A simple electric heater, which has efficiency greater than 1

[Tarsier79]

However it seems odd that a grown man would be sitting in a 2 ft high baby enclosure in the center of the lounge room, drooling rainbow colours, munching on crayons and be capable of more than just mashing a keyboard with both palms to the beat of the Sesame Street theme song.

[George1]

To ME.
--------------------------
Hi ME,
Hi dear colleague,
Yes, you are absolutely right that some additional aspects of the problem have to be further clarified and discussed. And here they are.
--------------------------------------
1) Actually the correct equation is
V x I x t = (I x I x R x t) + (Z x I x t x (HHV)) + (X) (1B),
where
V x I x t = input energy = electric energy, which is generated by the DC source, and which is consumed by the electrolyzer
I x I x R x t = Q = Joule's heat, which is generated by the electrolyzer = output energy 1
Z x I x t x (HHV) = output energy 2 = heat, which is generated by burning/exploding of the released hydrogen
X = output energy 3 = sum of all additional energies, which are necessary (a) for splitting of water molecules into hydrogen and oxygen atoms, (b) for collateral chemical reactions due to the impurity of the electrolyte, (c) for forming of bubbles etc., etc.
----------------------------------
2) It is evident from the above equality (1B) that (V x I x t) is the sum and that (I x I x R x t), (Z x I x t x (HHV)) and (X) are the addends, respectively.
----------------------------------
3) According to the rules of standard arithmetic the sum is always bigger than any of the addends (forming that same sum). Therefore the
sum (V x I x t) is bigger than the addend (I x I x R x t). Therefore we can write down the inequality V x I x t > I x I x R x t (2B).
----------------------------------
4) Now let us divide both sides of inequality (2B) by (I x t), that is,
V x I x t > I x I x R x t (2B) < = >
< = > (V x I x t)/(I x t) > (I x I x R x t)/(I x t) (3B) < = >
< = > V > I x R (4B).
-----------------------------------
5) The last inequality (4B) as if shows a violation of Ohm's law. Because the correct mathematical expression for Ohm's law is V = I x R (5B), isn't it?
----------------------------------
Everything in the above considerations seems to be logically and mathematically correct, doesn't it? What is your opinion?
(I am not pressing you to accept the validity of anything at once. We are simply seeking for the truth together. I am not in a hurry. I will be patient. I promise.:))
Looking forward to your answer.
Respectfully yours,
George

[George1]

To Tarsier79.
------------------------------
Did you take your medicine this morning?:)

[Tarsier79]

Arrogant george.

Ohm's law proves your equation is complete rubbish, not the other way around. Your equation is even based on ohm's law to start with..... And you have proved it wrong? Ha ha.

[George1]

To Tarsier79.
-----------------------
Take your medicine.

[Tarsier79]

Arrogant george.

Perhaps Ohms law is correct, but you proved math wrong?

Hey, does anyone have a spare Nobel Prize?

[George1]

To Tarsier79.
---------------------------
The obvious invalidity of inequality V > I x R (4B) directly leads to the invalidity
of equality V x I x t = (I x I x R x t) + (Z x I x t x (HHV)) + (X) (1B). (Please refer to our post of Thu Dec 03, 2020 9:43 am.) Do you accept this simple fact?
--------------------------
The answer of the above question will be a straightforward test for your mental health.
So all we here in this forum are waiting for your answer.

[Tarsier79]

My mental health is mutually exclusive to this thread. Regardless, you are the last person anyone should seek anything from.

V=IR is an equality. It is also a proven fact.

Your formula is nonsense. That is also a proven fact.

[George1]

To Tarsier79.
--------------------------
But if equality V = I x R is valid, then equality
V x I x t = (I x I x R x t) + (Z x I x t x (HHV)) + (X) cannot be true, you ignoramus! Take your medicine. Double dose! Even triple!:)

[George1]

To Tarsier79.
--------------------------
But if equality V = I x R is valid, then equality V x I x t = (I x I x R x t) + (Z x I x t x (HHV)) + (X) cannot be true, you ignoramus! Take your medicine. Double dose! Even triple!:)

[Tarsier79]

Ha ha. You are right again! I just said that: your formula is complete rubbish. That is 2 times this thread you have been correct.

I was going to ignore you, but your stupidity is too funny. Please do go on.

[George1]

To Tarsier79.
-----------------------------
1) V = I x R (5B). This is Ohm's law.
------------------------------
2) Let us multiply both sides of the above equality by (I x t), that is,
V = I x R (5B) < = > V x (I x t) = I x R x (I x t) (5C) < = >
< = > V x I x t = I x I x R x t (5D).
-------------------
3) If equality (5D) is valid, then you try to convince all of us here in this forum that in equality V x I x t = (I x I x R x t) + (Z x I x t x (HHV)) + (X) (1B) the sum (V x I x t) is equal to the addend (I x I x R x t). So I am 100 percent sure already that you are sending your posts from a hospital for mental deceases. I will find your doctor and I will ask him to cut off your Internet connection!:) Take regularly your medicine! Quadruple dose!:)

[Tarsier79]

This formula is slightly different to the other one of yours, but it is still nonsense for the same reason.

I started reading your explanation of the math, then my eyes glazed over. I then looked at your equation and instantly saw stupidity. Both myself and ME have explained why it is rubbish. Your new slightly altered equation or simplified (I don't care which) still has the same issue your old one does.

If you were the math genius you believe yourself to be, you should be able to see the problem. Or maybe you can go ask your core math teacher.

George, Although my previous guess was that you were a 17 year old school girl, can I change my guess to 15?

[Robinhood46]

I have no choice other than to guess 16 now, so i guess i lose.

[ME]

When we are on the lookout for a perpetual motion mechanism, while also desperately trying to keep things realistic, we usually have to walk a very thin line.
Sometimes we fall off and end-up on the leftside, the rightside, both sides, or nowhere at all.
More than often there was this mechanism or a principle and we thought: of course this must work.
And then we worked it out. Created some physical resembling thingy. Gave it a go. And so often saw it fail.
These tiny little blindspot-mistakes are so incredibly fascinating.
Without getting a feeling of full-fledged paranoia to our own actions, what if we were so immensely close and then at that last observing moment the scientific confirmation bias leaped in?
What made us think it was so workable in the first place.
Is it possible to operate on that edge of infinite possibilities, not fall off, go through the door... and enter the twilightzone?

Anyway, when (V x I x t) is equal to (I x I x R x t), as stated in 5D, then we can subtract either of them from both sides of equation 1B.
It should tell us something about this X parameter.
But what?