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

Tesla Paper

Free Energy Book

Get paid

Donations

Please Donate for the Forum.
Many thanks.
Regards, Stefan.(Admin)

A-Ads

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 Posts: 517893
  • *Total Topics: 15438
  • *Online Today: 44
  • *Most Online: 103
(December 19, 2006, 11:27:19 PM)
  • *Users: 7
  • *Guests: 12
  • *Total: 19

Author Topic: A SIMPLE ELECTRIC HEATER, WHICH HAS EFFICIENCY GREATER THAN 1  (Read 68100 times)

Offline lancaIV

  • elite_member
  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3586
Re: A SIMPLE ELECTRIC HEATER, WHICH HAS EFFICIENCY GREATER THAN 1
« Reply #270 on: February 20, 2020, 06:11:49 PM »
A SIMPLE ELECTRIC HEATER
Or

 Pulse energy generator system
WO2018032008 Robert Burgener,Troy Atkin
C.O.P. : ? [ 0056/0057/0058/0059 : 2,0 + 2,13 + 3,2 +6 as output/input ratio number ]

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy


Offline George1

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 328
Re: A SIMPLE ELECTRIC HEATER, WHICH HAS EFFICIENCY GREATER THAN 1
« Reply #271 on: February 22, 2020, 09:09:30 AM »
Hi lanca IV,
But your last post pulse generator has nothing to do with our topic! This is something entirely different and has nothing to do with efficiency bigger than 1! I WILL REPEAT AGAIN: 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? (PLEASE FOCUS ON ELECTROLYZERS!)
Looking forward to your answer.
George

Offline lancaIV

  • elite_member
  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3586
Re: A SIMPLE ELECTRIC HEATER, WHICH HAS EFFICIENCY GREATER THAN 1
« Reply #272 on: February 22, 2020, 01:59:38 PM »
George, "appropriate technology"  !
Efficiency ≥ 1 electrolysis from technical view : take a glas full with water and introduce ",chemslloy"- powderYou get a hydrolysis process  !
Question by economic view : how much milligram hydrogen per hour and the hydrogen purity !
Not the efficiency stage is important for the industry but the costs of 1 Kg - nearly/pure- hydrogen production ,the 1 Kg hydrogen production velocity

andtoday cause mainstream criticism : carbon finger-/footpint free/poor  !

When you write about " Simple Heater" and C.O.P.≥1 you have to define the parameters !

When I show you " simple heater"- concept/-s with C.O.P.≥ 1 you can not deny  their existence and recuse it as " off-topic" !
Chemalloy,silver,palladium et cet.  : anti- oxidant function  !

Water : hydrogen + oxygen       " anti-" : catalyzer effect       splitter/divider

Have a nice weekend and probably " Carnivale"- feste

OCWL


« Last Edit: February 22, 2020, 06:30:47 PM by lancaIV »

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: A SIMPLE ELECTRIC HEATER, WHICH HAS EFFICIENCY GREATER THAN 1
« Reply #272 on: February 22, 2020, 01:59:38 PM »
Sponsored links:




Offline George1

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 328
Re: A SIMPLE ELECTRIC HEATER, WHICH HAS EFFICIENCY GREATER THAN 1
« Reply #273 on: February 28, 2020, 01:58:18 PM »
Hi lancaIV,
Thank you for your reply.
1) As if you are the only brave person here in this forum who dares to discuss a real theoretical breakthrough related to efficiency/COP > 1. Congratulations for this!
2) Your last post is very interesting. Please give us some time to consider it thoroughly and carefully.
3) When reading your last post at first glance however some questions appear immediately. And here are these questions.
3A) What do you mean exactly by using the phrase "introduce ",chemslloy"- powderYou get a hydrolysis process"? Please explain this in detail, if possible.
3B) What do you mean exactly by using the phrase  "andtoday cause mainstream criticism : carbon finger-/footpint free/poor"?
3C) What do you mean exactly by using the phrases "Chemalloy,silver,palladium et cet.  : anti- oxidant function  ! Water : hydrogen + oxygen       " anti-" : catalyzer effect       splitter/divider"? You have arranged a series of words which as if need some additional explanation. Would you be so polite to explain this in detail, if possible?
4) It follows directly from our further development of Professor Srivastava's problem (please look at our previous posts) that every standard hydrogen generating electrlolyzer is actually a simple electric heater which has C.O.P./efficiency greater than 1. And what parameters to show -- any standard hydrogen-generating electrolyzer (from the small laboratory one to the biggest industrial electrolyzer that is bigger than a bus) has its parameters (power/energy consumption, rate of hydrogen production, hydrogen purity, etc.) which are adjusted and shown by the respective manufacturer.
5) We do not deny the possibility of existing of another heating technology THEORETICAL conception which has C.O.P./efficiency bigger than 1. Our question however was quite different and let us repeat it again:  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? (PLEASE FOCUS ON ELECTROLYZERS!)
Looking forward to your answer.
George         

Offline George1

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 328
Re: A SIMPLE ELECTRIC HEATER, WHICH HAS EFFICIENCY GREATER THAN 1
« Reply #274 on: March 07, 2020, 09:55:52 AM »
Hi lancaIV,
You still didn't answer our question. Let us repeat this question again: 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? (PLEASE FOCUS ON ELECTROLYZERS!)
Looking forward to your answer.
George         

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: A SIMPLE ELECTRIC HEATER, WHICH HAS EFFICIENCY GREATER THAN 1
« Reply #274 on: March 07, 2020, 09:55:52 AM »
Sponsored links:




Offline lancaIV

  • elite_member
  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3586
Re: A SIMPLE ELECTRIC HEATER, WHICH HAS EFFICIENCY GREATER THAN 1
« Reply #275 on: March 08, 2020, 03:01:14 PM »
Palladium = Oxydant
Silver= Oxydant
Argentum-elements = Oxydants

Aluminium = Oxydant if not Oxidation-layered ergo anti- oxydation coating
https://www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2014/03/f9/aluminum_water_hydrogen.pdf


In the vicinity of room temperature, the reaction between aluminum metal and water to form aluminum hydroxide and hydrogen is the following: 2Al + 6H2O = 2Al(OH)3 + 3H2. The gravimetric hydrogen capacity from this reaction is 3.7 wt.% and the volumetric hydrogen capacity is 46 g H2/L.

https://phys.org/news/2007-05-hydrogen-aluminum-alloy-fuel-cells.html

The gallium is critical to the process because it hinders the formation of a skin normally created on aluminum's surface after oxidation. This skin usually prevents oxygen from reacting with aluminum, acting as a barrier. Preventing the skin's formation allows the reaction to continue until all of the aluminum is used.


to https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yd157yBmNaM


active surface from 1 ccm solid aluminium versus surface area from 1 ccm nanoaluminium grains ?









Permanent Magnets = Oxydant ?   EP0462103  ?!
https://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/biblio?CC=EP&NR=0462103A4&KC=A4&date=&FT=D&locale=en_EP


The magnetic amplifying assembly also produces other benefits such as increasing the pH of the water due to the reduction of hydrogen which bonds to the conduit. The available oxygen (aerobic activity) also increases 270 percent; and fewer BTU's are required per degree of temperature increase to heat the water.









When permanent magnets also electromagnets ,too !? What is electrolysis ? :P

With negative charge or positive charge  ?
Hydrogen polarisation ? Oxygen polarisation ? Bonded !? Unbonded !?


Hydro - Oxid ~ water  oxydation = splitting  ; purity ? mole per sec/minute/hour ?
« Last Edit: March 08, 2020, 06:16:27 PM by lancaIV »

Offline George1

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 328
Re: A SIMPLE ELECTRIC HEATER, WHICH HAS EFFICIENCY GREATER THAN 1
« Reply #276 on: March 11, 2020, 02:14:16 PM »
Hi lancaIV,
Interesting post. Please give us some time to consider it carefully. (But I would like to ask to be a little more specific and to express your thoughts in a little more clearer manner.)
George

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: A SIMPLE ELECTRIC HEATER, WHICH HAS EFFICIENCY GREATER THAN 1
« Reply #276 on: March 11, 2020, 02:14:16 PM »
Sponsored links:




Offline Floor

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1253
Re: A SIMPLE ELECTRIC HEATER, WHICH HAS EFFICIENCY GREATER THAN 1
« Reply #277 on: March 11, 2020, 08:13:30 PM »
Hi George.

Not all of the electrical energy becomes heat, during the electrolysis.

Some of the energy MUST have been spent to split the water / was not spent to heat the water.  It's not split by the heat !

If the heating of the water by the passage of an electric current through it is a 100% efficient energy transformation,
then the breaking apart of the water molecules plus the heating is itself an O.U. event.  This would be O.U. even before burning the H and O.
                                                         TO my understanding this is not the case.  It's not O.U. .

Are there not electric charge potentials present in the H and O gases, which were not present in the water before electrolysis,
and which are the result of the electrolysis? 

That ionization  energy / potential is where some of the electrical energy put into the water goes during electrolysis.

If 100% of that ionization energy is transformed into heat when burning the H and O, then you have Unity, but still not  O. U. .

But as I pointed out previously,  If the electrolysis heating combined with  the heat of H and O burning are  = Unity  (scientific convention holds this to be so)

                                         Then..... 

The H can be burned (heat gained) this = unity.

Energy gained as a rising of the H through the atmosphere before burning (Hydrogen  balloon) is then O. U. .

                                           Also
 
The H can be burned at a high altitude (mountain top) giving yet more O. U. as that of falling water.

The by product of that burning is water vapor.


                          floor


Offline George1

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 328
Re: A SIMPLE ELECTRIC HEATER, WHICH HAS EFFICIENCY GREATER THAN 1
« Reply #278 on: March 29, 2020, 04:13:12 PM »
Hi Floor,
======================
======================
1) 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.)
The same book can be found at the link  https://books.google.bg/books?id=rrKFzLB9KQ8C&pg=PA876&lpg=PA876&dq=%22electrochemical+equivalent+of+hydrogen%22&source=bl&ots=tQ8PSMLet3&sig=ACfU3U2HOLB78XHl2o3q-JanapzSK-McJA&hl=bg&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjDpp2-zZXhAhWT5OAKHUfuBzUQ6AEwBHoECAkQAQ#v=onepage&q=%22electrochemical%20equivalent%20of%20hydrogen%22&f=false
--------------------------
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?
==============================
==============================
2) As for the balloon variation I perfectly agree with you -- it is really an OU device. Shall we do it? Some approximate calculations?
==============================
==============================
Looking forward to your answers.
Regards,
George       

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: A SIMPLE ELECTRIC HEATER, WHICH HAS EFFICIENCY GREATER THAN 1
« Reply #278 on: March 29, 2020, 04:13:12 PM »
3D Solar Panels

Offline Floor

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1253
Re: A SIMPLE ELECTRIC HEATER, WHICH HAS EFFICIENCY GREATER THAN 1
« Reply #279 on: March 29, 2020, 06:53:52 PM »
-------------------
Do you have any theoretical (ONLY THEORETICAL!) objections against the text above?
YES OR NO?

           No

       regards
            floor

                   PS
                       Did you by chance find
                             some other references to
                               the hydrogen balloon On this forum
                                other than the single reference I (much earlier) posted

Offline George1

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 328
Re: A SIMPLE ELECTRIC HEATER, WHICH HAS EFFICIENCY GREATER THAN 1
« Reply #280 on: April 05, 2020, 03:35:15 PM »
Hi Floor,
If you have no objections, then this means that you accept the simple fact any water electrolysis and hydrogen generating process theoretically has efficiency, which is bigger than 1.
----------------------------
Ok, there are already two brave persons in this forum (Floor and me) who accept the simple obvious fact that any standard water electrolysis process has efficiency, which is bigger than 1.
Any other brave persons in this forum who would share our revolutionary opinion?
Looking forward to your answer.
George       

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: A SIMPLE ELECTRIC HEATER, WHICH HAS EFFICIENCY GREATER THAN 1
« Reply #280 on: April 05, 2020, 03:35:15 PM »
3D Solar Panels

Offline Floor

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1253
Re: A SIMPLE ELECTRIC HEATER, WHICH HAS EFFICIENCY GREATER THAN 1
« Reply #281 on: April 06, 2020, 05:24:22 PM »
I have no objections because I am not a chemist nor an physicist. Also, I am not familiar with the Russian texts / works you reference.

I doubt those authors actually intended to represent the electrolysis processes as O.U.

I doubt also that those authors / others, would have simply failed to notice that it was O. U. .

I think it's most likely that there has been, either a misinterpretation of, or an accidental misstatement of the electrolysis interactions.  Other wise those authors might have
received a Nobel prize.

Do you agree ?

It (as I previously stated) seems to me that that resistive heating is unity (by definition) and
that the water molecule splitting will require additional energy.

Offline George1

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 328
Re: A SIMPLE ELECTRIC HEATER, WHICH HAS EFFICIENCY GREATER THAN 1
« Reply #282 on: April 12, 2020, 04:48:44 PM »
Hi Floor,
Thank you for your reply.
I am tired of repeating one and same things over and over again for thousands of times. But I will do it again. (Not only for you but for any experts in physics and chemistry (if any in this forum).)
----------------------
It directly follows from Prof. S. L. Srivastava's solved problem and from our further development of this problem (our additional simple calculations) that any standard water electrolysis process THEORETICALLY has efficiency which is bigger than 1. And if THEORY is correct, then the related PRACTICE has to be also correct. And it directly follows from the last sentence that any standard water splitting and hydrogen generating electrolyzer has efficiency, which is bigger than 1.
----------------------
HOW TO EXPLAIN THE THINGS IN A SIMPLER AND EASIER MANNER?
Looking forward to your answer.
George1
   
 

Offline Floor

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1253
Re: A SIMPLE ELECTRIC HEATER, WHICH HAS EFFICIENCY GREATER THAN 1
« Reply #283 on: April 13, 2020, 05:31:25 AM »
It directly follows from Prof. S. L. Srivastava's solved problem and from our further development of this problem (our additional simple calculations) that any standard water electrolysis process THEORETICALLY has efficiency which is bigger than 1.


1. YOU say that it directly follows. This is your statement / folly

2. You did not say that Prof. S. L. Srivastava states or said that it directly follows.

3. What I said is that it is likely that Prof. S. L. Srivastava  would have noticed the O.U.
and therfore he would also have straight forward / directly stated such.

                I DON'T KNOW  HOW TO EXPLAIN THE THINGS IN A SIMPLER AND EASIER MANNER?

   
I'm done with you / your topics

Offline George1

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 328
Re: A SIMPLE ELECTRIC HEATER, WHICH HAS EFFICIENCY GREATER THAN 1
« Reply #284 on: April 20, 2020, 03:00:55 PM »
Prof. S. L. Srivastava did not noticed the O. U. It's obvious. Otherwise  he would become a Nobel prize winner. (The same for his Russian/Soviet colleagues 50 years ago.)
-----------------------------------
Please read carefully the text below.
-----------------------------------
1) THEORY and PRACTICE! Two words! It is a SIMPLE OBVIOUS FACT that if a certain scientific THEORY is correct, then the related PRACTICE has to be also correct. And if you have any objections against this SIMPLE OBVIOUS FACT, then you have some mental problems for sure.
2) In overunity.com and in besslerwheel.com/forum we (our team) released ABSOLUTELY FREE two pieces of THEORETICAL research, whose titles are " IS THIS A REACTIONLESS DRIVE OR A PERPETUAL MOTION MACHINE?" and "A SIMPLE ELECTRIC HEATER, WHICH HAS EFFICIENCY GREATER THAN 1", respectively. For these two pieces of scientific THEORETICAL research is valid the statement in the previous item 1.
3) These two pieces of scientific THEORETICAL research (mentioned in the above item 2) unambiguously show (no serious and reasonable THEORETICAL  objections within a period of two years in overunity.com and in besslerwheel.com/forum) that the law of conservation of energy and the law of coservation of linear momentum are not always correct. But there is nothing special, tragic and disturbing in this fact as any rule/law has its exceptions.
4) Our third piece of technology is a new electric technology which increases many times (at least twice as a minimum) the distance traveled by any standard electric vehicle on a single charge. 
5) Our new electric technology has both THEORY and PRACTICE. In other words, we have a WORKING PROTOTYPE which perfectly confirms the correctness of the theoretical concept on which is based the principle of operation of our new electric technology. The latter is practically ready for production on a large industrial scale.
6) The secret of our new electric technology however is NOT FREE. It costs already 40,000,000 (forty) million dollars and this price will further rise if our first two pieces of THEORETICAL  research (mentioned in the above item 2) do not win public recognition in the nearest future.
7) These 40,000,000 (forty) million dollars will be used mainly for charity and only a small part of this money will be used for some R&D work.
8) We (our team) are looking for buyers of the secret of our new electric technology (and of our next 7 (seven) inventions and technology innovations).
-------------------
George1       

 

OneLink