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

Title: A SIMPLE ELECTRIC HEATER, WHICH HAS EFFICIENCY GREATER THAN 1
Post 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 inventors-enthusiasts. Please have a look at the link
https://mypicxbg.files.wordpress.com/2019/01/pages_1-6.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
Title: Re: A SIMPLE ELECTRIC HEATER, WHICH HAS EFFICIENCY GREATER THAN 1
Post by: Floor on January 28, 2019, 08:43:49 PM
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

Title: Re: A SIMPLE ELECTRIC HEATER, WHICH HAS EFFICIENCY GREATER THAN 1
Post by: George1 on February 01, 2019, 09:57:10 AM
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


 
Title: Re: A SIMPLE ELECTRIC HEATER, WHICH HAS EFFICIENCY GREATER THAN 1
Post by: George1 on February 02, 2019, 01:07:47 PM
Dear colleagues,
My name is George Sen. I am a member of a team of inventors-enthusiasts. Please have a look at the link
https://mypicxbg.files.wordpress.com/2019/01/pages_1-6.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
Title: Re: A SIMPLE ELECTRIC HEATER, WHICH HAS EFFICIENCY GREATER THAN 1
Post by: F6FLT on February 03, 2019, 11:25:59 AM
Dear colleagues,
My name is George Sen. I am a member of a team of inventors-enthusiasts. Please have a look at the link
https://mypicxbg.files.wordpress.com/2019/01/pages_1-6.pdf
...
The second case is false. You have simply forgotten the oxidation-reduction 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.
Title: Re: A SIMPLE ELECTRIC HEATER, WHICH HAS EFFICIENCY GREATER THAN 1
Post by: George1 on February 03, 2019, 05:04:05 PM
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 oxidation-reduction 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.


 
Title: Re: A SIMPLE ELECTRIC HEATER, WHICH HAS EFFICIENCY GREATER THAN 1
Post by: George1 on February 04, 2019, 09:12:27 AM
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_1-6.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
Title: Re: A SIMPLE ELECTRIC HEATER, WHICH HAS EFFICIENCY GREATER THAN 1
Post by: lancaIV on February 04, 2019, 01:16:27 PM
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=utf-8&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-b (https://www.google.com/search?q=hasebe+hydrogen+patent&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-b)
Sincerely
OCWL
Title: Re: A SIMPLE ELECTRIC HEATER, WHICH HAS EFFICIENCY GREATER THAN 1
Post by: George1 on February 04, 2019, 03:19:21 PM
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   
Title: Re: A SIMPLE ELECTRIC HEATER, WHICH HAS EFFICIENCY GREATER THAN 1
Post by: gyulasun on February 05, 2019, 12:23:37 PM
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
Title: Re: A SIMPLE ELECTRIC HEATER, WHICH HAS EFFICIENCY GREATER THAN 1
Post by: Floor on February 05, 2019, 09:54:42 PM
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
Title: Re: A SIMPLE ELECTRIC HEATER, WHICH HAS EFFICIENCY GREATER THAN 1
Post by: F6FLT on February 06, 2019, 01:23:49 PM
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 oxidation-reduction 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 oxidation-reduction 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 pseudo-inventions when you present us with a working realization from you, and measurements, rather than gibberish.
Title: Re: A SIMPLE ELECTRIC HEATER, WHICH HAS EFFICIENCY GREATER THAN 1
Post by: Floor on February 06, 2019, 08:09:54 PM
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 oxidation-reduction 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 pseudo-inventions 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
Title: Re: A SIMPLE ELECTRIC HEATER, WHICH HAS EFFICIENCY GREATER THAN 1
Post by: F6FLT on February 07, 2019, 10:54:36 AM
@Floor

"No sense in this composition of words" or "grammatically correct, but absurd", without any technical justification, when I spoke of oxido-reduction 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 "pseudo-science". 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 self-centredness, 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 "oxidation-reduction 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.
Title: Re: A SIMPLE ELECTRIC HEATER, WHICH HAS EFFICIENCY GREATER THAN 1
Post by: nelsonrochaa on February 07, 2019, 07:17:20 PM
@ 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


Title: Re: A SIMPLE ELECTRIC HEATER, WHICH HAS EFFICIENCY GREATER THAN 1
Post by: ramset on February 08, 2019, 05:00:53 PM
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..........
Title: Re: A SIMPLE ELECTRIC HEATER, WHICH HAS EFFICIENCY GREATER THAN 1
Post by: George1 on February 10, 2019, 03:06:56 PM
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
Title: Re: A SIMPLE ELECTRIC HEATER, WHICH HAS EFFICIENCY GREATER THAN 1
Post by: Floor on February 12, 2019, 12:20:00 AM
@George1

Keep on keepen on.

      good luck with your explorations.
Title: Re: A SIMPLE ELECTRIC HEATER, WHICH HAS EFFICIENCY GREATER THAN 1
Post by: George1 on February 12, 2019, 03:16:33 PM
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 type-written 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_1-6.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
Title: Re: A SIMPLE ELECTRIC HEATER, WHICH HAS EFFICIENCY GREATER THAN 1
Post by: Floor on February 12, 2019, 08:24:05 PM
@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
Title: Re: A SIMPLE ELECTRIC HEATER, WHICH HAS EFFICIENCY GREATER THAN 1
Post by: gyulasun on February 12, 2019, 10:46:03 PM
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
Title: Re: A SIMPLE ELECTRIC HEATER, WHICH HAS EFFICIENCY GREATER THAN 1
Post by: F6FLT on February 13, 2019, 07:46:21 PM
...
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.
Title: Re: A SIMPLE ELECTRIC HEATER, WHICH HAS EFFICIENCY GREATER THAN 1
Post by: George1 on February 19, 2019, 09:20:23 AM
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
 
 
Title: Re: A SIMPLE ELECTRIC HEATER, WHICH HAS EFFICIENCY GREATER THAN 1
Post by: George1 on February 19, 2019, 09:53:57 AM
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     
Title: Re: A SIMPLE ELECTRIC HEATER, WHICH HAS EFFICIENCY GREATER THAN 1
Post by: George1 on February 19, 2019, 10:01:15 AM
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
Title: Re: A SIMPLE ELECTRIC HEATER, WHICH HAS EFFICIENCY GREATER THAN 1
Post by: George1 on February 19, 2019, 10:25:06 AM
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 well-known 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
Title: Re: A SIMPLE ELECTRIC HEATER, WHICH HAS EFFICIENCY GREATER THAN 1
Post by: gyulasun on February 19, 2019, 12:08:56 PM
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
Title: Re: A SIMPLE ELECTRIC HEATER, WHICH HAS EFFICIENCY GREATER THAN 1
Post by: Floor on February 19, 2019, 08:54:13 PM


Here is a similar topic.
https://overunity.com/16302/hho-as-real-uo-system/

But I did not find the topic I had in mind.
Title: Re: A SIMPLE ELECTRIC HEATER, WHICH HAS EFFICIENCY GREATER THAN 1
Post by: George1 on February 21, 2019, 08:53:49 AM
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
Title: Re: A SIMPLE ELECTRIC HEATER, WHICH HAS EFFICIENCY GREATER THAN 1
Post by: George1 on February 21, 2019, 09:24:22 AM
To Floor.
-----------------
Thanks a lot for your reply.
==========
1) You wrote: "Here is a similar topic. https://overunity.com/16302/hho-as-real-uo-system/".
-----------------
But this is a fantastic idea! This guy is really smart! Thanks a lot for sending to me this link! If this "going-up-hydrogen" 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
 
Title: Re: A SIMPLE ELECTRIC HEATER, WHICH HAS EFFICIENCY GREATER THAN 1
Post by: George1 on February 21, 2019, 09:28:30 AM
To gyalasun.
--------------
Hi again Gyala,
Floor has sent to me the link  https://overunity.com/16302/hho-as-real-uo-system/.
A very, very interesting idea! What is your opinion?
Looking forward to your answer.
Best regards,
George
Title: Re: A SIMPLE ELECTRIC HEATER, WHICH HAS EFFICIENCY GREATER THAN 1
Post by: George1 on February 21, 2019, 09:59:54 AM
To Floor and gyalasun.
-------------------------
I already wrote to John.K1 whose link is  https://overunity.com/16302/hho-as-real-uo-system/
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
Title: Re: A SIMPLE ELECTRIC HEATER, WHICH HAS EFFICIENCY GREATER THAN 1
Post by: George1 on February 21, 2019, 11:41:35 AM
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

Title: Re: A SIMPLE ELECTRIC HEATER, WHICH HAS EFFICIENCY GREATER THAN 1
Post by: George1 on February 21, 2019, 11:44:07 AM
Item 5 in the last post is wrong. Please excuse me. I am sorry.
Regards,
George
Title: Re: A SIMPLE ELECTRIC HEATER, WHICH HAS EFFICIENCY GREATER THAN 1
Post by: forest on February 21, 2019, 12:44:14 PM
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
Title: Re: A SIMPLE ELECTRIC HEATER, WHICH HAS EFFICIENCY GREATER THAN 1
Post by: George1 on February 21, 2019, 03:25:51 PM
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/hho-as-real-uo-system/ ). We only added the load-pulling 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     
Title: Re: A SIMPLE ELECTRIC HEATER, WHICH HAS EFFICIENCY GREATER THAN 1
Post by: gyulasun on February 21, 2019, 05:20:42 PM
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

Title: Re: A SIMPLE ELECTRIC HEATER, WHICH HAS EFFICIENCY GREATER THAN 1
Post by: Floor on February 21, 2019, 08:22:06 PM
@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
Title: Re: A SIMPLE ELECTRIC HEATER, WHICH HAS EFFICIENCY GREATER THAN 1
Post by: forest on February 21, 2019, 08:24:32 PM
http://www.shamanicengineering.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/Nikola-Tesla-Problem-of-Increasing-Human-Energy.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....
Title: Re: A SIMPLE ELECTRIC HEATER, WHICH HAS EFFICIENCY GREATER THAN 1
Post by: forest on February 21, 2019, 08:33:41 PM
A DEPARTURE FROM KNOWN METHODS – POSSIBILITY OF A "SELF-ACTING" ENGINE OR MACHINE, INANIMATE, YET CAPABLE, LIKE A LIVING BEING, OF DERIVING ENERGY FROM THE MEDIUM – THE IDEAL WAY OF OBTAINING MOTIVE POWER.
Title: Re: A SIMPLE ELECTRIC HEATER, WHICH HAS EFFICIENCY GREATER THAN 1
Post by: George1 on February 22, 2019, 10:16:52 AM
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 800-pages 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 hydrogen-generating 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 
Title: Re: A SIMPLE ELECTRIC HEATER, WHICH HAS EFFICIENCY GREATER THAN 1
Post by: George1 on February 22, 2019, 10:22:26 AM
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 
Title: Re: A SIMPLE ELECTRIC HEATER, WHICH HAS EFFICIENCY GREATER THAN 1
Post by: George1 on February 22, 2019, 10:33:33 AM
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
Title: Re: A SIMPLE ELECTRIC HEATER, WHICH HAS EFFICIENCY GREATER THAN 1
Post by: gyulasun on February 22, 2019, 05:44:13 PM
...
...   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
Title: Re: A SIMPLE ELECTRIC HEATER, WHICH HAS EFFICIENCY GREATER THAN 1
Post by: George1 on February 23, 2019, 12:38:51 PM
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 
Title: Re: A SIMPLE ELECTRIC HEATER, WHICH HAS EFFICIENCY GREATER THAN 1
Post by: lancaIV on February 23, 2019, 02:22:45 PM
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
Title: Re: A SIMPLE ELECTRIC HEATER, WHICH HAS EFFICIENCY GREATER THAN 1
Post by: George1 on February 25, 2019, 01:12:54 PM
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 electrolysis-based 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       
Title: Re: A SIMPLE ELECTRIC HEATER, WHICH HAS EFFICIENCY GREATER THAN 1
Post by: George1 on February 25, 2019, 02:15:38 PM
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 800-pages 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 800-pages 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(T1-T)=C2xM2x(T2-T)= C3xM3x(T3-T) (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

     
Title: Re: A SIMPLE ELECTRIC HEATER, WHICH HAS EFFICIENCY GREATER THAN 1
Post by: George1 on February 26, 2019, 09:14:07 AM
The last considerations seem to be correct, don't they? Otherwise electric enginnering and calorimetry have to be destroyed. 
Title: Re: A SIMPLE ELECTRIC HEATER, WHICH HAS EFFICIENCY GREATER THAN 1
Post by: gyulasun on February 26, 2019, 10:07:51 PM
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 Ein=V x Iaverage x t

Equation for one part of the output energy, heat, created in the liquid is:  Eout1 = C2 x M2 x (T2-T) 

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
Title: Re: A SIMPLE ELECTRIC HEATER, WHICH HAS EFFICIENCY GREATER THAN 1
Post by: lancaIV on February 27, 2019, 11:01:10 AM
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=utf-8&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-b
Title: Re: A SIMPLE ELECTRIC HEATER, WHICH HAS EFFICIENCY GREATER THAN 1
Post by: George1 on February 27, 2019, 11:16:00 AM
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_(CK-12)/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 half-reaction 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

 

 
Title: Re: A SIMPLE ELECTRIC HEATER, WHICH HAS EFFICIENCY GREATER THAN 1
Post by: George1 on February 27, 2019, 11:31:33 AM
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
   
Title: Re: A SIMPLE ELECTRIC HEATER, WHICH HAS EFFICIENCY GREATER THAN 1
Post by: lancaIV on February 27, 2019, 07:41:15 PM
Yes,  many  universities,science institutions and comercial R&D labs are working in this scene, including DOE and EU-Eureka grants or MITI !
Low cost water decomposition ( not : water generation) gives the entrance to the CO2/Methan- cycle !Solar-/Sun-/Wind-fuel as synthetic hydro-carb liquid fuel and CO2 Recycling.

Thermal,sono-,photo-,electro-lysis 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.h2-international.com/2017/06/06/high-voltage-electrolysis-possible/

Audi,Toyota,GM,Hyundai,......

Title: Re: A SIMPLE ELECTRIC HEATER, WHICH HAS EFFICIENCY GREATER THAN 1
Post by: gyulasun on February 28, 2019, 12:48:28 PM
.....
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_1-6.pdf (https://mypicxbg.files.wordpress.com/2019/01/pages_1-6.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
Title: Re: A SIMPLE ELECTRIC HEATER, WHICH HAS EFFICIENCY GREATER THAN 1
Post by: George1 on March 01, 2019, 10:13:14 AM
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, EU-Eureka 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
 
Title: Re: A SIMPLE ELECTRIC HEATER, WHICH HAS EFFICIENCY GREATER THAN 1
Post by: George1 on March 01, 2019, 11:24:37 AM
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 800-pages 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
           
Title: Re: A SIMPLE ELECTRIC HEATER, WHICH HAS EFFICIENCY GREATER THAN 1
Post by: lancaIV on March 01, 2019, 01:26:23 PM
U. S. Department of Energy program ( New technologies and new energy concepts related)

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/ARPA-E (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/ARPA-E)
http://www.arpae-summit.com/ (http://www.arpae-summit.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/european-funds/eureka-302+202.html#tab=onglet_details (https://www.welcomeurope.com/european-funds/eureka-302+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%2Fshell-und-choren-zusammenarbeit-zu-sunfuel-vereinbart-article6952.html (https://translate.google.com/translate?hl=de&sl=de&tl=en&u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.autosieger.de%2Fshell-und-choren-zusammenarbeit-zu-sunfuel-vereinbart-article6952.htmlbut)
But :
https://translate.google.com/translate?hl=de&sl=de&tl=en&u=https%3A%2F%2Fm.heise.de%2Ftr%2Fartikel%2FDer-Sprit-ist-aus-1726672.html (https://translate.google.com/translate?hl=de&sl=de&tl=en&u=https%3A%2F%2Fm.heise.de%2Ftr%2Fartikel%2FDer-Sprit-ist-aus-1726672.html)


Nevertheless  the idea " renewable ( clean and save) fuel" is alive :https://www.autosieger.de/VW-betreibt-SunFuel-Flotte-article240.html (https://www.autosieger.de/VW-betreibt-SunFuel-Flotte-article240.html)

The semi-estatal industrial VW-trust(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 net-charge/ 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/)
Title: Re: A SIMPLE ELECTRIC HEATER, WHICH HAS EFFICIENCY GREATER THAN 1
Post by: gyulasun on March 04, 2019, 12:42:17 PM
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
Title: Re: A SIMPLE ELECTRIC HEATER, WHICH HAS EFFICIENCY GREATER THAN 1
Post by: George1 on March 04, 2019, 02:54:36 PM
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 made-of-iron 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 hydrogen-generating electrolyzer. ( No matter whether this is an amateur YouTube-presented 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 hydrogen-generating 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 hydrogen-generating 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 hydrogen-generating 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 hydrogen-generating 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
     

     
Title: Re: A SIMPLE ELECTRIC HEATER, WHICH HAS EFFICIENCY GREATER THAN 1
Post by: gyulasun on March 04, 2019, 09:34:38 PM
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
Title: Re: A SIMPLE ELECTRIC HEATER, WHICH HAS EFFICIENCY GREATER THAN 1
Post by: F6FLT on March 06, 2019, 11:14:33 AM
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 = U-U2 where U2 is the oxydo-reduction 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.
Title: Re: A SIMPLE ELECTRIC HEATER, WHICH HAS EFFICIENCY GREATER THAN 1
Post by: George1 on March 10, 2019, 12:02:10 PM
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
Title: Re: A SIMPLE ELECTRIC HEATER, WHICH HAS EFFICIENCY GREATER THAN 1
Post by: George1 on March 12, 2019, 09:13:49 AM
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 hydrogen-generating 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 hydrogen-generating electrolyzer has two very important sub-systems.
Sub-system 1 always keeps constant the volume of pure water inside the electrolyzer. For example the water consumption of the Hogen's hydrogen-generating electrolyzer is 5.50 L/hr (please refer to Hogen's main technical data) and sub-system 1 always keeps a constant pure water flow of 5.50 L/hr.
Sub-system 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 hydrogen-generating electrolyzer as a heater however, then the cooling agent could be for example the circulating water of a certain standard water-heating 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 hydrogen-generating electrolyzer gives a certain amount of hydrogen whose heat of burning is H, where H>0.
Let us add H to the right-hand 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
 
     
 
Title: Re: A SIMPLE ELECTRIC HEATER, WHICH HAS EFFICIENCY GREATER THAN 1
Post by: F6FLT on March 12, 2019, 10:12:15 AM
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.
Title: Re: A SIMPLE ELECTRIC HEATER, WHICH HAS EFFICIENCY GREATER THAN 1
Post by: lancaIV on March 12, 2019, 11:46:24 AM
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wien_effect
Ohms law in electrolysis deviation
or

as reactive metal ( ~ Argentum- family) " chemalloy" http://free-energy.ws/samuel-freedman/
Title: Re: A SIMPLE ELECTRIC HEATER, WHICH HAS EFFICIENCY GREATER THAN 1
Post by: George1 on March 15, 2019, 02:41:06 PM
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.)     
Title: Re: A SIMPLE ELECTRIC HEATER, WHICH HAS EFFICIENCY GREATER THAN 1
Post by: George1 on March 15, 2019, 03:01:57 PM
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.
Title: Re: A SIMPLE ELECTRIC HEATER, WHICH HAS EFFICIENCY GREATER THAN 1
Post by: lancaIV on March 15, 2019, 03:13:55 PM
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 semi-metal ( 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 water-glas : bubbles= hydrolysis)
Title: Re: A SIMPLE ELECTRIC HEATER, WHICH HAS EFFICIENCY GREATER THAN 1
Post by: F6FLT on March 15, 2019, 05:13:47 PM
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.
Title: Re: A SIMPLE ELECTRIC HEATER, WHICH HAS EFFICIENCY GREATER THAN 1
Post by: gyulasun on March 15, 2019, 05:44:29 PM
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/a-simple-electric-heater-which-has-efficiency-greater-than-1/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 Iaverage x t
Equation for one part of the output energy, heat, created in the liquid is:  Eout1 = C2 x M2 x (T2-T) " 
                   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 'Sub-system 1' just kills that. This is true mainly for Sub-system 2, too.
Otherwise, the use of such sub-systems 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. 

Quote
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/a-simple-electric-heater-which-has-efficiency-greater-than-1/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
Title: Re: A SIMPLE ELECTRIC HEATER, WHICH HAS EFFICIENCY GREATER THAN 1
Post by: F6FLT on March 15, 2019, 05:52:40 PM
Quote
...
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 = U-U2 where U2 is the oxydo-reduction 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.
Title: Re: A SIMPLE ELECTRIC HEATER, WHICH HAS EFFICIENCY GREATER THAN 1
Post by: lancaIV on March 15, 2019, 06:07:13 PM
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
Title: Re: A SIMPLE ELECTRIC HEATER, WHICH HAS EFFICIENCY GREATER THAN 1
Post by: F6FLT on March 16, 2019, 10:58:06 AM
                            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 13-year-old 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.
Title: Re: A SIMPLE ELECTRIC HEATER, WHICH HAS EFFICIENCY GREATER THAN 1
Post by: George1 on March 16, 2019, 11:29:02 AM
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
   
Title: Re: A SIMPLE ELECTRIC HEATER, WHICH HAS EFFICIENCY GREATER THAN 1
Post by: George1 on March 16, 2019, 11:35:39 AM
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 step-by-step procedures?
Looking forward to your answers.
Best regards,
George
Title: Re: A SIMPLE ELECTRIC HEATER, WHICH HAS EFFICIENCY GREATER THAN 1
Post by: gyulasun on March 17, 2019, 04:07:03 PM

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
Title: Re: A SIMPLE ELECTRIC HEATER, WHICH HAS EFFICIENCY GREATER THAN 1
Post by: Floor on March 21, 2019, 09:17:54 PM
--------------------
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
Title: Re: A SIMPLE ELECTRIC HEATER, WHICH HAS EFFICIENCY GREATER THAN 1
Post by: George1 on March 26, 2019, 10:39:21 AM
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=ACfU3U2HOLB78XHl2o3q-JanapzSK-McJA&hl=bg&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjDpp2-zZXhAhWT5OAKHUfuBzUQ6AEwBHoECAkQAQ#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       
Title: Re: A SIMPLE ELECTRIC HEATER, WHICH HAS EFFICIENCY GREATER THAN 1
Post by: gyulasun on March 27, 2019, 11:42:04 PM
Hi George,

I thought you would arrive at some work-out 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 built-in 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/products-proton-site/h2-h4-h6   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 AC-DC 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 nit-picking 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
Title: Re: A SIMPLE ELECTRIC HEATER, WHICH HAS EFFICIENCY GREATER THAN 1
Post by: George1 on March 30, 2019, 02:08:42 PM
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
 
   
Title: Re: A SIMPLE ELECTRIC HEATER, WHICH HAS EFFICIENCY GREATER THAN 1
Post by: George1 on March 31, 2019, 05:19:45 PM
Hi Gyula.
Here are our answers.
1) Yes, you are absolutely right, that it's worth to think over some work-out 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!           
Title: Re: A SIMPLE ELECTRIC HEATER, WHICH HAS EFFICIENCY GREATER THAN 1
Post by: gyulasun on April 02, 2019, 03:28:50 PM
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/products-proton-site/h2-h4-h6 
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 close-ups 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 step-up AC-DC 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/2019-02/H%20Series.pdf

it turns out the electrical requirement for the machine is 380-415 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
Title: Re: A SIMPLE ELECTRIC HEATER, WHICH HAS EFFICIENCY GREATER THAN 1
Post by: George1 on April 08, 2019, 03:39:35 PM
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 re-consider 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
Title: Re: A SIMPLE ELECTRIC HEATER, WHICH HAS EFFICIENCY GREATER THAN 1
Post by: George1 on April 09, 2019, 01:33:46 PM
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 3-phase 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 water-splitting 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 home-made water-splitting 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 hydrogen-generating and water-splitting 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

           
Title: Re: A SIMPLE ELECTRIC HEATER, WHICH HAS EFFICIENCY GREATER THAN 1
Post by: George1 on April 10, 2019, 10:56:59 AM
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 re-written 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 water-splitting 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 highly-qualified and experienced man of more than 30 years of practice related to electrolysers became our supporter gives us an additional strong confidence that the water-splitting 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).
   
Title: Re: A SIMPLE ELECTRIC HEATER, WHICH HAS EFFICIENCY GREATER THAN 1
Post by: George1 on April 11, 2019, 12:48:52 PM
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 water-splitting 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 water-splitting 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 high-quality equipment and highly-qualified 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
Title: Re: A SIMPLE ELECTRIC HEATER, WHICH HAS EFFICIENCY GREATER THAN 1
Post by: George1 on April 15, 2019, 11:24:56 AM
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 water-splitting 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 high-quality equipment and highly-qualified experimenters.)
Looking forward to your answer.
Regards,
George           
Title: Re: A SIMPLE ELECTRIC HEATER, WHICH HAS EFFICIENCY GREATER THAN 1
Post by: gyulasun on April 15, 2019, 11:42:28 AM
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
Title: Re: A SIMPLE ELECTRIC HEATER, WHICH HAS EFFICIENCY GREATER THAN 1
Post by: George1 on April 15, 2019, 12:48:16 PM
Hi Gyula,
Thanks a lot for your reply.
Looking forward to your answer related to my last post.
Regards,
George
Title: Re: A SIMPLE ELECTRIC HEATER, WHICH HAS EFFICIENCY GREATER THAN 1
Post by: gyulasun on April 15, 2019, 06:54:41 PM
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 nit-picking 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
Title: Re: A SIMPLE ELECTRIC HEATER, WHICH HAS EFFICIENCY GREATER THAN 1
Post by: George1 on April 16, 2019, 11:14:53 AM
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 high-tech 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 water-splittig 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=S1516-14392014000100012
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
Title: Re: A SIMPLE ELECTRIC HEATER, WHICH HAS EFFICIENCY GREATER THAN 1
Post by: George1 on April 16, 2019, 04:48:29 PM
Hi again Gyula,
And one more 81-pages 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
Title: Re: A SIMPLE ELECTRIC HEATER, WHICH HAS EFFICIENCY GREATER THAN 1
Post by: George1 on April 19, 2019, 10:05:11 AM
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

 
Title: Re: A SIMPLE ELECTRIC HEATER, WHICH HAS EFFICIENCY GREATER THAN 1
Post by: gyulasun on April 19, 2019, 10:28:38 PM
Hi again Gyula,
And one more 81-pages 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


Title: Re: A SIMPLE ELECTRIC HEATER, WHICH HAS EFFICIENCY GREATER THAN 1
Post by: George1 on April 20, 2019, 10:06:52 AM
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.
   
Title: Re: A SIMPLE ELECTRIC HEATER, WHICH HAS EFFICIENCY GREATER THAN 1
Post by: George1 on April 20, 2019, 10:19:50 AM
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/collide-spring-en.html
https://www.myphysicslab.com/springs/dangle-stick-en.html
https://www.myphysicslab.com/springs/collide-blocks-en.html
https://www.myphysicslab.com/
Please help, if possible.
Looking forward to your answer.
Regards,
George
Title: Re: A SIMPLE ELECTRIC HEATER, WHICH HAS EFFICIENCY GREATER THAN 1
Post by: George1 on April 22, 2019, 08:43:40 AM
Hi Gyula.
Two members of our team seriously undertake to perform the water-splitting 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 "counter-voltage" 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
   
Title: Re: A SIMPLE ELECTRIC HEATER, WHICH HAS EFFICIENCY GREATER THAN 1
Post by: George1 on April 22, 2019, 08:46:48 AM
Hi Gyula.
Two members of our team seriously undertake to perform the water-splitting 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 "counter-voltage" 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
Title: Re: A SIMPLE ELECTRIC HEATER, WHICH HAS EFFICIENCY GREATER THAN 1
Post by: George1 on April 22, 2019, 08:58:10 AM
Hi Gyula.
Two members of our team seriously undertake to perform the water-splitting 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 "counter-voltage" 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
Title: Re: A SIMPLE ELECTRIC HEATER, WHICH HAS EFFICIENCY GREATER THAN 1
Post by: George1 on April 22, 2019, 08:59:39 AM
I don't know why my last post was sent three times in a row. It's not my fault.
George
Title: Re: A SIMPLE ELECTRIC HEATER, WHICH HAS EFFICIENCY GREATER THAN 1
Post by: gyulasun on April 22, 2019, 03:41:14 PM
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
Title: Re: A SIMPLE ELECTRIC HEATER, WHICH HAS EFFICIENCY GREATER THAN 1
Post by: George1 on April 23, 2019, 10:10:16 AM
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   
Title: Re: A SIMPLE ELECTRIC HEATER, WHICH HAS EFFICIENCY GREATER THAN 1
Post by: gyulasun on April 23, 2019, 12:15:27 PM
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

Title: Re: A SIMPLE ELECTRIC HEATER, WHICH HAS EFFICIENCY GREATER THAN 1
Post by: George1 on April 24, 2019, 10:06:17 AM
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         
Title: Re: A SIMPLE ELECTRIC HEATER, WHICH HAS EFFICIENCY GREATER THAN 1
Post by: gyulasun on April 24, 2019, 11:46:24 PM
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
Title: Re: A SIMPLE ELECTRIC HEATER, WHICH HAS EFFICIENCY GREATER THAN 1
Post by: George1 on April 25, 2019, 09:09:08 AM
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 water-splitting electrolysis has COP > 1. That's all. Simple and clear.
3) We keep performing experiments.

George

     
 
 
Title: Re: A SIMPLE ELECTRIC HEATER, WHICH HAS EFFICIENCY GREATER THAN 1
Post by: gyulasun on April 25, 2019, 03:54:54 PM
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
Title: Re: A SIMPLE ELECTRIC HEATER, WHICH HAS EFFICIENCY GREATER THAN 1
Post by: George1 on April 26, 2019, 02:04:22 PM
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 water-splitting 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 step-by-step 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 connected-in-parallel electrolyzers (we used long wires of big cross-section, because the electrolyzers were situated in different rooms) thus forming a series-parallel 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 single-electrolyzer case (item 1) is given by:
COP = (128040000 + 120000000)/(248040000) = 1.
------------------
4D) COP for the four-electrolyzers-circuit 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 mentioned-in-my-previous-posts 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 water-splitting electrolysis has always COP > 1.
Looking forward to your answer.

George





 
Title: Re: A SIMPLE ELECTRIC HEATER, WHICH HAS EFFICIENCY GREATER THAN 1
Post by: gyulasun on April 26, 2019, 11:40:28 PM
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
Title: Re: A SIMPLE ELECTRIC HEATER, WHICH HAS EFFICIENCY GREATER THAN 1
Post by: George1 on April 27, 2019, 12:51:01 PM
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
Title: Re: A SIMPLE ELECTRIC HEATER, WHICH HAS EFFICIENCY GREATER THAN 1
Post by: George1 on April 30, 2019, 09:18:06 AM
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 high-tech 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 water-splitting electrolysis) is connected to a standard DC source. COP of the water-splitting 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 water-splitting electrolysis. We will be glad if somebody manages to do a good business by building and selling such water-electrolysis-based 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

     
       
Title: Re: A SIMPLE ELECTRIC HEATER, WHICH HAS EFFICIENCY GREATER THAN 1
Post by: gyulasun on April 30, 2019, 11:47:11 PM
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
Title: Re: A SIMPLE ELECTRIC HEATER, WHICH HAS EFFICIENCY GREATER THAN 1
Post by: Floor on May 01, 2019, 12:46:46 AM
@   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
Title: Re: A SIMPLE ELECTRIC HEATER, WHICH HAS EFFICIENCY GREATER THAN 1
Post by: George1 on May 02, 2019, 08:32:34 AM

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 
Title: Re: A SIMPLE ELECTRIC HEATER, WHICH HAS EFFICIENCY GREATER THAN 1
Post by: George1 on May 02, 2019, 09:09:46 AM
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 step-by-step 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 
Title: Re: A SIMPLE ELECTRIC HEATER, WHICH HAS EFFICIENCY GREATER THAN 1
Post by: George1 on May 02, 2019, 09:47:47 AM
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 present-day scientific community.
On one hand, all modern physics conceptions are based on various and endless sets of sophisticated, non-understandable 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 mathematically-based 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
 
 
Title: Re: A SIMPLE ELECTRIC HEATER, WHICH HAS EFFICIENCY GREATER THAN 1
Post by: lancaIV on May 05, 2019, 01:46:19 PM

https://overunity.com/12367/the-conversion-of-electrical-energy-to-heat-energy/
Title: Re: A SIMPLE ELECTRIC HEATER, WHICH HAS EFFICIENCY GREATER THAN 1
Post by: tinu on May 05, 2019, 07:35:52 PM
@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 (2-1.23)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.
Title: Re: A SIMPLE ELECTRIC HEATER, WHICH HAS EFFICIENCY GREATER THAN 1
Post by: George1 on May 06, 2019, 10:56:11 AM
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 water-splitting electrolysis has COP, which is bigger than 1, that is, COP > 1.
--------------
Simple, clear and understandable. Only two simple operations in a row.
--------------
George
 
       
Title: Re: A SIMPLE ELECTRIC HEATER, WHICH HAS EFFICIENCY GREATER THAN 1
Post by: tinu on May 06, 2019, 11:33:18 AM
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!
 
Title: Re: A SIMPLE ELECTRIC HEATER, WHICH HAS EFFICIENCY GREATER THAN 1
Post by: George1 on May 06, 2019, 11:53:28 AM
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
Title: Re: A SIMPLE ELECTRIC HEATER, WHICH HAS EFFICIENCY GREATER THAN 1
Post by: tinu on May 06, 2019, 01:52:56 PM
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 30-35years 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 ad-hominem 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!
 
Title: Re: A SIMPLE ELECTRIC HEATER, WHICH HAS EFFICIENCY GREATER THAN 1
Post by: George1 on May 07, 2019, 08:52:30 AM
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


     
 
Title: Re: A SIMPLE ELECTRIC HEATER, WHICH HAS EFFICIENCY GREATER THAN 1
Post by: tinu on May 07, 2019, 12:05:59 PM
 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 (p-n 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 over-simplified 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 73-84% (page 72).
 
I'm sorry but there is no overunity here.
 
Best regards!
 
Title: Re: A SIMPLE ELECTRIC HEATER, WHICH HAS EFFICIENCY GREATER THAN 1
Post by: George1 on May 07, 2019, 12:44:41 PM
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       
Title: Re: A SIMPLE ELECTRIC HEATER, WHICH HAS EFFICIENCY GREATER THAN 1
Post by: lancaIV on May 07, 2019, 03:55:56 PM
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 mass-surplus ?

The C.O.P. is conventionally only used in closed thermo-dynamic 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 input-free pump"  heat pumps, using the thermo-syphon principle.
                                                             Simple heat collecting devices

From Nernst to Nernst-Planck 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 square-centimeter 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
Title: Re: A SIMPLE ELECTRIC HEATER, WHICH HAS EFFICIENCY GREATER THAN 1
Post by: George1 on May 07, 2019, 04:43:02 PM
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
 
Title: Re: A SIMPLE ELECTRIC HEATER, WHICH HAS EFFICIENCY GREATER THAN 1
Post by: tinu on May 07, 2019, 05:16:12 PM
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!
Title: Re: A SIMPLE ELECTRIC HEATER, WHICH HAS EFFICIENCY GREATER THAN 1
Post by: tinu on May 07, 2019, 05:31:07 PM
Hi again Gyula,
And one more 81-pages 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 73-84% (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?
Title: Re: A SIMPLE ELECTRIC HEATER, WHICH HAS EFFICIENCY GREATER THAN 1
Post by: lancaIV on May 07, 2019, 05:48:10 PM
Hi George1,

This post is a blatant lie!
The cited paper speaks of efficiency measured between 73-84% (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
Title: Re: A SIMPLE ELECTRIC HEATER, WHICH HAS EFFICIENCY GREATER THAN 1
Post by: Floor on May 07, 2019, 11:47:26 PM
@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
Title: Re: A SIMPLE ELECTRIC HEATER, WHICH HAS EFFICIENCY GREATER THAN 1
Post by: George1 on May 08, 2019, 10:16:06 AM
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 81-pages experimental work contains experimental data which, if properly interpreted, would inevitably
lead to COP > 1. I have never mentioned that the 81-pages 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
     
Title: Re: A SIMPLE ELECTRIC HEATER, WHICH HAS EFFICIENCY GREATER THAN 1
Post by: George1 on May 08, 2019, 11:17:16 AM
To lancaIV
----------------------
About the 81-pages 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 eta-based 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 mass-surplus. Well, there isn't any mass-surplus 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
Title: Re: A SIMPLE ELECTRIC HEATER, WHICH HAS EFFICIENCY GREATER THAN 1
Post by: George1 on May 08, 2019, 11:31:56 AM
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 step-by-step 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
 
Title: Re: A SIMPLE ELECTRIC HEATER, WHICH HAS EFFICIENCY GREATER THAN 1
Post by: tinu on May 08, 2019, 12:16:25 PM
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]
Title: Re: A SIMPLE ELECTRIC HEATER, WHICH HAS EFFICIENCY GREATER THAN 1
Post by: George1 on May 08, 2019, 01:24:14 PM
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     
Title: Re: A SIMPLE ELECTRIC HEATER, WHICH HAS EFFICIENCY GREATER THAN 1
Post by: tinu on May 08, 2019, 02:03:49 PM
 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!

 
Title: Re: A SIMPLE ELECTRIC HEATER, WHICH HAS EFFICIENCY GREATER THAN 1
Post by: George1 on May 09, 2019, 08:26:18 AM
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
   
Title: Re: A SIMPLE ELECTRIC HEATER, WHICH HAS EFFICIENCY GREATER THAN 1
Post by: George1 on May 09, 2019, 11:11:06 AM
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
Title: Re: A SIMPLE ELECTRIC HEATER, WHICH HAS EFFICIENCY GREATER THAN 1
Post by: tinu on May 09, 2019, 11:38:09 AM
 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 college-level 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 non-sense/absurdities, ok?


Regards.

 
Title: Re: A SIMPLE ELECTRIC HEATER, WHICH HAS EFFICIENCY GREATER THAN 1
Post by: George1 on May 09, 2019, 02:52:46 PM
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   
Title: Re: A SIMPLE ELECTRIC HEATER, WHICH HAS EFFICIENCY GREATER THAN 1
Post by: lancaIV on May 09, 2019, 04:05:55 PM
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

                                           




Title: Re: A SIMPLE ELECTRIC HEATER, WHICH HAS EFFICIENCY GREATER THAN 1
Post by: George1 on May 10, 2019, 08:26:57 AM
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
Title: Re: A SIMPLE ELECTRIC HEATER, WHICH HAS EFFICIENCY GREATER THAN 1
Post by: lancaIV on May 11, 2019, 11:11:40 AM
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
Title: Re: A SIMPLE ELECTRIC HEATER, WHICH HAS EFFICIENCY GREATER THAN 1
Post by: George1 on May 11, 2019, 12:42:06 PM
Hey lancaIV,
Thank you for your reply.
Welcome to our team of inventors-enthusiasts!
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
Title: Re: A SIMPLE ELECTRIC HEATER, WHICH HAS EFFICIENCY GREATER THAN 1
Post by: George1 on May 11, 2019, 01:03:23 PM
Hey again lancaIV,
And what about the link below?
https://overunity.com/16302/hho-as-real-uo-system/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
Title: Re: A SIMPLE ELECTRIC HEATER, WHICH HAS EFFICIENCY GREATER THAN 1
Post by: lancaIV on May 11, 2019, 01:31:46 PM
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#




Title: Re: A SIMPLE ELECTRIC HEATER, WHICH HAS EFFICIENCY GREATER THAN 1
Post by: George1 on May 11, 2019, 01:43:57 PM
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
Title: Re: A SIMPLE ELECTRIC HEATER, WHICH HAS EFFICIENCY GREATER THAN 1
Post by: lancaIV on May 11, 2019, 02:15:30 PM
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
       
Title: Re: A SIMPLE ELECTRIC HEATER, WHICH HAS EFFICIENCY GREATER THAN 1
Post by: George1 on May 11, 2019, 02:27:58 PM
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?
Title: Re: A SIMPLE ELECTRIC HEATER, WHICH HAS EFFICIENCY GREATER THAN 1
Post by: lancaIV on May 12, 2019, 04:34:24 PM
"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/electrolysis-of-h20-and-hydrogen-on-demand-generation/ (https://overunity.com/electrolysis-of-h20-and-hydrogen-on-demand-generation/)

Today to get a patent granted is anymore easy,  the disclosure must be new,  global new  !

And never published :
so beside the WIPO-archiv " patent lawyer" has also to search in the global "Honor-Title" "Dipl.-/Dr./Master "- archives( Promotion,Dissertation,Habilitation)  !

The patent office can grant an application, but there is no warranty of validity of this act  !
Title: Re: A SIMPLE ELECTRIC HEATER, WHICH HAS EFFICIENCY GREATER THAN 1
Post by: lancaIV on May 13, 2019, 10:00:31 AM
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 Fermi-seconds 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 Quant-izised 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
Title: Re: A SIMPLE ELECTRIC HEATER, WHICH HAS EFFICIENCY GREATER THAN 1
Post by: George1 on May 14, 2019, 01:04:57 PM
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 know-how. Our price is $10,000,000 (ten million dollars.)
-----------------------------------
Looking forward to your answer.
Regards,
George
Title: Re: A SIMPLE ELECTRIC HEATER, WHICH HAS EFFICIENCY GREATER THAN 1
Post by: tinu on May 14, 2019, 04:03:51 PM
...
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 know-how. 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
 
Title: Re: A SIMPLE ELECTRIC HEATER, WHICH HAS EFFICIENCY GREATER THAN 1
Post by: George1 on May 14, 2019, 04:49:33 PM
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.
Title: Re: A SIMPLE ELECTRIC HEATER, WHICH HAS EFFICIENCY GREATER THAN 1
Post by: George1 on May 15, 2019, 09:39:22 AM
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.
Title: Re: A SIMPLE ELECTRIC HEATER, WHICH HAS EFFICIENCY GREATER THAN 1
Post by: lancaIV on May 15, 2019, 02:20:58 PM
Yes, I know  !
https://www.google.com/search?q=heatpad+swine&client=firefox-b-m&prmd=ivns&ei=vfvbXNXqMZnkgweQxa_gCg&start=10&sa=N (https://www.google.com/search?q=heatpad+swine&client=firefox-b-m&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://filip-tech.de/ (https://web.archive.org/web/20160223060648/http://filip-tech.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 consume-peak down gives us the possibility to use solar cell voltaic heating,  in-house photo-voltaic :

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/electric-heating-pad.html (https://m.alibaba.com/showroom/electric-heating-pad.html)

            as resistor-net :
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 !?
Title: Re: A SIMPLE ELECTRIC HEATER, WHICH HAS EFFICIENCY GREATER THAN 1
Post by: George1 on May 15, 2019, 03:19:22 PM
Hi lancaIV,
Thank you for your reply.
--------------------------------------
You are always well-informed 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
   
Title: Re: A SIMPLE ELECTRIC HEATER, WHICH HAS EFFICIENCY GREATER THAN 1
Post by: George1 on May 16, 2019, 10:08:27 AM
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
         
Title: Re: A SIMPLE ELECTRIC HEATER, WHICH HAS EFFICIENCY GREATER THAN 1
Post by: lancaIV on May 16, 2019, 01:43:22 PM
1000 W to 270 W to 180-150 W object- + space-heating
http://translationportal.epo.org/emtp/translate/?ACTION=description-retrieval&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=description-retrieval&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 infra-red 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-/ad-vantages  ! 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 thermo-dynamic cycle" related,  reaching the ideal point : eta=1,
an up to 99% ideal point near device : diode-array
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

Title: Re: A SIMPLE ELECTRIC HEATER, WHICH HAS EFFICIENCY GREATER THAN 1
Post by: George1 on May 16, 2019, 03:42:27 PM
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 Seebeck-Peltier effect. I will re-fresh my memory with pleasure.
4) Please give us some time to consider carefully the last posts you have sent to us.
Regards,
George   
Title: Re: A SIMPLE ELECTRIC HEATER, WHICH HAS EFFICIENCY GREATER THAN 1
Post by: lancaIV on May 16, 2019, 05:03:29 PM
Working with thermal processes :
https://www.khanacademy.org/test-prep/mcat/chemical-processes/thermochemistry/a/endothermic-vs-exothermic-reactions
Title: Re: A SIMPLE ELECTRIC HEATER, WHICH HAS EFFICIENCY GREATER THAN 1
Post by: George1 on May 17, 2019, 10:38:14 AM
Hi lancaIV,
Thank you for re-freshing my elementary school knowedge. You made me younger for a while! :) Although many things in our educational programs as if have to be re-considered. 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     
Title: Re: A SIMPLE ELECTRIC HEATER, WHICH HAS EFFICIENCY GREATER THAN 1
Post by: George1 on May 18, 2019, 09:48:48 AM
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 water-electrolysis-related research works unambiguously manifest outlet energy/inlet energy > 1. Keep reading.
What is your opinion about Prof. Kanarev's research works?
Regards, 
George
Title: Re: A SIMPLE ELECTRIC HEATER, WHICH HAS EFFICIENCY GREATER THAN 1
Post by: lancaIV on May 18, 2019, 01:56:05 PM
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 ?  ;)


 
Title: Re: A SIMPLE ELECTRIC HEATER, WHICH HAS EFFICIENCY GREATER THAN 1
Post by: George1 on May 18, 2019, 02:47:57 PM
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   
Title: Re: A SIMPLE ELECTRIC HEATER, WHICH HAS EFFICIENCY GREATER THAN 1
Post by: lancaIV on May 18, 2019, 04:18:21 PM
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/heat-your-home-with-a-dehumidifier/ (http://www.iwilltry.org/b/heat-your-home-with-a-dehumidifier/)  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=utf-8&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-b-m (https://www.google.com/search?q=air+conditioning+mister&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-b-m)

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
Title: Re: A SIMPLE ELECTRIC HEATER, WHICH HAS EFFICIENCY GREATER THAN 1
Post by: Sergh on May 20, 2019, 10:33:49 AM
Another project from Belarus country:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GxLbzvSows8
 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GxLbzvSows8)
Author's comments:
Quote
...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.
Title: Re: A SIMPLE ELECTRIC HEATER, WHICH HAS EFFICIENCY GREATER THAN 1
Post by: George1 on May 25, 2019, 06:36:19 PM
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 water-splitting 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   
Title: Re: A SIMPLE ELECTRIC HEATER, WHICH HAS EFFICIENCY GREATER THAN 1
Post by: kolbacict on May 25, 2019, 09:18:59 PM
And F. Canarev is now alive and well?
It is close to me, and I am such a pig, I never went to him.
Title: Re: A SIMPLE ELECTRIC HEATER, WHICH HAS EFFICIENCY GREATER THAN 1
Post by: kolbacict on May 27, 2019, 10:50:34 AM
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. :)
Title: Re: A SIMPLE ELECTRIC HEATER, WHICH HAS EFFICIENCY GREATER THAN 1
Post by: lancaIV on May 27, 2019, 10:59:19 AM
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, .......
                                   
Title: Re: A SIMPLE ELECTRIC HEATER, WHICH HAS EFFICIENCY GREATER THAN 1
Post by: Sergh on May 27, 2019, 11:16:53 AM
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.
Title: Re: A SIMPLE ELECTRIC HEATER, WHICH HAS EFFICIENCY GREATER THAN 1
Post by: lancaIV on May 27, 2019, 11:59:09 AM
Sergh,

1. NO  !

I reed some weeks before about 12°C ambiental in-house 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 : 10-15°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=utf-8&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-b-m (https://www.google.com/search?q=wristify+bracelet&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-b-m)

human body all-weather nano-fiber enclosure let energy consumption falls to 12 Watt,independant from space area/volume in-/outside house

2."Expensive" is relative : to ultra-low/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 : Single-room 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 Oeko-Schweine ?!
Title: Re: A SIMPLE ELECTRIC HEATER, WHICH HAS EFFICIENCY GREATER THAN 1
Post by: Sergh on May 27, 2019, 01:19:44 PM
Does infrared heating affect human health? Has been tested the health effect of infrared heating on the long term?
Title: Re: A SIMPLE ELECTRIC HEATER, WHICH HAS EFFICIENCY GREATER THAN 1
Post by: lancaIV on May 27, 2019, 01:40:08 PM
Sergh,  you mean specific nm bandwidth infrared radiation ,near/far  !?
The sun radiation is also partial in the IR- spectrum.
IR-radiation 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 multi-cell bodies( human- oid)
and the first changing preview for the next evolution step will be that our human body will loose the hair
Title: Re: A SIMPLE ELECTRIC HEATER, WHICH HAS EFFICIENCY GREATER THAN 1
Post by: kolbacict on May 27, 2019, 04:56:22 PM
Anyway, the measurements are incorrect.
Кроликов долой,и повторить. :) :D
http://biofile.ru/bio/18661.html (http://biofile.ru/bio/18661.html)
Title: Re: A SIMPLE ELECTRIC HEATER, WHICH HAS EFFICIENCY GREATER THAN 1
Post by: lancaIV on May 27, 2019, 05:31:36 PM
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 ?
Title: Re: A SIMPLE ELECTRIC HEATER, WHICH HAS EFFICIENCY GREATER THAN 1
Post by: Sergh on May 27, 2019, 07:20:51 PM
Sergh,  you mean specific nm bandwidth infrared radiation ,near/far  !?
The sun radiation is also partial in the IR- spectrum.
IR-radiation is in use as medical therapy instrument.
Not certainly in that way. Due to the nature of pure infrared radiation, there are some problems.
Quote
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 short-term, 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 short-wave 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 self-antigen 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.
Title: Re: A SIMPLE ELECTRIC HEATER, WHICH HAS EFFICIENCY GREATER THAN 1
Post by: lancaIV on May 27, 2019, 07:38:46 PM
Our body emitts in the infra-red spectrum , too !
Good/bad ? Mental emotion indication, fever/infection indication,......

Infrared-lamps for (sub-/percutan) skin treatment ( included emulsion/creme/balsam).
We have to differ between under-/over-dose ! 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"

Title: Re: A SIMPLE ELECTRIC HEATER, WHICH HAS EFFICIENCY GREATER THAN 1
Post by: Sergh on May 27, 2019, 09:18:38 PM
Our body emitts in the infra-red spectrum , too !
Our body, unlike heaters, emits a lower frequency range of IR.
Title: Re: A SIMPLE ELECTRIC HEATER, WHICH HAS EFFICIENCY GREATER THAN 1
Post by: lancaIV on May 27, 2019, 09:48:42 PM
Sergh,
each resistor emitts infra-red radiation.
But not each resistor is defined as " infra-red heater".

http://translationportal.epo.org/emtp/translate/?ACTION=description-retrieval&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=description-retrieval&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=utf-8&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-b-m (https://www.google.com/search?q=kelvin+temperature&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-b-m)
( you like it complicated?  Newest research results : < 0° K point reached )
Title: Re: A SIMPLE ELECTRIC HEATER, WHICH HAS EFFICIENCY GREATER THAN 1
Post by: George1 on June 02, 2019, 02:17:13 PM
It's a really interesting discussion! Need some time to get the essence of each point of view.
Title: Re: A SIMPLE ELECTRIC HEATER, WHICH HAS EFFICIENCY GREATER THAN 1
Post by: lancaIV on June 07, 2019, 04:32:21 PM
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 : Non-Entry in national Phase
                 = no DE ergo no EP grant
Probably the need from the patent court decision
Title: Re: A SIMPLE ELECTRIC HEATER, WHICH HAS EFFICIENCY GREATER THAN 1
Post by: George1 on June 09, 2019, 05:04:57 PM
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
Title: Re: A SIMPLE ELECTRIC HEATER, WHICH HAS EFFICIENCY GREATER THAN 1
Post by: George1 on June 09, 2019, 05:14:25 PM
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
Title: Re: A SIMPLE ELECTRIC HEATER, WHICH HAS EFFICIENCY GREATER THAN 1
Post by: lancaIV on June 13, 2019, 03:09:25 PM
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/)
Title: Re: A SIMPLE ELECTRIC HEATER, WHICH HAS EFFICIENCY GREATER THAN 1
Post by: George1 on June 15, 2019, 10:15:33 AM
This is interesting! Need some time to consider it carefully.
Title: Re: A SIMPLE ELECTRIC HEATER, WHICH HAS EFFICIENCY GREATER THAN 1
Post by: George1 on June 15, 2019, 10:16:52 AM
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 now-existing 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 high-velocity hot gases, no high-temperature resistant materials, no high-pressure 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   
Title: Re: A SIMPLE ELECTRIC HEATER, WHICH HAS EFFICIENCY GREATER THAN 1
Post by: George1 on June 15, 2019, 02:45:21 PM
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?".
Title: Re: A SIMPLE ELECTRIC HEATER, WHICH HAS EFFICIENCY GREATER THAN 1
Post by: Terbo on June 16, 2019, 07:23:37 AM

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 : Non-Entry 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?
Title: Re: A SIMPLE ELECTRIC HEATER, WHICH HAS EFFICIENCY GREATER THAN 1
Post by: lancaIV on June 19, 2019, 02:16:57 PM
https://www.everythingrf.com/rf-calculators/wavelength-to-frequency

https://www.google.com/search?q=muon+decay+frequency&client=firefox-b-m&oq=muon+decay+frequency&gs_l=mobile-heirloom-serp.3...294378.306014.0.307256.31.24.0.3.3.0.1031.11635.0j10j1j5-5j6j2.24.0....0...1c..34.mobile-heirloom-serp..22.9.1511.MWIH-APSsK4 (https://www.google.com/search?q=muon+decay+frequency&client=firefox-b-m&oq=muon+decay+frequency&gs_l=mobile-heirloom-serp.3...294378.306014.0.307256.31.24.0.3.3.0.1031.11635.0j10j1j5-5j6j2.24.0....0...1c..34.mobile-heirloom-serp..22.9.1511.MWIH-APSsK4)
             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.
Title: Re: A SIMPLE ELECTRIC HEATER, WHICH HAS EFFICIENCY GREATER THAN 1
Post by: George1 on June 23, 2019, 02:51:00 PM
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 now-existing 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 high-velocity hot gases, no high-temperature resistant materials, no high-pressure 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

Title: Re: A SIMPLE ELECTRIC HEATER, WHICH HAS EFFICIENCY GREATER THAN 1
Post by: George1 on June 29, 2019, 10:25:34 AM
Any comments related to our topic "IS THIS A REACTIONLESS DRIVE OR A PERPETUAL MOTION MACHINE?"
George
Title: Re: A SIMPLE ELECTRIC HEATER, WHICH HAS EFFICIENCY GREATER THAN 1
Post by: George1 on July 02, 2019, 09:16:09 AM
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     
Title: Re: A SIMPLE ELECTRIC HEATER, WHICH HAS EFFICIENCY GREATER THAN 1
Post by: George1 on July 03, 2019, 02:36:25 PM
Hi lancaIV,
Where are you, my friend? You haven't sent interesting posts for a long time.
Regards,
George
Title: Re: A SIMPLE ELECTRIC HEATER, WHICH HAS EFFICIENCY GREATER THAN 1
Post by: George1 on July 04, 2019, 10:30:26 AM
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
Title: Re: A SIMPLE ELECTRIC HEATER, WHICH HAS EFFICIENCY GREATER THAN 1
Post by: George1 on July 06, 2019, 11:58:06 AM
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
Title: Re: A SIMPLE ELECTRIC HEATER, WHICH HAS EFFICIENCY GREATER THAN 1
Post by: Floor on July 06, 2019, 04:50:44 PM
The second case is false. You have simply forgotten the oxidation-reduction 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 oxidation-reduction 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
Title: Re: A SIMPLE ELECTRIC HEATER, WHICH HAS EFFICIENCY GREATER THAN 1
Post by: George1 on July 26, 2019, 02:12:25 PM
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   
Title: Re: A SIMPLE ELECTRIC HEATER, WHICH HAS EFFICIENCY GREATER THAN 1
Post by: Floor on July 27, 2019, 07:33:04 PM
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
Title: Re: A SIMPLE ELECTRIC HEATER, WHICH HAS EFFICIENCY GREATER THAN 1
Post by: George1 on July 28, 2019, 02:02:22 PM
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
Title: Re: A SIMPLE ELECTRIC HEATER, WHICH HAS EFFICIENCY GREATER THAN 1
Post by: George1 on August 03, 2019, 02:49:04 PM
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?
Title: Re: A SIMPLE ELECTRIC HEATER, WHICH HAS EFFICIENCY GREATER THAN 1
Post by: George1 on August 03, 2019, 03:01:36 PM
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
     
Title: Re: A SIMPLE ELECTRIC HEATER, WHICH HAS EFFICIENCY GREATER THAN 1
Post by: George1 on August 11, 2019, 11:58:15 AM
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!
Title: Re: A SIMPLE ELECTRIC HEATER, WHICH HAS EFFICIENCY GREATER THAN 1
Post by: George1 on August 19, 2019, 09:57:47 AM
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?
Title: Re: A SIMPLE ELECTRIC HEATER, WHICH HAS EFFICIENCY GREATER THAN 1
Post by: George1 on August 25, 2019, 12:51:51 PM
Still no objections? Shall we write a new textbook of physics?
We need (1) brave collaborators/partners of non-standard and original way of thinking and (2) 10 million dollars for further perfection of our next inventions as performing of precise, exact and high-quality scientific experiments is an EXPENSIVE business.
Looking forward to your answer.
George1
Title: Re: A SIMPLE ELECTRIC HEATER, WHICH HAS EFFICIENCY GREATER THAN 1
Post by: George1 on September 01, 2019, 01:36:20 PM
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 non-standard and original way of thinking.)
George1
Title: Re: A SIMPLE ELECTRIC HEATER, WHICH HAS EFFICIENCY GREATER THAN 1
Post by: George1 on September 08, 2019, 01:59:09 PM
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
Title: Re: A SIMPLE ELECTRIC HEATER, WHICH HAS EFFICIENCY GREATER THAN 1
Post by: George1 on September 15, 2019, 11:35:17 AM
Please look at our last post (11:30:41 AM) in the topic "IS THIS A REACTIONLESS DRIVE OR A PERPETUAL MOTION MACHINE?"
Title: Re: A SIMPLE ELECTRIC HEATER, WHICH HAS EFFICIENCY GREATER THAN 1
Post by: George1 on September 20, 2019, 09:40:16 AM
Please look at our last post (09:37:49 AM) in the topic "IS THIS A REACTIONLESS DRIVE OR A PERPETUAL MOTION MACHINE?"
Title: Re: A SIMPLE ELECTRIC HEATER, WHICH HAS EFFICIENCY GREATER THAN 1
Post by: George1 on September 21, 2019, 12:23:28 PM
Please look at our last post (12:19:51 PM) in the topic "IS THIS A REACTIONLESS DRIVE OR A PERPETUAL MOTION MACHINE?"
Title: Re: A SIMPLE ELECTRIC HEATER, WHICH HAS EFFICIENCY GREATER THAN 1
Post by: George1 on September 29, 2019, 01:32:45 PM
Please look at our last post (01:30:31 PM) in the topic "IS THIS A REACTIONLESS DRIVE OR A PERPETUAL MOTION MACHINE?"
Title: Re: A SIMPLE ELECTRIC HEATER, WHICH HAS EFFICIENCY GREATER THAN 1
Post by: George1 on October 06, 2019, 02:42:51 PM
Please look at our last post (02:40:14 PM) in the topic "IS THIS A REACTIONLESS DRIVE OR A PERPETUAL MOTION MACHINE?"
Title: Re: A SIMPLE ELECTRIC HEATER, WHICH HAS EFFICIENCY GREATER THAN 1
Post by: George1 on October 13, 2019, 02:53:59 PM
Please look at our last post (02:51:27 PM) in the topic "IS THIS A REACTIONLESS DRIVE OR A PERPETUAL MOTION MACHINE?"
Title: Re: A SIMPLE ELECTRIC HEATER, WHICH HAS EFFICIENCY GREATER THAN 1
Post by: Sergh on October 14, 2019, 03:20:01 PM
Not simple, but.. :-\
https://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/StringhamRlowmassmhz.pdf
Title: Re: A SIMPLE ELECTRIC HEATER, WHICH HAS EFFICIENCY GREATER THAN 1
Post by: Sergh on October 15, 2019, 04:08:16 PM
"Bublegate"
http://newenergytimes.com/v2/bubblegate/BubblegateKeyMilestones.shtml (http://newenergytimes.com/v2/bubblegate/BubblegateKeyMilestones.shtml)
Quote
2005 UCLA scuttles DARPA-sponsored replication attempt of Taleyarkhan's bubble fusion experiment by deliberately adding noncondensable gases to the experiment, which kills bubble fusion result.
Title: Re: A SIMPLE ELECTRIC HEATER, WHICH HAS EFFICIENCY GREATER THAN 1
Post by: George1 on October 19, 2019, 02:39:34 PM
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
 
Title: Re: A SIMPLE ELECTRIC HEATER, WHICH HAS EFFICIENCY GREATER THAN 1
Post by: rakarskiy on October 19, 2019, 06:38:20 PM
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.
Title: Re: A SIMPLE ELECTRIC HEATER, WHICH HAS EFFICIENCY GREATER THAN 1
Post by: Sergh on October 21, 2019, 03:30:03 PM
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
Title: Re: A SIMPLE ELECTRIC HEATER, WHICH HAS EFFICIENCY GREATER THAN 1
Post by: George1 on October 27, 2019, 01:25:43 PM
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 

 
Title: Re: A SIMPLE ELECTRIC HEATER, WHICH HAS EFFICIENCY GREATER THAN 1
Post by: George1 on November 02, 2019, 09:42:55 AM
Please look at our last post (09:40:07 AM) in the topic "IS THIS A REACTIONLESS DRIVE OR A PERPETUAL MOTION MACHINE?"
Title: Re: A SIMPLE ELECTRIC HEATER, WHICH HAS EFFICIENCY GREATER THAN 1
Post by: George1 on November 10, 2019, 02:52:08 PM
Please look at our last post (02:49:54 PM) in the topic "IS THIS A REACTIONLESS DRIVE OR A PERPETUAL MOTION MACHINE?"
Title: Re: A SIMPLE ELECTRIC HEATER, WHICH HAS EFFICIENCY GREATER THAN 1
Post by: sm0ky2 on November 12, 2019, 08:06:10 AM
I love your enthusiasm George


Let us expand upon this a little.
The ‘fuel’ generated as a by-produce 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 water-to-gas 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



Title: Re: A SIMPLE ELECTRIC HEATER, WHICH HAS EFFICIENCY GREATER THAN 1
Post by: George1 on November 17, 2019, 04:34:37 PM
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

Title: Re: A SIMPLE ELECTRIC HEATER, WHICH HAS EFFICIENCY GREATER THAN 1
Post by: sm0ky2 on November 17, 2019, 10:05:40 PM
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.
Title: Re: A SIMPLE ELECTRIC HEATER, WHICH HAS EFFICIENCY GREATER THAN 1
Post by: George1 on November 23, 2019, 09:32:29 AM
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   
Title: Re: A SIMPLE ELECTRIC HEATER, WHICH HAS EFFICIENCY GREATER THAN 1
Post by: kolbacict on November 23, 2019, 10:11:26 AM
Well yes. Fill the ladles with ROSH  with this gas. :)
Title: Re: A SIMPLE ELECTRIC HEATER, WHICH HAS EFFICIENCY GREATER THAN 1
Post by: George1 on November 23, 2019, 10:56:40 AM
To kolbacict
-------------------
Is this a joke :) or you have some constructive suggestion? What is ROSH?
Title: Re: A SIMPLE ELECTRIC HEATER, WHICH HAS EFFICIENCY GREATER THAN 1
Post by: kolbacict on November 23, 2019, 01:12:34 PM
https://overunity.com/15773/gaia-rosch-aukw-auftriebskraftwerk-kpp-why-it-does-not-work/
Hi. no a joke
It will definitely work with gas from electrolysis, but it will be ineffective.
Title: Re: A SIMPLE ELECTRIC HEATER, WHICH HAS EFFICIENCY GREATER THAN 1
Post by: George1 on November 24, 2019, 02:06:11 PM
Hi, it will take some time to consider the things carefully. You claim that it is ineffective. Why do you think so?
Title: Re: A SIMPLE ELECTRIC HEATER, WHICH HAS EFFICIENCY GREATER THAN 1
Post by: kolbacict on November 24, 2019, 02:36:38 PM
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.
Title: Re: A SIMPLE ELECTRIC HEATER, WHICH HAS EFFICIENCY GREATER THAN 1
Post by: gsmsslsb on November 25, 2019, 08:38:23 PM

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/buoyancy-cycle-mg-where-the-h-is-free/msg201083/#msg201083
There are a few drawings and discussion at the above link.
GSM
Title: Re: A SIMPLE ELECTRIC HEATER, WHICH HAS EFFICIENCY GREATER THAN 1
Post by: kolbacict on November 26, 2019, 10:14:09 AM
https://overunity.com/8047/buoyancy-cycle-mg-where-the-h-is-free/dlattach/attach/37748/image//
Yes, about that I mean.
And what conclusion have you come to that topic?
Have OU ?
Title: Re: A SIMPLE ELECTRIC HEATER, WHICH HAS EFFICIENCY GREATER THAN 1
Post by: George1 on November 30, 2019, 08:44:29 AM
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
Title: Re: A SIMPLE ELECTRIC HEATER, WHICH HAS EFFICIENCY GREATER THAN 1
Post by: George1 on November 30, 2019, 08:49:35 AM
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
Title: Re: A SIMPLE ELECTRIC HEATER, WHICH HAS EFFICIENCY GREATER THAN 1
Post by: sm0ky2 on December 03, 2019, 02:29:15 AM
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.
Title: Re: A SIMPLE ELECTRIC HEATER, WHICH HAS EFFICIENCY GREATER THAN 1
Post by: sm0ky2 on December 03, 2019, 02:31:02 AM
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.
Title: Re: A SIMPLE ELECTRIC HEATER, WHICH HAS EFFICIENCY GREATER THAN 1
Post by: George1 on December 07, 2019, 02:31:14 PM
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 three-components correlation.
Looking forward to your answer.
Regards,
George
 
Title: Re: A SIMPLE ELECTRIC HEATER, WHICH HAS EFFICIENCY GREATER THAN 1
Post by: George1 on December 07, 2019, 02:44:16 PM
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=ACfU3U2HOLB78XHl2o3q-JanapzSK-McJA&hl=bg&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjDpp2-zZXhAhWT5OAKHUfuBzUQ6AEwBHoECAkQAQ#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       
Title: Re: A SIMPLE ELECTRIC HEATER, WHICH HAS EFFICIENCY GREATER THAN 1
Post by: George1 on December 10, 2019, 07:05:23 PM
Do you have any theoretical (ONLY THEORETICAL!) objections against the text of our previous post?
Title: Re: A SIMPLE ELECTRIC HEATER, WHICH HAS EFFICIENCY GREATER THAN 1
Post by: Sergh on December 11, 2019, 08:55:08 AM
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.designer-iii.com/cco/RMS.pdf  (http://www.designer-iii.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.
Title: Re: A SIMPLE ELECTRIC HEATER, WHICH HAS EFFICIENCY GREATER THAN 1
Post by: sm0ky2 on December 11, 2019, 09:21:10 AM
(.....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.”
Title: Re: A SIMPLE ELECTRIC HEATER, WHICH HAS EFFICIENCY GREATER THAN 1
Post by: George1 on December 14, 2019, 08:35:16 AM
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.designer-iii.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   
 
Title: Re: A SIMPLE ELECTRIC HEATER, WHICH HAS EFFICIENCY GREATER THAN 1
Post by: George1 on December 14, 2019, 08:39:55 AM
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 
Title: Re: A SIMPLE ELECTRIC HEATER, WHICH HAS EFFICIENCY GREATER THAN 1
Post by: George1 on December 14, 2019, 08:49:59 AM
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
 
Title: Re: A SIMPLE ELECTRIC HEATER, WHICH HAS EFFICIENCY GREATER THAN 1
Post by: kolbacict on December 14, 2019, 09:56:17 AM
Quote
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.
Quote
looking forward to your answer
tell him,waiting for an answer, like a nightingale of summer. :)
Title: Re: A SIMPLE ELECTRIC HEATER, WHICH HAS EFFICIENCY GREATER THAN 1
Post by: George1 on December 14, 2019, 10:36:23 AM
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
Title: Re: A SIMPLE ELECTRIC HEATER, WHICH HAS EFFICIENCY GREATER THAN 1
Post by: sm0ky2 on December 14, 2019, 11:03:29 AM
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.

Title: Re: A SIMPLE ELECTRIC HEATER, WHICH HAS EFFICIENCY GREATER THAN 1
Post by: George1 on December 14, 2019, 11:13:45 AM
Hi smOky2,
All you have written is correct but we are talking about different things. Please read carefully again my last post!