A simple electric heater, which has efficiency greater than 1

[agor95]

As a general rule after a person reached the rating 'Should be Banned' the person is banned.

However I think we should keep this as an example.

So place why you think this person should be ignored then place the person in your ignore list.

Then any one visiting the site will see how one should not behave.

Also if a person is falsely using the forum as a form of validation then they will find the entry.

Note. Members, ignoring this person will help your piece of mind - take control and stop being abused. For that is what it is.

Regards

[George1]

To all amateurs in this forum.
--------------------------------------------
Hi everyone,
Have a look again at the book "Solved Problems in Physics", 2004, Volume 2, p. 876, solved problem 12.97. The author of this book is Prof. S. L. Srivastava (Ph.D.)
The same book can be found at the link https://books.google.bg/books?id=rrKFzL ... 22&f=false
--------------------------
For your convenience I am giving below the text of the problem and its solution.
--------------------------
12.97. In the electrolysis of sulphuric acid solution, 100 mg of hydrogen is liberated in a period of 20 minutes. The resistance of the electrolyte is 0.5 Ohm. Calculate the power consumed. Electrochemical equivalent of hydrogen is 1.044 x 10 -8 kg/C.
Solution: The power consumed is equal to 31.86 W.
Prof. S. L. Srivastava stops here his calculations.
(The related solution's set of equations is not given here in order to save time and space. This set of equations however can be found in the book or in the link above.)
--------------------------
WE DEVELOPED FURTHER PROF. SRIVASTAVA'S SOLVED PROBLEM IN A NON-STANDARD MANNER.
OUR FURTHER DEVELOPMENT OF PROF. SRIVASTAVA'S SOLVED PROBLEM LED TO COP > 1.
HERE IS THE ESSENCE OF OUR APPROACH.
--------------------------
1) Let us calculate the inlet energy, that is, inlet energy = (31.86 W) x (1200 s) = 38232 Ws = 38232 J.
2) Let us calculate the current I. The current I is given by I = (m)/(Z x t) = 7.9 A,
where
m = 0.0001kg of hydrogen
Z = electrochemical equivalent of hydrogen
t = 1200 s
3) The Joule's heat, generated in the process of electrolysis is given by
Q = I x I x R x t = (7.9 A) x (7.9 A) x (0.5 Ohm) x (1200 s) = 37446 J = outlet energy 1.
4) HHV of hydrogen is 142 000 000 J/kg. Therefore the heat H, generated by burning/exploding of 0.0001 kg of hydrogen, is given by
H = (142 000 000) x (0.0001) = 14200 J = outlet energy 2.
5) Therefore we can write down the equalities:
5A) outlet energy 1 + outlet energy 2 = 37446 J + 14200 J = 51646 J
5B) inlet energy = 38232 J.
6) Therefore COP is given by
COP = 51646 J/38232 J = 1.35 <=> COP = 1.35 <=> COP > 1.
------------------------------
Constant pure water and cooling agent supply could keep constant the electrolyte's temperature, heat exchange, mass and ohmic resistance, respectively.
Besides 0.0001 kg of hydrogen (and the related amount of the already split pure water) is small enough and can be neglected as a factor influencing the electrolyte's temperature, mass and ohmic resisitance.
-----------------------------
And one more interesting fact.
Literally the same solved problem can be found in an old Russian (still from the Soviet times) book "&#1057;&#1073;&#1086;&#1088;&#1085;&#1080;&#1082; &#1079;&#1072;&#1076;&#1072;&#1095; &#1080; &#1074;&#1086;&#1087;&#1088;&#1086;&#1089;&#1086;&#1074; &#1087;&#1086; &#1092;&#1080;&#1079;&#1080;&#1082;&#1077;", 1986, p. 130, solved example problem 71. The authors of this book are &#1056;. &#1040;. &#1043;&#1083;&#1072;&#1076;&#1082;&#1086;&#1074;&#1072; and &#1053;. &#1048;. &#1050;&#1091;&#1090;&#1080;&#1083;&#1086;&#1074;&#1089;&#1082;&#1072;&#1103;. In the Russian version the data is a little different, that is, time is 25 minutes, the amount of generated hydrogen is 150 mg, Ohmic resisitance is 0.4 Ohm and the calculated power is 37 W.
Russians also stopped their calculations at 37 W.
Our further development of the Russian version led to COP = 1.37, that is, we have again COP > 1.
-----------------------------
Therefore the text above unambiguously shows that it is a matter of exact experimental data which is in perfect accordance with theory. Because I cannot imagine that three highly qualified experts in physics (yet strongly separated by time, space and nationality) would have made one and same mistake three times in a row. This is impossible!"
-----------------------------
Do you have any theoretical (ONLY THEORETICAL!) objections against the text above?
YES OR NO?

[George1]

COP = 1.35 and COP = 1.37. A simple obvious fact. It unambiguously shows the incorrectness of the law of conservation of energy. (But you have to be a highly qualified expert in electrical engineering and in electrochemistry (or in physics as a whole) in order to understand what we are talking about.)
And yet the above mentioned obvious fact (COP = 1.35 and COP = 1.37) cannot gain popularity quickly and easily among the members of the official science community. Do you have an explanation of this absurd situation?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
P. S. Please look at our post of Sat Jul 04, 2020 11:29 am, in order to understand how the two equalities COP = 1.35 and COP = 1.37 has been generated.

[Tarsier79]

No-one can explain the absurd situation that makes crayon eating inbreds keep returning to this forum with their ill thought out scams. Perhaps you have found the formula for the "fountain of life", and should try consuming it.

[justsomeone]

Lol Tarsier! I would punch your greeny but already did long ago. I would punch George's red but I already did that also. &#128522;

[George1]

To justsomeone and Tarsier79.
------------------------------------------
I am tired of reading posts written by ignorants like Tarsier79 and justsomeone. You both need to educate seriously yourselves in the field of theoretical and applied physics. Otherwise you simply waste your time as well as the time of the other participants in this discussion. It's a shame! Why don't you firstly educate yourselves in the field of physics and just then to take part in this discussion?

[George1]

To all experts in this discussion.
----------------------------------------
COP = 1.35 and COP = 1.37. Seems to be correct. Any standard hydrogen generating electrolyzer is actually a heater which has efficiency bigger than 1. The question is why this simple obvious (and already publicly released) fact cannot gain popularity quickly and easily among the members of the official science community?

[MrTim]

A 0.02 difference is not remotely efficient. It's only 0.0148%. Yes, technically it's greater than 1, but hardly impressive, in fact, not at all, which may explain the lack of response from the "science community". If that's all you are offering for $40 to $50 million, then please let us know when the efficiency reaches the equivalent of $1 Billion. Until then, it is more efficient to get energy from burning the money... ;-)

[George1]

To MrTim.
-------------------------
Are you really so severely ignorant or you only imitate ignorance?!
Please read carefully our posts! You didn't read them at all! Why do you consider the equality 1.37 - 1.34 = 0.02, you ignorant!!!???
I am tired of explaining simple things for thousands of times!
-------------------------
1) According to official science efficiency (COP) is either equal or smaller than 1.
2) According to our new concept efficiency (COP) is equal to 1.35 and this follows directly from our further development of Prof. Srivastava's solved problem. The latter is described in our previous posts.
3) According to our new concept efficiency (COP) is equal to 1.37 and this follows directly from our further development of the Russian version of Prof. Srivastava's solved problem. The latter is described in our previous posts.
--------------------------
So please firstly, educate yourself in the field of physics, secondly, read carefully our posts and thirdly, just then take part in this discussion.

[Tarsier79]

Dear George.

We are the ignorant ones? Mate, I think you need to take a long hard look in the mirror. No, the person that lives in there and always yells at you is actually yourself. Yes, I know he looks like he is missing a chromosome or two. Just tell him to stop throwing his faeces at you...No, I don't want a taste. You can have it all yourself.

As you clearly have no idea on how to correctly measure and calculate electrical power, to avoid confusion in the future, I will now call you "Ignorant George".

Ignorant George, No-one here is stupid enough to give you a cent. Go pedal your stupidity at the local crack den where you got your education.

[justsomeone]

Ignorant George, I like that!
Still on topic Tarsier!

[George1]

To justsomeone and Tarsier79.
-----------------------------------------
Please answer only one simple question.
Do you have any theoretical (only theoretical!) objections against our further development of Prof. Srivastava's solved problem?
A simple question. Answer it.

[Tarsier79]

Yes. Lets talk after he tries to close the loop. I don't know the math, but I also know that most people that claim they do are just parrots. Also, pretty sure this should be "off topic", as I'm pretty sure electricity and hydrogen had no part in Besslers wheel.

[George1]

To Tarsier79.
--------------------------
You wrote:"I don't know the math..." My respect for your honesty!
You wrote:"...electricity and hydrogen had no part in Bessler wheel." And why not? This forum declares to be open for non-standard technology discussions of any kind. You try to be a censor?

[Robinhood46]

George1
If you had left the "as i'm pretty sure" in the quote, your critisism would have made no sense.
Tarsier shared his opinion that he thinks electricity and hydrogen had no part in Bessler wheel. I fully agree with his opinion.
His point was that he thinks your waffling on about your project has nothing to do with Bessler's wheel, therefore it should be in the off topic section of this forum. Which i also agree with.
Most of us here are open to versions of PM that are not related to Bessler's wheel, therefore your project does have a place on this forum.
The trying to get money out of us doesn't have a place on this forum, unless there is a section for it that i am not aware of.
Maybe "fraud" would be the most appropriate.