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: 897361
  • *Total Topics: 15812
  • *Online Today: 44
  • *Most Online: 103
(December 19, 2006, 11:27:19 PM)
  • *Users: 2
  • *Guests: 13
  • *Total: 15

Author Topic: A SIMPLE ELECTRIC HEATER, WHICH HAS EFFICIENCY GREATER THAN 1  (Read 157868 times)

Offline lltfdaniel1

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 679
Re: A SIMPLE ELECTRIC HEATER, WHICH HAS EFFICIENCY GREATER THAN 1
« Reply #495 on: February 09, 2021, 08:01:23 PM »
Well i can understand that the efficiency over 100% is a perpetual element for sure.


Anyhow for any free thinking person would question mainstream science regarding how energy manifests and recycles it self like in nature because nature for sure does not waste energy like a normal electric circuit does as in cop under 1 or efficiency under 100% and if the cop and efficiency are under 100% for both then the understanding of mainstream is legit due to the energy configuration.


Circuits under 100% efficiency and cop is destroying the potential of nature and thus nature is completely opposite and thus for nature and the wasted circuit which are opposite have opposite laws of energy like as if it was incompatible.


Nature does not have energy dissipation so that problem in nature does not exist.

“How else should it be done then?", was always the immediate question. The answer is simple: "Exactly in the opposite way that it is done today!”
― Viktor Schauberger

What that quote means is that nature is perpetual with perpetual laws of energy, and the circuit that has energy that wastes as in no free energy is possible is incompatible and thus opposite/fully incompatible to each other.

https://www.goodreads.com/author/quotes/171550.Viktor_Schauberger

In every case do the opposite to whatever technology does today. Then you will always be on the right track.
Viktor Schauberger

https://www.azquotes.com/author/37236-Viktor_Schauberger





Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy


Offline lancaIV

  • elite_member
  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 4790
Re: A SIMPLE ELECTRIC HEATER, WHICH HAS EFFICIENCY GREATER THAN 1
« Reply #496 on: February 10, 2021, 04:42:05 AM »
Considering this thread is 2 years old, someone may have mentioned this before, but vapor-compression cycle heat pumps have a COP avg. of 3-4. Typical AC heat pumps used in millions of homes literally produce more heat than joule heating.

I'm just saying, joule heating may be simple, but it's not the most efficient use of energy for producing heat. So it's not really a shocker to achieve efficiencies greater than 100%.
heat pump ' work C.O.P. ' is not efficiency !
during the thermodynamic= space temperature increase  or cryodynamic cycle= space temperature decrease

the device PUMPS heat from heat deposit A to heat deposit B,
so we have the pump outer work/pump(-motor) own consume = C.O.P. !
In the past we have had by electric heat pump devices propagated BTU in Wattheat/Welectric C.O.P. 3,in real world temperature difference use average  C.O.P. 2 (winter down to C.O.P. 1)
pump electromagnetic motors with 80% peak efficiencies(full load)

by each unit electric energy use invested 3 units primary energy ( electricity generation and network efficiency )
https://energyeducation.ca/encyclopedia/Primary_energy( there are also gasmotor-driven heat pumps in existence )
ergo from primary energy calculation total mechanical  work C.O.P. ≤ 1 ,to PUMP= to MOVE  ,not to generate,heat !


it does NOT GENERATE  ( excluded : only in the electric motor windings  ::) ) heat !

Even excluding the electric network losts and taking a wind wheel as heat pump drive we have to calculate with over 40% mechanical energy conversion losts = Betz-limit !

Next losts : circuit internal = turbulent/laminar flow

the flow medium/gas changes over the time its chemical strucure

the new device losts over the time peak efficieny through erosion = higher friction



We can compare the heat pump circuit with a solar collector circuit ,with/-out pump : thermo-syphon principle !
compressor heat pump versus absorption heat pump !
A good collector ,vacuum tube for example,converts/absorps  in average 50% from incoming energy to compressed  heat

From 100% free natural energy making 50% available,storeable !

(https://www.ee.co.za/wp-content/uploads/legacy/Vector%202012/siemens-111-fig-1.jpg)

photovoltaic device as "free energy converter"  versus "free energy conductor" : up to 50 times( or 5000%) ,point of view a. more b. less effective  !

5000% better but in total : underunity !     1% versus 50% efficiency

50 times better but in total : underunity !  1% versus 50% efficiency

Arithmetics and psychology :
A share with 100 base units worth looses 90% worth and wins 900% worth = process win/losts 0
100 -90% to 10 +900% to 100
A share with 100 base units worth wins 900% and looses 90% worth = process win/losts 0
100 +900%  to 1000 -90% to 100
                                                       

                                                        " -90% equates +900%"    " +900% equates -90%"

Set theory is a good tool to study nature and humans their i/logics and sur/real behaviour ,up to ..... = {   }

with or without " syntax error" ,geral syntax / individual his/her/its " syntax"


Pareto,Walras theory

Modern : fuzzy logics

Hyper-modern,learning,heat pumps are fuzzy logics incorporated !


a commercial 'conventional' heat pump example

https://www.homedepot.com/p/Ramsond-9-500-BTU-3-4-Ton-Ductless-Duct-Free-Mini-Split-Air-Conditioner-and-Heat-Pump-110V-60Hz-27GW2/203013142
heat pump 9500 BTU = 2785 W heat condution potential : given 1140 W electric consume

and by EE/PE factor 2,6 = 1140 x 2,6 = 2964 W primary energy input ,
http://insideenergy.org/2015/11/06/lost-in-transmission-how-much-electricity-disappears-between-a-power-plant-and-your-plug/

2785/2964 = C.O.P 0,94 by base primary energy input
2785/1140 = C.O.P. 2,44 by base electric energy input


The construction standarts today have as base "primary energy" so given number " Coverage Area (sq. ft.) : 400 "
2964 W/ 400 feets floor or 37,2 sqm = 80 W/sqm energy consume is far away ,and not allowed,

by modern economic construction normation ,low-e : 20 Wattpeak/sqm primary energy consume

and solar passive : 10 Wattpeak/sqm primary energy consume !

2964 Watt primary energy represents 148 sqm low-e and 296 sqm passive house floor area coverage !

https://isorast.de/ was in the 90´the trendsetter and " sponsor" from the https://passivehouse.com/  Dr.Feist Institute
Now,2021,Solar Passive House technology "open source/free" available !

Architecture design more than 2000 years old : gracian philosopher Sokrates his "solar house" concept !
http://www.naturalbuildingblog.com/sun-tempered-architecture-socrates-house/
old versus 2021 version comparison :
http://s5892.pcdn.co/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/socrates-house.jpg
https://i0.wp.com/www.bioenergyconsult.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/principles-passive-house.jpg?resize=768%2C439&ssl=1

New buildings constructor has cause "blower door tests" and "thermographical camera" not the chance to escape from these normations !



energy =
In thermodynamics, the exergy of a system is the maximum useful work possible during a process that brings the system into equilibrium with a heat reservoir, reaching maximum entropy.[1] When the surroundings are the reservoir, exergy is the potential of a system to cause a change as it achieves equilibrium with its environment.  Exergy is the energy that is available to be used. After the system and surroundings reach equilibrium, the exergy is zero.  Determining exergy was also the first goal of thermodynamics. The term "exergy" was coined in 1956 by Zoran Rant (1904–1972) by using the Greek ex and ergon meaning "from work"[1][3], but the concept was developed by J. Willard Gibbs in 1873.[4]
Energy is neither created nor destroyed during a process. Energy changes from one form to another (see First Law of Thermodynamics). In contrast, exergy is always destroyed when a process is irreversible, for example loss of heat to the environment (see Second Law of Thermodynamics). This destruction is proportional to the entropy increase of the system together with its surroundings (see Entropy production). The destroyed exergy has been called anergy.[2] For an isothermal process, exergy and energy are interchangeable terms, and there is no anergy.






Sincere
OCWL

p.s.: so a real power in/power out C.O.P. 10 amplification device/circuit/system in need  8) ;)
       
        it has been the solar passive/active house pro/contra decision in the 80´ which made construction so costly
   
        more about the solar active house ? Phillips-house prototype,Aachen,1974
         https://passipedia.org/basics/the_passive_house_-_historical_review/passive_versus_active_measures_in_europe_america
                                                                                 
                                                                                   70´standart :
  Accordingly, with respect to “Normal” houses, it was possible to reduce the heating requirement by a factor of 10 to 20 in all climates

Another,here french R&D:
According   to   researches,   Trombe   walls   are   an effective  technology  for  reducing  heating  energy,  as much  as  47%  in  residential  cases  (Balcomb,  1992) and,  therefore,  they  can  be  used  as  an  efficient  and durable solar heating method.
http://ibpsa.org/proceedings/BS2011/P_1487.pdf
« Last Edit: February 10, 2021, 01:28:52 PM by lancaIV »

Offline George1

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 886
Re: A SIMPLE ELECTRIC HEATER, WHICH HAS EFFICIENCY GREATER THAN 1
« Reply #497 on: February 10, 2021, 01:47:25 PM »
To lancaIV.
----------------------------------
Hi there,
Thank you for your post.
Our OU electrolysis concept is not related in any way to the devices, described in your last post, but anyway this post is very interesting. Please give me some time to consider it carefully.

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: A SIMPLE ELECTRIC HEATER, WHICH HAS EFFICIENCY GREATER THAN 1
« Reply #497 on: February 10, 2021, 01:47:25 PM »
Sponsored links:




Offline lancaIV

  • elite_member
  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 4790
Re: A SIMPLE ELECTRIC HEATER, WHICH HAS EFFICIENCY GREATER THAN 1
« Reply #498 on: February 10, 2021, 02:15:08 PM »
Lobby and -ism :

Positionpaper related a study from 2 swissian students :
https://www.bundesverband-infrarotheizung.de/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/111220_BemerkungStudieLuzern.pdf

Prof. Dr. habil. H. Matschiner

page 3

So ist beispielsweise bekannt, dass eine 1800 W Heizung mit Glühdrähten und Keramikgrund nicht annähernd die Leistung einer 300 W IR-CNT-Heizung erbringt.

For example, it is known that a 1800 W heater with filaments and a ceramic base does not even come close to the output of a 300 W IR-CNT heater.

Physical in kcal output or physiological(=comfort) statement ?!

f.e. closed box :                       output/input 1800 W heater measurement

f.e. closed box :                       output/input   300 W heater measurement

                                                                     6 times difference !
                                                              Primary energy per sqm/hour ?


Same problem :
"A SIMPLE ELECTRIC HEATER, WHICH HAS EFFICIENCY GREATER THAN 1"               teste method ?! ;)






 




Offline George1

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 886
Re: A SIMPLE ELECTRIC HEATER, WHICH HAS EFFICIENCY GREATER THAN 1
« Reply #499 on: February 10, 2021, 03:57:03 PM »
To lancaIV.
-----------------------------------------------
Well, as if I can't understand something. It is a basic axiom of electric enginnering that for a standard solid resistor the consumed electric energy transforms entirely into Joule's heat (DC circuit). You claim that this is not true?

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: A SIMPLE ELECTRIC HEATER, WHICH HAS EFFICIENCY GREATER THAN 1
« Reply #499 on: February 10, 2021, 03:57:03 PM »
Sponsored links:




Offline George1

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 886
Re: A SIMPLE ELECTRIC HEATER, WHICH HAS EFFICIENCY GREATER THAN 1
« Reply #500 on: February 10, 2021, 04:13:02 PM »
To lancaIV.
====================
You haven't read carefully my previous post.
Firstly, please read carefully and thoroughly my post of November 27, 2020, 10:17:39 AM. For your convenience it is given below. But please read it in original on page 25.
=====================
=====================
=====================
=====================
A hot discussion occurs in besslerwheel.com/forum. The title of the topic is just the same.
I am giving below again the text of our last post of October 18, 2020, 08:15:09 PM. The post's text is surrounded/limited up and down by double dashed lines.
====================
Let us assume that the energy consumed by the standard water-splitting electrolyzer is just equal to the sum of (a) the Joule's heat and (b) the heat, generated by the burning/exploding of the released hydrogen. Therefore we can write down the equality
V x I x t = (I x I x R x t) + (Z x I x t x (HHV)) (1)
where
V = DC source voltage
I = DC current
R = Ohmic resistance
t = time
Z = electrochemical equivalent of hydrogen
HHV = higher heating value of hydrogen
Therefore we can write down the inequalities
V x I x t > I x I x R x t (2) <=> V > I x R (3) <=> V/R > I (4).
-----------------------
The last inequality (4) unambiguously shows that Ohm's law is not valid for liquid resistors.
----------------------
The above considerations are not very precise however. In order to be precise enough we have to introduce the quantities v an i. In other words, we must write down the equality
(V - v) x (I - i) x t = ((I - i) x (I - i) x R x t)+(Z x (I - i) x t x (HHV)) (5)
where
V = DC source voltage
I = DC current
R = Ohmic resistance
t = time
Z = electrochemical equivalent of hydrogen
HHV = higher heating value of hydrogen
v = minimum voltage necessary for the water-splitting electrolysis to begin
i = the related small decreasing of current I, caused by the presence of v.
And from here we can write down the inequalities
(V - v) x (I - i) x t > (I - i) x (I - i) x R x t (6) <=>
<=> V - v > (I -i) x R (7) <=> (V - v)/R > I - i (8).
-----------------------------------------
The last inequality (8) shows again that Ohm's law is not valid for liquid resistors.
------------------------------------------
It is evident that if V is much bigger than v (and I much bigger than i, respectively), then v and i can be neglected and in this case inequality (8) can be replaced with inequality (4).
In one word, if equalities (1) and (5) are valid, then inequalities (4) and (8) are valid too. But this means that Ohm's law is not valid for liquid resistors.
----------------------------------------
Ohm's law is the most basic and most fundamental axiom of electric engineering. No Ohm's law -- no electric engineering.
==============================
Looking forward to your answer.
=========================
P.S. Number eight in brackets is replaced by some stupid head with black spectacles. Some error of the system.

Offline George1

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 886
Re: A SIMPLE ELECTRIC HEATER, WHICH HAS EFFICIENCY GREATER THAN 1
« Reply #501 on: February 10, 2021, 04:29:08 PM »
To lancaIV. And here is also our post of November 24, 2020, 02:07:08 PM, p. 25. It is given below.
=================================
=================================
=================================
=================================
Let us focus again on pure theory.
---------------------------------------
Please have a look again at our post of October 31, 2020, 10:07:39 AM. For your convenience I am giving below the text of this post. (The text is surrounded/limited up and down by double dashed lines.)
===============================
Here is a continuation/variation of our previous post of October 18, 2020, 05:28:00. (Please look at besslerwheel.com/forum. Almost the same text in the related topic of the same title.)
------------------------------------------------------
1) Let us assume again that the energy consumed by the standard water-splitting electrolyzer is just equal to the sum of (a) the Joule's heat and (b) the heat, generated by the burning/exploding of the released hydrogen. Therefore we can write down the equality
V x I x t = (I x I x R x t) + (Z x I x t x (HHV)) (1)
where
V = DC source voltage
I = DC current
R = Ohmic resistance
t = time
Z = electrochemical equivalent of hydrogen
HHV = higher heating value of hydrogen
------------------------------------------------------
2) Let us decrease n times voltage V, that is,
V x I x t = (I x I x R x t) + (Z x I x t x (HHV)) (1) <=>
<=> (V/n) x (I/n) x t < ((I/n) x (I/n) x R x t) + (Z x (I/n) x t x (HHV)) (2)
where
n > 1
R = const.; for how to keep R constant please refer for example to our post of July 04, 2020, 01:38:09.
-------------------------------------------------------
3) Now let us increase n times voltage V, that is,
V x I x t = (I x I x R x t) + (Z x I x t x (HHV)) (1) <=>
<=> (nV) x (nI) x t > ((nI) x (nI) x R x t) + (Z x (nI) x t x (HHV)) (3)
where
n > 1
R = const.; for how to keep R constant please refer for example to our post of July 04, 2020, 01:38:09.
--------------------------------------------------------
4) In one word, it is evident that:
a) equality (1) shows that efficiency is equal to 1;
b) inequality (2) shows that efficiency is bigger than 1;
c) inequality (3) shows that efficiency is smaller than 1.
---------------------------------------------------------
5) Therefore by regulating the value of V we can regulate and control the value of efficiency. In other words, efficiency can be either (a) bigger than 1 or (b) equal to 1 or (c) smaller than 1. And this depends on the value of V.
---------------------------------------------------------
6) let us remind again that in order to be more precise we have to use V - v instead of V and I - i instead of I, respectively. (For v and i please refer to our previous post of October 18, 2020, 05:28:00.) But if V (and V/n too!) is much bigger than v (and I (and I/n too!) much bigger than i, respectively), then v and i can be neglected and therefore (1), (2) and (3) are perfectly correct.
----------------------------------------------------------
7) In one word, we proved theoretically again that the law of conservation of energy is not always valid for any standard DC water-splitting electrolysis process.
---------------------------------------------------------
Do you have any theoretical (ONLY THEORETICAL!) objections against the text above? Is there any formula/logical construction in the text above which is incorrect and if yes, then why? Please focus solely and only on the analysis (line by line) of the text above.
================================
Looking forward to your answer.
George1
Looking forward to your answer.
George1

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: A SIMPLE ELECTRIC HEATER, WHICH HAS EFFICIENCY GREATER THAN 1
« Reply #501 on: February 10, 2021, 04:29:08 PM »
Sponsored links:




Offline lancaIV

  • elite_member
  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 4790
Re: A SIMPLE ELECTRIC HEATER, WHICH HAS EFFICIENCY GREATER THAN 1
« Reply #502 on: February 11, 2021, 01:13:53 PM »
To lancaIV.
-----------------------------------------------
Well, as if I can't understand something. It is a basic axiom of electric enginnering that for a standard solid resistor the consumed electric energy transforms entirely into Joule's heat (DC circuit). You claim that this is not true?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joule_heating
Joule heating, also known as resistive, resistance, or Ohmic heating, is the process by which the passage of an electric current through a conductor produces heat.
Joule's first law, also known as the Joule–Lenz law,[1] states that the power of heating generated by an electrical conductor is proportional to the product of its resistance and the square of the current:
     P ∝  I  2   R   {\displaystyle P\propto I^{2}R}  (https://wikimedia.org/api/rest_v1/media/math/render/svg/eebd9f8c2cf3ac1419096c3555c6dcc560db3d63) Joule heating affects the whole electric conductor, unlike the Peltier effect which transfers heat from one electrical junction to another.

But : after theory change !
In 1841 and 1842, subsequent experiments showed that the amount of heat generated was proportional to the chemical energy used in the voltaic pile that generated the template This led Joule to reject the caloric theory (at that time the dominant theory) in favor of the mechanical theory of heat (according to which heat is another form of energy).[2]
Resistive heating was independently studied by Heinrich Lenz in 1842.[1]


Speaking/writing about "Axiom" :
                                                  would this mean "universal" ,
the industry ,worldwide, would has have concentrated their production over the centuries to one,

                         THE PERFECT ELECTRIC TO HEAT CONVERTER,shortly:heater device


what did not happen ! ::)


A. functional application,heater output

B. temperature from heater surface
C. applied wire material ,dis-/advantages
D. far/near infrared radiation

..........
                                         Some unconformal "very efficient heater" news during the last decade :




Measurement error (analog instruments versus electric sensoric instruments), ? ,



                                                                                        or wire configuration/material(mix)related , ? , :



                       10%,50%,100%,500% more efficiency claimed ? Measurement error preservation : 10%,25%,50 % ?


I.

http://www.rexresearch.com/suekran/suekran.htm
A Denizli based company FUNIKA Teknoloji A.S. has invented a hybrid heating material called HIM to generate high heating energy using with low electricity. This new material is a chemical compound of many organic and inorganic materials so that it substitutes resistance wires used to convert electricity to heating energy to heat air, water or oil. It can be used in many areas such as; - heating homes and offices, - heating air, water or oil, - in electrical appliances using resistance wires, bars or plates, - to generate steam etc...



The official report has been given by Energy Dept. of Mugla University on 20th Feb. 2008 stating that coefficient of performance (COP) of HIM is 2.25 times more than standard resistance wires.
 ::) C.O.P. for a wire ? ;)





II. conventional (physics formulas) electric consume by given heat output volume ?



Ambiental,outer, temperature ,before/during heating process not given ! :-\


https://www.wireservice.ca/index.php?module=News&func=display&sid=8843
Al Bernstein, Inventor:



»The sensational input from the public grid or from a small PV-system for 150 m2 heated areas, (calculated with 40-60 watts per square meter complying to new standards) like for a new single-family home or a suite, is ± 700 Watt/h (0,7kW/h, or ± 2389 BTU/h), which is below that of a kettle or a hair dryer - the output of the radiators / underfloor-heating system is ± 8 - 10 kW or ± 34130 BTU heating energy.
 No additional auxiliary energy, heat pumps, oil, gas, pellet, fuel type burner and no approval from the energy provider is required (small consumers).



The constant system temperature of the radiators with max. 80 ° C correspond to the norm 90/70/20, while the constant floor heating system temperature (temperature of the heat carrier cells) is max. 50 ° C.«
   

                                                          34130 BTU equates x 0,293 = 10 000 W



III.

https://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/biblio?DB=EPODOC&II=4&ND=3&adjacent=true&locale=en_EP&FT=D&date=20030424&CC=US&NR=2003077078A1&KC=A1
[0015]    The present invention achieves low thermal conductivity, has a substantially uniform structure and allows for rapid heating efficiency. Energy savings of up to about 75% are realized over conventional heater elements and radiating infrared methods. 


IV.
company Unites ,Ucraine,  silicium-carbide wire






                                               " You claim that this is not true? "

                                                                       I do remark,I do not claim anything !


                                                         Related room-heating systems I remarked also  :

Dr.Helmut Reichelt "thermotexx"             2 W/sqm area electric consume     bio-resonant heating
https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=de&tl=en&u=https://www.slimlife.eu/reichelt_heizung.html





Gerhard Beier                                         4 W/sqm  area electric consume     bio-resonant heating
https://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/biblio?DB=EPODOC&II=21&ND=3&adjacent=true&locale=en_EP&FT=D&date=20080925&CC=DE&NR=202008007815U1&KC=U1#
For example, a room with a floor area of 20 m2 with approx. 80 Watts at a voltage of 35 volts to a body-friendly warmth of 18-20 ° C permanently.





Peter Filip                                              6 W/sqm  area  electric consume    Graphit IR-heat panel

https://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/description?CC=DE&NR=202008006432U1&KC=U1&FT=D&ND=3&date=20080724&DB=EPODOC&locale=en_EP#

The inventive applications mentioned above have improved the radiating element by five times from the original position. The surface without these applications required 1000 watts of energy in the first laboratory tests and thanks to the inventive aspects, the energy requirement could be reduced to 270 watts in order to achieve the same effectiveness.
 - The applied electronic control of the core temperature of the heat conducting layer leads to further energy savings which increase up to 40%. The continuous measurements of the power consumption of the 270 watt element have shown a constant energy consumption of 150–180 watt / h.


Disputing about laws or applied "AXIOM"s also related :
 https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=de&tl=en&u=https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boltzmann-Statistik

Happy reading wishing
OCWL


p.s.: " Let us focus again on pure theory."

 Then work with Physics literature and search for all the applied theory related laws and to each law given conditioning

 But included chemistry literature !         

Offline George1

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 886
Re: A SIMPLE ELECTRIC HEATER, WHICH HAS EFFICIENCY GREATER THAN 1
« Reply #503 on: February 11, 2021, 02:21:30 PM »
To lancaIV.
--------------------------------------- 
1) Interesting post, very interesting! Thank you for it. BUT:
1A) Most of these concepts (not to say all of them) are quite expensive, if applied practically.
1B) Many of these concepts are actually working hypotheses, whose validity is not completely proved. There are still too many unknown things, contradictions, ambiguous and uncertain theoretical and/or experimental results, etc.
2) While our standard DC water-splitting electrolysis OU concept is simple for understanding and simple and cheap for practical realization.   

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: A SIMPLE ELECTRIC HEATER, WHICH HAS EFFICIENCY GREATER THAN 1
« Reply #503 on: February 11, 2021, 02:21:30 PM »
3D Solar Panels

Offline lancaIV

  • elite_member
  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 4790
Re: A SIMPLE ELECTRIC HEATER, WHICH HAS EFFICIENCY GREATER THAN 1
« Reply #504 on: February 11, 2021, 02:43:06 PM »
https://www.intechopen.com/books/electrolysis/water-electrolysis-with-inductive-voltage-pulses

 2.4 Water splitting with the pulse electrolysis
Many new patents on pulse electrolysis appeared in 1970-1990 (Horvath, 1976; Spirig, 1978; Themu, 1980; Puharich, 1983; Meyer, 1986; Meyer, 1989; Meyer, 1992a, 1992b; Santilli, 2001; Chambers, 2002) stating to be invented over-effective electrolysis (i.e. the current efficiency is higher than 100%).
The water splitting scheme described in these patents initiated a huge interest, but nobody has succeeded in interpreting these schemes and their performance mechanisms up to now, and what is more important, nobody has succeeded to repeated patented devices experimentally as well.

Probably by the above inventors patent applications  in their  citing documents or cited documents similar solutions to find !

Good luck
OCWL

Offline George1

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 886
Re: A SIMPLE ELECTRIC HEATER, WHICH HAS EFFICIENCY GREATER THAN 1
« Reply #505 on: February 11, 2021, 02:58:36 PM »
To lancaIV.
-----------------------
Thanks a lot for your reply. It's a real pleasure to correspond with you! :)
Seems to be a bunch of sophisticated devices and concepts. Need some time to consider everything carefully.
Keep in touch.
 

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: A SIMPLE ELECTRIC HEATER, WHICH HAS EFFICIENCY GREATER THAN 1
« Reply #505 on: February 11, 2021, 02:58:36 PM »
3D Solar Panels

Offline lancaIV

  • elite_member
  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 4790
Re: A SIMPLE ELECTRIC HEATER, WHICH HAS EFFICIENCY GREATER THAN 1
« Reply #506 on: February 11, 2021, 05:55:56 PM »
To lancaIV.
--------------------------------------- 
1) Interesting post, very interesting! Thank you for it. BUT:
1A) Most of these concepts (not to say all of them) are quite expensive, if applied practically.
What is "in geral","for You"  quite expensive ?

In comparison : old building insulation costs !?
The possibility to reach "low-e standart" and home mobility/autonomy ?
 
1B) Many of these concepts are actually working hypotheses, whose validity is not completely proved. There are still too many unknown things, contradictions, ambiguous and uncertain theoretical and/or experimental results, etc.
The Filip IR-heater is/was commercial available ! 375 Euros/14 sqm area one panel
About the others I can not say much,only that after the "thermotex"-fail there was an other trial then called "Moletherm" https://www.m-therm.com/


2) While our standard DC water-splitting electrolysis OU concept is simple for understanding and simple and cheap for practical realization.



When we think about hydrolysis or hydrogen generation



https://judbarovski.livejournal.com/117497.html

(7) It is sodium cycle (see http://judbarovski.livejournal.com/114930.html ):
(a) 2 * (Na + H2O = NaOH + ½ H2)
(b) 2 NaOH + CO2 = Na2CO3 +H2O
(c) Na2CO3 + 2 C = (1100 C, 1 atm.) = 2 Na +3 CO – 801 kJ, when all sulfuric dirties being here in solid state can be simple avoided from liquid Na and gaseous CO
(d) 3 CO + 1.5 O2 = 3 CO2 + 841 kJ. 841 * 0.62 – 801 = - 280 kJ = 4.6 kg C/kgH2 and produces 841 * 0.4 /3.6/2 = 46.7 kWh electricity with net profit by its sale = 46.7 * (6 cents – ~2.8 (O&M)) =USD 1.5/kg H2
And totally:
H2O + 2 C + 1.5 O2 = H2 + 2 CO2, in sum consumes 12 + 4.6 = 16.6 kg C = USD 1.33 for coal + ~ 20% - 1.5 sold is electricity net profit.
It is USD 0.095/kg H2 being practically free, with 44 kg CO2 exhaust can be profitably utilized as in industry (e.g. for axalic acid production) as in agriculture for plants feeding.

                                            USD 0.095/kg H2 : that we can call cheap,is it not ?
                                          ( on-site green-houses,44 Kg CO2 good for plants their growth )

Offline George1

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 886
Re: A SIMPLE ELECTRIC HEATER, WHICH HAS EFFICIENCY GREATER THAN 1
« Reply #507 on: February 12, 2021, 02:37:20 PM »
To lancaIV.
-------------------------------
Hi there,
1) But I am not arguing with you, dear colleague! :) Everything you have written is correct. Need only some a little bigger periods of time to consider carefully and understand thoroughly the essence of your massive clusters of technology information. (The latter is good, but it takes time to "swallow".) :)
2) I would like to ask a question related to mechanics. Please have a look at the mechanic section, if possible.
   

Offline George1

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 886
Re: A SIMPLE ELECTRIC HEATER, WHICH HAS EFFICIENCY GREATER THAN 1
« Reply #508 on: February 13, 2021, 01:37:04 PM »
The same topic and the same title -- please follow our hot discussion in besslerwheel.com/forum. An army of idiots against a single expert warrior. :)

Offline George1

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 886
Re: A SIMPLE ELECTRIC HEATER, WHICH HAS EFFICIENCY GREATER THAN 1
« Reply #509 on: February 15, 2021, 03:53:13 PM »
Any comments, questions, recommendations, which are related to our standard DC water-splitting electrolysis OU concept?

 

OneLink