Hi Robinhood46,
Thank you for your reply.
Yes, you are right -- I am stopping speaking about money in this forum. Let us focus on technology.
-------------------------------
1) COP = 1.35. This means that the inlet energy is 1 J and the outlet energy is 1.35 J. Simple and clear.
2) COP = 1.37. This means that the inlet energy is 1 J and the outlet energy is 1.37 J. Simple and clear again.
3) In one word, there is an iron-made theoretical (THEORETICAL ONLY!) evidence that the law of conservation of energy is not correct in this particular case.
-------------------------------
What is your personal opinion about this?
A simple electric heater, which has efficiency greater than 1
Moderator: scott
re: A simple electric heater, which has efficiency greater t
Deep silence again? Incompetence tries to ban a discussion related to an electric device which has efficiency greater than 1? I do not believe that this will happen. This forum seems to be open for any new and non-standard technology discussion of any kind, doesn't it?
re: A simple electric heater, which has efficiency greater t
COP = 1.35. This means that the inlet energy is 1 J and the outlet energy is 1.35 J. Simple and clear.
re: A simple electric heater, which has efficiency greater t
Pretty sure no-one wants to listen to your BS. Your heater is BS, your math is BS, no one is going to give you money.
If your heater has COP 1.35, use it to drive a stirling with a generator and close the loop.
If your heater has COP 1.35, use it to drive a stirling with a generator and close the loop.
re: A simple electric heater, which has efficiency greater t
To Tarsier79.
______________________________
We do not need money. We need only public recognition of our overunity heater theoretical conception. The latter however cannot be evaluated by ignorants like you. Firstly educate seriously yourself in the field of physics and just then take part in this discussion. I am sure that one of your basic principle in life is "This is impossible because it is impossible and that's all." A really iron-made logic! Congratulations for this!
______________________________
We do not need money. We need only public recognition of our overunity heater theoretical conception. The latter however cannot be evaluated by ignorants like you. Firstly educate seriously yourself in the field of physics and just then take part in this discussion. I am sure that one of your basic principle in life is "This is impossible because it is impossible and that's all." A really iron-made logic! Congratulations for this!
-
Robinhood46
- Devotee
- Posts: 1671
- Joined: Tue Oct 31, 2017 9:22 am
- Location: Lot, France
re: A simple electric heater, which has efficiency greater t
George,
I know this is a bit off topic, but, are you mad? As in as nutty as a fruit cake not angry.
I know this is a bit off topic, but, are you mad? As in as nutty as a fruit cake not angry.
re: A simple electric heater, which has efficiency greater t
To Robinhood46.
-----------------------
You have nothing to do with Robin Hood. You are simply a poor servant of the BIG MAFIA. How much do your masters pay to you?
-----------------------
You have nothing to do with Robin Hood. You are simply a poor servant of the BIG MAFIA. How much do your masters pay to you?
re: A simple electric heater, which has efficiency greater t
Dear Ignorant george"This is impossible because it is impossible and that's all." A really iron-made logic! Congratulations for this!
Your words not mine. Because you have credited me with a conclusion that is clearly not mine, from now on I will be using a non-capitalised "G" and am now using george as an adjective.
Please shower us with your superior knowledge before I give you my credit card details.
I have adopted the Meditating Buddha pose in anticipation of your enlightenment, in the hope I may grasp just a morsel of the wisdom that spews forth as from a fountain.
Before we go any further, could you instruct us which end we should listen to? ...No, that is a serious question based on previous observation.
re: A simple electric heater, which has efficiency greater t
Iron-maid logic?
https://vimeo.com/94953721
Can I play with madness? Sure!Look for something that is hard to find
Searching somewhere deep inside your mind
Hope you find just what you're looking for
When the River Runs Deep
https://vimeo.com/94953721
Marchello E.
-- May the force lift you up. In case it doesn't, try something else.---
-- May the force lift you up. In case it doesn't, try something else.---
re: A simple electric heater, which has efficiency greater t
Well, here are my instructions.:)
Follow these instructions strictly!:)
Here we are talking only about an electric heater, which has efficiency bigger than 1.
Please read carefully the text below. Let us try another approach.
---------------------------------
1) According to official science if a standard DC source is connected to a standard conductor (no matter solid, liquid or gaseous), then the energy consumed by the conductor (this energy is called the inlet energy) turns entirely into Joule's heat (this heat is called outlet energy 1). Therefore we can write down the equality inlet energy = outlet energy 1. And nobody checks experimentally the validity of this equality. EVERYBODY TAKES IT FOR GRANTED!
--------------------------------------------------
2) In any standard DC water electrolysis process however (while current passes through the water electrolysis electrolyte (which is a liquid conductor)) a portion of hydrogen is released and if this portion of hydrogen is burned/exploded, then an additional portion of heat is generated. This additional portion of heat is called outlet energy 2.
--------------------------------------------------
3) Having in mind the above items 1 and 2 we can write down the inequality inlet energy < outlet energy 1 + outlet energy 2, which unambiguously shows that the sum of the two outlet energies is bigger than the inlet energy, that is, efficiency > 1. (And this is what we have discovered by our further development of Prof. S. L. Srivastava's solved problem.)
--------------------------------------------------
4) In one word, nobody checks experimentally the validity of the equality inlet energy = outlet energy 1. EVERYBODY TAKES IT FOR GRANTED! (Please look again at item 1.) Therefore it is not necessary to check experimentally the validity of the inequality inlet energy < outlet energy 1 + outlet energy 2 as it directly results from the equality inlet energy = outlet energy 1.
--------------------------------------------------
Do you accept the validity of the above considerations? Yes or no?
Looking forward to your answer.
Regards,
George
---------------------------------------------------
P.S. The proper understanding of the text above does not need special knowledge in math, electric enginnering and electrochemistry. It needs only a careful reading and a simple logic.
Follow these instructions strictly!:)
Here we are talking only about an electric heater, which has efficiency bigger than 1.
Please read carefully the text below. Let us try another approach.
---------------------------------
1) According to official science if a standard DC source is connected to a standard conductor (no matter solid, liquid or gaseous), then the energy consumed by the conductor (this energy is called the inlet energy) turns entirely into Joule's heat (this heat is called outlet energy 1). Therefore we can write down the equality inlet energy = outlet energy 1. And nobody checks experimentally the validity of this equality. EVERYBODY TAKES IT FOR GRANTED!
--------------------------------------------------
2) In any standard DC water electrolysis process however (while current passes through the water electrolysis electrolyte (which is a liquid conductor)) a portion of hydrogen is released and if this portion of hydrogen is burned/exploded, then an additional portion of heat is generated. This additional portion of heat is called outlet energy 2.
--------------------------------------------------
3) Having in mind the above items 1 and 2 we can write down the inequality inlet energy < outlet energy 1 + outlet energy 2, which unambiguously shows that the sum of the two outlet energies is bigger than the inlet energy, that is, efficiency > 1. (And this is what we have discovered by our further development of Prof. S. L. Srivastava's solved problem.)
--------------------------------------------------
4) In one word, nobody checks experimentally the validity of the equality inlet energy = outlet energy 1. EVERYBODY TAKES IT FOR GRANTED! (Please look again at item 1.) Therefore it is not necessary to check experimentally the validity of the inequality inlet energy < outlet energy 1 + outlet energy 2 as it directly results from the equality inlet energy = outlet energy 1.
--------------------------------------------------
Do you accept the validity of the above considerations? Yes or no?
Looking forward to your answer.
Regards,
George
---------------------------------------------------
P.S. The proper understanding of the text above does not need special knowledge in math, electric enginnering and electrochemistry. It needs only a careful reading and a simple logic.
-
MrTim
- Aficionado
- Posts: 924
- Joined: Thu Nov 06, 2003 11:05 pm
- Location: "Excellent!" Besslerwheel.com's C. Montgomery Burns
- Contact:
re: A simple electric heater, which has efficiency greater t
1) According to official science if a standard DC source is connected to a standard conductor (no matter solid, liquid or gaseous), then the energy consumed by the conductor (this energy is called the inlet energy) (...)
---------------------------
This is commonly called 'resistance' by those familiar with electronics... ;-)
Your 'equation' should read "inlet (input) energy - resistance = outlet energy 1" (where outlet energy is always less than inlet (i.e. input) energy.)
-----------------------------------
2) In any standard DC water electrolysis process however (while current passes through the water electrolysis electrolyte (which is a liquid conductor)) a portion of hydrogen is released and if this portion of hydrogen is burned/exploded, then an additional portion of heat is generated. This additional portion of heat is called outlet energy 2.
------------------------------------
How much energy is required to continuously ignite the hydrogen released? Where is it coming from? (Electrolysis is not an instantaneous process, otherwise it forms, well, an instant bomb. ;-)
How much energy (heat) is lost by being absorbed by the device's structure and surrounding electrolyte? (i.e. cooling effect) Is the electrolyte limited in quantity, or is an 'infinite' supply assumed?
---------------------------------------
3) Having in mind the above items 1 and 2 we can write down the inequality inlet energy < outlet energy 1 + outlet energy 2, which unambiguously shows that the sum of the two outlet energies is bigger than the inlet energy, that is, efficiency > 1. (And this is what we have discovered by our further development of Prof. S. L. Srivastava's solved problem.)
--------------------------------------------------
Sorry, it looks good if you read it fast, but when you start taking into account the (overlooked) energy losses, the validity appears to be less than 1...[/i]
---------------------------
This is commonly called 'resistance' by those familiar with electronics... ;-)
Your 'equation' should read "inlet (input) energy - resistance = outlet energy 1" (where outlet energy is always less than inlet (i.e. input) energy.)
-----------------------------------
2) In any standard DC water electrolysis process however (while current passes through the water electrolysis electrolyte (which is a liquid conductor)) a portion of hydrogen is released and if this portion of hydrogen is burned/exploded, then an additional portion of heat is generated. This additional portion of heat is called outlet energy 2.
------------------------------------
How much energy is required to continuously ignite the hydrogen released? Where is it coming from? (Electrolysis is not an instantaneous process, otherwise it forms, well, an instant bomb. ;-)
How much energy (heat) is lost by being absorbed by the device's structure and surrounding electrolyte? (i.e. cooling effect) Is the electrolyte limited in quantity, or is an 'infinite' supply assumed?
---------------------------------------
3) Having in mind the above items 1 and 2 we can write down the inequality inlet energy < outlet energy 1 + outlet energy 2, which unambiguously shows that the sum of the two outlet energies is bigger than the inlet energy, that is, efficiency > 1. (And this is what we have discovered by our further development of Prof. S. L. Srivastava's solved problem.)
--------------------------------------------------
Sorry, it looks good if you read it fast, but when you start taking into account the (overlooked) energy losses, the validity appears to be less than 1...[/i]
"....the mechanism is so simple that even a wheel may be too small to contain it...."
"Sometimes the harder you look the better it hides." - Dilbert's garbageman
re: A simple electric heater, which has efficiency greater t
I have already researched this area. Electrolysis is fairly inefficient. The heat created by the process is part of the inefficiency. It takes more energy to make the hydrogen than can be extracted from it by burning it.
Both scientists and engineers have studied this extensively in the field of hydrogen powered vehicles, the costs and efficiency of extracting and storing hydrogen vs charging a battery. IMO, Hydrogen is a far superior technology, but its costs and risks involved are prohibitive.
As an electronics technician, firstly for safety's sake, and for my own piece of mind, I never take anyone's word for anything without investigating myself. IE. "The power has been disconnected, it is safe to cut that wire." or more related to Bessler: potential energy to kinetic energy conversion math, etc.
IMO, as yet you have provided no evidence worth me pursuing further.
Both scientists and engineers have studied this extensively in the field of hydrogen powered vehicles, the costs and efficiency of extracting and storing hydrogen vs charging a battery. IMO, Hydrogen is a far superior technology, but its costs and risks involved are prohibitive.
As an electronics technician, firstly for safety's sake, and for my own piece of mind, I never take anyone's word for anything without investigating myself. IE. "The power has been disconnected, it is safe to cut that wire." or more related to Bessler: potential energy to kinetic energy conversion math, etc.
IMO, as yet you have provided no evidence worth me pursuing further.
re: A simple electric heater, which has efficiency greater t
To Mr. Tim.
------------------------
You do not make difference between resistance and energy.
I am shocked!!!!!
I will not discuss this matter with you any more.
------------------------
You do not make difference between resistance and energy.
I am shocked!!!!!
I will not discuss this matter with you any more.
re: A simple electric heater, which has efficiency greater t
To Tarsier79.
----------------------
Dear Tarsier79,
Thank you for your reply.
1) All you have written is absolutely correct. There is no doubt about this. But we are simply talking about different things. So I would like to ask you to read carefully again the post before my last post. If you like please also replace "according to the official science" with "according to the Joule's first law".
2) If you like I am ready to discuss with you the post before my last post item by item. It is necessary to have only some knowledge in electric engineering and in electrochemistry.
3) Please look also at our further development of Prof. S. L. Srivastava's solved problem (the latter can be found in our previous posts), which directly leads to efficiency = 1.35.
Looking forward to your answer.
----------------------
Dear Tarsier79,
Thank you for your reply.
1) All you have written is absolutely correct. There is no doubt about this. But we are simply talking about different things. So I would like to ask you to read carefully again the post before my last post. If you like please also replace "according to the official science" with "according to the Joule's first law".
2) If you like I am ready to discuss with you the post before my last post item by item. It is necessary to have only some knowledge in electric engineering and in electrochemistry.
3) Please look also at our further development of Prof. S. L. Srivastava's solved problem (the latter can be found in our previous posts), which directly leads to efficiency = 1.35.
Looking forward to your answer.
re: A simple electric heater, which has efficiency greater t
Please look at the following five links below.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrical_conductor
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kilowatt-hour
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joule
https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joule%27s_laws
https://www.homerenergy.com/products/pr ... iency.html
The first link explains what is a conductor.
The second link explains what is a kilowhatt-hour (kWh).
The third link explains what is a Joule (J).
The fourth link gives the first Joule's law definition.
The fifth link gives some experimental data, that is, the electric energy, consumed by a standard hydrogen generator and the heat, generated by the released hydrogen, if the latter is burned/exploded. According to this fifth link a standard industrial water-splitting electrolyzer consumes 50 kWh of electric energy in order to produce 1kg of hydrogen. And if this 1 kg of hydrogen is burned/exploded, then the generated heat is 39.4 kWh, respectively.
----------------------------------------------
Please read very, very carefully the texts in the above links and understand very well what they are explaining exactly. And just then proceed to the text below.
----------------------------------------------
1) Let us assume that the first Joule's law is correct. Therefore 50 kWh of electric energy transforms entirely into 50 kWh of Joule's heat and in addition 1 kg of hydrogen is released, which if burned/exploded, generates 39.4 kWh of heat. So it is evident that the inlet energy is 50 kWh and the outlet energy is
50 kWh +39.4 kWh and we can write the inequality 50 kWh < 50 kWh + 39.4 kWh, that is, efficiency > 1. This is a technology breakthrough revolution 1.
----------------------------------------------
2) Let us assume that the law of conservation of energy is correct. In this case we have to write down the equality 50 kWh = 10.6 kWh + 39.4 kWh, where
10.6 kWh is the generated Joule's heat. It is evident that 50 kWh > 10.6 kWh and therefore the first Joule's law is not correct. This is a technology breakthrough revolution 2.
----------------------------------------------
3) Let us assume that the generated Joule's heat is smaller than 10.6 kWh. In this case both the law of conservation of energy and the first Joule's law are not correct. This is a technology breakthrough revolution 3.
----------------------------------------------
4) Let us assume that the generated Joule's heat is bigger than 10.6 kWh but smaller than 50 kWh. In this case both the law of conservation of energy and the first Joule's law are not correct. This is a technology breakthrough revolution 4.
----------------------------------------------
5) Let us assume that the generated Joule's heat is bigger than 50 kWh. In this case both the law of conservation of energy and the first Joule's law are not correct. This is a technology breakthrough revolution 5.
----------------------------------------------
6) In one word, it doesn't matter what will be your experimental results, related to the measurements of the generated Joule's heat. In any case you will have either
(a) a technology breakthrough revolution 1 or (b) a technology breakthrough revolution 2 or (c) a technology breakthrough revolution 3 or (d) a technology breakthrough revolution 4 or (e) a technology breakthrough revolution 5.
----------------------------------------------
(Note. In your calculations you can replace kWh with J (1 kWh = 3 600 000 J), but the facts will remain the same.)
-----------------------------------------------
7) Actually the experimental data are available (supposed to be guaranteed by the hydrogen generators' manufacturers) and it is only necessary to look at these experimental data and draw the related simple conclusions.
-----------------------------------------------
Everything seems to be correct, doesn't it?
-----------------------------------------------
Looking forward to your answer.
George
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrical_conductor
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kilowatt-hour
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joule
https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joule%27s_laws
https://www.homerenergy.com/products/pr ... iency.html
The first link explains what is a conductor.
The second link explains what is a kilowhatt-hour (kWh).
The third link explains what is a Joule (J).
The fourth link gives the first Joule's law definition.
The fifth link gives some experimental data, that is, the electric energy, consumed by a standard hydrogen generator and the heat, generated by the released hydrogen, if the latter is burned/exploded. According to this fifth link a standard industrial water-splitting electrolyzer consumes 50 kWh of electric energy in order to produce 1kg of hydrogen. And if this 1 kg of hydrogen is burned/exploded, then the generated heat is 39.4 kWh, respectively.
----------------------------------------------
Please read very, very carefully the texts in the above links and understand very well what they are explaining exactly. And just then proceed to the text below.
----------------------------------------------
1) Let us assume that the first Joule's law is correct. Therefore 50 kWh of electric energy transforms entirely into 50 kWh of Joule's heat and in addition 1 kg of hydrogen is released, which if burned/exploded, generates 39.4 kWh of heat. So it is evident that the inlet energy is 50 kWh and the outlet energy is
50 kWh +39.4 kWh and we can write the inequality 50 kWh < 50 kWh + 39.4 kWh, that is, efficiency > 1. This is a technology breakthrough revolution 1.
----------------------------------------------
2) Let us assume that the law of conservation of energy is correct. In this case we have to write down the equality 50 kWh = 10.6 kWh + 39.4 kWh, where
10.6 kWh is the generated Joule's heat. It is evident that 50 kWh > 10.6 kWh and therefore the first Joule's law is not correct. This is a technology breakthrough revolution 2.
----------------------------------------------
3) Let us assume that the generated Joule's heat is smaller than 10.6 kWh. In this case both the law of conservation of energy and the first Joule's law are not correct. This is a technology breakthrough revolution 3.
----------------------------------------------
4) Let us assume that the generated Joule's heat is bigger than 10.6 kWh but smaller than 50 kWh. In this case both the law of conservation of energy and the first Joule's law are not correct. This is a technology breakthrough revolution 4.
----------------------------------------------
5) Let us assume that the generated Joule's heat is bigger than 50 kWh. In this case both the law of conservation of energy and the first Joule's law are not correct. This is a technology breakthrough revolution 5.
----------------------------------------------
6) In one word, it doesn't matter what will be your experimental results, related to the measurements of the generated Joule's heat. In any case you will have either
(a) a technology breakthrough revolution 1 or (b) a technology breakthrough revolution 2 or (c) a technology breakthrough revolution 3 or (d) a technology breakthrough revolution 4 or (e) a technology breakthrough revolution 5.
----------------------------------------------
(Note. In your calculations you can replace kWh with J (1 kWh = 3 600 000 J), but the facts will remain the same.)
-----------------------------------------------
7) Actually the experimental data are available (supposed to be guaranteed by the hydrogen generators' manufacturers) and it is only necessary to look at these experimental data and draw the related simple conclusions.
-----------------------------------------------
Everything seems to be correct, doesn't it?
-----------------------------------------------
Looking forward to your answer.
George