A simple electric heater, which has efficiency greater than 1

[PeterAX]

To Wubby.
------------------------------
Nice comment!:) Appreciate your sense of humour!:) Welcome to our team and join us, if you like! We need people like you!:)

[PeterAX]

A member of another forum sent to me a very interesting text. And here is this text.
========================================================
Beginning of the text
---------------------------
"Reciprocal catalyzation consumes fuel but gives back more energy.
The ballistic resonance allows a short lived beam, or millions of them in the case of RC, but that produces energy by collecting what's already there into focus feely via polarizing of the light. You get more energy than is put in by temporarily cancelling the inverse square law. This can continuously heat up a nucleus but the fusion reaction catalyzes ballistic resonance enough to sustain it.
Annihilation catalyzation is even better, and lasts longer, but requires quantum tunnelling, controlled quantum tunnelling. We're a Dyson swarm ways off from that. You teleport one electrical operation into a second and teleport it back, effective parallel operations."
----------------------------
End of the text
=========================================================
What do you think about the text above? Any opinions? Another chemical process of COP > 1?
Looking forward to your comments.

[WaltzCee]

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

[MrTim]

A member of another forum sent to me a very interesting text. And here is this text.
========================================================
Beginning of the text
---------------------------
"Reciprocal catalyzation consumes fuel but gives back more energy.
The ballistic resonance allows a short lived beam, or millions of them in the case of RC, but that produces energy by collecting what's already there into focus feely via polarizing of the light. You get more energy than is put in by temporarily cancelling the inverse square law. This can continuously heat up a nucleus but the fusion reaction catalyzes ballistic resonance enough to sustain it.
Annihilation catalyzation is even better, and lasts longer, but requires quantum tunnelling, controlled quantum tunnelling. We're a Dyson swarm ways off from that. You teleport one electrical operation into a second and teleport it back, effective parallel operations."
----------------------------
End of the text
=========================================================
What do you think about the text above? Any opinions? Another chemical process of COP > 1?
Looking forward to your comments.

You need to stay at that forum, where their level of horsesh*t matches your own. We obviously (and you've stated as much) don't understand your flawed theory, so go play with your other friends and stop bothering us; You have no credibility here...

[PeterAX]

To MrTim.
----------------------------
I will call your doctor not to allow you to leave the hospital!:)
Anyway I am extremely glad that you are writing to me again!:) Let us push forward together the technology progress!:)
Regards,

[PeterAX]

COP = 1.37 <=> COP > 1. Valid for any standard water-splitting electrolysis process. Seems to be obvious.

[WaltzCee]

...................................................................................................................
....
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
this is a test
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

I mean it. Just can't finger it out.

[MrTim]

COP = 1.37 <=> COP > 1. inValid for any standard water-splitting electrolysis process. Seems to be obviously wrong.

Corrected that for you. You still do not include the 80% efficiency of electrolysis (I'm being generous; It's actually 79%. ;-) You may re-read pg 13 of this topic to see your flaw laid out.

But we see there is no reasoning with you, Emperor PeterAX/George1/George Sen; No one wants to look at you anymore. At least put some pants on & stop embarassing yourself... ;-)

[PeterAX]

To MrTim and WaltzCee.
===============================
Hi there,
Hi champions,
Hi Nobel prize winners,
I am always extremely happy when I receive posts from you both!:) Besides you are both top-experts in any science and I cannot compare with you in any way!:)
--------------------------------------------------------
But you both have obviously forgotten my last post of Thu May 20, 2021 8:01 pm. Let me refresh your (obviously extremely weak:)) memory. Read carefully and thoroughly the text below!
--------------------------------------------------------
Prof. S. L. Srivastava's solution is given below.
Prof. S. L. Srivastava's solution consists of two lines only.
LINE 1. Current through the electrolyte is given by I = (m)/(Z x t).
LINE 2. Power consumed = (I) x (I) x (R) = ((m)/(Z x t)) x ((m)/(Z x t)) x (R) = 31.86 W.
================================
I am asking you (PERSONALLY!) my question for the 10th time: Is Prof. S. L. Srivastava's solution correct? Yes or no? Only one word -- either "yes" or "no"!
----------------------------------------
I am waiting for your PERSONAL(!) answer for the 10th time. Only one word -- either "yes" or "no"!

[WaltzCee]

...................................................................................................................
....
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
this is a test
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

I mean it. Just can't finger it out.

and I'm asking you for the umpteenth time, you sarcastic bastards, if you know you have
such a fantastical idea, what is preventing the implementation of it?

Is the problem your wiener and it's diminuatve stature? I ask and ask yet you never answer.
Why do you insist to these guessing games?

ETA
was that personal enough for you?

[PeterAX]

To WaltzCee.
======================
"Why do you insist to these guessing games?"
---------------------------------------
These are not "guessing games"! This is a fundamental science, you stubborn ignoramus! And stop taking part in this discussion, because you resemble already a clown!

[WaltzCee]

...................................................................................................................
....
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
this is a test
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

I mean it. Just can't finger it out.

and I'm asking you for the umpteenth time, you sarcastic bastards, if you know you have
such a fantastical idea, what is preventing the implementation of it?

Is the problem your wiener and it's diminuatve stature? I ask and ask yet you never answer.
Why do you insist to these guessing games?

ETA
was that personal enough for you?

Exactly as I guessed. NDS (Needle Dick Syndrome)

[MrTim]

I am asking you (PERSONALLY!) my question for the 10th time: Is Prof. S. L. Srivastava's solution correct? Yes or no? Only one word -- either "yes" or "no"!
----

The answer is NO, it is NOT correct. This therefore ends any further discussion. You must learn there is no division or multiplication by zero. Your solution is not correct.

[PeterAX]

To MrTim and WaltzCee.
===============================
Hi Nobel prize winners,
--------------------------------------------------------
Let us start with our questions again.
--------------------------------------------------------
Prof. S. L. Srivastava's solution is given below.
Prof. S. L. Srivastava's solution consists of two lines only.
LINE 1. Current through the electrolyte is given by I = (m)/(Z x t).
LINE 2. Power consumed = (I) x (I) x (R) = ((m)/(Z x t)) x ((m)/(Z x t)) x (R) = 31.86 W.
================================
I am asking you (PERSONALLY!) my question for the 11th time: Is Prof. S. L. Srivastava's solution correct? Yes or no? Only one word -- either "yes" or "no"!
----------------------------------------
I am waiting for your PERSONAL(!) answer for the 11th time. Only one word -- either "yes" or "no"!

[WaltzCee]

...................................................................................................................
....
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
this is a test
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

https://www.downloadcloud.com/circuit-s ... tware.html
Design the circuit and they will come.