A simple electric heater, which has efficiency greater than 1

[PeterAX]

To eccentrically1.
-------------------------------
PM means "Private Messages", doesn't it? I have never used this option. Need some time to consider it carefully and see how it works.

[WaltzCee]

how to plug it in

To eccentrically1.
-------------------------------
PM means "Private Messages", doesn't it? I have never used this option. Need some time to consider it carefully and see how it works.

You are so, ah how do you say in English, friggin stupid. Yes, friggin stupid.

[ME]

Futile discussion continued....

To ME.
----------------------------
Hi ME,
1) You wrote: "What does it actually mean to accept the validity of all your theoretical conceptions?"
----------------------------
2) But ME, as if we have started our discussion just five minutes ago!:) On the contrary, within a period of two years a bunch of different theoretical approaches was presented here. And each of these theoretical approaches lead unambiguously to the fact, that any standard water-splitting electrolysis process can be used as a heater, which has efficiency bigger than 1. And most important -- each of the related texts always ended with the sentence: "Do you have any theoretical (only theoretical!) objections against the validity of the text above?"
-----------------------------
3) Within a period of two years there wasn't any serious, qualified and reasonable objection against the validity our basic theoretical concept.
-----------------------------
4) So what are we talking about then? I can't understand your question "What does it actually mean to accept the validity of all your theoretical conceptions?".

As if we started this discussion 5 minutes ago.
I, and others, gave reasons enough pages and pages back.
The answer is: yes.

I can't understand your question "What does it actually mean to accept the validity of all your theoretical conceptions?".

Sure you don't.
It is your own question, and you don't 'understand' the consequences of an answer.
(Most here are aware of that)

Most are here because we are skeptical of some Physics theory.
If we had to believe theory on face-value then we wouldn't be here and instead happy with the fact that Perpetual Motion and OU are futile endeavours to pursue.
But here we are...

What it means is that you need a practical design so you can put your own theory to the test:
- Independent of the duration of your claim;
- independent of how many times you repeat your claim;
- independent of how anyone else thinks of your theory;
- independent of how you personally think of your theory;

Only with measured data you'll know. Not sooner.

[Robinhood46]

A futile resistance...

Do you accept the validity of our theoretical OU conception, related to standard DC water-splitting electrolysis?

What does it actually mean to accept the validity of all your theoretical conceptions?
Will a practical device suddenly pop into existence?

That is an excellent point ME.
At least it is worth giving it a try, what do we have to lose?

PeterAX, I accept the validity of George 1's theory.

[WaltzCee]

To eccentrically1.
------------------------------------
Hi there,
Welcome to our team! How do you prefer to keep contacting? To exchange emails in some way as a next step?

Never click on a link in an email from PeterAX.

[ME]

Never click on any email-link from unexpected sources or those you think is suspicious.

Created a new topic: /Offtopic/Check your URL/
Or click here: https://www.besslerwheel.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=8613

[WaltzCee]

Or click here: https://www.besslerwheel.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=8613

Hummm, I think I just clicked on a suspicious link.

[PeterAX]

Ok, let us recapitulate our many-months correspondence and summarize it in one single text. And this text is given below.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
1) Let us connect a standard DC source to a standard conductor thus forming a circuit.
--------------------------------------
2) We can write down the following two related equalities
V = I x R (1) <=> V x I x t = I x I x R x t (2),
where
V = voltage of the DC source
I = direct current, which flows through the conductor
R = Ohmic resistance of the conductor
t = time period, within which direct current flows through the conductor
----------------------------------------
3) Equality (1) is the mathematical expression of the Ohm's law.
-----------------------------------------
4) Equality (2) is the mathematical expression of the Joule's law of heating.
----------------------------------------
5) Equality (2) can be derived from equality (1) by multiplying both sides of (1) by (I x t).
-----------------------------------------
6) And vice versa, equality (1) can be derived from equality (2) by dividing both sides of (2) by (I x t).
-----------------------------------------
7) Equalities (1) and (2) are absolutely valid for any standard solid, liquid or gaseous conductor.
-----------------------------------------
8) BUT standard liquid and gaseous (and even "vacuum"(!)) conductors have some special features, which are as follows.
----------------------------------------
8A) Liquid conductors. The minimum DC voltage, which is necessary for a standard DC water-splitting electrolysis to occur, is equal to 1.23 V.
----------------------------------------
8B) Gaseous conductors. The minimum DC voltage, which is necessary for a spark (or arc) to occur, is equal to 2 kV, where 2 kV = 2,000 V.
---------------------------------------
8C) "Vacuum" conductors. The minimum DC voltage, which is necessary for a direct current to flow through vacuum, is equal to 400 kV, where 400 kV = 400,000 V. This is the case of the so called cold-cathode emission.
---------------------------------------
Note. As if some kind of approximate and (for the present) vague tendency is on its way to be shaped: the lesser the mass dencity and/or hardness of a conductor, the bigger the minimum DC voltage, which is necessary for a direct current to flow through this same conductor.
--------------------------------------
9) A certain portion of hydrogen is generated while standard DC water-splitting electrolysis takes place. And if this portion of hydrogen is burned/exploded, then a certain portion of heat H is generated. Therefore we can write down the equality
H = Z x I x t x HHV (3),
where
H = heat, which is generated if the released hydrogen is burned/exploded
Z = electrochemical equivalent of hydrogen
I = direct current, which flows through the electrolyte while standard DC water-splitting electrolysis takes place
t = time period, within which standard DC water-splitting electrolysis takes place
HHV = higher heating value of hydrogen
---------------------------------------
10) Let us add (3) to the right side of (2) thus forming the inequality
V x I x t < (I x I x R x t) + (Z x I x t x HHV) (4).
---------------------------------------
11) As a further development of our basic concept let us consider the standard process of recharging of a standard car's battery. In this case in addition to the releasing of hydrogen we store electric energy E. And further, (1) if we disconnect the charger from the already fully charged battery and (2) if we connect the already fully charged battery to a standard copper wire load for example (thus forming a circuit), and (3) if we discharge the battery, then the stored electric energy E transforms entirely into a second additional portion of Joule's heat K. Therefore we can add K to the right side of (4) thus forming the inequality
V x I x t < (I x I x R x t) + (Z x I x t x HHV) + (K) (5).
--------------------------------------
12) In one word, inequalities (4) and (5) unambiguously show that any standard DC water-splitting electrolysis process can be considered as a heater, whose efficiency is bigger than 1.
=====================
Everything seems to be clear now, doesn't it? How many times must we explain simple obvious things?

[Tarsier79]

The only thing that is clear, is that you do not understand electrolysis.

[PeterAX]

To Tarsier79.
----------------------------------
Hi, Nobel prize winner:),
Is that all you can say as a response to my last post? You demonstrate a shocking ignorance again! Your masters will not pay your month's salary and even worse, they may beat you seriously! You have to run quickly!
And don't forget to take your medicine. Quadruple dose!:)

[ME]

Projections.

How many times must we explain simple obvious things

Well, it is already obvious for all of us.
You are the only one who desires this repetition.

Maybe best for you to start some experiments to see how your theory holds up in practice.

[Tarsier79]

I am no nobel prize winner, but I do work through my theories and build physical models to prove/disprove them. I also have no need to pretend to have a team of experts working on them, nor would I try to sell my theories for $1M without physical proof.

[PeterAX]

Please look again at our post of Mon Feb 22, 2021 1:45 pm. Three formulas are written there and these three formulas are as follows:
---------------------------------
V = I x R (1)
V x I x t = I x I x R x t (2)
H = Z x I x t x HHV (3)
---------------------------------
Do the above three formulas need experimental validation?

[eccentrically1]

The third one does.
The formulas I found for this topic are here:

https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy10osti/47302.pdf

scroll down to the relevant sections - Water electrolysis and Voltage Efficiency of Electrolysis Cells and Stacks.

Quote, from Voltage section:

"The problem is that it takes both electricity and heat to split water electrochemically and the heat is not being included in the above calculation of the energy input."

When you don't provide all the info for a calculation, or a simulation, you get "nonsense" -
i.e., efficiencies greater than 1, excess energy, excess momentum, etc., whatever one finds.

This is always shown in experimental validation. The experiment never lies - precisely because it isn't prone to miscalculation found in theories like this one.

[Tarsier79]

Yes, 2, because you incorrectly apply it to electrolysis.

3 because things aren't always as simyas you think they are.