Free Energy  searching for free energy and discussing free energy
Hydrogen energy => Cooking and heating with HHO => Topic started by: George1 on January 28, 2019, 08:58:40 AM

Dear colleagues,
My name is George Sen. I am a member of a team of inventorsenthusiasts. Please have a look at the link
https://mypicxbg.files.wordpress.com/2019/01/pages_16.pdf
The link above describes a simple electric heater, which has efficiency greater than 1.
What do you think about this electric heater? What is your opinion?
Looking forward to your answer.
Best regards,
George

Sounds like a good idea.
I'm not certain that the statement that 100 % of the electrical energy through the resistive load is converted to heat energy.
Example.....
E / I = R
E / R = I
R x I = E
P = I x E
if
E = 10 volts applied .... R = 10 (through a 10 ohm resistance) .... then I or current = 1 amp
and Power (watts) = I x E = 10 volts x 1 amp = 10 watts electrical power.
However I am unfamiliar with the standard for the equivalency of electrical energy and / or electrical power
in terms of thermal energy and / or power.
1 calorie will raise the temperature of 1 cubic centimeter of water, 1 degree centigrade ? if I am remembering correctly.
No doubt the method is more efficient than straight up resistive electric water heating alone.
Water is converted into a fuel to produce heat.
The HHO is a by product of the heating and is then used as an additional energy source / fuel to heat the water.
Thanks
floor

Hi Floor,
Thanks a lot for your reply.
You wrote:"I'm not certain that the statement that 100 % of the electrical energy through the resistive load is converted to heat energy....However I am unfamiliar with the standard for the equivalency of electrical energy and / or electrical power in terms of thermal energy and / or power."
I am replying to you immediately.
You can search on Google using the phrase "Joule heating". 5,440,000 results will appear after 0.38 seconds. The first result is the article "Joule heating" in Wikipedia. In a subsection of this article, called "Heating efficiency", it is written that: "As a heating technology, Joule heating has a coefficient of performance of 1.0, meaning that every joule of electrical energy supplied produces one joule of heat." (The term "cofficient of performance" in this particular case is equivalent to the term "efficiency".) Alternatively, you can use any of these 5,440,000 Google results. A good article can be found also in the link https://simple.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joule%27s_laws
So you can be absolutely sure that "...every joule of electrical energy supplied produces one joule of heat."
Looking forward to your answer.
Best regards,
George

Dear colleagues,
My name is George Sen. I am a member of a team of inventorsenthusiasts. Please have a look at the link
https://mypicxbg.files.wordpress.com/2019/01/pages_16.pdf
The link above describes a simple electric heater, which has efficiency greater than 1.
What do you think about this electric heater? What is your opinion?
You can also contact us at randdgroup34@gmail.com
Looking forward to your answer.
Best regards,
George

Dear colleagues,
My name is George Sen. I am a member of a team of inventorsenthusiasts. Please have a look at the link
https://mypicxbg.files.wordpress.com/2019/01/pages_16.pdf
...
The second case is false. You have simply forgotten the oxidationreduction potentials! The potential difference that will result in heating is therefore less than the one used. This means in other words that even for the same current, the energy used for producing hydrogen is not used to heat.
If overunity were so childish, it would have been known for a long time! We'll have to be much smarter.

To F6FLT.

You greatly surprise me, my friend! You are an expert in mechanics as well as in electric engineering! (And may be in any other field of technology?)
You have written: " You have simply forgotten the oxidationreduction potentials! The potential difference that will result in heating is therefore less than the one used. This means in other words that even for the same current, the energy used for producing hydrogen is not used to heat." There is no sense in this composition of words. This is for example something like the following sentence: " The Moon is black and it walks around the green tree." Grammatically correct, but absurd.

Dear colleagues,
My name is George Sen. I am a member of a team of inventors. Please have a look at the link
https://mypicxbg.files.wordpress.com/2019/01/pages_16.pdf
The link above describes a simple electric heater, which has efficiency greater than 1.
What do you think about this electric heater? What is your opinion?
Looking forward to your answer.
Best regards,
George

Only"Q"~ heater efficiency nearly 100% , "Q+H" ~ electrolyzer, catalyzer : efficiency over 100%
A. How many parts from "H": 33 KWh are double calculated from the "Q": 50 KWh ?
a1: only calculation or physical measured ?
When not only "resistive heater"= pure Joule change then catalytic Joule process possibility :
https://www.google.com/search?q=hasebe+hydrogen+patent&ie=utf8&oe=utf8&client=firefoxb (https://www.google.com/search?q=hasebe+hydrogen+patent&ie=utf8&oe=utf8&client=firefoxb)
Sincerely
OCWL

Hi lancaIV/OCWL,
Thanks a lot for your reply.
1) Actually I did not understand some parts of your text. Would you be so polite to make some parts of your message a little clearer?
2) Electric energy E=VxIxt (which is generated by the battery) transforms ENTIRELY into Joule's heat (which is generated by the resistor) as Joule's heat=Q=IxIxRxt. And this fact is valid for a solid resistor as well as for a liquid resistor. In other words, (a) if you put a resistor into a closed box and (2) if your voltmeter and ammeter show that V=const and I=const, then you will not be able to guess whether the resistor inside the box is solid or liquid. Ohm's law and Joule's first law are valid for any solid resistor as well as for any liquid resistor. However a liquid resistor like the electrolyte, used for electrolysis of water, generates hydrogen in addition.
3) Physically measured. At the inlet we measured V, I and t by using a voltmeter, an ammeter and a chronometer, respectively. At the outlet we carried out ENTIRELY CALORIMETRIC experiments by measuring (a) the heat generated by the electrolyte and (b) the heat generated by the burning of hydrogen. We used a standard calorimeter  nothing special.
Looking forward to your answer.
Best regards,
George

Hi George,
You have an interesting idea of heating up electrolyte by DC input and utilize the heat and also utilize the heat from the burning Hidrogen received from the electrolysis too.
Would like to ask that from the tests what was the result? What efficiency numbers did you find which were consistently higher than 1? How much uncertainty do you think may have occured when checking the heat quantity the Hidrogen provided? What method did you follow for estimating it? (The heat developed in the electrolyte is easy to measure by a calorimeter of course.)
You did not mention Oxigen in the paper while it is also created during the electrolysis process, I suppose. Or you found that burning only the created Hidrogen already pushes overall efficiency > 1 ?
I would also be curious about the DC current level used for heating the electrolyte.
Thanks, (I know I have many questions...) 8)
Gyula

OK, I have certainty of the equivalencies of electrical energy to heat energy due to electrical resistance.
Thanks.
That your method would produce more heat than electric heating alone... is based
in sound / conventional principles.
But don't you know that... its not over unity, it just means the standard of electric to heat equivalency would be changed ... SMILE
(Opinion) Odds are very good that it is correct.
I agree with others / think it would be interesting to see measurements.
On the other hand...........
The volume of HHO gases that can be conventionally produced... and the caloric content of their combustion
are probably well know / documented. HHO experimenters / experts on this forum might provide links ??
Also.........
The O and H gases and any water vapor, will remove heat from that electrolit / water, as they leave the solution, just as
ordinary evaporation reduces the temperature of the surface it evaporates from.
But.......
those calories which are contained in the H and O will also increase the temperature of their own combustion.
The same fire fueled by hot air is hotter than if fueled by cold air.
Regards
floor

To F6FLT.

You greatly surprise me, my friend! You are an expert in mechanics as well as in electric engineering! (And may be in any other field of technology?)
You have written: " You have simply forgotten the oxidationreduction potentials! The potential difference that will result in heating is therefore less than the one used. This means in other words that even for the same current, the energy used for producing hydrogen is not used to heat." There is no sense in this composition of words. This is for example something like the following sentence: " The Moon is black and it walks around the green tree." Grammatically correct, but absurd.
We are very impressed by the power of your argument: ;D ::) nothing on the subject, only an ad hominem answer. Not only did you not understand the objection, but you did not even understand that you did not understand your subject (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning–Kruger_effect).
I am not an "expert". These things are studied in junior high school, with water electrolysis. Even undergraduate students know this. There is no need to be an expert to see the absurdities of your proposals. This kind of idea seems good to unskilled people, because they don't see what prevents it to work, it's a matter of ignorance. Your announcements of perpetual motion are childish non senses above all pretentious, and I said why: the oxidationreduction potentials reduce the effective potential difference really used for heating, skilled people will understand. An experimenter can check it by measuring the potential difference with each electrode of the voltmeter placed in the solution near each electrode powering the solution, but without touching them.
I'll change my mind about the vacuousness of your pseudoinventions when you present us with a working realization from you, and measurements, rather than gibberish.

We are very impressed by the power of your argument: ;D ::) nothing on the subject, only an ad hominem answer. Not only did you not understand the objection, but you did not even understand that you did not understand your subject (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning–Kruger_effect).
I am not an "expert". These things are studied in junior high school, with water electrolysis. Even undergraduate students know this. There is no need to be an expert to see the absurdities of your proposals. This kind of idea seems good to unskilled people, because they don't see what prevents it to work, it's a matter of ignorance. Your announcements of perpetual motion are childish non senses above all pretentious, and I said why: the oxidationreduction potentials reduce the effective potential difference really used for heating, skilled people will understand. An experimenter can check it by measuring the potential difference with each electrode of the voltmeter placed in the solution near each electrode powering the solution, but without touching them.
I'll change my mind about the vacuousness of your pseudoinventions when you present us with a working realization from you, and measurements, rather than gibberish.
@ F6flt
Yes there is plenty of pseudo science on this board and some good science as well.
But , the tone of your comments are ..... insulting, rude, totally unnecessary and unwelcome.
We have had plenty of these kinds of disrupting comments over the course of the boards
existence. It doesn't help any thing. It only impedes the spirit of exploration and learning.
1. If the temperature of the electrolyte changes (up or Down), then its electrical resistance changes with it.
2. If the resistance across the water / electrolyte changes (up or Down), then the electrical power
input changes with it.
............ simply put
Is the rate at which electrical energy is converted to heat energy, WITHIN AN ELECTROLYTE,
decreased due to the electrolyzing of the water into HHO,
for reasons other than;
1. caloric loss due to evaporated water
2. caloric loss due to the heat energy content in the removed HHO
Simple yes or no answer to be researched and presented / documented.
No Insulting language needed.
floor

@Floor
"No sense in this composition of words" or "grammatically correct, but absurd", without any technical justification, when I spoke of oxidoreduction potentials, is insulting. The ironic "You are an expert in mechanics as well as in electric engineering!" is insulting, it's an ad hominem argument. It was not from me. I only answered on the same tone.
You are right to say that "we have had a lot of disruptive comments like that" and "pseudoscience". When it is related to ignorance, it is acceptable. We are all ignorant at one level or another. But it would require the intelligence to understand that we are ignorant, the modesty to recognize our ignorance and the desire to progress.
When a guy claims almost every week to have discovered overunity in one system or another, without ever having studied the subject he is talking about closely, without ever having built a single device or made a single measurement, it is clear that he is not in a research process, but in the spreading of silly simplistic ideas to satisfy his puffy ego. It's only pollution.
Why should we kindly accept that all these guys are polluting this forum? I notice that this forum has years behind it and still not the slightest practical realization of free energy, that everyone can duplicate. I think that these people have a part of the responsibility for this failure, by disrupting and diverting human energies from their purpose, by attracting even more useless people who recognize themselves in them, and due to their nonsense, by dissuading competent people from coming here.
We must treat them for what they do in order to reduce their nuisances, and quickly send them back to their misplaced selfcentredness, their technical incompetence, incurable because they do not want to become aware of it, and their intellectual nothingness.
Normally, to make the stupidity of the original idea understood, it is sufficient here to provide as a key the notion of "oxidationreduction potential". Anyone of goodwill, and learning about this, will understand why an electrolytic solution is not a simple resistance that will heat according to U=RI and at the same time provide hydrogen! Obviously, when you are unwilling, incompetent and worse, without any desire to understand but only to appear smarter than you are, you don't even want to know which doors open the key you have been given, it's not your problem, you just want to parade in front of the audience, affirming in the name of your ignorant ego and in capital letters, instead of modest and prudent hypothesis,"EFFICIENCY GREATER THAN 1".
Here was my position, and my method, Floor, and I respect yours, we don't have to all have the same.

@ F6flt
Yes there is plenty of pseudo science on this board and some good science as well.
But , the tone of your comments are ..... insulting, rude, totally unnecessary and unwelcome.
We have had plenty of these kinds of disrupting comments over the course of the boards
existence. It doesn't help any thing. It only impedes the spirit of exploration and learning.
1. If the temperature of the electrolyte changes (up or Down), then its electrical resistance changes with it.
2. If the resistance across the water / electrolyte changes (up or Down), then the electrical power
input changes with it.
............ simply put
Is the rate at which electrical energy is converted to heat energy, WITHIN AN ELECTROLYTE,
decreased due to the electrolyzing of the water into HHO,
for reasons other than;
1. caloric loss due to evaporated water
2. caloric loss due to the heat energy content in the removed HHO
Simple yes or no answer to be researched and presented / documented.
No Insulting language needed.
floor
In time, we had someone in the forum with this same type of behavior and rudeness. I just hope that guy (MH) have not changed their nickname .......
An opinion or clarification, does not encompass, trample, or reduce another opinion through propitiousness in a response.
Everyone has the right to have an opinion, since opinion provided , not exceed the limit of the reasonable.
it seems we have yet another enlightened limb of wisdom. lol

Sorry to post here .
I have great respect for floor and his open source approach and experiments [testable and verifiable or ? to interested parties
yes I see that F6FLT has no velvet glove for his iron fist....this does make me squirmy too.
but to say he is like MH ?? yeesh
this man F6FLT rolls up the sleeves and experiments ,and shares his work too ,and is a firm believer in the what ifs?
his sledgehammer diplomacy to avoid wasted time and get the experimenters to return here ....and search for a true anomaly .
??? ??? I dunno ...
I have found his experimental contributions to the open source community more than refreshing.
his attempts to raise the standards here ,in this quite diverse international community [all skill levels and education and languages etc etc]
that is gonna be hard to do and remain productive ,as they say in the big house "you do you"
just one mans opinion
he is a fearless experimenter......we do need more of the higher end open source experiments here and elsewhere [LENR NMR etc etc edit to add MH considered all such experiments fantasy or fancifal thinking,and would play google paste for answers in areas he had no training or skill set [none know it all here and never will ,all must admit when their knowledge has no frame of reference [and F6FLT does admit his boundaries ] .
I am uncertain if George has done these experiments and quality measurements ??
we have a member who has done much work here with harvesting charge from electrolytes and utilizing that charge to enhance the efficiency ...member Centraflow ,he actually uses the C02 for this charge.. and makes a fuel too. All has been open sourced here and elsewhere. PM for a link if you can't find in a search.Edit I will add a link when I can.
No stone left unturned..........

To Floor and gyulasun

Thanks a lot for your replies. This is already a positive and constructive dialogue. I would like to ask you to give me some time to prepare carefully my answers.
Please ask other questions, if any.
Best regards,
George

@George1
Keep on keepen on.
good luck with your explorations.

Thank you, Floor. Thanks a lot for your encouragement and good will.

The text below is for Floor, gyalasun and for all other colleagues who intend to lead a positive and constructive dialogue.

1) Our expert in calorimetry is a very dilligent and meticulous experimenter and because of this reason he prepared a huge and a detailed report for all calorimetric experiments related to the electrolyzer, if the latter is considered as a total heat generator. The report consisted of 800 (eight hundred) standard typewritten pages. I doubted that anybody in this forum would have the patience to read and assimilate thoroughly the information in all these 800 pages. That is why I insisted on severe shortening of the report. So now we are working over a severely shortened version of the report.
2) Meanwhile why don't you carry out the calorimetric experiments, related to the electrolyzer as described in the link https://mypicxbg.files.wordpress.com/2019/01/pages_16.pdf ? We are sure that in this forum there are a lot of highly qualified specialists in the field of calorimetry and electric engineering. The experiments can be carried out comparatively easily if you have the necessary equipment and the related qualified experimenter(s). If you carry out your own experiments, then you will be absolutely sure what exactly and really happens inside the electrolyzer. Because it seems to us that whatever experimental results of ours will be declared false by F6FLT and by people similar to him.
3) And here is a simple logical construction. (The numbers below are only illustrative.) Assume that the battery generates 100 J of electric energy. Then 6 outcomes are possible (on the right):
a) 100 J < 100 J Joule's heat + 60 J heat of burning of hydrogen;
b) 100 J = 20 J Joule's heat + 80 J heat of burning of hydrogen;
c) 100 J < 70 J Joule's heat + 90 J heat of burning of hydrogen;
d) 100 J < 110 J Joule's heat + 50 J heat of burning of hydrogen;
e) 100 J > 10 J Joule's heat + 80 J heat of burning of hydrogen;
f) 100 J > 60 J Joule's heat + 15 J heat of burning of hydrogen.
It is evident therefore that whatever happens at least one of the fundamental laws is violated. But there is nothing special and tragic in this fact  any rule/law has its exceptions.
4) In our poor opinion the situation here is the same as with the steam engine. For many years people had watched boiling water in a teapot. But only a few men (Newcomen, Smeaton, Boulton, Watt, etc.) noticed the fact that boiling water, which generates steam, could be used as an energy generator, called steam engine. The same for the electrolyzer. For many years people had considered the electrolyzer as a hydrogen generator only. But it is also a generator of Joule's heat in addition.

Please ask your questions, if any. Any positive and constuctive criticism is always welcome.
Looking forward to your answers.
Best regards,
George

@George 1
Thank You for hanging in.
Note... There was a topic on the forum ..... in which the idea was presented
that an industrial scale electrolysis / hydrogen gas generator could be located at the bottom of a
mountain. Simply put.
outputs
!. Resistive electric heating
2. Lift from the hydrogen rising
3. burning the hydrogen, heat (at the top of the mountain).
4. falling hot water.
Thanks again, I will study the link you posted.
best wishes
floor

Hi George,
It is good you have appeared again here. Probably a 800 page long report is not needed, instead what you offer as a severely shorted version sounds good. From my part I have mostly the same questions I already wrote, let me write them here too:
1) what efficiency numbers did you find which consistently were > 1?
2) what liquid did the burning Hidrogen heat up? Was it water? or a solution (liquid mixture)?
3) What was the DC current level (mA, Amper) used for the electrolysis to obtain Hidrogen?
4) Why did not you consider the created Oxigen, besides Hidrogen? Or no need for it? Or just avoiding the possibility of creating oxyhidrogen that may become dangerous?
I assume the data you are to provide will include the duration of the tests.
Thanks and just keep at it too.
Gyula

...
Because it seems to us that whatever experimental results of ours will be declared false by F6FLT and by people similar to him.
...
They are false until proof of the contrary, for the given reason.
Provide us with the schematics of your experiment, the details of your measuring devices and the data.
In matter of overunity and evidence of overunity, a claim accompanied by an inconsistent and simplistic theory is by far not enough.

To floor.

Hi, floor.
Thanks a lot for your reply.
You wrote that ".....There was a topic on the forum ..... in which the idea was presented
that an industrial scale electrolysis / hydrogen gas generator could be located at the bottom of a
mountain....". Sounds very interesting. Would you be so polite to give some more details? Where is this link
in the forum? I cannot find it.
Looking forward to your answer.
Best regards,
George

To gyalasun.

Hi, Gyula.
Thanks a lot for your reply.
Firstly, as if it is not an easy job to shorten severely an 800 pages report and preserve the essence by choosing the most suitable experimental data. (I am not a specialist in experimental calorimetry.)
Secondly, our calorimetry expert is not very quick in doing things. But I am constantly pressing him to be in a hurry as much as possible.
So in my poor opinion we will be ready in the very nearest future. We will fulfill all of your requirements.
Best regards,
George

To F6FLT

Hi, F6FLT
Thanks a lot for your reply.
You wrote: "They are false until proof of the contrary, for the given reason.
Provide us with the schematics of your experiment, the details of your measuring devices and the data.
In matter of overunity and evidence of overunity, a claim accompanied by an inconsistent and simplistic theory is by far not enough."
Yes, you are absolutely right. I hope that we will be ready in the very nearest future. We will fulfill all of your requirements.
Please also have a look at my last post to gyulasun.
Best regards,
George

While waiting for our calorimetry expert to complete his bunch of most suitable and illustrative experimental data I would llike to suggest a few
simple logical constructions related to the topic.
And here is the first logical construction. (Please also refer to my previous posts.)
Let us write down again the inequality
50 kWh < 50 kWh + 33 kWh (1)
where
50 kWh is the electric energy generated by the battery (the left side of the above inequality (1));
50 kWh is the Joule's heat generated by the electrolyzer (the right side of the above inequality (1));
33 kWh is the heat of burning of hydrogen (the right side of the above inequality (1)).
It is evident that the above inequality (1) illustrates a violation of the law of conservation of energy, which is based on the validity of Ohm's law
as well as on the validity of the Joule's first law (related to Joule's heating).

Furthermore let us write down the equality
50 kWh = 17 kWh + 33 kWh (2)
where
50 kWh is the electric energy generated by the battery (the left side of the above equality (2));
17 kWh is the Joule's heat generated by the electrolyzer (the right side of the above equality (2));
33 kWh is the heat of burning of hydrogen (the right side of the above equality (2)).

It is evident that the above equality (2) illustrates (a) a violation of the Ohm's law and (b) a violation of the first Joule's law as these two
violations are based on a probable validity of the law of conservation of energy. Therefore it is evident that the problem has two possible solutions.
Firstly, if we assume that the law of conservation of energy is valid, then both the Ohm's law and the first Joule's law (related to Joule's heating) are not valid.
Secondly, if we assume that the first Joule's law (related to Joule's heating) and the Ohm's law are valid, then the law of conservation of energy is not valid.

It is a wellknown fact that within a period of more than 150 years electric engineers have been
proving unambiguously the validity of the first Joule's law (related to Joule's heating) and the validity of the Ohm's law. (Perhaphs tens of millions of experiments.) Therefore in this particular case which considers the hydrogen generating electrolyzer as a total heat generator, it is evident, that it is a matter of a violation of the law of coservation of energy.

In the above text we use the equality 33 kWh/kg = 120 MJ/kg = lower heating value (LHV) of hydrogen. If we use the equality 40 kWh/kg = 142 MJ/kg =
= higher heating value (HHV) of hydrogen, then the result will be even worse for the supporters of the law of conservation of energy in this particular case.

Besides if we use the equality 142 MJ/kg = 40 kWh/kg = HHV of hydrogen, then equality (2) will be modified as
50 kWh = 10 kWh + 40 kWh (2A)
It is evident that equalities (2) and (2A) cannot be true simultaneously because the value of the generated Joule's heat as if depends on LHV and HHV of hydrogen.
Therefore here is another proof for the invalidity of the law of conservation of energy in this particular case.

And at last let me share with you my personal poor opinion. I myself was STRONGLY AGAINST any experiments carried out by our team because of the following reason.
Please look at the five experimentally proved equations below.
1) First Joule's law: Q = I x I x R x t (experimentally proved for both solid and liquid resistors);
2) Ohm's law: V = I x R (experimentally proved for both solid and liquid resistors);
3) Faraday's law of electrolysis: m = z x I x t (experimentally proved);
4) LHV of hydrogen = 120 MJ/kg = 33 kWh/kg (experimentally proved);
5) HHV of hydrogen = 142 MJ/kg = 40 kWh/kg (experimentally proved).
The above 5 (five) equations have been successfully proved experimentally within a period of more than one century. Actually it is a matter of five experimental facts.
You have only to gather together these 5 experimental facts and form one united whole, which inevitably leads to the conclusion that the law of conservation of
energy is not true in this particular case. But let us repeat again that any rule/law has its exceptions and there is nothing special and tragic in this fact.
(Note. Any standard electrolyzer is a simple combination of solid and liquid resistors connected in series.)

Looking forward to your answers.
Best regards,
George

Hi George,
The only problem is that real and good science should be based on actual measurement results. It is okay that by logical deductions which are based on experimentally proven equations, the setup you proposed "should give" efficiency > 1.
BUT this > 1 efficiency then should be measured, that is science in the correct sense.
I am not against you or against your group or against the possibility of having efficiency > 1, ok?
And especially in such a case when you write this: "Therefore here is another proof for the invalidity of the law of conservation of energy in this particular case." the measurement results are crucial and simply a must to backup your statement.
Thanks
Gyula

Here is a similar topic.
https://overunity.com/16302/hhoasrealuosystem/
But I did not find the topic I had in mind.

To gyulasun.

Hi Gyula,
Thanks a lot for your reply.
=======
1) You wrote: "The only problem is that real and good science should be based on actual measurement results. It is okay that by logical deductions which are based on experimentally proven equations, the setup you proposed "should give" efficiency > 1.
BUT this > 1 efficiency then should be measured, that is science in the correct sense.
I am not against you or against your group or against the possibility of having efficiency > 1, ok?
And especially in such a case when you write this: "Therefore here is another proof for the invalidity of the law of conservation of energy in this particular case." the measurement results are crucial and simply a must to backup your statement."

Yes, after a careful thought we decided that you are absolutely right. We perfectly agree with you. Real experiments are necessary for proving of our statement. So I keep pressing hard our expert in experimental calorimetry to do the necessary things as quickly as possible.
=======
2) Besides (as if already mentioned in some of my previous posts) we do not insist by all means on the necessity of cosidering the hydrogen generating electrolyzer as a machine of efficiency bigger than 1. In our poor opinion it's perfectly enough if the hydrogen generating electrolyzer is considered as a simple and cheap heating device, which (a) is much more efficient than any standard Joule's heating device, and which (b) saves money.
=======
Looking forward to your answer.
Best regards,
George

To Floor.

Thanks a lot for your reply.
==========
1) You wrote: "Here is a similar topic. https://overunity.com/16302/hhoasrealuosystem/".

But this is a fantastic idea! This guy is really smart! Thanks a lot for sending to me this link! If this "goinguphydrogen" idea is added to the conception, described in my previous posts, then the heating efficiency of the electrolyzer would become even much higher. Don't you think so?
==========
2) You wrote: "But I did not find the topic I had in mind."

You mean that there is another good idea in this forum related to our discussion? Can't we search for it together?
==========
Looking forward to your answer.
Best regards,
George

To gyalasun.

Hi again Gyala,
Floor has sent to me the link https://overunity.com/16302/hhoasrealuosystem/.
A very, very interesting idea! What is your opinion?
Looking forward to your answer.
Best regards,
George

To Floor and gyalasun.

I already wrote to John.K1 whose link is https://overunity.com/16302/hhoasrealuosystem/
In my poor opinion his idea is wonderful. As if there aren't any contradictions. What do you both think about his conception?
Looking forward to your answers.
Best regards,
George

To Floor and gyalasun

John.K1 wrote:
"Hello there.
Couple days ago I was thinking about the HHO device possibly leading to OU . And why do I think this way?It is very simple Hydrogen is lighter than an air and rise up. Imagine you break water in to the hydrogen and oxygen on the ground and leave hydrogen to rise to couple hundreds of meters on its own. In that high you burn it back in some generator (60% of electricity back to the system) and use the water as a result to make a rest of work on its all way down.
Would it work? Maybe in the walls of water dams or high buildings?
Just some idea."

We discussed here the topic with the colleagues. I would suggest a short summary of the discussion.
1) Joule's heating, i. e. generation of energy for a first time.
2) The generated hydrogen could be put inside/enters easily a baloon which could go up (being lighter than air and because of the Archimedes principle) to couple of hundred meters and could pull a load thus generating energy for a second time.
3) At the height of these couple of hundred meters you burn back the hydrogen and generate energy (heat) for a third time.
4) The generated water goes down and generates energy for a fourth time.
5) The load lifted in item 2 also goes down and generates energy for a fifth time
What are your opinions about this combination of ideas and for this further development of the conception?
Looking forward to your answers.
Best regards,
George

Item 5 in the last post is wrong. Please excuse me. I am sorry.
Regards,
George

Do you know this is exactly what Tesla described in his famous article / What he didn't tell us is the whole process of extracting energy but his analogy was much more nicer being more realistic.
Imagine a lake maybe in high mountain without any possible dam. Lake is very deep. Tesla found a way to extract energy of this lake water without using a dam. You are very close. :P

Do you know this is exactly what Tesla described in his famous article / What he didn't tell us is the whole process of extracting energy but his analogy was much more nicer being more realistic.
Imagine a lake maybe in high mountain without any possible dam. Lake is very deep. Tesla found a way to extract energy of this lake water without using a dam. You are very close.

To forest.

Hi forest.
Thanks a lot for your reply.
1) Actually the idea for this original way of water lifting belongs to John.K1. (Please have a look at the link https://overunity.com/16302/hhoasrealuosystem/ ). We only added the loadpulling balloon conception and combined John.K1's basic idea with our points of view. (I already wrote to this smart man John.K1, but still have no answer from him.)
2) Our team has never heard of the above mentioned Tesla's article. Would you be so polite to give us some more details? How to find this article in order to read it?
Looking forward to your answer.
Best regards,
George

Hi George,
My opinion on the idea member John.K1 wrote is exactly the same what I kindly wrote to you already:
"The only problem is that real and good science should be based on actual measurement results. It is okay that by logical deductions which are based on experimentally proven equations, the setup you proposed "should give" efficiency > 1.
BUT this > 1 efficiency then should be measured, that is science in the correct sense.
I am not against you or against your group or against the possibility of having efficiency > 1, ok?
And especially in such a case when you write this: "Therefore here is another proof for the invalidity of the law of conservation of energy in this particular case." the measurement results are crucial and simply a must to backup your statement."
No offense, I am not being sarcastic, the idea from John.K is also an excellent one for approaching > 1 efficiency, that so far has not been shown possible in a scientific way.
However, I am a bit surprised what you wrote here to me:
To gyulasun.

Hi Gyula,
Thanks a lot for your reply.
....
Yes, after a careful thought we decided that you are absolutely right. We perfectly agree with you. Real experiments are necessary for proving of our statement. So I keep pressing hard our expert in experimental calorimetry to do the necessary things as quickly as possible.
=======
2) Besides (as if already mentioned in some of my previous posts) we do not insist by all means on the necessity of considering the hydrogen generating electrolyzer as a machine of efficiency bigger than 1. In our poor opinion it's perfectly enough if the hydrogen generating electrolyzer is considered as a simple and cheap heating device, which (a) is much more efficient than any standard Joule's heating device, and which (b) saves money.
=======
Looking forward to your answer.
Best regards,
George
Why would not the measured efficiency > 1 be needed in your case ?
This questions your whole paper you started with this thread and your original claim on achieving > 1 efficiency.
Eventually what the 800 page long measurement data boils down to ? You could sum it up in a few lines I suppose once you or your group already went through the tests and surely developed an objective opinion based strictly on the measured data. OF course you or your group have plenty of time to do so and consider the teachings of the measurements, I do not mean any hurry.
And you are free to do whatever you wish, even combine ideas from others to improve yours, I have no problem with that.
BUT remember what you wrote: "Therefore here is another proof for the invalidity of the law of conservation of energy in this particular case." If you do not back up your claim with correctly measured and repeatable results that give > 1 efficiency, your claim is hot air that no need to comment any more. It is totally irrevelant how logical or even straightforward deductions you started out from, you or your group simply have to build it in practice and measure it correctly. Only then can you claim the invalidity of any law. It is obvious that if you prove by measurements that your heating device is "cheaper" and "much more efficient" than any other standard heating device, then you surely have achieved something new and useful. But if it has an efficiency of < 1, then your > 1 efficiency claim (you now seem to abandon) is only hot air.
Gyula

@George1
The link I sent you was not the same topic I originally had in mind (although same idea). The topic I was looking for is a more recent
one. As I recall.... I posted on that "more recent" topic. I tried searching through my posts.. but was unsuccessful in locating that
other topic.
floor

http://www.shamanicengineering.org/wpcontent/uploads/2014/07/NikolaTeslaProblemofIncreasingHumanEnergy.pdf
Imagine a lake in mountain without any possibility to make a dam. Lake has a lot of water and is very deep. How can we take energy of this whole mass of water ?
Put an empty tank at the bottom of lake with a passage of water inside of it. When water is passing it will crank the first generator, then it is converted to hydrogen and oxygen and is released up to the surface where it's converted back to water.
The buoyancy will transfer internal gravity pressure of water column on empty tank into the kinetic force of releases gases so use another generators in the passage. So we have 4 points where energy is converted/used , but 2 of them is roughly balancing itself (converting water into hydrogen and oxygen and back).
Tesla neved told about the usage of gravity in his example.The total converted electrical energy should be more then enough to convert water into gases and keep the tank empty .
As you see this is the same process but quite realistic one. Surely, Tesla would never use the lake when he had better source of pressure....

A DEPARTURE FROM KNOWN METHODS – POSSIBILITY OF A "SELFACTING" ENGINE OR MACHINE, INANIMATE, YET CAPABLE, LIKE A LIVING BEING, OF DERIVING ENERGY FROM THE MEDIUM – THE IDEAL WAY OF OBTAINING MOTIVE POWER.

To Gyulasun.

Hi Gyala,
Thanks a lot for your reply.

I know that you are a man of good will and we highly appreciate your positive and constructive criticism. Yes, you are absolutely right that precise and numerous tests have to be done in order to prove the validity of any theory. We do not argue about this.

Thanks a lot for your note that there isn't an urgent necessity to be in a hurry with the proper and adequate shortening of our 800pages experimental report. The shortening process will take some time. (Besides some of the experiments seem to me not very accurate and as if have to be repeated. Now I am studying hard а textbook of experimental calorimetry (a) because (as mentioned in my previous posts) I am not an expert in experimental calorimetry and (b) because I have to know exactly what happens in these calorimetric experiments, what are the basic methods of experimental calorimetry, what basic devices are used in experimental calorimetry, etc. So I need some time to educate myself in the field of experimental calorimetry and become an expert at some satisfactory level. And, if necessary, to repeat and carry out personally some of the related calorimetric experiments.)

Yesterday almost all members of our team gather together. We discussed the topic within a period of several hours. It was a very interesting discussion. Various opinions were presented and talked about. A member of our team had a very interesting and reasonable (in my poor opinion) point of view. And here is his line of reasoning.
He said approximately the following.
BEGINNING OF THE QUOTE
a) If we have one true experimental fact, then we have one true experimental fact.
b) If we gather together two true experimental facts, then we will have one true experimental fact.
c) If we gather together three true experimental facts, then we will have one true experimental fact.
d) If we gather together four true experimental facts, then we will have one true experimental fact.
e) If we gather together n true experimental facts, then we will have one true experimental fact. (Where n is any natural number.)
Therefore we do not need to carry out again n experiments in order to prove the validity of one experiment.

There is a bunch of six true experimental facts (given below).
1) First Joule's law: Q = I x I x R x t (experimentally proved for both solid and liquid resistors).
2) Ohm's law: V = I x R (experimentally proved for both solid and liquid resistors).
3) Faraday's law of electrolysis: m = z x I x t (experimentally proved).
4) LHV of hydrogen = 120 MJ/kg = 33 kWh/kg (experimentally proved).
5) HHV of hydrogen = 142 MJ/kg = 40 kWh/kg (experimentally proved).
6) Considering the industrial production of hydrogen, and using current best processes for water electrolysis (PEM or alkaline electrolysis) which have a hydrogengenerating efficiency of 70–80%, producing 1 kg of hydrogen (which has a specific energy of 143 MJ/kg or about 40 kWh/kg) requires 50–55 kWh of electricity (experimentally proved).

If we gather together the last six true experimental facts, then we will have one true experimental fact, which is an efficiency bigger than 1.
Therefore we do not need to carry out again six experiments in order to prove the validity of one experiment.
END OF THE QUOTE
I know that you will object to the above point of view of our colleague. But anyway there is a logic in it. According to your requirement we have to carry out again six experiments which have been proving to be true within a period of more than one century. Isn't this an absurd?
Looking forward to your answer.
Best regards,
George

To forest.

Hi forest.
Thanks a lot for your reply and for the link with the Tesla's article. I would need some time however to understand fully and assimilate entirely this extremely interesting text. I will write to you in the nearest future.
Best regards,
George

To Floor.

Hi, Floor.
Thanks a lot for your reply.
It's ok. No problem that you haven't locate this more recent topic. Please send it to me if you find it. I will search for it either.
We'll be in touch with you.
Best regards,
George

...
... According to your requirement we have to carry out again six experiments which have been proving to be true within a period of more than one century. Isn't this an absurd?
...
Hi George,
Simply put: I did not write or imply or suggest to carry out again those 6 experiments, this is a misunderstanding I suppose.
The results should already be included in your 800 page long report. All you would need to do is to collect relevant data your measurements gave, from which it turns out you have received an efficiency > 1.
The output work done by the burning Hidrogen can be expressed by heating up for instance X amount of water from T1 to T2 temperature, this then could be compared to the input energy needed for electrolyzing a known quantity of liquid (with known start and end temperatures) with a measured amount of DC power during an Y amount of time duration needed for producing the Hidrogen. I also assume you checked the quantity of the Hidrogen received from the electrolysis during an Y time duration.
Maybe I have left out something also important, I do not wish to tell you how such an experiment should exactly be done, I just indicate how I think it would be a correct way (and I may have not considered every important issue, I am not an expert in experimental calorimetry either).
One more thing to consider: if there are no MEASURED results, the scientific community will simply not accept claims on efficiency > 1. It's not only me who would ask for measured results.
You may say for this, you do not care. Well, you can disregard this of course but then you would need somehow "prove" you are right, by say a device that works with > 1 efficiency as per your claims. And if you have a working device, then somehow its efficiency can be measured, no? 8)
Gyula

Hi Gyula,
Thanks a lot for your interesting and instructive last text. I will consider it carefully and will write to you in the nearest future (after a day or two). I would like to ask a few questions too.
Best regards,
George

Hello George1, http://rexresearch.com/kanarev/kanarev1.htm shows data, measurements and graphs about thermal heatgeneration and water to hydrogen/oxygen dissoziation with propagating efficiencies > 1 !
Partial over 20 years old this information changed not the "scientifical status quo".
Sincerely OCWL

To lancaIV/OCWL

Hi lancaIV/OCWL,
Thanks a lot for your last post.
1) But this is not the same, my friend! And actually this is something entirely different! (Although as if some basic principles coincide  in both cases it's a matter of electrolysis.) Prof. Kanarev builds expensive, sophisticated and complex devices which on their behalf generate sophisticated and complex electrochemical processes. (The latter are not studied entirely, I am sure, and there are still too many unknown things related to Prof. Kanarev's research.) Our approach is entirely different from Prof. Kanarev's approach. We do not build sophisticated and complex theories. We do not build expensive, sophisticated and complex devices which on their behalf generate sophisticated and complex electrochemical processes. We simply take a standard ordinary electrolyzer and use it as a heat generator whose efficiency is bigger than 1. Evidently the difference between the two approaches is enormous, isn't it?
2) Anyway your last post is extremely valuable. It shows that in principle it is possible to design and manufacture an electrolysisbased heat generator whose efficiency is bigger than 1.
3) Prof. Kanarev's research is very interesting and two members of our team are studying it very carefully now.
Looking forward to your answer.
Best regards,
George

To gyulasun

Hi Gyula.
We are doing our best to follow your advices and recommendations.
Firstly, I keep studying hard a heavy textbook (and a few smaller manuals) in experimental calorimetry.
Secondly, in the nearest futute we plan to carry out a few extremely exact and precise calorimetric experiments according to your requirements. (And perhaps the 800pages report will be ignored as in my poor opinion most of the tests in it are not accurate enough.)
Thirdly, we are searching now for an electrolyzer, which is newer and more reliable than the electrolyzer used in the 800pages report.

While preparing ourselves for the above mentioned experiments would you be so polite to have a look at the considerations below? These are as follows.

1) Let us consider three resistors  a solid one, a liquid one (an electrolyte) and a gaseous one (atmospheric air for example).
2) Let us apply one and same voltage V=const to each of these three resistors separately.
3) Let us assume that in all three cases we have measured one and same current I=const which flows through each of the three resistors. (The gaseous resistor, i.e. the atmospheric air, generates either a spark or a voltaic/welding arc.)
4) Therefore if the Ohm's law is true, then for any of the above mentioned three resistors are valid the equations
V/I=R (1) <=> V/R=I (2) <=> V=IxR (3)
where R=const is the ohmic resistance of any of the above mentioned three resistors.
5) Therefore if the first Joule's law (related to Joule's heating) and the basic calorimetry laws are valid, then we can write down the following equalities:
E=VxIxt=Q=IxIxRxt=C1xM1x(T1T)=C2xM2x(T2T)= C3xM3x(T3T) (4)
where
t is time/time period;
E=VxIxt is the electric energy generated by the battery of voltage V=const;
Q=IxIxRxt is the heat generated by any of the above three resistors;
C1 is the specific heat of the solid resistor;
M1 is the mass of the solid resistor;
T1 is the temperature of the solid resistor at the end of the time period t;
T is the teperature of any of the above three resistors in the beginning of the time period t;
C2 is the specific heat of the liquid resistor;
M2 is the mass of the liquid resistor;
T2 is the temperature of the liquid resistor at the end of the time period t;
C3 is the specific heat of the gaseous resistor;
M3 is the mass of the gaseous resistor;
T3 is the temperature of the gaseous resistor at the end of the time period t.

If tested experimentally, all of the above equations have to be true, haven't they?

Looking forward to your answer.
Best regards,
George

The last considerations seem to be correct, don't they? Otherwise electric enginnering and calorimetry have to be destroyed.

The last considerations seem to be correct, don't they? Otherwise electric enginnering and calorimetry have to be destroyed.
Hi George,
Well, you start with considerations, from which the 3rd can only be an assumption indeed and may not be correct in practice.
The problem is that in the case of an electrolyte for instance, why do you think the current would be constant? Because the resistance of the liquid will certainly change as Hidrogen and Oxigen are created and leave from the liquid and also the temperature of the liquid will certainly increase. Maybe I am wrong but I do not assume liquid resistance hence current during the process remains constant. Have you or your team found it remaining constant ? Or maybe changing only negligibly ?
This changing current may also be valid for the gaseous 'resistor' and can be a constant indeed for only the 'solid' resistor type.
This then means that the Equations that are made equal to each other while are based on the constant current and resistance assumptions cannot be correct.
If you were to consider an averaged current value for the time duration during which say electrolysis is being done, then certain Equations would be correct but no need to equate them with each other.
This would involve either a continuous or a frequently sampled logging of current values from which an average value can be deduced for the electrolysis, to arrive at the consumed input power hence energy.
It is okay that the voltage would be kept at a constant (stabilized) value. Here I mention M2 (mass of the liquid) which will be changing (reducing) continuously as the H and O leave from it, have you considered this?
Hopefully, the specific heat, C2 for the liquid would not change during the electrolysis process, I do not know.
I mention also that in your test setup described in the paper you started out with, the gaseous resistor is not needed to consider here in any way, it is irrevelant, no?
All in all, with the consideration like using the average current with constant DC input voltage,
equation for the input energy taken from the DC supply would be E_{in}=V x I_{average} x t
Equation for one part of the output energy, heat, created in the liquid is: Eout1 = C2 x M2 x (T2T)
The other part of the output energy is created by the burning hidrogen, this needs to be decided how you measure it. One possibility is to heat up a given amount of water from t1 to t2 temperature during a measured time duration.
This would involve say using a chamber relatively well isolated from the enviroment so that little heat could escape from inside the chamber as an unmeasurable loss. Probably there are other, maybe simpler methods. Like for instance to heat up a well insulated room, from say room temperature to a higher temperature, with continuous air mixing inside the room for checking air temperature. Also, a good comparison for the amount of heat from the burning Hidrogen would be to use an electric heater in the same room, also starting from the same room temperature and arrive at the same higher temperature and measure the electric input energy of the heater. This would be a double check on the energy coming from the Hidrogen burning, that is all.
So the two measured output energies are to be added and their sum then compared to the measured input energy, to get a COP value.
Gyula

https://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/description?CC=WO&NR=2006038048A1&KC=A1&FT=D&ND=4&date=20060413&DB=EPODOC&locale=en_EP# (https://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/description?CC=WO&NR=2006038048A1&KC=A1&FT=D&ND=4&date=20060413&DB=EPODOC&locale=en_EP#)
"... efficiency exceeds extremely the efficiency of conventional hydrolysis... " given as 2,8 KWh per cbm pure hydrogen !
https://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/biblio?DB=EPODOC&II=0&ND=3&adjacent=true&locale=en_EP&FT=D&date=19780808&CC=US&NR=4105528A&KC=A#
Decomposition of aqueos liquid : 20 x improvement !
Now this hydrogen into this fuel cell chamber
https://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/biblio?DB=EPODOC&II=1&ND=3&adjacent=true&locale=en_EP&FT=D&date=19770802&CC=US&NR=4039352A&KC=A# (https://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/biblio?DB=EPODOC&II=1&ND=3&adjacent=true&locale=en_EP&FT=D&date=19770802&CC=US&NR=4039352A&KC=A#)
The first listed patent from Hungary has this " citing documents":
https://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/citingDocuments?CC=WO&NR=2006038048A1&KC=A1&FT=D&ND=4&date=20060413&DB=EPODOC&locale=en_EP (https://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/citingDocuments?CC=WO&NR=2006038048A1&KC=A1&FT=D&ND=4&date=20060413&DB=EPODOC&locale=en_EP)
https://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/description?CC=WO&NR=2011006749A1&KC=A1&FT=D&ND=5&date=20110120&DB=EPODOC&locale=en_EP# (https://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/description?CC=WO&NR=2011006749A1&KC=A1&FT=D&ND=5&date=20110120&DB=EPODOC&locale=en_EP#)
"Induction heater" using,
why not this efficient "inductive heating arrangement":
https://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/biblio?DB=EPODOC&II=4&ND=3&adjacent=true&locale=en_EP&FT=D&date=20161222&CC=DE&NR=112014006403A5&KC=A5# (https://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/biblio?DB=EPODOC&II=4&ND=3&adjacent=true&locale=en_EP&FT=D&date=20161222&CC=DE&NR=112014006403A5&KC=A5#)
Can a superconductive ink improve the total efficiency?
https://www.google.com/search?q=bolano+superconductive+ink&ie=utf8&oe=utf8&client=firefoxb

To gyulasun

Hi Gyula,
Thanks a lot for your reply.
Yes, you are right, but there are some aspects of the problem that have to be explained in detail. And here they are.
Please look at the link below and please read it carefully:
https://chem.libretexts.org/Bookshelves/Introductory_Chemistry/Book%3A_Introductory_Chemistry_(CK12)/23%3A_Electrochemistry/23.09%3A_Electrolysis_of_Water
And here is a quote from this link:

BEGINNING OF THE QUOTE
Electrolysis of Water
The electrolysis of water produces hydrogen and oxygen gases. The electrolytic cell consists of a pair of platinum electrodes immersed in water to which a small amount of an electrolyte such as H2SO4 has been added. The electrolyte is necessary because pure water will not carry enough charge due to the lack of ions. At the anode, water is oxidized to oxygen gas and hydrogen ions. At the cathode, water is reduced to hydrogen gas and hydroxide ions.
oxidation (anode):reduction (cathode):overall reaction:2H2O(l)→O2(g)+4H+(aq)+4e−2H2O(l)+2e−→H2(g)+2OH−(aq)2H2O(l)→O2(g)+2H2(g)E0=−1.23VE0=−0.83VE0cell=−2.06V(23.9.1)
In order to obtain the overall reaction, the reduction halfreaction was multiplied by two to equalize the electrons. The hydrogen ion and hydroxide ions produced in each reaction combine to form water. The H2SO4 is not consumed in the reaction.
END OF THE QUOTE

Therefore the link above actually explains everything.
In order to maintain M2=const, T2=const, I=const and R=const in the electrolyte you have to do only two things.
Firstly, you have to add constantly only pure water (as H2SO4 is not consumed in the reaction as shown in the above link and in the above quote) in the electrolyzer thus keeping M2=const.
Secondly, you have to cool down constantly the electrolyzer thus (a) consuming constantly the Joule's heat for useful purposes and (b) keeping T2=const, I=const and R=const. (Because as you know the ohmic resistance of any electrolyte depends on temperature, that is, the ohmic resistance of any electrolyte decreases with rise in temperature. In order to avoid this you cool constantly the electrolyte thus keeping constant values for T2, I and R, respectively.)

So having in mind the above explanations it is not necessary in my poor opinion to use such a sophisticated experimental methodology as the one you have recommended in your last post. Don't you think so?
Looking forward to your answer.
Best regards,
George

To lancaIV

Hi lancaIV.
Thanks a lot for your reply.
The links you have sent to me are extremely interesting. We are studing them very carefully now. Yes, you are absolutely right that there is an enormous and still undiscovered and useful potential in the water generating electrolysis. Obviously many people work over this technology problem. Please send to us other links of the sort, if you have any.
Looking forward to your answer.
Best regards,
George

Yes, many universities,science institutions and comercial R&D labs are working in this scene, including DOE and EUEureka grants or MITI !
Low cost water decomposition ( not : water generation) gives the entrance to the CO2/Methan cycle !Solar/Sun/Windfuel as synthetic hydrocarb liquid fuel and CO2 Recycling.
Thermal,sono,photo,electrolysis or plasma as water catalysator.
You do not want a simple electric heater, you want cheap energy and this many wants !
2010 now 2019 ,......
https://www.h2international.com/2017/06/06/highvoltageelectrolysispossible/
Audi,Toyota,GM,Hyundai,......

.....
So having in mind the above explanations it is not necessary in my poor opinion to use such a sophisticated experimental methodology as the one you have recommended in your last post. Don't you think so?
Looking forward to your answer.
....
Hi George,
As I wrote earlier to you, I do not wish to tell you or your team how to measure the energy balance of your proposed electric heater setup for which you claim COP > 1 performance. I simply outlined a method I think would give a correct answer for such a certainly bold claim.
Any method you find simple to determine the input and output energy quantities should be fine. There is only one thing to follow: the data entered into the correct math formulas should come from actual measurements on the setup.
I wonder what actual data have been collected in the 800 page long report you referred to: can we ever read a 1 or 2 page long version of it? No offense and no any pressure intended but what is so difficult in it to collect input and output energy data and some details, once that report was done after the tests and measurements ?
Remember: you asked for comments / opinions in connection with your paper https://mypicxbg.files.wordpress.com/2019/01/pages_16.pdf (https://mypicxbg.files.wordpress.com/2019/01/pages_16.pdf) in your very first post of this thread. The idea involved in the paper should deserve a really correct measurement procedure I think.
Gyula

To lancaIV

Hi, lancaIV.
Thanks a lot for your reply.
1) In my poor opinion a standard ordinary electrolyzer can be considered as a simple electric heater as well as a generator of cheap energy. These two properties of any standard ordinary electrolyzer are related one to another.
2) Thanks a lot for the link you have sent to me. I will cosider it carefully.
3) What are these DOE, EUEureka grants, MITI, etc.? Would you be so polite to give some more information about them?
4) And what about the last line of your last post: "Audi,Toyota,GM,Hyundai,......" You mean that these companies are also searching for methods of generating of cheap energy? If yes, then how to contact the correct companies' departments involved in the topic?
5) You wrote also: "...... many universities,science institutions and comercial R&D labs are working in this scene." Would you be so polite to enumerate some of them and show the most direct links to the related departments and/or people?
Looking forward to your answer.
Best regards,
George

To gyulasun

Hi Gyula.
Thanks a lot for your reply.
1) Yes, I perfectly agree with you. You are absolutely right. All your comments and recommendations are reasonable and correct. And thank you for this!
2) The quality of our 800pages report is not satisfiable. I don't like it at all. Too many incorrectnesses, too many experimental errors, whose percentage is bigger than acceptable, etc. In my poor opinion the experiments must be carried out again and I persuaded into doing this all members of our team. But this time I will take part PERSONALLY in all experimental procedures. (I am studying hard experimental calorimetry as you know from my previous posts.)
3) The first step seems to me comparatively easy  to measure voltage V, current I and time t at the inlet, thus measuring the inlet energy.
4) The problem is how to measure CALORIMETRICALLY in a reliable and simple manner the Joule's heat generated by the electrolyzer. Any good idea is welcome.
5) Another problem is (a) how to store in a reliable and simple manner the generated hydrogen and (b) how to weigh the already generated hydrogen in a reliable and simple manner too. Or to measure the generated hydrogen's volume at a certain pressure (may be at atmospheric pressure?) and after that to calculate the hygrogen's weight? Any good idea is welcome.
6) Shall we test the hydrogen's HHV=142 MJ/kg or take it for granted?
Looking forward to your answer.
Best regards,
George

U. S. Department of Energy program ( New technologies and new energy concepts related)
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/ARPAE (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/ARPAE)
http://www.arpaesummit.com/ (http://www.arpaesummit.com/)
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/FreedomCAR_and_Vehicle_Technologies (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/FreedomCAR_and_Vehicle_Technologies)
European Union program :
https://www.welcomeurope.com/europeanfunds/eureka302+202.html#tab=onglet_details (https://www.welcomeurope.com/europeanfunds/eureka302+202.html#tab=onglet_details)
Japanese estatal program ( M. I. T. I., now M. E. T. I. )
http://www.meti.go.jp/english/ (http://www.meti.go.jp/english/)
Not to forget chinese,indian, korean and russian estatal research & developments.
Comercial R&D : (petro) chemical industry ( great hydrogen producer and user)
Shell and Exxon has been some of the greatest re/ searcher in the renewable ( photovoltaic, windconversion)energy sector ( and are !).
And all are working together ( energy and mobility is a trillion $ market ):
https://translate.google.com/translate?hl=de&sl=de&tl=en&u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.autosieger.de%2Fshellundchorenzusammenarbeitzusunfuelvereinbartarticle6952.html (https://translate.google.com/translate?hl=de&sl=de&tl=en&u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.autosieger.de%2Fshellundchorenzusammenarbeitzusunfuelvereinbartarticle6952.htmlbut)
But :
https://translate.google.com/translate?hl=de&sl=de&tl=en&u=https%3A%2F%2Fm.heise.de%2Ftr%2Fartikel%2FDerSpritistaus1726672.html (https://translate.google.com/translate?hl=de&sl=de&tl=en&u=https%3A%2F%2Fm.heise.de%2Ftr%2Fartikel%2FDerSpritistaus1726672.html)
Nevertheless the idea " renewable ( clean and save) fuel" is alive :https://www.autosieger.de/VWbetreibtSunFuelFlottearticle240.html (https://www.autosieger.de/VWbetreibtSunFuelFlottearticle240.html)
The semiestatal industrial VWtrust(Included AUDI) has thousands of R&D engineers : f. e. by participation https://de.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/IAV (https://de.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/IAV) and many cooperations and projects with universities worldwide.
https://translate.google.com/translate?hl=de&sl=de&tl=en&u=https%3A%2F%2Fde.m.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FIAV (https://translate.google.com/translate?hl=de&sl=de&tl=en&u=https%3A%2F%2Fde.m.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FIAV)
Cheap heat and electricity ( in future e producer will have to pay for surplus netcharge/ load) and price potential :
http://www.dotyenergy.com/ (http://www.dotyenergy.com/)
If you have got something real then go to international energy challenges their "showroom" and compete !
https://www.ideaconnection.com/challenges/ (https://www.ideaconnection.com/challenges/)

Hi George,
Some of your questions (nr 4 or 5) can be answered by either experts from local university or college physics or chemics labs where you may also find some kind of calorimeters too and / or searching for selected solutions on the web.
Regarding your 6th question:
Shall we test the hydrogen's HHV=142 MJ/kg or take it for granted?
Well, you do not need to test the HHV value but please study what the so called LHV is because LHV=120 MJ/kg 'only' for the Hydrogen.
I think this lower value is valid when the 'latent' energy i.e. for instance the heat in the hot air created during burning is not utilized (while the burning Hydrogen does heat up say a given amount of water from T1 to T2 temperature during a measured time duration).
So if you do not utilize the otherwise escaping secondary heat during Hydrogen burning, then you can use as worst case the LHV=120 MJ/kg. Especially, if you seem to receive COP > 1 measured result with the LHV value...
Gyula

Hi Gyula,
Thanks a lot for your reply.

The majority of our team is strongly against carrying out the experiments related to the electrolyzer's COP. This is because a certain set of reliable and precise tests would take a lot of time and money and would engage a lot of people.

Instead our team's greatest expert in electric engineering suggests the following madeofiron logical construction which is equivalent to the most precise experiment.

1) Firstly, let us assume that the law of conservation of energy is valid for the electrolyte of any standard hydrogengenerating electrolyzer. ( No matter whether this is an amateur YouTubepresented electrolyzer or a professional laboratory/industrial electrolyzer.) Therefore we can write down the equality
VxIxt=IxIxRxt + H (1)
where
V is the voltage of the battery;
I is the current, generated by the battery, and the current, which flows through the electrolyte;
R is the ohmic resistance of the electrolyte;
t is time;
H is the heat of burning of hydrogen.
If equality (1) is true, then we can write down the following inequality
V>IxR (2).
Let us put together (1) and (2), that is,
VxIxt=IxIxRxt + H (1) <=> V>IxR (2).
Equality (1) and inequality (2) unambiguously show that for any standard hydrogengenerating electrolyzer if the law of conservation of energy is valid, then the Ohm's law is not valid.

2) Secondly, let us assume that the Ohm's law is valid for the electrolyte of any standard hydrogengenerating electrolyzer. Therefore we can write down the equality
V=IxR (3).
If equality (3) is true, then we can write down the following inequality
VxIxt<IxIxRxt + H (4).
Let us put together (3) and (4), that is,
V=IxR (3) <=> VxIxt<IxIxRxt + H (4).
Equality (3) and inequality (4) unambiguously show that for any standard hydrogengenerating electrolyzer if the Ohm's law is valid, then the law of conservation of energy is not valid.

In one word, according to the text above there are three possible options for any standard and ordinary hydrogengenerating electrolyzer, which are as follows.
OPTION 1. If the law of conservation of energy is valid, then the Ohm's law is not valid.
OPTION 2. If the Ohm's law is valid, then the law of conservation of energy is not valid.
OPTION 3. Both the Ohm's law and the law of conservation of energy are not valid simultaneously to some extent.

AND WHATEVER EXPERIMENTS TO CARRY OUT THE EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS WILL BE A REALIZATION OF ONE OF THE ABOVE THREE OPTIONS.

In my poor opinion the situation cannot be explained in a simpler and clearer manner.

Looking forward to your answer.
Best regards,
George

Hi George,
I have some problems with your reasonings and I consider them invalid I am afraid.
1) Well, the VxIxt formula as you defined gives the input energy needed for the electrolysis and this is surely equal to the formula IxIxRxt which is the same input energy, no problem here. Of course V=IxR is also correct, (which is Ohm"s law) and if you replace V with IxR in this VxIxt formula, then you get this: IxIxRxt, so they are equal.
(In fact I do not understand why you express the same input energy with two formulas which are derived from each other? You can express them like that, of course but here it is not needed.)
BUT if you add H to the right hand side of this equation: VxIxt=IxIxRxt, then I do not think this is correct, because H is the output energy (you defined H as the heat of burning the Hydrogen), so:
Why would you add the output energy to the input energy in an equality formula where the left hand side is the input energy itself and the right hand side is the same input energy + output energy? Because this is what your equality (1) means to me mathematically. So this is the 1st problem.
Now you introduce inequality (2) as V>IxR and state that if you put together (1) and (2), then ... I do not repeat your text.
So the 2nd problem is that you compare (or relate) energy with voltage. V=IxR (or V>IxR) is voltage while VxIxt (or IxIxRxt) is energy. Big difference, they are not comparable, they cannot be put together in any way, whatever you mean by "put together".
SO the energy balance (if we assume the law of the conservation of energy is valid) would be: input energy=output energy i.e. VxIxt=H and here H should include not only the energy coming from the burning Hidrogen but from the heat energy created in the electrolyte by the input energy during the t time.
2) I think Ohm's law (V=IxR) is valid for electrolysers. My only notice with this is that you need to consider the changing current through the electrolyte as it heats up during the process so this law is valid in each single moment, and in another moment say 5 minutes later, a slightly changed current flows because the resistance of the electrolyte has changed, ok? In this sense, using Ohm's law here gives not much sense in itself but this latter is a side note only.
Another side note: this is why I wrote to your earlier (when were discussing the how to measure input energy during the electrolysis) that input current should be measured either continuously or should at least be sampled frequently and calculate from those the average input current for evaluating input energy.
Now you introduce this inequality: VxIxt<IxIxRxt+H Well, this may be correct because you relate input energy to the (same) input energy + output energy: the sum of the latter two can be higher than the input energy itself, I have no problem with this part.
And then you put your formulas (3) and (4) together (probably you mean: relate them) i.e. (3) is voltage and (4) is energy and this cannot be done, voltage is not energy.
So I think your listed OPTION 1, 2 and 3 are not correct or valid. (But see my side note above how Ohm"s law is valid.)
So this situation is not to be explained in theory, no need for that but the input and output energies ought to be measured and then arrive at a COP > 1 claim if the measurements prove it. I understand this may become expensive and tiresome but I can only repeat: science is correct when claims or theories are proved by repeatable measurements. Especially so with COP > 1 claims.
Gyula

I agree, Gyula.
In other words, U=R*I is what sees the generator, R being the apparent resistance of the solution, not the ohmic resistance.
In the solution, we have U1=R1*I which is the part really dissipated as heat in the ohmic resistance R1, and U1 = UU2 where U2 is the oxydoreduction potential. U1*I is dissipated as heat, U2*I is disspated as chemical energy for gas production, U*I is the total energy provided by the generator, not that dissipated in heat.
That's why U2 is named "reduction potential (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reduction_potential)": the solution is viewed as a battery connected in series but in opposition to the generator.
Those who do not want to make the effort to study and understand, or even experiment, while thinking to be smarter than Faraday and when the well known keys to this were given a month ago, are condemned to go in circles in their faith and of course, without producing anything concrete outside the blah, blah, blah.

Hi Gyula,
Hi F6FLT,
Thanks a lot for your replies.
My colleagues and I have been extremely busy for the last 7 days and because of this we could not pay attention to overunity.com.
We will consider very carefully your last posts and will write our answers in the very nearest future.
Best regards,
George

To gyulasun.

Hi Gyuala.
Thank you again for your last post. Thank you for your reasonable and professional comments. We highly appreciate this. You are a real expert. And here are our answers.

1) Yes, you are absolutely right that real experiments have to be carried out. But if you consider carefully the main technical data of any industrial hydrogengenerating electrolyzer, then you will see that the electrolyzers' manufacturers have carried out actually all experiments which you are talking about in your last posts. The only exception is the lack of experimental data related to a CALORIMETRIC measure of the Joule's heat, which is generated by the electrolyte. So any good idea in this direction is welcome. (May be it's worth to think over the possibility to calculate indirectly in some way the generated Joule's heat by using the technology parameters of the electrolyzer's cooling agent.)

2) Yes, you are absolutely right that pure water volume decreases while electrolysis takes place. But any industrial hydrogengenerating electrolyzer has two very important subsystems.
Subsystem 1 always keeps constant the volume of pure water inside the electrolyzer. For example the water consumption of the Hogen's hydrogengenerating electrolyzer is 5.50 L/hr (please refer to Hogen's main technical data) and subsystem 1 always keeps a constant pure water flow of 5.50 L/hr.
Subsystem 2 aways keeps a constant flow of a certain cooling agent, which on its behalf always keeps constant the temperature of the electrolyzer thus avoiding overheating. (If we use the hydrogengenerating electrolyzer as a heater however, then the cooling agent could be for example the circulating water of a certain standard waterheating system. And in addition we wil have the heat of burning of the generated hydrogen.)

3) V=IxR. This is the Ohm's law. You agree in your last post that the Ohm's law is valid for both solid and liquid resistors (electrolytes). Therefore for any solid or liquid resistor we can write down the sequence of equalities V=IxR (1) <=> VxI=IxIxR (2) <=> VxIxt=IxIxRxt (3).
In one word, for any solid or liquid resistor the first Joule's law (related to Joule's heating) directly derives from the Ohm's law and vice versa.
Therefore for any solid or liquid resistor the electric energy, generated by the DC source, is just equal to the Joule's heat, generated by the resistor.
In addition to the Joule's heat the liquid resistor (the electrolyte) inside the hydrogengenerating electrolyzer gives a certain amount of hydrogen whose heat of burning is H, where H>0.
Let us add H to the righthand side of equality (3). The result of this addition will be the equality VxIxt=IxIxRxt+H (4).
The last equallity (4) cannot be true however and it has to be transformed into the inequality VxIxt<IxIxRxt+H (5).
The last inequality (5) leads directly to COP>1.

Looking forward to your answer.
Best regards,
George

If we are all more or less ignorant of one field or another, only those who are aware of it can progress, it is enough to learn, and the less ignorant can help while they have no time to waste with the ignorant of his ignorance, it is hopeless.
We can resume the discussion when you have made the personal effort to understand rather than persist in a ridiculous pedantic attitude repeating his act of faith, in full denial of the objections already made.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wien_effect
Ohms law in electrolysis deviation
or
as reactive metal ( ~ Argentum family) " chemalloy" http://freeenergy.ws/samuelfreedman/

To lancaIV.

Hi lancaIV.
Thank you for your reply. These two links are very interesting, but they have practically nothing to do with the topic. (There is, of course, a partial relationship as it's a matter of electric processes, but that's all.)

To F6FLT.

Hi F6FLT.
Thank you for your reply.
I haven't read even one reasonable comment of yours yet. Please study EXTREMELY carefully Gyula's comments, which are brilliant examples of expert analysis and high qualification.

To lancaIV.

Hi lancaIV.
Thank you for your reply. These two links are very interesting, but they have practically nothing to do with the topic. (There is, of course, a partial relationship as it's a matter of electric processes, but that's all.)
If Ohms law deviation then calculate with Kirchhoff maths, conditionized also by https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wiedemann%E2%80%93Franz_law (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wiedemann%E2%80%93Franz_law)
"water" is a semimetal ( metal, translated : Glanz, brill )
The chemalloy gives hydrolysis and temperature increase without outer electricity input so surplus energyis from technical view something conventional ( silver spoon in waterglas : bubbles= hydrolysis)

To F6FLT.

Hi F6FLT.
Thank you for your reply.
I haven't read even one reasonable comment of yours yet.
There is a terrible gap between the subject matter of a "reasonable comment" and what you understand about it.
If you do not understand the technical objections, we can see it here, you are unable to answer them except by idle digressions, it's your problem, not mine. Yet they are made simply and in a pedagogical effort so that they are understandable even by any undergraduate student.
I therefore advise you to ignore my future messages and consider that they are addressed only to people of good will who make the effort to acquire a basis on the subjects they are interested in.

Hi George,
1) You wrote: "The only exception is the lack of experimental data related to a CALORIMETRIC measure of the Joule's heat, which is generated by the electrolyte. So any good idea in this direction is welcome."
I already hinted at how it could be achieved but it involves actual measurements... see my Reply #43 here:
https://overunity.com/18134/asimpleelectricheaterwhichhasefficiencygreaterthan1/msg531870/#msg531870
"... this then could be compared to the input energy needed for electrolyzing a known quantity of liquid (with known start and end temperatures) with a measured amount of DC power during an Y amount of time duration needed for producing the Hydrogen. I also assume you checked the quantity of the Hydrogen received from the electrolysis during an Y time duration."
Or in my Reply #49 "This would involve either a continuous or a frequently sampled logging of current values from which an average value can be deduced for the electrolysis, to arrive at the consumed input power hence energy. It is okay that the voltage would be kept at a constant (stabilized) value. Here I mention M2 (mass of the liquid) which will be changing (reducing) continuously as the H and O leave from it, have you considered this? ... All in all, with the consideration like using the average current with constant DC input voltage,
equation for the input energy taken from the DC supply would be Ein=V x I_{average} x t
Equation for one part of the output energy, heat, created in the liquid is: Eout1 = C2 x M2 x (T2T) "
Symbol meanings in the formula are defined by you in related earlier posts.
Then you wrote your Reply #51 in which you wrote: "such a sophisticated experiment is not neccessary". I answered it of course.
2) Just because manufactured electrolyzers are made to compensate for say the temperature of electrolyte or consumed water or whatever as you referred to, they clearly influence the parameters of the electrolyte within the cell or chamber in which the electrolysis is carried out.
This way they kill the simple possibility of measuring say temperature rise under a t time duration the input current creates to have a certain amount of Hydrogen. Your mentioned 'Subsystem 1' just kills that. This is true mainly for Subsystem 2, too.
Otherwise, the use of such subsystems 1 and 2 is certainly useful in an already working system, I agree but not good at all for validation measurements you are expected to do.
So I cannot give any simpler method to solve your question on a calorimetric Joule heat measurement other than I repeated here in my quotes.
3) On your equations or equalities: Yes Ohm's law V=IxR (1) is valid but I must stress the current should be an averaged value calculated from measured sample values for a T time duration as I mentioned already.
Your formula (2), VxI=IxIxR is an equation but again you are making the same (input) power level equal to the same input power level: what sense does this have?
Also formula (3) VxIxt=IxIxRxt is another equation, the left side expresses input energy to the electrolyte and the right hand side also expresses the same input energy: the two are obviously equal. What is your point?
Now if you add a H heat quantity to the right hand side of your formula (3) to get formula (4), VxIxt=IxIxRxt+H, and then changing formula (4) into an inequality: VxIxt < IxIxRxt+H (5), here is what I think:
I agree that formula (4) cannot be true as you also wrote. I already wrote that the correct formula would be VxIxt=H (or IxIxRxt=H) where the left side is input energy and the right hand side is the heat from the burning Hydrogen + the created heat in the electrolyte.
And here with these equations VxIxt=H (or IxIxRxt=H) we assume the law of the conservation of energy is valid as an initial condition. AND whether this equation VxIxt=H (or IxIxRxt=H) becomes an inequality like either VxIxt < H (or IxIxRxt < H) to give COP>1 or VxIxt > H (or IxIxRxt > H) to give COP<1, it can only be answered by measurements.
You cannot substitute real measurements with some manipulation of equations or inequalities to arrive at a COP>1 "conclusion", this is nonsense. Please understand this.
If I were cynic, I would say the point of writing your equations (2) (3) was to intruduce the validity of the rest of your formulas...
It is not only me who would ask for correct measurements to prove your COP>1 claim for your proposed setup, imagine to market your setup and imagine you would need to persuade a consumer to buy your 'product' or heating system solution: you would need to include technical specifications from which the superiority of your heating system should turn out.
And HOW could you receive proof or licence from authorities to market your heating system if you cannot prove your claims with measurements? They are not interested in your equations or inequalities.
Please study EXTREMELY carefully Gyula's comments, which are brilliant examples of expert analysis and high qualification.
Thanks but whatever "brilliant examples of expert analysis" I have tried to give you in the past two months or so, you always acknowledged them and then continued with "the how to escape the measurement" game, and this is unfortunate.
By the way, F6FLT did give you very reasonable comments, see for instance his Reply #61
https://overunity.com/18134/asimpleelectricheaterwhichhasefficiencygreaterthan1/msg532237/#msg532237
and you cannot blame him that he may not have as much patience as I have hence he gives you more criticism. 8)
Gyula

...
U=R*I is what sees the generator, R being the apparent resistance of the solution, not the ohmic resistance.
In the solution, we have U1=R1*I which is the part really dissipated as heat in the ohmic resistance R1, and U1 = UU2 where U2 is the oxydoreduction potential. U1*I is dissipated as heat, U2*I is disspated as chemical energy for gas production, U*I is the total energy provided by the generator, not that dissipated in heat.
That's why U2 is named "reduction potential (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reduction_potential)": the solution is viewed as a battery connected in series but in opposition to the generator.
...
Even more simply. Imagine you have a 5v battery with a 3 v battery connected in series but in opposition. Then you have now only 2v. So a moron would say to himself: "therefore I can charge a 5 v battery with a 2 v charger! It's overunity. I will publish my article on ou.com, and title it in capital letters "A SIMPLE ELECTRIC CHARGER, WHICH HAS EFFICIENCY GREATER THAN 1. I'm so good! I am the new Tesla!". 8) ;D
That's what we face: the redox potential of the solution plays the role of the opposing battery.

Even more simply. Imagine you have a 5v battery with a 3 v battery connected in series but in opposition. Then you have now only 2v. So a moron would say to himself: "therefore I can charge a 5 v battery with a 2 v charger! It's overunity. I will publish my article on ou.com, and title it in capital letters "A SIMPLE ELECTRIC CHARGER, WHICH HAS EFFICIENCY GREATER THAN 1. I'm so good! I am the new Tesla!". 8) ;D
That's what we face: the redox potential of the solution plays the role of the opposing battery.
Hihihohohaha : IMPOSSIBLE POSSIBILITY
right or wrong polarisation by this
" A SIMPLE ELECTRIC CHARGER WHICH HAS EFFICIENCY GREATER THAN 1"
claim :https://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/description?CC=BE&NR=438189A&KC=A&FT=D&ND=3&DB=EPODOC&locale=en_EP# (https://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/description?CC=BE&NR=438189A&KC=A&FT=D&ND=3&DB=EPODOC&locale=en_EP#)
Had been a bad time for inventors : WWII years and BE occupation

Hihihohohaha : IMPOSSIBLE POSSIBILITY
right or wrong polarisation by this
" A SIMPLE ELECTRIC CHARGER WHICH HAS EFFICIENCY GREATER THAN 1"
claim :https://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/description?CC=BE&NR=438189A&KC=A&FT=D&ND=3&DB=EPODOC&locale=en_EP# (https://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/description?CC=BE&NR=438189A&KC=A&FT=D&ND=3&DB=EPODOC&locale=en_EP#)
Had been a bad time for inventors : WWII years and BE occupation
This patent is the "idea" to couple a motor to a generator and hope for overunity by crossing their fingers. As for this OU heater delirium, it just lacks a magic formula like "abracadabra" for it to work. ::)
It seems that the text of the patent was written by a 13yearold child, it is full of spelling mistakes and childish expressions, especially on technical issues. It is not surprising that the industry has never taken anything out of this patent.
Everyone has the right to behave stupidly, but at this point, is that really reasonable? This behaviour of egocentric morons who think to be Tesla without ever having built anything that works, is completely disrespectful of others, it wastes their time.

To gyulasun.

Hi Gyula.
Thanks a lot for your reply.
1) Yes, you are absolutely right that real measurements cannot be substituted with some manipulations of equations or inequalities which arrive at COP>1 conclusion. (We would not call them manipulations but standard mathematical operations, but anyway.)
2) Yes, we tried to escape the measurement game. But this is obviously not the correct approach. Real experiments have to be carried out.
3) So we are starting to carry out these experiments. The most difficult one seems to be the calorimetric measure of the heat generated by the electrolyte. Any good idea/advice how to do this in a simple and reliable manner?
Looking forward to your answer.
Best regards,
George

To F6FLT.
To lancaIV.

Hi guys.
1) Please excuse me, if I have offended you in some way. I am sorry for this.
2) We are starting carrying out the real experiments. Any good ideas for simple and reliable experimental stepbystep procedures?
Looking forward to your answers.
Best regards,
George

Hi George,
I do not wish to tell you how to proceed with the actual tests. We have discussed several times what are to be measured, at least I wrote about them. How you achieve them is your solution, and whatever results you get, please report them. And if I or anyone else here asks questions on the measuring methods and devices you eventually used, then you can hopefully give answers, with photos on the setup etc. No need for a 800 page long report either.
I agree the biggest problem is to collect the deliberated hydrogen and then burning it so that from the heat created only a minimum quantity could escape into the enviroment and much part of the heat should heat up a given quantity of (say) water (or oil).
Perhaps local labs at universities or colleges or at high schools can give some equipment in this respect or they let them use by you in their lab. You do not have to tell them what exactly you want to prove, just say that you wish to perform an electrolysis with correct measurements that include the liquid's temperatures and the performed work of the burning hydrogen on heating up another liquid. Maybe they have a ready chamber for this latter process. Or the chemics or physics teacher can advise you on cheap possibilities. Perhaps start with figuring out in advance the quatity of water for instance, how much heat is needed to raise say half a liter of water from room temp to say 50 degree Celsius and whether this could be done in a heat isolated chamber from which only a minimum amount of heat could escape. etc etc.
Gyula


Therefore the link above actually explains everything.
In order to maintain M2=const, T2=const, I=const and R=const in the electrolyte you have to do only two things.
Firstly, you have to add constantly only pure water (as H2SO4 is not consumed in the reaction as shown in the above link and in the above quote) in the electrolyzer thus keeping M2=const.
Secondly, you have to cool down constantly the electrolyzer thus (a) consuming constantly the Joule's heat for useful purposes and (b) keeping T2=const, I=const and R=const. (Because as you know the ohmic resistance of any electrolyte depends on temperature, that is, the ohmic resistance of any electrolyte decreases with rise in temperature. In order to avoid this you cool constantly the electrolyte thus keeping constant values for T2, I and R, respectively.)

Change in the temperature effects resistance, as resistance changes and applied voltage is constant, electric
current varies.
Measuring input wattage not current (use a watt meter), will simplify / eliminate this aspect / Question of
temperature variation of the electrolyte over time / need to maintain a constant current over the time duration.
floor

Hi guys.
Let me report what we have done until now.
We attack vigorously the problem, related to the required real experiment. We found a HOGEN H6m hydrogen generator at a distance of 100 km from the place we live. Every day at least two members of our team travel and cover this distance of 100 km in order to carry out a set of experiments. It will take some time. But we will do it!

Meanwhile we came upon some very interesting things.
Please have a look at the book "Solved Problems in Physics", 2004, Volume 2, p. 876, solved problem 12.97. The author of this book is Prof. S. L. Srivastava (Ph.D.)
The same book can be found at the link https://books.google.bg/books?id=rrKFzLB9KQ8C&pg=PA876&lpg=PA876&dq=%22electrochemical+equivalent+of+hydrogen%22&source=bl&ots=tQ8PSMLet3&sig=ACfU3U2HOLB78XHl2o3qJanapzSKMcJA&hl=bg&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjDpp2zZXhAhWT5OAKHUfuBzUQ6AEwBHoECAkQAQ#v=onepage&q=%22electrochemical%20equivalent%20of%20hydrogen%22&f=false

For your convenience I am giving below the text of the problem and its solution.

12.97. In the electrolysis of sulphuric acid solution, 100 mg of hydrogen is liberated in a period of 20 minutes. The resistance of the electrolyte is 0.5 Ohm. Calculate the power consumed. Electrochemical equivalent of hydrogen is 1.044 x 10 8 kg/C.
Solution: The power consumed is equal to 31.86 W.
Prof. S. L. Srivastava stops here his calculations.
(The related solution's set of equations is not given here in order to save time and space. This set of equations however can be found in the book or in the link above.)

The above solved problem has a potential which can be developed further. And here it is.
1) Let us calculate the inlet energy, that is, inlet energy = (31.86 W) x (1200 s) = 38232 Ws = 38232 J.
2) Let us calculate the current I. The current I is given by I = (m)/(Z x t) = 7.9 A,
where
m = 0.0001kg of hydrogen
Z = electrochemical equivalent of hydrogen
t = 1200 s
3) The Joule's heat, generated in the process of electrolysis is given by
Q = I x I x R x t = (7.9 A) x (7.9 A) x (0.5 Ohm) x (1200 s) = 37446 J = outlet energy 1.
4) HHV of hydrogen is 142 000 000 J/kg. Therefore the heat H, generated by burning/exploding of 0.0001 kg of hydrogen, is given by
H = (142 000 000) x (0.0001) = 14200 J = outlet energy 2.
5) Therefore we can write down the equalities:
5A) outlet energy 1 + outlet energy 2 = 37446 J + 14200 J = 51646 J
5B) inlet energy = 38232 J.
6) Therefore COP is given by
COP = 51646 J/38232 J = 1.35 <=> COP = 1.35 <=> COP > 1.

Constant pure water and cooling agent supply could keep constant the electrolyte's temperature, heat exchange, mass and ohmic resistance, respectively.
Besides 0.0001 kg of hydrogen (and the related amount of the already split pure water) is small enough and can be neglected as a factor influencing the electrolyte's temperature, mass and ohmic resisitance.

And one more interesting fact.
Literally the same solved problem can be found in an old Russian (still from the Soviet times) book "Сборник задач и вопросов по физике", 1986, p. 130, solved example problem 71. The authors of this book are Р. А. Гладкова and Н. И. Кутиловская. In the Russian version the data is a little different, that is, time is 25 minutes, the amount of generated hydrogen is 150 mg, Ohmic resisitance is 0.4 Ohm and the calculated power is 37 W.
Russians also stopped their calculations at 37 W.
Our further development of the Russian version led to COP = 1.37, that is, we have again COP > 1.

Therefore the text above unambiguously shows that it is a matter of exact experimental data which is in perfect accordance with theory. Because I cannot imagine that three highly qualified experts in physics (yet strongly separated by time, space and nationality) would have made one and same mistake three times in a row. This is impossible!

Looking forward to your answers.
Regards,
George

Hi George,
I thought you would arrive at some workout school examples on hydrogen production. 8) No problem with this approach because from such calculations one can estimate in advance what hydrogen quantity could be expected to receive from a (hopefully also) known input power.
So the calculations show that one could achieve a COP of 1.35 or 1.37. Now the question is how this COP number comes out in practice ?
I think you need to start with either a DC or AC source available and work from there. If an AC source is used for electrolysis, then there is a certain conversion efficiency involved for the AC to DC converter. I may sound as if I am kidding with such details but I am not: you and your team will surely face this when examining the Hogen H6m hydrogen generator (i.e. the Series H from manufacturer Proton Onsite Electrolyzers) in this respect.
Even though it is a professionally 'sounding' generator, its efficiency is written in a book as 50.6 % + 10 % i.e. around 61 %. The efficiency for the Series C (from the same manufacturer) is 59 % + 10 % = 69 %, this indicated by the book as the highest efficiency product among their hydrogen generator family. The 10 % addition is the energy removed earlier from the overall system efficiency so I added them up. The reason is the hydrogen should be dried to comply with the required purity specifications. Drying needs additional energy (about 10%) from the AC mains input and the liberated hydrogen goes through the builtin dryer.
The book in which I found these data can be read online, see "Chapter 3.2.3.3 Proton Onsite PEM Electrolyzer" here (pages 136 and 137 and PEM is short for Proton Exchange Membrane):
https://books.google.com/books?id=dyEtAgAAQBAJ&pg=PA136&dq=HOGEN+H6m+hydrogen+generator&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjzxKK8wqDhAhUGt4sKHa5LA70Q6AEIJzAA#v=onepage&q=HOGEN%20H6m%20hydrogen%20generator&f=false
(If Page 137 comes up blank, try to scroll down a few pages and then back, it will become visible)
and here is the manufacturer site on their Series H machines:
https://www.protononsite.com/productsprotonsite/h2h4h6 There is PDF file with the specifications for the H6 machine.
Maybe your team members travelling to the place will be allowed to measure the average DC current and DC voltage which actually does the electrolysis ? Unfortunately, to do this (and supposing it will be permitted), the electrolyser cabinet should be opened to gain access to the electrodes wiring/cable system etc.
Notice 1. You used the HHV data of hydrogen which is ok when you utilize the latent heat of vaporization too that appears say as "hot air" (if I am not mistaken) as the result of the hydrogen gas burning with the ambient air oxigen while the flame heats up say a bucket of water. For the shake of completeness, I would consider the lower heating value, the LHV of the hydrogen too, which is 119.96 MJ/kg and in your 1st book example the outlet energy 2 in this case would be 11996 J. So the COP in your calculated example would be (37446+11996)/38232=1.29 this is no problem for you because still above 100%. :)
Notice 2. You wrote: "Constant pure water and cooling agent supply could keep constant the electrolyte's temperature, heat exchange, mass and ohmic resistance, respectively. Besides 0.0001 kg of hydrogen (and the related amount of the already split pure water) is small enough and can be neglected as a factor influencing the electrolyte's temperature, mass and ohmic resisitance."
Well, the latter reasoning may sound logical but the question is whether you accept the efficiency specified for the H6m type hydrogen generator as 61 % or you are ready to check the average current and voltage the machine actually uses during a chosen time duration and then estimate input energy from those measurements? Provided of course whether such measurements are allowed by the owners or operators of the machine,
Knowing the actual input energy would greatly help estimating COP and would avoid the ACDC conversion and other extra losses involved with the machine, provided the exact amount of hydrogen is correctly measured by the machine under a chosen time duration what the machine surely does, no doubt.
Notice 3. You wrote: "Therefore the text above unambiguously shows that it is a matter of exact experimental data which is in perfect accordance with theory."
Well, I cannot disconfirm whether the numbers used in the two calculation examples you took from the books are obtained by actual measurements, I 'have to accept' they are practically close to reality. I may 'have to accept' also that the 'highly qualified experts' actually measured the input power for instance by monitoring the input current and voltage and I 'have to believe' that this measured power then corresponded to the calculated 31.86 W (or the 37 W), we simply 'have to' accept this. This is not nitpicking from me, just a notice that you still do not have correct measurements results.
Hopefully, you and the team get closer and closer to obtain real and measured data. I am not against your claims.
Gyula

Hi Gyula,
Thanks a lot for your reply. Thanks a lot for your brilliant and expert analysis. Please give us some time to consider carefully your last post and prepare the related answers.
Regards,
George

Hi Gyula.
Here are our answers.
1) Yes, you are absolutely right, that it's worth to think over some workout school examples on hydrogen production. This approach seems to be as if simpler, easier and cheaper. Good idea! We already started discussing it. May be the Hoffman voltameter is most suitable for the purpose.
2) About the Hogen 6m hydrogen generator.
2A) Yes, you guessed correctly that our initial intention to open the electrolyzer cabinet and gain access to the electrodes wiring/cable system etc. was strongly disapproved and denied.
2B) So we have to change the approach. Having in mind the Hogen 6m main technical data (which according to the Hogen's operators coincide with the real measurements) we made some simple calculations.

A) 40.8 kWh of energy is necessary for the production of 0.6875 kg of hydrogen within a period of 1 hour. Besides 40.8 kWh = 146,880,000 J.
B) LHV of hydrogen (as you wrote in your last post) is 120,000,000 J. Therefore the heat of burning of 0.6875 kg of hydrogen is given by
0.6875 x 120,000,000 = 82,500,000 J.
C) If Hogen 6m is considered as a hydrogen generator only, then its efficiency is given by
82,500,000 J/146,880,000 J = 0.56.
D) Hogen 6m machine operators told us also that AC is converted to DC by a simple standard Graetz rectifier system. Therefore an AC 40.8 kWh of energy is just equal to a DC 40.8 kWh of energy as current flows alternatively through the two "branches" of the Graetz rectifier system 50 or 60 times per second.
E) Let us determine current I (DC) which flows through the electrolyte and through the Graetz rectifier system as (1) the Graetz rectifier system is considered as one united whole and (2) the Graetz rectifier system and the electrolyte are connected in series. The current I is given by
I = (m)/(Z x t) <=> I = 19000 A
where
m = 0.6875 kg of hydrogen liberated within a period of 1 hour
Z = electrochemical equivalent of hydrogen, kg/C
t = 3600 s
F) The total ohmic resistance R of the connected in series (1) electrolyte and (2) Graetz rectifier system (the latter considered as one united whole) is 0.0001 Ohm approximately.
G) If Hogen 6m machine is considered as a total heat generator, then its COP is given by
(146,880,000 + 82,500,000)/(146,880,000) = 1.56 > 1.
(Notice. 146,880,000 J is the Joule's heat generated by both the electrolyte and the Graetz rectifier system connected in series. Let us remind again that the Graetz rectifier is considered as one united whole whose ohmic resistance R1 is smaller than R, that is, R1 < R or R1 < 0.0001 Ohm.)
H) The Hogen 6m hydrogen generator has systems which keep a constant pure water and cooling agent supply, which on their behalf keep a constant mass, temperature and ohmic resistance of electrolyte and Graetz rectifier. If you touch with your palm the outer surface of the Hogen 6m hydrogen generator, then you feel neither heat nor cold. The temparature is neutral, that is, the temperature is always approximately equal to the temperature of the human body, although the electrolyser has been working without stopping for many hours.

The above approximate calculations seem to be correct, more or less. They are based on the Hogen 6m's main technical data.
What is your opinion?
Looking forward to your answer.
Regards,
George

P.S. We intend now to focus all our efforts on some school experiments related to hydrogen generation. Your advice is really good!

Hi George,
Well, it was "expected" they would not let even open the cabinet door of the Hogen 6m machine...
You may have checked the link I gave to the manufacturer's web page on the machine where there is a photo with an opened cabinet door to take a look at the inside parts. You can see it if you scroll down in this link:
https://www.protononsite.com/productsprotonsite/h2h4h6
and in the lower right corner you can see the actual Cell Stack which does the electrolysis. Click on the yellow + icons to open further closeups on the parts. Because the Cell Stack is very likely a thermally well isolated 'box', no wonder your team could not feel heat to the touch on the side walls of the cabinet, ok.
What you mention under point D) (what the operators told you) is interesting in that only a Graetz rectifier system is used. One would expect a stepup ACDC switch mode power supply instead but this is a secondary question of course.
From the spec sheet of the machine https://www.protononsite.com/sites/default/files/201902/H%20Series.pdf
it turns out the electrical requirement for the machine is 380415 VAC, three phase, 50 Hz (or 480 VAC, three phase, 60 Hz).
So suppose we full wave rectify say 400 V, 3 phase 50 Hz AC input and we get say 540 VDC from the Graetz output.
Now, if 540 VDC is available for electrolysis, then the 19000 Amper current you calculated from the formula would amount to 540*19000*3600 = 36936000000 J (36.936 GJ) energy consumed during 1 hour.
If we divide 540 VDC by 19000 Amper, the resistance R would be 0.0284 Ohm, this is in conflict with your 0.0001 Ohm estimation. Can you explain this?
because then your COP calculation of 1.56 for the Hogen machine becomes questionable?
How did you arrive at to get 0.0001 Ohm overall resistance for the electrolyte and the rest of the circuit in series with it?
Anyway these are but 'small problems' probably existing in paper only, the focus should really be on doing tests.
Gyula

Hi Gyula,
Thanks a lot for your reply.
1) Yes, it seems reasonable to accept 540 VDC from the Graetz output. Please give us some time to reconsider carefully again our test results and, if necessary, to make some additional calculations and carry out some additional tests.
2) Meanwhile, following your good recommendation, we are working hard on some school experiments related to water electrolysis. It will take some time to do everything in a precise manner.
I will write to you in the nearest future.
Regards,
George

Hi Gyula,
We as if managed to clear up the situation.
1) The Hogen 6m machine operators are young men who started working in the factory 3 months ago only. So we contacted one of the older operators who has retired on pension 3 months ago and who told us that Hogen 6m is actually not a very simple machine. The inlet 3phase AC is reduced to a lower AC and after that converted to DC by a complex and sophisticated system including transformers, diodes, control electronics and other components. So our 540 VDC assumption is obviously not correct.
2) The retired operator likes very much our concept related to considering of any standard watersplitting electrolyzer as a heater of COP > 1. He says that Hogen 6m's electric circuits are too many in number and too complex and sophisticated and it is very difficult to solve the problem related to calculation of each circuit one by one. Instead, he says, it is just enough to use only the figures 40.8 kWh and 0.6875 kg of liberated hydrogen per hour. Because, the operator says, these 40.8 kWh of electric energy transform entirely into 40.8 kWh of Joule's heat no matter what is the resistor (a solid one, a liquid one or a combination of solid and liquid one connected in series (the latter being the Hogen 6m case)) and no matter whether it is an AC or a DC. But in addition to the Joule's heat the liquid resistor generates hydrogen, which if burned/exploded, gives an additional and substantial portion of heat. Our new friend (that same retired Hogen 6m operator) calculates COP as
(146880000+82500000)/146880000 = 1.56 > 1.
So you can see that the former experienced Hogen 6m operator's line of reasoning entirely coincides with ours as we do not try to influence him in any way.
3) About the school and homemade watersplitting experiments.
3A) There are hundreds (and may be thousands) experiments of this kind in Internet, in general, and on YouTube, in partial. All experiments, described in Internet, confirm WITHOUT EXCEPTION our basic concept that any standard hydrogengenerating and watersplitting electrolyser can be considered as a heater of COP > 1. We already repeated tens of times many of these experiments. The easiest ones are with seawater (there is already a big container of seawater in front of our laboratory) and with tap (or pure) water either with table salt (NaCl) or with baking soda (NaHCO3). (The latter being preferred because, if used in electrolysis, NaCl liberates dangerous Cl.)
3B) Now we are preparing an experiment with sulphuric acid. It will take some time, because sulphuric acid is a special and dangerous substance and we have to be very careful. This experiment has to be carried out in a most safety and precise manner.
3C) And one more experimental device is under construction. I will write to you about it in the nearest future.
Looking forward to your answer.
Regards,
George

Hi again Gyula,
Here is my next report.
The retired former Hogen 6m's operator became a strong supporter of our cause. He considered carefully all posts in this topic written until now and noticed something that had to be corrected. Our new friend and supporter shares the fundamental point of view that the validity of the Joule's heat law directly derives from the Ohm's law and vice versa, that is,
V = I x R (1) <=> V x I x t = I x I x R x t (2)
where
V is the voltage of the battery;
I is the current flowing through the resistor;
R is the ohmic resistance of the resistor;
t is time.
(Note. Both sides of equality (1) are simply multiplied simultaneously by (I x t) and the result is equality (2).)
But, as our new friend notices, the last two equalities (1) and (2) are strictly valid only for solid resistors. For liquid resistors (electrolytes) equalities (1) and (2) have to be rewritten again in a little different manner, that is,
(V  v) = (I  i) x R (3) <=> (V  v) x (I  i) x t= (I  i) x (I  i) x R x t (4)
where
v is the minimum voltage necessary for the watersplitting electrolysis to begin; v = 1.5 volts by definition;
i is the related small decreasing of current I, caused by the presence of v.
But if V is much bigger than v (that is, if for example V = 100 volts and v = 1.5 volts), then we can assume that equalities (1) and (2) are perfectly valid for the liquid resistor (electrolyte) too as v and i can be neglected.
And from here follows again the expression for COP, which is given by
COP = ((V x I x t) + (H))/(I x I x R x t) > 1 (5)
where H is the heat of burning/exploding of hydrogen generated, HHV or LHV.

So the fact that a highlyqualified and experienced man of more than 30 years of practice related to electrolysers became our supporter gives us an additional strong confidence that the watersplitting electrolysis is really a heating process of COP > 1. It simply follows from (1), (2), (3), (4) and (5).
Looking forward to your answer.
Regards,
George

P. S. We keep carrying out experiments. All tests until now confirm the validity of (1), (2), (3), (4) and (5).

Hi Gyula,
Let me report what we have done.
1) Our (already) numerous experiments show that the theoretical value of the minimum potential difference of 1.484 volts, which is necessary for the watersplitting electrolysis to begin (Prof. S. L. Srivastava, M. Sc., Ph. D., Solved Problems in Physics, Volume  2, solved problem 12.94, p. 875), is actually a little bigger and varies between 1.7 and 2 volts. Obviously this is due to the electrode potential, overvoltage, side reactions, etc. But this 1.7  2 volts correction practically does not influence the validity of the main concept, i.e., the validity of the inequality COP > 1.
2) Besides there are at least 10 (ten) extremely precise and detailed experimental research papers written by a bunch of highly qualified electrochemistry experts from Japan, India and China. (These three countries seem to the leaders in the field of watersplitting electrolysis as a theory and practice.) We simply took their experimental results. The new summation result was again COP > 1. (It is important to stress upon the fact that the experimental data from the above mentioned research papers is obtained in a much more precise manner than our one  this is due to the presence of highquality equipment and highlyqualified experimenters.)
3) Our new friend and supporter, the retired Hogen 6m's operator, says that our COP > 1 conception simply gathers together TRUE experimental facts, which have been WRONGLY considered IN ISOLATION until now.
4) We keep carrying out experiments.
Looking forward to your answer.
Regards,
George

Hi Gyula,
I am sending to you the sulphuric acid experimental results as promised. We simply repeated the experiment described in solved problem 12.97 (Solved Problems in Physics", 2004, Volume 2, p. 876, Prof. S. L. Srivastava, Ph.D.). The experimental approach and the test results are briefly described below.
1) A glass container, which has a form of a rectangular parallelepiped and which has dimensions 0.01m/0.01m/0.37m, is filled entirely with 30 % sulphuric acid. Two electrodes are dipped in the electrolyte in the two opposite ends of the container. The ohmic resistance of the electrolyte is just equal to 0.5 Ohm. The glass container has no upper lid  it is open from above.
2) The glass container is situated on a horizontal table in such a manner that its longest side (0.37m) is horizontal,i.e., parallel to the horizontal Earth's surface.
3) The electrolyte is connected in series to a variable resistor (rheostat) in order to control and adjust (if necessary) the value of the current. And more precisely, the circuit consists of a DC source, a variable resistor (rheostat) and a glass container filled with sulphuric acid. These three components are connected in series.
4) Within a period of 20 minutes it can be clearly observed that one of the electrodes generates bubbles of hydrogen (the latter produces flame/explodes slightly if fired) and the other electrode generates bubbles of oxygen.
5) In order to keep a constant value of the current without using the rheostat we had to keep pouring (from time to time) pure water in the container and keep cooling it down. (It was not an easy operation and was a little dangerous.)
6) The experimental COP results always varied around 1.29 (which was calculated by you assuming that hydrogen's LHV is equal to 120 MJ per kilogram of liberated hydrogen). Sometimes we got COP = 1.21, sometimes COP = 1.37, sometimes COP = 1.28, etc.; the mean value being around 1.29.
7) We have carried out already almost 100 experiments using various electrolytes in order to split water into hydrogen and oxygen. COP was always bigger than 1, i. e., COP > 1. Most of the already carried out experiments can be found in Internet and on YouTube and we simply coppied/repeated them.
8) It seems to us that there is no sense to keep carrying out other experiments. Their number is already equal to 100 and all these 100 experiments unambiguously show that experimental results confirm theory. COP > 1.
9) Besides (as mentioned in our previous post) there are at least 10 (ten) extremely precise and detailed experimental research papers written by a bunch of highly qualified electrochemistry experts from Japan, India and China. (These three countries seem to the leaders in the field of watersplitting electrolysis as a theory and practice.) We simply took their experimental results. The new summation result was again COP > 1. (It is important to stress upon the fact that the experimental data from the above mentioned research papers is obtained in a much more precise manner than our one  this is due to the presence of highquality equipment and highlyqualified experimenters.)
Looking forward to your answer.
Regards,
George

Hi George,
Thanks for your posts on the activity you and the team have been doing on this electric heater topic.
It is good that you can get help from the now retired former Hogan 6m type machine operator.
It is even better that you found out that textbook examples cannot be trusted 100% in practice (electrode potential issue etc what was already mentioned by F6FLT), even if Professor M.Sc. Ph.D persons write them for students.
Regarding the research papers you mention, well, they may have more scientific approach and test results than textbook examples but of course you need to take and interpret them carefully too. If you do not mind I would be interested in the papers titles and their authors, just out of curiosity.
All in all, the only thing to achieve is to prove the COP > 1 claim for your setup by correct measurements if you want scientific community accept the claim. Especially so when such a setup is to be marketed as a product, having an unusually high efficiency that beats any other heaters already in use.
PS I already wrote this answer in Notebook when I noticed your latest answer a few minutes ago, will return later.
Gyula

Hi Gyula,
Thanks a lot for your reply.
Looking forward to your answer related to my last post.
Regards,
George

Hi George,
Well, if you repeat an experiment and presumably measure a few things, it is desirable to include some more details besides you have given in the above text.
I think of, for instance, the DC voltage amplitude and the measured current you had to provide for 20 minute, you wrote nothing about these.
This involves using either a separate voltage and a current meter like two DMMs or perhaps such meters are built into a DC power supply if you used such type.
A glass bodied mercury thermometer merged into the electrolyte or say the use of an infra thermometer is also missing from your report: it would be more convincing you check temperature of the electrolyte, after stirring up the electrolyte a little to insure more or less equal temperature for the whole quantity inside the container.
One more question: how did you measure the electrolyte had indeed 0.5 Ohm resistance between the 2 electrodes?
It would also be good to see your setup in one or two snapshot pictures taken any time within the 20 minute long operating time. The pictures would show the meters together with the glass container and its electrodes.
By the way what material the two electrodes you use are made of?
The inclusion of these all would be a bit more scientific than your written text.
Now comes the most important question: how do you know the quantity of the liberated hidrogen during your test was pretty close enough to 100 mg what the Professor calculated in his textbook example (what he gave as an exercise for his students)?
You or we know nothing about the test circumstances the Professor had for his example regarding how the electrolyte temperature hence the 0.5 Ohm resistance changed. (It is obvious that from the students point of view the circumstances of such tests are irrelevant, they are 'happy' to use a math formula and calculate say the input power to solve the question.)
You may say I am nitpicking with you but I am not: all these are valid details and questions that such experiment, once performed, should include in a report. I mean not specifically reporting for me but for the scientific world whenever someone claims an unusual statement. It is not me who doubts any COP > 1 result here but those professors, MS and Ph 'Doctors' who have already missed this recognition (a 'simple' ego question) you seem to have figured out so they simply will want to fully neglect you unless you show rock stable measurement results.
And as I already said if a new electric heater is to be produced and marketed, operating on your idea, then specifications for such heater should be provided, from which any higher efficiency than that of the other heaters already on the market should clearly turn out. Till this is not proved by measurements your claim remains a claim however the common sense or logics suggests otherwise.
I am still interested in the titles and authors of those scientific papers you have referred to if you do not mind.
Gyula

Hi Gyula,
Thanks a lot for your reply.
1) Yes, we perfectly agree with all you have written in your last post. We will do our best to fulfil all of your requirements. But it will take some time because our access to the hightech laboratory, in which we carry out experiments, is a little difficult.
2) Meanwhile I am sending to you some interesting links as you asked in your yesterday post.
2A) http://www1.lsbu.ac.uk/water/electrolysis.html
This link describes the basic postulates of watersplittig electrolysis. It confirms the validity of our COP > 1 concept.
2B) https://calistry.org/calculate/faradayLawElectrolysis
This link allows to calculate easily the amount of the generated hydrogen by using the experimental data for current I, time t and electrochemical equivalent Z of hydrogen. We used this approach in our experiments without weighing the generated hydrogen.
2C) http://www.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S151614392014000100012
This link contains ready experimental data, which confirm again the validity of our COP > 1. Why don't we use ready experimental data instead of performing again experiments that have been already performed?
Looking forward to your answer.
Regards,
George

Hi again Gyula,
And one more 81pages research experimental work:
http://www.esru.strath.ac.uk/Documents/MSc_2003/papagiannakis_i.pdf
Ready experimental results, confirming COP > 1. Why don't we use them?
Looking forward to your answer.
Regards,
George

To Gyula and to all other guys who are interested in the topic.

One question.
1) Imagine that an AC or a DC voltage source is connected to a standard resistor of ohmic resistanse R. (The resistor is either solid or liquid or gaseous or some combination of the three.)
2) The AC/DC voltage source generates electric energy of 180,000,000 J.
3) The question is what is the Joule's heat generated by the resistor? Is it possible this Joule's heat to be equal to 60,000,000 J? Or to 40,000,000 J?
4) In the case of the liquid resistor (electrolyte) the AC/DC source's voltage is much bigger than the electrode potential and overvoltage and the latter can be neglected.
5) Let us remind again that the Joule's heat law directly derives from the Ohm's law and vice versa, that is,
V = I x R (1) <=> V x I x t = I x I x R x t (2)
where
V is voltage;
I is current;
R is ohmic resistance;
t is time.
(Note. We simply multiply by (I x t) both sides of equality (1) in order to get equality (2).)
(Note. In the AC case we consider the effective values of voltage and current.)
6) So let us repeat the question. If the AC/DC voltage source generates electric energy of 180,000,000 J, then what is the Joule's heat generated by the resistor? Is it possible this Joule's heat to be equal to 60,000,000 J? Or to 40,000,000 J?

Looking forward to your answer.
Regards,
George

Hi again Gyula,
And one more 81pages research experimental work:
http://www.esru.strath.ac.uk/Documents/MSc_2003/papagiannakis_i.pdf (http://www.esru.strath.ac.uk/Documents/MSc_2003/papagiannakis_i.pdf)
Ready experimental results, confirming COP > 1. Why don't we use them?
Looking forward to your answer.
Regards,
George
Well, the author of that work used a Proton Exchange Membrane, do you have such device? The thesis surely includes useful pieces of information, no doubt.
George, reading several of your posts, you seem to do quasi everything to convince members or readers "logically" that all the work have already been done earlier and you try to imply in most of your 'mathematical' answers that no need to do further tests.
I understand that it is hard to do correct tests, it needs time and resources for sure and as I wrote much earlier, I do not urge you. I just try to keep you on a 'scientific' track from which you are often attempt wandering off. ::)
But obviously, you can do it on your own way. My take on your claim is that it is possible but until not proved by correct measurements, it is just a claim. Such is science.
Gyula

Hi Gyula,
Thanks a lot for your reply.
1) Yes, I perfectly agree with you. Yes, we tried to shortcut the path to the target, but you are right that this is not the correct approach. We will do these experiments trying to be in a constant touch with you for consultations and recommendations.
2) We have to see if it is possible to find somewhere here such a PEM electrolyzer and consider it carefully.
I will write to you in the nearest future.
Regrds,
George

P. S. By the way do you have some friend/colleague who is an expert in the field of computer simulation of real mechanical systems? I will be extremely grateful to you if you find for me such an expert. Looking forward to your answer.

Hi again Gyua.
Only a small addition to the P. S. of my last post. The expert must be able to do things similar to the ones that are shown in the links below:
https://www.myphysicslab.com/springs/collidespringen.html
https://www.myphysicslab.com/springs/danglesticken.html
https://www.myphysicslab.com/springs/collideblocksen.html
https://www.myphysicslab.com/
Please help, if possible.
Looking forward to your answer.
Regards,
George

Hi Gyula.
Two members of our team seriously undertake to perform the watersplitting experiments. It will take some time however.

While waiting for the experimental results let us recapitulate again all theoretical (ONLY THEORETICAL!) considerations until now.

1) A standard DC voltage source of voltage V is connected to a standard solid resistor of ohmic resistance R. We can write down the following equalities:
V = I x R (1) <=> V x I x t = I x I x R x t (2)
where
V is the voltage of the DC source;
I is the current flowing through the resistor;
R is the ohmic resistance of the resistor;
t is time.
Simple and clear.

2) The situation changes a little however if we replace the solid resistor of ohmic resistance R with a liquid resistor (electrolyte) of the same ohmic resistance R. In this case we have to adapt a little equalities (1) and (2). We can write down the following equalities and inequalities:
V  v = (I  i) x R (3) <=> (V  v) x (I  i) x t = (I  i) x (I  i) x R x t (4) <=> (V  v) x (I  i) x t < ((I  i) x (I  i) x R x t) + (Z x (I i) x t x (LHV)) (5) <=>
<=> V v < ((I i) x R) + (Z x (LHV)) (6) <=> 0 < Z x (LHV) (7) <=> 0 < 1.2 (8)
where
v is the "countervoltage" due to electrode potential/overvoltage; (V  v) is practically equal to V because v is much smaller than V and can be neglected;
i is the current decrease due to v; (I  i) is practically equal to I because i is much smaller than I and can be neglected;
Z is the electrochemical equivalent of hydrogen; Z = 0.00000001 C/kg;
LHV is the lower heating value of hydrogen; LHV = 1.2 x 100000000 J/kg.

The "magic":) inequality (8) unambiguously shows COP > 1. Do you have any theoretical (ONLY THEORETICAL!) objections against inequality (8)?
Looking forward to your answer.
Regards,
George

Hi Gyula.
Two members of our team seriously undertake to perform the watersplitting experiments. It will take some time however.

While waiting for the experimental results let us recapitulate again all theoretical (ONLY THEORETICAL!) considerations until now.

1) A standard DC voltage source of voltage V is connected to a standard solid resistor of ohmic resistance R. We can write down the following equalities:
V = I x R (1) <=> V x I x t = I x I x R x t (2)
where
V is the voltage of the DC source;
I is the current flowing through the resistor;
R is the ohmic resistance of the resistor;
t is time.
Simple and clear.

2) The situation changes a little however if we replace the solid resistor of ohmic resistance R with a liquid resistor (electrolyte) of the same ohmic resistance R. In this case we have to adapt a little equalities (1) and (2). We can write down the following equalities and inequalities:
V  v = (I  i) x R (3) <=> (V  v) x (I  i) x t = (I  i) x (I  i) x R x t (4) <=> (V  v) x (I  i) x t < ((I  i) x (I  i) x R x t) + (Z x (I i) x t x (LHV)) (5) <=>
<=> V v < ((I i) x R) + (Z x (LHV)) (6) <=> 0 < Z x (LHV) (7) <=> 0 < 1.2 (8)
where
v is the "countervoltage" due to electrode potential/overvoltage; (V  v) is practically equal to V because v is much smaller than V and can be neglected;
i is the current decrease due to v; (I  i) is practically equal to I because i is much smaller than I and can be neglected;
Z is the electrochemical equivalent of hydrogen; Z = 0.00000001 C/kg;
LHV is the lower heating value of hydrogen; LHV = 1.2 x 100000000 J/kg.

The "magic" inequality (8) unambiguously shows COP > 1. Do you have any theoretical (ONLY THEORETICAL!) objections against inequality (8)?
Looking forward to your answer.
Regards,
George

Hi Gyula.
Two members of our team seriously undertake to perform the watersplitting experiments. It will take some time however.

While waiting for the experimental results let us recapitulate again all theoretical (ONLY THEORETICAL!) considerations until now.

1) A standard DC voltage source of voltage V is connected to a standard solid resistor of ohmic resistance R. We can write down the following equalities:
V = I x R (1) <=> V x I x t = I x I x R x t (2)
where
V is the voltage of the DC source;
I is the current flowing through the resistor;
R is the ohmic resistance of the resistor;
t is time.
Simple and clear.

2) The situation changes a little however if we replace the solid resistor of ohmic resistance R with a liquid resistor (electrolyte) of the same ohmic resistance R. In this case we have to adapt a little equalities (1) and (2). We can write down the following equalities and inequalities:
V  v = (I  i) x R (3) <=> (V  v) x (I  i) x t = (I  i) x (I  i) x R x t (4) <=> (V  v) x (I  i) x t < ((I  i) x (I  i) x R x t) + (Z x (I i) x t x (LHV)) (5) <=>
<=> V v < ((I i) x R) + (Z x (LHV)) (6) <=> 0 < Z x (LHV) (7) <=> 0 < 1.2 (8)
where
v is the "countervoltage" due to electrode potential/overvoltage; (V  v) is practically equal to V because v is much smaller than V and can be neglected;
i is the current decrease due to v; (I  i) is practically equal to I because i is much smaller than I and can be neglected;
Z is the electrochemical equivalent of hydrogen; Z = 0.00000001 C/kg;
LHV is the lower heating value of hydrogen; LHV = 1.2 x 100000000 J/kg.

The "magic" inequality 0 < 1.2 (8) unambiguously shows COP > 1. Do you have any theoretical (ONLY THEORETICAL!) objections against inequality 0 < 1.2 (8)?
Looking forward to your answer.
Regards,
George

I don't know why my last post was sent three times in a row. It's not my fault.
George

Hi George,
First I need to draw attention to a typo, you wrote Z = 0.00000001 C/kg but the dimension is kg/C, ok?
I already wrote in my Reply #70 that the correct formula would be VxIxt = H (or IxIxRxt = H) where the left hand side is input energy and the right hand side is the heat from the burning Hydrogen + the created heat in the electrolyte (the latter two heat quantities are the total output energy).
And here with these equations VxIxt = H (or IxIxRxt = H) we assume the law of the conservation of energy is valid as an initial condition.
AND whether this equation VxIxt = H (or IxIxRxt = H) becomes an inequality like either VxIxt < H (or IxIxRxt < H) to give COP > 1 or VxIxt > H (or IxIxRxt > H) to give COP < 1, it can only be answered by measurements. (For simplicity, I omitted counter voltage and current, v and i from the formulas.)
No need to deal with theoretical considerations in this case. I already mentioned also that your idea is good, and common sense would readily suggest a COP > 1 result. BUT common sense is not science.
Gyula

Hi Gyula.
Thank you for your reply.
1) Yes, common sense is not science. Correct! We keep performing experiments. It will take some time.
2) But if equation V x I x t = I x I x R x t = H is correct, then what happens with Joule' s heat? Where does it go? Does it disapper somewhere or what? Curious to know. Looking forward to your answer.
Regards,
George

Hi George,
Please read my previous post (or my earlier reply #70) what I wrote I had meant on H:
"... is the heat from the burning Hydrogen + the created heat in the electrolyte (the latter two heat quantities are the total output energy)".
So the Joule heat from the electrolyte does not dissappear of course. And I can only repeat the rest of what I wrote too:
"And here with these equations VxIxt = H (or IxIxRxt = H) we assume the law of the conservation of energy is valid as an initial condition.
AND whether this equation VxIxt = H (or IxIxRxt = H) becomes an inequality like either VxIxt < H (or IxIxRxt < H) to give COP > 1 or VxIxt > H (or IxIxRxt > H) to give COP < 1, it can only be answered by measurements. (For simplicity, I omitted counter voltage and current, v and i from the formulas.)"
This is all that can comment on your theoretical math questions now and in the future.
Gyula

Hi Gyula.
Thank you for your reply. Perfect explanations! I understand everything.

Let me report what are we doing now.
We are intensively performing now a set of experiments just in accordance with your instructions. But the experiments generate another new question and WE NEED HELP TO INTERPRET THE RELATED EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS which again coincide with our theoretical concept. And here is this new question. (Actually this is an old idea of ours which we check up in the course of experiments and which has even one more additional and more sophisticated variation. The latter will be revealed in future posts, if necessary.)

1) In accordance with your last post let us assume hypothetically that equality V x I x t = (I x I x R x t) + (Z x I x t x (LHV)) is valid.
2) And now let us decrease n times voltage V where R = const and n > 1. This inevitably leads to decreasing of I n times too. In one word, we have now voltage (V/n) and current (I/n) where (V/n) is still bigger than v and (I/n) is still bigger than i. Therefore BASED ON EXPERIMENTAL DATA we can write down the following equality and the related inequality:
V x I x t = (I x I x R x t) + (Z x I x t x (LHV)) <=> (V/n) x (I/n) x t < ((I/n) x (I/n) x R x t) + (Z x (I/n) x t x (LHV)).
The last inequality unambiguously shows again that COP > 1.
So you see that an entirely different approach leads again to the same final result which is again COP > 1.

What is your opinion?
Looking forward to your answer.
George

Hi George,
You can do several manipulations on mathematical equations or inequalities as long as the math rules are observed.
On manipulations I mean you can divide by, multiply by, add to or substract numbers from both sides, the equation symbol between both sides of the equation remains correct (or the inequality symbol does not change direction), again this is so as long as the rules for doing the manipulations are not broken (like multiplying both sides of an inequality by say a negative number). But you surely know these, the point is this:
You again returned to those equalities and inequalities, and I wrote which ones I think to be correct for characterizing the process.
So I can again repeat, for the last time, that this is all that I can comment on your theoretical or hypothetical math questions. Please understand this. I will not consider your posts any more when you include such attempts.
By the way, how can you expect anybody here to give opinion, to interpret your experimental results which are not known? How can help be given?
What opinion can be given on the obvious: if the input DC voltage is decreased across a resistor, the input current also decreases proportionally ? (provided a liquid resistor remains pretty closely linear in its electrical conductivity behaviour which let's suppose can be maintained). So what?
Gyula

Hi Gyula,

1) You are right, of course. I will not argue with you  experiments have to confirm theory  no doubt about this.
2) At the same time however in our previous posts we use simple formulas, (a) which are based on experimental facts and (b) which have been working successfully for 200 years. And simple mathematical operations (not manipulations  we would not agree with this definition) with these simple formulas unambiguously show that under certain conditions standard watersplitting electrolysis has COP > 1. That's all. Simple and clear.
3) We keep performing experiments.
George

Hi George,
Yes the word 'operation' is better to use here than 'manipulation' when dealing with mathematical equations or inequalities etc. Mathematics has its own special technical terms and my word selection was not fortunate.
And I did not mean using 'manipulate' negatively (it certainly has a negative meaning too) but if you look it up in big dictionaries, it has the 'handle' or even the 'edit' meanings too.
Good luck in performing the experiments, it surely takes time and no need for any hurry.
Gyula

Hi Gyula.

Thank you for your reply. And thank you for your good will and patience. You are a real friend.

Now let me report what we have done until now.
We found a bunch of several identical PEM watersplitting electrolyzers at a distance of 500 km from the place we live. The related manufacturer was again Proton Onsite.

Most important specifications of this type of electrolyzer are as follows.
Name: C10 Hydrogen Generation System.
Power consumption rate: 68.9 kWh/kg.
Water consumption rate: 9L/hr.
Electrical supply: 342 to 456 VAC, 3 Phase, 50 Hz.

And here is our stepbystep experimental procedure.

1) We tested one single electrolyzer. The voltage applied was 400 VAC, 3 Phase, 50 Hz. The experimental results coincide in general with the above mentioned specifications.

2) We connected two electrolyzers in parallel. After that we connected another two electrolyzers in parallel too. After that we connected in series these two couples of connectedinparallel electrolyzers (we used long wires of big crosssection, because the electrolyzers were situated in different rooms) thus forming a seriesparallel circuit consisting of four identical electrolyzers.

3) The voltage applied to the circuit was again 400 VAC, 3 Phase, 50 Hz. The test results were as follows.
3A) Power consumption rate: 68.9 kWh/2 kg.
3B) Water consumption rate: 18 L/hr.
4) And here is what we get for COP.
4A) 68.9 kWh/kg = 248040000 J/kg and LHV of hydrogen = 120000000 J/kg.
4B) Joule's heat = 248040000  120000000 = 128040000 J. ( This equality is assumed to be true according to your requirements.)

4C) COP for the singleelectrolyzer case (item 1) is given by:
COP = (128040000 + 120000000)/(248040000) = 1.

4D) COP for the fourelectrolyzerscircuit case (items 2 and 3) is given by:
COP = (4 x ((128040000/4) + (120000000/2)))/(248040000) = 2 > 1.
Note 1. Hydrogen generation. Each single electrolyzer generated 0.5 kg/hr and the four electrolyzers generated together 2 kg/hr.
Note 2. Cooling agent consumption. The cooling agent consumption rate for each single electrolyzer decreased 4 times. But the electrolyzers were 4 (four) in number and thus the cooling agent consumption rate remained the same.
Note 3. Water consumption. Each electrolyzer consumed 4.5 L/hr but the electrolyzers were four in number and consumed together 18 L/hr.

(Only please don't ask me how did we manage to perform all the above described experiments. It costed us a lot of money, time and effort. Three members of our team (two colleagues and I) had to cover several times a distance of of 500 km (back and forth) in order to carry out the tests. Fortunately, part of our travelling group was the mentionedinmypreviousposts retired Hogen 6m operator who helped us a lot by using his contacts and his technology skills.)

So it is as if evident that whatever to do the watersplitting electrolysis has always COP > 1.
Looking forward to your answer.
George

Hi George,
You again ask me to comment on test results you wrote in the above post. The problem is I can see test results again which are lacking a few simple additions like I indicated in my Reply #90 for your previous test results in your Reply #87.
Putting this otherwise, in fact, you did not include any convincing 'proof' other than text and readers here have no way of checking them unless they perform such test themselves.
Please do not get offended, it is not my intention to offend anyone, just read through my Reply #90 and think it over what simple questions I posed in it back then which did not turn out from the experimental results and you still have not reflected on them, probably never will because back then you attempted again to come along with doing the mathematical operations on the equations and inequalities.
Please understand that it is not me to whom you would need to prove the COP > 1 result with measurements, I am not an 'authority', just a person with a certain scientific background and common sense.
It looks like nobody else is interested in this topic and I consider withdrawing too. I am simply running out of patience towards this thread, it has been enough. I really wish you good luck to be able to design and actually build a practical electric heater which measurably produces a COP > 1 result.
Gyula

Hi Gyula.

Thank you for your reply.
1) Nobody else is interested in this topic because most people here are not enough qualified like you in order to get the essence of the problem. This is for sure. (Actually I doubt that there is a lack of interest. I am sure that there are certain people who carefully keep an eye on our dialogue without interrupting.)
2) We keep performing experiments. One question related to the experimental approach. Can we use ready table values for electrolytes' conductivities? These values are experimentally proved and verified and can be trusted. What is your opinion?
Looking forward to your answer.
Regards,
George

Hi Gyula.

Yesterday all members of our team gathered together and after a long discussion we reached a decision. We abandon our intention to perform calorimetric experiments. It will take too much time, money and effort and, most important, we do not have at our disposal a hightech calorimetric laboratory in which to carry out precise tests according to your requirements. Instead let us write down again (for a last time!) our theoretical considerations.

1) A standard solid resisitor is connected to a standard DC source. COP of the system is just equal to 1 and is given by
V = I x R <=> V x I x t = I x I x R x t <=> COP = 1.

2) A standard liquid resistor (a standard electrolyte, which is used in a standard watersplitting electrolysis) is connected to a standard DC source. COP of the watersplitting electrolysis process is bigger than 1 and is given by
(V  v) = (I  i) x R <=> (V  v) x (I  i) x t = (I  i) x (I  i) x R x t <=> (V  v) x (I  i) x t < ((I  i) x (I  i) x R x t) + (Z x (I i) x t x (LHV)) <=> COP > 1.

(Note. Definitions for V, v, I, i, R, t, Z, hydrogen LHV and hydrogen HHV can be found in our previous posts.)

3) IT IS EVIDENT that there aren't any theoretical contradictions, incorrectnesses and inconsistensies in the above theoretical considerations. HEREAFTER WE ARE OPEN FOR THEORETICAL DISCUSSIONS ONLY as we need time and money for a further experimental perfection of some of our 10 (already) basic inventions, which have nothing to do with electrolysis.

4) As mentioned in our first post the above theoretical considerations are an absolutely free technology/scientific information, which can be used absolutely free by anyone for designing and manufacturing of real heaters based on watersplitting electrolysis. We will be glad if somebody manages to do a good business by building and selling such waterelectrolysisbased heaters. And we hope that this successful man/woman/company will contact us and will support our charity initiatives.

5) And one small question at last. Do you have some friend/colleague who is an expert in the field of computer simulation of real mechanical systems? (This is related to another topic of ours in this forum which is called "IS THIS A REACTIONLESS DRIVE OR A PERPETUAL MOTION MACHINE?".) Such computer simulations can be found for example in the two inks below:
https://www.myphysicslab.com/
https://www.mathworks.com/products/simmechanics.html

Looking forward to your answer.
Regards,
George

Hi George,
Unfortunately, I cannot advise for you anyone competent in computer simulation of mechanical systems.
I respect your team's decision. Hopefully, either this or the other 10 ideas of yours will bring you success and nevertheless some income too.
Good luck in your endeavours.
Gyula

@ George
It seems to me that this entire topic has been blown up, made overly complex.
While I can see the reasonableness in not spending many thousands of dollars upon
a one time usage of HHO generators and other equipment. I do not see any reason for
your not having presented a great deal of experimental results / data, from some much lower
cost experiments (your own). Then seek peer review, later.
Expert or not
Electrical energy input (DC via a watt meter) very simple.
temperature / measurements of electrolyte and liquid volume of electrolyte (just before and after, also insulate it). also very simple.
measure the temperature of outputted gases (HHO and water vapor). Less simple but still very do able.
Remove water vapor / freeze the gas mixture.
measure volume of the removed water / calculate the caloric content it had before it was frozen / add these calories to the calories gained in the electrolyte during electrolysis.
measure the HHO gas volume.... or not
Raise the temperature of the dry HHO to the previous temperature (before freezing)
measure the HHO combustion caloric output.
add the calories gained in the electrolyte during electrolysis to the calories gained by the HHO combustion.
Compare these to the electrical energy input.
Some margin of error statement.
Your not likely to acquire an accidental heat content increase, any where in the process...... unless its during the reheating of the HHO.
Undesired heat losses would NOT contribute to an OU conclusion, but rather would serve to
validate any OU measurement results.
Seems, if not simple, none the less very doable.
floor

To Gyula.

Hi Gyula,
Thank you for your reply.
Well, I myself was strongly against stopping performing experiments but the majority of our team insisted on stopping doing all tests. I had to obey our team's majority decision. Nevertheless after some time I will try very carefully to convince the colleagues to start performing experiments again.
And thank you again for your patience and good will.
I will write to you in the nearest future in order to inform you what happens.
Regards,
George

To floor

Hi floor,
Thank you for your reply.

As I wrote already to Gyula I myself was strongly against stopping performing experiments but the majority of our team insisted on stopping doing all tests. I had to obey our team's majority decision. Nevertheless after some time I will try very carefully to convince the colleagues to start performing experiments again.

About your stepbystep instruction for performing experiments. Well, some steps seem to be really doable and some steps seem to be quite difficult to be done. And in some instruction steps I cannot understand what exactly do you mean. Nevertheless I will consider carefully your last post and will write to you in the nearest future. Because some questions appear already.

Regards,
George

To Gyua, to floor and to all other guys, who are interested in the topic.

Let me reproduce part of the last meeting's discussion of our team. One of the colleagues said almost literally the following.
BEGINNING OF THE CITATION
"An obvious paradox exists in the presentday scientific community.
On one hand, all modern physics conceptions are based on various and endless sets of sophisticated, nonunderstandable and unintelligible equalities, inequalities, formulas, expressions, equations, inequations, etc. And everybody accepts them to be true and nobody wants any experimental proofs for their validity. (And even Nobel prizes are often won for these fantastic mathematicallybased theories which have nothing to do with reality.)
On the other hand, we suggest several simple, clear and understandable equalities and inequalities, which simply gather together previously obtained true experimental facts, being considered wrongly in isolation until now. And again some people here want experimental proofs for the validity of facts which have been proving to be true within a period of 200 years.
How's that? Do you understand this? Isn't this a paradox?"
END OF THE CITATION
Well, I will not comment my colleague's opinion. But whatever to say his opinion is logical and reasonable.
Regards,
George

https://overunity.com/12367/theconversionofelectricalenergytoheatenergy/

@George1,
Try https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrolysis_of_water (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrolysis_of_water) :
"Electrolysis (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrolysis) of water is the decomposition of water (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_splitting) into oxygen (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxygen) and hydrogen (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen) gas due to the passage of an electric current (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electricity). The reaction has a standard potential of −1.23 V, meaning it ideally requires a potential difference of 1.23 volts to split water."
Emphasis on: potential difference of 1.23 volts.
Thus, if your electrolysis cell runs at, let's say, 2V and 1A, the power required is obviously 2W. However, the Joule heating is only (21.23)V x 1A = 0.77W. The difference of 1.23V x 1A = 1.23W goes into the generation of hydrogen and oxygen.
Fortunately, besides theory there is also a less than 10$ simple setup/experiment that everyone can do at home to check the above. No fancy equipments are needed. If you need help with it, please ask.
I'm really sorry to keep giving you bad news but it's just simple physics and electrochemistry here, not rocket science.
The mistake you did this time was the miss use of Joule heating fundamentals. Here it is: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joule_heating (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joule_heating). Have a look at Formulas/Direct Current and check with the above.
Best regards.

Hi tiny,
But you are making an obvious mistake. The generated power is equal to 0.77 W and the consumed power is equal to 0.77 W too. Actually "the countervervoltage" (which is due to the electrode potential/overvoltage) plays the role of small battery that is connected in opposite direction to the main DC source, i.e., plus to plus and minus to minus. Imagine that the main DC source has a voltage of + 1,23 V. Then what will be the value of the consumed/generated power? Answer: just equal to zero.
Besides if the voltage of the main DC source is much bigger than 1.23 V, then the hypothetical (and wrong!) effect, in whose validity you try to convince us, is absolutely negligible.

And it is also evident for me that you have not read carefully our previous posts. Please read carefully our previous posts as well as the text below, which contains the essence of our concept.
=============================================
There are four experimental facts which have been proving to be true within a period of 200 years and whose validity is beyond any doubt. These four experimental facts are as follows.

1) Experimental fact 1: (V  v) = (I  i) x t. This is the Ohm's law for any electrolyte.

2) Experimental fact 2: (V  v) x (I  i) x t = (I  i) x (I  i) x R x t. This is the Joule's heat law for any electrolyte.

3) Experimental fact 3: m = Z x (I  i) x t = mass of the substance, which is generated in the process of electrolysis. This is the first Faraday's law of electrolysis.

4) Experimental fact 4: hydrogen LHV = 120000000 J/kg.

The validity of the above four experimental facts is beyond any doubt.
(Note. Definitions for V, v, I, i, R, t, Z, LHV and HHV can be found in our previous posts. Tinu, please read them carefully!)

What to do further? We have only to gather together the above four experimental facts. We have only to perform a simple sequence of only two simple operations.

Operation 1. We multiply m by LHV and get the heat A, which is generated by burning/exploding of hydrogen of mass m, that is, A = m x (LHV).

Operation 2. We simply add A to the right side of the equality in item 2, thus transforming it into inequality, that is,
(V  v) x (I  i) x t = (I  i) x (I  i) x R x t <=> (V  v) x (I  i) x t < ((I  i) x (I  i) x R x t) + A

The last inequality unambiguously shows that the standard watersplitting electrolysis has COP, which is bigger than 1, that is, COP > 1.

Simple, clear and understandable. Only two simple operations in a row.

George

Hi tiny,
But you are making an obvious mistake. The generated power is equal to 0.77 W and the consumed power is equal to 0.77 W too. Actually "the countervervoltage" (which is due to the electrode potential/overvoltage) plays the role of small battery that is connected in opposite direction to the main DC source, i.e., plus to plus and minus to minus. Imagine that the main DC source has a voltage of + 1,23 V. Then what will be the value of the consumed/generated power? Answer: just equal to zero.
...
Hi George1,
In case you're talking to me, please note I'm not tiny. For now, just take my word for it.
Other than that, please go do the simple experiment above. Most members here can do it for breakfast and still have some time left. I hope you are able to do it too. If not, many members can help you.
Last, but not least, please stop polluting us with utter nonsense like that right above and elsewhere. A standard liquid resistor is not equivalent with an electrolysis cell! An electrolysis cell involves a standard liquid resistor PLUS the standard potential for dissociation. If you're not able to grasp these very simple theoretical concepts, maybe a 10$/15min experiment may get you out of the state of confusion you're in right now?
Best regards!

Hi tinu,
You are trying to manipulate all of us here in this forum  you are trying to convince us that black is white. But you are not a skillful manipulator. You have to read still more books related to the art of manipulation. I will not argue with you.
George

Hi tinu,
You are trying to manipulate all of us here in this forum  you are trying to convince us that black is white. But you are not a skillful manipulator. You have to read still more books related to the art of manipulation. I will not argue with you.
George
Hi George1,
Now you start being rude, don't you think?
I'm purely stating elementary knowledge, backed up by references you can understand (wiki) and by experiments. Some of these experiments I've done by myself more than 3035years ago as part of the learning process. Electrolysis too. Since then, I've repeated them many times with a twist. Regarding electrolysis in particular, there are several good threads into this forum you might want to study. Novel ideas, interesting approaches but ... no cigar so far. In short, you don't need to reinvent the wheel now for the sake of calling yourself an inventor. Or if you want it so badly as to satisfy your ego or to fulfill a hidden agenda you might have, please do it in a way that does not require propagating blatant untrue statements.
And please stay to the facts, no adhominem attacks. Post references and/or experimental results if you have any.
Help people progress in the field if you can, instead of throwing some into dead ends by misleading them. If you cannot help, please refrain yourself, ask questions and keep on learning. This is a public forum available without restriction so I'll not allow any person (you included) to shout worldwide ever so often (almost daily in your case?!) how magnificent his/her idea are when, in fact, they are unfortunately but truly flawed. Ok? And no offense, but you reveal a level of education in physics of an undergraduate student. This is not an insult by any means (I'm also very uneducated in most of the fields except very few) but it's stated for the reason to kindly ask you to show some respect to the experts here and elsewhere as well as to every visitor coming to read us. I have a M.Sc. in physics. I understand you are an enthusiast but what is exactly your level of expertise?
You are welcome to argue with me.
Best regards!

Hi tinu,
First of all please excuse me if I have insulted you in some way. I am really sorry about this.
=================
Ok, let us follow your rules.

Given:
V = 2 Volts
v =  1.23 Volts
R = 1 Ohm
I = (V  v)/R = (2  1.23)/1 = 0.77 Ampere
t = 1 second
Z = 0.00000001044 kg/C
Hydrogen HHV = 142000000 J/kg
Hydrogen LHV = 120000000 J/kg

inlet energy = (2 Volts) x (0.77 Ampere) x (1 second) = 1.54 Joules

outlet energy 1 = (0.77 Ampere) x (0.77 Ampere) x (1 Ohm) x (1 second) = 0.5929 Joules

outlet energy 2 = (0.00000001044 kg/C) x (0.77 Ampere) x (1 second) x (142000000 J/kg) = 1.1415 Joules

COP = (outet energy 1 + outlet energy 2)/inlet energy = (1.1415 Joules + 0.5929 Joules)/1.54 Joules = 1.1262 <=>
<=> COP = 1.1262 <=> COP > 1.

In the above solution we use hydrogen's HHV. If we use hydrogen's LHV, then COP will be equal to 1.01, that is, COP = 1.01 <=> COP > 1.
Of course it is aways better to use hydrogen's HHV instead of hydrogen's LHV. We have a choice.

So you see that COP again is bigger than 1, that is, we have again COP > 1.

Looking forward to your answer.
George

Hi George1,
Apologies accepted.
Now to the subject, I said let's have 2V and 1A . You start there but immediately later you change it to 2V and 0.77A by the improper use of Ohm law. That's not correct. Let's do it right, ok? Here it goes:
Electrolysis require a potential drop of min. 1.23v (practically it's larger, depending on many factors). This is a forward drop of voltage, not a counter emf. It's a forward voltage drop similar (for the purpose of simple understanding only) to the forward drop of about 0.6V on a conducting diode (pn junction). I repeat: there is no counter voltage in electrolysis!
The proper use of Ohm law and Kirchhoff's voltage law is:
Vps=IpsxR + Ve,
where:
Vps is the voltage applied to the electrolysis cell by the power supply (ps) that can be measured with a voltmeter, in our case Vps=2V
Ips is the current supplied to the electrolysis cell by the power supply (ps) that can be measured with am ammemeter, in our case Ips=1A
Ve=1.23V is the potential difference required for electrolysis to occur.
R is the resistance of the electrolyte (the equivalent resistance of liquid resistor) in a very simplified model.
In the above case, you can use Ohm law and compute R = 0.77 Ohm but this value is of little practical use because this model is oversimplified while a real electrolytic cell involves higher complexity.
Regardless on complexity, in our model we have:
Supplied power is Vps x Ips, as measured by the two multimeters, 2V x 1A = 2W
Meanwhile, Joule power is given by sqr(Ips) x R, in our case sqr(1A) x 0.77Ohm = 0.77W
In the same time, electrolysis requires Ve x Ips which is 1.23V x 1A = 1.23W
Part of the supplied power goes into heat (0.77/2=38.5%) while electrolysis efficiency in this case would be 1.23/2=61.5%. Overall COP=1.
Besides theory and correct use of the laws of electricity, you may also easily perform this simple experiment.
In good quality electrolytic cells, efficiency can go toward 80%, meaning that only about 20% of total energy supplied is lost, mainly as Joule heat. In fact, I saw you did reference a fine paper (http://www.esru.strath.ac.uk/Documents/MSc_2003/papagiannakis_i.pdf) where energy efficiency of electrolysis was measured between 7384% (page 72).
I'm sorry but there is no overunity here.
Best regards!

Hi tinu,
I am also sorry, but you are again entirely wrong. It seems to me that you are not reading at all any of our posts. Besides in one of your comments for example you claim that A is bigger than B and in the next comment of yours you claim just the opposite  that A is smaller than B. And similar false claims and logical inconsistensies in all of your comments. Do you do this deliberately?
Please understand and accept the simple fact: there are physical processes which have COP > 1.
I am tired of explaining one and same simple thing thousands of times already.
George

George1, you are wright : physical processes with C. O. P. > 1., but work process meaning
Energy conversion processes with eta > 1
were,are,will be unknown and never achieveable.
When energy has his equivalence to mass : where do you get the masssurplus ?
The C.O.P. is conventionally only used in closed thermodynamic cycle circuits called heat pumps or chiller, whose devices transmit heat from point A to point B. C.O.P <=> 1 , BUT : eta ever < 1
There are also in existance "external inputfree pump" heat pumps, using the thermosyphon principle.
Simple heat collecting devices
From Nernst to NernstPlanck equitation https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nernst%E2%80%93Planck_equation (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nernst%E2%80%93Planck_equation)
You are not have a battle against us or the peers and their test result review, you are in a battle against physical reality !
"A SIMPLE ELECTRIC HEATER" can have several mWatt up to 10 Watts per squarecentimeter surface,temperature from 50°Celsius up to 2200° Celsius :
1,23 Volt ( Nernst equitation) x low to high amperage : electrolyt ( liquid) volume : expansion ( gas,plasma)volume
Which equitations are used by a. Friction b. Cavitation c. Sonolumniscence devices ?
"Free Energy" ( often abused expression) and the definition : https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gibbs_free_energy

Hi lancaIV,
Thank you for your reply.
Good analysis, dear colleague. Would you be so polite to give us some time to consider carefully your last post?
I will write to you in the nearest future.
Regards,
George

Hi tinu,
I am also sorry, but you are again entirely wrong. It seems to me that you are not reading at all any of our posts. Besides in one of your comments for example you claim that A is bigger than B and in the next comment of yours you claim just the opposite  that A is smaller than B. And similar false claims and logical inconsistensies in all of your comments. Do you do this deliberately?
Please understand and accept the simple fact: there are physical processes which have COP > 1.
I am tired of explaining one and same simple thing thousands of times already.
George
Hi George1,
1. Please pinpoint my mistake now!
2. Please state a false claim and logical inconsistency in any of my comments!
3. As I said "no overunity here", please state where did I say that there are no processes of COP>1!
Please do the above now or immediately delete your post.
Thanks!

Hi again Gyula,
And one more 81pages research experimental work:
http://www.esru.strath.ac.uk/Documents/MSc_2003/papagiannakis_i.pdf (http://www.esru.strath.ac.uk/Documents/MSc_2003/papagiannakis_i.pdf)
Ready experimental results, confirming COP > 1. Why don't we use them?
Looking forward to your answer.
Regards,
George
Hi George1,
This post is a blatant lie!
The cited paper speaks of efficiency measured between 7384% (page 72). There is nowhere any mention about COP>1!
Why do you lie, George?
Who gave you the right to come here, lie and insult members?
Again, asking for second time, what exactly is your training and level of expertise?

Hi George1,
This post is a blatant lie!
The cited paper speaks of efficiency measured between 7384% (page 72). There is nowhere any mention about COP>1!
Why do you lie, George?
Who gave you the right to come here, lie and insult members?
Again, asking for second time, what exactly is your training and level of expertise?
Yes and page 6 : up/ over 90%  in future and page 20 under 100% theoretical efficiencies !
Somebody here speaks " Hungarian"( not the Monty Python translation) ;) and could ask them
https://patents.google.com/patent/WO2006038048A1/fr (https://patents.google.com/patent/WO2006038048A1/fr) what they mean with
" it's efficiency exceeds extremely "
as to read in their application device description
https://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/description?CC=WO&NR=2006038048A1&KC=A1&FT=D&ND=&date=20060413&DB=&locale=# (https://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/description?CC=WO&NR=2006038048A1&KC=A1&FT=D&ND=&date=20060413&DB=&locale=#)
I assume, by given text information :
efficiency same or < 98% University lab max
but higher 75% industrial average efficiency ( 2004 standart)
But by high production rate AND HYDROGEN PURITY

@George1
Given that the electrolyte container is well insulated.
1. When we electrolyze water into hydrogen and oxygen, heat is generated in the water. The temperature of the electrolyte rises.
2. If the electrolyte is well insulated, caloric losses through its container will be minimal.
Those caloric losses / their rate can be measured.
3. The volume of the electrolyte decreases during electrolysis ..
a. because water is transformed into H and O and leaves the electrolyte during the electrolysis.
b. because water vapor leaves the electrolyte during the electrolysis.
4. The H, the O and the water vapor all have a caloric content which they carry away from the electrolyte.
a. Specific calories were generated by the electrolysis process.
b. The transport of those calories from the electrolyte, cools the electrolyte.
c. Those calories are still present, but they are within the water vapor and HHO gasses.
5. What is the temperature of the Water vapor / HHO gas mixture that is produced during electrolysis ?
Answer 1. It has the same temperature as does the electrolyte, at the time of it's escape from the electrolyte.
Answer 2. Its temperature will increase with time / as the temperature of the electrolyte also increases during electrolysis.
6. If the Water vapor / HHO gas mixture is well insulated, caloric losses through its container will be minimal.
Those caloric losses / their rate can be measured.
7. water vapor does not burn.
HHO will burn.
8. Water (water vapor) can be removed / trapped by freezing (passing it through a long cold tube). The HHO
will not the freeze / be trapped.
9. The temperature of the water vapor before its separation from the HHO and the volume of the water (which we determine after
its separation from the HHO) informs us of the waters caloric content upon its production. This caloric content was generated by the electrolysis (allowing for
initial electrolyte temperature) and should be added to the caloric increase of the electrolyte.
10. Before combustion, the temperature of the HHO should be raised to the temperature it had when it was first generated / released from the electrolyte.
best wishes

To tinu.

Hi tinu,
You either never read my posts carefully or you never read them at all! And you always distort my words!
1) Firstly, I have explained clearly enough that the 81pages experimental work contains experimental data which, if properly interpreted, would inevitably
lead to COP > 1. I have never mentioned that the 81pages experimental work directly claims that COP > 1.
2) Secondly, we admit your superiority in the field of electric engineering. OK, you are right and we are wrong. What to argue about then? Please don't be angry with us and consider the COP > 1 heater as a part of the entertainment industry.
Take it easy and be happy! :D
Regards,
George

To lancaIV

About the 81pages experimental work  please read my last post to tinu.

Here are our answers to your penultimate post.
1) About eta  you mean eta = Energy conversion efficiency, I guess. Well, this eta is actually an artificially created item, more or less. Of course in some cases its application is extremely suitable and convenient and there is no doubt about this. But in general the etabased principle as if does not work properly. For example please consider a simple copper wire in an air environment (in your room) through which flows electric current. The wire generates only Joule's heat. The latter is transmitted in two ways  the wire directly heats the surrounding air and at the same time generates infrared radiation which heats the surrounding objects like table, chairs, walls, carpets, etc. In this case (and in other many cases too) the transmission of energy from the heater to the surrounding environment gives eta = 100 %.
2) Important is the ratio outlet energy/inlet energy and it doesn't matter how would you call it  COP, efficiency, etc.)
3) About the masssurplus. Well, there isn't any masssurplus at all. The quantity of the generated mass strictly obeys the first Faraday's law of electrolysis.
4) About the Nernst–Planck equation. Official scientific community and conventional orthodox scientists of any ranks do their best to avoid discussing a simple obvious fact  the Einstein's theory of relativity and Max Planck's quantum mechanics CANNOT BE TRUE SUMULTANEOUSLY. Actually, let us directly say this, these two theories are two naive hypotheses, which generate more questions than answers and all of their postulates and mathematical costructions are questionable, doubtful and unreliable. These two hypotheses clearly illustrate the severe impotence of modern orthodox science.
5) And at last one small appeal for help. I see that you are an expert in the field of physics. So would you be so polite to have a look at the other topic of ours which is called "IS THIS A REACTIONLESS DRIVE OR A PERPETUAL MOTION MACHINE"? How to calculate force Fc and deceleration d? And how would the system behave if the blue component's mass is BIGGER THAN/EQUAL TO/SMALLER THAN the black component's mass?
Looking forward to your answer.
Regards,
George

To Floor.

Hi Floor,
Thank you for your reply.
1) Please give us some time to consider carefully your last post. What are you actually suggesting  a logical costruction, leading to some conclusion, or a stepbystep experimental procedure? Please explain, if possible.
2) And one small appeal for help. Would you be so polite to have a look at the other topic of ours which is called "IS THIS A REACTIONLESS DRIVE OR A PERPETUAL MOTION MACHINE"? How to calculate force Fc and deceleration d? And how would the system behave if the blue component's mass is BIGGER THAN/EQUAL TO/SMALLER THAN the black component's mass?
Looking forward to your answer.
Regards,
George

To tinu.
...
2) Secondly, we admit your superiority in the field of electric engineering. OK, you are right and we are wrong. What to argue about then? Please don't be angry with us and consider the COP > 1 heater as a part of the entertainment industry.
Take it easy and be happy! :D
Regards,
George
Oh George, you are so kind today! I'm deeply touched!
Now that you admit my superiority, I sense the deepest feeling of personal accomplishment like I've never felt in a long time... For that, I'll give you a great tip for free!
You see, in the western world, especially USA but Europe too, there is a great need for cooling. The heating requirements are not extremely high because almost all buildings are very energy efficient and winters are not so cold. Demand for heating will be lower in the future too, and I'm certain you're familiar with global warming and its effects.
So, while heating is not a bad deal, cooling is far, far superior as market value.
On the same time, H2 and O2 are quite cheaply and commonly available, as they are used in many industries, including the welding sector but also the entertainment industry you seem to appreciate.
Consider this: instead of running your electrolyzer for producing H2 and O2, why not running it in reverse? Why not feeding it with H2 and O2 and have it working as an electric generator but, most importantly, as an extremely valuable cooler? A word of caution: not every electrolyzer can work in reverse but still, many advanced models shall work just fine. I'm not sure about COP>1 but maybe your lead researcher will dig into it. Think of it: produce electricity and cooling from cheap industrial H2 and O2 then maybe, if COP>1 use that electricity being produced to run you current electrolyzer in normal mode and maybe closing the loop? That would be fantastic, don't you think?! I mean, just think about: first electrolyzer feeds the second with electricity while the second, in return, feeds the first one with H2 and O2. And, as a bonus, you'll have free heating and cooling too and maybe some excess H2, O2 and electricity, depending on how large COP>1 will be! Well, what do you think?
Speaking of your lead researcher, what's his/her name?
I understand he/she has an invention that is for sale for 10 million dollars! Please invite him/her here to introduce himself/herself and his/her invention.
I'm sure he/ she will be more than welcome!
Regards!
[/font][/font]

Hi tinu,
1) Your idea sounds great, but could you be more specific?
2) About our leading researchers. (They are more than one.) Now they are preparing an answer related to your rejection of their COP > 1 concept. And for the present they would not like to be in the public eye.
Regards,
George

Hi George,
1. You have enough info for free, don't you think? Right now I'm on my annual leave and I'm sorry but my holiday is too expensive for expanding beyond that. I think I offered a generous tip already.
2. Oh, but a 10 million dollars invention is already out of anonymity! Multiple leading researchers? What a brilliant strategy! Yet, I'm only interested in the sole author of the invention to be sold. No offense but the rest are of no value to me. I insist you to introduce him/her here so we can have direct and unimpeded dialogue. An username will suffice for now although you should know well that an inventor can't be anonymous, right? Sooner or later (and better sooner!) he/she shall take full credit for the great discovery!
Where are you from George? What country?
Regards!

Hi tinu,
While waiting for our experts to to prepare their sophisticated answer I considered carefully your yesterday posts.
There is something false and incorrect in your calculations.
Please answer the 6 questions below.
=====================
1) Vps = power supply voltage = 2 Volts. Is this correct?

2) Ips = current flowing through the electrolyte = 1 Ampere. Is this correct?

3) (Vps) x (Ips) = (2 Volts) x (1 Ampere) = 2 Watts = power, generated by the power supply. Is this correct?

4) R = 0.77 Ohm = ohmic resistance of the electrolyte. Is this correct?

5) Assume that Vps = 1 Volt. What will be in this case the value of Ips, that is, Ips = ? Ips = 0 Ampere?

6) Assume that Vps = 1.23 Volts. What will be in this case the value of Ips, that is, Ips = ?

Please answer the above 6 questions separately and clearly.

Next questions will asked in my next post.
Looking forward to your answer.
Regards,
George

Hi tinu,
Where are you, old swindler? ;) Will you answer my 6 questions? Because you have to answer still more questions except these 6 ones.
Regards,
George

Hi George,
1. Yes
2. Yes
3. Yes
4. Yes, R=0.77 Ohm. This value is the equivalent resistance of liquid resistor DURING electrolysis only!
5. Vps=1V. No electrolysis is taking place. All power delivered by the power supply goes into Joule heating of electrolyte. Ips is unknown because R is unknown. In this regime R is not 0.77 Ohm but larger. Consequently, Ips=Vps/R. Surelly, 0<Ips<<1V/0.77Ohm. Ips can, of course, be easily measured.
6. Vps=1.23V. Still in Ohmic regime, while no electrolysis is taking place yet. All power delivered by the power supply goes into Joule heating of electrolyte. Ips is still unknown because R is unknown. Nonetheless, raising Vps further beyond 1.23V will start the electrolysis. This is a transient phenomenon, characterized by a relatively sharp increase in Ips because the equivalent resistance of liquid resistor (R) is dropping significantly due to an increase of ions concentration. However, it might be necessary to increase the voltage sufficiently high, until H2 and O2 will start forming bubbles, degassing out of the electrolyte and ensuring a stable regime for the electrodes. When full electrolysis kicks in, R is lowered to 0.77Ohm and Ips stabilizes at 1A.
Read carefully: I'm not here to answer your questions! Neither one of the members is. Now, having said that, the above small physics lesson is a favor I did for you. I won't do it again because on one hand, like I said, I'm on holiday and my vacation is rare and valuable and, on the other hand, this is basic knowledge and subject to bellow collegelevel class experiments. I'm well beyond that and you make me waste my time.
So, in conclusion:
(1). Please do your own experiments, publish the results here and then we can talk further, based on your actual data.
(2). Better yet, please bring in your leading scientist for further theoretical and practical discussions.
Again, please answer to the former question of mine:
(3). What is your formal training and expertise in the field?
(4). Where are you from?
We'll be hearing again when you fulfill (1)(4).
In the meanwhile, please refrain yourself from posting invectives, fantasies and/or physical nonsense/absurdities, ok?
Regards.

Hi tinu,
I am already absolutely clear on the fact that you are (a) either an arrogant and ambitious ignoramus, whose expertise in electric engineering is equal to zero, or (b) an unskillful and clumsy manipulator, who is an agent of the BIG OIL (or other similar organization) and who tries to convince us that black is white. I will not waste my time any more (as well as the time of my team's colleagues) to answer your nonsense posts.
George

Dear George1,I am very sorry but have to deny : I am not an expert in physics, only an user.
I wish you fortune and success
wmbr
OCWL

Hi lancaIV,
Thank you for wishing us fortune and success. And thank you for your good will and patience. I will keep you informed what happens.
Regards,
George

Hey George1,
probably you and some team members read this works and results and discuss about it :
http://guns.connect.fi/innoplaza/energy/story/Kanarev/ (http://guns.connect.fi/innoplaza/energy/story/Kanarev/)

https://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/biblio?CC=DE&NR=2733719A1&KC=A1&FT=D# (https://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/biblio?CC=DE&NR=2733719A1&KC=A1&FT=D#)
Compensation of magnetical ( attraction,repulsion)force

https://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/biblio?DB=EPODOC&II=1&ND=3&adjacent=true&locale=en_EP&FT=D&date=20121011&CC=US&NR=2012256422A1&KC=A1# (https://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/biblio?DB=EPODOC&II=1&ND=3&adjacent=true&locale=en_EP&FT=D&date=20121011&CC=US&NR=2012256422A1&KC=A1#)
Above [ 0092,0093,0094]. related :
For example : when a nominal 1000 W and 1000 RPM generator by100 RPM only generates 1W,
100 RPM to 1000 RPM : ten times higher velocity ~ thousand times more power
how many Watts consumes a coupled motor to achieve this 100 RPM ?!
A. Continuous DC power motor B. Fractional AC pulse power motor

Hey lancaIV,
Thank you for your reply.
Welcome to our team of inventorsenthusiasts!
Your last post is very, very interesting! Please give us some time to consider it carefully! (Part of your last post's information was as if considered in some previous posts on this topic but I am not sure. I'll check this.)
I will write to you in the nearest future.
Regards,
George

Hey again lancaIV,
And what about the link below?
https://overunity.com/16302/hhoasrealuosystem/msg469903/#msg469903
Seems to be interesting and workable?
(Title "HHO as a real UO system", author John.K1, December 31, 2015. I wrote to this man many times, but he did not answer me.)
What do you think? What is your opinion about his suggestion?
Looking forward to your answer.
Regards,
George

George1,
without to be or wishing to become member of your team :
the John.K1 idea is for me to " huge designed", probably usefull in mountains zones, beginning with 2000 and more meters the basic station and several hundreds or thousands meters higher by tubes the conversion station.
In small :
https://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/biblio?DB=EPODOC&II=3&ND=3&adjacent=true&locale=en_EP&FT=D&date=19760115&CC=DE&NR=2429086A1&KC=A1#

Hi lancaIV,
Yes, an obvious disadvantage of John.K1's idea is that it is a "huge designed". Let us concentrate again then on the "small designed". We started considering already your penultimate post. Very interesting! I will write to you in the nearest future.
Regards,
George

What is invention ?
Invention is design of improvement and new technical standart or utility.
Free design :
https://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/description?CC=US&NR=2013011125A1&KC=A1&FT=D&ND=3&date=20130110&DB=EPODOC&locale=en_EP# (https://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/description?CC=US&NR=2013011125A1&KC=A1&FT=D&ND=3&date=20130110&DB=EPODOC&locale=en_EP#)
[0010] water heat function
+
https://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/description?CC=US&NR=5130608A&KC=A&FT=D&ND=3&date=19920714&DB=EPODOC&locale=en_EP# (https://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/description?CC=US&NR=5130608A&KC=A&FT=D&ND=3&date=19920714&DB=EPODOC&locale=en_EP#)
Ohms law is guilty ,4 Watt from 100 Watt guilty , pulse duration= law duration : fractional second !
J/s to J/ fractional second= J/pulse duration or J/signal

Well, all links you have sent to me contain complex and sophisticated machines both as a theoretical conception and as a practical realization. Are there any working prototypes of these machines?

"Sophisticated" !?
10 000 000 US$/Euros patent fees ( lump sum ) ~ 200 000 000 US$/Euros FOB factory selling prices 5% royalty calculation
x factor 2 : standart ware end consumer price
x factor 6,10 : " exclusive" ware end consumer price
As inventor you have investor, producer and endconsumer responsibility !
win : win : win : win ratio
to make all glad , this is a wonder , husiastic or enthusiastic !
Competition : heater, hydrogen generator
f. e. http://www.rexresearch.com/eccles/1eccles.htm (http://www.rexresearch.com/eccles/1eccles.htm)
Their technology is/ will be in next "open source".
Many alternatives and concepts :
https://overunity.com/electrolysisofh20andhydrogenondemandgeneration/ (https://overunity.com/electrolysisofh20andhydrogenondemandgeneration/)
Today to get a patent granted is anymore easy, the disclosure must be new, global new !
And never published :
so beside the WIPOarchiv " patent lawyer" has also to search in the global "HonorTitle" "Dipl./Dr./Master " archives( Promotion,Dissertation,Habilitation) !
The patent office can grant an application, but there is no warranty of validity of this act !

http://guns.connect.fi/innoplaza/energy/story/Kanarev/ (http://guns.connect.fi/innoplaza/energy/story/Kanarev/)
ENERGY IMPULSE SECRETS
" electron emits photon"
page 12 (35) (36) : physical volume comparison
Is the electron volume part from the photon volume ?
Is the photon the electron his circumspherical heatwave , " Protuberanz" ?
Phonon, without volume? Definition. ! photon/ phonon ratio
Physical lifetime from electron, photon, phonon ? actio/reactio in Fermiseconds and Nanometers
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phonon (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phonon)
https://de.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phonon (https://de.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phonon) Ist die elementare Anregung (Quant) eines elastischen Feldes
Enthusiasmus : becoming Quantizised by something, somebody to max. stage : Ekstase or Delirium
https://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/biblio?DB=EPODOC&II=5&ND=3&adjacent=true&locale=en_EP&FT=D&date=19871201&CC=US&NR=4710655A&KC=A#
Physics can hypnotize people with electrodynamic waves/ vibrations/ oscillations !
But also in written/ broadcasted texture can be " hidden dynamic", ' sleeper awake' principle.
Our economy : from 100 trials 1 success and 99 fails

Hi lancaIV,

1) First of all thank you for your last two posts. They are much detailed and full of interesting information. We will need some time to consider carefully you last two posts.

2) Actually our two topics "A SIMPLE ELECTRIC HEATER, WHICH HAS EFFICIENCY GREATER THAN 1" and "IS THIS A REACTIONLESS DRIVE OR A PERPETUAL MOTION MACHINE?" could not be strictly considered as inventions. These two topics only reveal to the public two theoretical and fundamental scientific research works which can be successfully used (a) as a basic principle of operation of an extremely effective electric heater and (b) as a basic principle of operation of an extremely effective reactionless drive and/or energy generator, respectively. Our aim is to attract attention to our team as a generator of good technology ideas and projects. Our next project however can already be considered as an invention. It has an undeniable theoretical scientific foundation and a working prototype, which is practically ready for production on a large industrial scale. And we do not intend to patent it. We intend to sell it as a knowhow. Our price is $10,000,000 (ten million dollars.)

Looking forward to your answer.
Regards,
George

...
2) Actually our two topics "A SIMPLE ELECTRIC HEATER, WHICH HAS EFFICIENCY GREATER THAN 1" and "IS THIS A REACTIONLESS DRIVE OR A PERPETUAL MOTION MACHINE?" could not be strictly considered as inventions. These two topics only reveal to the public ...
... your incompetence!
This two topics only reveal your incompetence in physics and they are fundamentally erroneous, nothing more!
I finally agree with you for once! Of course they could not be considered as inventions. lol
...
Our next project however can already be considered as an invention. It has an undeniable theoretical scientific foundation and a working prototype, which is practically ready for production on a large industrial scale. And we do not intend to patent it. We intend to sell it as a knowhow. Our price is $10,000,000 (ten million dollars.)
I think your aim is to scam people so please cut the crap.
Nonetheless, if you think you have an invention to sell, please get out and go elsewhere. Here, we share information for free. Can you understand such a simple and yet marvelous concept: "share for free"?
And since there is no one here besides you, start using "I/me/mine", instead of "we/ours". Ok, your majesty? lol

tinu,
You are a pathological hater. You need a doctor. You have a very serious problem. You will be punished by your masters from the BIG OIL.

To lancaIV.

These two seem to be interesting.
https://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/description?CC=US&NR=2013011125A1&KC=A1&FT=D&ND=3&date=20130110&DB=EPODOC&locale=en_EP#
https://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/description?CC=US&NR=5130608A&KC=A&FT=D&ND=3&date=19920714&DB=EPODOC&locale=en_EP#
Need some more time to consider them carefully.

Yes, I know !
https://www.google.com/search?q=heatpad+swine&client=firefoxbm&prmd=ivns&ei=vfvbXNXqMZnkgweQxa_gCg&start=10&sa=N (https://www.google.com/search?q=heatpad+swine&client=firefoxbm&prmd=ivns&ei=vfvbXNXqMZnkgweQxa_gCg&start=10&sa=N)
page 2 : " Energy Consumption of heat pads..... "
page 3 : " COMPARISON OF HEAT LAMP... "
different power consume levels for the similar/ as same ambiental condition !
Up to 75% less ( pad/ lamp) or 300% more consume( lamp/ pad) !
Not included differences between heat lamps and differences between heat pads comparison. !
And heat pad temperature controller quality. !
[65 Watt heat pad x 0,6 ( Filip controler) x 0,75 ( CNT savings versus metal conductor) / 175 Watt heat lamp ]
=
https://web.archive.org/web/20160223060648/http://filiptech.de/ (https://web.archive.org/web/20160223060648/http://filiptech.de/)
his pads/ IR panels improved efficiency : before 1000 W, all improvements inclusive,after : in average 165 W
for humans,animals and liquids
Leveling the consumepeak down gives us the possibility to use solar cell voltaic heating, inhouse photovoltaic :
https://worldwide.espacenet.com/searchResults?submitted=true&locale=en_EP&DB=EPODOC&ST=advanced&TI=&AB=&PN=&AP=&PR=&PD=&PA=Paul+marzahn&IN=&CPC=&IC= (https://worldwide.espacenet.com/searchResults?submitted=true&locale=en_EP&DB=EPODOC&ST=advanced&TI=&AB=&PN=&AP=&PR=&PD=&PA=Paul+marzahn&IN=&CPC=&IC=)
Low cost electric heat pads : AC
https://m.alibaba.com/showroom/electricheatingpad.html (https://m.alibaba.com/showroom/electricheatingpad.html)
as resistornet :
https://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/biblio?DB=EPODOC&II=0&ND=3&adjacent=true&locale=en_EP&FT=D&date=20041118&CC=WO&NR=2004100349A1&KC=A1# (https://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/biblio?DB=EPODOC&II=0&ND=3&adjacent=true&locale=en_EP&FT=D&date=20041118&CC=WO&NR=2004100349A1&KC=A1#)
Savings expected, but how much !?

Hi lancaIV,
Thank you for your reply.

You are always wellinformed about the latest and best technology breakthroughs. Congratulations for this ability of yours!

I have been considering carefully the Filip Tech GmbH website.
Peter Filip has written in his website that: ".....Our products offer an optimum for humans and animals with up to 50% less power consumption than other heating systems....." But if this is true and if the amount of the generated heat is preserved, then Mr. Filip's devices manifest COP = 200 %. Because if a standard copper wire is connected to a battery and consequently a DC current flows through it, then it generates heat. The electric energy, generated by the battery, entirely transforms into heat, that is, if the battery generates electric energy of 100 J, then the copper wire will generate 100 J of heat. And the COP of this system will be: COP = (100/100) x 100 = 100%.
If however the inlet electric energy is reduced to 50 J and if at the same time the outlet heat remains 100 J, then the COP of this system will 200 %, that is, COP = (100/50) x 100 = 200 %. This is correct, isn't it?

Looking forward to your answer.
Regards,
George

Hi lancaIV,
1) What is your opinion about COP, which is manifested by Filip Tech GmbH's heaters? COP > 1, isn't it?
2) The same for Prof. Kanarev's devices. His approach to electrolysis is different from ours, but despite of this his machines and conceptions as if clearly show that COP > 1 is perfectly possible.
3) It seems to us that there is an INDIRECT worldwide inventors' pressure and attack against some basic postulates of physics. These basic postulates are true and correct IN GENERAL, of course, but at the same time they as if need some further development and update (as quantum mechanics is a further development and update of Newtonian mechanics for example). Don't you think so?
Looking forward to your answer.
Regards,
George

1000 W to 270 W to 180150 W object + spaceheating
http://translationportal.epo.org/emtp/translate/?ACTION=descriptionretrieval&COUNTRY=DE&ENGINE=google&FORMAT=docdb&KIND=U1&LOCALE=en_EP&NUMBER=202008006432&OPS=ops.epo.org/3.2&SRCLANG=de&TRGLANG=en (http://translationportal.epo.org/emtp/translate/?ACTION=descriptionretrieval&COUNTRY=DE&ENGINE=google&FORMAT=docdb&KIND=U1&LOCALE=en_EP&NUMBER=202008006432&OPS=ops.epo.org/3.2&SRCLANG=de&TRGLANG=en)
Waterheating with infrared waves
https://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/biblio?DB=EPODOC&II=45&ND=3&adjacent=true&locale=en_EP&FT=D&date=20080327&CC=DE&NR=202007016567U1&KC=U1# (https://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/biblio?DB=EPODOC&II=45&ND=3&adjacent=true&locale=en_EP&FT=D&date=20080327&CC=DE&NR=202007016567U1&KC=U1#)
George1, 2x fold efficiency in relation to conventional heaters does not mean C. O. P. : 2 by Physics !
Radiation/Convection/Conduction heat has his dis/advantages ! Each case his appropriate solution !
To feel physiological well in cold climate our individual body needs only an enclosure ( heat losts insulation) and max. electric 12 Watt heat power,
( in the 90' by thick cable array 80 Watt, reduced by nanofibers use to 12 W)
the rest goes to relatively uncontroled space and object heating !
Beside ambient temperature the human genetical sensibility related humidity/ temperature/ moving air is not the same ! ( Tests in dry air cryo climate chambers with thermografical skinreaction comparison)
Writing about C. O. P. is ever "Carnot thermodynamic cycle" related, reaching the ideal point : eta=1,
an up to 99% ideal point near device : diodearray
https://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/biblio?DB=EPODOC&II=0&ND=3&adjacent=true&locale=en_EP&FT=D&date=19941018&CC=US&NR=5356484A&KC=A# (https://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/biblio?DB=EPODOC&II=0&ND=3&adjacent=true&locale=en_EP&FT=D&date=19941018&CC=US&NR=5356484A&KC=A#)
a quantum mechanical heat pump
Classical Voltage to quantum eV( ancient erg/ dyn unit) and thermalaccustic unit : dB = thermal noise
To understand efficiency and C. O. P. I would recommend to study thermo : Seebeck/Peltier elements,
for heating or cooling in use.
https://translate.google.com/translate?hl=de&sl=de&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fclausmeier.tripod.com%2Fstrahlg.htm

Good explanations, lancaIV! Thank you very much for them.
1) But I was misguided by text, describing Mr. Filip's heaters. Actually it's a matter of a 50% decrease of the consumed energy as only the infrared component of the Joule's heat remains the same.
2) And the other misjudgment related to COP. Yes, I understand this. But actually this is a fault of those who write the related texts. They have to specify what exactly they mean.
3) About Seebeck/Peltier elements and effect. Thank you for this recommendation of yours! This is because some years ago together with a friend of mine we worked over a device based on SeebeckPeltier effect. I will refresh my memory with pleasure.
4) Please give us some time to consider carefully the last posts you have sent to us.
Regards,
George

Working with thermal processes :
https://www.khanacademy.org/testprep/mcat/chemicalprocesses/thermochemistry/a/endothermicvsexothermicreactions

Hi lancaIV,
Thank you for refreshing my elementary school knowedge. You made me younger for a while! :) Although many things in our educational programs as if have to be reconsidered. For example: "When chemical bonds are formed, heat is released, and when chemical bonds are broken, heat is absorbed." Who has ever seen a chemical bond? Or an atom? Or a molecule? These are abstractions, which work well in many practical cases, but at the same time they generate much more questions than answers. (Of course, this is my personal opinion and I woud not like to press anybody to agree with me.)
Looking forward to your answer.
Regards,
George

Hi lancaIV,
Professor Kanarev's points of view and approaches are extremely interesting and original. It seems to me that (at least theoretically) some of his waterelectrolysisrelated research works unambiguously manifest outlet energy/inlet energy > 1. Keep reading.
What is your opinion about Prof. Kanarev's research works?
Regards,
George

Prof. Kanarevs view and experimental results are as same interessant/interestant as the " kids education method" :
peak to average to effective power ratio
15000 W are as same as 144 W but this 144 W are also as same as 1,44 W :
and this values applied give for example in electrolysis a C.O.P. about 3xfold and more
mad linear/dynamic science , pardon : today expressed " fuzzy logic "
How do climate experts calculate ? ;)

Hi lancaIV,
This for the climate experts calculations is well said! :D Congratulations!
So you are sceptic, aren't you? No rational part in his numerous research works at all? (I still have not read all of the Kanarev's research works.) Those, which I have read already however, contain too many sophisticated theoretical models, two many unknowns, too many hypothesys proclaimed as axioms/postulates, etc. So your recommendation is to stop reading as the Kanarev's approach is similar to the weather forecast calculations? :D
Regards,
George

No, George1, it is important to study the different works and experiments and their results from Kanarev !
It is about "dynamic" ! In theory and practise !
And comparison !
given example for a generator :
https://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/description?CC=US&NR=2012256422A1&KC=A1&FT=D&ND=3&date=20121011&DB=EPODOC&locale=en_EP# (https://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/description?CC=US&NR=2012256422A1&KC=A1&FT=D&ND=3&date=20121011&DB=EPODOC&locale=en_EP#)
Paragraph 92 related to Paragraph 94 : 1000/100 RPM but 1000/1 Watt power
SIMPLE KIDS THINKING ( Finger more/less calculation) :
when 100 Rotations are the 1/10 part from 1000 R., why I get only 1/1000 output ?
DYNAMICS
Professor Kanarev is trying to give the answer for all electric devices, motor/generator/transformer, and especially for pulse power by PWM apply (modulated signals in time and bandwidth !)
This " dynamic motive power magic" f.e. 1/10~1/1000 he tries to make understandable !
And 15000 W ~ 144 W ~ 1,44 W : this statement is conditionized ! By time and on/off periods !
(Ab)using numbers : 1 Wh = 3600 Ws= 3,6 KWs = 3600000 Wms = 3,6 MWms
Endo/exothermic plays in ambient an important rule, included enthalpy ! I think you know about it. !
Use in simple manner :
http://www.iwilltry.org/b/heatyourhomewithadehumidifier/ (http://www.iwilltry.org/b/heatyourhomewithadehumidifier/) Pseudo open cycle C. O. P. ? Lesser humidity in air / lower the total C. O. P.
Humidifier/Nebulizer/Mister/Fogger
Counteract : https://www.google.com/search?q=air+conditioning+mister&ie=utf8&oe=utf8&client=firefoxbm (https://www.google.com/search?q=air+conditioning+mister&ie=utf8&oe=utf8&client=firefoxbm)
Also wrong are linear calculations for thermic devices :
Fujitsu as heat pump producer gives in their webpage the example about heat need with 15°C and 20°C amplitudeand explains an hundred percent power consume difference .
In their new experimental construction this company shows that this is not only heat pumps related :https://www.fenixgroup.cz/de (https://www.fenixgroup.cz/de)
So each degree temperature more above 15°C room heating means 20% more power consume. !And not 20°/15° is 33,3% more dividing with 5 degrees = 6,7 % more per °C

Another project from Belarus country:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GxLbzvSows8
(https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GxLbzvSows8)
Author's comments:
...2 kW for heating 80 m2 room for a rabbit farm with poor thermal insulation...
The project is commercial, with its seeming simplicity, it contains everything that was acquired by many years of testing and thousands of successful and failed experiments. Therefore, it does not intend to publish the technical details of this device.
1. A very high voltage is applied to the cell.
2. If you reduce the voltage below the starting point of the electrolysis process, then whatever current strength you apply, heating will not be possible.
3. The heat system does not produce any gases, only heat.
4. Shock current can only if you take up the central part of the electrolyzer. In a commercial sample, the electrolyzer will be in a closed case. Everything else, including the radiators are not energized, the device also works in tandem with the RCD, this eliminates the possibility of electric shock.

Hi lancaIV,
Hi Sergh,
1) Please give me some time to cosider carefully your last posts.
2) Last week we were fully occupied with preparing a set of calorimetric experiments related to watersplitting electrolysis and this process took a lot of time. Experimental calorimetry is may be one of the most sophisticated branches of modern science.
I will write to you both in the nearest future.
Regards,
George

And F. Canarev is now alive and well?
It is close to me, and I am such a pig, I never went to him.

Did he take the heat emission of rabbits into account? A pig, for example, with the same mass, heats a room two to three times more than a human.
The surface of the pig's body is comparable to the average heating radiator. At a temperature of about 40 degrees. replaces one radiator. I once suggested using pigs for heating.
Not in Alice in Wonderland, a queen lay a pig under her feet for warmth. :)

George,
https://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/biblio?DB=EPODOC&II=0&ND=3&adjacent=true&locale=en_EP&FT=D&date=19881019&CC=GB&NR=2203529A&KC=A# (https://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/biblio?DB=EPODOC&II=0&ND=3&adjacent=true&locale=en_EP&FT=D&date=19881019&CC=GB&NR=2203529A&KC=A#)
Small bedroom :assuming 6 sqm (" small") floor area
2,3 meters room hight
Room surface calculation
Wide: 3mtr x 2,3 x2 Length + 2 mtr x 2,3 x 2 + Tect 6 sqm = 29 sqm ( + 6 sqm floor)
assuming : K value :1,5 W/ qm/ K ( window/door/walls energy losts)
Temperature amplitude : 0°C  14,5° C = 14,5° degrees K
29 sqm x 1,5 x 14,5 = 630,75 Watt heat
/2: inside walls heat ~ 315 Watt heat
". .... in a small bedroom, 25 Watt may suffice,... "
Heat sources :
Enthalpy( condensation) gains,humans body heat emission, .......

1. The normal temperature in a residential area should be 22  24 degrees Celsius. A temperature of 18 degrees is not enough.
2. Heating becomes expensive at outside temperatures of 0 10 degrees and below.
3. The insulation of real housing is relatively poor. Ventilation is carried out through the window. Lack of ventilation leads to dampness and mold on the walls.
Based on this, I assume that the power needed for heating a room of 12 square meters is 2 kilowatts for late autumn and 4  5 kilowatts for winter.

Sergh,
1. NO !
I reed some weeks before about 12°C ambiental inhouse temperature in Australia.
In the 70' the average winter temperature in the british houses were belong 15°C.
First minimum limit : 0°C ice breaks sanitation tubes
Second minimum limit : 1015°C condensation
Health risk : humid air movement and mildew/ mold
By wrong estatal politics I have to agree to your numbers but this means 100% overheating from basic need !
The right body wear for the right hot/cold ambient. !
3 physiologic degrees Kelvin by body heating ~ > 50% space energetic overheating
https://www.google.com/search?q=wristify+bracelet&ie=utf8&oe=utf8&client=firefoxbm (https://www.google.com/search?q=wristify+bracelet&ie=utf8&oe=utf8&client=firefoxbm)
human body allweather nanofiber enclosure let energy consumption falls to 12 Watt,independant from space area/volume in/outside house
2."Expensive" is relative : to ultralow/no heating need
Passive house experience in the 90' in Germany : only space heater = incandescent light bulb and human heat emission
3.And door(s).
Modern solution : Singleroom air ventilation with heat recuperation
12 sqm floor area means +/ 45 sqm room surface( without floor) when you mean 40° K heat amplitude (20 out/+ 20 in)and the room (90' construction standart) has K value 1,0 ergo this means 1800 caloric units heat !
By infrared heating ( objects radiation) your heat source will consume in average 1800 x 0,37 x 0,6 =400 Watt electric units !
Academical pigs( suino/swine)/ humans body heating research& development worldwide let this numbers reach.
SCHWEINEKOERPER RE/AGIEREN WIE MENSCHENKOERPER, BIOLOGISCHE IDENTITAET
SCHWEINEORGANE ALS MENSCHENTRANSPLANT, WHY OekoSchweine ?!

Does infrared heating affect human health? Has been tested the health effect of infrared heating on the long term?

Sergh, you mean specific nm bandwidth infrared radiation ,near/far !?
The sun radiation is also partial in the IR spectrum.
IRradiation is in use as medical therapy instrument.
12 Watt consume " body capsule wear"
http://rexresearch.com/cuinanoagwire/cuinanoag.html (http://rexresearch.com/cuinanoagwire/cuinanoag.html)
"on the long term" has to be seen in decades range, cause also without artificial IR heating our body
during the evolution changed from one cell ( Amoebe) to multicell bodies( human oid)
and the first changing preview for the next evolution step will be that our human body will loose the hair

Anyway, the measurements are incorrect.
Кроликов долой,и повторить. :) :D
http://biofile.ru/bio/18661.html (http://biofile.ru/bio/18661.html)

In western girls and boys language translated :
https://translate.google.com/translate?hl=de&sl=ru&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fbiofile.ru%2Fbio%2F18661.html
Hmm ??? ,which measurements are incorrect ?
Could you explain it ?

Sergh, you mean specific nm bandwidth infrared radiation ,near/far !?
The sun radiation is also partial in the IR spectrum.
IRradiation is in use as medical therapy instrument.
Not certainly in that way. Due to the nature of pure infrared radiation, there are some problems.
What is the harm of infrared radiation to humans? One of the likely adverse effects is drying of the skin surface. The skin surface, facing the IR source, heats up, the moisture from it evaporates, while the subcutaneous layers do not have time to warm up and the body does not react with perspiration. Drying of the skin occurs, sometimes burns. Judging by the reviews of infrared equipment, the effect of “baking” the skin is quite common in infrared saunas. The same effect is typical for infrared heaters in rooms.
The impact of intense infrared radiation on the human body was studied by physicians  physiotherapists, as well as specialists involved in labor protection. In physiotherapy, intensive IR sources have been used for a long time. However, this effect is shortterm, strictly regulated. In some industries, for example, in steel shops and glass processing, people are exposed to IR radiation for a long time. Infrared radiation has been recognized as a high hazard factor.
The biochemical effect of exposure to shortwave infrared rays of the protection guide is explained there by a photochemical action, which is manifested when skin is absorbed by skin proteins and enzymatic processes are activated. When the intensity of irradiation of the exposed surface of the body is up to 175 W / m2, the presence of denaturation processes in protein molecules in combination with a violation of the permeability of cell membranes is noted, which can probably be the cause of changes in the membrane potential of blood cells and the appearance of selfantigen properties. Excessive exposure to infrared radiation causes thermal damage to the retina and the lens of the eye, which can lead to the development of cataracts. Obviously, there should be standards for safe infrared radiation.

Our body emitts in the infrared spectrum , too !
Good/bad ? Mental emotion indication, fever/infection indication,......
Infraredlamps for (sub/percutan) skin treatment ( included emulsion/creme/balsam).
We have to differ between under/overdose ! Between medical use and simple room heat device !
W/sqcm power emission density and surface temperature !
Infrared emission dries the walls over the time : wet walls lower the insulation efficiency,"cold radiation"

Our body emitts in the infrared spectrum , too !
Our body, unlike heaters, emits a lower frequency range of IR.

Sergh,
each resistor emitts infrared radiation.
But not each resistor is defined as " infrared heater".
http://translationportal.epo.org/emtp/translate/?ACTION=descriptionretrieval&COUNTRY=DE&ENGINE=google&FORMAT=docdb&KIND=A1&LOCALE=en_EP&NUMBER=102014018647&OPS=ops.epo.org/3.2&SRCLANG=de&TRGLANG=en (http://translationportal.epo.org/emtp/translate/?ACTION=descriptionretrieval&COUNTRY=DE&ENGINE=google&FORMAT=docdb&KIND=A1&LOCALE=en_EP&NUMBER=102014018647&OPS=ops.epo.org/3.2&SRCLANG=de&TRGLANG=en)
[0004] .... and thus corresponds to the electromagnetic radiation of the human substance. ....
1/273 = 1/ https://www.google.com/search?q=kelvin+temperature&ie=utf8&oe=utf8&client=firefoxbm (https://www.google.com/search?q=kelvin+temperature&ie=utf8&oe=utf8&client=firefoxbm)
( you like it complicated? Newest research results : < 0° K point reached )

It's a really interesting discussion! Need some time to get the essence of each point of view.

George,
https://patents.google.com/patent/WO2014161057A1 (https://patents.google.com/patent/WO2014161057A1)
EXAMPLE 1
Instead 15x 110 Volts, 60 Watt bulbs
15x 110 Volts 60 Watt IR cnt heat panel
60 Watt IR cnt ~ 200 Watt conventional conductive heater
9V and 0,1 A input and 3000 caloric Watt equivalent output
This is simple calculated theory/ hypothesis
Works Dr. Paiva device like descripted it will become reality !
Problem ,comercially ?
https://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/inpadoc?CC=WO&NR=2014161057A1&KC=A1&FT=D&ND=&date=20141009&DB=&locale=# (https://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/inpadoc?CC=WO&NR=2014161057A1&KC=A1&FT=D&ND=&date=20141009&DB=&locale=#)
YES, DE : NonEntry in national Phase
= no DE ergo no EP grant
Probably the need from the patent court decision

Hi lancaIV,
Hi dear friend,
You are always well informed about the latest technology news. Need some time to consider carefully your last post.
Regards,
George

Looking for a buyer of our revolutionary electric technology which is able to increase (twice as a minimum and more than 25 times as a maximum) the distance traveled by a standard electric vehicle on a single charge. (Please look at our last post in the topic "IS THIS A REACTIONLESS DRIVE OR A PERPETUAL MOTION MACHINE?")
George

https://judbarovski.livejournal.com/ (https://judbarovski.livejournal.com/)
This israelitan inventor shows many ideas with surprising energy prices at the final, if explored !
0,1 US$ per Kg ( 37,58 KWh) Hydrogen means equivalent to 1 barrel ( 1600 KWh) crude oil :
5 US$ per barrel hydrogen costs equivalent
A hydrogen economy will not become more expensive but will for many consumer becomes cheaper !
3 liter (30 KWh) gasoline < 1 Kg hydrogen (37,58 KWh)
https://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/biblio?DB=EPODOC&II=9&ND=3&adjacent=true&locale=en_EP&FT=D&date=19950330&CC=DE&NR=4332378A1&KC=A1# (https://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/biblio?DB=EPODOC&II=9&ND=3&adjacent=true&locale=en_EP&FT=D&date=19950330&CC=DE&NR=4332378A1&KC=A1#)
0,1 US$ per 100 Km drive hydrogen costs
an engine  ready for hydrogen and claimed to be better in efficiency than fuel cells :
http://www.proepowersystems.com/ (http://www.proepowersystems.com/)

This is interesting! Need some time to consider it carefully.

Hi guys,
1) We are selling a revolutionary electric technology for 10 (ten) million dollars. Our revolutionary electric technology increases (twice as a minimum and more than 25 times as a maximum) the distance traveled by a standard nowexisting electric vehicle on a single charge. Our revolutionary electric technology is cheap, safe and reliable and is practically ready for production on a large industrial scale. There is a working prototype/experimental device.
2) In addition to our revolutionary electric technology we reveal ABSOLUTELY FREE the secret of the principle of operation of a revolutionary reactionless drive  just like Baron Munchasen who lifted himself up by pulling his own hair. Please look at our two basic posts of July 21, 2018, 02:11:37 PM and May 16, 2019, 09:35:12 AM.
3) The combination of the previous item 1 and item 2 would lead inevitably to an unique reactionless propulsion vehicle  no transmissions, no propellers, no highvelocity hot gases, no hightemperature resistant materials, no highpressure resistant materials, no sophisticated design and no sophisticated technology and NO POLLUTION(!), but only a simple electromechanical system, able to cover effectively great distances.
Looking forward to your answer.
George

A small correction/addition to our last post.
The two basic posts of July 21, 2018, 02:11:37 PM and May 16, 2019, 09:35:12 AM are from another topic of ours, which is named "IS THIS A REACTIONLESS DRIVE OR A PERPETUAL MOTION MACHINE?".

https://patents.google.com/patent/WO2014161057A1 (https://patents.google.com/patent/WO2014161057A1)
...
https://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/inpadoc?CC=WO&NR=2014161057A1&KC=A1&FT=D&ND=&date=20141009&DB=&locale=# (https://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/inpadoc?CC=WO&NR=2014161057A1&KC=A1&FT=D&ND=&date=20141009&DB=&locale=#)
YES, DE : NonEntry in national Phase
= no DE ergo no EP grant
Probably the need from the patent court decision
@IancaIV
As discussed in the patent, the wavelength of a muon undergoing Compton decay is 5.88324456243 x 10^{23} m. How do you think the authors of the patent created an oscillator at that extremely high frequency using just a PIC?
What does "no DE ergo no EP grant" mean?

https://www.everythingrf.com/rfcalculators/wavelengthtofrequency
https://www.google.com/search?q=muon+decay+frequency&client=firefoxbm&oq=muon+decay+frequency&gs_l=mobileheirloomserp.3...294378.306014.0.307256.31.24.0.3.3.0.1031.11635.0j10j1j55j6j2.24.0....0...1c..34.mobileheirloomserp..22.9.1511.MWIHAPSsK4 (https://www.google.com/search?q=muon+decay+frequency&client=firefoxbm&oq=muon+decay+frequency&gs_l=mobileheirloomserp.3...294378.306014.0.307256.31.24.0.3.3.0.1031.11635.0j10j1j55j6j2.24.0....0...1c..34.mobileheirloomserp..22.9.1511.MWIHAPSsK4)
Goto " muon rings and frequency"
muon " normal lifetime" and under " muon factor gamma 30 "aspect, time increase for charge trapping !The inventors wrote about amplyfied muon decay frequency.THz and beyond,Fermi level.
http://www.alternativephysics.org/book/MuonRelativity.htm (http://www.alternativephysics.org/book/MuonRelativity.htm)
SR analog : https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=KPrSPqfVJhA (https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=KPrSPqfVJhA) IT SEEMS THE MOTOR STANDS STILL
DE is the patent office short denomination for Deutschland/ Germany,which makes as country part from theEP : European Patent Contract.If one EP estate recuse the grant the EP never will become valid or the applicant goes to the patent court andhas to argument by facts against this decision.

Hi guys,
===============
1) We are selling a revolutionary electric technology for 10 (ten) million dollars. Our revolutionary electric technology increases (twice as a minimum and more than 25 times as a maximum) the distance traveled by a standard nowexisting electric vehicle on a single charge. Our revolutionary electric technology is cheap, safe and reliable and is practically ready for production on a large industrial scale. There is a working prototype/experimental device.
===============
2) In addition to our revolutionary electric technology we reveal ABSOLUTELY FREE the secret of the principle of operation of a revolutionary reactionless drive  just like Baron Munchasen who lifted himself up by pulling his own hair. Please look at our two basic posts of July 21, 2018, 02:11:37 PM and May 16, 2019, 09:35:12 AM from another topic of ours, which is named "IS THIS A REACTIONLESS DRIVE OR A PERPETUAL MOTION MACHINE?".

AND VERY IMPORTANT  THE PRINCIPLE OF OPERATION OF OUR REVOLUTIONARY REACTIONLESS DRIVE MUST BE EVALUATED ONLY BY HIGHLY QUALIFIED EXPERTS IN THEORETICAL AND APPLIED MECHANICS!
===============
3) The combination of the previous item 1 and item 2 would lead inevitably to an unique reactionless propulsion vehicle  no transmissions, no propellers, no highvelocity hot gases, no hightemperature resistant materials, no highpressure resistant materials, no sophisticated design and no sophisticated technology and NO POLLUTION(!), but only a simple electromechanical system, able to cover effectively great distances.
===============
Looking forward to your answer.
George

Any comments related to our topic "IS THIS A REACTIONLESS DRIVE OR A PERPETUAL MOTION MACHINE?"
George

To lancaIV.

Hi lancaIV,
Hi dear colleague,
1) Where did you disappear, my friend? You haven't sent interesting links for a long time.
2) And what is your opinion about the two posts of July 21, 2018, 02:11:37 PM and May 16, 2019, 09:35:12 AM from the topic "IS THIS A REACTIONLESS DRIVE OR A PERPETUAL MOTION MACHINE?"? Zigzags imitate resistance, identical to friction, but without generating heat, don't they?
Looking forward to your answer.
George

Hi lancaIV,
Where are you, my friend? You haven't sent interesting posts for a long time.
Regards,
George

Hi guys,
Please have a look at the topic "IS THIS A REACTIONLESS DRIVE OR A PERPETUAL MOTION MACHINE?".

1) Here is an abstract from our post from May 16, 2019, 09:35:12 AM. "It is evident that we can always choose a suitable combination of (a) magnitude of force of friction, (b) length of segments s and (c) number and shape of zigzags, for which Fc = F'c, Fc > 0, F'c > 0, d = d', d > 0 and d' > 0." ANY OBJECTIONS AGAINST THIS LAST CLAIM?

2) Because the lack of objections inevitably leads to a generation of a violation/exception of the rule/law of conservation of linear momentum. (I will remind again that any rule/law has its exceptions and there is nothing special, tragic and disturbing in this fact.)

3) Previous item 2 inevitably leads on its behalf to a possibility of designing and manufacturing of a reactionless drive.

How to explain the things in a simpler and easier manner?
George

Hi guys,
Please have a look at the topic "IS THIS A REACTIONLESS DRIVE OR A PERPETUAL MOTION MACHINE?".

1) Here is an abstract from our post from May 16, 2019, 09:35:12 AM. "It is evident that we can always choose a suitable combination of (a) magnitude of force of friction, (b) length of segments s and (c) number and shape of zigzags, for which Fc = F'c, Fc > 0, F'c > 0, d = d', d > 0 and d' > 0." ANY OBJECTIONS AGAINST THIS LAST CLAIM?

2) Because the lack of objections inevitably leads to a generation of a violation/exception of the rule/law of conservation of linear momentum. (I will remind again that any rule/law has its exceptions and there is nothing special, tragic and disturbing in this fact.)

3) Previous item 2 inevitably leads on its behalf to a possibility of designing and manufacturing of a reactionless drive.

How to explain the things in a simpler and easier manner?
George

The second case is false. You have simply forgotten the oxidationreduction potentials! The potential difference that will result in heating is therefore less than the one used. This means in other words that even for the same current, the energy used for producing hydrogen is not used to heat.
If overunity were so childish, it would have been known for a long time! We'll have to be much smarter.
@George1
I am curious as to where the energy of the oxidationreduction potentials goes
to and in what form it then exists as ?
I never got around to asking FLT t6FL that question.
And then returning to your actual topic....
An industrial scale electrolysis / hydrogen gas generator could be located at the bottom of a
mountain. Simply put.
outputs
!. Resistive electric heating
2. Lift from the hydrogen rising
3. burning the hydrogen, heat (at the top of the mountain).
4. falling hot water.
floor

Hi Floor,
Hi dear friend,
Thank you for your reply. Recently I was fully occupied with some business not related to technologies and that's why I didn't write in the forum.
Your idea is wonderful and amazing. Please give me some time to consider it carefully.
I will write to you in the nearest future.
Best regards,
George

Hi Floor,
Hi dear friend,
Thank you for your reply. Recently I was fully occupied with some business not related to technologies and that's why I didn't write in the forum.
Your idea is wonderful and amazing. Please give me some time to consider it carefully.
I will write to you in the nearest future.
Best regards,
George
1. Please don't refer to me as "dear friend" or my friend and so on. Its way too familiar (in my culture), and comes off as kind of creepy / insincere. I do realize that in many cultures, that manner of speech is not only common, but also quite acceptable.
2. As I previously stated, that's not my own idea. It was from some other user here at the forum.
floor

To Floor

1. It's ok  I will follow the rules of your culture.
2. Anyway the idea is very good and perfectly possible to be realized in practice. Varying with the height of the mountain you can practically increase efficiency as much as you want. Don't you think so?
Looking forward to your answer.
George

To Floor.

Any approximate calculations for the mountain's height and the related (a) rate of production of hydrogen and (b) inlet electric energy (voltage, current, time)? Could we replace the mountain with a high enough metal frame tower for example?

To all members of this forum's branch.

1) Please have a look at the last post of ours (the last George's post a few minutes ago) in the topic "IS THIS A REACTIONLESS DRIVE OR A PERPETUAL MOTION MACHINE?"
2) An additional bonus is our concept related to the recent topic A SIMPLE ELECTRIC HEATER, WHICH HAS EFFICIENCY GREATER THAN 1. We will not argue whether any standard hydrogen generator has efficiency bigger than 1 or not. If somebody manages to make money by using this idea, then it's OK. With one recommendation only  if you make money, then please do not forget about charity. Please do not forget those who have no shelter and who have nothing to eat.
George

Please have a look at our last post and read the text below.

Here is an abstract from our post from May 16, 2019, 09:35:12 AM. "It is evident that we can always choose a suitable combination of (a) magnitude of force of friction, (b) length of segments s and (c) number and shape of zigzags, for which Fc = F'c, Fc > 0, F'c > 0, d = d', d > 0 and d' > 0." (Experimentally proved) ANY OBJECTIONS AGAINST THIS LAST CLAIM?

Many people here are simply afraid of truth. A very sad fact!

Please have a look at our last post in the topic "IS THIS A REACTIONLESS DRIVE OR A PERPETUAL MOTION MACHINE?"

Here is an abstract from our post from May 16, 2019, 09:35:12 AM. "It is evident that we can always choose a suitable combination of (a) magnitude of force of friction, (b) length of segments s and (c) number and shape of zigzags, for which Fc = F'c, Fc > 0, F'c > 0, d = d', d > 0 and d' > 0." (Experimentally proved) ANY OBJECTIONS AGAINST THIS LAST CLAIM?

No objections?

Still no objections? Shall we write a new textbook of physics?
We need (1) brave collaborators/partners of nonstandard and original way of thinking and (2) 10 million dollars for further perfection of our next inventions as performing of precise, exact and highquality scientific experiments is an EXPENSIVE business.
Looking forward to your answer.
George1

Deep silence again? :)
STILL NO OBJECTIONS WITHIN A PERIOD OF MORE THAN ONE MONTH?
It is a matter of (1) a perpetual motion machine and (2) a reactionless drive simultaneously, isn't it? Where are the Nobel prize committee representatives? :)
Any candidates for buying the secret of our electric technology and/or for collaboration with us? (Our team welcomes new members of nonstandard and original way of thinking.)
George1

Deep silence second month and still no objections? This unambiguously shows that it is really a matter of a serious technology breakthrough! And because of this the price of our electric technology has been increased. Our electric technology costs already 20 million dollars. (Please don't worry  we are not greedy. The greater part of the money will be used for charity.)
Looking forward to your answer.
George1

Please look at our last post (11:30:41 AM) in the topic "IS THIS A REACTIONLESS DRIVE OR A PERPETUAL MOTION MACHINE?"

Please look at our last post (09:37:49 AM) in the topic "IS THIS A REACTIONLESS DRIVE OR A PERPETUAL MOTION MACHINE?"

Please look at our last post (12:19:51 PM) in the topic "IS THIS A REACTIONLESS DRIVE OR A PERPETUAL MOTION MACHINE?"

Please look at our last post (01:30:31 PM) in the topic "IS THIS A REACTIONLESS DRIVE OR A PERPETUAL MOTION MACHINE?"

Please look at our last post (02:40:14 PM) in the topic "IS THIS A REACTIONLESS DRIVE OR A PERPETUAL MOTION MACHINE?"

Please look at our last post (02:51:27 PM) in the topic "IS THIS A REACTIONLESS DRIVE OR A PERPETUAL MOTION MACHINE?"

Not simple, but.. :\
https://www.lenrcanr.org/acrobat/StringhamRlowmassmhz.pdf

"Bublegate"
http://newenergytimes.com/v2/bubblegate/BubblegateKeyMilestones.shtml (http://newenergytimes.com/v2/bubblegate/BubblegateKeyMilestones.shtml)
2005 UCLA scuttles DARPAsponsored replication attempt of Taleyarkhan's bubble fusion experiment by deliberately adding noncondensable gases to the experiment, which kills bubble fusion result.

Hi Sergh,
Thanks a lot for the last interesting links you have posted here. Please give us some time to consider them carefully.
Furthermore please look at our last post (02:33:56 PM) in the topic "IS THIS A REACTIONLESS DRIVE OR A PERPETUAL MOTION MACHINE?". Do you know some expert in theoretical and applied mechanics?
Looking forward to your answer.
Regards,
George

This author claims to have created a heater with an over effect .
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uHorTh4TIuE
The technology he sells, but here, going clubbing, buy: https://t.me/obogrevayka
PS: From my side, it's not advertising. Just for information.

Hi Sergh,
Thanks a lot for the last interesting links you have posted here. Please give us some time to consider them carefully.
Furthermore please look at our last post (02:33:56 PM) in the topic "IS THIS A REACTIONLESS DRIVE OR A PERPETUAL MOTION MACHINE?". Do you know some expert in theoretical and applied mechanics?
Looking forward to your answer.
Regards,
George
Greetings, George!
Hmm .. I am pessimistic to such principles.
I think that some prerequisites are needed to search for free energy. The main condition is the lack of knowledge of any effects or their combinations.
Sorry, but it seems to me that macro mechanics has long been well studied.
Best regards,
Sergh

Hi Sergh,
Thanks a lot for your reply.
1) Well, on one hand you are absolutely right  yes, it is true that macro mechanics has long been well studied. On the other hand however we have an experimentally proved principle of operation of a reactionless drive! And theory and experiment coincide in a perfect manner! But the evaluator of both theoretical and experimental results must be a highly qualified expert in theoretical and applied mechanics.
2) It is obvious that no member of this forum is an expert in theoretical and applied mechanics. So please help  if you have some friend, who is a highly qualified expert in theoretical and applied mechanics, then please ask him to consider carefully the zigzag mechanical conception.
Looking forward to your answer.
Regards,
George

Please look at our last post (09:40:07 AM) in the topic "IS THIS A REACTIONLESS DRIVE OR A PERPETUAL MOTION MACHINE?"

Please look at our last post (02:49:54 PM) in the topic "IS THIS A REACTIONLESS DRIVE OR A PERPETUAL MOTION MACHINE?"

I love your enthusiasm George
Let us expand upon this a little.
The ‘fuel’ generated as a byproduce of electric heat
can be used to perform work, or generate more heat
As long as the water trickles back into the electrolyte
To keep the ‘resistance’ value relatively constant
Now let us also consider the electrolyte under pressure.
The watertogas phase of the molecules and atoms
has a coefficient of expansion, which can then be used
to create hydraulic force, and operate a mechanical heater
or perform other work

Hi smOky2,
Thanks a lot again for praising of my enthusiasm, which is by the way a characteristic feature of any member our team!
As far as I could understand you develop further the concept related to the hydrogen generating heater. Sounds interesting! Would you be polite to be more specific?
We are ready for cooperation.
Looking forward to your answer.
Regards,
George

Quite simply put, the phase change from liquid to gas changes the pressure.
If the electrolyzer is sealed, that pressure quickly builds up.
It can then be used to operate a hydraulic system of your design.
This energy is generally wasted or gone unnoticed.

Hi smOky2,
Thanks a lot for your reply.
Your idea is really original and very, very interesting! Yes, you are absolutely right that the pressure of the released hydrogen (and may be oxygen?) is able to generate energy by using some kind of hydraulic construction. Any suggestions for how to design a simple experimental laboratory system?
Welcome in our team!
Looking forward to your answer.
Regards,
George

Well yes. Fill the ladles with ROSH with this gas. :)

To kolbacict

Is this a joke :) or you have some constructive suggestion? What is ROSH?

https://overunity.com/15773/gaiaroschaukwauftriebskraftwerkkppwhyitdoesnotwork/
Hi. no a joke
It will definitely work with gas from electrolysis, but it will be ineffective.

Hi, it will take some time to consider the things carefully. You claim that it is ineffective. Why do you think so?

in comparison with the compressor and compressed air, the volume of NGOs is orders of magnitude smaller.but it can be burned after lifting our bucket up. And return the energy spent by the electrolyzer. Unlike air.

I think you are talking about the below which has been posted on this forum a number of times but not yet built to my knowledge.
I looked into this years ago but for me the scale was too big to get into.
https://overunity.com/8047/buoyancycyclemgwherethehisfree/msg201083/#msg201083
There are a few drawings and discussion at the above link.
GSM

https://overunity.com/8047/buoyancycyclemgwherethehisfree/dlattach/attach/37748/image//
Yes, about that I mean.
And what conclusion have you come to that topic?
Have OU ?

To kolbacict and gsmsslsb.

Hi guys,
Thank you for your replies. Please give me some time to consider carefully the links you have sent.
I will write to you in the nearest future.
Regards,
George1

To smOky2.

Hi smOky2,
Where did you disappear my friend?Any suggestions for how to design a simple experimental laboratory system related to your idea?
Looking forward to your answer.
Regards,
George

Two sealed chambers connected by a hydraulic cylinder with a long stroke.
In one side: the electrolysis chamber builds up pressure as it generates gas.
On side 2, the piston compresses air, to be used as an energy storage medium.
Both chambers will maintain equal pressure.
If the piston is held in place, chamber 1 can be evacuated of the fuel gas,
to be used as an energy storage medium.
The compressed air can be stored in another container, chamber 2 allowed to return to 1ATM
and the piston returned to the equilibrium position.
For the cycle to begin again.

At the end of each cycle, you have discrete quantities of stored energy.
Which can be measured and compared to the input.
The fuel cell equation for electrolysis and reversal:
Already accounts for 100% of the electricity.
The energy stored in the pressure chamber is in excess of “Unity”, by default.

Hi smOky2,
Thank you for your reply.
Yes, this design seems to be perfectly workable. Some calculations related to (1) the length of the stroke, (2) the sealed chambers dimensions and form and (3) the generation of hydrogen (and may be oxygen?) per unit of time? This would be an interesting threecomponents correlation.
Looking forward to your answer.
Regards,
George

I am sending again our post of March 26, 2019, 10:39:21 AM.
"Please have a look at the book "Solved Problems in Physics", 2004, Volume 2, p. 876, solved problem 12.97. The author of this book is Prof. S. L. Srivastava (Ph.D.)
The same book can be found at the link https://books.google.bg/books?id=rrKFzLB9KQ8C&pg=PA876&lpg=PA876&dq=%22electrochemical+equivalent+of+hydrogen%22&source=bl&ots=tQ8PSMLet3&sig=ACfU3U2HOLB78XHl2o3qJanapzSKMcJA&hl=bg&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjDpp2zZXhAhWT5OAKHUfuBzUQ6AEwBHoECAkQAQ#v=onepage&q=%22electrochemical%20equivalent%20of%20hydrogen%22&f=false

For your convenience I am giving below the text of the problem and its solution.

12.97. In the electrolysis of sulphuric acid solution, 100 mg of hydrogen is liberated in a period of 20 minutes. The resistance of the electrolyte is 0.5 Ohm. Calculate the power consumed. Electrochemical equivalent of hydrogen is 1.044 x 10 8 kg/C.
Solution: The power consumed is equal to 31.86 W.
Prof. S. L. Srivastava stops here his calculations.
(The related solution's set of equations is not given here in order to save time and space. This set of equations however can be found in the book or in the link above.)

The above solved problem has a potential which can be developed further. And here it is.
1) Let us calculate the inlet energy, that is, inlet energy = (31.86 W) x (1200 s) = 38232 Ws = 38232 J.
2) Let us calculate the current I. The current I is given by I = (m)/(Z x t) = 7.9 A,
where
m = 0.0001kg of hydrogen
Z = electrochemical equivalent of hydrogen
t = 1200 s
3) The Joule's heat, generated in the process of electrolysis is given by
Q = I x I x R x t = (7.9 A) x (7.9 A) x (0.5 Ohm) x (1200 s) = 37446 J = outlet energy 1.
4) HHV of hydrogen is 142 000 000 J/kg. Therefore the heat H, generated by burning/exploding of 0.0001 kg of hydrogen, is given by
H = (142 000 000) x (0.0001) = 14200 J = outlet energy 2.
5) Therefore we can write down the equalities:
5A) outlet energy 1 + outlet energy 2 = 37446 J + 14200 J = 51646 J
5B) inlet energy = 38232 J.
6) Therefore COP is given by
COP = 51646 J/38232 J = 1.35 <=> COP = 1.35 <=> COP > 1.

Constant pure water and cooling agent supply could keep constant the electrolyte's temperature, heat exchange, mass and ohmic resistance, respectively.
Besides 0.0001 kg of hydrogen (and the related amount of the already split pure water) is small enough and can be neglected as a factor influencing the electrolyte's temperature, mass and ohmic resisitance.

And one more interesting fact.
Literally the same solved problem can be found in an old Russian (still from the Soviet times) book "Сборник задач и вопросов по физике", 1986, p. 130, solved example problem 71. The authors of this book are Р. А. Гладкова and Н. И. Кутиловская. In the Russian version the data is a little different, that is, time is 25 minutes, the amount of generated hydrogen is 150 mg, Ohmic resisitance is 0.4 Ohm and the calculated power is 37 W.
Russians also stopped their calculations at 37 W.
Our further development of the Russian version led to COP = 1.37, that is, we have again COP > 1.

Therefore the text above unambiguously shows that it is a matter of exact experimental data which is in perfect accordance with theory. Because I cannot imagine that three highly qualified experts in physics (yet strongly separated by time, space and nationality) would have made one and same mistake three times in a row. This is impossible!"

Do you have any theoretical (ONLY THEORETICAL!) objections against the text above?

Looking forward to your answers.
Regards,
George

Do you have any theoretical (ONLY THEORETICAL!) objections against the text of our previous post?

1. If free energy is obtained with some types of electrolysis:
 it can be assumed that certain chemicals in the electrolyte can initiate the breaking of chemical bonds. There may be some aggressive elements that are in a chemically neutral compound. During electrolysis, neutrality is violated, and due to this, “zero point energy” is captured. Maybe it's not sulfuric acid, maybe there was something else, as an impurity in the water from a conventional water supply system.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redox (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redox)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrophile (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrophile)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nucleophile (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nucleophile)
2. If not.. At a current of 7.9 amperes and a voltage of 3.9 volts on the cell, strong electrolysis probably occurred. Probably the current could change over time. It was necessary to integrate the results over time. When using conventional U, I or Power meters, there may be a large measurement error occured.
http://www.designeriii.com/cco/RMS.pdf (http://www.designeriii.com/cco/RMS.pdf)
In Soviet times, obtaining efficiency> 100% was publicly ridiculed and was considered inexperience and experimental errors.
In principle, as elsewhere in the World. Remember what happened with Fleischmann  Pons:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Fleischmann
Therefore, no real scientist will write in an explicit form about obtaining an efficiency> 100%, because he will be afraid that his colleagues will laugh at him and consider him a marginal.

(.....deep sigh)
I am not certain what your propaganda is trying to promote.
Are you selling books? Pimping out your favorite scientist?
What is the point of all of this?
Never mind
My point is simple.
How much Energy is required to bond a sulphur quadroxide to
the hydrogen molecule (H2) ?
Answer THAT, and we can talk about your “35% extra C.O.P.”

To Sergh.

Hi Sergh,
Thank you for your reply.

(Here is the beginning of your last post text.)
1. If free energy is obtained with some types of electrolysis:
 it can be assumed that certain chemicals in the electrolyte can initiate the breaking of chemical bonds. There may be some aggressive elements that are in a chemically neutral compound. During electrolysis, neutrality is violated, and due to this, “zero point energy” is captured. Maybe it's not sulfuric acid, maybe there was something else, as an impurity in the water from a conventional water supply system.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redox
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrophile
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nucleophile
2. If not.. At a current of 7.9 amperes and a voltage of 3.9 volts on the cell, strong electrolysis probably occurred. Probably the current could change over time. It was necessary to integrate the results over time. When using conventional U, I or Power meters, there may be a large measurement error occured.
http://www.designeriii.com/cco/RMS.pdf
In Soviet times, obtaining efficiency> 100% was publicly ridiculed and was considered inexperience and experimental errors.
In principle, as elsewhere in the World. Remember what happened with Fleischmann  Pons:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Fleischmann
Therefore, no real scientist will write in an explicit form about obtaining an efficiency> 100%, because he will be afraid that his colleagues will laugh at him and consider him a marginal.
(Here is the end of your last post text.)

YOU ARE NOT READING CAREFULLY MY POSTS! PLEASE READ VERY CAREFULLY AGAIN WHAT I HAVE WRITTEN IN MY LAST POST!
The traditional scientists as shown in our last post are giving only a standard water electrolysis process problem. AND OUR TEAM DEVELOPED IT FURTHER AND DRAW THE CONCLUSION THAT STANDARD WATER ELECTROLYSIS PROCESS THEORETICALLY HAS EFFICIENCY/C.O.P. BIGGER THAN 1. That's all!
Looking forward to your answer.
George

To Sergh.
Please read carefully again our post containing the problem. We have described how to keep a constant neutrality.
Looking forward to your answer.
George

To smOky2.

No, I am not selling books! YOU ARE NOT READING CAREFULLY MY POSTS! I am only citing a standard problem which can be found in two different textbooks. Our team developed further this standard problem and draw the conclusion that standard water electrolysis theoretically has efficiency/C.O.P. bigger than 1. Please also read CAREFULLY my answers to Sergh.
Looking forward to your answer.
George

Our team developed further this standard problem and draw the conclusion that standard water electrolysis theoretically has efficiency/C.O.P. bigger than 1.
Didn’t Stanley Meyer do this a little earlier?
p.s. looking forward to your answer
tell him,waiting for an answer, like a nightingale of summer. :)

Hi kolbacict,
I am not familiar with the details related to Stanley Meyer's adventure. I know only for sure that he invented a water electrolysis car motor. And we invented a water electrolysis heater.
Looking forward to your answer. (Appreciating your humour! :))
George

To smOky2.

No, I am not selling books! YOU ARE NOT READING CAREFULLY MY POSTS! I am only citing a standard problem which can be found in two different textbooks. Our team developed further this standard problem and draw the conclusion that standard water electrolysis theoretically has efficiency/C.O.P. bigger than 1. Please also read CAREFULLY my answers to Sergh.
Looking forward to your answer.
George
H + H2 + O + O2 burns at 10,000 degrees
And over time the total energy far exceeds what we use to create
The reaction.
Important: this is NOT a stoichiometric mixture!!!
Over unity in this subject was noted by Bulgarian Physicist
Yull Brown, and disputed by the top scientists in the field.
Brown’s Gas will NOT react in a fuel cell with 100% efficiency.
It’s a combustible fuel.
It’s called “common ducted”.
In their ionic state, the molecules bond together to form H2 and O2
This energy is retained like a hydrocarbon
When combusted you gain the H H O reaction
As well as the H2 + O, and added heat from extra O2
it’s technically not “overunity” but it puts out more energy than we ourselves put in.
So in that sense, the two are indistinguishable.

Hi smOky2,
All you have written is correct but we are talking about different things. Please read carefully again my last post!

PLEASE DO NOT FEAR THE TRUTH!
Do you have any theoretical (ONLY THEORETICAL!) objections?

PLEASE DO NOT FEAR THE TRUTH!
Do you have any theoretical (ONLY THEORETICAL!) objections?
Theoretical objection? No.
My personal theory is pretty close to yours, but with an efficient process
We don’t meet any acidtricks
This is the point I am trying to deliver to you.
My objection is Physical: the core of Physics.
Acid = energy
Base = potential to change energy
If you add an acid to a process, you are adding energy.
It required energy to make that acid.
Acid is a battery waiting for electrodes.
Mother Nature makes these with her Fruit.
Base is basic, all elements were there in the beginning
Base is your “ ground”.
Acid is your “ +”
Base can help split H like acids too, because bases are not our ground state.
We need energy to make bases too.
H=1
A base of 0 is the same as an acid of 2
They are both +/ 1 from our H
H is +1 from our ground state!
That is our f.e.
Irrespective of Acid or Base!
Leave them alone,
Use only pure H2O

Hi smOky2,
Thanks a lot for your reply.
1) You have not theoretical objections? That's good! Cogratulations! At last one clever and brave person in this forum who does not fear the truth!
2) About acid and base. Yes, you are absolutely right, that acid and base need energy to be prepared. But this energy (let us call it E1) is much smaller than the total heat (let us call it E2) generated by any standard electrolyzer, that is, E2 > E1. (E2 is the sum of the joule's heat and the heat generated by burning/exploding of the released hydrogen in the process of electroysis.)
Secondly, if you keep cooling down the electrolyzer regularly, then the sulphuric acid volume (let us assume that the considered electrolyzer uses sulphuric acid) remains practically the same. The sulphuric acid practically does not evaporate. And from here there is practically no necesity for additional pouring of sulphuric acid. You have to add only water.
And thirdly, there are electrolytes like sea water (and many others), which are able to generate hydrogen by the method of electrolysis, and which does not need (specially generated) energy for their production. They can be found freely and easily in nature.
3) About "Irrespective of Acid and Base!". Sounds interesting! Some more details? Can we use a standard electrolyzer or we have to design another electroyzer construction?
Looking forward to your answer.
George

Deep silence again? :)
WHY DO YOU FEAR THE TRUTH? :o
Do you have any theoretical (ONLY THEORETICAL!) objections?
George

Still no objections?

I am sending again our post of March 26, 2019, 10:39:21 AM.
"Please have a look at the book "Solved Problems in Physics", 2004, Volume 2, p. 876, solved problem 12.97. The author of this book is Prof. S. L. Srivastava (Ph.D.)
The same book can be found at the link https://books.google.bg/books?id=rrKFzLB9KQ8C&pg=PA876&lpg=PA876&dq=%22electrochemical+equivalent+of+hydrogen%22&source=bl&ots=tQ8PSMLet3&sig=ACfU3U2HOLB78XHl2o3qJanapzSKMcJA&hl=bg&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjDpp2zZXhAhWT5OAKHUfuBzUQ6AEwBHoECAkQAQ#v=onepage&q=%22electrochemical%20equivalent%20of%20hydrogen%22&f=false

For your convenience I am giving below the text of the problem and its solution.

12.97. In the electrolysis of sulphuric acid solution, 100 mg of hydrogen is liberated in a period of 20 minutes. The resistance of the electrolyte is 0.5 Ohm. Calculate the power consumed. Electrochemical equivalent of hydrogen is 1.044 x 10 8 kg/C.
Solution: The power consumed is equal to 31.86 W.
Prof. S. L. Srivastava stops here his calculations.
(The related solution's set of equations is not given here in order to save time and space. This set of equations however can be found in the book or in the link above.)

The above solved problem has a potential which can be developed further. And here it is.
1) Let us calculate the inlet energy, that is, inlet energy = (31.86 W) x (1200 s) = 38232 Ws = 38232 J.
2) Let us calculate the current I. The current I is given by I = (m)/(Z x t) = 7.9 A,
where
m = 0.0001kg of hydrogen
Z = electrochemical equivalent of hydrogen
t = 1200 s
3) The Joule's heat, generated in the process of electrolysis is given by
Q = I x I x R x t = (7.9 A) x (7.9 A) x (0.5 Ohm) x (1200 s) = 37446 J = outlet energy 1.
4) HHV of hydrogen is 142 000 000 J/kg. Therefore the heat H, generated by burning/exploding of 0.0001 kg of hydrogen, is given by
H = (142 000 000) x (0.0001) = 14200 J = outlet energy 2.
5) Therefore we can write down the equalities:
5A) outlet energy 1 + outlet energy 2 = 37446 J + 14200 J = 51646 J
5B) inlet energy = 38232 J.
6) Therefore COP is given by
COP = 51646 J/38232 J = 1.35 <=> COP = 1.35 <=> COP > 1.

Constant pure water and cooling agent supply could keep constant the electrolyte's temperature, heat exchange, mass and ohmic resistance, respectively.
Besides 0.0001 kg of hydrogen (and the related amount of the already split pure water) is small enough and can be neglected as a factor influencing the electrolyte's temperature, mass and ohmic resisitance.

And one more interesting fact.
Literally the same solved problem can be found in an old Russian (still from the Soviet times) book "Сборник задач и вопросов по физике", 1986, p. 130, solved example problem 71. The authors of this book are Р. А. Гладкова and Н. И. Кутиловская. In the Russian version the data is a little different, that is, time is 25 minutes, the amount of generated hydrogen is 150 mg, Ohmic resisitance is 0.4 Ohm and the calculated power is 37 W.
Russians also stopped their calculations at 37 W.
Our further development of the Russian version led to COP = 1.37, that is, we have again COP > 1.

Therefore the text above unambiguously shows that it is a matter of exact experimental data which is in perfect accordance with theory. Because I cannot imagine that three highly qualified experts in physics (yet strongly separated by time, space and nationality) would have made one and same mistake three times in a row. This is impossible!"

Do you have any theoretical (ONLY THEORETICAL!) objections against the text above?
YES OR NO?

Looking forward to your answers.
Regards,
George

Deep silence again? Obviously no objections?

did such an experiment. Three phases of 230v were connected to the three plates.Alternating current, no diodes. But gas is coming, though not enough.My thoughts are that in the case of three phases, there is unidirectional rotation, as in an electric motor.Such an impromptu direct current.

George,
https://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/biblio?DB=EPODOC&II=0&ND=3&adjacent=true&locale=en_EP&FT=D&date=19821029&CC=FR&NR=2504768A2&KC=A2# (https://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/biblio?DB=EPODOC&II=0&ND=3&adjacent=true&locale=en_EP&FT=D&date=19821029&CC=FR&NR=2504768A2&KC=A2#)
1/2 nominal voltage ~ 1/3 power consume
15 Watt nominal ~ 5 Watt real consume per bulb + instead 4,3 calories/hour 4,9 calories/hour heat emission
a little gain
Improveable ? Working with voltage conversion :
https://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/biblio?DB=EPODOC&II=0&ND=3&adjacent=true&locale=en_EP&FT=D&date=20160512&CC=WO&NR=2016070292A2&KC=A2# (https://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/biblio?DB=EPODOC&II=0&ND=3&adjacent=true&locale=en_EP&FT=D&date=20160512&CC=WO&NR=2016070292A2&KC=A2#)
Behind each consumed Wh electricity is invested " primary energy", this is the base number for a total OU or UU dynamic cycle efficiency !
In Germany : 1 KWh EE ~ 1,8 KWh PE ergo 180% thermodynamic efficiency need to reach Unity
Electrical gains, f. e. by power factor correction,does not mean linear physical gains :
comparison here before/after electrical input and pump power or lamp output
https://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/description?CC=TW&NR=200627764A&KC=A&FT=D&ND=3&date=20060801&DB=EPODOC&locale=de_EP#
The electrolyzer transformer efficiency, water( or other electrolyt with/out salts ) temperature + flow and pressure, these are all specific functions whose change efficiency numbers :
Transformer specific changes :
https://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/biblio?DB=EPODOC&II=0&ND=3&adjacent=true&locale=de_EP&FT=D&date=20070716&CC=TW&NR=200727310A&KC=A#

George
Why are you seeking an objection?
And what is it that you wish to be objected against?
Objections to the amount of Hydrogen generated?
Objections to the electrical portion of the energy input?
Objections to the pretense under which it is presented?
Objections to the choice of acidic electrolyte?
Or are you explicitly seeking an explanation of the total energies
of the electrolysis reaction PH curve, with comprehensive data collected
for every known acid or base?
Perhaps with side by side experimental analysis of photolysis, sonic disintegration,
thermal decomposition, and magnetolysis under under comparable PH conditions?
How much time do you have to learn this field of research?
And if it were presented to you, would you even want to learn it?
————————————————————————————————————
I don’t have the patience to be your teacher. So to the above you are left
on your own...
But if you want the short answer, by dissolving the acid in water you are
forming hydronium and Hydrogen sulfide.
Released during electrolysis is Hydrogen, oxygen, and sulphur dioxide gas
Depleting the electrolyte which is pretty heavy given the low resistance per
electrode spacing in the book.
(By heavy I mean a very saturated aqueous solution)
As the electrolyte is depleted resistance increases, this is partially countered
by a decreasing volume of water. Circuit current is closely monitored, to keep
resistance constant throughout the experiment. Water and electrolyte must be
continuously added to sustain the reaction.
Other acids can be used, which are safer, more stable,
and have a lower decomposition rate.
If an organic acid is used, electrolyte cost becomes negligible.
Comparable Hydrogen production decreases because it is not as
large % of the decomposition byproducts.
But the reaction can be sustained for longer time without adding more acid.
HCL + salt can exceed production rates of H2SO4 with the cost of a faster
depleting electrolyte and a more dangerous chlorine gas byproduct.
The energy used in the formation of the acid and its compounds during the
reaction are easily calculated and play a major part in the breaking of ionic bonds.
depending on the temperature and particular conditions of electrolysis, recombination
energies may also need to be accounted for.
As new compounds are often formed during decomposition.
This also affects the stoichiometric balance of H2 : O.
Which will then require additional Oxygen input to reclaim the Hydrogen energy.

When comparing Hydrogen energy efficiency, there are apples, oranges, and bananas.
1) electrochemical energy: electrolysis : fuel cell recombination
2) electroreactive energy: electrolysis : using reactants in subsequent chemical reactions
3) thermochemical energy: electrolysis : heat of combustion
In the first scenario we compare apples to apples...
In the second we are using reactivity to save energy in another process.
In the 3rd, we are using the intense internal heat caused by recombination
and this 3rd scenario is mathematically advantageous.
In an ICE, there are problems with the increasing temperatures.
Making the implementation problematic.
However, in another Carnot cycle, similar to a steam cycle or sterling type
even at 50%, the thermal energy exceeds the electrical energy consumed.
I am not in a position to challenge the BTU equation, as my argument would
simultaneously negate the validity of every other constant I chose to use to
mathematically prove my theory.
But I believe what we consider “heat” is a local condition.
meaning one Kelvin here may not be 1 Kelvin elsewhere in the universe.
What we measure in “BTU” is a change in heat, from our perspective.
and the heat generated during combustion is based on the universal condition
not our local temperature measurement.
Resulting in a variance in our value of “energy”.
This is further troubled by our choice of initial pressure before the combustion
event. Which greatly affects the temperature reached at the peak of the explosion.
Also, it is technically not an explosion, but an implosion.
The explosion we experience is the intense emission of heat in the form of a flamelike
plasma water vapor, that occurs moments after the implosion.
It is essentially “ionicfusion”.

Hi everyone,
Please have a look again at our post of January 04, 2020, 09:12:45 AM.
Do you have any theoretical (ONLY THEORETICAL!) objections against (1) COP = 1.35 <=> COP > 1 (this is our further development of Prof. Srivastava's basic problem) and against (2) COP = 1.35 <=> COP > 1 (this is our further development of Russian professors' basic problem)? YES OR NO?

Deep silence again? ;)
I will repeat again the question of my previous post. Do you accept the theoretically proved simple fact that (1) COP = 1.35 <=> COP > 1 (this is our further development of Prof. Srivastava's version of the basic problem) and that (2) COP = 1.35 <=> COP > 1 (this is our further development of Russian professors' version of basic problem)? YES OR NO?
Looking forward to your answer.
George

Deep silence again? And still no answer within a period of two weeks?
1) I will repeat again the question of my previous post. Do you accept the theoretically proved simple fact that (1) COP = 1.35 <=> COP > 1 (this is our further development of Prof. Srivastava's version of the basic problem) and that (2) COP = 1.35 <=> COP > 1 (this is our further development of Russian professors' version of basic problem)? Yes or no?
2) In one word, it is obvious that any standard hydrogengenerating electrolyzer can be considered as a heater, which has efficiency (COP) greater than 1. Do you accept this simple fact? Yes or no?
Looking forward to your answers.
George

Take this
https://m.phys.org/news/201401nanoscalestandardefficiencylimit.html
and combine with this
https://www.allaboutcircuits.com/news/nanoscaleheattransfer100timesstrongerthanpreviouslythought/
and you will find the answer. !

Hi lanca IV,
Thank your reply.
Well, we are talking again about different things.
1) The first link of your last post is about a nanoscale heat engine which exceeds standard efficiency limit. Ok, this only confirms the fact that efficiency bigger than 1 is perfectly possible. At the same time however this nanoscale heat engine has an entirely different principle of operation and for the present is practically an unconfirmed hypothesis. THE GERMAN SCIENTISTS NOWHERE DECLARE CLEARLY AND UNAMBIGUOUSLY LIKE US THAT ANY STANDARD HYDROGENGENERATING ELECTROLYZER CAN BE CONSIDERED AS AN ELECTRIC HEATER, WHICH HAS EFFICIENCY GREATER THAN 1!
2) The second link of your last post is about a nanoscale heat transfer 100 times stronger than previously thought. Well, I will not argue about this. May be true, may be not. But the article considers HEAT TRANSFER and we are talking about HEAT GENERATION. These are obviously two entirely different things.

So let us focus again on the target.

3) I will repeat again the question of my last post. Do you accept the theoretically proved simple fact that (1) COP = 1.35 <=> COP > 1 (this is our further development of Prof. Srivastava's version of the basic problem) and that (2) COP = 1.35 <=> COP > 1 (this is our further development of Russian professors' version of basic problem)? Yes or no?
4) In one word, it is obvious that any standard hydrogengenerating electrolyzer can be considered as a heater, which has efficiency (COP) greater than 1. Do you accept this simple fact? Yes or no?
Looking forward to your PERSONAL answers.
George

Yes,it is acceptable ! Personally and by common science !
Electrolyzing is as cracking process also heat generating !
Sincerely
OCWL
poste scriptum : the global science is not in search for C.O.P. greater 1 hydrolysiss processes,these are existent,but mostly based by expensive elements and/or rare earth/Lanthaniden or by expensive equipment,to reach the point : high C.O.P.  ON DEMAND hydrogen output production by lowest/competitive to alternatives costs !

Hi lancaIV,
Thank you for your reply.
1) Oh, I am EXTREMELY pleasantly surprised that at last you personally accept the simple fact that any standard hydrogengenerating electrolyzer is actually an electric heater which has efficiency bigger than 1. You are a brave person! Congratulations!
2) But you are ABSOLUTELY WRONG that the mentioned in the above item 1 simple fact is accepted by the common science! ON THE CONTRARY, IT IS SEVERELY DENIED! Can you show us some publication, article, any written text, you tube clip, etc., which unambiguously and directly tells us that any standard hydrogengenerating electrolyzer is actually an electric heater which has efficiency bigger than 1?
3) In your last post you wrote:"... but mostly based by expensive elements and/or rare earth/Lanthaniden or by expensive equipment...". But this is not true! I would absolutely not agree with this! Hydrogengenerating electrolysis is in general one of the most cheap industrial processes! For example sea water hydrogengenerating electrolysis is extremely simple and cheap! (Not to mention and enumerate other methods of simple and cheap hydrogengenerating electrolysis.)
Looking forward to your answer. (Especially your answer related to the above item 2.)
George

To 3) cheap " a.grey b.blue c.green" hydrogen production is something to defined :
you mean costs fob source or costs for user/consumer :
new canadian startup Proton Technologies "Hygenic Earth Energy" project costs estimation : 0,10,5 US$/ Kg
Solarthermic hydrolysis in the arabian Peninsula for 1,5 0,8 US$/Kg
judbarovski.livejournal.com CO2emission free hydrogen 0,5 US$/Kg
To compare with crude oil : 1 barrel ~ 1600 KWh ~ 42,6 Kg hydrogen
Production process costs about 0,5 US$/Kg means simi!ar costs like actual shale gas market price !
January 2020 1 MMBTU shale gas : 2 US$
1 barrel crude oil ~ 5,46 MMBTU shale gas ~ 11 US$ barrel equivalent
Shale gas prices actually without "carbon credit" CO2certification costs are equivalent with 0,25 US$/Kg hydrogen production costs !
When we treat shale gas like natural gas  related CO2 emission  per MMBTU and
calculate by E.U. "carbon credit" taxation program
for shale gas we have with 25 Euros/tonCO2 certifcation costs and 55 Kg CO2 emission per MMBTU an environmemtal related tax price increase about 1,375 Euros per MMBTU
or 7,5 Euros (~ 8,25 US$) CO2tax per barrel equivalent shale gas !
Conclusion :
19,25 US$/ barrelequivalent shale gas included CO2tax is the target of " cheap green hydrogen" !
~ 45 US$cents/Kg green hydrogen comercial market price
As energyuser it will be easier to generate electricity on demandwith a generator which delivers 1 KWh electricity ≤ 1,5 US$cents ~ 24 US$/ barrelequivalent electricity ( CO2tax free )
To store hydrogen is costly ! And the handling with this gas dangerous !Hydrogen as fuel emitts vapor : the greenhouse gas NR 1 in the GHGranking !
To 1) and 2) a technical C.O.P. higher 1 is nothing special, but it is not a physical C.O.P. and the physical transformation process efficiency is smallersame 1=100 per centum
C.O.P. ,efficiency ? : solarlight + titanoxid + water : physical ? chemical ? technical ?

A SIMPLE ELECTRIC HEATER
Or
Pulse energy generator system
WO2018032008 Robert Burgener,Troy Atkin
C.O.P. : ? [ 0056/0057/0058/0059 : 2,0 + 2,13 + 3,2 +6 as output/input ratio number ]

Hi lanca IV,
But your last post pulse generator has nothing to do with our topic! This is something entirely different and has nothing to do with efficiency bigger than 1! I WILL REPEAT AGAIN: Can you show us some publication, article, any written text, you tube clip, etc., which unambiguously and directly tells us that any standard hydrogengenerating electrolyzer is actually an electric heater which has efficiency bigger than 1? (PLEASE FOCUS ON ELECTROLYZERS!)
Looking forward to your answer.
George

George, "appropriate technology" !
Efficiency ≥ 1 electrolysis from technical view : take a glas full with water and introduce ",chemslloy" powderYou get a hydrolysis process !
Question by economic view : how much milligram hydrogen per hour and the hydrogen purity !
Not the efficiency stage is important for the industry but the costs of 1 Kg  nearly/pure hydrogen production ,the 1 Kg hydrogen production velocity
andtoday cause mainstream criticism : carbon finger/footpint free/poor !
When you write about " Simple Heater" and C.O.P.≥1 you have to define the parameters !
When I show you " simple heater" concept/s with C.O.P.≥ 1 you can not deny their existence and recuse it as " offtopic" !
Chemalloy,silver,palladium et cet. : anti oxidant function !
Water : hydrogen + oxygen " anti" : catalyzer effect splitter/divider
Have a nice weekend and probably " Carnivale" feste
OCWL

Hi lancaIV,
Thank you for your reply.
1) As if you are the only brave person here in this forum who dares to discuss a real theoretical breakthrough related to efficiency/COP > 1. Congratulations for this!
2) Your last post is very interesting. Please give us some time to consider it thoroughly and carefully.
3) When reading your last post at first glance however some questions appear immediately. And here are these questions.
3A) What do you mean exactly by using the phrase "introduce ",chemslloy" powderYou get a hydrolysis process"? Please explain this in detail, if possible.
3B) What do you mean exactly by using the phrase "andtoday cause mainstream criticism : carbon finger/footpint free/poor"?
3C) What do you mean exactly by using the phrases "Chemalloy,silver,palladium et cet. : anti oxidant function ! Water : hydrogen + oxygen " anti" : catalyzer effect splitter/divider"? You have arranged a series of words which as if need some additional explanation. Would you be so polite to explain this in detail, if possible?
4) It follows directly from our further development of Professor Srivastava's problem (please look at our previous posts) that every standard hydrogen generating electrlolyzer is actually a simple electric heater which has C.O.P./efficiency greater than 1. And what parameters to show  any standard hydrogengenerating electrolyzer (from the small laboratory one to the biggest industrial electrolyzer that is bigger than a bus) has its parameters (power/energy consumption, rate of hydrogen production, hydrogen purity, etc.) which are adjusted and shown by the respective manufacturer.
5) We do not deny the possibility of existing of another heating technology THEORETICAL conception which has C.O.P./efficiency bigger than 1. Our question however was quite different and let us repeat it again: Can you show us some publication, article, any written text, you tube clip, etc., which unambiguously and directly tells us that any standard hydrogengenerating electrolyzer is actually an electric heater which has efficiency bigger than 1? (PLEASE FOCUS ON ELECTROLYZERS!)
Looking forward to your answer.
George

Hi lancaIV,
You still didn't answer our question. Let us repeat this question again: Can you show us some publication, article, any written text, you tube clip, etc., which unambiguously and directly tells us that any standard hydrogengenerating electrolyzer is actually an electric heater which has efficiency bigger than 1? (PLEASE FOCUS ON ELECTROLYZERS!)
Looking forward to your answer.
George

Palladium = Oxydant
Silver= Oxydant
Argentumelements = Oxydants
Aluminium = Oxydant if not Oxidationlayered ergo anti oxydation coating
https://www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2014/03/f9/aluminum_water_hydrogen.pdf (https://www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2014/03/f9/aluminum_water_hydrogen.pdf)
In the vicinity of room temperature, the reaction between aluminum metal and water to form aluminum hydroxide and hydrogen is the following: 2Al + 6H2O = 2Al(OH)3 + 3H2. The gravimetric hydrogen capacity from this reaction is 3.7 wt.% and the volumetric hydrogen capacity is 46 g H2/L.
https://phys.org/news/200705hydrogenaluminumalloyfuelcells.html (https://phys.org/news/200705hydrogenaluminumalloyfuelcells.html)
The gallium is critical to the process because it hinders the formation of a skin normally created on aluminum's surface after oxidation. This skin usually prevents oxygen from reacting with aluminum, acting as a barrier. Preventing the skin's formation allows the reaction to continue until all of the aluminum is used.
to https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yd157yBmNaM (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yd157yBmNaM)
active surface from 1 ccm solid aluminium versus surface area from 1 ccm nanoaluminium grains ?
Permanent Magnets = Oxydant ? EP0462103 ?!
https://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/biblio?CC=EP&NR=0462103A4&KC=A4&date=&FT=D&locale=en_EP (https://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/biblio?CC=EP&NR=0462103A4&KC=A4&date=&FT=D&locale=en_EP)
The magnetic amplifying assembly also produces other benefits such as increasing the pH of the water due to the reduction of hydrogen which bonds to the conduit. The available oxygen (aerobic activity) also increases 270 percent; and fewer BTU's are required per degree of temperature increase to heat the water.
When permanent magnets also electromagnets ,too !? What is electrolysis ? :P
With negative charge or positive charge ?
Hydrogen polarisation ? Oxygen polarisation ? Bonded !? Unbonded !?
Hydro  Oxid ~ water oxydation = splitting ; purity ? mole per sec/minute/hour ?

Hi lancaIV,
Interesting post. Please give us some time to consider it carefully. (But I would like to ask to be a little more specific and to express your thoughts in a little more clearer manner.)
George

Hi George.
Not all of the electrical energy becomes heat, during the electrolysis.
Some of the energy MUST have been spent to split the water / was not spent to heat the water. It's not split by the heat !
If the heating of the water by the passage of an electric current through it is a 100% efficient energy transformation,
then the breaking apart of the water molecules plus the heating is itself an O.U. event. This would be O.U. even before burning the H and O.
TO my understanding this is not the case. It's not O.U. .
Are there not electric charge potentials present in the H and O gases, which were not present in the water before electrolysis,
and which are the result of the electrolysis?
That ionization energy / potential is where some of the electrical energy put into the water goes during electrolysis.
If 100% of that ionization energy is transformed into heat when burning the H and O, then you have Unity, but still not O. U. .
But as I pointed out previously, If the electrolysis heating combined with the heat of H and O burning are = Unity (scientific convention holds this to be so)
Then.....
The H can be burned (heat gained) this = unity.
Energy gained as a rising of the H through the atmosphere before burning (Hydrogen balloon) is then O. U. .
Also
The H can be burned at a high altitude (mountain top) giving yet more O. U. as that of falling water.
The by product of that burning is water vapor.
floor

Hi Floor,
======================
======================
1) I am sending again our post of March 26, 2019, 10:39:21 AM.
"Please have a look at the book "Solved Problems in Physics", 2004, Volume 2, p. 876, solved problem 12.97. The author of this book is Prof. S. L. Srivastava (Ph.D.)
The same book can be found at the link https://books.google.bg/books?id=rrKFzLB9KQ8C&pg=PA876&lpg=PA876&dq=%22electrochemical+equivalent+of+hydrogen%22&source=bl&ots=tQ8PSMLet3&sig=ACfU3U2HOLB78XHl2o3qJanapzSKMcJA&hl=bg&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjDpp2zZXhAhWT5OAKHUfuBzUQ6AEwBHoECAkQAQ#v=onepage&q=%22electrochemical%20equivalent%20of%20hydrogen%22&f=false

For your convenience I am giving below the text of the problem and its solution.

12.97. In the electrolysis of sulphuric acid solution, 100 mg of hydrogen is liberated in a period of 20 minutes. The resistance of the electrolyte is 0.5 Ohm. Calculate the power consumed. Electrochemical equivalent of hydrogen is 1.044 x 10 8 kg/C.
Solution: The power consumed is equal to 31.86 W.
Prof. S. L. Srivastava stops here his calculations.
(The related solution's set of equations is not given here in order to save time and space. This set of equations however can be found in the book or in the link above.)

The above solved problem has a potential which can be developed further. And here it is.
1) Let us calculate the inlet energy, that is, inlet energy = (31.86 W) x (1200 s) = 38232 Ws = 38232 J.
2) Let us calculate the current I. The current I is given by I = (m)/(Z x t) = 7.9 A,
where
m = 0.0001kg of hydrogen
Z = electrochemical equivalent of hydrogen
t = 1200 s
3) The Joule's heat, generated in the process of electrolysis is given by
Q = I x I x R x t = (7.9 A) x (7.9 A) x (0.5 Ohm) x (1200 s) = 37446 J = outlet energy 1.
4) HHV of hydrogen is 142 000 000 J/kg. Therefore the heat H, generated by burning/exploding of 0.0001 kg of hydrogen, is given by
H = (142 000 000) x (0.0001) = 14200 J = outlet energy 2.
5) Therefore we can write down the equalities:
5A) outlet energy 1 + outlet energy 2 = 37446 J + 14200 J = 51646 J
5B) inlet energy = 38232 J.
6) Therefore COP is given by
COP = 51646 J/38232 J = 1.35 <=> COP = 1.35 <=> COP > 1.

Constant pure water and cooling agent supply could keep constant the electrolyte's temperature, heat exchange, mass and ohmic resistance, respectively.
Besides 0.0001 kg of hydrogen (and the related amount of the already split pure water) is small enough and can be neglected as a factor influencing the electrolyte's temperature, mass and ohmic resisitance.

And one more interesting fact.
Literally the same solved problem can be found in an old Russian (still from the Soviet times) book "Сборник задач и вопросов по физике", 1986, p. 130, solved example problem 71. The authors of this book are Р. А. Гладкова and Н. И. Кутиловская. In the Russian version the data is a little different, that is, time is 25 minutes, the amount of generated hydrogen is 150 mg, Ohmic resisitance is 0.4 Ohm and the calculated power is 37 W.
Russians also stopped their calculations at 37 W.
Our further development of the Russian version led to COP = 1.37, that is, we have again COP > 1.

Therefore the text above unambiguously shows that it is a matter of exact experimental data which is in perfect accordance with theory. Because I cannot imagine that three highly qualified experts in physics (yet strongly separated by time, space and nationality) would have made one and same mistake three times in a row. This is impossible!"

Do you have any theoretical (ONLY THEORETICAL!) objections against the text above?
YES OR NO?
==============================
==============================
2) As for the balloon variation I perfectly agree with you  it is really an OU device. Shall we do it? Some approximate calculations?
==============================
==============================
Looking forward to your answers.
Regards,
George


Do you have any theoretical (ONLY THEORETICAL!) objections against the text above?
YES OR NO?
No
regards
floor
PS
Did you by chance find
some other references to
the hydrogen balloon On this forum
other than the single reference I (much earlier) posted

Hi Floor,
If you have no objections, then this means that you accept the simple fact any water electrolysis and hydrogen generating process theoretically has efficiency, which is bigger than 1.

Ok, there are already two brave persons in this forum (Floor and me) who accept the simple obvious fact that any standard water electrolysis process has efficiency, which is bigger than 1.
Any other brave persons in this forum who would share our revolutionary opinion?
Looking forward to your answer.
George

I have no objections because I am not a chemist nor an physicist. Also, I am not familiar with the Russian texts / works you reference.
I doubt those authors actually intended to represent the electrolysis processes as O.U.
I doubt also that those authors / others, would have simply failed to notice that it was O. U. .
I think it's most likely that there has been, either a misinterpretation of, or an accidental misstatement of the electrolysis interactions. Other wise those authors might have
received a Nobel prize.
Do you agree ?
It (as I previously stated) seems to me that that resistive heating is unity (by definition) and
that the water molecule splitting will require additional energy.

Hi Floor,
Thank you for your reply.
I am tired of repeating one and same things over and over again for thousands of times. But I will do it again. (Not only for you but for any experts in physics and chemistry (if any in this forum).)

It directly follows from Prof. S. L. Srivastava's solved problem and from our further development of this problem (our additional simple calculations) that any standard water electrolysis process THEORETICALLY has efficiency which is bigger than 1. And if THEORY is correct, then the related PRACTICE has to be also correct. And it directly follows from the last sentence that any standard water splitting and hydrogen generating electrolyzer has efficiency, which is bigger than 1.

HOW TO EXPLAIN THE THINGS IN A SIMPLER AND EASIER MANNER?
Looking forward to your answer.
George1

It directly follows from Prof. S. L. Srivastava's solved problem and from our further development of this problem (our additional simple calculations) that any standard water electrolysis process THEORETICALLY has efficiency which is bigger than 1.
1. YOU say that it directly follows. This is your statement / folly
2. You did not say that Prof. S. L. Srivastava states or said that it directly follows.
3. What I said is that it is likely that Prof. S. L. Srivastava would have noticed the O.U.
and therfore he would also have straight forward / directly stated such.
I DON'T KNOW HOW TO EXPLAIN THE THINGS IN A SIMPLER AND EASIER MANNER?
I'm done with you / your topics

Prof. S. L. Srivastava did not noticed the O. U. It's obvious. Otherwise he would become a Nobel prize winner. (The same for his Russian/Soviet colleagues 50 years ago.)

Please read carefully the text below.

1) THEORY and PRACTICE! Two words! It is a SIMPLE OBVIOUS FACT that if a certain scientific THEORY is correct, then the related PRACTICE has to be also correct. And if you have any objections against this SIMPLE OBVIOUS FACT, then you have some mental problems for sure.
2) In overunity.com and in besslerwheel.com/forum we (our team) released ABSOLUTELY FREE two pieces of THEORETICAL research, whose titles are " IS THIS A REACTIONLESS DRIVE OR A PERPETUAL MOTION MACHINE?" and "A SIMPLE ELECTRIC HEATER, WHICH HAS EFFICIENCY GREATER THAN 1", respectively. For these two pieces of scientific THEORETICAL research is valid the statement in the previous item 1.
3) These two pieces of scientific THEORETICAL research (mentioned in the above item 2) unambiguously show (no serious and reasonable THEORETICAL objections within a period of two years in overunity.com and in besslerwheel.com/forum) that the law of conservation of energy and the law of coservation of linear momentum are not always correct. But there is nothing special, tragic and disturbing in this fact as any rule/law has its exceptions.
4) Our third piece of technology is a new electric technology which increases many times (at least twice as a minimum) the distance traveled by any standard electric vehicle on a single charge.
5) Our new electric technology has both THEORY and PRACTICE. In other words, we have a WORKING PROTOTYPE which perfectly confirms the correctness of the theoretical concept on which is based the principle of operation of our new electric technology. The latter is practically ready for production on a large industrial scale.
6) The secret of our new electric technology however is NOT FREE. It costs already 40,000,000 (forty) million dollars and this price will further rise if our first two pieces of THEORETICAL research (mentioned in the above item 2) do not win public recognition in the nearest future.
7) These 40,000,000 (forty) million dollars will be used mainly for charity and only a small part of this money will be used for some R&D work.
8) We (our team) are looking for buyers of the secret of our new electric technology (and of our next 7 (seven) inventions and technology innovations).

George1

.

Prof. S. L. Srivastava did not notice the O. U. It's obvious. Otherwise he would become a Nobel prize winner. (The same for his Russian/Soviet colleagues 50 years ago.)

Please read carefully the text below.

1) THEORY and PRACTICE! Two words! It is a SIMPLE OBVIOUS FACT that if a certain scientific THEORY is correct, then the related PRACTICE has to be also correct. And if you have any objections against this SIMPLE OBVIOUS FACT, then you have some mental problems for sure.
2) In overunity.com and in besslerwheel.com/forum we (our team) released ABSOLUTELY FREE two pieces of THEORETICAL research, whose titles are " IS THIS A REACTIONLESS DRIVE OR A PERPETUAL MOTION MACHINE?" and "A SIMPLE ELECTRIC HEATER, WHICH HAS EFFICIENCY GREATER THAN 1", respectively. For these two pieces of scientific THEORETICAL research is valid the statement in the previous item 1.
3) These two pieces of scientific THEORETICAL research (mentioned in the above item 2) unambiguously show (no serious and reasonable THEORETICAL objections within a period of two years in overunity.com and in besslerwheel.com/forum) that the law of conservation of energy and the law of coservation of linear momentum are not always correct. But there is nothing special, tragic and disturbing in this fact as any rule/law has its exceptions.
4) Our third piece of technology is a new electric technology which increases many times (at least twice as a minimum) the distance traveled by any standard electric vehicle on a single charge.
5) Our new electric technology has both THEORY and PRACTICE. In other words, we have a WORKING PROTOTYPE which perfectly confirms the correctness of the theoretical concept on which is based the principle of operation of our new electric technology. The latter is practically ready for production on a large industrial scale.
6) The secret of our new electric technology however is NOT FREE. It costs already 40,000,000 (forty) million dollars and this price will further rise if our first two pieces of THEORETICAL research (mentioned in the above item 2) do not win public recognition in the nearest future.
7) These 40,000,000 (forty) million dollars will be used mainly for charity and only a small part of this money will be used for some R&D work.
8) We (our team) are looking for buyers of the secret of our new electric technology (and of our next 7 (seven) inventions and technology innovations).

George1

Hi everyone,
1) "IS THIS A REACTIONLESS DRIVE OR A PERPETUAL MOTION MACHINE?" and "A SIMPLE ELECTRIC HEATER, WHICH HAS EFFICIENCY GREATER THAN 1" uptonow discussions unambiguously show that the law of conservation of energy and the law of conservation of linear momentum are not always correct. But there is nothing special, tragic and disturbing in this fact as any rule/law has its exceptions. That's all.
2) We are selling our next 8 (eight) inventions. As a first step we are selling a new electric technology, which increases many times (at least twice as a minimum) the distance traveled by any standard electric vehicle on a single charge. Actually we are selling a WORKING PROTOTYPE together with a full description of its principle of operation.
3) Our new electric technology can be successfully used in any batterybased electric device. For example if our new electric technology is used in an ordinary standard electric torch, then its working hours would be increased many times (at least twice as a minimum) preserving at the same time its standard rated intensity of light. So the electric torch industry could realize a good financial jump by using our new electric technology. (Please note that in many emergency cases the duration and the intensity of an electric torch light are of vital importance for saving of human lives for example.)
4) We have some ideas for how to sell our new electric technology. We are negotiating now with some big companies. At the same time however we are open for collaboration. If some member of this forum suggests a smart method of selling of our new electric technology and/or takes part in the selling process, then he/she would firstly earn good money and secondly, he/she would indirectly contribute to our charity causes.

Looking forward to your answer.
George1

Any buyer of our new electric technology? Any good idea for a successful selling of our new electric technology? (As mentioned in our previous post we are negotiating now with some big companies, but any help/any good idea is welcome.)

1) 40,000,000 (forty) million dollars! This is the price (for the present!) of our new electric technology that increases twice (as a minimum) the distance traveled by any standard electric vehicle on a single charge. Actually this new electric technology is our third piece of overunity conception (that is, let's say, 1W at the inlet, 2W at the outlet and efficiency = 2, respectively; the same for 1kW/2kW, 10kW/20kW, etc.), but this time it is experimentally proved. There is a working prototype which can be dullicated/copied as many times as you want (in several variations), if you are familiar with the related basic principle of operation.

2) 1,000,000 (one) million dollars prize will be awarded to that member of this forum who can create a method for a successful selling of our third piece of overunity technology, mentioned in previous item 1.
(Note. Big companies seem to be heavy bureaucratic machines, which work in a very slow manner. Besides big companies' officers of different ranks as if tend to avoid taking responsibilities of any kind. Many of these officers (mainly in US) demonstrate total lack of business and/or technology competence. Furthermore our first two pieces of technology ("IS THIS A REACTIONLESS DRIVE OR A PERPETUAL MOTION MACHINE?" and "A SIMPLE ELECTRIC HEATER, WHICH HAS EFFICIENCY GREATER THAN 1") have not won public recognition yet and because of this they are still not famous enough and they are still of no interest to the general public. So as a final result the mentionedinourpreviousposts negotiations have been dragging on a little.

3) 1,000,000 (one) million dollars prize will be awarded to that member of this forum who can create a method, which is able to win QUICKLY public recognition for the concepts, described in "IS THIS A REACTIONLESS DRIVE OR A PERPETUAL MOTION MACHINE?" and in "A SIMPLE ELECTRIC HEATER, WHICH HAS EFFICIENCY GREATER THAN 1". (If the concepts, described in "IS THIS A REACTIONLESS DRIVE OR A PERPETUAL MOTION MACHINE?" and in "A SIMPLE ELECTRIC HEATER, WHICH HAS EFFICIENCY GREATER THAN 1", win public recognition, then the negotiations, mentioned in the above 'Note', would accelerate substantially for sure.

4) It is evident that 2,000,000 (two) million dollars prize will be awarded to that member of this forum who can create simultaneously the two methods, described in previous items 2 and 3.

So rack your brains and earn some good money, and invest it in your own OU projects. (I am sure that most members of this forum have OU (and other nonstandard) projects of their own.)

1,000,000 (one) million dollars prize will be awarded to that member of this forum who can create a method, which is able to win QUICKLY public recognition for the concepts, described in "IS THIS A REACTIONLESS DRIVE OR A PERPETUAL MOTION MACHINE?" and in "A SIMPLE ELECTRIC HEATER, WHICH HAS EFFICIENCY GREATER THAN 1".

LET US PUSH FORWARD TOGETHER THE TECHNOLOGY PROGRESS!

1,000,000 (one) million dollars prize will be awarded to that member of this forum who can create a method, which is able to win QUICKLY public recognition for the concepts, described in "IS THIS A REACTIONLESS DRIVE OR A PERPETUAL MOTION MACHINE?" and in "A SIMPLE ELECTRIC HEATER, WHICH HAS EFFICIENCY GREATER THAN 1".

Ok, we will not talk about money anymore. Let us try another approach.
1) Firstly," IS THIS A REACTIONLESS DRIVE OR A PERPETUAL MOTION MACHINE?" and "A SIMPLE ELECTRIC HEATER, WHICH HAS EFFICIENCY GREATRE THAN 1" must win public regognition and become an integral part of any standard textbook/manual of physics as quickly as possible. Besides our team (or at least one member of our team) must become a Nobel prize winner as this Nobel prize's money will used ENTIRELY for charity.
2) After realizing of previous item 1 we will release absolutely free the secret of our third invention (both theory and experiment) as well as the secrets of our next seven revolutionary and technology breakthrough inventions.
3) Thirdly, if the above item 1 is not realized successfully, then we will get back to the moneyrelated variation, that is, the price of our third invention is $40,000,000 and this price will further rise in the nearest future.
4) In one word, the realization of the above item 1 is actually a test for the stage of mental development of humankind. If the above item 1 is not realized soon, then this means that human society in general and its intelectual and scientific elite in particular are still at a primitive stage of mental development as they cannot properly evaluate obvious truths and revolutionary technology breakthroughs.
5) So do your best to help realizing the above item 1 as quickly as possible. Otherwise the price of our third invention is $40,000,000 and this price will further rise in the nearest future.
Regards,

Ok, we will not talk about money anymore. Let us try another approach.
1) Firstly," IS THIS A REACTIONLESS DRIVE OR A PERPETUAL MOTION MACHINE?" and "A SIMPLE ELECTRIC HEATER, WHICH HAS EFFICIENCY GREATER THAN 1" must win public recognition and become an integral part of any standard textbook/manual of physics as quickly as possible. Besides our team (or at least one member of our team) must become a Nobel prize winner as this Nobel prize's money will used ENTIRELY for charity.
2) After realizing of previous item 1 we will release absolutely free the secret of our third invention (both theory and experiment) as well as the secrets of our next seven revolutionary and technology breakthrough inventions.
3) Thirdly, if the above item 1 is not realized successfully, then we will get back to the moneyrelated variation, that is, the price of our third invention is $40,000,000 and this price will further rise in the nearest future.
4) In one word, the realization of the above item 1 is actually a test for the stage of mental development of humankind. If the above item 1 is not realized soon, then this means that human society in general and its intelectual and scientific elite in particular are still at a primitive stage of mental development as they cannot properly evaluate obvious truths and revolutionary technology breakthroughs.
5) So do your best to help realizing the above item 1 as quickly as possible. Otherwise the price of our third invention is $40,000,000 and this price will further rise in the nearest future.
Regards,

LET US TOGETHER PUSH FORWARD THE TECHNOLOGY PROGRESS!
1) Firstly," IS THIS A REACTIONLESS DRIVE OR A PERPETUAL MOTION MACHINE?" and "A SIMPLE ELECTRIC HEATER, WHICH HAS EFFICIENCY GREATER THAN 1" must win public recognition and become an integral part of any standard textbook/manual of physics as quickly as possible. Besides our team (or at least one member of our team) must become a Nobel prize winner as this Nobel prize's money will used ENTIRELY for charity.
2) After realizing of previous item 1 we will release absolutely free the secret of our third invention (both theory and experiment) as well as the secrets of our next seven revolutionary and technology breakthrough inventions.
3) Thirdly, if the above item 1 is not realized successfully, then we will get back to the moneyrelated variation, that is, the price of our third invention is $40,000,000 and this price will further rise in the nearest future.
4) In one word, the realization of the above item 1 is actually a test for the stage of mental development of humankind. If the above item 1 is not realized soon, then this means that human society in general and its intelectual and scientific elite in particular are still at a primitive stage of mental development as they cannot properly evaluate obvious truths and revolutionary technology breakthroughs.
5) So do your best to help realizing the above item 1 as quickly as possible. Otherwise the price of our third invention is $40,000,000 and this price will further rise in the nearest future.
Regards,

electrolysis under pressure?

Many scientists died or were assassinated, many scientists like Tesla Stanley Meyer water car etc, or were threatened or had foul play or was proven fake.
Yea sure go ahead and patent or steal ideas yea sure you may be paid alot of money but i am very sure it will never be used by mankind.
Be careful what you do about disclosing what you know.
Bedini for one says he was threatened and there are many others in this field who got threatened and or other to stop, it is not what you think it is not a system that plays fair.
This stark reality has become more and more known through out time.
Dan.

electrolysis under pressure?
' '

' '
Well i believe something created the universe, something created electric etc,
All of it returns to power to create giving even more power to create by using power to create.
It is a valid theory anyone will agree one way or another that something had the power to create everything otherwise we would not exist regarding the conception of cannot create nor destroy, it does not apply at all with what created everything.
If it were create nor destory then electric and everything else would not exist simply put as in what started it all.
The energy is inexposible meaning the energy is permanent meaning energy to create going back to power to create is perpetual at best, meaning the potential just multiplies to an unlimited amount so the energy of power to create going back into energy to create gives that energy back fully creating an even a more out than in, it does not get cut off from laws of energy as you know it, and the power to power to create potential is not wasted at all thus well even more power to create regarding the universes recycling system, power to create is unbalanced and it self generates in a way behind it all.
So energy to create going back into energy create as nature of energy always returns to it self, so from the beginning of where it began, began with power to create all by it self which created everything, so from the start it creates 3 energy for instance from 1 and then using that 3 energy back to the source of 1 it would not be even you would think it would be 6 but no this nature of energy to create does not behave like that, much more than 6.
With current thinking as i know creating it self or more out than in which is what power to create is well this is impossible with science but science is in error regarding the true nature of perpetual motion,
Perpetual motion and i do believe in it, is the power to create process and is the backbone of it all and holy grail where many have failed to find but not everyone.
But i do understand why well most reject perpetual motion, but if they ponder what created the universe well they will find perpetual motion, because the power to create is fully unbalanced unlike thinking everything has an equal opposing sides etc, this goes along with cannot create nor destroy simply put.
Most of the understanding of science hinges mostly on equal forces or the equalness which means no power to create or destroy but if they start thinking about power to create then things will be interesting.
Dan.

To lltfdaniel1

Hi lltfdaniel1,
Thank you for your posts. Please give me some time to consider them carefully.

To Floor.

Hi Floor,
Thank you for your post.
Electrolysis under pressure? Why not? Any idea?

LET US PUSH FORWARD TOGETHER THE TECHNOLOGY PROGRESS!

1) Firstly," IS THIS A REACTIONLESS DRIVE OR A PERPETUAL MOTION MACHINE?" and "A SIMPLE ELECTRIC HEATER, WHICH HAS EFFICIENCY GREATER THAN 1" must win public recognition and become an integral part of any standard textbook/manual of physics as quickly as possible. Besides our team (or at least one member of our team) must become a Nobel prize winner as this Nobel prize's money will used ENTIRELY for charity.
2) After realizing of previous item 1 we will release absolutely free the secret of our third invention (both theory and experiment) as well as the secrets of our next seven revolutionary and technology breakthrough inventions.
3) Thirdly, if the above item 1 is not realized successfully, then we will get back to the moneyrelated variation, that is, the price of our third invention is $40,000,000 and this price will further rise in the nearest future.
4) In one word, the realization of the above item 1 is actually a test for the stage of mental development of humankind. If the above item 1 is not realized soon, then this means that human society in general and its intelectual and scientific elite in particular are still at a primitive stage of mental development as they cannot properly evaluate obvious truths and revolutionary technology breakthroughs.
5) So do your best to help realizing the above item 1 as quickly as possible. Otherwise the price of our third invention is $40,000,000 and this price will further rise in the nearest future.
Regards,

Hi everyone,
It is really surprising that obvious scientific truths cannot gain popularity quickly and easily among the members of the official science community. Do you have an explanation of this absurd fact?
Anyway let us repeat again the text of our last post with some small corrections and additions.

1) Firstly," IS THIS A REACTIONLESS DRIVE OR A PERPETUAL MOTION MACHINE?" and "A SIMPLE ELECTRIC HEATER, WHICH HAS EFFICIENCY GREATER THAN 1" must win public recognition and become an integral part of any standard textbook/manual of physics as quickly as possible. Besides our team (or at least one member of our team) must become a Nobel prize winner as this Nobel prize's money will used ENTIRELY for charity.
2) After realizing of previous item 1 we will release absolutely free the secret of our third invention (both theory and experiment) as well as the secrets of our next seven revolutionary and technology breakthrough inventions.
3) Thirdly, if the above item 1 is not realized successfully, then we will get back to the moneyrelated variation, that is, the price of our third invention is ALREADY $50,000,000 and this price will further rise in the nearest future.
4) In one word, the realization of the above item 1 is actually a test for the stage of mental development of humankind. If the above item 1 is not realized soon, then this means that human society in general and its intelectual and scientific elite in particular are still at a primitive stage of mental development as they cannot properly evaluate obvious truths and revolutionary technology breakthroughs.
5) So do your best to help realizing the above item 1 as quickly as possible. Otherwise the price of our third invention is $50,000,000 and this price will further rise in the nearest future. (BUT PLEASE DO NOT THINK THAT WE ARE PATHOLOGICALLY GREEDY. ON THE CONTRARY! THE GREATER PART OF THESE $50,000,000 WILL BE USED FOR CHARITY AND ONLY A SMALL PART WILL BE USED FOR SOME R&D WORK.)
Regards

We tend to think that most of the official science community members are a kind of mafia, which oppresses and stops the technology progress. It is absolutely sure, of course, that there are exceptions, but how to find them? Anyway let us repeat again the text of our previous post.

1) Firstly," IS THIS A REACTIONLESS DRIVE OR A PERPETUAL MOTION MACHINE?" and "A SIMPLE ELECTRIC HEATER, WHICH HAS EFFICIENCY GREATER THAN 1" must win public recognition and become an integral part of any standard textbook/manual of physics as quickly as possible. Besides our team (or at least one member of our team) must become a Nobel prize winner as this Nobel prize's money will used ENTIRELY for charity.
2) After realizing of previous item 1 we will release absolutely free the secret of our third invention (both theory and experiment) as well as the secrets of our next seven revolutionary and technology breakthrough inventions.
3) Thirdly, if the above item 1 is not realized successfully, then we will get back to the moneyrelated variation, that is, the price of our third invention is $50,000,000 and this price will further rise in the nearest future.
4) In one word, the realization of the above item 1 is actually a test for the stage of mental development of humankind. If the above item 1 is not realized soon, then this means that human society in general and its intelectual and scientific elite in particular are still at a primitive stage of mental development as they cannot properly evaluate obvious truths and revolutionary technology breakthroughs.
5) So do your best to help realizing the above item 1 as quickly as possible. Otherwise the price of our third invention is $50,000,000 and this price will further rise in the nearest future. (Let us remind again the greater part of these $50,000,000 will be used for charity and only a small part will be used for some R&D work.)
Modify message

Hi everyone,

The text below can be found in many of our previous posts. Anyway let us repeat it again.

Have a look again at the book "Solved Problems in Physics", 2004, Volume 2, p. 876, solved problem 12.97. The author of this book is Prof. S. L. Srivastava (Ph.D.)
The same book can be found at the link https://books.google.bg/books?id=rrKFzLB9KQ8C&pg=PA876&lpg=PA876&dq=%22electrochemical+equivalent+of+hydrogen%22&source=bl&ots=tQ8PSMLet3&sig=ACfU3U2HOLB78XHl2o3qJanapzSKMcJA&hl=bg&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjDpp2zZXhAhWT5OAKHUfuBzUQ6AEwBHoECAkQAQ#v=onepage&q=%22electrochemical%20equivalent%20of%20hydrogen%22&f=false

For your convenience I am giving below the text of the problem and its solution.

12.97. In the electrolysis of sulphuric acid solution, 100 mg of hydrogen is liberated in a period of 20 minutes. The resistance of the electrolyte is 0.5 Ohm. Calculate the power consumed. Electrochemical equivalent of hydrogen is 1.044 x 10 8 kg/C.
Solution: The power consumed is equal to 31.86 W.
Prof. S. L. Srivastava stops here his calculations.
(The related solution's set of equations is not given here in order to save time and space. This set of equations however can be found in the book or in the link above.)

WE DEVELOPED FURTHER PROF. SRIVASTAVA'S SOLVED PROBLEM IN A NONSTANDARD MANNER.
OUR FURTHER DEVELOPMENT OF PROF. SRIVASTAVA'S SOLVED PROBLEM LED TO COP > 1.
HERE IS THE ESSENCE OF OUR APPROACH.

1) Let us calculate the inlet energy, that is, inlet energy = (31.86 W) x (1200 s) = 38232 Ws = 38232 J.
2) Let us calculate the current I. The current I is given by I = (m)/(Z x t) = 7.9 A,
where
m = 0.0001kg of hydrogen
Z = electrochemical equivalent of hydrogen
t = 1200 s
3) The Joule's heat, generated in the process of electrolysis is given by
Q = I x I x R x t = (7.9 A) x (7.9 A) x (0.5 Ohm) x (1200 s) = 37446 J = outlet energy 1.
4) HHV of hydrogen is 142 000 000 J/kg. Therefore the heat H, generated by burning/exploding of 0.0001 kg of hydrogen, is given by
H = (142 000 000) x (0.0001) = 14200 J = outlet energy 2.
5) Therefore we can write down the equalities:
5A) outlet energy 1 + outlet energy 2 = 37446 J + 14200 J = 51646 J
5B) inlet energy = 38232 J.
6) Therefore COP is given by
COP = 51646 J/38232 J = 1.35 <=> COP = 1.35 <=> COP > 1.

Constant pure water and cooling agent supply could keep constant the electrolyte's temperature, heat exchange, mass and ohmic resistance, respectively.
Besides 0.0001 kg of hydrogen (and the related amount of the already split pure water) is small enough and can be neglected as a factor influencing the electrolyte's temperature, mass and ohmic resisitance.

And one more interesting fact.
Literally the same solved problem can be found in an old Russian (still from the Soviet times) book "Сборник задач и вопросов по физике", 1986, p. 130, solved example problem 71. The authors of this book are Р. А. Гладкова and Н. И. Кутиловская. In the Russian version the data is a little different, that is, time is 25 minutes, the amount of generated hydrogen is 150 mg, Ohmic resisitance is 0.4 Ohm and the calculated power is 37 W.
Russians also stopped their calculations at 37 W.
Our further development of the Russian version led to COP = 1.37, that is, we have again COP > 1.

Therefore the text above unambiguously shows that it is a matter of exact experimental data which is in perfect accordance with theory. Because I cannot imagine that three highly qualified experts in physics (yet strongly separated by time, space and nationality) would have made one and same mistake three times in a row. This is impossible!"

Do you have any theoretical (ONLY THEORETICAL!) objections against the text above?
YES OR NO?

why is no one answering? Is this person talking nonsense?

To kolbacict.

You are obviously an absolute amateur in the field of physics. Or even worse  you are a person of bad will and most likely an agent of the BIG OIL/BIG MAFIA. It's a shame! How much did they pay you?

COP = 1.35 and COP = 1.37. A simple obvious fact. It unambiguously shows the incorrectness of the law of conservation of energy. (But you have to be a highly qualified expert in electrical engineering and in electrochemistry (or in physics as a whole) in order to understand what we are talking about.)
And yet the above mentioned obvious fact (COP = 1.35 and COP = 1.37) cannot gain popularity quickly and easily among the members of the official science community. Do you have an explanation of this absurd situation?

P. S. Please look at our post of July 04, 2020, 01:38:09 PM, in order to understand how the two equalities COP = 1.35 and COP = 1.37 has been generated.

You are obviously an absolute amateur in the field of physics.
This is mostly true.
an agent of the BIG OIL/BIG MAFIA.
But this is not so. :)
I'm just wondering why the other participants are silent?

To kolbacict.

Hi friend,
First of all I need to apologize for being as if a little more rude than necessary. It's my fault. Please excuse me for my, let's say to some extent, inadequate behaviour.
Secondly, the other participants (WHO ARE EXPERTS IN PHYSICS!) are silent because of one single and obvious reason. And this reason is the unambiguous and ironmade fact that our concept clearly shows that any standard hydrogen generating electrolyzer is actually a heater which has efficiency bigger than 1. (COP = 1.35 and COP = 1.37.)
Looking forward to your answer.
Regards,
George

Deep silence again? What happens here in this forum? Aren't there any brave and competent (ENOUGH!) people here in this forum who are ready to accept the simple and obvious truth that the law of conservation of energy is not correct?
Modify message

Hi guys,

1) COP = 1.35. This means that the inlet energy is 1 J and the outlet energy is 1.35 J. Simple and clear.
2) COP = 1.37. This means that the inlet energy is 1 J and the outlet energy is 1.37 J. Simple and clear again.
3) In one word, there is an ironmade theoretical (THEORETICAL ONLY!) evidence that the law of conservation of energy is not correct in this particular case.

How to explain the things in a simpler and easier manner?
George

I wonder when in this forum will appear at least one brave person who will dare to say: "Yes, any standard hydrogen generating electrolyzer is OBVIOUSLY AND WITH NO DOUBT a simple electric heater, which has efficiency greater than 1." Where are you, brave forum members?

COP = 1.35. This means that the inlet energy is 1 J and the outlet energy is 1.35 J. Simple and clear. How long will it take for our concept to win public recognition?

Even if your electrolyzer has a heat efficiency of 1.37, heat pumps (freon) have it even higher. >3
am i right? What is the advantage of an electrolyser?

To kolbacict.

Good question! The answer is simple however. Please look at the two links below.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrolysis_of_water
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat_pump
The above two links answer clearly your question.

To kolbacict and to all other members of this forum, who are interested in the topic.

Please look at the following five links below.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrical_conductor
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kilowatthour
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joule
https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joule%27s_laws
https://www.homerenergy.com/products/pro/docs/latest/electrolyzer_efficiency.html
The first link explains what is a conductor.
The second link explains what is a kilowhatthour (kWh).
The third link explains what is a Joule (J).
The fourth link gives the first Joule's law definition.
The fifth link gives some experimental data, that is, the electric energy, consumed by a standard hydrogen generator and the heat, generated by the released hydrogen, if the latter is burned/exploded. According to this fifth link a standard industrial watersplitting electrolyzer consumes 50 kWh of electric energy in order to produce 1kg of hydrogen. And if this 1 kg of hydrogen is burned/exploded, then the generated heat is 39.4 kWh, respectively.

Please read very, very carefully the texts in the above links and understand very well what they are explaining exactly. And just then proceed to the text below.

1) Let us assume that the first Joule's law is correct. Therefore 50 kWh of electric energy transforms entirely into 50 kWh of Joule's heat and in addition 1 kg of hydrogen is released, which if burned/exploded, generates 39.4 kWh of heat. So it is evident that the inlet energy is 50 kWh and the outlet energy is
50 kWh +39.4 kWh and we can write the inequality 50 kWh < 50 kWh + 39.4 kWh, that is, efficiency > 1. This is a technology breakthrough revolution 1.

2) Let us assume that the law of conservation of energy is correct. In this case we have to write down the equality 50 kWh = 10.6 kWh + 39.4 kWh, where
10.6 kWh is the generated Joule's heat. It is evident that 50 kWh > 10.6 kWh and therefore the first Joule's law is not correct. This is a technology breakthrough revolution 2.

3) Let us assume that the generated Joule's heat is smaller than 10.6 kWh. In this case both the law of conservation of energy and the first Joule's law are not correct. This is a technology breakthrough revolution 3.

4) Let us assume that the generated Joule's heat is bigger than 10.6 kWh but smaller than 50 kWh. In this case both the law of conservation of energy and the first Joule's law are not correct. This is a technology breakthrough revolution 4.

5) Let us assume that the generated Joule's heat is bigger than 50 kWh. In this case both the law of conservation of energy and the first Joule's law are not correct. This is a technology breakthrough revolution 5.

6) In one word, it doesn't matter what will be your experimental results, related to the measurements of the generated Joule's heat. In any case you will have either
(a) a technology breakthrough revolution 1 or (b) a technology breakthrough revolution 2 or (c) a technology breakthrough revolution 3 or (d) a technology breakthrough revolution 4 or (e) a technology breakthrough revolution 5.

(Note. In your calculations you can replace kWh with J (1 kWh = 3 600 000 J), but the facts will remain the same.)

7) Actually the experimental data are available (supposed to be guaranteed by the hydrogen generators' manufacturers) and it is only necessary to look at these experimental data and draw the related simple conclusions.

Everything seems to be correct, doesn't it?

Looking forward to your answer.
George

electrolysis under pressure?
Pressure is necessary for Electrolysis to occur.
At 0 Atm, and at () pressures, the process fails.
Mainly due to a great variation between water pressure and electric pressure. (tension)
This is different from atmospheric dispersion  where in water vapor is electrolyzed at 1ATM
Most electrolysis takes place at ~ 1 ATM out of convenience
And while there is little hard data on the subject, increases in pressure as well as sealed vessels
present some anomalies in energy measurements when changes in internal pressure exist.
To put it short and frank, it is possible to ‘gain’ energy values proportional to the liquidgas phase change pressure difference.

Don't you believe in Stanley Meer's technology?

George
The easiest solution would be for you to register as an energy producer.
This will allow you to begin acquiring utility customers and generate a residual monthly income
from their power bills.
The more customers you acquire, the faster you can expand.
with a consumer base of approx. 260k customers: your income will approach $40Mil per month.
At 22k you will be pushing 40 mil per year
And with as little as 2300 customers you can reach your $40Mil goal in 10 years.

3) The Joule's heat, generated in the process of electrolysis is given by
Q = I x I x R x t = (7.9 A) x (7.9 A) x (0.5 Ohm) x (1200 s) = 37446 J = outlet energy 1.
it seems to me a mistake that you consider here all the energy of electricity converting into heat.

To kolbacict.

Hi kolbacict,
Thank you for your reply.
I am answering you immediately.

1) According to the first Joule's law if a standard DC source is connected to a standard conductor (no matter solid, liquid or gaseous), then the energy consumed by the conductor (this energy we called the inlet energy) turns entirely into Joule's heat (this heat we called outlet energy 1). Therefore we can write down the equality inlet energy = outlet energy 1

2) In any standard DC water electrolysis process however (while current passes through the water electrolysis electrolyte (which is a liquid conductor)) a portion of hydrogen is released and if this portion of hydrogen is burned/exploded, then an additional portion of heat is generated. This additional portion of heat we called outlet energy 2.

3) Having in mind the above items 1 and 2 we can write down the inequality inlet energy < outlet energy 1 + outlet energy 2, which unambiguously shows that the sum of the two outlet energies is bigger than the inlet energy, that is, efficiency > 1. (And this is what we have discovered by our further development of Prof. S. L. Srivastava's solved problem.)

Do you accept the validity of the above considerations? Seems to be easy for understanding, doesn't it?

Looking for your answer.

To smOky2.

Hi smOky2,
Thank you for your reply.
You wrote:"The easiest solution would be for you to register as an energy producer." This last sentence sounds very good at first sight. But would you be a little more precise, please? What exactly to do? What could be the first step for example?
Looking forward to your answer.

Hi.
Another source, this time German. only in Russian translation. I could not find English.
https://eknigi.org/engine/download.php?id=138928 (https://eknigi.org/engine/download.php?id=138928)
We read from page 16.

Hi kolbacict,
Thank you for your reply.
But what exactly do you mean? What to read and where in this link? Which book do you mean exactly and what is written there on page 1?

Not on page 1, but on page 16, sorry. What to read and where and in what language?

it is here.
wanted to translate, but there was no suitable program.

To kolbacict.

We found an expert in Russian who translated the text you had sent. But this text is full of incorrect assumptions and hypotheses. Who is the author of this text?

To kolbacict.

Who is the author of this text and the related book? What is the title of this book?

Who is the author of this text and the related book? What is the title of this book?
yes, that's it!
https://eknigi.org/engine/download.php?id=138928 (https://eknigi.org/engine/download.php?id=138928)

To kolbacict.

You are playing some strange game.
1) At first you are sending some Russian text, which is as if a part of some book. What is the title of this book in Russian (as it is obviously translated from German) and where to find it? (Our expert in Russian says that the translation quality is very bad.)
2) About the original German edition. Where to find it? (We have already an expert in German too.)
3) And at last, do you accept the validity of the first Joule's law, (a) which is supported by the official science and (b) which clearly states that if a standard conductor (no matter solid, liquid or gaseous) is connected to a standard DC source, then the electric energy consumed by this standard conductor (no matter solid, liquid or gaseous) turns entirely into heat?
Looking forward to your three answers.

To kolbacict.

Where are you, my friend? Where did you disappear? You would answer my three questions?

The opposers of our electrolysis overunity heater lost entirely their psychic balance. Please look at the link https://www.besslerwheel.com/forum/. (The title of the topic is just the same.)

Please look at https://www.besslerwheel.com/forum/. Seems to be interesting.

3) And at last, do you accept the validity of the first Joule's law, (a) which is supported by the official science and (b) which clearly states that if a standard conductor (no matter solid, liquid or gaseous) is connected to a standard DC source, then the electric energy consumed by this standard conductor (no matter solid, liquid or gaseous) turns entirely into heat?
I'm not sure if it is. I dont know. I'm just looking.

It's Ok. I understand. You can follow the same topic in besslerwheel.com/forum. For your convenience the greater part of the post there is given below.
========================================================
Let us assume that the energy consumed by the standard watersplitting 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 watersplitting 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. Therefore equalities (1) and (5) are not valid and this fact confirms again the validity of our basic OU waterelectrolysisrelated concept, which is considered in this topic.
============================
Looking forward to your answer.

The yellow head with black spectacles in our previous post corresponds to number eight. (Some defect of the system obviously replaces number eight with stupid yellow head with black spectacles.)

Any comments, any opinions related to this topic? Any objections against the validity of our water electrolysis OU concept?

Any comments, any opinions related to this topic? Any objections against the validity of our water electrolysis OU concept?
No comment on what you are presenting as I haven't studied it. However, I would like to point out the irony in regards to those who claim that freeenergy tech is being suppressed.
There are those who repeatedly claim that freeenergy tech is being suppressed and everyone here should be opensourcing in order to save the world. Funny thing is that those same people can't even see the freeenergy tech that's already in front of them. If people at a freeenergy forum can't see it, how can we expect a world full of people with no interest in it to see it? THAT is the REAL problem that we face with freeenergy tech!

To NdaClouDzzz.

Dear colleague,
Thank you for your reply. But some parts of your text seem to be a little difficult for understanding. Would you be so polite to explain them in detail, if possible?
George1

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 watersplitting 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 watersplitting electrolysis process.

The above theoretical considerations seem to be correct, don't they? What is your opinion? Please share it, if possible.
Looking forward to your answer.
George1

Deep silence again? What happens here? How much time will it take for a simple obvious truth to win public recognition?

This is in jest of course but I do have a over unity heater in my apt right now. It mines ETC and keeps my apt at or above 83 degrees. At this moment it is returning a profit of $122 per month. I do no work for it other than watch. Nice heater huh?
thay

@George1
I don't think that you, your self, actually belive this is over unity.
Other wise, I think you would have shown us some experimental proof.
Please build an over unity water heater, and show us the measurements and methods.

Unfortunately, they don't answer me often too. so me have been to check the various assumptions yourself. :)

This is in jest of course but I do have a over unity heater in my apt right now. It mines ETC and keeps my apt at or above 83 degrees. At this moment it is returning a profit of $122 per month. I do no work for it other than watch. Nice heater huh?
thay
Do you probably understand why inventors do not want to introduce their findings ?
70° ,assumption Fahrenheit ~ 21,1 ° Celsius 83 ° F ~ [(83  32)x5]/9 = ?
Average ? Ceiling level,floor level ?
Ecology does not interest you !?
Probably this we should understand as individuum ' sustainable behaviour' !?
Maximum and minimum by law in Germany : 17°(night)22°Celsius(day) !( measure point ?)
In your country/estate ?
Appropriate heat device( central,decentral=1room )
f.e.
US2013011125 Charles Souders 'Rolling lumens heating systems'
Address : Rochester Hills,MI/USA climate zone ?
"...... heated to and maintain a temperature of 70 degrees ."
Sincerely
p.s.: scola/ecole /escola/school/Schule : over 25°Celsius(shadow measurement)
=
HITZEFREI ! No lesson/learningcondition !
Learning and the=l' l'earn(ing)
Your apt  under actually Lockdown not appropriate for ' homeschooling' ! 24/7 HITZEFREI ! 8)
It is ever interestant to compare our behaviour with social given benchmarks !
Child to Adult : why me and you not,too ?
Freedom of Future

THE TEXT BELOW IS FORBIDDEN FOR READING BY THOSE, WHO ARE NOT FAMILIAR WITH ARITHMETIC!
=============================================================================
Please consider CAREFULLY and THOROUGHLY the link below.
https://www.fuelcellstore.com/electrolyzer65e106
The link above describes a PEM electrolyzer and its operating characteristics. Three of them (most important ones) are given below for your convenience.
Power Consumption: 16 Watts at 4.0 VDC
Permissible Operating Voltage: 0  4 VDC
Permissible Operating Current: 0  4.4 A

Let us consider two examples and compare them.

1) EXAMPLE 1. A standard copper wire is connected to a standard DC source thus forming a circuit. The voltage of the DC source is equal to 4 VDC. The copper wire consumes 16 Watts at 4 VDC within a period of 1000 seconds. And from here we can easily calculate (a) current I, which flows through the copper wire, (b) Ohmic resistance R of the copper wire, (c) electric energy E, which is generated by the DC source and (d) Joule's heat Q, which is generated by the copper wire. Simple arithmetic shows that I = 4 A (an ammeter would register a current of 4 A), R = 1 Ohm (an ohmmeter would register an Ohmic resistance of 1 Ohm), E = 16000 J and Q = 16000 J. Therefore efficiency of the copper wire (if considered as a Joule's heater only) is given by the equalities Q/E = 1 and 16000 J/16000 J = 1, respectively.

2) EXAMPLE 2. The above described PEM electrolyzer is connected to a standard DC source thus forming a circuit. The voltage of the DC source is equal to 4 VDC. The above described PEM electrolyzer consumes 16 Watts at 4 VDC within a period of 1000 seconds. And from here we can easily calculate (a) current I, which flows through the above described PEM electrolyzer , (b) Ohmic resistance R of the above described PEM electrolyzer, (c) electric energy E, which is generated by the DC source and (d) Joule's heat Q, which is generated by the above described PEM electrolyzer. Simple arithmetic shows that I = 4 A (an ammeter would register a current of 4 A), R = 1 Ohm (an ohmmeter would register an Ohmic resistance of 1 Ohm), E = 16000 J and Q = 16000 J. Therefore efficiency of the above described PEM electrolyzer (if considered as a Joule's heater only) is given by the equalities Q/E = 1 and 16000 J/16000 J = 1.

3) In addition however AS A SIDE EFFECT (AS A BYPRODUCT) the above described PEM electrolyzer releases a certain amount of hydrogen, which if burned/exploded, generates an additional heat H. Therefore the correct efficiency of the above described PEM electrolyzer (if considered as a heater) is given by the inequalities (Q + H)/E > 1 and
(16000 J + H)/16000 J > 1, respectively.

4) Experimental data (Power Consumption: 16 Watts at 4.0 VDC), guaranteed by the manufacturer, and some simple arithmetic. One and same approach, but different final results.

5) The text above unambiguously leads us back to our first post of January 28, 2019, 08:58:40 AM.

HOW MUCH TIME WILL IT TAKE FOR SIMPLE OBVIOUS TRUTH TO WIN PUBLIC RECOGNITION?

Do you have a calorimeter? Put this electrolyzer there,and measure the actual heat generation.
That would be interesting to me.And you, I think, too. :)

https://youtu.be/hlrhW33xk7U (https://youtu.be/hlrhW33xk7U)
Well, here's an alternating current electrolysis.No diodes, no rectifiers, just a transformer.

To kolbacict.

Hi kolbacict,
Thank you for your reply.
1) About the alternating current electrolysis. Interesting, very interesting! Please give us some time to consider it carefully.
2) Please have a look again at our last post. Do you need a calorimeter in order to measure the Joule's heat, which is generated by the copper wire? Obviously not  you take it for granted. The same for the PEM electrolyzer. It behaves just like the copper wire, if considered as a Joule's heater only, and because of this just like the copper wire it does not need a calorimeter in order to measure the generated Joule's heat. Simple logic, doesn't it?
Looking forward to your answer.
Regards,
George

Hi.
In the case of wire it is not necessary. In the case of an electrolyser, it is not obvious. I'd rather measure it.
In the case of alternating current, everything is simple. one of the two electrodes is made of niobium.When it is an anode, it is oxidized.And does not conduct current.Maybe someone will consider this a hoax, but it's interesting anyway. :)

To kolbacict.
============
============
Hi,
Thank you for your reply.
============
Yes, you are absolutely right that AC electrolysis is an interesting concept and let us not be in a hurry to reject it. As if it has some serious potential, which must be studied however precisely and thoroughly. Please give us some time to consider carefully the related link you have sent.
============
Please refer to our previous post, which describes the PEM electrolyzer.

1) A standard copper wire is connected to a standard DC source thus forming a circuit. The voltmeter registers a voltage of 4VDC, the wattmeter registers a power of 16 Watts, the ammeter registers a current of 4 A, the ohmmeter registers an Ohmic resistance of 1 Ohm and the clock registers a period of 1000 seconds, within which a current of 4 A flows through the copper wire.
Question 1: What is the value of the Joule's heat, generated by the copper wire?
Answer 1: The Joule's heat, generated by the copper wire, is just equal to 16000 J.
Question 2: Is it necessary to use a calorimeter for measuring this Joule's heat of 16000 J?
Answer 2: No, it is not necessary to use a calorimeter for measuring this Joule's heat of 16000 J. The latter is accepted to be true without any doubt by any electric engineer in the world.

2) The PEM electrolyzer is connected to a standard DC source thus forming a circuit. The voltmeter registers a voltage of 4VDC, the wattmeter registers a power of 16 Watts, the ammeter registers a current of 4 A, the ohmmeter registers an Ohmic resistance of 1 Ohm and the clock registers a period of 1000 seconds, within which a current of 4 A flows through the PEM electrolyzer.
Question 1: What is the value of the Joule's heat, generated by the PEM electrolyzer?
Answer 1: The Joule's heat, generated by the PEM electrolyzer, is just equal to 16000 J.
Question 2: Is it necessary to use a calorimeter for measuring this Joule's heat of 16000 J?
Answer 2: No, it is not necessary to use a calorimeter for measuring this Joule's heat of 16000 J. The latter is accepted to be true without any doubt by any electric engineer in the world.

In one word, in this particular case the copper wire and the PEM electrolyzer are absolutely identical and equivalent, if both are considered as Joule's heaters only. As a generator of Joule's heat only, the PEM electrolyzer behaves just like the copper wire. Simple and clear.

Do you accept the validity of the above extremely simple logic?

Answer 2: No, it is not necessary to use a calorimeter for measuring this Joule's heat of 16000 J. The latter is accepted to be true without any doubt by any electric engineer in the world.
Hamlet
There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,
Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.
:)
It is not obvious to me until I measure it myself in a calorimeter.
I would like it to be that way, because I have to spend on fuel.

Hi kolbacict,

1) It is perfectly valid for the copper wire circuit that (a) the voltmeter registers a voltage of 4VDC, (b) the wattmeter registers a power of 16 Watts, (c) the ammeter registers a current of 4 A, (d) the ohmmeter registers an Ohmic resistance of 1 Ohm and (e) the clock registers a period of 1000 seconds, within which a current of 4 A flows through the copper wire.

2) It is perfectly valid for the PEM electrolyzer circuit that (a) the voltmeter registers a voltage of 4VDC, (b) the wattmeter registers a power of 16 Watts, (c) the ammeter registers a current of 4 A, (d) the ohmmeter registers an Ohmic resistance of 1 Ohm and (e) the clock registers a period of 1000 seconds, within which a current of 4 A flows through the PEM electrolyzer.

3) What is the difference between previous items 1 and 2?

The simplest calorimeter is a defined volume of water with a known heat capacity.Surrounded by thermal insulation.By the change in temperature, we solve about the number of joules. right?
You make me do it myself. You live well there.And here life is not sweet.I have to do many things that do not bring pleasure.But need to make a living. :)

https://youtu.be/hlrhW33xk7U (https://youtu.be/hlrhW33xk7U)
Well, here's an alternating current electrolysis.No diodes, no rectifiers, just a transformer.
That video idea looks a bit dangerous is all it is at what I can see is a container
full of a liquid possible plain water fed by an isolation transformer or auto transformer.
What hapens wen all the water evaporates or some one picks it up while it's live ?

The circuit will break and there will be no current.

To kolbacict.
==================
Hi kolbacict,
Thank you for your reply. And my respect to your enthusiasm for seeking the truth despite of the difficulties in your life!

May be it would not be necessary to use a calorimeter. Please read the text below, if you like. (The text below repeats some considerations from our previous posts.)

1) It is perfectly valid for the copper wire circuit (which is hidden inside a black box 1) that (a) the voltmeter registers a voltage of 4VDC, (b) the wattmeter registers a power of 16 Watts, (c) the ammeter registers a current of 4 A, (d) the ohmmeter registers an Ohmic resistance of 1 Ohm and (e) the clock registers a period of 1000 seconds, within which a current of 4 A flows through the copper wire.

2) It is perfectly valid for the PEM electrolyzer circuit (which is hidden inside a black box 2) that (a) the voltmeter registers a voltage of 4VDC, (b) the wattmeter registers a power of 16 Watts, (c) the ammeter registers a current of 4 A, (d) the ohmmeter registers an Ohmic resistance of 1 Ohm and (e) the clock registers a period of 1000 seconds, within which a current of 4 A flows through the PEM electrolyzer.

3) Let us assume that an electric engineer must measure the Joule's heat generated by the load, which is hidden inside black box 1. Having in mind the readings of the measuring devices (voltmeter, ammeter, ohmmeter, wattmeter and clock) he/she would inevitably conclude that the Joule's heat, generated by the hidden load, is just equal to 16000 J.

4) Let us assume that an electric engineer must measure the Joule's heat generated by the load, which is hidden inside black box 2. Having in mind the readings of the measuring devices (voltmeter, ammeter, ohmmeter, wattmeter and clock) he/she would inevitably conclude that the Joule's heat, generated by the hidden load, is just equal to 16000 J.

5) In one word, any electric engineer in the world, without being interested what loads are hidden inside black boxes 1 and 2, would inevitably conclude that the Joule's heat, generated by any of the two hidden loads, is just equal to 16000 J. Any electric engineer in the world would only look at the readins of the measuring devices and after that he/she would only make some simple calculations leading to 16000 J of Joule's heat generated by any of the two hidden loads.

What is your opinion? Two black boxes and two unknown loads hidden inside these two black boxes. For the any of the two cases you have only the readings of the measuring devices (voltmeter, ammeter, ohmmeter, wattmeter and clock). How to get the Joule's heat generated by any of the two hidden and unknown loads?

Looking forward to your answer.
Best regards,
George

Hi.
the resistance of the copper wire is constant and the power is constant for a long time.the resistance of the electrolytic cell will not be constant.there will be chemical reactions, electrodes will dissolve, changing the composition of the electrolyte.Although, within 1000 seconds it will be quite small.
Already will introduce an error.

Hi kolbacict,
Thank you for your reply.
Good answer indeed! Yes, an error could really appear just as you mention in your last post. This error however can be easily
eliminated by two parallel (simultaneous) ways. Firstly, you have to add regularly distilled water in the PEM eletrolyzer and
secondly, you have to cool down regularly that same PEM electrolyzer thus keeping constant its temperature and its Ohmic
resistance, respectively. It's simple.
(Please look also at our post of March 26, 2019, 10:39:21 AM, almost two years ago. It is written there that:"Constant pure/distilled water and cooling agent supply could keep constant the electrolyte's/electrolyzer's temperature, heat exchange, mass and ohmic resistance, respectively.)
Looking forward to your answer.
Regards,
George

Hi.
If we running cold water continuously, how can we measure heat release?
But I suppose we can still measure it. the change in the composition of the electrolyte in 1000 seconds can be neglected. As the temperature rises, the cell resistance will drop. But we can use a power supply with output power stabilization. At 16 watts. And it will be reliable enough.
p.s. https://overunity.com/18709/theoptimumelectrodewaveformforwatergasproduction/msg553329/#new (https://overunity.com/18709/theoptimumelectrodewaveformforwatergasproduction/msg553329/#new)
Here, it seems people are already getting overunity hydrogen.(over and above Faraday.) ;)

Hi kolbacict,
Thank you for your reply. It's a real pleasure to discuss the matter with you.

1) Well, you rise interesting questions related to precise calorimetric measuring. (The latter is in any case a sophisticated and complex field of knowledge.) You have some original measuring ideas as I can see. Perfect! Agree with them!
2) About the p.s. Yes, it's perfectly possible that these guys have designed some OU electrolysis process. As if there are many OU possibilities in this world. Need some time to consider their concept carefully.

Looking forward to your answer.
Regards,
George

Hello George 1
You started this topic on 01/28/19.
Here is your original statement / claim / bait.
https://mypicxbg.files.wordpress.com/2019/01/pages_16.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...
floor

To kolbacict, to floor and to the other members of this forum, who are interested in the topic.
===============================
And here is one more mental exercise for entertainment only. :)

1) An unknown load is hidden inside a black box 1. The load is connected to a standard DC source thus forming a circuit. This circuit is equipped with (a) a voltmeter, (b) an ammeter, (c) an ohmmeter and (d) a wattmeter, which register 4VDC, 4 A, 1 Ohm and 16 Watts, respectively.

2) Another unknown load is hidden inside a black box 2. The load is connected to a standard DC source thus forming a circuit. This circuit is equipped with (a) a voltmeter, (b) an ammeter, (c) an ohmmeter and (d) a wattmeter, which register 4VDC, 4 A, 1 Ohm and 16 Watts, respectively.

3) One of the unknown loads is the copper wire and the other unknown load is the PEM electrolyzer. (Please refer to our previous posts.) But you don't know in which black box is hidden the copper wire and in which black box is hidden the PEM electrolyzer, respectively.

4) Long before the above described measuring procedures we have checked and we have ascertained the fact that the PEM electrolyzer's operating characteristics (please refer to our previous posts) correspond to reality, that is, the PEM electrolyzer's manufacturer has done the job correctly.

5) Because of some emergency situation in an explosives manufacturing factory for example you have not at your disposal (or you are not allowed to use) any supplementary measuring devices like calorimeters, gas detectors/analyzers, infrared radiation detectors/analyzers, etc. You have at your disposal solely and only voltmeters, ammeters, ohmmeters and wattmeters. Besides you are not allowed to open/brеак any of the two black boxes too.

QUESTION: In which black box is hidden the copper wire? In black box 1 or in black box 2? (You have to guess because otherwise you have to run very quickly :) in order to avoid meeting with a possible unpleasant accident. Or perhaps it would be much better if you run quickly at once :) without doing any measurements and without trying to guess in which black box is hidden the copper wire?)

Looking forward to your answer.
==============================
P. S. If my sense of humour and my attempt to be amusing seem inadequate (more or less) to some members of this forum, then please excuse me. I am ready to apologize. But the question remains: In which black box is hidden the copper wire? In black box 1 or in black box 2? Can you guess this riddle by using solely and only voltmeters, ammeters, ohmmeters and wattmeters?

In which black box is hidden the copper wire? In black box 1 or in black box 2? (Using only voltmeters, ammeters, ohmmeters and wattmeters.)

By how the current changes during these 1000 seconds. In the case of copper wire, it will hardly change. :)

To kolbacict.

Good question! And here is the answer. Actually two answers.
1) Regularly cooling down the electrolyzer by some cooling agent, which can be for example the water used in your hotwater heating system.
2) The period of time is not necessary to be equal to 1000 seconds. The period of time could be equal to 100 seconds, 10 seconds or even 1 second. The electrlyte's Ohmic resistance will not change and will remain practically constant within a period of 10 seconds for example.

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 watersplitting 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 watersplitting 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

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 watersplitting 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 watersplitting 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.

Number eight in brackets is replaced by some stupid head with black spectacles. Some error of the system.

Here is a copy (surrounded/limited up and down by double dashed lines) of my last post in besslerwheel.com/forum. The same topic, the same title.
============================
Let me explain again simple obviuos things. You are not reading carefully and thoroughly my posts and that's why you are distorting (either deliberately or not) my words.

1) V x I x t = (I x I x R x t) + (Z x I x t x (HHV)) (1). This is the law of conservation of energy. Do you accept the validity of this item 1? YES OR NO?

2) V = I x R (2). This is the Ohm's law. Do you accept the validity of this item 2? YES OR NO?

3) If equality (1) is correct, then the inequalty V x I x t > (I x I x R x t) (3) must be correct too. Do you accept the validity of this item 3? YES OR NO?

4) If we divide both sides of inequality (3) by (I x t), then we will get the inequality V > I x R (4). The latter is a severe violation of the Ohm's law and that is why it cannot be true. Do you accept the validity of this item 4? YES OR NO?

5) Inequality (4) is directly related to (directly follows from) equality (1) and as inequality (4) cannot be true, then equality (1) cannot be true either. Do you accept the validity of this item 5? YES OR NO?

You have to answer the question "YES OR NO?" five times.

I am really shocked that I have to explain the basic axioms of electric engineering to people who pretend to be qualified. Tragedy!
=================================

Hello George 1
You started this topic on 01/28/19.
Here is your original statement / claim / bait.
https://mypicxbg.files.wordpress.com/2019/01/pages_16.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...
floor

E / I x R, but I x E = power as watts.
Ohms law applies to the transformation of amperage to heat (P = I x E)
Only in a theoretical PURELY resistive circuit is ALL of the electric energy transformed into heat.
If an electric circuit has a large magnetic component doing mechanical work (like a coil in a motor),
electric energy which would otherwise, have been transformed into heat, will be instead transformed into a magnetic force doing mechanical work.
quote from George1
"Ohm's law is not valid for liquid resistors"
end
Ohm's law IS valid for liquid resistors....
but...
in a liquid resistor, where in, electrolysis also occurs, some of the input
electrical energy is used to cause the water splitting. This is aside from
the electrical energy causing heat.
best wishes
floor

To Floor.

If there exist any energy Esw, which is necessary for splitting of water, then equality V x I x t = (I x I x R x t) + (Z x I x t x (HHV)) (1) must be transformed into
equalty V x I x t = (I x I x R x t) + (Z x I x t x (HHV)) + (Esw) (1A). But despite of this transformation inequality V x I x t > I x I x R x t remains valid.

To Floor.

If there exist any energy Esw, which is necessary for splitting of water, then equality V x I x t = (I x I x R x t) + (Z x I x t x (HHV)) (1) must be transformed into
equality V x I x t = (I x I x R x t) + (Z x I x t x (HHV)) + (Esw) (1A). But despite of this transformation inequality V x I x t > I x I x R x t remains valid.

To Floor.

If there exist any energy Esw, which is necessary for splitting of water, then equality V x I x t = (I x I x R x t) + (Z x I x t x (HHV)) (1) must be transformed into
equality V x I x t = (I x I x R x t) + (Z x I x t x (HHV)) + (Esw) (1A). But despite of this transformation inequality V x I x t > I x I x R x t remains valid.
I find no explanation of the meaning of the expression you have used "Esw" in my internet searches.
1. The not so obvious. That energy from the electricity, which was not transformed into heat, is present in the ionization states of the derived gases.
2. The not so obvious. Your equations are misapplied. This has already been explained to you
several time in this topic.
3. The not so obvious. Some of the evolved gases will recombine into water before they escape from the electrolyte. BEFORE ! (they will recombine within the electrolyte).
Guess what ? This is an oxidation.
Guess what else ? It produces heat.
Guess what else again ? It is the SAME AMOUNT of heat energy that would have been produced per joule of electric energy when transformed directly into heat via resistance heating.
4. The obvious. The splitting of the water molecule by electrolysis DOES require an input
of energy.
5. The obvious. The heat evolved within the electrolyte due to electrical resistance heating is NOT
the cause of the water molecule splitting into H and O.
6. The obvious. That input energy which IS NOT transformed into heat DOES NOT just go away.
That energy is present in the ionization states of the gases evolved.
7. That ionization energy is transformed into heat when the gases are recombined as they are burned together.
8.The obvious. You, yourself do not believe the claim you are making is true.
I recommend that all interested readers, read through this topic from its start. It has some very good input from some very knowledgeable people.
floor

To Floor.

But dear Floor, you are not reading carefully and thoroughly my posts. (If reading them at all.) Please read my posts, if possible.
1) Any outlet energy is put on the right side of the equation.
2) It is a matter of entirely Ohmic resistance.
3) Etc, etc.

To Floor.

Please read carefully my posts!

@George1
1. 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.
floor

To Floor..

Hi Floor,
Yes, you are absolutely right that some additional aspects of the problem have to be further clarified and discussed. And here they are.

1) Actually the correct equation is
V x I x t = (I x I x R x t) + (Z x I x t x (HHV)) + (X) (1B),
where
V x I x t = input energy = electric energy, which is generated by the DC source, and which is consumed by the electrolyzer
I x I x R x t = Q = Joule's heat, which is generated by the electrolyzer = output energy 1
Z x I x t x (HHV) = output energy 2 = heat, which is generated by burning/exploding of the released hydrogen
X = output energy 3 = sum of all additional energies, which are necessary (a) for splitting of water molecules into hydrogen and oxygen atoms, (b) for collateral chemical reactions due to the impurity of the electrolyte, (c) for forming of bubbles etc., etc.

2) It is evident from the above equality (1B) that (V x I x t) is the sum and that (I x I x R x t), (Z x I x t x (HHV)) and (X) are the addends, respectively.

3) According to the rules of standard arithmetic the sum is always bigger than any of the addends (forming that same sum). Therefore the
sum (V x I x t) is bigger than the addend (I x I x R x t). Therefore we can write down the inequality V x I x t > I x I x R x t (2B).

4) Now let us divide both sides of inequality (2B) by (I x t), that is,
V x I x t > I x I x R x t (2B) < = >
< = > (V x I x t)/(I x t) > (I x I x R x t)/(I x t) (3B) < = >
< = > V > I x R (4B).

5) The last inequality (4B) as if shows a violation of Ohm's law. Because the correct mathematical expression for Ohm's law is V = I x R (5B), isn't it?

Everything in the above considerations seems to be logically and mathematically correct, doesn't it? What is your opinion?
(I am not pressing you to accept the validity of anything at once. We are simply seeking for the truth together. I am not in a hurry. I will be patient. I promise.:))
Looking forward to your answer.
Respectfully yours,
George

@George1
1. 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 ?
floor

To Floor.

Dear Floor,
You demonstrate again a shocking lack of understanding of basic terms and axioms of electric engineering. For example how could you even dare to compare directly and quantitatively HEAT and MAGNETIC FIELD? HEAT is measured in Joules (J) and INTENSITY(!!!!) OF MAGNETIC FIELD (not magnetic field itself, but only one of its properties!) is measured in Tesla (T). Do you know what is the difference between Tesla (T) and Joule (J)? How to discuss the matter with "expert" like you? Please firstly educate seriously yourself and just then take part in this discussion!

To all other QUALIFIED(!) members of this forum.
===============================
4) Now let us divide both sides of inequality (2B) by (I x t), that is,
V x I x t > I x I x R x t (2B) < = >
< = > (V x I x t)/(I x t) > (I x I x R x t)/(I x t) (3B) < = >
< = > V > I x R (4B).
===============================
The text above, surrounded/limited up and down by doubled dashed lines is an abstract from our post of December 03, 2020, 10:53:16 AM.
Any comments and/or questions?

I am giving below again (with some small changes and additions) our post of December 03, 2020, 10:53:16 AM.
=====================
1) Actually the correct equation is
V x I x t = (I x I x R x t) + (Z x I x t x (HHV)) + (X) (1B),
where
V x I x t = input energy = electric energy, which is generated by the DC source, and which is consumed by the electrolyzer
I x I x R x t = Q = Joule's heat, which is generated by the electrolyzer = output energy 1
Z x I x t x (HHV) = output energy 2 = heat, which is generated by burning/exploding of the released hydrogen
X = output energy 3 = sum of all additional energies, which are necessary (a) for splitting of water molecules into hydrogen and oxygen atoms, (b) for collateral chemical reactions due to the impurity of the electrolyte, (c) for forming of bubbles etc., etc.

2) It is evident from the above equality (1B) that (V x I x t) is the sum and that (I x I x R x t), (Z x I x t x (HHV)) and (X) are the addends, respectively.

3) According to the rules of standard arithmetic the sum is always bigger than any of the addends (forming that same sum). Therefore the
sum (V x I x t) is bigger than the addend (I x I x R x t). Therefore we can write down the inequality V x I x t > I x I x R x t (2B).

4) Now let us divide both sides of inequality (2B) by (I x t), that is,
V x I x t > I x I x R x t (2B) < = >
< = > (V x I x t)/(I x t) > (I x I x R x t)/(I x t) (3B) < = >
< = > V > I x R (4B).

5) The last inequality (4B) shows a severe violation of Ohm's law. (Because the correct mathematical expression for Ohm's law is V = I x R (5B), isn't it?)

6) The obvious invalidity of inequality V > I x R (4B) directly leads to the invalidity of equality V x I x t = (I x I x R x t) + (Z x I x t x (HHV)) + (X) (1B). Therefore the law of conservation of energy is not valid in this particular watersplitting electrolysis case. (I am tired of repeating hundreds of time one and same obvious fact: Any rule/law has its exceptions and there is nothing special, tragic and disturbing in this fact.)

Important note. This discussion is focused SOLELY and ONLY on waterslitting electrolysis! AND ON NOTHING ELSE!

Any questions and/or comments? (But questions and/or comments, which are reasonable and qualified!)

Hello George 1
You started this topic on 01/28/19.
Here is your original statement / claim / bait.
https://mypicxbg.files.wordpress.com/2019/01/pages_16.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...
@ George1
1. 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.
floor

To Floor.
===================
You are not reading my posts at all. This is not a discussion. This is your monologue. This is an old and clumsy manipulation trick, which does not work already in XXI century when there is an internet and most people are well informed and educated. You are obviously an agent of the official science mafia.
===================
I strongly believe and hope that the last sentence is not true. Let us check again (and for the last time) whether you are an agent of the official science mafia or not. Please read carefully the text below and answer 6 simple theoretical questions.

1) The correct equation for the law of conservation of energy for standard watersplitting electrolysis is
V x I x t = (I x I x R x t) + (Z x I x t x (HHV)) + (X) (1B),
where
V x I x t = input energy = electric energy, which is generated by the DC source, and which is consumed by the electrolyzer
I x I x R x t = Q = Joule's heat, which is generated by the electrolyzer = output energy 1
Z x I x t x (HHV) = output energy 2 = heat, which is generated by burning/exploding of the released hydrogen
X = output energy 3 = sum of all additional energies, which are necessary (a) for splitting of water molecules into hydrogen and oxygen atoms, (b) for collateral chemical reactions due to the impurity of the electrolyte, (c) for forming of bubbles etc., etc.
QUESTION 1. DO YOU HAVE ANY THEORETICAL (ONLY THEORETICAL!) OBJECTIONS AGAINST THIS ITEM 1?

2) It is evident from the above equality (1B) that (V x I x t) is the sum and that (I x I x R x t), (Z x I x t x (HHV)) and (X) are the addends, respectively.
QUESTION 2. DO YOU HAVE ANY THEORETICAL (ONLY THEORETICAL!) OBJECTIONS AGAINST THIS ITEM 2?

3) According to the rules of standard arithmetic the sum is always bigger than any of the addends (forming that same sum). Therefore the
sum (V x I x t) is bigger than the addend (I x I x R x t). Therefore we can write down the inequality V x I x t > I x I x R x t (2B).
QUESTION 3. DO YOU HAVE ANY THEORETICAL (ONLY THEORETICAL!) OBJECTIONS AGAINST THIS ITEM 3?

4) Now let us divide both sides of inequality (2B) by (I x t), that is,
V x I x t > I x I x R x t (2B) < = >
< = > (V x I x t)/(I x t) > (I x I x R x t)/(I x t) (3B) < = >
< = > V > I x R (4B).
QUESTION 4. DO YOU HAVE ANY THEORETICAL (ONLY THEORETICAL!) OBJECTIONS AGAINST THIS ITEM 4?

5) The last inequality (4B) shows a severe violation of Ohm's law. (Because the correct mathematical expression for Ohm's law is V = I x R (5B).)
QUESTION 5. DO YOU HAVE ANY THEORETICAL (ONLY THEORETICAL!) OBJECTIONS AGAINST THIS ITEM 5?

6) The obvious invalidity of inequality V > I x R (4B) directly leads to the invalidity of equality V x I x t = (I x I x R x t) + (Z x I x t x (HHV)) + (X) (1B). Therefore the law of conservation of energy is not valid in this particular watersplitting electrolysis case.
QUESTION 6. DO YOU HAVE ANY THEORETICAL (ONLY THEORETICAL!) OBJECTIONS AGAINST THIS ITEM 6?

All we here in this forum are waiting for your 6 answers.

Hello George 1
You are not reading my posts at all. This is not a discussion. This is your monologue. This is an old and clumsy manipulation trick, which does not work already in XXI century when there is an internet and most people are well informed and educated.
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_16.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...
@ George1
1. 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.

You know that higher frequencies operate incandescent bulbs and heater elements to higher efficiencies, even at lower amp draws?

You know that higher frequencies operate incandescent bulbs and heater elements to higher efficiencies, even at lower amp draws?
Him,George1,was remarked :
https://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/biblio?DB=EPODOC&II=0&ND=3&adjacent=true&locale=en_EP&FT=D&date=19920714&CC=US&NR=5130608A&KC=A#
and
https://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/biblio?DB=EPODOC&II=3&ND=4&adjacent=true&locale=en_EP&FT=D&date=19990824&CC=US&NR=5942858A&KC=A#
but he stays in someones NIRWANA ,chronical case ::) ;) !?
Servus et Adele

Him,George1,was remarked :
https://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/biblio?DB=EPODOC&II=0&ND=3&adjacent=true&locale=en_EP&FT=D&date=19920714&CC=US&NR=5130608A&KC=A# (https://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/biblio?DB=EPODOC&II=0&ND=3&adjacent=true&locale=en_EP&FT=D&date=19920714&CC=US&NR=5130608A&KC=A#)
and
https://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/biblio?DB=EPODOC&II=3&ND=4&adjacent=true&locale=en_EP&FT=D&date=19990824&CC=US&NR=5942858A&KC=A# (https://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/biblio?DB=EPODOC&II=3&ND=4&adjacent=true&locale=en_EP&FT=D&date=19990824&CC=US&NR=5942858A&KC=A#)
but he stays in someones NIRWANA ,chronical case ::) ;) !?
Servus et Adele
Good. But if the efficiency the frequencies ran the heater elements could be used to run dc motors, tv etc, it would have been a great thing

Good. But if the efficiency the frequencies ran the heater elements could be used to run dc motors, tv etc, it would have been a great thing
Sokolov,Vladimir recitating :
The present invention aims at achieving a considerably higher efficiency in feeding an electrical load as compared to the prior art, in particular in the case of ohmic loads, e.g. incandescent bulbs, but also with purely or mainly inductive or capacitive loads, which are of poor efficiency, so as to obtain an enhanced exploitation of electrical energy.
Sincerely
OCWL

I used a blocking oscillator with secondary, and found out that it ran three bulbs brightly than when I connected them directly to the battery. And they seemed to run longer than when they were connected directly to the battery. It seemed this was the same concept which Gerard Morini ran his loads. Or did he show any looped device?

This is George1 his tread,
so we should try to stay intopic !
A. Efficiency ≤100% ≥0% input/output comparison
1.simple circuit
2.oscillation circuit
3.coil material,circuit elements reactive velocity/speed limit,specific frequency,
resonance frequency ,limit ,physical : resonance catastrophe ~ destruction ( solid to grain : ultrasonic crusher )
Question as analog motor/generator related,AC !: conventional only ACmotor with no generator function
conventional ACgenerator with no motor function
ACmotor as AC generator : over /under nominal RPM /non/net grid frequency
AC generator as motor : nominal generator RPM,as motor ?
What is "efficiency" ,nearly 100% but :
https://worldwide.espacenet.com/searchResults?submitted=true&locale=en_EP&DB=EPODOC&ST=advanced&TI=&AB=&PN=&AP=&PR=&PD=&PA=richard+fradella&IN=&CPC=&IC=&Submit=Search (https://worldwide.espacenet.com/searchResults?submitted=true&locale=en_EP&DB=EPODOC&ST=advanced&TI=&AB=&PN=&AP=&PR=&PD=&PA=richard+fradella&IN=&CPC=&IC=&Submit=Search)
https://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/biblio?DB=EPODOC&II=1&ND=3&adjacent=true&locale=en_EP&FT=D&date=20121011&CC=US&NR=2012256422A1&KC=A1# (https://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/biblio?DB=EPODOC&II=1&ND=3&adjacent=true&locale=en_EP&FT=D&date=20121011&CC=US&NR=2012256422A1&KC=A1#)
0090] Generator power and efficiency with wind turbine drive is computed below, for a representative example of the present invention, at maximum shaft speed, midspeed, and minimum usable speed, using a few simplifying approximations. Shaft speed, power, and the other variables in the computations herebelow are exemplary, and not intended as limiting the present invention in any way. This will help explain FIG. 1 and FIG. 2 configuration operation, distinctions and improvements over widely used prior art generators:
[0091] Let maximum speed equal 1000 revolutions per minute (rpm), midspeed equal 500 rpm, and minimum speed equal 100 rpm. Also, let maximum stator current Imax=10 amperes, and nominal VDC=100 volts. Further, let Q1Q4 power MOSFET ON resistance Rdson=0.01 ohm, inductor L1L4 series pair winding resistance RL=0.1 ohm. Also, stator winding resistance Rs=0.15 ohm, stator voltage Vmax=100 volts at 1000 rpm, and flyback (freewheeling) diode D1D8 forward drop Vf=1volt at 10 amp. These parameters are consistent with a test prototype, according to the present invention, developed to generate power from wind turbines.
[0092] At 1000 rpm, Vmax=100 volts, so PWM dutycycle (Ton)/(Ton+Toff) is essentially zero. Therefore, losses=Imax<2>(RL+Rs)+2 VfImax=(10 amp)<2>(0.25 ohm)+(2 volt)(10 amp), amounting to 45 watts loss. Output power=(Imax)*(Vmax)=(Imax)*(VDC)=(10 amp)(100 volts)=1000 watts. So, generator efficiency at maximum speed and maximum power is about 95% for this example of generator and integrated electronics parameters.
[0093] At 500 rpm, Imax=(10 amp)/(4)=2.5 amps; and Vmax=(100 volts)*(0.5)=50 volts. So PWM dutycycle=1⁄2. Average pulse power generated=(Imax)*(Vmax)=(Imax)*(VDC)/2=(2.5 amp)(50 volt)=125 watts. Losses to maintain inductor current=Imax<2>(RL+Rs+Ron)=(2.5 amp)<2>(0.26 ohm)=1.6 watts. Flyback diode losses=2 Vf*Imax/2=(0.6 v)(2.5 amp)=1.5 watts. So total losses=3.1 watts. Therefore, midspeed generator efficiency is about 97%.
[0094] At 100 rpm, Imax=(10 amp)/(100)=0.1 amp; and Vmax=(100 volts)/(10)=10volts. So PWM dutycycle= 9/10. Average pulse power generated=(Imax)*(Vmax)=(Imax)*(VDC)/10=(0.1 amp)(10 v)=1 watt. Losses to maintain stator and inductor current=Imax<2>(RL+Rs+2*Rdson)=(0.1 amp)<2>(0.27 ohm)=0.0027watt. Flyback diode losses=(2*Vf)*(Imax)/10=(0.6 v)(0.1 a)/5=0.012 watts. So total losses=0.015watt. Thus, generator efficiency at low speed is about 98%.
[0095] Note that, although the generator according to the present invention is selfstarting (so that it need not be connected to a power source, to begin power generation), the minimum speed of the above power and efficiency computation must be reached, before the signal processing electronics will function as required. Also, MOSFET gate driver undervoltage lockout should prevent PWM drive to Q1Q4 in FIG. 1 until the minimum voltage of approximately 8volts is reached. Moreover, a few watts is needed from the stator windings, rectified by D9D12, which is used to supply Power Control Electronics 5.
[0096] At the lowest usable shaft speed of 100 rpm in the above representative example, the 10volt peak stator voltage generated would be adequate for all signal processing and PWM drive electronics, so this generator would be selfstarting when turbine speed reaches 100 rpm. However, with a few watts quiescent power for the Power Control Electronics, power supplied to the load at 100 rpm would be zero until wind speed increases to above 100 rpm.
Wattoutput from nominal 1000W generator with nominal 1000 RPM :
variable speed diagram(m) variable velocity diagram(m)
Motor with nominal 1000 W and nominal 1000 RPM ?
Behaviour comparison with f.e. JNaudin push&pull
https://worldwide.espacenet.com/searchResults?submitted=true&locale=en_EP&DB=EPODOC&ST=advanced&TI=&AB=&PN=&AP=&PR=&PD=&PA=&IN=victor+arestov&CPC=&IC=&Submit=Search (https://worldwide.espacenet.com/searchResults?submitted=true&locale=en_EP&DB=EPODOC&ST=advanced&TI=&AB=&PN=&AP=&PR=&PD=&PA=&IN=victor+arestov&CPC=&IC=&Submit=Search)
https://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/biblio?DB=EPODOC&II=1&ND=3&adjacent=true&locale=en_EP&FT=D&date=20110804&CC=US&NR=2011187319A1&KC=A1# (https://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/biblio?DB=EPODOC&II=1&ND=3&adjacent=true&locale=en_EP&FT=D&date=20110804&CC=US&NR=2011187319A1&KC=A1#)
Work it out,with epaper to paper copy and with different colours pencils=priorities something new,unexpected ? Norm :abnorm ?!
https://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/originalDocument?FT=D&date=20080812&DB=EPODOC&locale=en_EP&CC=US&NR=7411363B2&KC=B2&ND=4# (https://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/originalDocument?FT=D&date=20080812&DB=EPODOC&locale=en_EP&CC=US&NR=7411363B2&KC=B2&ND=4#)
Description,recitation :
Efficiency=(100%)*(Mechanical power output)/(Electrical power input).
The present disclosure has evaluated numerous conventional motorrelated circuits and identified new methods that realize power conservation that is approximately 150% to around 200% better than conventionally available motors.
electric motor/transformer physical theoretical efficiency versus industrial warranty safety limited  motor/transformer efficiency
F.e. as reference
https://worldwide.espacenet.com/searchResults?submitted=true&locale=en_EP&DB=EPODOC&ST=advanced&TI=&AB=&PN=&AP=&PR=&PD=&PA=&IN=fred+miekka&CPC=&IC=&Submit=Search (https://worldwide.espacenet.com/searchResults?submitted=true&locale=en_EP&DB=EPODOC&ST=advanced&TI=&AB=&PN=&AP=&PR=&PD=&PA=&IN=fred+miekka&CPC=&IC=&Submit=Search)
specific :
Increased power output is achieved by more completely utilizing the magnetic field of motor permanent magnets during running.
https://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/biblio?DB=EPODOC&II=11&ND=3&adjacent=true&locale=en_EP&FT=D&date=20020425&CC=US&NR=2002047346A1&KC=A1# (https://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/biblio?DB=EPODOC&II=11&ND=3&adjacent=true&locale=en_EP&FT=D&date=20020425&CC=US&NR=2002047346A1&KC=A1#)
https://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/biblio?DB=EPODOC&II=0&ND=3&adjacent=true&locale=en_EP&FT=D&date=20010710&CC=US&NR=6259347B1&KC=B1# (https://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/biblio?DB=EPODOC&II=0&ND=3&adjacent=true&locale=en_EP&FT=D&date=20010710&CC=US&NR=6259347B1&KC=B1#)
The strips direct excess heat from within the interior to protrusions outside of the windings (and core) where forced air or thermally conductive potting compound extracts the heat. This technique provides for a significant reduction of weight and volume along with a substantial increase in the power density while operating at a modest elevated temperature above ambient.
2. Description of the Related Art
The power rating of presentday electrical devices, such as power transformers and motors, is limited by heat accumulation due to resistive losses in the copper windings and, in the case of power transformers, to losses from eddy currents and hysteresis within the iron or ferrite cores. It is not generally recognized that the magnetic flux within a transformer core remains approximately constant when the power output is increased. It is therefore unnecessary to increase the amount of iron or ferrite core material to increase the size of the transformer core in order to deliver more power. The trapped heat produced by the windings while operating at high power is the major limiting factor for high power transformers.
Different approaches have been attempted to try and remove heat from the core of power transformers. Some of these are the increasing of wire size to reduce resistive losses; immersion of the transformer in circulating coolant oil; air cooling of the transformer windings; increasing the operating frequency of the transformer to reduce windings; and increasing the thermal conductivity of the insulating potting compound around the transformer windings. All of these, however, impact on the mechanical size and weight of the transformer designs limiting the use of these applications. Without proper cooling the efficiency and reliability of these transformers and motors are considerably reduced.
...................
ExperimentProtocol/Report
Like Otto Sabljaric /Roberto TPU ECD "open source"ing for peers review
https://docplayer.org/103574544Tpuecdenergyconversiondeviceenergkonverteroffenlegungvonottosabljaricrobertonotte.html (https://docplayer.org/103574544Tpuecdenergyconversiondeviceenergkonverteroffenlegungvonottosabljaricrobertonotte.html)
Only recommendation !
Sincere
OCWL

It's ok. It's just that some of us pass through the same tunnel at times to get the same thing.

Good. But if the efficiency the frequencies ran the heater elements could be used to run dc motors, tv etc, it would have been a great thing
A little off topic, but worth a look: https://youtu.be/uNYUu1VL1aM (https://youtu.be/uNYUu1VL1aM)

A little off topic, but worth a look: https://youtu.be/uNYUu1VL1aM (https://youtu.be/uNYUu1VL1aM)
and
(https://overunity.com/Themes/default/images/post/xx.gif (https://overunity.com/Themes/default/images/post/xx.gif)) Re: Kapanadze Cousin  DALLY FREE ENERGY (https://overunity.com/12736/kapanadzecousindallyfreeenergy/msg553901/#msg553901) « Reply #22790 on: Today at 03:45:39 PM » Quote (https://overunity.com/12736/kapanadzecousindallyfreeenergy/22785/post/quote/553901/last_msg/553901/)
Quote<blockquote>#22766 ? </blockquote>
Yes. similar. Also coaxialwaveguide.
In general, this topic with the Lithuanians has haunted me for many years.

https://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/biblio?DB=EPODOC&II=0&ND=3&adjacent=true&locale=en_EP&FT=D&date=19941208&CC=DE&NR=4318270A1&KC=A1# (https://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/biblio?DB=EPODOC&II=0&ND=3&adjacent=true&locale=en_EP&FT=D&date=19941208&CC=DE&NR=4318270A1&KC=A1#)
D´accord ?
Sincere
OCWL
p.s.: https://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/mosaics?CC=ES&NR=2265253A1&KC=A1&FT=D&ND=3&date=20070201&DB=EPODOC&locale=en_EP# (https://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/mosaics?CC=ES&NR=2265253A1&KC=A1&FT=D&ND=3&date=20070201&DB=EPODOC&locale=en_EP#)

A little off topic, but worth a look: https://youtu.be/uNYUu1VL1aM (https://youtu.be/uNYUu1VL1aM)
Yeah. If you see in the video where the motor was running, in my experiment, the torque of the motor did not exceed that of the battery, but the brightness and the heat from the bulb exceeded that of the battery. In other words, the motor may not have collected every power from the output. Maybe it will be of a good purpose to redesign the output rectification system, having in mind that the dc motor should run as strong as it ran directly from the input power or even stronger.

Yeah. If you see in the video where the motor was running, in my experiment, the torque of the motor did not exceed that of the battery, but the brightness and the heat from the bulb exceeded that of the battery. In other words, the motor may not have collected every power from the output. Maybe it will be of a good purpose to redesign the output rectification system, having in mind that the dc motor should run as strong as it ran directly from the input power or even stronger.
I believe that what we see in the video I linked to above is what Don Smith referred to as "chasing the electrical side, it will die a heat death". At no point during that stage that he shows in the video should he be tapping it for electricity to power a load. Instead he should have forgone the second primary (black coil that he tapped to run the loads) and instead used the magnetic field from the first primary coil (parallel LC) to induce a very high voltage in the long teslalike coil (which needs to be tuned to resonate with the primary coil), and then rectified that high voltage output to pulsating DC which then is used as the positive potential in an electrostatic induction scheme similar to that demonstrated by Don Smith to pull a much MUCH larger amount of negative charges (electrons) from earth ground than that used to run the whole system. Essentially this scheme takes the place of the handheld device used by Don in his demo (see video's) and is what Don did in many of his systems and referred to as "magnetic resonance" (as in the primary LC). (In many of Don's devices he used multiple processes, and magnetic resonance was one of those processes. Which device/s used which processes has confused many researchers). If done properly, it is electrostatic induction on steroids and the means for all of the freeenergy one could ever need. Basically you can look at it as a circuit that allows you to plug into the vast charge of the earth battery.
https://youtu.be/yLjt3y1_ceY?t=3892 (https://youtu.be/yLjt3y1_ceY?t=3892)
https://youtu.be/oyionEsCis?t=3112 (https://youtu.be/oyionEsCis?t=3112) (battery powered, no ground loop)
A little more on topic here: https://overunity.com/18239/thesolution/ (https://overunity.com/18239/thesolution/)

I believe that what we see in the video I linked to above is what Don Smith referred to as "chasing the electrical side, it will die a heat death". At no point during that stage that he shows in the video should he be tapping it for electricity to power a load. Instead he should have forgone the second primary (black coil that he tapped to run the loads) and instead used the magnetic field from the first primary coil (parallel LC) to induce a very high voltage in the long teslalike coil (which needs to be tuned to resonate with the primary coil), and then rectified that high voltage output to pulsating DC which then is used as the positive potential in an electrostatic induction scheme similar to that demonstrated by Don Smith to pull a much MUCH larger amount of negative charges (electrons) from earth ground than that used to run the whole system. Essentially this scheme takes the place of the handheld device used by Don in his demo (see video's) and is what Don did in many of his systems and referred to as "magnetic resonance" (as in the primary LC). (In many of Don's devices he used multiple processes, and magnetic resonance was one of those processes. Which device/s used which processe/s has confused many researchers). If done properly, it is electrostatic induction on steroids and the means for all of the freeenergy one could ever need. Basically you can look at it as a circuit that allows you to plug into the vast charge of the earth battery.
https://youtu.be/yLjt3y1_ceY?t=3892 (https://youtu.be/yLjt3y1_ceY?t=3892)
https://youtu.be/oyionEsCis?t=3112 (https://youtu.be/oyionEsCis?t=3112) (battery powered, no ground loop)
we R leving/leaving the topic,pardonmoi,George1 ! :
More than only 1 or 2 trials,a brider overview about diversity this "phenomen" related :
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefoxbd&q=peswiki+magnetic+resonance+amplifier (https://www.google.com/search?client=firefoxbd&q=peswiki+magnetic+resonance+amplifier)
+ Measurement Method comparison
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefoxbd&ei=bpDYX92XF8ibgQbtjIDQAw&q=kanarev+pulse+power&oq=kanarev+pulse+power&gs_lcp=CgZwc3ktYWIQDDIECAAQHlDPcVj7c2DbhQFoAHAAeACAAbgBiAGmA5IBAzAuM5gBAKABAaoBB2d3cy13aXrAAQE&sclient=psyab&ved=0ahUKEwjdhuGO5M_tAhXITcAKHW0GADoQ4dUDCAw (https://www.google.com/search?client=firefoxbd&ei=bpDYX92XF8ibgQbtjIDQAw&q=kanarev+pulse+power&oq=kanarev+pulse+power&gs_lcp=CgZwc3ktYWIQDDIECAAQHlDPcVj7c2DbhQFoAHAAeACAAbgBiAGmA5IBAzAuM5gBAKABAaoBB2d3cy13aXrAAQE&sclient=psyab&ved=0ahUKEwjdhuGO5M_tAhXITcAKHW0GADoQ4dUDCAw)
!!!
http://www.rexresearch.com/mra/1mra.htm#error (http://www.rexresearch.com/mra/1mra.htm#error)
Clarification of MRA Test Conditions Institute for Advanced Studies / EarthTech International, Inc.
Scott Little & H. E. Puthoff
3 February 1995
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harold_E._Puthoff (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harold_E._Puthoff)
Therefore it was not a matter of MRA performance but a matter of measurement technique that disconfirmed the overunity results.
In our original report we explained why the methods of McClain and Wooten yield erroneous results.
For the basic AC circuit theory that underlies our discussion we would recommend any of a number of excellent texts on this subject, for example "Principles of Linear Networks" by Friedland, Wing & Ash, McGrawHill, 1961
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefoxbd&q=%22Principles+of+Linear+Networks%22+by+Friedland%2C+Wing+%26+Ash%2C+McGrawHill%2C+1961 (https://www.google.com/search?client=firefoxbd&q=%22Principles+of+Linear+Networks%22+by+Friedland%2C+Wing+%26+Ash%2C+McGrawHill%2C+1961)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gabriel_Kron (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gabriel_Kron)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diakoptics
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefoxbd&q=%22Diakoptics+%E2%80%94+The+Piecewise+Solution+of+LargeScale+Systems%22
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dennis_Gabor (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dennis_Gabor)
Gabor also researched how human beings communicate and hear; the result of his investigations was the theory of granular synthesis (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Granular_synthesis), although Greek (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greek_people) composer Iannis Xenakis (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iannis_Xenakis) claimed that he was actually the first inventor of this synthesis technique.^{[20] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dennis_Gabor#cite_note20)} Gabor's work in this and related areas was foundational in the development of time–frequency analysis (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time%E2%80%93frequency_analysis).

I believe that what we see in the video I linked to above is what Don Smith referred to as "chasing the electrical side,...
You see, Don Smith had his variation, I have my variation, Babosa and leal have their variation, Nelson Rochas has his variation. You do not explain something based on only one man's opinion. Don Smith's work was purely from Tesla. That coil is Tesla coil, not Don Smith coil. Don Smith did Tesla's work, raw, unrefined. Variations today are still from Tesla.

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 no evidence, NONE, has been
given by the topics originator, but instead, only the confused, misapplication of formulas.
floor

You do not explain something based on only one man's opinion.
It's called economizing. You obviously got the gist, which was the intent. But thank you for the lecture ;)
Cheers

You see, Don Smith had his variation, I have my variation, Babosa and leal have their variation, Nelson Rochas has his variation. You do not explain something based on only one man's opinion. Don Smith's work was purely from Tesla. That coil is Tesla coil, not Don Smith coil. Don Smith did Tesla's work, raw, unrefined. Variations today are still from Tesla.
Nikola Tesla (serbisch (https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serbische_Sprache)kyrillisch (https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyrillisches_Alphabet#Serbisch,_Serbokroatisch_und_Montenegrinisch) Никола Тесла; * 10. Juli (https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/10._Juli) 1856 (https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/1856) in Smiljan (https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smiljan_(Kroatien)), Kroatische Militärgrenze (https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kroatische_Milit%C3%A4rgrenze), Kaisertum Österreich (https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kaisertum_%C3%96sterreich); † 7. Januar (https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/7._Januar) 1943 (https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/1943)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heinrich_Daniel_Ruhmkorff (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heinrich_Daniel_Ruhmkorff)Heinrich Daniel Ruhmkorff (Rühmkorff) (15 January 1803 in Hanover (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanover) – 20 December 1877 in Paris) was a German instrument maker who commercialised the induction coil (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Induction_coil) (often referred to as the Ruhmkorff coil.)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicholas_Callan (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicholas_Callan)
the " first transformer ",first DC/ACinverter
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Grafton_Page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Grafton_Page)
who developed innovative work with natural phenomena through direct observation and experimenting
Page developed a deep understanding of electromagnetism (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetism)
pursuing his own illfated dream of electromagnetic locomotion : we calls it "perpetuum mobile" ;)
challenging the rising scientific elitism that maintained 'the scientific do not patent' 8)
specific: Family life
"portable electrophorus,"
he experimented with electricity, demonstrated effects that no one had observed before, and improvised original apparatus that amplified these effects.^{[6] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Grafton_Page#cite_note6) }
Scientific accomplishments
My work,not,
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yMR45cZbvDw&list=LLKk2eVKooIl1t6KHULYhEVQ&index=941 :P (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yMR45cZbvDw&list=LLKk2eVKooIl1t6KHULYhEVQ&index=941)
Thomaner,peh,peh und noch amoi: peh ! ;D ;)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fhJ_wKSWZao :)
but information management,giving source find ,references
https://www.biblegateway.com/verse/en/Romans%2013%3A7 (https://www.biblegateway.com/verse/en/Romans%2013%3A7)
AMPC (https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans 13:68&version=AMPC)Render to all men their dues. [Pay] taxes to whom taxes are due, revenue to whom revenue is due, respect to whom respect is due, and honor to whom honor is due.
Application "induction coil" :
https://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/description?CC=FR&NR=667647A&KC=A&FT=D&ND=3&date=19291018&DB=EPODOC&locale=en_EP# (https://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/description?CC=FR&NR=667647A&KC=A&FT=D&ND=3&date=19291018&DB=EPODOC&locale=en_EP#)
Multiple "induction coil"s array/cascade :
https://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/biblio?DB=EPODOC&II=2&ND=3&adjacent=true&locale=en_EP&FT=D&date=19940318&CC=FR&NR=2695768A3&KC=A3# (https://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/biblio?DB=EPODOC&II=2&ND=3&adjacent=true&locale=en_EP&FT=D&date=19940318&CC=FR&NR=2695768A3&KC=A3#)
https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&u=https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elektromotorische_Kraft (https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&u=https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elektromotorische_Kraft)
And CAUTION ! by experiments ! Life and fire danger !

Thank you for your numerous replies. As if all these replies confirm the validity my last post. So for your convenience I am giving it below again.
============================
IMPORTANT NOTE. THIS DISCUSSION IS FOCUSED SOLELY AND ONLY ON DC WATERSPLITTING ELECTROLYSIS! AND ON NOTHING ELSE!
============================
1) The correct equation, related to the law of conservation of energy in any standard DC watersplitting electrolysis process, is
V x I x t = (I x I x R x t) + (Z x I x t x (HHV)) + (X) (1B),
where
V x I x t = input energy = electric energy, which is generated by the DC source, and which is consumed by the electrolyzer
I x I x R x t = Q = Joule's heat, which is generated by the electrolyzer = output energy 1
Z x I x t x (HHV) = output energy 2 = heat, which is generated by burning/exploding of the released hydrogen
X = output energy 3 = sum of all additional energies, which are necessary (a) for splitting of water molecules into hydrogen and oxygen atoms, (b) for collateral chemical reactions due to the impurity of the electrolyte, (c) for forming of bubbles etc., etc.

2) It is evident from the above equality (1B) that (V x I x t) is the sum and that (I x I x R x t), (Z x I x t x (HHV)) and (X) are the addends, respectively.

3) According to the rules of standard arithmetic the sum is always bigger than any of the addends (forming that same sum). Therefore the
sum (V x I x t) is bigger than the addend (I x I x R x t). Therefore we can write down the inequality V x I x t > I x I x R x t (2B).

4) Now let us divide both sides of inequality (2B) by (I x t), that is,
V x I x t > I x I x R x t (2B) < = >
< = > (V x I x t)/(I x t) > (I x I x R x t)/(I x t) (3B) < = >
< = > V > I x R (4B).

5) The last inequality (4B) shows a severe violation of Ohm's law. (Because the correct mathematical expression for Ohm's law is V = I x R (5B), isn't it?)

6) The obvious invalidity of inequality V > I x R (4B) directly leads to the invalidity of equality V x I x t = (I x I x R x t) + (Z x I x t x (HHV)) + (X) (1B). Therefore the law of conservation of energy is not valid in this particular watersplitting electrolysis case. (Any rule/law has its exceptions and there is nothing special, tragic and disturbing in this fact.)

IMPORTANT NOTE. THIS DISCUSSION IS FOCUSED SOLELY AND ONLY ON DC WATERSPLITTING ELECTROLYSIS! AND ON NOTHING ELSE!

DO YOU HAVE ANY THEORETICAL (ONLY THEORETICAL!) OBJECTIONS AGAINST THE TEXT ABOVE?

Thank you for your numerous replies. As if all these replies confirm the validity my last post. So for your convenience I am giving it below again.
============================
IMPORTANT NOTE. THIS DISCUSSION IS FOCUSED SOLELY AND ONLY ON DC WATERSPLITTING ELECTROLYSIS! AND ON NOTHING ELSE!
============================
1) The correct equation, related to the law of conservation of energy in any standard DC watersplitting electrolysis process, is
V x I x t = (I x I x R x t) + (Z x I x t x (HHV)) + (X) (1B),
where
V x I x t = input energy = electric energy, which is generated by the DC source, and which is consumed by the electrolyzer
I x I x R x t = Q = Joule's heat, which is generated by the electrolyzer = output energy 1
Z x I x t x (HHV) = output energy 2 = heat, which is generated by burning/exploding of the released hydrogen
X = output energy 3 = sum of all additional energies, which are necessary (a) for splitting of water molecules into hydrogen and oxygen atoms, (b) for collateral chemical reactions due to the impurity of the electrolyte, (c) for forming of bubbles etc., etc.

2) It is evident from the above equality (1B) that (V x I x t) is the sum and that (I x I x R x t), (Z x I x t x (HHV)) and (X) are the addends, respectively.

3) According to the rules of standard arithmetic the sum is always bigger than any of the addends (forming that same sum). Therefore the
sum (V x I x t) is bigger than the addend (I x I x R x t). Therefore we can write down the inequality V x I x t > I x I x R x t (2B).

4) Now let us divide both sides of inequality (2B) by (I x t), that is,
V x I x t > I x I x R x t (2B) < = >
< = > (V x I x t)/(I x t) > (I x I x R x t)/(I x t) (3B) < = >
< = > V > I x R (4B).

5) The last inequality (4B) shows a severe violation of Ohm's law. (Because the correct mathematical expression for Ohm's law is V = I x R (5B), isn't it?)

6) The obvious invalidity of inequality V > I x R (4B) directly leads to the invalidity of equality V x I x t = (I x I x R x t) + (Z x I x t x (HHV)) + (X) (1B). Therefore the law of conservation of energy is not valid in this particular watersplitting electrolysis case. (Any rule/law has its exceptions and there is nothing special, tragic and disturbing in this fact.)

IMPORTANT NOTE. THIS DISCUSSION IS FOCUSED SOLELY AND ONLY ON DC WATERSPLITTING ELECTROLYSIS! AND ON NOTHING ELSE!

DO YOU HAVE ANY THEORETICAL (ONLY THEORETICAL!) OBJECTIONS AGAINST THE TEXT ABOVE?

::)
https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&u=https://www.ntv.de/leute/BezosExFrauspendetMilliardensummearticle22239996.html (https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&u=https://www.ntv.de/leute/BezosExFrauspendetMilliardensummearticle22239996.html)
George1,offer YOU and YOURSELF ! And your solution !
Price ? Worth ? After " A SIMPLE ELECTRIC HEATER, WHICH HAS EFFICIENCY GREATER THAN 1"topic 28 pages research and alternatives avaliation !
https://www.ideaconnection.com/innoresources.html (https://www.ideaconnection.com/innoresources.html) https://www.ideaconnection.com/inventions/ (https://www.ideaconnection.com/inventions/)
40 Mio. ::) to 10 Mio. ??? to 1 Mio. :P to 100 TSD. ;) currency ?
Sincere
OCWL

To lanca IV.

Thanks a lot for your reply. We will consider carefully the links you have sent. And I will write to you in the nearest future
What is OCWL?:)

THIS DISCUSSION IS FOCUSED SOLELY AND ONLY ON STANDARD DC WATERSPLITTING ELECTROLYSIS! AND ON NOTHING ELSE!
===================
Let us try another THEORETICAL (ONLY THEORETICAL!!!!!!!) approach.

1) V = I x R (61). This is Ohm's law, which is absolutely valid for any solid, liquid and gaseous conductor. Ohm's law is the basic axiom of electric engineering and there is no doubt about its validity.

2) Let us multiply both sides of equality (61) by (I x t), that is,
V = I x R (61) <=> V x (I x t) = I x R x (I x t) (62) <=> V x I x t = I x I x R x t (63).

3) The last equality (63) is the manifestation of the first Joule's law, (a) which directly derives from Ohm's law, (b) which is the second basic axiom of electric engineering and (c) which is absolutely valid for any solid, liquid and gaseous conductor. There is no doubt about the validity of the first Joule's law.

4) In a standard DC watersplitting electrolysis however, while current flows through the electrolyte (which is a liquid conductor), a certain amount of hydrogen of mass m is released. The mathematical expression of this process is given by the equality m = Z x I x t (64).

5) If the released hydrogen of mass m is burned/exploded, then an additional portion of heat H is generated. The mathematical expression, related to the generation of this additional portion of heat H, is given by the equality H = m x (HHV) = Z x I x t x (HHV) (65).

6) Therefore in order to keep the correctness of the input/output energy ratio of the process we have to add (Z x I x t x (HHV)) to the right side of equality (63), that is,
V x I x t = I x I x R x t (63) <=> V x I x t < (I x I x R x t) + (Z x I x t x (HHV)) (66).

7) Another additional portion of energy X is necessary (a) for splitting of water molecules into hydrogen and oxygen atoms, (b) for collateral chemical reactions due to the impurity of the electrolyte, (c) for forming of bubbles etc., etc. Therefore we can write down the inequality V x I x t < (I x I x R x t) + (Z x I x t x (HHV)) + (X) (67).

8) Inequality (66) is an obvious violation of the law of conservation of energy for any standard DC watersplitting electrolysis process. The same for inequality (67).
====================
DO YOU HAVE ANY THEORETICAL (ONLY THEORETICAL!!!!!) OBJECTIONS AGAINST THE TEXT ABOVE?
====================
THIS DISCUSSION IS FOCUSED SOLELY AND ONLY ON STANDARD DC WATERSPLITTING ELECTROLYSIS! AND ON NOTHING ELSE!

To lanca IV.

Thanks a lot for your reply. We will consider carefully the links you have sent. And I will write to you in the nearest future
What is OCWL? :)
This is called first names and fatherline and motherline family names !
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_name (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_name)
Sincere
Oliver=first name Christoph = patronymics (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patronymic) or matronymics (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matronymic). W.= fatherline L.=motherline :D ;) :)

To lanca IV.

Hi Oliver,
Thanks a lot for your reply. I will write to you in the nearest future.
Best regards,
George

@George1
I have been sticking my nose in the books, to shore up my limited chemistry knowledge, so on.
I am continuing to do so, for now.
In doing so, I have found 1 brief mentioning (within a reasonably sound source), which
states that an efficiency of greater than 100% may theoretically be possible through
electrolysis, so on.
regards
floor

To lanca IV.

Hi Oliver,
Thanks a lot for your reply. I will write to you in the nearest future.
Best regards,
George
Good Morning !
I do not know You,George1!
You do not know me !
We are not in the position to communicate by first name !
People,who does not know each other ,ancient family internal too,Siezen sich  even the style ,RESPECT each !
Hyperphysics is royal dimension ! Behave alike ! Elsewhere !
https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=de&tl=en&u=https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/KaiserWilhelmInstitut_f%25C3%25BCr_Physik (https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=de&tl=en&u=https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/KaiserWilhelmInstitut_f%25C3%25BCr_Physik) membership ! Title,function
https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=de&tl=en&u=https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acad%25C3%25A9mie_Royale (https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=de&tl=en&u=https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acad%25C3%25A9mie_Royale)
membership ! Title,function
for example https://www.lfhk.cuni.cz/Faculty/Organizationstructure/TitlesinCzech/ (https://www.lfhk.cuni.cz/Faculty/Organizationstructure/TitlesinCzech/) Dr. ?(rerum natura ?) Pavel Imris,CSc.
https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=de&tl=en&u=https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_rerum_natura (https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=de&tl=en&u=https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_rerum_natura)
We all enter "the I "multidimensional stage ,mirror ! Bridge,pons,Transponder : mens/corpus ! societas !
How we treats`(WE,we) others ,like ourself ?! Why not ? Cause ? Own TUTORIUM ?
In GERMAN :FSK https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freiwillige_Selbstkontrolle_der_Filmwirtschaft (https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freiwillige_Selbstkontrolle_der_Filmwirtschaft)
https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=de&tl=en&u=https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freiwillige_Selbstkontrolle_der_Filmwirtschaft (https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=de&tl=en&u=https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freiwillige_Selbstkontrolle_der_Filmwirtschaft)
FilmKomparsen : actually https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weltbev%C3%B6lkerung (https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weltbev%C3%B6lkerung)
polites : https://www.thefreedictionary.com/Polites (https://www.thefreedictionary.com/Polites)
Schauspielrolle or acting role as humans and more " an/organische Wesen"
Worktime : full concentration  mediativ trial a.STILLGESTANDEN,b.STILLSITZEN,c.STILLLIEGEN
Freetime: free choice : RUEHREN/D ! ;)
Sender DreiKlang/Farbe/Mission
Empfaenger : DreiKlang/Farbe/Gestaltung
Ueber Raum und Zeit
Here,in the forum,and outer ,24/365,25 ( for extremists ::) ) ALL HAS ITS CAUSE ( CAOS)
Let us a Diva and appendix ;D sing about our World https://www.youtube.com/watch?app=desktop&feature=share&v=NEpfvTdR5U (https://www.youtube.com/watch?app=desktop&feature=share&v=NEpfvTdR5U)
Sweat,how she is closing her eyes and how well in Diva 8) ( okay ;) ) Father synchronicity !
With my best regards
OCWL :)
p.s.: Collage ueber Raum und Zeit
https://www.spiegel.de/politik/ausland/jillbidenueberkommentarzudoktortitelernanntemichkiddoa39214bca251d435ebaa8cc3648ca37f3 (https://www.spiegel.de/politik/ausland/jillbidenueberkommentarzudoktortitelernanntemichkiddoa39214bca251d435ebaa8cc3648ca37f3)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planet_of_the_Apes_(1968_film (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planet_of_the_Apes_(1968_film))
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bonze (https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bonze)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bedtime_for_Bonzo (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bedtime_for_Bonzo)
ExU.S.A. now N.W.O. : United States of Bonz , Bonzo = male and Bonza = female
Estates Confederation flagg https://imagesna.sslimagesamazon.com/images/I/61lJlRR5zDL._AC_SL1200_.jpg (https://imagesna.sslimagesamazon.com/images/I/61lJlRR5zDL._AC_SL1200_.jpg)
"US Bonzo Force 1" friendly wellcome with " 3 apes" flagg ! Bonztown,District Columbia formerly Washington ! New Capitale denomination !
Proudbonzo : https://media.istockphoto.com/photos/chimpanzeewithcivilwarhatpictureid181886990 (https://media.istockphoto.com/photos/chimpanzeewithcivilwarhatpictureid181886990)

The joule is the SI unit of energy.
work = force x displacement
or
joules of work (energy) = newtons of force x meters of displacement, in the direction of the applied force.
The work done in displacing an object 1 meter against a force of 1 newton = 1 joule of energy. This is also referred to as the energy expended.
A 1 kilogram mass (equal to 1000 grams) exerts , 9.8066500286389 newtons of force down
(in earth's standard gravity).
1000 grams = 9.8066500286389 newtons
and
9.8066500286389 / 1 newton = 0.10197162099999948436449906616771 grams
there fore
0.10197162129779282425700927431896 grams or approximately 102 grams exerts
1 newton of force down in standard gravity.
A mass of about 102 grams exerts 1 newton of force down in standard gravity.
If we lift a 102 gram object 1 meter, we do about 1 joule of work upon that object.
Power (watts) is equal to the joules expended per second of time.
1 joule per second = 1 watt of power
..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... .....
There is an inverse relationship between the force of gravity and the distance between the CENTERS of the two attracted objects.
If the distance is doubled, the gravitational force is decreased by a factor of 4. This is because the square of 2 is 2 x 2, which equals 4. If the distance between two objects is tripled, the force of gravity is decreased by a factor of 9. In this case, it is because the square of 3 is 3 x 3, which equals 9. This relationship is known as an inverse square relationship.
However, on the scale of a base ball in attraction to the earth, the distance between the CENTER of and the surface of, that base ball becomes insignificant within the calculation.
Similarly, a distance of 1000 meters above Earth's surface becomes insignificant in proportion to the distance from Earth's surface to its center.
There fore, a base ball weighs ALMOST exactly the same, whether it is 1 meter above, or 100 meters above the Earth's surface.
.... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... .....
Coulomb force is the force due to electric charge. It is the repelling force between two electrons but also the attracting force between an electron and a proton. Both of which are due to electric charge.
Like unto a gravitational force, coulomb force also diminishes by the inverse of the square of the distance between the CENTERS of two particles (point sources).
However.....
Unlike the Earth, Sub atomic particles ( protons and electrons) are very very small and there fore, very small changes in the distance between the center of one particle and the center of another particle, causes a large change in the force present.
And unlike gravity, electric charge has two polarities.
The magnitude of the electric force between two "electrons" is directly proportional to the amount of one electric charge, q1, multiplied by the other electric charge, q2, and inversely proportional to the square of the distance r between their centers.
The fixed numerical value of the elementary charge e (of 1 electron) is 1.602176634×10−19 coulomb
and
One coulomb is the charge of 6241509074460762607.776 elementary charges (electrons)
and
The numerical value of theses two quantities are the multiplicative inverses of each other.
Like this... The coulomb is exactly 1/(1.602176634×10−19) which is approximately 6.2415090744×1018, elementary charges.
The charge of 6241509074460762607.776 protons is a + charge.
The same number of electrons has the same magnitude but opposite sign of charge.
That is − charge. 1 coulomb is 6241509074460762607.776 − charges.
The force from electric charge has other considerations as well.
example...
In calculating the force between two charged and macro world objects (for example two electrically charged plates), one must also consider the the area of the surfaces of those plates.
.... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... .....
Quote from Wikipedia
"Until 2019, the International System of Standards (SI) defined the ampere as follows:
The ampere is that constant current which, if maintained in two straight parallel conductors of infinite length, of negligible circular crosssection, and placed one meter apart in vacuum, would produce between these conductors a force equal to 2×10−7 newtons per meter of length ."
End of Wikipedia quote
That force of 2×10−7 newtons, per meter of length is the result of the magnetic field surrounding the two conductors.
That repulsion force is magnetic and is in due to, both the electric charge (coulomb charge) and the motion of the electrons along the conductor.
note...
This is not the coulomb force present as the repulsion between the electric charges.
..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ......
The present (SI) quantification of the ampere (since May 2019).....
The ampere was then defined as one coulomb of charge per second. In SI, the unit of charge, the coulomb, is defined as the charge carried by one ampere during one second. However, this definition although not the SI standard until 2019, was in use within the earlier Centimeters Grams Seconds (CGS) system prior to 2019.
A current of one ampere is defined generally as one coulomb of −charge (electrons) going past a given point (generally in a conductor) per second, but strictly speaking, this could also be a current of + charge protons passing a given point in 1 second of time.
and
It seems as though there is no simple and straight forward way, to exactly correlate the force and displacement elements of mechanical work ( joule), to the process of arriving at its electrical energy equivalent ( joules).
FORCE
In SI terms the derived unit of voltage is the volt. The volt is a unit of the electric potential between two points. Voltage is a force, and is some times referred to as electromotive force.
MASS or CHARGE per unit of time
The ampere unit, definition, includes a time element (the second). It is a unit of a quantity per second. It is a current, a flow of electrons.
The Ampere is a time based unit of measurement.
ENERGY
The joule unit of measurement of energy
The Joule is not a time based unit.
The coulomb may be thought of as either, a quantity of 6.2415090744×1018 negative charges or as a quantity of 6.2415090744×1018 electrons.
Coulombs per second = amps...... Amps x volts = watts.
A force of 1 volt will move 1 coulomb of electrons through a resistance of 1 ohm in 1 second of time.
But...
In SI units, ELECTRIC WORK is stated as joules of energy per coulomb, where 1 volt = 1 joule (of work) per 1 coulomb (of charge or electrons)....
1 volt = 1 joule / 1 coulomb
where as
Electric power (1Watt) is 1 Volt of force x 1 coulomb of electrons passing a point in a conductor in one second.
Volt x Coulomb = Joule but Volt x Coulomb / Second = Power as Watts.
however....
There is no length of displacement specified, as is specified, in the force times displacement equation which defines mechanical work.
There is only the movement of a specific quantity of electrons (one coulomb) through a point. The coulomb unit is substituted for the displacement unit (meters).
That which is analogous to a mechanical reactive force (equal to and opposite force), is the electrical resistance (stated in units of ohms of resistance) opposing the voltage.
One coulomb of electrons passing a point in a conductor is one joule of work (no time element).
Force as newtons x displacement as meters = joules.
Force as volts x quantity as coulombs = joules.
One coulomb of electrons passing a point in a conductor in one second, is a flow RATE of 1 ampere (a current). Like unto gallons per minute. Time element.
The ampere is not a unit of some quantity of electrons, it is a unit of a rate of flow (1 coulomb of electrons per second).
mechanical.... force x displacement = joules or newtons x meters = joules electric.... force x quantity = joules or volts x coulombs = joules
mechanical..... force x displacement / time = watts or newtons x meters = joules and 1 joule / 1 seconds = 1 watt .... 1 joule per second = 1 watt electric..... force x quantity / time = watts or 1 volt x 1 coulomb = 1 joule and 1 joule / 1 second = 1 watt. But also, 1 coulomb / 1 second = 1 amperes and so 1 volt x 1 ampere = 1 watt.
.... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... .....
.... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... .....
where in we let
E = electromotive force
V = volts of electromotive force
T = time
S = time in seconds
I = electric current
C = coulomb of electrons
A = ampere of electric current, as in 1 coulomb / 1 second
and
E x I = P however, P x t indicates power with the time element canceled out (energy)....
because...
I (current) = Coulombs / Second ... this is a quantity of electrons passing some point in a conductor per second of time or a quantity of electrons passing some point / (DIVIDED BY) time or in other words an electric current, which may then be expressed in unit of amperes (A) as ....
Coulombs / Second = Amperes
and
C/S x S = C and C x V = Joules.... time was canceled out.
This is like unto 6 / 3 = 2 and 6 / 3 x 3 = 6, wherein the 3 is the time, stated in seconds.
E (electromotive force) as volts x coulombs of electrons = joules of electric energy.
There is no element of time involved in the equation. Time enters into it only once we turn to considering power and watts rather than simply, energy as joules. OK
..... ..... ..... ..... ..... .....
quote from George 1
" V x I x t = input energy = electric energy, which is generated by the DC source, and which is consumed by the electrolyzer "
end of quote
First
V x I x t is correctly written as either E x I x T or written as V x A x T
Next
where in we let
E = electromotive force
V = volts of electromotive force
T = time
S = time in seconds
I = electric current
C = coulomb of electrons
A = ampere of electric current (as in 1 coulomb / 1 second)
quote from George 1 continued
"and which is consumed by the electrolyzer "
end of quote continued
This DOES NOT refer ONLY to the electric energy consumed / transformed by ohmic resistance into heat.
Next quote
"I x I x R x t = Q = Joule's heat, which is generated by the electrolyzer = output energy 1"
end of quote
Not true...
I x I x R x t (E on RIGHT side of the equation) does not have the same value as does V x I x t = input energy on the left side of the equation.
The energy value of I x I x R x t (E on RIGHT side of the equation) (given by you as Q) should be in terms of its conversion to heat energy, minus the energy expended in electrolysis.
There will be less ohmic heating in the electrolyte because some of the energy is instead expended to cause electrolysis. Some of the I (electron current) will split the water instead of heating the water.
Fact .....
E x I x t (input) does not equal the output as the resistive heating alone, which would be evolved in the electrolyte due to purely ohmic resistance.
The rest of the equation and any calculation then become invalid.
best wishes
floor

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

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!

To those members of this forum who are not agents of the official science mafia.he official science mafia.

Let us get back to the first variation of our theoretical proof. It is given below again and is surrounded/limited up and down by double dashed lines.
====================
IMPORTANT NOTE. THIS DISCUSSION IS FOCUSED SOLELY AND ONLY ON DC WATERSPLITTING ELECTROLYSIS! AND ON NOTHING ELSE!
============================
1) The correct equation, related to the law of conservation of energy in any standard DC watersplitting electrolysis process, is
V x I x t = (I x I x R x t) + (Z x I x t x (HHV)) + (X) (1B),
where
V x I x t = input energy = electric energy, which is generated by the DC source, and which is consumed by the electrolyzer
I x I x R x t = Q = Joule's heat, which is generated by the electrolyzer = output energy 1
Z x I x t x (HHV) = output energy 2 = heat, which is generated by burning/exploding of the released hydrogen
X = output energy 3 = sum of all additional energies, which are necessary (a) for splitting of water molecules into hydrogen and oxygen atoms, (b) for collateral chemical reactions due to the impurity of the electrolyte, (c) for forming of bubbles etc., etc.

2) It is evident from the above equality (1B) that (V x I x t) is the sum and that (I x I x R x t), (Z x I x t x (HHV)) and (X) are the addends, respectively.

3) According to the rules of standard arithmetic the sum is always bigger than any of the addends (forming that same sum). Therefore the
sum (V x I x t) is bigger than the addend (I x I x R x t). Therefore we can write down the inequality V x I x t > I x I x R x t (2B).

4) Now let us divide both sides of inequality (2B) by (I x t), that is,
V x I x t > I x I x R x t (2B) < = >
< = > (V x I x t)/(I x t) > (I x I x R x t)/(I x t) (3B) < = >
< = > V > I x R (4B).

5) The last inequality (4B) shows a severe violation of Ohm's law. (Because the correct mathematical expression for Ohm's law is V = I x R (5B).)

6) The obvious invalidity of inequality V > I x R (4B) directly leads to the invalidity of equality V x I x t = (I x I x R x t) + (Z x I x t x (HHV)) + (X) (1B). Therefore the law of conservation of energy is not valid in this particular watersplitting electrolysis case. (Any rule/law has its exceptions and there is nothing special, tragic and disturbing in this fact.)

IMPORTANT NOTE. THIS DISCUSSION IS FOCUSED SOLELY AND ONLY ON DC WATERSPLITTING ELECTROLYSIS! AND ON NOTHING ELSE!

DO YOU HAVE ANY THEORETICAL (ONLY THEORETICAL!) OBJECTIONS AGAINST THE TEXT ABOVE?
====================
Simply answer my last question.

To those members of this forum who are not agents of the official science mafia.

Let us get back to the first variation of our theoretical proof. It is given below again and is surrounded/limited up and down by double dashed lines.
====================
IMPORTANT NOTE. THIS DISCUSSION IS FOCUSED SOLELY AND ONLY ON DC WATERSPLITTING ELECTROLYSIS! AND ON NOTHING ELSE!
============================
1) The correct equation, related to the law of conservation of energy in any standard DC watersplitting electrolysis process, is
V x I x t = (I x I x R x t) + (Z x I x t x (HHV)) + (X) (1B),
where
V x I x t = input energy = electric energy, which is generated by the DC source, and which is consumed by the electrolyzer
I x I x R x t = Q = Joule's heat, which is generated by the electrolyzer = output energy 1
Z x I x t x (HHV) = output energy 2 = heat, which is generated by burning/exploding of the released hydrogen
X = output energy 3 = sum of all additional energies, which are necessary (a) for splitting of water molecules into hydrogen and oxygen atoms, (b) for collateral chemical reactions due to the impurity of the electrolyte, (c) for forming of bubbles etc., etc.

2) It is evident from the above equality (1B) that (V x I x t) is the sum and that (I x I x R x t), (Z x I x t x (HHV)) and (X) are the addends, respectively.

3) According to the rules of standard arithmetic the sum is always bigger than any of the addends (forming that same sum). Therefore the
sum (V x I x t) is bigger than the addend (I x I x R x t). Therefore we can write down the inequality V x I x t > I x I x R x t (2B).

4) Now let us divide both sides of inequality (2B) by (I x t), that is,
V x I x t > I x I x R x t (2B) < = >
< = > (V x I x t)/(I x t) > (I x I x R x t)/(I x t) (3B) < = >
< = > V > I x R (4B).

5) The last inequality (4B) shows a severe violation of Ohm's law. (Because the correct mathematical expression for Ohm's law is V = I x R (5B).)

6) The obvious invalidity of inequality V > I x R (4B) directly leads to the invalidity of equality V x I x t = (I x I x R x t) + (Z x I x t x (HHV)) + (X) (1B). Therefore the law of conservation of energy is not valid in this particular watersplitting electrolysis case. (Any rule/law has its exceptions and there is nothing special, tragic and disturbing in this fact.)

IMPORTANT NOTE. THIS DISCUSSION IS FOCUSED SOLELY AND ONLY ON DC WATERSPLITTING ELECTROLYSIS! AND ON NOTHING ELSE!

DO YOU HAVE ANY THEORETICAL (ONLY THEORETICAL!) OBJECTIONS AGAINST THE TEXT ABOVE?
====================
Simply answer my last question.

To lancaIV.

Hi lancaIV,
Thank you for your reply.
1) Ok, let us keep the related distance. You are right, we do not know each other.
2) But you are sending very interesting links. Please give me some time to consider them carefully.
George

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 St.
. 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_16.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 crosssection, and placed one meter apart in vacuum, would produce between these conductors a force equal to 2×10^−7 newtons per meter of length ."
End of Wikipedia quote
That force of 2×10^−7 newtons, per meter of length is the result of the magnetic field surrounding the two conductors.
That repulsion force is magnetic and is in due to, both the electric charge (coulomb charge) and the motion of the electrons along the conductor.
note...
This is not the coulomb force present as the repulsion between the electric charges.
..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ......
The present (SI) quantification of the ampere (since May 2019).....
The ampere was then defined as one coulomb of charge per second. In SI, the unit of charge, the coulomb, is defined as the charge carried by one ampere during one second. However, this definition although not the SI standard until 2019, was in use within the earlier Centimeters Grams Seconds (CGS) system prior to 2019.
A current of one ampere is defined generally as one coulomb of −charge (electrons) going past a given point (generally in a conductor) per second, but strictly speaking, this could also be a current of + charge protons passing a given point in 1 second of time.
and
It seems as though there is no simple and straight forward way, to exactly correlate the force and displacement elements of mechanical work ( joule), to the process of arriving at its electrical energy equivalent ( joules).
FORCE
In SI terms the derived unit of voltage is the volt. The volt is a unit of the electric potential between two points. Voltage is a force, and is some times referred to as electromotive force.
MASS or CHARGE per unit of time
The ampere unit, definition, includes a time element (the second). It is a unit of a quantity per second. It is a current, a flow of electrons.
The Ampere is a time based unit of measurement.
ENERGY
The joule unit of measurement of energy
The Joule is not a time based unit.
The coulomb may be thought of as either, a quantity of 6.2415090744×10^18 negative charges or as a quantity of 6.2415090744×10^18 electrons.
Coulombs per second = amps...... Amps x volts = watts.
A force of 1 volt will move 1 coulomb of electrons through a resistance of 1 ohm in 1 second of time.
But...
In SI units, ELECTRIC WORK is stated as joules of energy per coulomb, where 1 volt = 1 joule (of work) per 1 coulomb (of charge or electrons)....
1 volt = 1 joule / 1 coulomb
where as
Electric power (1Watt) is 1 Volt of force x 1 coulomb of electrons passing a point in a conductor in one second.
Volt x Coulomb = Joule but Volt x Coulomb / Second = Power as Watts.
however....
There is no length of displacement specified, as is specified, in the force times displacement equation which defines mechanical work.
There is only the movement of a specific quantity of electrons (one coulomb) through a point. The coulomb unit is substituted for the displacement unit (meters).
That which is analogous to a mechanical reactive force (equal to and opposite force), is the electrical resistance (stated in units of ohms of resistance) opposing the voltage.
One coulomb of electrons passing a point in a conductor is one joule of work (no time element).
Force as newtons x displacement as meters = joules.
Force as volts x quantity as coulombs = joules.
One coulomb of electrons passing a point in a conductor in one second, is a flow RATE of 1 ampere (a current). Like unto gallons per minute. Time element.
The ampere is not a unit of some quantity of electrons, it is a unit of a rate of flow (1 coulomb of electrons per second).
mechanical.... force x displacement = joules or newtons x meters = joules electric.... force x quantity = joules or volts x coulombs = joules
mechanical..... force x displacement / time = watts or newtons x meters = joules and 1 joule / 1 seconds = 1 watt .... 1 joule per second = 1 watt electric..... force x quantity / time = watts or 1 volt x 1 coulomb = 1 joule and 1 joule / 1 second = 1 watt. But also, 1 coulomb / 1 second = 1 amperes and so 1 volt x 1 ampere = 1 watt.
.... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... .....
.... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... .....
where in we let
E = electromotive force
V = volts of electromotive force
T = time
S = time in seconds
I = electric current
C = coulomb of electrons
A = ampere of electric current, as in 1 coulomb / 1 second
and
E x I = P however, P x t indicates power with the time element canceled out (energy)....
because...
I (current) = Coulombs / Second ... this is a quantity of electrons passing some point in a conductor per second of time or a quantity of electrons passing some point / (DIVIDED BY) time or in other words an electric current, which may then be expressed in unit of amperes (A) as ....
Coulombs / Second = Amperes
and
C/S x S = C and C x V = Joules.... time was canceled out.
This is like unto 6 / 3 = 2 and 6 / 3 x 3 = 6, wherein the 3 is the time, stated in seconds.
E (electromotive force) as volts x coulombs of electrons = joules of electric energy.
There is no element of time involved in the equation. Time enters into it only once we turn to considering power and watts rather than simply, energy as joules. OK
..... ..... ..... ..... ..... .....
quote from George 1
" V x I x t = input energy = electric energy, which is generated by the DC source, and which is consumed by the electrolyzer "
end of quote
First
V x I x t is correctly written as either E x I x T or written as V x A x T
Next
where in we let
E = electromotive force
V = volts of electromotive force
T = time
S = time in seconds
I = electric current
C = coulomb of electrons
A = ampere of electric current (as in 1 coulomb / 1 second)
quote from George 1 continued
"and which is consumed by the electrolyzer "
end of quote continued
This DOES NOT refer ONLY to the electric energy consumed / transformed by ohmic resistance into heat.
Next quote
"I x I x R x t = Q = Joule's heat, which is generated by the electrolyzer = output energy 1"
end of quote
Not true...
I x I x R x t (E on RIGHT side of the equation) does not have the same value as does V x I x t = input energy on the left side of the equation.
The energy value of I x I x R x t (E on RIGHT side of the equation) (given by you as Q) should be in terms of its conversion to heat energy, minus the energy expended in electrolysis.
There will be less ohmic heating in the electrolyte because some of the energy is instead expended to cause electrolysis. Some of the I (electron current) will split the water instead of heating the water.
Fact .....
E x I x t (input) does not equal the output as the resistive heating alone, which would be evolved in the electrolyte due to purely ohmic resistance.
The rest of the equation and any calculation then become invalid.

Dear Floor,
You want to convince all of us here in this forum that if 6 = 1 + 2 + 3, then 6 = 1. Congratulations! Fantastic achievement! You are a founder of an entirely new and revolutionary branch of mathematics! Take your medicine!:) Triple dose!:)

Dear Floor,
You want to convince all of us here in this forum that if 6 = 1 + 2 + 3, then 6 = 1. Congratulations! Fantastic achievement! You are a founder of an entirely new and revolutionary branch of mathematics! Take your medicine!:) Triple dose!:)
@George1
If you see a math error, just point it out. I don't see one, at least not on my part.
and
no not 6 = 1 + 2 + 3, then 6 = 1
but
6 / 3 = 2 and 6 / 3 x 3 = 6 very well then, if this will clarify it for you
(6 / 3) = 2 and (6 / 3) x 3 = 6
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 multipath 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.
If you make a few pennys from the views here, I don't begruge that. But the forum is not
a venue for / of con men selling false free energy devices.

We are talking solely and only about standard DC watersplitting electrolysis process.

Whatever experiments to do you actually measure constant voltage V, constant direct current I, constant Ohmic resistance R and time t. The real experimental values of V, I, R and t would give three simple mathematical expressions:
1) V = I x R. This is Ohm's law.
2) V x I x t = I x I x R x t. This is the first Joule's law.
3) V x I x t < (I x I x R x t) + (Z x I x t x (HHV)). This is the OU property of any standard DC watersplitting electrolysis process.

Simple, clear and understandable. And anyone, who tries to reject this simple obvious truth, is either a clumsy and unskillful manipulator and/or a person, who has some severe mental problems.

George1 doesn't know basic electrity 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 electricty books. I have these in my own library (hard copies), classics / awsome.
https://archive.org/details/BasicElectricityVol1ToVol5VanValkenburgh/mode/2up
Best wishes
floor

The text below can be found in many of our previous posts. Anyway let us repeat it again for those, who understand simple things with great difficulty.

Have a look again at the book "Solved Problems in Physics", 2004, Volume 2, p. 876, solved problem 12.97. The author of this book is Prof. S. L. Srivastava (Ph.D.)
The same book can be found at the link https://books.google.bg/books?id=rrKFzLB9KQ8C&pg=PA876&lpg=PA876&dq=%22electrochemical+equivalent+of+hydrogen%22&source=bl&ots=tQ8PSMLet3&sig=ACfU3U2HOLB78XHl2o3qJanapzSKMcJA&hl=bg&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjDpp2zZXhAhWT5OAKHUfuBzUQ6AEwBHoECAkQAQ#v=onepage&q=%22electrochemical%20equivalent%20of%20hydrogen%22&f=false

For your convenience I am giving below the text of the problem and its solution.

12.97. In the electrolysis of sulphuric acid solution, 100 mg of hydrogen is liberated in a period of 20 minutes. The resistance of the electrolyte is 0.5 Ohm. Calculate the power consumed. Electrochemical equivalent of hydrogen is 1.044 x 10 8 kg/C.
Solution: The power consumed is equal to 31.86 W.
Prof. S. L. Srivastava stops here his calculations.
(The related solution's set of equations is not given here in order to save time and space. This set of equations however can be found in the book or in the link above.)

WE DEVELOPED FURTHER PROF. SRIVASTAVA'S SOLVED PROBLEM IN A NONSTANDARD MANNER.
OUR FURTHER DEVELOPMENT OF PROF. SRIVASTAVA'S SOLVED PROBLEM LED TO COP > 1.
HERE IS THE ESSENCE OF OUR APPROACH.

1) Let us calculate the inlet energy, that is, inlet energy = (31.86 W) x (1200 s) = 38232 Ws = 38232 J.
2) Let us calculate the current I. The current I is given by I = (m)/(Z x t) = 7.9 A,
where
m = 0.0001kg of hydrogen
Z = electrochemical equivalent of hydrogen
t = 1200 s
3) The Joule's heat, generated in the process of electrolysis is given by
Q = I x I x R x t = (7.9 A) x (7.9 A) x (0.5 Ohm) x (1200 s) = 37446 J = outlet energy 1.
4) HHV of hydrogen is 142 000 000 J/kg. Therefore the heat H, generated by burning/exploding of 0.0001 kg of hydrogen, is given by
H = (142 000 000) x (0.0001) = 14200 J = outlet energy 2.
5) Therefore we can write down the equalities:
5A) outlet energy 1 + outlet energy 2 = 37446 J + 14200 J = 51646 J
5B) inlet energy = 38232 J.
6) Therefore COP is given by
COP = 51646 J/38232 J = 1.35 <=> COP = 1.35 <=> COP > 1.

Constant pure water and cooling agent supply could keep constant the electrolyte's temperature, heat exchange, mass and ohmic resistance, respectively.
Besides 0.0001 kg of hydrogen (and the related amount of the already split pure water) is small enough and can be neglected as a factor influencing the electrolyte's temperature, mass and ohmic resisitance.

And one more interesting fact.
Literally the same solved problem can be found in an old Russian (still from the Soviet times) book "Сборник задач и вопросов по физике", 1986, p. 130, solved example problem 71. The authors of this book are Р. А. Гладкова and Н. И. Кутиловская. In the Russian version the data is a little different, that is, time is 25 minutes, the amount of generated hydrogen is 150 mg, Ohmic resisitance is 0.4 Ohm and the calculated power is 37 W.
Russians also stopped their calculations at 37 W.
Our further development of the Russian version led to COP = 1.37, that is, we have again COP > 1.

Therefore the text above unambiguously shows that it is a matter of exact experimental data which is in perfect accordance with theory. Because I cannot imagine that three highly qualified experts in physics (yet strongly separated by time, space and nationality) would have made one and same mistake three times in a row. This is impossible!"

IF YOU REJECT THE VALIDITY OF THE TEXT ABOVE, THEN YOU REALLY HAVE SOME MENTAL PROBLEMS! AND YOU HAVE TO SEE YOUR DOCTOR!

Some careful analysis unambiguously show that the agents, who are in the pay of the official science mafia in this forum, use 6 clumsy and unskillful manipulation methods for rejecting of obvious truths. And these 6 methods are as follows.

1) Simulation of ignorance and/or lack of understanding.
2) Distorting of our words.
3) Writing of long texts, full of semitruths, absurd hypotheses and deliberately hidden theoretical/mathematical errors.
4) Writing of long texts, which have nothing to do with the discussed topic.
5) Direct ridiculous rejecting of obvious truths by using phrases like " This is impossible, because it is impossible and that's all!" and other similar howlers.
6) Various combinations of the above five,

Our appeal is: Please do not fall under the influence of this forum's clumsy manipulators! These unworthy people are not seeking for the truth! They simply want to earn some money!

@ George1
Good morning, but no over unity here.
@ All readers
Interesting subject and topic and I think a good /educational read.
Particularly the input from those, other than the topics originator (George1).
best
wishes
floor

Read very, very, very carefully again our last post of January 03, 2021, 03:48:09 PM.

Here is Prof. S. L. Srivastava's solution:
Current through the electrolyte is given by I = (m)/(Z x t).
Power consumed = (I) x (I) x (R) = ((m)/(Z x t)) x ((m)/(Z x t)) x (R) = 31.86 W.

It is absolutely evident from Prof. S. L. Srivastava's solution (a) that each second the electrolyte (the liquid conductor) consumes 31.86 J of electric energy and (b) that each second the electrolyte (the liquid conductor) generates 31.86 J of Joule's heat. Do you accept this simple obvious truth? Do you accept Prof. S. L. Srivastava's (and his two Russian colleagues' some 40 years ago) solution? Yes or no?

@ George1
The heat and gasses evolved in the electrochemical reactions due to the sulfuric acid
are not a process of simply the electrolysis of water.
Why would you or anyone else assume that the electrolysis of a sulfuric acid solution gives,
the same results as, or is the same process as is the electrolysis of pure water ?
If ones goal is the production hydrogen gas, then it is true that this process can be
more "efficient" at hydrogen production than is that of the electrolysis of pure water.
But it still remains that the process is no more so a COP >1 or over unity, than is the
burning of a piece of wood.
I get it now! That must be your secret / unrevealed, free energy for sale device. You're looking
for an investor to buy over unity fire wood. Very clever! Oops did I just reveal the secret ?
Sorry.
floor

To Floor.

1) You do not answer my question, you old cheater!:) You are talking again about things that has nothing to do with the topic discussed. Your big mafia masters will not pay you your month salary. You keep failing in your attempts to manipulate the audience and to reject obvious facts.
2) I am asking again my question. The question is: Do you accept Prof. S. L. Srivastava's solution? Yes or no?

To Floor.

1) You do not answer my question, you old cheater!:) You are talking again about things that has nothing to do with the topic discussed. Your big mafia masters will not pay you your month salary. You keep failing in your attempts to manipulate the audience and to reject obvious facts.
2) I am asking again my question. The question is: Do you accept Prof. S. L. Srivastava's solution? Yes or no?
"1 You do not answer my question, you old cheater!:) "
George1, it is your topic, and you are the one that bears the responsibility of answering peoples questions.
There are I think perhaps a dozen times, questions have been asked of you in the topic and to which you have not responded. Instead you have ignored them and / or changed the subject of the discussion. As you have done just now by specifying sulfuric acid solution as the electrolyte, then once again attacking and accusing a poster.
"You are talking again about things that has nothing to do with the topic discussed. "
Lie ! The things which I have posted are directly and exactly relevant to the subject matter.
"Your big mafia masters will not pay you your month salary. "
More made up fantasy, lies and empty accusations on your part.
There are no "big mafia masters" where I live.
In the U.S, we handle this St when it pops up !
I think You must have watched too many American movies,
belived too much internet B.S..
If there is a disinformation agent in this topic, paid or strong armed or otherwise....
it is you bud.
"You keep failing in your attempts to manipulate the audience and to reject obvious facts."
Just more B.S. on your part. Information and some simple facts of the subject on my part .
"2) I am asking again my question. The question is: Do you accept Prof. S. L. Srivastava's solution? Yes or no?"
Simply No not as you have misunderstood and misrepresented them.
If you place other chemicals (acidic or basic) and therefore other chemical reactions into the electrolyte you change the conditions of the electrolysis.
These will change the electrical conductivity / resistance of electrolyte and therefore also the
current flowing and the power consumption during the electrolysis. Also change the heat generated by ohmic / conventional resistance. Other conditions and outcomes as well.

To Floor.

You are obviously a stubborn cheater and manipulator, you old guy!:)

I am asking you again: Do you have any THEORETICAL (ONLY THEORETICAL!) objections against Prof. S. L. Srivastava's solution?
YES OR NO?

@George1
What is the goal of your topic here ?
floor

To Floor.

You pretend to be an expert in theoretical and applied physics. I want you personally to answer a simple question. And this simple question is: Do you have any THEORETICAL (ONLY THEORETICAL!) objections against Prof. S. L. Srivastava's solution? Yes or no?
(I want to stress upon the fact that your answer must be either "Yes" or "No". Simple and clear.)

Thank you George1
I am flattered my arguments have so impressed you..
BUT NO
There is not a single instance wherein, I have claimed,
any where in the entire Over Unity forum
to be an expert in theoretical and applied physics.
If I appear to have shown so very brightly, rest assured, this is only the
contrast between myself and your own dimness.

To Floor.

It is absolutely evident for all members of this forum that you have no reasonable arguments against the validity of our watersplitting electrolysis OU concept. Your masters will not pay you your month salary and they may even beat you because you keep failing in your desperate and clumsy attempts to reject obvious truths.

It is absolutely evident also that all members of this forum are severely tired of your dully repetitive, amateur and clumsy manipulation tricks. You have to change your repertoire. Use more creative and more variegated manipulation methods. Because you have become already a laughingstock.

Read carefully the text below. I hope you will understand it at once. But if not, then I will explain it again as you tend to understand simple things with great difficulty.

1) I am asking you a question: Are you a human being? Yes or no?
Your answer will be "Yes" for sure.

2) I am asking you a question: Are you a donkey? Yes or no?
Your answer will be "No" for sure.

Did you understand well the text above? Shall I repeat it again?

Let us go on with our story.

3) I am asking you a question: Do you have any theoretical (only theoretical!) objections against Prof. S. L. Srivastava's solution? Yes or no?
What is your answer? Yes or no?
Only one word  either "yes" or "no"!!! Can't you understand this simple requirement???!!!

@George1
I have answered your question perhaps 5 times all ready.
Check this for your self.
Read your own topic... Idiot!
Additionally, as a gesture of GOOD WILL to you and your topic
some very knowledgeable in addition to others as EXPERTS in chemistry and / or
other fields of science have responded to your question.
Have some appreciation BECAUSE, while bad critics are a dime a dozen,
believe it or not, a GOOD critic is hard to come by.
All those who have answered, have answered in a resounding and qualified NO !
I have been participating in this topic because of the benefit I receive from THEIR
input. I have been using your topic to gain understanding in a field in which I
wish to increase my knowledge. Get it ? Were it not for input from other posters here,
your topic was dead long ago... Let it go, move forward. OR...
P_ss off

To Floor.

Everybody here in this forum can see that you lose your psychic balance. Your masters will beat you!:)

1) Answer the question: Are you a human being? Yes or no? Only one word  either "yes" or "no"!
2) Answer the question: Are you a donkey? Yes or no? Only one word  either "yes" or "no"!
3) Answer the question: 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"!

4) A piece of ABSOLUTELY FREE technology breakthrogh information! And no public recognition within a period of many months! Absurd and ridiculous discussions within a period of many months for clarifying of simple obvious truths! This is a comedy! 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 $100,000,000! And each month this price will be increased with $10,000,000, that is, after one month the price will be $110,000,000, after two months the price will be $120,000,000, etc.

To Floor.

Answer the question: 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"!
Looking forward to your answer.

@George1
Do you think the truth matters ?
Accept some responsibility for your self.

https://www.change.org/p/%D0%BE%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%BD%D0%B5%D0%B4%D0%BB%D1%8F%D1%82%D0%B5%D1%81%D1%82%D0%BE%D0%B2/u/28283558 (https://www.change.org/p/%D0%BE%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%BD%D0%B5%D0%B4%D0%BB%D1%8F%D1%82%D0%B5%D1%81%D1%82%D0%BE%D0%B2/u/28283558)
support, help the animals ...

To Floor

Hi Floor,
1) Your last post is much more moderate and much lesser charged with negative emotions.:) Thank you for it.
2) Yes, truth matters.
3) You wrote: "Accept some responsibility for your self." I can't understand this. What do you mean exactly?
4) Still no answer? Yes or no? Only one word  either "yes" or "no". (Nobody presses you to answer immediately. Think over and over again and consider over and over again Prof. S. L. Srivastava's solved problem.)

To kolbacict.

Yes, this is disgusting! Any idea how to help in some real and effective manner?

To Floor

Hi Floor,
1) Your last post is much more moderate and much lesser charged with negative emotions.:) Thank you for it.
2) Yes, truth matters.
3) You wrote: "Accept some responsibility for your self." I can't understand this. What do you mean exactly?
4) Still no answer? Yes or no? Only one word  either "yes" or "no". (Nobody presses you to answer immediately. Think over and over again and consider over and over again Prof. S. L. Srivastava's solved problem.)
I don't particularly enjoy and neither do I make it a point to bust up others peoples dreams.
But scamming on the O.U. forum will have it's own consequences.
Take a look George my friend, at some of your own expressions of
"negative emotions"
below.....
Georg1 quotes
"Dear colleagues,
My name is George Sen,"
The second case is false. You have simply forgotten the oxidationreduction potentials! The potential difference that will result in heating is therefore less than the one used. This means in other words that even for the same current, the energy used for producing hydrogen is not used to heat.
If overunity were so childish, it would have been known for a long time! We'll have to be much smarter.
To F6FLT.

You greatly surprise me, my friend! You are an expert in mechanics as well as in electric engineering! (And may be in any other field of technology?)
You have written: "
You have simply forgotten the oxidationreduction potentials! The potential difference that will result in heating is therefore less than the one used. This means in other words that even for the same current, the energy used for producing hydrogen is not used to heat."
There is no sense in this composition of words. This is for example something like the following sentence: " The Moon is black and it walks around the green tree." Grammatically correct, but absurd.
Really George, no sense ?
To F6FLT.

Hi F6FLT.
Thank you for your reply.
I haven't read even one reasonable comment of yours yet. Please study EXTREMELY carefully Gyula's comments, which are brilliant examples of expert analysis and high qualification.
Really not reasonable ?
Hi tinu,
You are trying to manipulate all of us here in this forum  you are trying to convince us that black is white. But you are not a skillful manipulator. You have to read still more books related to the art of manipulation. I will not argue with you.
George
Manipulator ?
Sorry George1, but NO, you don't speak for "all of us here in this forum".
This is just you trying to create an us and them dichotomy.. NO BURNO.
Baaad George1.
Some of your lies George1 called out @
https://overunity.com/18134/asimpleelectricheaterwhichhasefficiencygreaterthan1/msg534077/#msg534077
Hi tinu,
Where are you, old swindler? ;) Will you answer my 6 questions? Because you have to answer still more questions except these 6 ones.
Regards,
George
Hi tinu,
I am already absolutely clear on the fact that you are (a) either an arrogant and ambitious ignoramus, whose expertise in electric engineering is equal to zero, or (b) an unskillful and clumsy manipulator, who is an agent of the BIG OIL (or other similar organization) and who tries to convince us that black is white. I will not waste my time any more (as well as the time of my team's colleagues) to answer your nonsense posts.
George
tinu,
You are a pathological hater. You need a doctor. You have a very serious problem. You will be punished by your masters from the BIG OIL.
To Floor.

Dear Floor,
You demonstrate again a shocking lack of understanding of basic terms and axioms of electric engineering. For example how could you even dare to compare directly and quantitatively HEAT and MAGNETIC FIELD? HEAT is measured in Joules (J) and INTENSITY(!!!!) OF MAGNETIC FIELD (not magnetic field itself, but only one of its properties!) is measured in Tesla (T). Do you know what is the difference between Tesla (T) and Joule (J)? How to discuss the matter with "expert" like you? Please firstly educate seriously yourself and just then take part in this discussion!
To Floor.
===================
You are not reading my posts at all. This is not a discussion. This is your monologue. This is an old and clumsy manipulation trick, which does not work already in XXI century when there is an internet and most people are well informed and educated. You are obviously an agent of the official science mafia.
===================
I strongly believe and hope that the last sentence is not true. Let us check again (and for the last time) whether you are an agent of the official science mafia or not. Please read carefully the text below and answer 6 simple theoretical questions.

Questions omitted by floor .................

All we here in this forum are waiting for your 6 answers.
Speaking for the entire community again George1?
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!
Dear Floor,
You want to convince all of us here in this forum that if 6 = 1 + 2 + 3, then 6 = 1. Congratulations! Fantastic achievement! You are a founder of an entirely new and revolutionary branch of mathematics! Take your medicine!:) Triple dose!:)
END of George1 quotes
Reign it in.
Take it in.
No body here is trying to cause you harm or mess with you. OK ?
peace
out
floor

To Floor.

Thank you for your reply.
Welcome to our team! We need people of strong character like you! Would you join our team? (Not pressing, only suggesting! :))

Anyway there is still no answer to our question: Is Prof. S. L. Srivastava's solution correct? Yes or no?
Only one word  either "yes" or "no"!
Keep waiting for your answer  only one word  either "yes" or "no".

To Floor.

Thank you for your reply.
Welcome to our team! We need people of strong character like you! Would you join our team? (Not pressing, only suggesting! :))
Golly gee wiz! Strong character, wow ! Do you really think so ?
Thank you my friend and best buddy for life !
Of course I will join !
Together we will do great things. We will change the world !
How much does it pay ?

Welcome to our team!
I also want to. :)
p.s.
But I wonder if it is possible to decompose water in a cell only by reactive power?
This is when the current and voltage are out of phase. reactive power costs nothing to us.
Even the electric meter does not take it into account.

To Floor.

We are not talking about money! You are a friend! :)

To kolbacict.

1) You are welcome to join our team too! :) Let us increase the number of people who are full of enthusiasm, and who are ready to change the world (as Floor said it well in his last post).
2) About your suggestion for decomposing of water in a cell only by reactive power. Sounds very interesting! Do you have some primary idea how/where to start from? Any theoretical/experimental research related to this topic?

Anyway let us remind again that there is still no answer to our question: Is Prof. S. L. Srivastava's solution correct? Yes or no?
Only one word  either "yes" or "no"!
Keep waiting for your answer  only one word  either "yes" or "no".

@George1
Get well soon.
floor

To Floor.

Hi Floor,
Thank you for your reply. It's a pleasure to correspond with you.
Any nonstandard "crazy" ideas? :) The latter are always welcome! :)
Regards,
George

There is still no answer to our question: Is Prof. S. L. Srivastava's solution correct? Yes or no?
Only one word  either "yes" or "no". Simple and clear.

@George1
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.

To Floor.

Say either "yes" or "no"! Only one word  either "yes" or "no"! All members of this forum are waiting for your answer!

@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 ?

To Floor.

All members of this forum clearly see that you are a cheater and an agent of the official science mafia. You are an unworthy person! How much do they pay to you? Shame on you!

ANSWER MY QUESTION: Is Prof. S. L. Srivastava's solution correct? Yes or no?
Only one word  either "yes" or "no"! Are you illiterate?

And you George, it is apparent, are some just a sleazy creep ? Is this right ?
First you flatter and butter people up with disingenuous praises. Yuk !
Then turn upon and attack the many who have demonstrated your baseless idea and claim
to be flawed.
None of us have believed you meant what you have been saying, from the very start.
Most immediately disregarded you and "your idea".
(By the way, its not YOUR idea. It's an idea which is practically as old as is electrolysis itself.
This doesn't mean it shouldn't be explored, it just means that it should be explored with honesty.)
But most have been too polite to tell you so.
Perhaps hoping that you would get over your insecurities and come to your senses.
Will you do stop pretending ?
I hope you are at least a little bit embarrassed and at least a little ashamed.
Your "team of experts" doesn't even really exist. You are a phony and a liar.
People like you who don't respect honesty, don't deserve the use of social media.
Conflict tends to breed hits and unfortunately corporations care more for money than they do for humanity. So were kind of stuck with people like you until we all find the answer, to this aspect of the social dilemma.

To those members of good will in this forum, who are honestly searching for the truth.

1) In one of his previous posts Floor asked me the question "DO YOU THINK THAT THE TRUTH MATTERS?" THIS IS A REALLY SHOCKING QUESTION! Such a question can be asked only by an unworthy person of absolute lack of morality. Such a person has a pathological and criminal way of thinking. Such a person is dangerous not only for this forum community members, but also for human society as a whole. This is an obvious fact.
2) So do not pay attention to Floor's comments. He is not searching for the truth. He is a professional (but clumsy) cheater. He simply wants to earn some money by trying to manipulate the audience. This is an obvious fact.

To Floor.

You quickly forgot my lesson. Let me remind you of it again.

1) Answer the question: Are you a human being? Yes or no? Only one word  either "yes" or "no"!
2) Answer the question: Are you a donkey? Yes or no? Only one word  either "yes" or "no"!
3) Answer the question: 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"!

4) A piece of ABSOLUTELY FREE technology breakthrogh information! And no public recognition within a period of many months! Absurd and ridiculous discussions within a period of many months for clarifying of simple obvious truths! This is a comedy! 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 $100,000,000! And each month this price will be increased with $10,000,000, that is, after one month the price will be $110,000,000, after two months the price will be $120,000,000, etc.

To Floor.

I WANT YOU PERSONALLY TO ANSWER A SIMPLE QUESTION. AND THIS SIMPLE QUESTION IS: 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"!
LOOKING FORWARD TO YOUR ANSWER.

To Floor.

And don't ask me again your shocking question "DO YOU THINK THAT THE TRUTH MATTERS?"

@George1
You're a CLOWN.

@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 ?

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 eplatform manufacturer,whose wants to
improve actually activity radius and combustion engine cars to edrive mobility !
Sincere
OCWL

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?

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 watersplitting 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.

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"!

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

@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 St.
. 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_16.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 crosssection, 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 multipath 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.

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! :)