I had to Google PEM. The answer to your question is in the wiki:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polymer ... ectrolysis
A simple electric heater, which has efficiency greater than 1
Moderator: scott
re: A simple electric heater, which has efficiency greater t
To Tarsier79.
-----------------------
1) I have read this link (and many similar links) hundreds, and may be thousands, of times. These links only confirm the validity of our basic concept. You are trying again to manipulate the audience in a clumsy and unskillfull manner.
2) And you still didn't answer my question from my last post. The question was:
"What is the difference between the copper wire circuit and the PEM electrolyzer circuit (a) if these two are considered as Joule heating devices only and (b) if the experimental data in both cases are identical?" (There is no difference, you ignramus!)
-----------------------
1) I have read this link (and many similar links) hundreds, and may be thousands, of times. These links only confirm the validity of our basic concept. You are trying again to manipulate the audience in a clumsy and unskillfull manner.
2) And you still didn't answer my question from my last post. The question was:
"What is the difference between the copper wire circuit and the PEM electrolyzer circuit (a) if these two are considered as Joule heating devices only and (b) if the experimental data in both cases are identical?" (There is no difference, you ignramus!)
re: A simple electric heater, which has efficiency greater t
The difference is in the WIKI, bold as day. I have said it before, but you are incapable of seeing it as are incapable of logical extrapolation.
Would you like me to dumb it down for you?
For a start, your question is irrelevant, naive and shows your arrogant egotism. It is not the question you want to ask and I am not blindly following you on a fools mission. If you pulled your head out of your posterior for long enough to smell the roses, you would see that the comforting cave you live in with the 8" purple sex toy is not the extent of the universe.
Would you like me to dumb it down for you?
For a start, your question is irrelevant, naive and shows your arrogant egotism. It is not the question you want to ask and I am not blindly following you on a fools mission. If you pulled your head out of your posterior for long enough to smell the roses, you would see that the comforting cave you live in with the 8" purple sex toy is not the extent of the universe.
re: A simple electric heater, which has efficiency greater t
Total Power consumed = heat (Power) + Power consumed creating Hydrogen etc.
re: A simple electric heater, which has efficiency greater t
So the answer to your question:
16000 Joules.
16000 Joules.
re: A simple electric heater, which has efficiency greater t
If your PEM is 75% efficient:
12000 joules will go into separating water + additional chemical reactions.
4000 joules will go to heat.
Of the 12000 joules used to make hydrogen, even if your efficiency is 90%, the heat energy you get after you burn the hydrogen will be less that the 12000 joules you expended in the first place.
12000 joules will go into separating water + additional chemical reactions.
4000 joules will go to heat.
Of the 12000 joules used to make hydrogen, even if your efficiency is 90%, the heat energy you get after you burn the hydrogen will be less that the 12000 joules you expended in the first place.
re: A simple electric heater, which has efficiency greater t
Therefore Your simple electric heater does not have an efficiency greater than 1.
The End.
The End.
re: A simple electric heater, which has efficiency greater t
To Tarsier79.
-------------------------------
We have to repeat hundreds of times obvious things. You are not reading my posts! Are you really an ignoramus or you only try to imitate ignorance thus trying to manipulate the audience in a clumsy manner? Read carefully the text below!!!!
-------------------------------
1) It is perfectly valid for the copper wire circuit (which is hidden in a black box 1) that (a) the voltmeter registers a voltage of 4VDC, (b) the watt-meter registers a power of 16 Watts, (c) the ammeter registers a current of 4 A, (d) the ohmmeter registers an Ohmic resistance of 1 Ohm and (e) the clock registers a period of 1000 seconds, within which a current of 4 A flows through the copper wire.
-------------------------------
2) It is perfectly valid for the PEM electrolyzer circuit (which is hidden in a black box 2) that (a) the voltmeter registers a voltage of 4VDC, (b) the watt-meter registers a power of 16 Watts, (c) the ammeter registers a current of 4 A, (d) the ohmmeter registers an Ohmic resistance of 1 Ohm and (e) the clock registers a period of 1000 seconds, within which a current of 4 A flows through the PEM electrolyzer.
-------------------------------
3) Let us assume that an electric engineer must measure the Joule's heat generated by the load, which is hidden inside black box 1. Having in mind the readings of the measuring devices (voltmeter, ammeter, ohmmeter, watt-meter and clock) he/she would inevitably conclude that the Joule's heat, generated by the hidden load, is just equal to 16000 J.
------------------------------
4) Let us assume that an electric engineer must measure the Joule's heat generated by the load, which is hidden inside black box 2. Having in mind the readings of the measuring devices (voltmeter, ammeter, ohmmeter, watt-meter and clock) he/she would inevitably conclude that the Joule's heat, generated by the hidden load, is just equal to 16000 J.
------------------------------
5) In one word, any electric engineer in the world, without being interested what loads are hidden inside black boxes 1 and 2, would inevitably conclude that the Joule's heat, generated by any of the two hidden loads, is just equal to 16000 J. Any electric engineer in the world would only look at the readins of the measuring devices and after that he/she would only make some simple calculations leading to 16000 J of Joule's heat generated by any of the two hidden loads.
------------------------------
How to explain simple things in a simpler manner?
-------------------------------
We have to repeat hundreds of times obvious things. You are not reading my posts! Are you really an ignoramus or you only try to imitate ignorance thus trying to manipulate the audience in a clumsy manner? Read carefully the text below!!!!
-------------------------------
1) It is perfectly valid for the copper wire circuit (which is hidden in a black box 1) that (a) the voltmeter registers a voltage of 4VDC, (b) the watt-meter registers a power of 16 Watts, (c) the ammeter registers a current of 4 A, (d) the ohmmeter registers an Ohmic resistance of 1 Ohm and (e) the clock registers a period of 1000 seconds, within which a current of 4 A flows through the copper wire.
-------------------------------
2) It is perfectly valid for the PEM electrolyzer circuit (which is hidden in a black box 2) that (a) the voltmeter registers a voltage of 4VDC, (b) the watt-meter registers a power of 16 Watts, (c) the ammeter registers a current of 4 A, (d) the ohmmeter registers an Ohmic resistance of 1 Ohm and (e) the clock registers a period of 1000 seconds, within which a current of 4 A flows through the PEM electrolyzer.
-------------------------------
3) Let us assume that an electric engineer must measure the Joule's heat generated by the load, which is hidden inside black box 1. Having in mind the readings of the measuring devices (voltmeter, ammeter, ohmmeter, watt-meter and clock) he/she would inevitably conclude that the Joule's heat, generated by the hidden load, is just equal to 16000 J.
------------------------------
4) Let us assume that an electric engineer must measure the Joule's heat generated by the load, which is hidden inside black box 2. Having in mind the readings of the measuring devices (voltmeter, ammeter, ohmmeter, watt-meter and clock) he/she would inevitably conclude that the Joule's heat, generated by the hidden load, is just equal to 16000 J.
------------------------------
5) In one word, any electric engineer in the world, without being interested what loads are hidden inside black boxes 1 and 2, would inevitably conclude that the Joule's heat, generated by any of the two hidden loads, is just equal to 16000 J. Any electric engineer in the world would only look at the readins of the measuring devices and after that he/she would only make some simple calculations leading to 16000 J of Joule's heat generated by any of the two hidden loads.
------------------------------
How to explain simple things in a simpler manner?
re: A simple electric heater, which has efficiency greater t
Dear arrogant george,
If that is the case in your country, your electrical engineers need retraining.
As in the above example, black box 2 is heated by 4000 joules. 16000 has been expended.
If that is the case in your country, your electrical engineers need retraining.
As in the above example, black box 2 is heated by 4000 joules. 16000 has been expended.
re: A simple electric heater, which has efficiency greater t
I have a 12 year old niece that is capable of understanding power usage through an electrical system. It isn't difficult. I am unable to understand why you seem to be incapable of comprehending the process.
I have previously said, and I am sure others have too what your next step should be if you refuse to accept simple and accepted understanding of electrolysis. Let me give you a hint:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method
Or just in case you need further clarification:
https://littlebinsforlittlehands.com/us ... ents-kids/
I have previously said, and I am sure others have too what your next step should be if you refuse to accept simple and accepted understanding of electrolysis. Let me give you a hint:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method
Or just in case you need further clarification:
https://littlebinsforlittlehands.com/us ... ents-kids/
re: A simple electric heater, which has efficiency greater t
An example:
So, is 150KW of heat expended in the "black box" that is a Tesla battery?The original V1 and V2 Tesla supercharging stations charge with up to 150 kW of power distributed between two cars with a maximum of 150[21][22] kW per car, depending on the version.[23][14][24] They take about 20 minutes to charge to 50%, 40 minutes to charge to 80%, and 75 minutes to 100% on the original 85 kWh Model S. The charging stations provide high-power direct-current (DC) charging power directly to the battery, bypassing the internal charging power supply.[2]
re: A simple electric heater, which has efficiency greater t
I will repeat an elementary axiom of electric engineerig: "Any electric engineer in the world, without being interested what loads are hidden inside black boxes 1 and 2, would inevitably conclude that the Joule's heat, generated by any of the two hidden loads, is just equal to 16000 J. Any electric engineer in the world would only look at the readins of the measuring devices and after that he/she would only make some simple calculations leading to the result of 16000 J of Joule's heat generated by any of the two hidden loads."
------------------------------
How to explain simple things in a simpler manner?
Are you really a stubborn ignoramus or you simply imitate ignorance and pathological lack of understanding thus trying to earn some money paid by the big mafia? Shame on you!
------------------------------
How to explain simple things in a simpler manner?
Are you really a stubborn ignoramus or you simply imitate ignorance and pathological lack of understanding thus trying to earn some money paid by the big mafia? Shame on you!
re: A simple electric heater, which has efficiency greater t
Electrolysis, that's a very long time ago...
Hey neighboring topic, this my simplistic observation.
When you 'just' let the hydrogen recombine with oxygen then, besides heat, there's also the generation of a sound pressure and light.
At least when the container is able to contain *all* the hydrogen.
One could ask about the difference between the copper wire circuit and the PEM electrolyzer circuit;
That answer would most likely be: "Efficiency" even before looking up what "PEM" actually is.
From green-stained copper objects and we may already have an idea that corrosion of the copper-wire-variant will make it more and more insulated and thus the electrolysis less and less efficient.
You could add salt to the water to make the electrolysis itself more efficient, but then the copper would corrode only faster. Was it some combination of Cu(+2)+Cl(-1)+OH(-1) ?
The main distinguishing part between a copper wire and PEM is that Membrane where the amount of surface area is the most obvious.
The goal of electrolysis is to pull Hydrogen from the Oxygen in the most efficient way.
So when at one atomic-sized contact-point electrolysis happens, this contact-point is simply occupied until it's done. Hence more contact-area the more steady that action.
Thus when that action is not steady, there will be a fluctuation in the DC current.
And then your circuit then must deal with an AC component.
Your DC power unit has to perform additional efforts to filter out such frequency component and generate additional unused heat in the process.
So even without becoming an expert on PEM-electrolysis we can already deduce some expected differences.
Please feel free to correct me on this.
Obvious truth no.1a is that you don't trust the manufacturer on his blue eyes in a (scientific) experiment.
Obvious truth no.1b is that the values should be close enough and 'DC' enough when you buy it new, or otherwise RMA.
Obvious truth no.1c does this powersupply need additional cooling? IOW, its lack of efficiency stil outweighs the projected gain?
Obvious truth no.1d is that the general public actually does not care how it works.
Obvious truth no.2b is that an explosion pushes the air away from the origin - Will sound/pressure be collected ?
Obvious truth no.2c is that burning hydrogen generates light that's carried away from the origin - will light be collected?
Obvious truth no.2d is that burning hydrogen generates heat (H) that's carried away from the origin - will IR be collected? Or what will it heat up, and how?
etc...
The Obvious truth (no.2z?) is that we actually don't want that *boom*, we want free electrons!
So of course we recombine it with a hydrogen-fuel-cell or something similar, as a means to recombine that stuff while producing less heat and waste as cheaply as possible;
This fuel-cell is certainly more ehm... efficient.
(still <1)
Obvious truth no.3 is that in general the things are in Unity when you calculate the basic stuff and only consider the basic stuff.
Things become Losses when you can't collect it and thus leak out of the system without any hope of full recovery.
The Final Truth is that you need Real experimental proof that clearly shows that things are over-unity or otherwise it's simply a Lie no matter how often you repeat an idea in writing or tweets.
A simpler observation would be:
Even when all things are considered ideal, why would this produced heat 'H' be special?
Anyway. It came out of the system, so it is actually a loss to that system.
So your recombination method must at least be ideal again to make the whole system ideal and complete again.
Do you think it is possible to use this all this heat in full to heat up a container plus its containing water ... plus some of the environment?
Hey neighboring topic, this my simplistic observation.
When you 'just' let the hydrogen recombine with oxygen then, besides heat, there's also the generation of a sound pressure and light.
At least when the container is able to contain *all* the hydrogen.
One could ask about the difference between the copper wire circuit and the PEM electrolyzer circuit;
That answer would most likely be: "Efficiency" even before looking up what "PEM" actually is.
From green-stained copper objects and we may already have an idea that corrosion of the copper-wire-variant will make it more and more insulated and thus the electrolysis less and less efficient.
You could add salt to the water to make the electrolysis itself more efficient, but then the copper would corrode only faster. Was it some combination of Cu(+2)+Cl(-1)+OH(-1) ?
The main distinguishing part between a copper wire and PEM is that Membrane where the amount of surface area is the most obvious.
The goal of electrolysis is to pull Hydrogen from the Oxygen in the most efficient way.
So when at one atomic-sized contact-point electrolysis happens, this contact-point is simply occupied until it's done. Hence more contact-area the more steady that action.
Thus when that action is not steady, there will be a fluctuation in the DC current.
And then your circuit then must deal with an AC component.
Your DC power unit has to perform additional efforts to filter out such frequency component and generate additional unused heat in the process.
So even without becoming an expert on PEM-electrolysis we can already deduce some expected differences.
Please feel free to correct me on this.
That's easy, and the public (in the relevant venn-area) already knows from unfortunate experience:George1 wrote:4) Experimental data (Power Consumption: 16 Watts at 4.0 VDC), guaranteed by the manufacturer, and some simple arithmetic. One and same approach, but different final results.
HOW MUCH TIME WILL IT TAKE FOR SIMPLE OBVIOUS TRUTH TO WIN PUBLIC RECOGNITION?
Obvious truth no.1a is that you don't trust the manufacturer on his blue eyes in a (scientific) experiment.
Obvious truth no.1b is that the values should be close enough and 'DC' enough when you buy it new, or otherwise RMA.
Obvious truth no.1c does this powersupply need additional cooling? IOW, its lack of efficiency stil outweighs the projected gain?
Obvious truth no.1d is that the general public actually does not care how it works.
Obvious truth no.2a is that hydrogen tends to leak from containers - how is it contained before ignition?3) In addition however AS A SIDE EFFECT (AS A BY-PRODUCT) the above described PEM electrolyzer releases a certain amount of hydrogen, which if burned/exploded,
Obvious truth no.2b is that an explosion pushes the air away from the origin - Will sound/pressure be collected ?
Obvious truth no.2c is that burning hydrogen generates light that's carried away from the origin - will light be collected?
Obvious truth no.2d is that burning hydrogen generates heat (H) that's carried away from the origin - will IR be collected? Or what will it heat up, and how?
etc...
The Obvious truth (no.2z?) is that we actually don't want that *boom*, we want free electrons!
So of course we recombine it with a hydrogen-fuel-cell or something similar, as a means to recombine that stuff while producing less heat and waste as cheaply as possible;
This fuel-cell is certainly more ehm... efficient.
(still <1)
Obvious truth no.3 is that in general the things are in Unity when you calculate the basic stuff and only consider the basic stuff.
Things become Losses when you can't collect it and thus leak out of the system without any hope of full recovery.
The Final Truth is that you need Real experimental proof that clearly shows that things are over-unity or otherwise it's simply a Lie no matter how often you repeat an idea in writing or tweets.
A simpler observation would be:
Even when all things are considered ideal, why would this produced heat 'H' be special?
Anyway. It came out of the system, so it is actually a loss to that system.
So your recombination method must at least be ideal again to make the whole system ideal and complete again.
Do you think it is possible to use this all this heat in full to heat up a container plus its containing water ... plus some of the environment?
Marchello E.
-- May the force lift you up. In case it doesn't, try something else.---
-- May the force lift you up. In case it doesn't, try something else.---
re: A simple electric heater, which has efficiency greater t
So our 3rd black box is the Tesla battery.So, is 150KW of heat expended in the "black box" that is a Tesla battery?
Do you see any craters next to Tesla charging stations where cars used to be? A standard bar heater here is about 2.4KW. I wouldn't even like to subject a battery bank to that amount of heat.
Any electrical engineer that isn't an idiot knows that Watts in any electrical device doesn't translate to pure heat. So your premise that an electrical engineer will assume 16KJ of heat is incorrect.
re: A simple electric heater, which has efficiency greater t
To ME.
----------------------
Hi ME,
Thank you for your reply.
Please give me some time to consider carefully and thoroughly your post.
Best regards,
George
----------------------
Hi ME,
Thank you for your reply.
Please give me some time to consider carefully and thoroughly your post.
Best regards,
George