A simple electric heater, which has efficiency greater than 1

[George1]

To ME.
-----------------------------
1) Please read carefully my posts!:) If (V x I x t) is equal to (I x I x R x t), then
equation (1B) cannot be true and must be replaced with the inequation
V x I x t < (I x I x R x t) + (Z x I x t x (HHV)) + (X) (1B1).
2) Good idea! Let us substract (V x I x t) and (I x I x R x t) from both sides of inequation (1B1) (and not from both sides of equation (1B)). The result of this substracting will be the inequation 0 < (Z x I x t x (HHV)) + (X) (1B2).
The last inequation (1B2) perfectly corresponds to reality.
3) You obviously develop the basic concept. Welcome to our team!
Looking forward to your answer.

[George1]

To ME.
-----------------------------
1) Please read carefully my posts!:) If (V x I x t) is equal to (I x I x R x t), then
equation (1B) cannot be true and must be replaced with the inequation
V x I x t < (I x I x R x t) + (Z x I x t x (HHV)) + (X) (1B1).
2) Good idea! Let us substract (V x I x t) and (I x I x R x t) from both sides of inequation (1B1) (and not from both sides of equation (1B)). The result of this substracting will be the inequation 0 < (Z x I x t x (HHV)) + (X) (1B2).
The last inequation (1B2) perfectly corresponds to reality.
3) You obviously develop the basic concept. Welcome to our team!
Looking forward to your answer.

[Tarsier79]

So, you want us to carefully read and understand your posts. Your formulas are meaningless and show your complete lack of understanding of what they are supposed to represent, yet you ignore every post that clearly explains their poor creation and implementation. Your ignorance is only surpassed by your misplaced arrogance.

Once again your latest formula is not representative of energy distribution in an electrolysis system. 0 is smaller than any amount of wattage + some other rubbish. Well done Einstein! Changing an equal sign to a smaller than symbol doesn't make the rest of the formula correct, or relate to anything in the real world.

[ME]

[deleted]
George,
Earlier in this reply I attempted to squeeze the last remaining sense out of it in the hope you get some insights in how you constructed this thing.
Unfortunately even after we removed that pesky input energy that formula [eq 1B2] is even more wrong than I can ever try to make right.

Thus, as a conclusion that remains even when we do try to indulge the initial validity of that equation, it still makes no sense.
And then we even skip the units factor.
You could continue guestimating new variants all you want, I just don't see how it will help you figuring this thing out.

[Tarsier79]

George.

I was going to propose a formula, and I still can if you like. The problem is, creating a formula doesn't prove anything, especially without evidence to back it up. My belief it should go something like this:

Total Power = Hydrogen production cost + Heat

Let us go back to basics:

You are trying to prove OU in electrolysis. Here we are at page 20 with nothing to show for our effort. Proof is in repeatable and measurable experimentation. That is how science works. If you want to change perception, the burden of proof is on you to prove your theory with fact, hard physical evidence and math to back it up. Notice I said math last? It can be first as a theory, but is nothing without the rest.

[George1]

THIS DISCUSSION IS FOCUSED SOLELY AND ONLY ON STANDARD DC WATER-SPLITTING ELECTROLYSIS! AND ON NOTHING ELSE!
===================
Let us try another THEORETICAL (ONLY THEORETICAL!!!!!!!) approach.
----------------------------------
1) V = I x R (6-1). This is Ohm's law, which is absolutely valid for any solid, liquid and gaseous conductor. Ohm's law is the basic axiom of electric engineering and there is no doubt about its validity.
---------------------------------
2) Let us multiply both sides of equality (6-1) by (I x t), that is,
V = I x R (6-1) <=> V x (I x t) = I x R x (I x t) (6-2) <=>
<=> V x I x t = I x I x R x t (6-3).
---------------------------------
3) The last equality (6-3) is the manifestation of the first Joule's law, (a) which directly derives from Ohm's law, (b) which is the second basic axiom of electric engineering and (c) which is absolutely valid for any solid, liquid and gaseous conductor. There is no doubt about the validity of the first Joule's law.
---------------------------------
4) In a standard DC water-splitting electrolysis however, while current flows through the electrolyte (which is a liquid conductor), a certain amount of hydrogen of mass m is released. The mathematical expression of this process is given by the equality m = Z x I x t (6-4).
---------------------------------
5) If the released hydrogen of mass m is burned/exploded, then an additional portion of heat H is generated. The mathematical expression, related to the generation of this additional portion of heat H, is given by the equality H = m x (HHV) = Z x I x t x (HHV) (6-5).
---------------------------------
6) Therefore in order to keep the correctness of the input/output energy ratio of the process we have to add (Z x I x t x (HHV)) to the right side of equality (6-3), that is,
V x I x t = I x I x R x t (6-3) <=>
<=> V x I x t < (I x I x R x t) + (Z x I x t x (HHV)) (6-6).
--------------------------------
7) Another additional portion of energy X is necessary (a) for splitting of water molecules into hydrogen and oxygen atoms, (b) for collateral chemical reactions due to the impurity of the electrolyte, (c) for forming of bubbles etc., etc. Therefore we can write down the inequality
V x I x t < (I x I x R x t) + (Z x I x t x (HHV)) + (X) (6-7).
--------------------------------
8) Inequality (6-6) is an obvious violation of the law of conservation of energy for any standard DC water-splitting electrolysis process. The same for inequality (6-7).
====================
DO YOU HAVE ANY THEORETICAL (ONLY THEORETICAL!!!!!) OBJECTIONS AGAINST THE TEXT ABOVE?
====================
THIS DISCUSSION IS FOCUSED SOLELY AND ONLY ON STANDARD DC WATER-SPLITTING ELECTROLYSIS! AND ON NOTHING ELSE!

[ME]

Well, what you actually need is a practical experiment for you to check against.

Also... you came up with this PEM.
From several Wikipedia pages you can familiarize yourself with the basic THEORY:

• The PEM electrolyzer was introduced to overcome the issues of partial load, low current density, and low pressure operation currently plaguing the alkaline electrolyzer.[
  Electrolysis requires minerals to be present in solution. Tap, well, and ground water contains various minerals, some of which are alkaline while others are acidic.
  Real water electrolyzers require higher voltages for the reaction to proceed. The part that exceeds 1.23 V[38] is called overpotential or overvoltage, and represents any kind of loss and nonideality in the electrochemical process.
  The electrolysis of water in standard conditions requires a theoretical minimum of 237 kJ of electrical energy input to dissociate each mole of water, which is the standard Gibbs free energy of formation of water. It also requires energy to overcome the change in entropy of the reaction. Therefore, the process cannot proceed below 286 kJ per mol if no external heat/energy is added.
  
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polymer_e ... ectrolysis
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alkaline_ ... ectrolysis
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrolysis_of_water

Your attempt is totally shy of the above...
But more than that, you assume that the Input "V x I x t" from your powersupply returns unharmed as "I x I x R x t"

The issue here is not standard electrolysis, but BASIC ELECTRONICS..
Your input has a Voltage-potential of "V", while the output has a Voltage-potential of 0, in relativity.
The "R", from resistor, is actually the rest of the electrolysis circuit.
This "R" at the right-side of your "equation" is different from the implied"R" at the left-side of your "equation".
The implied "R" on the left side is actually the whole circuit.

We keep telling, that's why your equation is INVALID IN THEORY.

[MrTim]

Alas, but I have come to believe that George1 is making his own water for his simple electric heater, and that is where the extra energy is coming from... ;-)

[George1]

Let us get back to the first variation of our theoretical proof. It is given below again and is surrounded/limited up and down by double dashed lines.
====================
IMPORTANT NOTE. THIS DISCUSSION IS FOCUSED SOLELY AND ONLY ON DC WATER-SPLITTING ELECTROLYSIS! AND ON NOTHING ELSE!
============================
1) The correct equation, related to the law of conservation of energy in any standard DC water-splitting electrolysis process, is
V x I x t = (I x I x R x t) + (Z x I x t x (HHV)) + (X) (1B),
where
V x I x t = input energy = electric energy, which is generated by the DC source, and which is consumed by the electrolyzer
I x I x R x t = Q = Joule's heat, which is generated by the electrolyzer = output energy 1
Z x I x t x (HHV) = output energy 2 = heat, which is generated by burning/exploding of the released hydrogen
X = output energy 3 = sum of all additional energies, which are necessary (a) for splitting of water molecules into hydrogen and oxygen atoms, (b) for collateral chemical reactions due to the impurity of the electrolyte, (c) for forming of bubbles etc., etc.
----------------------------------
2) It is evident from the above equality (1B) that (V x I x t) is the sum and that (I x I x R x t), (Z x I x t x (HHV)) and (X) are the addends, respectively.
----------------------------------
3) According to the rules of standard arithmetic the sum is always bigger than any of the addends (forming that same sum). Therefore the
sum (V x I x t) is bigger than the addend (I x I x R x t). Therefore we can write down the inequality V x I x t > I x I x R x t (2B).
----------------------------------
4) Now let us divide both sides of inequality (2B) by (I x t), that is,
V x I x t > I x I x R x t (2B) < = >
< = > (V x I x t)/(I x t) > (I x I x R x t)/(I x t) (3B) < = >
< = > V > I x R (4B).
-----------------------------------
5) The last inequality (4B) shows a severe violation of Ohm's law. (Because the correct mathematical expression for Ohm's law is V = I x R (5B).)
-----------------------------------
6) The obvious invalidity of inequality V > I x R (4B) directly leads to the invalidity of equality V x I x t = (I x I x R x t) + (Z x I x t x (HHV)) + (X) (1B). Therefore the law of conservation of energy is not valid in this particular water-splitting electrolysis case. (Any rule/law has its exceptions and there is nothing special, tragic and disturbing in this fact.)
------------------------------------
IMPORTANT NOTE. THIS DISCUSSION IS FOCUSED SOLELY AND ONLY ON DC WATER-SPLITTING ELECTROLYSIS! AND ON NOTHING ELSE!
------------------------------------
DO YOU HAVE ANY THEORETICAL (ONLY THEORETICAL!) OBJECTIONS AGAINST THE TEXT ABOVE?
====================
Simply answer my last question.

[ME]

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

We did answer many times before...
George, please run an update or a systems check, you're stuck in a loop again!!

Despite your one-dimensional view, let me try to find new ways of explaining.
My previous explanation why it was wrong made more sense, but as your "formula" is wrong on multiple levels we can answer it at multiple levels.
(This exercise likely benefits me more than it will help you understand).

a) You need energy to separate stuff, so (b) you increase the potential;
c) It's never efficient, so some energy will be irretrievably lost.
d) You sometimes need a little energy to tickle the separated potential so (e) it can collapse again;
f) When it collapses it may generate some additional irretrievable components

a = b + c
b + d = e +f

Scenario 1.
So you lift a ball from the ground (a), where you increase its gravitational potential energy (b) plus you'll have some friction losses (c).
That ball is put on a skyscraper, and it sits there happily.
You give it a little push (d), and it rushes to the ground (e).
With a loud bang (f) it hits the ground, it may heat up a bit, rises up, falls back again and hits the ground again until a full stop (It's more an auto-reiteration of the whole process).
It only looks as if you get the resulting velocity and that bang and that rebound and that repeated bang for free, but that's basically the crux of the potential energy and kinetic energy equivalence. Look into it!

Scenario 2.
So apply a current to an electrolyte/solution (a), where you increase the intermolecular potential (b) plus you'll have some losses (c) by the circuit and bubble formation.
The gaseous ionic result from the electrolysis can be put in different containers, or even mixed in a single one.
You give it a spark (d), and it cascades into a burn / explosion. (e)
Light and pressure waves (f) are also generated in this process.


To translate this back to your "formula", with:

• 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
  • (X.a) for splitting of water molecules into hydrogen and oxygen atoms,
    (X.b) for collateral chemical reactions due to the impurity of the electrolyte,
    (X.c) for forming of bubbles etc., etc.

a :: your "V x I x t"
b :: Your "I x I x R x t" which is equal to your "X.a"
c :: Your "X.b" plus "X.c"
d :: (a missing spark as input)
e+f :: Your "Z x I x t x (HHV)"

And we can fill this into the previous set:
a = b + c
b + d = e +f

In the best case scenario your formula has to look like something this:

V x I x t &#8776; (I x I x R x t) + X.b + X.c
(I x I x R x t) + (d) &#8776; Z x I x t x (HHV)

In case you might wonder WHY your theoretical hypothesis is WRONG:
It's wrong because you take the same situation, "name" them differently, add them up, and call it a triple surplus
But, as you somewhat "explained" yourself: "I x I x R x t" &#8776; "X.a" &#8776; "Z x I x t x (HHV)"

[Tarsier79]

George, what electrolyte are you using. We all know pure water doesn't conduct electricity. You forgot to add this into your formula. (even without this your formula is wrong.)

Yes, As ME said, we have said this all before. We have explained the stupidity of your initial formula. Your theoretical messerschmitt lies at the bottom of the sea before you have even finished the first draft, which looks like a kinder garden kid drew it finger painting.

I not only object to your formula, I also object to this entire thread.

[George1]

To ME.
--------------------------------
You are obviously an agent of the official science mafia. You bombed all of us here in this forum with absurd hypotheses and deliberately hidden theoretical errors. How much did they pay you? Shame on you!

[George1]

To all other members of this forum who are not agents of the official science mafia.
-------------------------------------
Do you accept the simple obvious fact that the two related equalities
V = I x R <=> V x I x t = I x I x R x t are perfectly valid for any solid, liquid or gaseous conductor?
Looking forward to your answer

[ME]

Seemingly you're out of ideas.
Projection and attempted name-calling is the only childish angle of defense you have left.
But dude, chill. I'm not attacking you! Just your so-called "formula".
I'm one of the few here who tries to add a little bit of value to your random misconceptions.
It is actually more profitable to let you struggle and crash all by yourself.

But if this all makes you vulnerable and insecure I will stop for a while. Let's see how it goes.

Regards,

• Science Agent Marchello E.

.

[Tarsier79]

Do you accept the simple obvious fact that the two related equalities
V = I x R <=> V x I x t = I x I x R x t are perfectly valid for any solid, liquid or gaseous conductor?

So, replace "<=>" with "Therefor"? Then you quote a power formula twice.

Then, is it valid for....... Yes. It is valid for the input side of the equation.