A simple electric heater, which has efficiency greater than 1

[WaltzCee]

So many questions, so few answers. My question is How Many Times Do You Have to Slap
a Chicken to Cook It?

You might think what a dumb question. Why don't you just boil it or put it in an oven or start
a fire? Good questions.

Suppose you're in the wild and you don't know how to make a fire. You catch a wild
chicken. What are you going to do? Starve to death?

As you slap the chicken you'll transfer kenetic energy to the chicken and it will manifest as
heat energy. For some actual math look here.
https://www.wired.com/story/how-many-ti ... o-cook-it/

Having said that, Leafy, don't try to do math. Leave it to the experts.

[WaltzCee]

George1 wants to discuss theoretical ideas about electrolysis. It seems to me he's
attempting to establish a discipline that frankly has left him in so much dust.

What can be said? I'll say it. Bull shit. If you want to discuss efficiency use the terms of the
existing industry. Stop making things up!


https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrolysis_of_water

Industrials output
Efficiency of modern hydrogen generators is measured by energy consumed per standard volume of hydrogen (MJ/m3), assuming standard temperature and pressure of the H2. The lower the energy used by a generator, the higher its efficiency would be; a 100%-efficient electrolyser would consume 39.4 kilowatt-hours per kilogram (142 MJ/kg) of hydrogen,[24] 12,749 joules per litre (12.75 MJ/m3). Practical electrolysis (using a rotating electrolyser at 15 bar pressure) may consume 50 kW⋅h/kg (180 MJ/kg), and a further 15 kW⋅h (54 MJ) if the hydrogen is compressed for use in hydrogen cars.[25]

Electrolyzer vendors provide efficiencies based on enthalpy. To assess the claimed efficiency of an electrolyzer it is important to establish how it was defined by the vendor (i.e. what enthalpy value, what current density, etc.).

There are two main technologies available on the market, alkaline and proton exchange membrane (PEM) electrolyzers. Alkaline electrolyzers are cheaper in terms of investment (they generally use nickel catalysts), but less efficient; PEM electrolyzers, conversely, are more expensive (they generally use expensive platinum-group metal catalysts) but are more efficient and can operate at higher current densities, and can, therefore, be possibly cheaper if the hydrogen production is large enough.

Conventional alkaline electrolysis has an efficiency of about 70%.[26] Accounting for the accepted use of the higher heat value (because inefficiency via heat can be redirected back into the system to create the steam required by the catalyst), average working efficiencies for PEM electrolysis are around 80%.[27][28] This is expected to increase to between 82–86%[29] before 2030. Theoretical efficiency for PEM electrolysers are predicted up to 94%.[30]

Considering the industrial production of hydrogen, and using current best processes for water electrolysis (PEM or alkaline electrolysis) which have an effective electrical efficiency of 70–80%,[31][32][33] producing 1 kg of hydrogen (which has a specific energy of 143 MJ/kg) requires 50–55 kW⋅h (180–200 MJ) of electricity. At an electricity cost of $0.06/kW·h, as set out in the US Department of Energy hydrogen production targets for 2015,[34] the hydrogen cost is $3/kg. With the range of natural gas prices from 2016 as shown in the graph (Hydrogen Production Tech Team Roadmap, November 2017) putting the cost of steam-methane-reformed (SMR) hydrogen at between $1.20 and $1.50, the cost price of hydrogen via electrolysis is still over double 2015 DOE hydrogen target prices. The US DOE target price for hydrogen in 2020 is $2.30/kg, requiring an electricity cost of $0.037/kW·h, which is achievable given 2018 PPA tenders[35] for wind and solar in many regions. This puts the $4/gasoline gallon equivalent (gge) H2 dispensed objective well within reach, and close to a slightly elevated natural gas production cost for SMR.

In other parts of the world, the price of SMR hydrogen is between $1–3/kg on average. This makes production of hydrogen via electrolysis cost competitive in many regions already, as outlined by Nel Hydrogen[36] and others, including an article by the IEA[37] examining the conditions which could lead to a competitive advantage for electrolysis.

This really isn't the forum for such an advanced science.

[ovyyus]

This really isn't the forum for such an advanced science.

Why not? It's surprising how much animosity this alt-energy thread generates in our alt-energy discussion group. Next there'll be demands that everyone use the correct technical terms for their wacky theories :P

FWIW, I don't think George1/PeterAX is a fraud. Someone driven by a strong belief (in whatever) can be wrong and still be honest.

[PeterAX]

No serious and reasonable questions as far as I can see. ( Inappropriate comments, imitating qualification and expertise in electric engineering, are neglected.)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So let us proceed further with our explanations, which we started in our previous post.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1) Another basic axiom of electric engineering states that all LIQUID conductors (electrolytes) generate a great variety of additional effects (while direct current flows through them, i.e. while electrolysis takes place). Most frequently occurring and most important of these additional effects are as follows.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1A) Additional effect 1. Transferring of metals from one electrode to the other. Examples of such metals are silver, zinc, copper, aluminium, nickel, chrome, gold, iron, sodium and magnesium.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1B) Additional effect 2. Generation of chlorine.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1C) Additional effect 3. Generation of oxygen.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1D) Additional effect 4. Generation of hydrogen.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1E) Additional effect 5. Some combination of the above four.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2) Let us consider firstly additional effect 1. Having in mind our previous post, we can write down that:
A) Each second the standard LIQUID conductor consumes electric energy, which is equal to 1J, that is, (1A) x (1A) x (1Ohm) = 1J/s.
B) Each second the standard LIQUID conductor generates Joule's heat, which is equal to 1J, that is, (1A) x (1A) x (1Ohm) = 1J/s.
C) Each second the standard LIQUID conductor transfers copper (or any of the above mentioned metals) from one electrode to the other.
Question: Can we burn/explode in some way the transferred copper in order to generate each second some additional portion of heat?
Answer: No, we can't. Metals are not inflammable under normal conditions.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3) Let us consider now additional effect 2. Having in mind our previous post, we can write down that:
A) Each second the standard LIQUID conductor consumes electric energy, which is equal to 1J, that is, (1A) x (1A) x (1Ohm) = 1J/s.
B) Each second the standard LIQUID conductor generates Joule's heat, which is equal to 1J, that is, (1A) x (1A) x (1Ohm) = 1J/s.
C) Each second the standard LIQUID conductor generates a certain amount of chlorine.
Question: Can we burn/explode in some way the generated chlorine in order to generate each second some additional portion of heat?
Answer: No, we can't. Chlorine is aggressive and dangerous for human health, but it is not inflammable under normal conditions.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4) Let us consider additional effect 3. Having in mind our previous post, we can write down that:
A) Each second the standard LIQUID conductor consumes electric energy, which is equal to 1J, that is, (1A) x (1A) x (1Ohm) = 1J/s.
B) Each second the standard LIQUID conductor generates Joule's heat, which is equal to 1J, that is, (1A) x (1A) x (1Ohm) = 1J/s.
C) Each second the standard LIQUID conductor generates a certain amount of oxygen.
Question: Can we burn/explode in some way the generated oxygen in order to generate each second some additional portion of heat?
Answer: No, we can't. Oxygen supports the process of burning, but it is not inflammable by itself under normal conditions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5) Let us consider additional effect 4. Having in mind our previous post, we can write down that:
A) Each second the standard LIQUID conductor consumes electric energy, which is equal to 1J, that is, (1A) x (1A) x (1Ohm) = 1J/s.
B) Each second the standard LIQUID conductor generates Joule's heat, which is equal to 1J, that is, (1A) x (1A) x (1Ohm) = 1J/s.
C) Each second the standard LIQUID conductor generates a certain amount of hydrogen.
Question: Can we burn/explode in some way the generated hydrogen in order to generate each second some additional portion of heat?
Answer: Yes, we can. And here is the exception. If we burn/explode hydrogen immediately after its releasing, then we could generate each second 0.35J of additional heat.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5-1) Therefore, having in mind the text above, we can write down that:
A) Each second the standard LIQUID conductor consumes electric energy, which is equal to 1J, that is, (1A) x (1A) x (1Ohm) = 1J/s.
B) Each second the standard LIQUID conductor generates Joule's heat, which is equal to 1J, that is, (1A) x (1A) x (1Ohm) = 1J/s.
C) Each second the standard LIQUID conductor generates a certain amount of hydrogen.
D) Each second the released hydrogen is burned/exploded immediately after its releasing.
E) Each second the burning/exploding released hydrogen generates 0.35J of additional heat, that is, 0.35J/s.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5-2) In one word:
5-2A) The inlet electric energy, consumed each second, is equal to 1J/s.
5-2B) The outlet heat, generated each second, is equal to 1J/s + 0.35J/s = 1.35J/s.
5-2C) Efficiency = (1.35J/s.)/(1J/s) = 1.35 <=> Efficiency > 1.
5-2D) The latter is in perfect accordance with our further development of Prof. S. L. Srivastava's solution. (Please refer to our previous posts.)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Everything seems to be clear now, doesn't it? Please ask questions, if any. BUT QUESTIONS REASONABLE AND QUESTIONS, THAT SHOW GOOD UNDERSTANDING OF BASIC AXIOMS OF ELECTRIC ENGINEERING. WE WILL NOT ANSWER STUPID AND/OR PROVOCATIVE QUESTIONS.

[PeterAX]

To WaltzCee.
---------------------------
What are you talking about in your last post? All you have written is correct, more or less, but it has nothing to do with the focus of our discussion. Please read carefully our last two posts, if possible.

[WaltzCee]

FWIW, I don't think George1/PeterAX is a fraud. Someone driven by a strong belief (in whatever) can be wrong and still be honest.

Now, now there. Do you really believe that? This is going to be difficult but let me see if I
can dumb it down to a level even someone like you can grok while simultaneously not
snapping your tenuious feelings to hell and back.

Did I have to put it that way? No. It's a sales tactic. Similar to what George1/PeterAX has
been using throughout this thread with their condescending and professorial manner.

George1/PeterAX is blathering on like some transplant from the 19th century trying to sell
everyone on, and I quote the frikken thread title:

A simple electric heater, which has
efficiency greater than 1

This is the stuff inspiring Hommer Simpson episodes.

Next there'll be demands that everyone use the correct technical terms for their wacky theories :P

Well let's do that. Fast forward this Alessandro Volta into the 21st century and come to
find out they do the accounting of energy in a very different manner. Who are they? They're
the movers and shakers of a miltibillion industry. People that have more than just an idea
for sale.

So how could someone protect this idea which is nothing more than an energy shell game
these fraudsters are attempting to pedal. Well you can't. It might be different if
George1/PeterAX had an actual device for sale. They don't.

Suppose these dolts actually had a device for sale. Who would buy their energy shell
game pitch explanation. No thinking person would. Why? Because when their first power bill
came and they put a pencil to it and had to write the check it would become painfully clear
they had been had.

George1/PeterAX are fraudsters. Their threads should be shoveled into into the fraud
section. There is no real need to examine their beliefs or integrity. It maybe they're just
plain stupid.

[WaltzCee]

To WaltzCee.
---------------------------
What are you talking about in your last post? All you have written is correct, more or less, but it has nothing to do with the focus of our discussion. Please read carefully our last two posts, if possible.

Sorry to bother you. You can get back to slapping your chicken.

Cook it baby.

[ovyyus]

Did I have to put it that way? No. It's a sales tactic. Similar to what George1/PeterAX has been using throughout this thread with their condescending and professorial manner.

If it gets your knickers in such a twist then you could simply not participate in their topics?

[WaltzCee]

If it gets your knickers in such a twist then you could simply not participate in their topics?

Non, non, non, mon cher. If someone wants to start a thread, they have to expect people
are going to share their opinions. That's what a forum is for.

[ovyyus]

Yes, opinions are easy.

[WaltzCee]

It's not opinion these dickweeds compute efficiency differently than people who are
actually making serious jack in this industry.

I have a proposal. Make the device. Put together a business plan. I know investors willing
to invest 2 million USD to help them develop it.

I'd want 10% finders fee.

What you say, dickweeds?

Eta: I don't suppose there's much to worry about there. There's a big difference between an
idea and something that works.

You can have the last word

[ovyyus]

Now every dickweed with a 'working' device will be knocking on your door with a business plan :D

[PeterAX]

To WaltzCee and ovyyus.
-------------------------------
1) Your last posts show already a normal approach to this discussion. Thank you for this!
2) We (our team) will consider carefully your last posts and will answer you in the nearest future.

[PeterAX]

To WaltzCee.
-------------------------------
1) 10 % for you? Agree.
2) We keep discussing the rest part of your proposal (related to making a device, a businessplan, etc.). I'll write to you in the nearest future.

[WaltzCee]

PM me.