A simple electric heater, which has efficiency greater than 1

[PeterAX]

To WaltzCee.
------------------------------------
About making a real device. But such a real device is in plain sight of everybody. I will explain this in detail. Please read carefully and thoroughly the text below.
-------------------------------------
1) Have a look at your car's battery. What happens while you recharge it?
1A) Firstly, you generate Joule's heat. (Please refer to our previous posts.)
1B) Secondly, you generate hydrogen. If this hydrogen is burned/exploded, then a second portion of heat would be generated. (Please refer to our previous posts.)
1C) Thirdly, you store electric energy when the batterry is completely charged. If you connect the already completely charged battery to an ordinary Ohmic resistor (thus forming a circuit) and then if you discharge the battery, then a third portion of heat (this time again Joule's heat as in item 1A) would be generated.
--------------------------------------
2) In one word, we can write down that
(B + C)/(A) = 1.35 <=> (B + C + D)/(A) > 1.35 <=> Efficiency > 1.35
where
A = electric energy, which is consumed for recharging
B = first portion of heat, mentioned in item 1A
C = second portion of heat, mentioned in item 1B
D = third portion of heat, mentioned in item 1C
--------------------------------------
Simple, clear and understandable. Please refer again to our previous posts, if necessary.
--------------------------------------
3) As mentioned many times in our previous posts our DC electrolysis OU concept (which is our second technology breakthrough) is absolutely free.
--------------------------------------
4) Our third technology breakthrough however is not free. Let us remind again that our third technology breakthrough increases many times (twice as a minimum and more than 15 times as a maximum) the capacity of any standard now-existing battery. Our third technology breakthrough has both a theory and a working prototype. Our third technology breakthrough costs already $150,000,000. And this price will rise!
--------------------------------------
5) Dear WaltzCee, if you could arrange the successful selling of our third technology breakthrough, then we (our team) would acknowledge your superiority as the GREATEST technology information trader in the world! 10 % for you!
----------------------------------------
P. S. Besides we (our team) have designed another 7 technology breakthrough inventions, which are ready for selling too. (We are working now over our 11th invention.)

[Tarsier79]

So now everything has a COP of 1.35.

So if I fart in a jar then ignite it, and you calculate the chemical processes + energy required to force the fart past the sphincter, then add the heat and light from ignition: COP 1.35.

I understand now.

I am holding my breath for the other 6 technologies.

[WaltzCee]

You didn't follow it quite right, Tarsier79.

So if I fart in a jar then ignite it, . . .

You need to have skin in the game. Therefore you need to ignite it as it's escaping, setting
every hair down under on fire inflicting yourself with 3rd degree burns. Now add the energy
of your charred ass to the equation.

Hope that helps.

Also PeterlessAX, don't bother PMing me.

[PeterAX]

To WaltzCee and Tarsier79.
------------------------------------
You both always use one and same argument "This is impossible, because it is imppossible and that's all!". And this absurd argument is always followed by a long sequence of inappropriate jokes. It is simply impossible to have a serious discussion with you both.

[MrTim]

To PeterAX:
-----------------------

I list all of the flaws of your theory/device on page 13 of this topic. That you do not understand the fundamentals of the Law of Conservation of Energy is a failure that dooms your device before it can even start...

[Tarsier79]

George1, you always use the same argument and refuse to accept any argument that goes against your theory. Your mathematical "proof" is based on nothing but your own idiocy.

Further up on this thread:

Tarsier79 said:

The endothermic reaction is just another nail in the coffin for Arrogant georges COP1.3 heater.

Arrogant george, do you understand why this is a problem for your theory?

[PeterAX]

To Tarsier79.
------------------------------
You are demonstrating again your complete ignorance and your absolute lack of understanding of basic axioms of electric engineering.
------------------------------
Answer only one single question: If we assume that the inlet DC water-splitting electrolysis energy is equal to 100J, then what would be the value of this endothermic reaction effect, that is, how many Joules of heat must be drawn in from the electrolyte's surroundings?
------------------------------
All members of this forum are waiting for your "qualified" and "competent" answer.

[Tarsier79]

George1.

It doesn't matter how many joules. Your formula directly opposes an endothermic reaction.

You should get your imaginary team to adjust your formula again. It worked so well for you last time.

[eccentrically1]

Why would I want an electric heater that absorbed the heat from the room?
That defeats the purpose of having a heater. Maybe I’ve missed something from the first 26 pages

[ME]

[s]
In 26 pages we 'learned':
The Energy to power the heater + the heat-energy that's produced + Energy by absorbing the heat of the room = a surplus.

It may defeat the purpose of the heater but, hey, it is a surplus!
Now place many heaters in one room. In a yet undisclosed configuration, let all but one absorb the heat of each other.
Not only will the heaters work for free, but they'll also produce free heat for Baron Munchausen (by the way: not Münchhausen!).
[/s]

Is that about right George1/PeterAX?

[PeterAX]

To Tarsier79.
-----------------------------------
Answer my question: How many Joules of heat must be drawn in from the electrolyte's surroundings?
-----------------------------------
All members of this forum are waiting for your "qualified" and "competent" answer.

[PeterAX]

To eccentrically1.
------------------------------
Water electrolysis endothermic effect is actually a hypothesis (or at least this effect is so small that can be neglected), but Tarsier79 is an ignoramus and because of this he is not familiar with this simple fact. Because of ignorance and imcompetence Tarsier79 tries to convince all of us here in this forum that any standard water-splitting electrolyzer is actually a refrigerator. This is an absurd!

[PeterAX]

To ME.
---------------------------------------------
Water electrolysis endothermic effect is actually a hypothesis. I am trying now to convince Tarsier79 (by using a step-by-step convincing procedure), that this hypothesis is wrong, but Tarsier79 is ignorant and stubborn.

[WaltzCee]

To WaltzCee.
------------------------------------
About making a real device. But such a real device is in plain sight of everybody. I will explain this in detail. Please read carefully and thoroughly the text below.
-------------------------------------
1) Have a look at your car's battery. What happens while you recharge it?
1A) Firstly, you generate Joule's heat. (Please refer to our previous posts.)
1B) Secondly, you generate hydrogen. If this hydrogen is burned/exploded, then a second portion of heat would be generated. (Please refer to our previous posts.)
1C) Thirdly, you store electric energy when the batterry is completely charged. If you connect the already completely charged battery to an ordinary Ohmic resistor (thus forming a circuit) and then if you discharge the battery, then a third portion of heat (this time again Joule's heat as in item 1A) would be generated.
--------------------------------------
2) In one word, we can write down that
(B + C)/(A) = 1.35 <=> (B + C + D)/(A) > 1.35 <=> Efficiency > 1.35
where
A = electric energy, which is consumed for recharging
B = first portion of heat, mentioned in item 1A
C = second portion of heat, mentioned in item 1B
D = third portion of heat, mentioned in item 1C
--------------------------------------
Simple, clear and understandable. Please refer again to our previous posts, if necessary.
--------------------------------------
3) As mentioned many times in our previous posts our DC electrolysis OU concept (which is our second technology breakthrough) is absolutely free.
--------------------------------------
4) Our third technology breakthrough however is not free. Let us remind again that our third technology breakthrough increases many times (twice as a minimum and more than 15 times as a maximum) the capacity of any standard now-existing battery. Our third technology breakthrough has both a theory and a working prototype. Our third technology breakthrough costs already $150,000,000. And this price will rise!
--------------------------------------
5) Dear WaltzCee, if you could arrange the successful selling of our third technology breakthrough, then we (our team) would acknowledge your superiority as the GREATEST technology information trader in the world! 10 % for you!
----------------------------------------
P. S. Besides we (our team) have designed another 7 technology breakthrough inventions, which are ready for selling too. (We are working now over our 11th invention.)

[WaltzCee]

As I was re-reading the above post looking for spelling/grammatical errors my eagle eye
noticed BoyGeorgePeterlessAXe encoded a secret message!! How clever!!! Could we
expect less of this team of geniuses? I think not.

Dear WaltzCee, if you could arrange the
successful selling of our third technology breakthrough, then we (our team) would
acknowledge your superiority as the GREATEST technology
information trader in the world! 10 % for you!

--------------------------------------

Shucks, BoyGeorgePeterlessAXe.