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: 897324
  • *Total Topics: 15812
  • *Online Today: 44
  • *Most Online: 103
(December 19, 2006, 11:27:19 PM)
  • *Users: 1
  • *Guests: 10
  • *Total: 11

Author Topic: A SIMPLE ELECTRIC HEATER, WHICH HAS EFFICIENCY GREATER THAN 1  (Read 157575 times)

Offline lancaIV

  • elite_member
  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 4790
Re: A SIMPLE ELECTRIC HEATER, WHICH HAS EFFICIENCY GREATER THAN 1
« Reply #405 on: December 16, 2020, 04:55:55 PM »
 ::)

https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&u=https://www.n-tv.de/leute/Bezos-Ex-Frau-spendet-Milliardensumme-article22239996.html
George1,offer YOU and YOURSELF ! And your solution !
Price ? Worth ? After " A SIMPLE ELECTRIC HEATER, WHICH HAS EFFICIENCY GREATER THAN 1"-topic 28 pages research and alternatives avaliation !

https://www.ideaconnection.com/inno-resources.html                             https://www.ideaconnection.com/inventions/

40 Mio.  ::) to 10 Mio. ??? to 1 Mio.  :P to 100 TSD. ;) currency ?


Sincere
OCWL

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy


Offline George1

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 886
Re: A SIMPLE ELECTRIC HEATER, WHICH HAS EFFICIENCY GREATER THAN 1
« Reply #406 on: December 17, 2020, 11:37:04 AM »
To lanca IV.
---------------------
Thanks a lot for your reply. We will consider carefully the links you have sent. And I will write to you in the nearest future
What is OCWL?:)

Offline George1

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 886
Re: A SIMPLE ELECTRIC HEATER, WHICH HAS EFFICIENCY GREATER THAN 1
« Reply #407 on: December 17, 2020, 11:37:34 AM »
THIS DISCUSSION IS FOCUSED SOLELY AND ONLY ON STANDARD DC WATER-SPLITTING ELECTROLYSIS! AND ON NOTHING ELSE!
===================
Let us try another THEORETICAL (ONLY THEORETICAL!!!!!!!) approach.
---------------------
1) V = I x R (6-1). This is Ohm's law, which is absolutely valid for any solid, liquid and gaseous conductor. Ohm's law is the basic axiom of electric engineering and there is no doubt about its validity.
---------------------------------
2) Let us multiply both sides of equality (6-1) by (I x t), that is,
V = I x R (6-1) <=> V x (I x t) = I x R x (I x t) (6-2) <=> V x I x t = I x I x R x t (6-3).
---------------------------------
3) The last equality (6-3) is the manifestation of the first Joule's law, (a) which directly derives from Ohm's law, (b) which is the second basic axiom of electric engineering and (c) which is absolutely valid for any solid, liquid and gaseous conductor. There is no doubt about the validity of the first Joule's law.
---------------------------------
4) In a standard DC water-splitting electrolysis however, while current flows through the electrolyte (which is a liquid conductor), a certain amount of hydrogen of mass m is released. The mathematical expression of this process is given by the equality m = Z x I x t (6-4).
---------------------------------
5) If the released hydrogen of mass m is burned/exploded, then an additional portion of heat H is generated. The mathematical expression, related to the generation of this additional portion of heat H, is given by the equality H = m x (HHV) = Z x I x t x (HHV) (6-5).
---------------------------------
6) Therefore in order to keep the correctness of the input/output energy ratio of the process we have to add (Z x I x t x (HHV)) to the right side of equality (6-3), that is,
V x I x t = I x I x R x t (6-3) <=> V x I x t < (I x I x R x t) + (Z x I x t x (HHV)) (6-6).
--------------------------------
7) Another additional portion of energy X is 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. Therefore we can write down the inequality  V x I x t < (I x I x R x t) + (Z x I x t x (HHV)) + (X) (6-7).
--------------------------------
8) Inequality (6-6) is an obvious violation of the law of conservation of energy for any standard DC water-splitting electrolysis process. The same for inequality (6-7).
====================
DO YOU HAVE ANY THEORETICAL (ONLY THEORETICAL!!!!!) OBJECTIONS AGAINST THE TEXT ABOVE?
====================
THIS DISCUSSION IS FOCUSED SOLELY AND ONLY ON STANDARD DC WATER-SPLITTING ELECTROLYSIS! AND ON NOTHING ELSE!

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: A SIMPLE ELECTRIC HEATER, WHICH HAS EFFICIENCY GREATER THAN 1
« Reply #407 on: December 17, 2020, 11:37:34 AM »
Sponsored links:




Offline lancaIV

  • elite_member
  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 4790
Re: A SIMPLE ELECTRIC HEATER, WHICH HAS EFFICIENCY GREATER THAN 1
« Reply #408 on: December 17, 2020, 11:53:07 AM »
To lanca IV.
---------------------
Thanks a lot for your reply. We will consider carefully the links you have sent. And I will write to you in the nearest future
What is OCWL? :)

This is called first names and father-line and mother-line family names !
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_name


Sincere
Oliver=first name  Christoph =  patronymics or matronymics.  W.= father-line L.=mother-line  :D ;) :)

Offline George1

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 886
Re: A SIMPLE ELECTRIC HEATER, WHICH HAS EFFICIENCY GREATER THAN 1
« Reply #409 on: December 17, 2020, 12:11:50 PM »
To lanca IV.
---------------------
Hi Oliver,
Thanks a lot for your reply. I will write to you in the nearest future.
Best regards,
George

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: A SIMPLE ELECTRIC HEATER, WHICH HAS EFFICIENCY GREATER THAN 1
« Reply #409 on: December 17, 2020, 12:11:50 PM »
Sponsored links:




Offline Floor

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2016
Re: A SIMPLE ELECTRIC HEATER, WHICH HAS EFFICIENCY GREATER THAN 1
« Reply #410 on: December 17, 2020, 11:32:39 PM »
@George1

I have been sticking my nose in the books, to shore up my limited chemistry knowledge, so on.
I am continuing to do so, for now.

In doing so, I have found 1 brief mentioning (within a reasonably sound source), which
states that an efficiency of greater than 100%  may  theoretically be possible through
electrolysis, so on.



regards
 floor

Offline lancaIV

  • elite_member
  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 4790
Re: A SIMPLE ELECTRIC HEATER, WHICH HAS EFFICIENCY GREATER THAN 1
« Reply #411 on: December 18, 2020, 10:23:30 AM »
To lanca IV.
---------------------
Hi Oliver,
Thanks a lot for your reply. I will write to you in the nearest future.
Best regards,
George
Good Morning !

I do not know You,George1!
You do not know me !
We are not in the position to communicate by first name !

People,who does not know each other ,ancient family internal too,Sie-zen sich - even the style ,RESPECT each !


Hyperphysics is royal dimension ! Behave alike ! Elsewhere !
https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=de&tl=en&u=https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kaiser-Wilhelm-Institut_f%25C3%25BCr_Physik                                         membership ! Title,function

https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=de&tl=en&u=https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acad%25C3%25A9mie_Royale       
                                 membership ! Title,function
for example https://www.lfhk.cuni.cz/Faculty/Organization-structure/Titles-in-Czech/    Dr. ?(rerum natura ?) Pavel Imris,CSc.
                  https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=de&tl=en&u=https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_rerum_natura

We all enter "the I "-multi-dimensional stage ,mirror !  Bridge,pons,Transponder :  mens/corpus ! societas !

How we treats`(WE,we) others ,like ourself ?! Why not ? Cause ? Own TUTORIUM ?

In GERMAN :FSK https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freiwillige_Selbstkontrolle_der_Filmwirtschaft
https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=de&tl=en&u=https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freiwillige_Selbstkontrolle_der_Filmwirtschaft

 Film-Komparsen : actually https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weltbev%C3%B6lkerung
 polites : https://www.thefreedictionary.com/Polites

                                         Schauspielrolle or acting role as humans  and more " an-/organische Wesen"

Work-time : full concentration - mediativ- trial  a.STILLGESTANDEN,b.STILLSITZEN,c.STILLLIEGEN

Free-time: free choice : RUEHREN/-D ! ;)
 
Sender Drei-Klang-/Farbe/-Mission
Empfaenger : Drei-Klang-/Farbe-/Gestaltung
Ueber Raum und Zeit


Here,in the forum,and outer ,24/365,25 ( for extremists  ::) ) ALL HAS ITS CAUSE (- CAOS)
Let us a Diva and appendix ;D sing about our World https://www.youtube.com/watch?app=desktop&feature=share&v=NEpfvTdR5-U
Sweat,how she is closing her eyes and how well in Diva- 8) ( okay ;) ) Father synchronicity !


 
With my best regards

OCWL :)




p.s.:          Collage ueber Raum und Zeit

https://www.spiegel.de/politik/ausland/jill-biden-ueber-kommentar-zu-doktortitel-er-nannte-mich-kiddo-a-39214bca-251d-435e-baa8-cc3648ca37f3
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planet_of_the_Apes_(1968_film)

https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bonze

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bedtime_for_Bonzo

Ex-U.S.A. now N.W.O. :            United States of Bonz , Bonzo = male and Bonza = female

Estates Confederation flagg https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/61lJlRR5zDL._AC_SL1200_.jpg

"US Bonzo Force 1"  friendly wellcome with " 3 apes" flagg ! Bonztown,District Columbia formerly Washington  ! New Capitale denomination !

Proudbonzo : https://media.istockphoto.com/photos/chimpanzee-with-civil-war-hat-picture-id181886990
« Last Edit: December 18, 2020, 03:16:10 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 #411 on: December 18, 2020, 10:23:30 AM »
Sponsored links:




Offline Floor

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2016
Re: A SIMPLE ELECTRIC HEATER, WHICH HAS EFFICIENCY GREATER THAN 1
« Reply #412 on: December 18, 2020, 09:54:08 PM »
The joule is the SI unit of energy.

work = force x displacement
          or
joules of work (energy)  =  newtons of force x meters of displacement, in the direction of the applied force.

The work done in displacing an object 1 meter against a force of 1 newton = 1 joule of energy. This is also referred to as the energy expended.

A 1 kilogram mass (equal to 1000 grams) exerts , 9.8066500286389 newtons of force down
(in earth's standard gravity).

1000 grams =  9.8066500286389 newtons
   and
9.8066500286389 / 1 newton =   0.10197162099999948436449906616771 grams
  there fore
 0.10197162129779282425700927431896 grams or  approximately 102 grams exerts
 1 newton of force down in standard gravity.

A mass of about 102 grams exerts 1 newton of force down in standard gravity.

If we lift a 102 gram object 1 meter, we do about 1 joule of work upon that object.

Power (watts) is equal to the joules expended per second of time.

1 joule per second = 1 watt of power
.....  ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... .....
There is an inverse relationship between the force of gravity and the distance between the CENTERS of the two attracted objects.

If the distance is doubled, the gravitational force is decreased by a factor of 4. This is because the square of 2 is 2 x 2, which equals 4. If the distance between two objects is tripled, the force of gravity is decreased by a factor of 9. In this case, it is because the square of 3 is 3 x 3, which equals 9. This relationship is known as an inverse square relationship.

However, on the scale of a base ball in attraction to the earth, the distance between the CENTER of and the surface of, that base ball becomes insignificant within the calculation. 

Similarly, a distance of 1000 meters above Earth's surface becomes insignificant in proportion to the distance from Earth's surface to its center.

There fore, a base ball weighs ALMOST exactly the same, whether it is 1 meter above, or 100 meters above the Earth's surface.
....     .....     .....     .....     .....     .....     .....     .....     .....     .....     .....

Coulomb force is the force due to electric charge. It is the repelling force between two electrons but also the attracting force between an electron and a proton. Both of which are due to electric charge.
Like unto a gravitational force, coulomb force also diminishes by the inverse of the square of the distance between the CENTERS of two particles (point sources).

However.....

Unlike the Earth, Sub atomic particles ( protons and electrons) are very very small and there fore, very small changes in the distance between the center of one particle and the center of another particle, causes a large change in the force present.

And unlike gravity, electric charge has two polarities.

The magnitude of the electric force between two "electrons" is directly proportional to the amount of one electric charge, q1, multiplied by the other electric charge, q2, and inversely proportional to the square of the distance r between their centers.

The fixed numerical value of the elementary charge e (of 1 electron) is 1.602176634×10−19 coulomb
   and
One coulomb is the charge of 6241509074460762607.776 elementary charges (electrons)
   and
The numerical value of theses two quantities are the multiplicative inverses of each other.
Like this... The coulomb is exactly 1/(1.602176634×10−19) which is approximately 6.2415090744×1018, elementary charges.

The charge of 6241509074460762607.776  protons is a + charge. 
The same number of electrons has the same magnitude but opposite sign of charge.
That is − charge.  1 coulomb is  6241509074460762607.776  − charges.

The force from electric charge has other considerations as well.
example...
In calculating the force between two charged and macro world objects (for example two electrically charged plates), one must also consider the the area of the surfaces of those plates.   
....     .....     .....     .....     .....     .....     .....     .....     .....     .....     .....
Quote from Wikipedia

 "Until 2019, the International System of Standards (SI) defined the ampere as follows:

The ampere is that constant current which, if maintained in two straight parallel conductors of infinite length, of negligible circular cross-section, and placed one meter apart in vacuum, would produce between these conductors a force equal to 2×10−7 newtons per meter of length ."

End of Wikipedia quote

That force of  2×10−7 newtons,  per meter of length is the result of the magnetic field surrounding the two conductors.

That repulsion force is magnetic and is in due to, both the electric charge (coulomb charge) and the motion of the electrons along the conductor. 

note...

This is not the coulomb force present as the repulsion between the electric charges.   
.....    .....     .....     .....     .....     .....     .....     .....     .....     .....     ......

 The present (SI) quantification of the ampere (since May 2019).....
 The ampere was then defined as one coulomb of charge per second.  In SI, the unit of charge, the coulomb, is defined as the charge carried by one ampere during one second.  However, this definition although not the SI standard until 2019, was in use within the earlier Centimeters Grams Seconds (CGS) system prior to 2019.

A current of one ampere is defined generally as one coulomb of  −charge (electrons) going past a given point (generally in a conductor) per second, but strictly speaking, this could also be a current of + charge protons passing a given point in 1 second of time.
   and
It seems as though there is no simple and straight forward way, to exactly correlate the force and displacement elements of mechanical work ( joule), to the process of arriving at its electrical energy equivalent ( joules). 

FORCE
In SI terms the derived unit of voltage is the volt.  The volt is a unit of the  electric potential between two points.  Voltage is a force, and is some times referred to as electromotive force.

MASS or CHARGE per unit of time
The ampere unit, definition, includes a time element (the second).  It is a unit of a quantity per second. It is a current, a flow of electrons.
The Ampere is a time based unit of measurement.

ENERGY
The joule unit of measurement of energy
The Joule is not a time based unit.

The coulomb may be thought of as either, a quantity of 6.2415090744×1018  negative charges or as a quantity of 6.2415090744×1018  electrons.
Coulombs per second = amps......  Amps x volts = watts.
A force of 1 volt will move 1 coulomb of electrons through a resistance of 1 ohm in 1 second of time.
But...
In SI units, ELECTRIC WORK is stated as joules of energy per coulomb, where 1 volt = 1 joule (of work) per 1 coulomb (of charge or electrons)....
          1 volt = 1 joule / 1 coulomb
   where as
Electric power (1Watt) is 1 Volt of force x 1 coulomb of electrons passing a point in a conductor in one second. 
Volt x Coulomb = Joule  but Volt x Coulomb / Second = Power as Watts.
however....
There is no length of displacement specified, as is specified, in the force times displacement equation  which defines mechanical work.
There is only the movement of a specific quantity of electrons (one coulomb) through a point.  The coulomb unit is substituted for the displacement unit (meters).
That which is analogous to a mechanical reactive force (equal to and opposite force), is the electrical resistance (stated in units of ohms of resistance) opposing the voltage.
One coulomb of electrons passing a point in a conductor is one joule of work (no time element).
Force as newtons x displacement as meters = joules.
Force as volts x quantity as coulombs = joules.
One coulomb of electrons passing a point in a conductor in one second, is a flow RATE of 1 ampere   (a current).  Like unto gallons per minute. Time element.
The ampere is not a unit of some quantity of electrons, it is a unit of a rate of flow (1 coulomb of electrons per second).
mechanical.... force x displacement = joules    or    newtons x meters = joules                                                                 electric.... force x quantity = joules                   or    volts x coulombs =  joules
mechanical..... force x displacement / time = watts     or            newtons x meters = joules and 1 joule / 1 seconds = 1 watt ....  1 joule per second = 1 watt                                                                                                                                                electric..... force x quantity / time = watts                    or        1 volt x 1 coulomb = 1 joule and 1 joule /  1 second = 1 watt.  But also, 1 coulomb / 1 second = 1 amperes  and so 1 volt x 1 ampere =  1 watt.
....     .....     .....     .....     .....     .....     .....     .....     .....     .....     .....
....     .....     .....     .....     .....     .....     .....     .....     .....     .....     .....

where in we let

E = electromotive force
V = volts of electromotive force
T = time
S = time in seconds
I = electric current
C = coulomb of electrons
A = ampere of electric current, as in 1 coulomb / 1 second


          and
E x I = P  however,  P x t indicates power with the time element canceled out (energy)....

because...
I (current) = Coulombs  /  Second ... this is a quantity of electrons passing some point in a conductor per second of time   or   a quantity of electrons passing some point / (DIVIDED BY) time or in other words an electric current, which may then be expressed in unit of amperes (A) as ....

Coulombs / Second  =  Amperes   
     and   
C/S  x  S = C    and   C x V = Joules....  time was canceled out.
This is like unto 6 / 3 = 2  and  6 / 3 x 3 = 6, wherein the 3 is the time, stated in seconds.
E (electromotive force) as volts x coulombs of electrons = joules of electric energy.
There is no element of time involved in the equation.  Time enters into it only once we turn to considering power and watts rather than simply, energy as joules.     OK
.....     .....     .....     .....     .....     .....
quote from George 1
" V x I x t = input energy = electric energy, which is generated by the DC source, and which is consumed by the electrolyzer "
end of quote

First
V x I x t is correctly written as  either E x I x T  or written as  V x A x T   

Next
where in we let

E = electromotive force
V = volts of electromotive force
T = time
S = time in seconds
I = electric current
C = coulomb of electrons
A = ampere of electric current (as in 1 coulomb / 1 second)

quote from George 1 continued
"and which is consumed by the electrolyzer "
end of quote  continued

This DOES NOT refer ONLY to the electric energy consumed / transformed by ohmic resistance into heat.

Next quote
"I x I x R x t = Q = Joule's heat, which is generated by the electrolyzer = output energy 1"
end of quote 
                                        Not true...

I x I x R x t (E on RIGHT side of the equation) does not have the same value as does  V x I x t = input energy on the left side of the equation.

The energy value of  I x I x R x t (E on RIGHT side of the equation) (given by you as Q) should be in terms of its conversion to heat energy, minus the energy expended in electrolysis. 

There will be less ohmic heating in the electrolyte because some of the energy is instead expended to cause electrolysis. Some of the I (electron current) will split the water instead of heating the water.

Fact .....   

E x I x t (input)    does not equal    the output as the resistive heating alone, which would be evolved in the electrolyte due to purely ohmic resistance.

The rest of the equation and any calculation then become invalid.

  best wishes
   floor

Offline Floor

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2016
Re: A SIMPLE ELECTRIC HEATER, WHICH HAS EFFICIENCY GREATER THAN 1
« Reply #413 on: December 20, 2020, 09:03:38 PM »
see Jpg below

Energy expenditure within the LEDs, is due primarily to conversion
to light rather than conversion to heat.
   while
Energy expenditure within the carbon resistor is directly to heat.

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: A SIMPLE ELECTRIC HEATER, WHICH HAS EFFICIENCY GREATER THAN 1
« Reply #413 on: December 20, 2020, 09:03:38 PM »
3D Solar Panels

Offline George1

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 886
Re: A SIMPLE ELECTRIC HEATER, WHICH HAS EFFICIENCY GREATER THAN 1
« Reply #414 on: December 21, 2020, 03:54:20 PM »
To Floor.
-----------------------------
You try to be a skillful manipulator, but you failed. You bombed all of us here in this forum with a cluster of absurd hypotheses and deliberately hidden theoretical errors. These absurd hypotheses and deliberately hidden theoretical errors in addition have practically nothing to do with our considerations. You are obviously an agent of the official science mafia. How much did they pay you? Shame on you!

   

Offline George1

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 886
Re: A SIMPLE ELECTRIC HEATER, WHICH HAS EFFICIENCY GREATER THAN 1
« Reply #415 on: December 21, 2020, 03:56:24 PM »
To those members of this forum who are not agents of the official science mafia.he official science mafia.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Let us get back to the first variation of our theoretical proof. It is given below again and is surrounded/limited up and down by double dashed lines.
====================
IMPORTANT NOTE. THIS DISCUSSION IS FOCUSED SOLELY AND ONLY ON DC WATER-SPLITTING ELECTROLYSIS! AND ON NOTHING ELSE!
============================
1) The correct equation, related to the law of conservation of energy in any standard DC water-splitting electrolysis process, 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).)
-----------------------------------
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. (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 DC WATER-SPLITTING ELECTROLYSIS! AND ON NOTHING ELSE!
------------------------------------
DO YOU HAVE ANY THEORETICAL (ONLY THEORETICAL!) OBJECTIONS AGAINST THE TEXT ABOVE?
====================
Simply answer my last question.

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: A SIMPLE ELECTRIC HEATER, WHICH HAS EFFICIENCY GREATER THAN 1
« Reply #415 on: December 21, 2020, 03:56:24 PM »
3D Solar Panels

Offline George1

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 886
Re: A SIMPLE ELECTRIC HEATER, WHICH HAS EFFICIENCY GREATER THAN 1
« Reply #416 on: December 21, 2020, 03:58:26 PM »
To those members of this forum who are not agents of the official science mafia.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Let us get back to the first variation of our theoretical proof. It is given below again and is surrounded/limited up and down by double dashed lines.
====================
IMPORTANT NOTE. THIS DISCUSSION IS FOCUSED SOLELY AND ONLY ON DC WATER-SPLITTING ELECTROLYSIS! AND ON NOTHING ELSE!
============================
1) The correct equation, related to the law of conservation of energy in any standard DC water-splitting electrolysis process, 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).)
-----------------------------------
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. (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 DC WATER-SPLITTING ELECTROLYSIS! AND ON NOTHING ELSE!
------------------------------------
DO YOU HAVE ANY THEORETICAL (ONLY THEORETICAL!) OBJECTIONS AGAINST THE TEXT ABOVE?
====================
Simply answer my last question.

Offline George1

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 886
Re: A SIMPLE ELECTRIC HEATER, WHICH HAS EFFICIENCY GREATER THAN 1
« Reply #417 on: December 21, 2020, 04:10:55 PM »
To lancaIV.
------------------------
Hi lancaIV,
Thank you for your reply.
1) Ok, let us keep the related distance. You are right, we do not know each other.
2) But you are sending very interesting links. Please give me some time to consider them carefully.
George

Offline Floor

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2016
Re: A SIMPLE ELECTRIC HEATER, WHICH HAS EFFICIENCY GREATER THAN 1
« Reply #418 on: December 21, 2020, 04:30:56 PM »
To Floor.
-----------------------------
You try to be a skillful manipulator, but you failed. You bombed all of us here in this forum with a cluster of absurd hypotheses and deliberately hidden theoretical errors. These absurd hypotheses and deliberately hidden theoretical errors in addition have practically nothing to do with our considerations. You are obviously an agent of the official science mafia. How much did they pay you? Shame on you!

         Bull S--t.
. 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.

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...

The topic is that electrolysis of water is O.U..

I DO NOT say absolutely, that there hasn't been and cannot be O.U..

I only say that there is No reason to believe that conventional
/ typical electrolysis is O.U. and that no evidence, NONE, has been
given by the topics originator, but instead, only the confused,  misapplication of formulas.

The joule is the SI unit of energy.

work = force x displacement
          or
joules of work (energy)  =  newtons of force x meters of displacement, in the direction of the applied force.

The work done in displacing an object 1 meter against a force of 1 newton = 1 joule of energy. This is also referred to as the energy expended.

A 1 kilogram mass (equal to 1000 grams) exerts , 9.8066500286389 newtons of force down
(in earth's standard gravity).

1000 grams =  9.8066500286389 newtons
   and
9.8066500286389 / 1 newton =   0.10197162099999948436449906616771 grams
  there fore
 0.10197162129779282425700927431896 grams or  approximately 102 grams exerts
 1 newton of force down in standard gravity.

A mass of about 102 grams exerts 1 newton of force down in standard gravity.

If we lift a 102 gram object 1 meter, we do about 1 joule of work upon that object.

Power (watts) is equal to the joules expended per second of time.

1 joule per second = 1 watt of power
.....  ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... .....
There is an inverse relationship between the force of gravity and the distance between the CENTERS of the two attracted objects.

If the distance is doubled, the gravitational force is decreased by a factor of 4. This is because the square of 2 is 2 x 2, which equals 4. If the distance between two objects is tripled, the force of gravity is decreased by a factor of 9. In this case, it is because the square of 3 is 3 x 3, which equals 9. This relationship is known as an inverse square relationship.

However, on the scale of a base ball in attraction to the earth, the distance between the CENTER of and the surface of, that base ball becomes insignificant within the calculation.

Similarly, a distance of 1000 meters above Earth's surface becomes insignificant in proportion to the distance from Earth's surface to its center.

There fore, a base ball weighs ALMOST exactly the same, whether it is 1 meter above, or 100 meters above the Earth's surface.
....     .....     .....     .....     .....     .....     .....     .....     .....     .....     .....

Coulomb force is the force due to electric charge. It is the repelling force between two electrons but also the attracting force between an electron and a proton. Both of which are due to electric charge.
Like unto a gravitational force, coulomb force also diminishes by the inverse of the square of the distance between the CENTERS of two particles (point sources).

However.....

Unlike the Earth, Sub atomic particles ( protons and electrons) are very very small and there fore, very small changes in the distance between the center of one particle and the center of another particle, causes a large change in the force present.

And unlike gravity, electric charge has two polarities.

The magnitude of the electric force between two "electrons" is directly proportional to the amount of one electric charge, q1, multiplied by the other electric charge, q2, and inversely proportional to the square of the distance r between their centers.

The fixed numerical value of the elementary charge e (of 1 electron) is 1.602176634×10^−19 coulomb
   and
One coulomb is the charge of 6241509074460762607.776 elementary charges (electrons)
   and
The numerical value of theses two quantities are the multiplicative inverses of each other.
Like this... The coulomb is exactly 1/(1.602176634×10^−19) which is approximately 6.2415090744×10^18, elementary charges.

The charge of 6241509074460762607.776  protons is a + charge.
The same number of electrons has the same magnitude but opposite sign of charge.
That is − charge.  1 coulomb is  6241509074460762607.776  − charges.

The force from electric charge has other considerations as well.
example...
In calculating the force between two charged and macro world objects (for example two electrically charged plates), one must also consider the the area of the surfaces of those plates.   
....     .....     .....     .....     .....     .....     .....     .....     .....     .....     .....
Quote from Wikipedia

 "Until 2019, the International System of Standards (SI) defined the ampere as follows:

The ampere is that constant current which, if maintained in two straight parallel conductors of infinite length, of negligible circular cross-section, and placed one meter apart in vacuum, would produce between these conductors a force equal to 2×10^−7 newtons per meter of length ."

End of Wikipedia quote

That force of  2×10^−7 newtons,  per meter of length is the result of the magnetic field surrounding the two conductors.

That repulsion force is magnetic and is in due to, both the electric charge (coulomb charge) and the motion of the electrons along the conductor.

note...

This is not the coulomb force present as the repulsion between the electric charges.   
.....    .....     .....     .....     .....     .....     .....     .....     .....     .....     ......

 The present (SI) quantification of the ampere (since May 2019).....
 The ampere was then defined as one coulomb of charge per second.  In SI, the unit of charge, the coulomb, is defined as the charge carried by one ampere during one second.  However, this definition although not the SI standard until 2019, was in use within the earlier Centimeters Grams Seconds (CGS) system prior to 2019.

A current of one ampere is defined generally as one coulomb of  −charge (electrons) going past a given point (generally in a conductor) per second, but strictly speaking, this could also be a current of + charge protons passing a given point in 1 second of time.
   and
It seems as though there is no simple and straight forward way, to exactly correlate the force and displacement elements of mechanical work ( joule), to the process of arriving at its electrical energy equivalent ( joules).

FORCE
In SI terms the derived unit of voltage is the volt.  The volt is a unit of the  electric potential between two points.  Voltage is a force, and is some times referred to as electromotive force.

MASS or CHARGE per unit of time
The ampere unit, definition, includes a time element (the second).  It is a unit of a quantity per second. It is a current, a flow of electrons.
The Ampere is a time based unit of measurement.

ENERGY
The joule unit of measurement of energy
The Joule is not a time based unit.

The coulomb may be thought of as either, a quantity of 6.2415090744×10^18  negative charges or as a quantity of 6.2415090744×10^18  electrons.
Coulombs per second = amps......  Amps x volts = watts.
A force of 1 volt will move 1 coulomb of electrons through a resistance of 1 ohm in 1 second of time.
But...
In SI units, ELECTRIC WORK is stated as joules of energy per coulomb, where 1 volt = 1 joule (of work) per 1 coulomb (of charge or electrons)....
          1 volt = 1 joule / 1 coulomb
   where as
Electric power (1Watt) is 1 Volt of force x 1 coulomb of electrons passing a point in a conductor in one second.
Volt x Coulomb = Joule  but Volt x Coulomb / Second = Power as Watts.
however....
There is no length of displacement specified, as is specified, in the force times displacement equation  which defines mechanical work.
There is only the movement of a specific quantity of electrons (one coulomb) through a point.  The coulomb unit is substituted for the displacement unit (meters).
That which is analogous to a mechanical reactive force (equal to and opposite force), is the electrical resistance (stated in units of ohms of resistance) opposing the voltage.
One coulomb of electrons passing a point in a conductor is one joule of work (no time element).
Force as newtons x displacement as meters = joules.
Force as volts x quantity as coulombs = joules.
One coulomb of electrons passing a point in a conductor in one second, is a flow RATE of 1 ampere   (a current).  Like unto gallons per minute. Time element.
The ampere is not a unit of some quantity of electrons, it is a unit of a rate of flow (1 coulomb of electrons per second).
mechanical.... force x displacement = joules    or    newtons x meters = joules                                                                 electric.... force x quantity = joules                   or    volts x coulombs =  joules
mechanical..... force x displacement / time = watts     or            newtons x meters = joules and 1 joule / 1 seconds = 1 watt ....  1 joule per second = 1 watt                                                                                                                                                electric..... force x quantity / time = watts                    or        1 volt x 1 coulomb = 1 joule and 1 joule /  1 second = 1 watt.  But also, 1 coulomb / 1 second = 1 amperes  and so 1 volt x 1 ampere =  1 watt.
....     .....     .....     .....     .....     .....     .....     .....     .....     .....     .....
....     .....     .....     .....     .....     .....     .....     .....     .....     .....     .....

where in we let

E = electromotive force
V = volts of electromotive force
T = time
S = time in seconds
I = electric current
C = coulomb of electrons
A = ampere of electric current, as in 1 coulomb / 1 second


          and
E x I = P  however,  P x t indicates power with the time element canceled out (energy)....

because...
I (current) = Coulombs  /  Second ... this is a quantity of electrons passing some point in a conductor per second of time   or   a quantity of electrons passing some point / (DIVIDED BY) time or in other words an electric current, which may then be expressed in unit of amperes (A) as ....

Coulombs / Second  =  Amperes   
     and   
C/S  x  S = C    and   C x V = Joules....  time was canceled out.
This is like unto 6 / 3 = 2  and  6 / 3 x 3 = 6, wherein the 3 is the time, stated in seconds.
E (electromotive force) as volts x coulombs of electrons = joules of electric energy.
There is no element of time involved in the equation.  Time enters into it only once we turn to considering power and watts rather than simply, energy as joules.     OK
.....     .....     .....     .....     .....     .....
quote from George 1
" V x I x t = input energy = electric energy, which is generated by the DC source, and which is consumed by the electrolyzer "
end of quote

First
V x I x t is correctly written as  either E x I x T  or written as  V x A x T   

Next
where in we let

E = electromotive force
V = volts of electromotive force
T = time
S = time in seconds
I = electric current
C = coulomb of electrons
A = ampere of electric current (as in 1 coulomb / 1 second)

quote from George 1 continued
"and which is consumed by the electrolyzer "
end of quote  continued

This DOES NOT refer ONLY to the electric energy consumed / transformed by ohmic resistance into heat.

Next quote
"I x I x R x t = Q = Joule's heat, which is generated by the electrolyzer = output energy 1"
end of quote
                                        Not true...

I x I x R x t (E on RIGHT side of the equation) does not have the same value as does  V x I x t = input energy on the left side of the equation.

The energy value of  I x I x R x t (E on RIGHT side of the equation) (given by you as Q) should be in terms of its conversion to heat energy, minus the energy expended in electrolysis.

There will be less ohmic heating in the electrolyte because some of the energy is instead expended to cause electrolysis. Some of the I (electron current) will split the water instead of heating the water.

Fact .....   

E x I x t (input)    does not equal    the output as the resistive heating alone, which would be evolved in the electrolyte due to purely ohmic resistance.

The rest of the equation and any calculation then become invalid.
« Last Edit: December 22, 2020, 03:22:14 AM by Floor »

Offline George1

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 886
Re: A SIMPLE ELECTRIC HEATER, WHICH HAS EFFICIENCY GREATER THAN 1
« Reply #419 on: December 23, 2020, 01:26:09 PM »
Dear Floor,
You want to convince all of us here in this forum that if 6 = 1 + 2 + 3, then 6 = 1. Congratulations! Fantastic achievement! You are a founder of an entirely new and revolutionary branch of mathematics! Take your medicine!:) Triple dose!:)

 

OneLink