@George1

You have not presented a theory.

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

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

I only say that there is No reason to believe that conventional

/ typical electrolysis is O.U.

and that

George1 has not presented any basis for a theoretical O.U. as such.

but also

neither has he given any experimental evidence, NONE,

but instead, only the confused, misapplication of formulas.

George1 doesn't know basic electricity very well.

So for anyone interested in learning the basic electricity required to understand

the energy transfer and transformation involved in the dc electrolysis of pure water...

In addition to ohm's law as

E = I x R voltage = Amperage x Resistance

I x R = E

E / I = R

E / R = I

there is next also ......

Kirchhoff's first law

For any junction in an electric circuit, the sum of currents entering that junction is equal to the sum of currents exiting that junction.

Kirchhoff's second law

The sum of the electric potential (voltage) drops around any closed circuit is equal to zero.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kirchhoff%27s_circuit_laws @ All readers

VERY NICE... complete course !

Basic electricity books. I have these in my own library (hard copies), classics / awesome.

https://archive.org/details/BasicElectricityVol1ToVol5VanValkenburgh/mode/2upQuote from: George1 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!

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.pdfSince 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.

1 Volt x 1 Coulomb = 1 Joule but 1 Volt x 1 Coulomb / Second = Power as 1 Watt.

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. There is a 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 seconds

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.

In most circumstances energy is "conserved". This is what makes it seem (to some) that

any one looking for O.U. processes is nutty.

Looking for O.U. has been for me, a path of learning. To my mind, seeking O.U. is not

the exploration of how to get something from nothing, but rather the exploration of how

we might get energy from new and / or possibly little understood or even unknown

sources or methods.

.... .... .... .... .... .... ....

Have we missed something ? Perhaps that the ordinary electrolysis of water is O.U. ?

If we have missed it, you for one, certainly have not demonstrated how.

Analogous to water through a multi-path pipe system, electric current divides between

any 2 or more paths, in proportion to the resistance to its flow along those paths.

In the electrolysis process, the electric current's path is divided (within the electrolyte)

into paths where in some of the energy is expended as heat via conventional

electrical resistance and some of the energy is expended in splitting the water molecules.

Like unto the water and the water pipe analogy, the total current entering those paths, is

equal to the total current exiting them.

In this case, the total energy in and out are equal as well. But that energy has been

transformed into other than a purely electromagnetic form.

E or I alone, neither amounts to power. But if there is a current flowing it is because an

electric potential has been realized. Where there exists an electric potential, current will flow

when the electrical resistance is low enough (E / I x R).

Your, cut and past repetition of formulas (whether chemical or electrical) does not equate to

an understanding of those formulas. If you have misunderstood them, just get it straight

and move forward. That's all.