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.

Many thanks.

# New Book

Products

WaterMotor kit

### Statistics

• Total Posts: 896232
• Total Topics: 15781
• Online Today: 44
• Most Online: 103
(December 19, 2006, 11:27:19 PM)
• Users: 4
• Guests: 13
• Total: 17

### Author Topic: A SIMPLE ELECTRIC HEATER, WHICH HAS EFFICIENCY GREATER THAN 1  (Read 146459 times)

#### Floor

• Hero Member
• Posts: 1887
##### Re: A SIMPLE ELECTRIC HEATER, WHICH HAS EFFICIENCY GREATER THAN 1
« Reply #375 on: November 28, 2020, 09:59:32 PM »
To Floor.
------------------------------
If there exist any energy Esw, which is necessary for splitting of water, then equality V x I x t = (I x I x R x t) + (Z x I x t x (HHV)) (1) must be transformed into
equality  V x I x t = (I x I x R x t) + (Z x I x t x (HHV)) + (Esw)  (1A). But despite of this transformation inequality  V x I x t > I x I x R x t remains valid.

I find no explanation of the meaning of the expression you have used "Esw" in my internet searches.

1. The not so obvious. That energy from the electricity, which was not transformed into heat, is present in the ionization states of the derived gases.

2.  The not so obvious.  Your equations are misapplied.  This has already been explained to you
several time in this topic.

3. The not so obvious.  Some of the evolved gases will recombine into water before they escape from the electrolyte.  BEFORE ! (they will recombine within the electrolyte).
Guess what ?  This is an oxidation.
Guess what else ?  It produces heat.
Guess what else again ?  It is the SAME AMOUNT of heat energy that would have been produced per joule of electric energy when transformed directly into heat via resistance heating.

4.  The obvious. The splitting of the water molecule by electrolysis DOES require an input
of energy.

5.  The obvious.  The heat evolved within the electrolyte due to electrical resistance heating is NOT
the cause of the water molecule splitting into H and O.

6. The obvious.  That input energy which IS NOT transformed into heat DOES NOT just go away.
That energy is present in the ionization states of the gases evolved.

7.  That ionization energy is transformed into heat when the gases are recombined as they are burned together.

8.The obvious. You, yourself do not believe the claim you are making is true.

I recommend that all interested readers, read through this topic from its start.  It has some very good input from some very knowledgeable people.

floor

#### Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

##### Re: A SIMPLE ELECTRIC HEATER, WHICH HAS EFFICIENCY GREATER THAN 1
« Reply #375 on: November 28, 2020, 09:59:32 PM »

#### George1

• Hero Member
• Posts: 792
##### Re: A SIMPLE ELECTRIC HEATER, WHICH HAS EFFICIENCY GREATER THAN 1
« Reply #376 on: November 30, 2020, 12:45:09 PM »
To Floor.
-------------------------------
But dear Floor, you are not reading carefully and thoroughly my posts. (If reading them at all.) Please read my posts, if possible.
1) Any outlet energy is put on the right side of the equation.
2) It is a matter of entirely Ohmic resistance.
3) Etc, etc.

#### George1

• Hero Member
• Posts: 792
##### Re: A SIMPLE ELECTRIC HEATER, WHICH HAS EFFICIENCY GREATER THAN 1
« Reply #377 on: November 30, 2020, 12:46:21 PM »
To Floor.
-------------------------

#### Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

##### Re: A SIMPLE ELECTRIC HEATER, WHICH HAS EFFICIENCY GREATER THAN 1
« Reply #377 on: November 30, 2020, 12:46:21 PM »

#### Floor

• Hero Member
• Posts: 1887
##### Re: A SIMPLE ELECTRIC HEATER, WHICH HAS EFFICIENCY GREATER THAN 1
« Reply #378 on: November 30, 2020, 07:10:30 PM »
@George1

1. Didn't you know that the electrolysis plus the burning of the H and O is not O.U..

2. Didn't you know that this forum has had dozens of explorations of, and thousands of pages dedicated precisely to the examining of variations of the electrolysis process in an O.U. context ?

3. The electrical energy converted to heat energy in a PURELY resistive circuit is 1 per 1.

4. This is true for  ANY  PURELY  resistive electric circuit whether the resistor is solid or liquid.

5. An electrical circuit is   NO LONGER a PURELY   resistive circuit when electrolysis occurs.

What next ?

You going to sell us on the phallicy that an electrically energized coil is O.U. because the magnetic field is in addition to the heat produced ?

Or that in a wire coil with an AC current, total resistance is only the ohmic and doesn't include impedance  ?

Me thinkest thow knowest not the shit where of ye speak .....
I cry B.S. on you.

floor

#### George1

• Hero Member
• Posts: 792
##### Re: A SIMPLE ELECTRIC HEATER, WHICH HAS EFFICIENCY GREATER THAN 1
« Reply #379 on: December 03, 2020, 10:53:16 AM »
To Floor..
--------------------------
Hi Floor,
Yes, you are absolutely right that some additional aspects of the problem have to be further clarified and discussed. And here they are.
--------------------------------------
1) Actually the correct equation is
V x I x t = (I x I x R x t) + (Z x I x t x (HHV)) + (X) (1B),
where
V x I x t = input energy = electric energy, which is generated by the DC source, and which is consumed by the electrolyzer
I x I x R x t = Q = Joule's heat, which is generated by the electrolyzer = output energy 1
Z x I x t x (HHV) = output energy 2 = heat, which is generated by burning/exploding of the released hydrogen
X = output energy 3 = sum of all additional energies, which are necessary (a) for splitting of water molecules into hydrogen and oxygen atoms, (b) for collateral chemical reactions due to the impurity of the electrolyte, (c) for forming of bubbles etc., etc.
----------------------------------
2) It is evident from the above equality (1B) that (V x I x t) is the sum and that (I x I x R x t), (Z x I x t x (HHV)) and (X) are the addends, respectively.
----------------------------------
3) According to the rules of standard arithmetic the sum is always bigger than any of the addends (forming that same sum). Therefore the
sum (V x I x t) is bigger than the addend (I x I x R x t). Therefore we can write down the inequality V x I x t > I x I x R x t (2B).
----------------------------------
4) Now let us divide both sides of inequality (2B) by (I x t), that is,
V x I x t > I x I x R x t (2B) < = >
< = > (V x I x t)/(I x t) > (I x I x R x t)/(I x t) (3B) < = >
< = > V > I x R (4B).
-----------------------------------
5) The last inequality (4B) as if shows a violation of Ohm's law. Because the correct mathematical expression for Ohm's law is V = I x R (5B), isn't it?
----------------------------------
Everything in the above considerations seems to be logically and mathematically correct, doesn't it? What is your opinion?
(I am not pressing you to accept the validity of anything at once. We are simply seeking for the truth together. I am not in a hurry. I will be patient. I promise.)
Respectfully yours,
George

#### Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

##### Re: A SIMPLE ELECTRIC HEATER, WHICH HAS EFFICIENCY GREATER THAN 1
« Reply #379 on: December 03, 2020, 10:53:16 AM »

#### Floor

• Hero Member
• Posts: 1887
##### Re: A SIMPLE ELECTRIC HEATER, WHICH HAS EFFICIENCY GREATER THAN 1
« Reply #380 on: December 04, 2020, 08:43:20 PM »
@George1

1. Didn't you know that the electrolysis plus the burning of the H and O is not O.U..

2. Didn't you know that this forum has had dozens of explorations of, and thousands of pages dedicated precisely to the examining of variations of the electrolysis process in an O.U. context ?

3. The electrical energy converted to heat energy in a PURELY resistive circuit is 1 per 1.

4. This is true for  ANY  PURELY  resistive electric circuit whether the resistor is solid or liquid.

5. An electrical circuit is   NO LONGER a PURELY   resistive circuit when electrolysis occurs.

What next ?

You going to sell us on the phallicy that an electrically energized coil is O.U. because the magnetic field is in addition to the heat produced ?

Or that in a wire coil with an AC current, total resistance is only the ohmic and doesn't include impedance  ?

floor

#### George1

• Hero Member
• Posts: 792
##### Re: A SIMPLE ELECTRIC HEATER, WHICH HAS EFFICIENCY GREATER THAN 1
« Reply #381 on: December 06, 2020, 04:07:07 PM »
To Floor.
-------------------------
Dear Floor,
You demonstrate again a shocking lack of understanding of basic terms and axioms of electric engineering. For example how could you even dare to compare directly and quantitatively HEAT and MAGNETIC FIELD? HEAT is measured in Joules (J) and INTENSITY(!!!!) OF MAGNETIC FIELD (not magnetic field itself, but only one of its properties!) is measured in Tesla (T). Do you know what is the difference between Tesla (T) and Joule (J)? How to discuss the matter with "expert" like you? Please firstly educate seriously yourself and just then take part in this discussion!

#### Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

##### Re: A SIMPLE ELECTRIC HEATER, WHICH HAS EFFICIENCY GREATER THAN 1
« Reply #381 on: December 06, 2020, 04:07:07 PM »

#### George1

• Hero Member
• Posts: 792
##### Re: A SIMPLE ELECTRIC HEATER, WHICH HAS EFFICIENCY GREATER THAN 1
« Reply #382 on: December 06, 2020, 04:16:01 PM »
To all other QUALIFIED(!) members of this forum.
===============================
4) Now let us divide both sides of inequality (2B) by (I x t), that is,
V x I x t > I x I x R x t (2B) < = >
< = > (V x I x t)/(I x t) > (I x I x R x t)/(I x t) (3B) < = >
< = > V > I x R (4B).
===============================
The text above, surrounded/limited up and down by doubled dashed lines is an abstract from our post of December 03, 2020, 10:53:16 AM.

#### George1

• Hero Member
• Posts: 792
##### Re: A SIMPLE ELECTRIC HEATER, WHICH HAS EFFICIENCY GREATER THAN 1
« Reply #383 on: December 08, 2020, 11:39:24 AM »
I am giving below again (with some small changes and additions) our post of December 03, 2020, 10:53:16 AM.
=====================
1) Actually the correct equation is
V x I x t = (I x I x R x t) + (Z x I x t x (HHV)) + (X) (1B),
where
V x I x t = input energy = electric energy, which is generated by the DC source, and which is consumed by the electrolyzer
I x I x R x t = Q = Joule's heat, which is generated by the electrolyzer = output energy 1
Z x I x t x (HHV) = output energy 2 = heat, which is generated by burning/exploding of the released hydrogen
X = output energy 3 = sum of all additional energies, which are necessary (a) for splitting of water molecules into hydrogen and oxygen atoms, (b) for collateral chemical reactions due to the impurity of the electrolyte, (c) for forming of bubbles etc., etc.
----------------------------------
2) It is evident from the above equality (1B) that (V x I x t) is the sum and that (I x I x R x t), (Z x I x t x (HHV)) and (X) are the addends, respectively.
----------------------------------
3) According to the rules of standard arithmetic the sum is always bigger than any of the addends (forming that same sum). Therefore the
sum (V x I x t) is bigger than the addend (I x I x R x t). Therefore we can write down the inequality V x I x t > I x I x R x t (2B).
----------------------------------
4) Now let us divide both sides of inequality (2B) by (I x t), that is,
V x I x t > I x I x R x t (2B) < = >
< = > (V x I x t)/(I x t) > (I x I x R x t)/(I x t) (3B) < = >
< = > V > I x R (4B).
-----------------------------------
5) The last inequality (4B) shows a severe violation of Ohm's law. (Because the correct mathematical expression for Ohm's law is V = I x R (5B), isn't it?)
-----------------------------------
6) The obvious invalidity of inequality V > I x R (4B) directly leads to the invalidity of equality V x I x t = (I x I x R x t) + (Z x I x t x (HHV)) + (X) (1B). Therefore the law of conservation of energy is not valid in this particular water-splitting electrolysis case. (I am tired of repeating hundreds of time one and same obvious fact: Any rule/law has its exceptions and there is nothing special, tragic and disturbing in this fact.)
------------------------------------
Important note. This discussion is focused SOLELY and ONLY on water-slitting electrolysis! AND ON NOTHING ELSE!
------------------------------------
Any questions and/or comments? (But questions and/or comments, which are reasonable and qualified!)

#### Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

##### Re: A SIMPLE ELECTRIC HEATER, WHICH HAS EFFICIENCY GREATER THAN 1
« Reply #383 on: December 08, 2020, 11:39:24 AM »

#### Floor

• Hero Member
• Posts: 1887
##### Re: A SIMPLE ELECTRIC HEATER, WHICH HAS EFFICIENCY GREATER THAN 1
« Reply #384 on: December 09, 2020, 10:49:10 PM »
Hello George 1

You started this topic on 01/28/19.

Here is your original statement / claim / bait.

https://mypicxbg.files.wordpress.com/2019/01/pages_1-6.pdf

Since that time (10 months), have you conducted and presented any
experiment which would support your claim that a simple electrolysis process
which results in H and O release is over unity, once the H and O
are then burned ?

Have you learned anything in those 10 months, from this topic?
If  so, what and will you share that with us ?

I for one, do not believe that you, your self, think this claim is O.U...

@ George1

1. Didn't you know that the electrolysis plus the burning of the H and O is not O.U..

2. Didn't you know that this forum has had dozens of explorations of, and thousands of pages dedicated precisely to the examining of variations of the electrolysis process in an O.U. context ?

3. The electrical energy converted to heat energy in a PURELY resistive circuit is 1 per 1.

4. This is true for  ANY  PURELY  resistive electric circuit whether the resistor is solid or liquid.

5. An electrical circuit is   NO LONGER a PURELY   resistive circuit when electrolysis occurs.

floor

#### George1

• Hero Member
• Posts: 792
##### Re: A SIMPLE ELECTRIC HEATER, WHICH HAS EFFICIENCY GREATER THAN 1
« Reply #385 on: December 12, 2020, 03:43:16 PM »
To Floor.
===================
You are not reading my posts at all. This is not a discussion. This is your monologue. This is an old and clumsy manipulation trick, which does not work already in XXI century when there is an internet and most people are well informed and educated. You are obviously an agent of the official science mafia.
===================
I strongly believe and hope that the last sentence is not true. Let us check again (and for the last time) whether you are an agent of the official science mafia or not. Please read carefully the text below and answer 6 simple theoretical questions.
-----------------------------------
1) The correct equation for the law of conservation of energy for standard water-splitting electrolysis is
V x I x t = (I x I x R x t) + (Z x I x t x (HHV)) + (X) (1B),
where
V x I x t = input energy = electric energy, which is generated by the DC source, and which is consumed by the electrolyzer
I x I x R x t = Q = Joule's heat, which is generated by the electrolyzer = output energy 1
Z x I x t x (HHV) = output energy 2 = heat, which is generated by burning/exploding of the released hydrogen
X = output energy 3 = sum of all additional energies, which are necessary (a) for splitting of water molecules into hydrogen and oxygen atoms, (b) for collateral chemical reactions due to the impurity of the electrolyte, (c) for forming of bubbles etc., etc.
QUESTION 1. DO YOU HAVE ANY THEORETICAL (ONLY THEORETICAL!) OBJECTIONS AGAINST THIS ITEM 1?
----------------------------------
2) It is evident from the above equality (1B) that (V x I x t) is the sum and that (I x I x R x t), (Z x I x t x (HHV)) and (X) are the addends, respectively.
QUESTION 2. DO YOU HAVE ANY THEORETICAL (ONLY THEORETICAL!) OBJECTIONS AGAINST THIS ITEM 2?
----------------------------------
3) According to the rules of standard arithmetic the sum is always bigger than any of the addends (forming that same sum). Therefore the
sum (V x I x t) is bigger than the addend (I x I x R x t). Therefore we can write down the inequality V x I x t > I x I x R x t (2B).
QUESTION 3. DO YOU HAVE ANY THEORETICAL (ONLY THEORETICAL!) OBJECTIONS AGAINST THIS ITEM 3?
----------------------------------
4) Now let us divide both sides of inequality (2B) by (I x t), that is,
V x I x t > I x I x R x t (2B) < = >
< = > (V x I x t)/(I x t) > (I x I x R x t)/(I x t) (3B) < = >
< = > V > I x R (4B).
QUESTION 4. DO YOU HAVE ANY THEORETICAL (ONLY THEORETICAL!) OBJECTIONS AGAINST THIS ITEM 4?
-----------------------------------
5) The last inequality (4B) shows a severe violation of Ohm's law. (Because the correct mathematical expression for Ohm's law is V = I x R (5B).)
QUESTION 5. DO YOU HAVE ANY THEORETICAL (ONLY THEORETICAL!) OBJECTIONS AGAINST THIS ITEM 5?
-----------------------------------
6) The obvious invalidity of inequality V > I x R (4B) directly leads to the invalidity of equality V x I x t = (I x I x R x t) + (Z x I x t x (HHV)) + (X) (1B). Therefore the law of conservation of energy is not valid in this particular water-splitting electrolysis case.
QUESTION 6. DO YOU HAVE ANY THEORETICAL (ONLY THEORETICAL!) OBJECTIONS AGAINST THIS ITEM 6?
-----------------------------------
All we here in this forum are waiting for your 6 answers.

#### Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

##### Re: A SIMPLE ELECTRIC HEATER, WHICH HAS EFFICIENCY GREATER THAN 1
« Reply #385 on: December 12, 2020, 03:43:16 PM »

#### Floor

• Hero Member
• Posts: 1887
##### Re: A SIMPLE ELECTRIC HEATER, WHICH HAS EFFICIENCY GREATER THAN 1
« Reply #386 on: December 14, 2020, 03:24:55 AM »
Hello George 1

You are not reading my posts at all. This is not a discussion. This is your monologue. This is an old and clumsy manipulation trick, which does not work already in XXI century when there is an internet and most people are well informed and educated.

You are obviously a scamming con man.

You started this topic on 01/28/19.

Here is your original statement / claim / bait.

https://mypicxbg.files.wordpress.com/2019/01/pages_1-6.pdf

Since that time (10 months), have you conducted and presented any
experiment which would support your claim that a simple electrolysis process
which results in H and O release is over unity, once the H and O
are then burned ?

Have you learned anything in those 10 months, from this topic?
If  so, what and will you share that with us ?

I for one, do not believe that you, your self, think this claim is O.U...

@ George1

1. Didn't you know that the electrolysis plus the burning of the H and O is not O.U..

2. Didn't you know that this forum has had dozens of explorations of, and thousands of pages dedicated precisely to the examining of variations of the electrolysis process in an O.U. context ?

3. The electrical energy converted to heat energy in a PURELY resistive circuit is 1 per 1.

4. This is true for  ANY  PURELY  resistive electric circuit whether the resistor is solid or liquid.

5. An electrical circuit is   NO LONGER a PURELY   resistive circuit when electrolysis occurs.

#### Leely

• Full Member
• Posts: 109
##### Re: A SIMPLE ELECTRIC HEATER, WHICH HAS EFFICIENCY GREATER THAN 1
« Reply #387 on: December 14, 2020, 10:41:20 AM »
You know that higher frequencies operate incandescent bulbs and heater elements to higher efficiencies, even at lower amp draws?

#### lancaIV

• elite_member
• Hero Member
• Posts: 4656
##### Re: A SIMPLE ELECTRIC HEATER, WHICH HAS EFFICIENCY GREATER THAN 1
« Reply #388 on: December 14, 2020, 10:54:30 AM »

#### Leely

• Full Member
• Posts: 109
##### Re: A SIMPLE ELECTRIC HEATER, WHICH HAS EFFICIENCY GREATER THAN 1
« Reply #389 on: December 14, 2020, 11:27:59 AM »
Him,George1,was remarked :