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: 896260
  • *Total Topics: 15781
  • *Online Today: 44
  • *Most Online: 103
(December 19, 2006, 11:27:19 PM)
  • *Users: 1
  • *Guests: 13
  • *Total: 14

Author Topic: A SIMPLE ELECTRIC HEATER, WHICH HAS EFFICIENCY GREATER THAN 1  (Read 147057 times)

Online ramset

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7455
Re: A SIMPLE ELECTRIC HEATER, WHICH HAS EFFICIENCY GREATER THAN 1
« Reply #675 on: July 09, 2021, 04:34:01 PM »
Here an understanding of why I am here ( and many others)
A mission statement from your/our host ( Stefan Hartmann


When you are ready to talk ?


Let me know ,( but not about business , or investors or ?? this is wrong forum for that !)
Yes there are Angel Donors who would contribute to a scientifically vetted , world changing technology
Which would fit open source mission statement posted here!



Respectfully
Chet K

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy


Offline George1

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 795
Re: A SIMPLE ELECTRIC HEATER, WHICH HAS EFFICIENCY GREATER THAN 1
« Reply #676 on: July 14, 2021, 03:28:14 PM »
To ramset.
==================
Hi ramset,
1) Well, there is some misunderstanding here. May be I have not explained the things in a proper manner.
2) The new heater concept technology information, described here in overunity.com, is released ABSOLUTELY FREE!
3) We (our team) would not like to make money from this freely released technology information!
4) We (our team) would like to win only public recognition of our new heater technology concept! And that's all!
5) Can you help us to realize practically the previous item 4?
Looking forward to your answer.
Regards,

Online ramset

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7455
Re: A SIMPLE ELECTRIC HEATER, WHICH HAS EFFICIENCY GREATER THAN 1
« Reply #677 on: July 14, 2021, 05:34:53 PM »
You have my email above


As mentioned prior
Only independent replication of claim once demonstrated at lab will accomplish your goal,


Global Open source community has incredible resources to accomplish this ,
Please call me to arrange a test demonstration at your lab.( perhaps even zoom or similar will suffice )


your scientist/team can take a call from one of our open source scientists?


After vetting claim at your lab , replications can begin with full pdf for open source
Release


Respectfully
Chet K








Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: A SIMPLE ELECTRIC HEATER, WHICH HAS EFFICIENCY GREATER THAN 1
« Reply #677 on: July 14, 2021, 05:34:53 PM »
Sponsored links:




Offline George1

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 795
Re: A SIMPLE ELECTRIC HEATER, WHICH HAS EFFICIENCY GREATER THAN 1
« Reply #678 on: July 15, 2021, 03:17:23 PM »
To ramset.
=====================
1) Global Open source community? What is this? Some kind of organization? Would you be so polite to provide some more information about this Global Open source community? Is this the community of this forum?
2) You wrote: "Your scientist/team can take a call from one of our open source scientists." Who are these open source scientists of yours and what are their names? And what are their phone numbers and/or emails? Or may be your open source scientists have some specialized websites? 
--------------------------------------
Looking forward to your answer.
Regards,

Online ramset

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7455
Re: A SIMPLE ELECTRIC HEATER, WHICH HAS EFFICIENCY GREATER THAN 1
« Reply #679 on: July 15, 2021, 05:37:42 PM »

As example


http://ikkem.com/iccf-23.php

LENR community is open source community
As mentioned already if you are interested In advancing
Your claim


We will need to talk about an actual demonstration of your claim
Showing your gain!


I can connect you with qualified persons to vet your claim and prove it’s veracity
This has been mentioned several times already ?


For clarity persons would be associated with Global Open source LENR community !
As well as others dedicated to advancing science!


As mentioned
We would need to talk about setting this up at your lab!
Or wherever you can show your work and testing protocols.


Respectfully
Chet K






















Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: A SIMPLE ELECTRIC HEATER, WHICH HAS EFFICIENCY GREATER THAN 1
« Reply #679 on: July 15, 2021, 05:37:42 PM »
Sponsored links:




Offline George1

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 795
Re: A SIMPLE ELECTRIC HEATER, WHICH HAS EFFICIENCY GREATER THAN 1
« Reply #680 on: July 16, 2021, 01:06:36 PM »
To ramset.
===================
Hi ramset/Chet K,
Thanks a lot for your reply.
Please give me some time to consider carefully and thoroughly your last post. I will write to you in the nearest future.
Sincerely yours,
George 1

Offline George1

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 795
Re: A SIMPLE ELECTRIC HEATER, WHICH HAS EFFICIENCY GREATER THAN 1
« Reply #681 on: July 19, 2021, 09:48:01 AM »
To ramset (1).
===================
Hi ramset,
1) Firstly, we would not like to reveal for the present the locations of our laboratories and/or the names of our team's members.
2) Secondly, let me explain again. Our concept has nothing to do with nuclear reactions. It is not necessary to engage experts in nuclear reactions. It is necessary to engage experts in electric engineering, electrochemistry and thermodynamics. (Engaging of experts in general physics would be acceptable  and suitable too.)
3) Please send to me, if possible, the names (or pseudonims) and email addresses of at least 3 (three) experts of yours in order to contact them directly.
4) Fourthly, please look at our next post.

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: A SIMPLE ELECTRIC HEATER, WHICH HAS EFFICIENCY GREATER THAN 1
« Reply #681 on: July 19, 2021, 09:48:01 AM »
Sponsored links:




Offline George1

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 795
Re: A SIMPLE ELECTRIC HEATER, WHICH HAS EFFICIENCY GREATER THAN 1
« Reply #682 on: July 19, 2021, 09:55:08 AM »
To ramset (2).
===================
Hi again ramset,
If you do not want to reveal the names/pseudonims of your experts and their email addresses, then simply copy the text below and show it to your experts. IF YOUR EXPERTS ARE REALLY EXPERTS, then they would immediately evaluate the essence of our concept and would immediately carry out the related experiments within a period of (no more than) 5 minutes.
----------------------------------
And here is the text for your experts.
===================
BEGINNING OF THE TEXT FOR YOUR EXPERTS.
===================
===================
PLEASE NOTE -- THE TEXT BELOW DESCRIBES SOLELY AND ONLY REAL EXPERIMENTS!
======================
Here is a detailed description of our first group of experiments.
======================
======================
EXPERIMENT 1.
1) A standard copper wire (a standard SOLID conductor) is connected to a standard DC source thus forming a circuit.
2) The circuit is equipped with a standard ammeter and with a standard ohmmeter. Besides we have at our disposal a standard chronometer.
3) The ammeter registers a current of 7.98 A.
4) The ohmmeter registers an Ohmic resistance of 0.5 Ohm.
5) The chronometer registers a time interval of 1 second. (A current of 7.98 A flows through a copper wire of Ohmic resistance of 0.5 Ohm within a period of 1 second.)
6) Using (a) the above three experimental results (7.98 A, 0.5 Ohm and 1 second) and (b) the first Joule's law of heating we can easily calculate that:
a) the electric energy, consumed by the copper wire, is just equal to 31.84 J;
b) the so called Joule's heat, generated by the copper wire, is just equal to 31.84 J too.
7) Please note that in order to get the amount of generated Joule's heat of 31.84 J we need solely and only (a) three experimental results (7.98 A, 0.5 Ohm and 1 second) and (b) three measuring devices (an ammeter, an ohmmeter and a chronometer). No electric engineer in the world would measure the generated heat of 31.84 J by using of calorimetry methods. Every electric engineer in the world would take for granted this generated heat of 31.84 J. Because otherwise he/she would accept the fact that the first Joule's law of heating (experimentally proved millions of times within a period of 200 years for any standard solid, liquid or gaseous conductor) is not valid.
=======================
=======================
EXPERIMENT 2.
1) A standard sulphuric acid solution (a standard LIQUID conductor/a standard electrolyte) is connected to a standard DC source thus forming a circuit.
2) The circuit is equipped with a standard ammeter and with a standard ohmmeter. Besides we have at our disposal a standard chronometer.
3) The ammeter registers a current of 7.98 A.
4) The ohmmeter registers an Ohmic resistance of 0.5 Ohm.
5) The chronometer registers a time interval of 1 second. (A current of 7.98 A flows through an electrolyte of Ohmic resistance of 0.5 Ohm within a period of 1 second.)
6) Using (a) the above three experimental results (7.98 A, 0.5 Ohm and 1 second) and (b) the first Joule's law of heating we can easily calculate that:
a) the electric energy, consumed by the electrolyte, is just equal to 31.84 J;
b) the so called Joule's heat, generated by the electrolyte, is just equal to 31.84 J too.
7) Please note that in order to get the amount of generated Joule's heat of 31.84 J we need solely and only (a) three experimental results (7.98 A, 0.5 Ohm and 1 second) and (b) three measuring devices (an ammeter, an ohmmeter and a chronometer). No electric engineer in the world would measure the generated heat of 31.84 J by using of calorimetry methods. Every electric engineer in the world would take for granted this generated heat of 31.84 J. Because otherwise he/she would accept the fact that the first Joule's law of heating (experimentally proved millions of times within a period of 200 years for any standard solid, liquid or gaseous conductor) is not valid.
-------------------------------------------
(Note. It is evident that the last items 1 - 7 of this Experiment 2 are absolutely identical to items 1 - 7 of previous Experiment 1. The latter is a clear manifestation of the first Joule' law of heating, which has been experimentally proved millions of times within a period of 200 years for any standard solid, liquid or gaseous conductor.)
-------------------------------------------
8/ While a current of 7.98 A flows through the electrolyte within a period of 1 second however a certain amount of hydrogen has been generated. The mass of the generated hydrogen is just equal to 0.0000000833112 kg as follows from the first Faraday's law of electrolysis.
9) Please note that in order to get the mass of the released hydrogen we need solely and only (a) two experimental results (7.98 A and 1 second) and (b) two related measuring devices (an ammeter and a chronometer). No expert in electrochemistry in the world would measure the mass of the generated hydrogen by using of balance, scales or any other weighing machine. Every expert in electrochemistry in the world would take for granted this mass of 0.0000000833112 kg. Because otherwise he/she would accept the fact that the first Faraday's law of electrolysis (experimentally proved millions of times within a period of 200 years) is not valid.
10) If we burn/explode the released hydrogen, then a certain amount of heat would be generated. And this heat would be just equal to 11.83 J . In other words, we can write down the equality
H = (HHV) x (m) = 11.83 J,
where
H = heat generated by burning/exploding of the released hydrogen
HHV = higher heating value of hydrogen = 142 MJ/kg
m = mass of the released hydrogen = 0.0000000833112 kg
11) Please note that no expert in thermodynamics in the world would measure the generated heat of 11.83 J by using of calorimetry methods. Every expert in thermodynamics in the world would take for granted this generated heat of 11.83 J. Because otherwise he/she would accept the fact that the value of the hydrogen's HHV (experimentally proved millions of times within a period of 200 years) is not valid.
12) In one word, on one hand we have a consumed electric energy of 31.84 J and this is the inlet energy. On the other hand we have (a) Joule's heat of 31.84 J and (b) heat H of 11.83 J, which is generated by burning/exploding of the released hydrogen. The sum of the two last pieces of energy is just equal to the outlet energy.
13) Therefore we can write down the inequalities
(31.84 J) + (11.83 J) > 31.84 J <=> 43.67 J > 31.84 J <=> outlet energy > inlet energy.
14) For the efficiency/COP of the above described process we can write down the equality
efficiency = COP = (43.67 J)/(31.84 J) = 1.37
15) And it is evident that COP = 1.37 <=> COP > 1.
==============================
==============================
SUMMARY.
1) The above experimental results for inlet and outlet energies are based on:
a) the readings of three standard measuring devices (an ammeter, an ohmmeter and a chronometer);
b) the validity of the first Joule's law of heating (experimentally proved millions of times within a period of 200 years for any standard solid, liquid or gaseous conductor);
c) the validity of the first Faraday's law of electrolysis (experimentally proved millions of times within a period of 200 years for any standard electrolyte);
d) the validity of the value of the hydrogen's HHV (experimentally proved millions of times within a period of 200 years).
2) In one word, having in mind the text above we can conclude that any of the millions (either industrial or laboratory) standard electrolyzers all over the world is actually a heater, which has COP/efficiency greater than 1.
-----------------------------------------------------
(Note. Any standard (either industrial or laboratory) electrolyzer could be designed as a built-with-fin-tubes (i.e. with extended-surfaces) heat exchanger. In this way there would be more emphasis on cramming more heat-transfer surfaces into less and less volume. This approach could be suitable for a better utilization of the released Joule's heat. Besides the same built-with-fin-tubes (i.e. with extended-surfaces) heat exchanger design could be used for the box/container, in which the burning of the released hydrogen would take place. In this way as if there would be a better utilization of the heat, generated by the burning of the released hydrogen.)
------------------------------------------------------
3) If the first Joule's law of heating and/or the first Faraday's law of electrolysis and/or the value of the hydrogen's HHV proved to be experimentally invalid, then this fact would lead to the creation of entirely new and revolutionary branch of science and technology. The latter would be a wonderful alternative too.
===============================
===============================
That's all about our first group of experiments.
===============================
===============================
And here is a short description of our second group of experiments.
1) Actually our second group of experiments is absolutely identical to our first group of experiments (the latter being described in our previous post) with the only difference that Ohmic resistance is decreased 10 times and as a result the ohmmeter registers an Ohmic resistance of 0.05 Ohm. In this case:
a) the consumed electric energy is equal to 3.184 J;
b) the generated Joule's heat is equal to 3.184 J too;
c) the heat, generated by the burning/exploding of the released hydrogen, is equal to 11.83 J (which is just the same as in our first group of experiments),
2) So for efficiency/COP we can write down the equalities
COP = ((3.184 J) + (11.83 J))/(3.184 J) <=> COP = (15.014 J)/(3.184 J) <=> COP = 4.72
3) It is evident that
COP = 4.72 <=> COP > 1.
4) In one word, (keeping constant current I and time period t) the smaller the Ohmic resistance R, the bigger the efficiency/COP.
===============================
===============================
There is a third group of experiments of ours, which has even a greater scientific, technology and commercial value than the above described two groups of experiments of ours. But for the present we would not like to reveal the secret of our third group of experiments.
===============================
===============================
PLEASE NOTE -- THE TEXT ABOVE DESCRIBES SOLELY AND ONLY REAL EXPERIMENTS!
===============================
===============================
END OF THE TEXT FOR YOUR EXPERTS.
===============================
Looking forward to your answer.

Offline George1

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 795
Re: A SIMPLE ELECTRIC HEATER, WHICH HAS EFFICIENCY GREATER THAN 1
« Reply #683 on: July 21, 2021, 01:35:10 PM »
PLEASE NOTE -- THE TEXT BELOW DESCRIBES SOLELY AND ONLY REAL EXPERIMENTS!
======================
Here is a detailed description of our first group of experiments.
======================
======================
EXPERIMENT 1.
1) A standard copper wire (a standard SOLID conductor) is connected to a standard DC source thus forming a circuit.
2) The circuit is equipped with a standard ammeter and with a standard ohmmeter. Besides we have at our disposal a standard chronometer.
3) The ammeter registers a current of 7.98 A.
4) The ohmmeter registers an Ohmic resistance of 0.5 Ohm.
5) The chronometer registers a time interval of 1 second. (A current of 7.98 A flows through a copper wire of Ohmic resistance of 0.5 Ohm within a period of 1 second.)
6) Using (a) the above three experimental results (7.98 A, 0.5 Ohm and 1 second) and (b) the first Joule's law of heating we can easily calculate that:
a) the electric energy, consumed by the copper wire, is just equal to 31.84 J;
b) the so called Joule's heat, generated by the copper wire, is just equal to 31.84 J too.
7) Please note that in order to get the amount of generated Joule's heat of 31.84 J we need solely and only (a) three experimental results (7.98 A, 0.5 Ohm and 1 second) and (b) three measuring devices (an ammeter, an ohmmeter and a chronometer). No electric engineer in the world would measure the generated heat of 31.84 J by using of calorimetry methods. Every electric engineer in the world would take for granted this generated heat of 31.84 J. Because otherwise he/she would accept the fact that the first Joule's law of heating (experimentally proved millions of times within a period of 200 years for any standard solid, liquid or gaseous conductor) is not valid.
=======================
=======================
EXPERIMENT 2.
1) A standard sulphuric acid solution (a standard LIQUID conductor/a standard electrolyte) is connected to a standard DC source thus forming a circuit.
2) The circuit is equipped with a standard ammeter and with a standard ohmmeter. Besides we have at our disposal a standard chronometer.
3) The ammeter registers a current of 7.98 A.
4) The ohmmeter registers an Ohmic resistance of 0.5 Ohm.
5) The chronometer registers a time interval of 1 second. (A current of 7.98 A flows through an electrolyte of Ohmic resistance of 0.5 Ohm within a period of 1 second.)
6) Using (a) the above three experimental results (7.98 A, 0.5 Ohm and 1 second) and (b) the first Joule's law of heating we can easily calculate that:
a) the electric energy, consumed by the electrolyte, is just equal to 31.84 J;
b) the so called Joule's heat, generated by the electrolyte, is just equal to 31.84 J too.
7) Please note that in order to get the amount of generated Joule's heat of 31.84 J we need solely and only (a) three experimental results (7.98 A, 0.5 Ohm and 1 second) and (b) three measuring devices (an ammeter, an ohmmeter and a chronometer). No electric engineer in the world would measure the generated heat of 31.84 J by using of calorimetry methods. Every electric engineer in the world would take for granted this generated heat of 31.84 J. Because otherwise he/she would accept the fact that the first Joule's law of heating (experimentally proved millions of times within a period of 200 years for any standard solid, liquid or gaseous conductor) is not valid.
-------------------------------------------
(Note. It is evident that the last items 1 - 7 of this Experiment 2 are absolutely identical to items 1 - 7 of previous Experiment 1. The latter is a clear manifestation of the first Joule' law of heating, which has been experimentally proved millions of times within a period of 200 years for any standard solid, liquid or gaseous conductor.)
-------------------------------------------
8/ While a current of 7.98 A flows through the electrolyte within a period of 1 second however a certain amount of hydrogen has been generated. The mass of the generated hydrogen is just equal to 0.0000000833112 kg as follows from the first Faraday's law of electrolysis.
9) Please note that in order to get the mass of the released hydrogen we need solely and only (a) two experimental results (7.98 A and 1 second) and (b) two related measuring devices (an ammeter and a chronometer). No expert in electrochemistry in the world would measure the mass of the generated hydrogen by using of balance, scales or any other weighing machine. Every expert in electrochemistry in the world would take for granted this mass of 0.0000000833112 kg. Because otherwise he/she would accept the fact that the first Faraday's law of electrolysis (experimentally proved millions of times within a period of 200 years) is not valid.
10) If we burn/explode the released hydrogen, then a certain amount of heat would be generated. And this heat would be just equal to 11.83 J . In other words, we can write down the equality
H = (HHV) x (m) = 11.83 J,
where
H = heat generated by burning/exploding of the released hydrogen
HHV = higher heating value of hydrogen = 142 MJ/kg
m = mass of the released hydrogen = 0.0000000833112 kg
11) Please note that no expert in thermodynamics in the world would measure the generated heat of 11.83 J by using of calorimetry methods. Every expert in thermodynamics in the world would take for granted this generated heat of 11.83 J. Because otherwise he/she would accept the fact that the value of the hydrogen's HHV (experimentally proved millions of times within a period of 200 years) is not valid.
12) In one word, on one hand we have a consumed electric energy of 31.84 J and this is the inlet energy. On the other hand we have (a) Joule's heat of 31.84 J and (b) heat H of 11.83 J, which is generated by burning/exploding of the released hydrogen. The sum of the two last pieces of energy is just equal to the outlet energy.
13) Therefore we can write down the inequalities
(31.84 J) + (11.83 J) > 31.84 J <=> 43.67 J > 31.84 J <=> outlet energy > inlet energy.
14) For the efficiency/COP of the above described process we can write down the equality
efficiency = COP = (43.67 J)/(31.84 J) = 1.37
15) And it is evident that COP = 1.37 <=> COP > 1.
==============================
==============================
SUMMARY.
1) The above experimental results for inlet and outlet energies are based on:
a) the readings of three standard measuring devices (an ammeter, an ohmmeter and a chronometer);
b) the validity of the first Joule's law of heating (experimentally proved millions of times within a period of 200 years for any standard solid, liquid or gaseous conductor);
c) the validity of the first Faraday's law of electrolysis (experimentally proved millions of times within a period of 200 years for any standard electrolyte);
d) the validity of the value of the hydrogen's HHV (experimentally proved millions of times within a period of 200 years).
2) In one word, having in mind the text above we can conclude that any of the millions (either industrial or laboratory) standard electrolyzers all over the world is actually a heater, which has COP/efficiency greater than 1.
-----------------------------------------------------
(Note. Any standard (either industrial or laboratory) electrolyzer could be designed as a built-with-fin-tubes (i.e. with extended-surfaces) heat exchanger. In this way there would be more emphasis on cramming more heat-transfer surfaces into less and less volume. This approach could be suitable for a better utilization of the released Joule's heat. Besides the same built-with-fin-tubes (i.e. with extended-surfaces) heat exchanger design could be used for the box/container, in which the burning of the released hydrogen would take place. In this way as if there would be a better utilization of the heat, generated by the burning of the released hydrogen.)
------------------------------------------------------
3) If the first Joule's law of heating and/or the first Faraday's law of electrolysis and/or the value of the hydrogen's HHV proved to be experimentally invalid, then this fact would lead to the creation of entirely new and revolutionary branch of science and technology. The latter would be a wonderful alternative too.
===============================
===============================
That's all about our first group of experiments.
===============================
===============================
And here is a short description of our second group of experiments.
1) Actually our second group of experiments is absolutely identical to our first group of experiments (the latter being described in our previous post) with the only difference that Ohmic resistance is decreased 10 times and as a result the ohmmeter registers an Ohmic resistance of 0.05 Ohm. In this case:
a) the consumed electric energy is equal to 3.184 J;
b) the generated Joule's heat is equal to 3.184 J too;
c) the heat, generated by the burning/exploding of the released hydrogen, is equal to 11.83 J (which is just the same as in our first group of experiments),
2) So for efficiency/COP we can write down the equalities
COP = ((3.184 J) + (11.83 J))/(3.184 J) <=> COP = (15.014 J)/(3.184 J) <=> COP = 4.72
3) It is evident that
COP = 4.72 <=> COP > 1.
4) In one word, (keeping constant current I and time period t) the smaller the Ohmic resistance R, the bigger the efficiency/COP.
===============================
===============================
There is a third group of experiments of ours, which has even a greater scientific, technology and commercial value than the above described two groups of experiments of ours. But for the present we would not like to reveal the secret of our third group of experiments.
===============================
===============================
PLEASE NOTE -- THE TEXT ABOVE DESCRIBES SOLELY AND ONLY REAL EXPERIMENTS!
===============================
Looking forward to your answer.

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: A SIMPLE ELECTRIC HEATER, WHICH HAS EFFICIENCY GREATER THAN 1
« Reply #683 on: July 21, 2021, 01:35:10 PM »
3D Solar Panels

Offline sm0ky2

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3359
Re: A SIMPLE ELECTRIC HEATER, WHICH HAS EFFICIENCY GREATER THAN 1
« Reply #684 on: July 21, 2021, 08:12:30 PM »
There is a quantity of energy unaccounted for in your assessment George.


It is roughly 11J; more precisely the other half of the electrolysis equation,
which balances your inequality.
That is, the portion of electricity not directly converted to heat.
(38-11= ~ 27J converted directly to heat)
Please adjust your math.

Offline sm0ky2

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3359
Re: A SIMPLE ELECTRIC HEATER, WHICH HAS EFFICIENCY GREATER THAN 1
« Reply #685 on: July 21, 2021, 08:14:43 PM »
My second point of mention will be the change in current over time.
As water molecules are split into their base gasses,
the resistance of your ‘water circuit’ changes. (in most physical configurations)

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: A SIMPLE ELECTRIC HEATER, WHICH HAS EFFICIENCY GREATER THAN 1
« Reply #685 on: July 21, 2021, 08:14:43 PM »
3D Solar Panels

Offline George1

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 795
Re: A SIMPLE ELECTRIC HEATER, WHICH HAS EFFICIENCY GREATER THAN 1
« Reply #686 on: July 22, 2021, 12:32:49 PM »
To sm0ky2.
===================
Hi sm0ky2,
Thank you for your two replies.
----------------------------------
1) Well, I will check whether the related value is 11.83 J or roughly 11 J as you say. But even if it is roughly 11 J, then the final result value will be practically the same. (The final result value will be actually a little smaller.) But anyway thank you for your valuable remark. 
2) If the water-splitting electrolysis process takes place within a period of 1 second, then the current and the Ohmic resistance remain practically constant.
3) But yes, you are absolutely right, that if the water-splitting electrolysis process takes place within a period of, let's say, many hours without any interrruptions for example, then current decreases over time and Ohmic resistance increases over time. But this problem can be easily solved by simply adding pure water in the electrolyte. (Please have a look at our post of May 01, 2021, 11:48:47 AM, in which it is clearly explained that: ".......Constant pure water and cooling agent supply could keep constant the electrolyte's temperature, heat exchange, mass and ohmic resistance, respectively........". Please consider carefully and thoroughly our post of May 01, 2021, 11:48:47 AM, if you like.)
---------------------------------
Looking forward to your answer.         

Offline George1

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 795
Re: A SIMPLE ELECTRIC HEATER, WHICH HAS EFFICIENCY GREATER THAN 1
« Reply #687 on: July 23, 2021, 03:56:00 PM »
To sm0ky2.
====================
I would like to thank you again for your last two constructive and valuable comments. Hope that we could work together and co-operate.
Looking forward to your answer.

Offline sm0ky2

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3359
Re: A SIMPLE ELECTRIC HEATER, WHICH HAS EFFICIENCY GREATER THAN 1
« Reply #688 on: July 24, 2021, 07:30:58 PM »
It cannot be exactly your 11.83J
Because there are other (minescule) energies emitting
often in RF, light (visible and otherwise), EM, etc.
Calorically all of these add up to our theoretical thermal value.


Do not forget, the reason changes in R become noticeable over time
Is because the molar count of water changes, as does concentration
of electrolyte. Even over 1 second of time this value can be calculated.


The hydronium and hydrogen ions carry their own electric charge and subsequently
moving fields, the mathematics on this become quite complex but can be reduced to
convection transforms which we do anyways to determine the thermal flow during combustion.
This can be controlled experimentally with an applied external electric field to obtain more
observable thermal conduction.


A more simplified experiment with similar results would be an arc-welder.
(or a spark gap to a thermally conductive plate and appropriate sensor)
We see experimentally the same thermal results even by omitting the extra steps.


In open air, hydrogen will (over several seconds) burn around 10,000F
An equivalent sustained spark will do the same.


Clausius isn’t going to roll in his grave over this issue.


Offline George1

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 795
Re: A SIMPLE ELECTRIC HEATER, WHICH HAS EFFICIENCY GREATER THAN 1
« Reply #689 on: July 26, 2021, 01:28:49 PM »
To sm0ky2.
======================
Hi sm0ky2,
But you are not reading my posts, dear colleague! Please read carefully an thoroughly again (and many times, if necessary) our two posts of July 21, 2021, 01:35:10 PM and of July 22, 2021, 12:32:49 PM.
---------------------------------------
But it's ok, let us start from the very beginning again. Please answer the four questions below.
---------------------------------------
1) Do you accept the validity of the first Joule's law of heating (experimentally proved millions of times within a period of 200 years for any standard solid, liquid or gaseous conductor)? Yes or no? (Only one word -- either "yes" or "no"!)
2) Do you accept the validity of the first Faraday's law of electrolysis (experimentally proved millions of times within a period of 200 years for any standard electrolyte)? Yes or no? (Only one word -- either "yes" or "no"!)
3) Do you accept the validity of the value of the hydrogen's HHV (experimentally proved millions of times within a period of 200 years). Yes or no? (Only one word -- either "yes" or "no"!)
4) Do you accept the validity of the simple obvious fact that while electrolysis takes place "...constant pure water and cooling agent supply could keep constant the electrolyte's temperature, heat exchange, mass and ohmic resistance, respectively..."? Yes or no? (Only one word -- either "yes" or "no"!)
----------------------------------------
Looking forward to your four answers.
 
     

 

OneLink