your answer.
George