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: 896231
  • *Total Topics: 15781
  • *Online Today: 44
  • *Most Online: 103
(December 19, 2006, 11:27:19 PM)
  • *Users: 2
  • *Guests: 12
  • *Total: 14

Author Topic: A SIMPLE ELECTRIC HEATER, WHICH HAS EFFICIENCY GREATER THAN 1  (Read 146434 times)

Offline Floor

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1887
Re: A SIMPLE ELECTRIC HEATER, WHICH HAS EFFICIENCY GREATER THAN 1
« Reply #465 on: January 21, 2021, 03:24:45 PM »
@George1

It is appearant to all who read here, that you do not understand and neither
are you seeking to understand electrolysis.

Neither are you actually looking for a free energy device.

Why do you continue to seek to perpetuate this lie ?
Have you been diagnosed with a narcissistic disorder ?

You don't really believe the simple electrolysis of water is over unity do you ?
You are lying to say so, aren't you ?

Please just accept that this over unity premise you have presented is incorrect.

Stop trying to pollute the forum with your corrupt agenda.

We await your admission, of the the honest facts.

Or are you just another cheap scammer / disinformation agent ?


Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy


Offline lancaIV

  • elite_member
  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 4656
Re: A SIMPLE ELECTRIC HEATER, WHICH HAS EFFICIENCY GREATER THAN 1
« Reply #466 on: January 21, 2021, 05:13:18 PM »
george1,You makes me wondering about this ' technological potential ' !
#460 : 4 . 2/two to 15/fifthteen times capacity increase from any battery

                  actually 08/15 lead battery average 40 Wh - 80 Wh /Kg

                1 KWh/Kg enhancement possible,with ordinary lead battery ?

                Modern technology :
                0,5 -1,5 KWh/Kg performance only as Alvin Marks Qensor battery technology known !



                 How changes the charge cycles number : stay,decline,increase ?

When You have positive answers then do not answer here but go to e-platform- manufacturer,whose wants to
improve actually activity radius and combustion engine cars to e-drive mobility !


Sincere
OCWL

Offline George1

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 792
Re: A SIMPLE ELECTRIC HEATER, WHICH HAS EFFICIENCY GREATER THAN 1
« Reply #467 on: January 22, 2021, 02:43:03 PM »
To Floor
--------------------------------
1) Stop trying to convince all of us here in this forum that you are an imbecile! This will not save your a**! Your masters will not pay to you your month salary! On the contrary, your masters will punish you! Your masters will beat you! You have to run quickly! :) (Although I doubt that you could hide and avoid the slaps. :))
2) Tell your masters that our third piece of EXPERIMENTALLY PROVED technology breakthrough, which increases many times (twice as a minimum and more than 15 times as a maximum) the capacity of any standard electric battery, costs already $110,000,000! And after 20 days this price will be increased with $10,000,000, that is, after 20 days the price will be $120,000,000.
3) Do you understand well the essence of the above item 2? Shall I repeat it again?

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: A SIMPLE ELECTRIC HEATER, WHICH HAS EFFICIENCY GREATER THAN 1
« Reply #467 on: January 22, 2021, 02:43:03 PM »
Sponsored links:




Offline George1

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 792
Re: A SIMPLE ELECTRIC HEATER, WHICH HAS EFFICIENCY GREATER THAN 1
« Reply #468 on: January 22, 2021, 02:45:55 PM »
To those members of good will in this forum, who are honestly searching for the truth. 
-----------------------------------------------
Let me explain the essence of the clumsy and amateur manipulation tricks of this swindler Floor. 
1) Sixteen times in a row I have been asking Floor one and same simple question. And this simple question was: Do you have any theoretical (only theoretical!) objections against Prof. S. L. Srivastava's solution?
2) Sixteen times in a row Floor has been avoiding to answer the above simple question by using only either "yes" or "no". Let me explain why this happened.
3) If Floor says "yes", then he would smash to smithereens the basic axioms of electric engineering as well as the expert skills and knowledge of highly qualified experts like Prof. S. L. Srivastava (Ph.D.) and his two Russian colleagues (please look at our previous posts) some 40 years ago. (Actually Floor wants to convince all of us here in this forum that three highly qualified experts in theoretical and applied physics (yet strongly separated by time, space and nationality) have committed one and same error. This is impossible.) 
4) If Floor says "no", then he must accept the validity of our OU water-splitting electrolysis concept.
5) That is how matters stand. But what could be expected of person like Floor, who asks questions like "Do you think that truth matters?"? The latter unambiguously shows Floor's gangster and swindling mentality. 

Offline George1

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 792
Re: A SIMPLE ELECTRIC HEATER, WHICH HAS EFFICIENCY GREATER THAN 1
« Reply #469 on: January 22, 2021, 02:47:30 PM »
To Floor.
-----------------------------------------------
I am asking you my question for the 17th time: Do you have any theoretical (only theoretical!) objections against Prof. S. L. Srivastava's solution? Yes or no?
Only one word -- either "yes" or "no"!

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: A SIMPLE ELECTRIC HEATER, WHICH HAS EFFICIENCY GREATER THAN 1
« Reply #469 on: January 22, 2021, 02:47:30 PM »
Sponsored links:




Offline George1

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 792
Re: A SIMPLE ELECTRIC HEATER, WHICH HAS EFFICIENCY GREATER THAN 1
« Reply #470 on: January 22, 2021, 02:51:17 PM »
To lancaIV.
-------------------------
Hi lancaIV,
Thank you for your post. Please give me some time to consider it carefully. I will write to you in the nearest future.
Regards,
George

Offline Floor

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1887
Re: A SIMPLE ELECTRIC HEATER, WHICH HAS EFFICIENCY GREATER THAN 1
« Reply #471 on: January 22, 2021, 05:39:43 PM »
@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/2up


Quote 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.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.

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.

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: A SIMPLE ELECTRIC HEATER, WHICH HAS EFFICIENCY GREATER THAN 1
« Reply #471 on: January 22, 2021, 05:39:43 PM »
Sponsored links:




Offline George1

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 792
Re: A SIMPLE ELECTRIC HEATER, WHICH HAS EFFICIENCY GREATER THAN 1
« Reply #472 on: January 23, 2021, 02:46:35 PM »
To Floor.
====================
You really need to see your doctor! Did you take your medicine this morning? :)
------------------------------------
All members of this forum can see that I am asking you my question for the 18th time: Do you have any theoretical (only theoretical!) objections against Prof. S. L. Srivastava's solution?
Yes or no?
Only one word -- either "yes" or "no"!
You really become a laughing stock! :)

Offline Floor

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1887
Re: A SIMPLE ELECTRIC HEATER, WHICH HAS EFFICIENCY GREATER THAN 1
« Reply #473 on: January 23, 2021, 06:59:59 PM »
To Floor.
====================
You really need to see your doctor! Did you take your medicine this morning? :)
------------------------------------
All members of this forum can see that I am asking you my question for the 18th time: Do you have any theoretical (only theoretical!) objections against Prof. S. L. Srivastava's solution?
Yes or no?
Only one word -- either "yes" or "no"!
You really become a laughing stock! :)

@ George1
I realize that its not easy for a person such as your self to
get out of his narcissistic bubble.  But such personality disorders
are destructive to the people around it.  For their's and your own sake
you should
seek counseling.

I have just finished answering your query for the umpteenth time.
           @
https://overunity.com/18134/a-simple-electric-heater-which-has-efficiency-greater-than-1/msg554897/#msg554897

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: A SIMPLE ELECTRIC HEATER, WHICH HAS EFFICIENCY GREATER THAN 1
« Reply #473 on: January 23, 2021, 06:59:59 PM »
3D Solar Panels

Offline Floor

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1887
Re: A SIMPLE ELECTRIC HEATER, WHICH HAS EFFICIENCY GREATER THAN 1
« Reply #474 on: January 23, 2021, 08:23:55 PM »
@ George 1

ʻAʻohe kula a ʻaʻohe hana?

I feel for you bra.

You seem like a smart young man.

E mālama i kou hanohano a mālama i nā lāhui hanohano

Offline George1

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 792
Re: A SIMPLE ELECTRIC HEATER, WHICH HAS EFFICIENCY GREATER THAN 1
« Reply #475 on: January 24, 2021, 12:58:10 PM »
To Floor.
======================
Did you walk straight into the trap, you old swindler? :) Your last "theoretical" article (January 22, 2021, 05:39:43 PM) is full of (a) absurd hypotheses, (b) deliberately hidden mathematical errors and (c) an enormous dose of insanity. You really suffer from some kind of severe mental defectiveness.
---------------------------------------
Let me divide my simple question into two even simpler sub-questions. This is because you understand simple things with great difficulty.
---------------------------------------
1) Firstly, Prof. S. L. Srivastava (Ph.D.) wrote, that current through the electrolyte is given by I = (m)/(Z x t).
I am asking you a question: Is this equation I = (m)/(Z x t) true? Yes or no? Only one word -- either "yes" or "no"!
---------------------------------------
2) Secondly, Prof. S. L. Srivastava (Ph.D.) wrote, that power consumed = (I) x (I) x (R) =  ((m)/(Z x t)) x ((m)/(Z x t)) x (R) = 31.86 W.
I am asking you a question: Is this equation power consumed = (I) x (I) x (R) =  ((m)/(Z x t)) x ((m)/(Z x t)) x (R) = 31.86 W true? Yes or no? Only one word -- either "yes" or "no"!
---------------------------------------
All members of this forum are looking forward to your two answers. Each of your two answers must consist of one word only -- either "yes" or "no".
---------------------------------------
Do you understand well what I have written above? Shall I repeat it?
---------------------------------------
Obviously your masters kick seriously your a**! Did you get a thrashing? Some punches in the nose? Because as if the volume of your last insane "theory" (your post of January 22, 2021, 05:39:43 PM) is obviously directly proportional to the number of slaps you've got. :)
----------------------------------------
I will repeat again as you likely have some mental problems: Each of your two answers must consist of one word only -- either "yes" or "no".

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: A SIMPLE ELECTRIC HEATER, WHICH HAS EFFICIENCY GREATER THAN 1
« Reply #475 on: January 24, 2021, 12:58:10 PM »
3D Solar Panels

Offline Floor

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1887
Re: A SIMPLE ELECTRIC HEATER, WHICH HAS EFFICIENCY GREATER THAN 1
« Reply #476 on: January 24, 2021, 03:33:59 PM »
To Floor.
======================
Did you walk straight into the trap, you old swindler? :) Your last "theoretical" article (January 22, 2021, 05:39:43 PM) is full of (a) absurd hypotheses, (b) deliberately hidden mathematical errors and (c) an enormous dose of insanity. You really suffer from some kind of severe mental defectiveness.

1. Its not "theoretical".  Its is comprised of standard definitions as I have
expressed them.
2. It contains no hypotheses at all.  Again, its not theoretical, its contains standard
definitions, and explanations only.
3. It contains no deliberate mathematical errors (if you see one point it
out and I will gladly correct it).
4. Your childish insults only take away from your credibility.

  floor


Offline Floor

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1887
Re: A SIMPLE ELECTRIC HEATER, WHICH HAS EFFICIENCY GREATER THAN 1
« Reply #477 on: January 24, 2021, 03:40:51 PM »
1) current through the electrolyte is given by I = (m)/(Z x t).
---------------------------------------
2) Secondly, Prof. S. L. Srivastava (Ph.D.) wrote, that power consumed = (I) x (I) x (R) =  ((m)/(Z x t)) x ((m)/(Z x t)) x (R) = 31.86 W.

Will you you start with a clear and simple explanation of these formulas, in plain english
so that we beginners can easily understand them.

          floor

Offline George1

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 792
Re: A SIMPLE ELECTRIC HEATER, WHICH HAS EFFICIENCY GREATER THAN 1
« Reply #478 on: January 25, 2021, 01:41:27 PM »
To Floor.
----------------------------------
I would not dare to call you an idiot (my good manners do not allow me to do this), but you are doing your best to earn this "honorary" title.
-----------------------------------
Prof. S. L. Srivastava's solution is given below.
Prof. S. L. Srivastava's solution consists of two lines only.
LINE 1. Current through the electrolyte is given by I = (m)/(Z x t).
LINE 2. Power consumed = (I) x (I) x (R) =  ((m)/(Z x t)) x ((m)/(Z x t)) x (R) = 31.86 W.
-----------------------------------
I am asking you (PERSONALLY!) my question for the 20th time: Is Prof. S. L. Srivastava's solution correct? Yes or no? Only one word -- either "yes" or "no"!
-----------------------------------
All members of this forum are waiting for your PERSONAL(!) answer for the 20th time. Only one word -- either "yes" or "no"!

Offline Floor

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1887
Re: A SIMPLE ELECTRIC HEATER, WHICH HAS EFFICIENCY GREATER THAN 1
« Reply #479 on: January 25, 2021, 03:17:17 PM »
The word Idiot offends you, while the words liar and cheat do not ?

That is the greatest kind of idiocy.

People usually respect when others have the courage to admit they were wrong.
Man up.

While it is true, that every one has at times lied and every one of us has cheated, and surely
will again in some manner, at some time in their future, this is not, and nothing can
justify taking a criminal path in life.

Were not talking about stealing a loaf of bread because you, or a someone's child
is in need of food here.

I can and I should accept that I, or anyone else is sometimes wrong, or even defending of
their error.  At least for a time.   But some things are not defensible.

So get off your B.S. stance and find something else to do with your time,
and if you are not an idiot then stop behaving as if you were.

 

OneLink