A simple electric heater, which has efficiency greater than 1

A Bessler, gravity, free-energy free-for-all. Registered users can upload files, conduct polls, and more...

Moderator: scott

Post Reply
User avatar
MrTim
Aficionado
Aficionado
Posts: 923
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

Post by MrTim »

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.
----------------------------------------------
Sorry, but no. As highlighted in red above, the 50 kWh (of heat) is consumed to produce 39.4 kWh of heat. The 50 kWh ("inlet energy") is lost as work to produce the hydrogen. (50 kWh - 50 kWh = 0.0) so 0.0 + 39.4 kWh = efficiency less than 1 (or only about 79%) One could conclude that burning the hydrogen is actually cooling the reaction (averaging 50 kWh + 39.4 kWh / 2 ='s 44.7 kWh) i.e the 50 kWh "inlet energy" does not carry through to become "outlet energy".
Also remember that heat energy flows from hotter to cooler... ;-)
"....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
George1
Aficionado
Aficionado
Posts: 383
Joined: Wed Jan 03, 2018 1:40 pm

re: A simple electric heater, which has efficiency greater t

Post by George1 »

To MrTim.
------------------------------
I would like to ask every competent person in this forum to consider carefully the text below. It is written by MrTim.
========================
Beginning of the text
--------------------------------
"Sorry, but no. As highlighted in red above, the 50 kWh (of heat) is consumed to produce 39.4 kWh of heat. The 50 kWh ("inlet energy") is lost as work to produce the hydrogen. (50 kWh - 50 kWh = 0.0) so 0.0 + 39.4 kWh = efficiency less than 1 (or only about 79%) One could conclude that burning the hydrogen is actually cooling the reaction (averaging 50 kWh + 39.4 kWh / 2 ='s 44.7 kWh) i.e the 50 kWh "inlet energy" does not carry through to become "outlet energy".
Also remember that heat energy flows from hotter to cooler... ;-)"
--------------------------------
End of the text
=======================
1)MrTim, are you crazy? What are you talking about? You are talking nonsense. I am really shocked by your severe ignorance and pathological stubbornness.
2) I told you already that I will not discuss this matter with you because you do not make difference between energy and resistance.
3) Firstly educate yourself seriously in the field of physics and just then take part in this discussion. Otherwise you are simply wasting the time of all competent members of this forum. It's a shame!
User avatar
MrTim
Aficionado
Aficionado
Posts: 923
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

Post by MrTim »

In thermal science, heat transfer is the passage of thermal energy from a hot to a cold body. When a physical body, e.g. an object or fluid, is at a different temperature than its surroundings or another body, transfer of thermal energy, also known as heat transfer, occurs in such a way that the body and the surroundings reach thermal equilibrium. Heat transfer always occurs from a hot body to a cold one, a result of the second law of thermodynamics. Transfer of thermal energy occurs mainly through conduction, convection or radiation. Heat transfer can never be stopped; it can only be slowed down.
source: https://engineering.fandom.com/wiki/Heat_transfer
george1, george1, george1,
You wonder why the science community does not reply to the findings you offer about your device. I believe they are simply being polite by not answering, because they've seen the same mistake I've pointed out, and they do not want to embarrass you.
Your item #1 is fundamentally flawed (as I pointed out in my previous post. I have not commented on the other 6, since they are based on item #1, and hence also flawed.) Whether the person who did your calculations is ignorant, overlooked a well-known law of physics (bolded above), made a simple math error, or purposely put forth false findings to make your device look good, well, doesn't matter. (IMHO, If you paid them already, you should ask for your money back...)
The plain fact is, your math doesn't add up (well yes, it was added, but the answer is wrong. ;-) But, you refuse to listen, so, whatever...
3) Firstly educate yourself seriously in the field of physics and just then take part in this discussion. Otherwise you are simply wasting the time of all competent members of this forum. It's a shame!
Please follow your own advice, george1... ;-)
"....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
George1
Aficionado
Aficionado
Posts: 383
Joined: Wed Jan 03, 2018 1:40 pm

re: A simple electric heater, which has efficiency greater t

Post by George1 »

To MrTim.
---------------------------
Are you really ignorant or you are only imitating ignorance being an agent of the BIG MAFIA and trying to manipulate the audience in a clumsy and awkward manner?
===================
It seems to me that you are most probably an ambitous ingnorant who thinks himself to be the center of the Universe. Please be a little more humble!
===================
Especially for you I am repeating part of my previous letter.
===================
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.
======================
What are your objections against the above item 1? Are you trying to reject the first Joule's law? (If you are familiar with this law, of course.)
Looking forward to your answer.
George1
Aficionado
Aficionado
Posts: 383
Joined: Wed Jan 03, 2018 1:40 pm

re: A simple electric heater, which has efficiency greater t

Post by George1 »

To MrTim again.
================
Look again at our post of Sat Jul 04, 2020 11:29 am. And here is this post.
-----------------
Beginning of the post
-----------------
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!
-----------------------------
End of the post
----------------------------
The text above only confirms the validity of item 1 from our post of Sat Aug 22, 2020 12:01 pm.
======================
Do you have any theoretical (ONLY THEORETICAL!) objections against the text above?
YES OR NO?
User avatar
MrTim
Aficionado
Aficionado
Posts: 923
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

Post by MrTim »

No, george1,

There is still the same error of adding (the energy used to create the hydrogen) to (the energy released by burning the hydrogen) to get your erroneous "efficiency greater than 1".
It does not work that way. The Second Law of Thermodynamics says it does not work that way. (See my previous post about heat energy moving from hotter to cooler.)

I say it again: Your "inlet energy" is NOT a catalyst in the electrolysis process. It is EXPENDED to create the hydrogen. This is even stated in one of YOUR OWN previous posts. The process is also INEFFICIENT (also stated in one of YOUR OWN posts.) As shown by YOUR OWN math, you are NOT generating MORE hydrogen energy than the input ("inlet") energy. Ergo, the efficiency equals less than one.
This is not theoretical; It is based on your own statements.

Also, please note that I have not resorted to name-calling as you have. It does not advance your case any. (And, having engaged in a vicious decade-long plus flame war elsewhere, I see your attempts as childish, and really not worthy of reciprocation. But keep at it, if you wish, I've been called much, much worse, and similarly ignored it... ;-)
WE DEVELOPED FURTHER PROF. SRIVASTAVA'S SOLVED PROBLEM IN A NON-STANDARD MANNER.


... ;-)
"....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
George1
Aficionado
Aficionado
Posts: 383
Joined: Wed Jan 03, 2018 1:40 pm

re: A simple electric heater, which has efficiency greater t

Post by George1 »

To MrTim.
======================
======================
A) I am explaining one and same simple thing for the fourth time, but you obviously have a cognitive problem related to understanding of simple obvious facts.
----------------------------------------
B) Besides you obviously do not read my posts at all. This is not a discussion. This is your monologue.
----------------------------------------
C) Please read very, very carefully and many, many times the text below and do your best to understand the simple obvious facts, described below.
=======================
=======================
1) According to the first Joule's law 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 we called the inlet energy) turns entirely into heat (this heat we called outlet energy 1). Therefore we can write down the equality inlet energy = outlet energy 1.
--------------------------------------------------
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 we 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.)
=======================
=======================
How to explain in a simpler and easier manner tremendously simple and obvious facts?
User avatar
MrTim
Aficionado
Aficionado
Posts: 923
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

Post by MrTim »

Your "obvious facts" are not obvious to you, as I have (repeatedly!) used them to show up the actual flaws in your "non-standard" math process. But, you still refuse to see this.

I will leave you to your "device". Repeating the same flawed argument (even though you keep changing the numbers) is not proof that it works. Some have suggested that this topic should be moved to the Fraud board, but I see no reason to do that, because the only person you are defrauding is yourself.

Cheers! ;-)
"....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
George1
Aficionado
Aficionado
Posts: 383
Joined: Wed Jan 03, 2018 1:40 pm

re: A simple electric heater, which has efficiency greater t

Post by George1 »

To MrTim.
----------------------
1) A standard SOLID conductor of Ohmic resistance of 1 Ohm is connected to a standard DC source and 1A current flows through this standard SOLID conductor for 1 second. The amount of electric energy consumed by this standard SOLID conductor is 1J and the amount of heat produced by this standard SOLID conductor is 1J too. Do you accept the validity of this simple fact number 1? Yes or no?
----------------------
1) A standard LIQUID conductor of Ohmic resistance of 1 Ohm is connected to a standard DC source and 1A current flows through this standard LIQUID conductor for 1 second. The amount of electric energy consumed by this standard LIQUID conductor is 1J and the amount of heat produced by this standard LIQUID conductor is 1J too. Do you accept the validity of this simple fact number 2? Yes or no?
User avatar
Tarsier79
Addict
Addict
Posts: 5131
Joined: Fri Mar 12, 2010 2:17 am
Location: Qld, Australia

re: A simple electric heater, which has efficiency greater t

Post by Tarsier79 »

1. Yes
2. Not in all cases. In the case where you produce hydrogen at 50% efficiency, 50% of the energy goes into producing the hydrogen, a percentage produces other chemical reactions depending on the medium used to conduct in the liquid, and the remainder is on heat.
You then burn the hydrogen in a turbine to produce electricity and get back 20-35% of your original 50% due to other inefficiencies.

You can't have your cake and eat it too, the case you describe being no exception.
George1
Aficionado
Aficionado
Posts: 383
Joined: Wed Jan 03, 2018 1:40 pm

re: A simple electric heater, which has efficiency greater t

Post by George1 »

To Tarsier79
--------------------
Not in all cases?!
But, my friend, you just smashed to smithereens the first Joule's law, (a) which is supported by the official science and (b) which clearly states that if a standard conductor (no matter solid, liquid or gaseous) is connected to a standard DC source, then the electric energy consumed by this standard conductor (no matter solid, liquid or gaseous) turns entirely into heat.
You do not agree with the first Joule's law, which is supported by the official science?
User avatar
Tarsier79
Addict
Addict
Posts: 5131
Joined: Fri Mar 12, 2010 2:17 am
Location: Qld, Australia

re: A simple electric heater, which has efficiency greater t

Post by Tarsier79 »

No, it is your understanding that is flawed. You can't take 1 rule and apply it out of context.

The more efficient you produce hydrogen, the less heat you produce. It is the same with an electric motor, a lamp, or any other electrical device.

For example, a 1KW electric scooter doesn't create 1KW of heat. If it is 80% efficient, only 20% is converted to heat, 80% to mechanical energy. The motor doesn't glow red hot, and your shoes don't melt.

You can't have your cake and eat it too.
User avatar
Tarsier79
Addict
Addict
Posts: 5131
Joined: Fri Mar 12, 2010 2:17 am
Location: Qld, Australia

re: A simple electric heater, which has efficiency greater t

Post by Tarsier79 »

ADD: Not only that, but pure water does not conduct electricity. Once you add the medium to water so that it does conduct electricity, you now have a chemical reaction occurring as well. This will create another energy balance sheet you have to contend with.
George1
Aficionado
Aficionado
Posts: 383
Joined: Wed Jan 03, 2018 1:40 pm

re: A simple electric heater, which has efficiency greater t

Post by George1 »

To Tarsier79.
======================
No, it is not my understanding. You are simply not familiar with the basic axioms of electric engineering. Make some efforts and educate yourself.
--------------------------------------
1) The first Joule's law clearly states that if a standard conductor (no matter solid, liquid or gaseous) is connected to a standard DC source, then the electric energy consumed by this standard conductor (no matter solid, liquid or gaseous) turns entirely into heat.
--------------------------------------
2) Q = I x I x R x T
where,
Q indicates the amount of heat
I shows electric current
R is the amount of electric resistance in the conductor
T denotes time
-----------------------------------
Do you reject the validity of the first Joule's law?
User avatar
Tarsier79
Addict
Addict
Posts: 5131
Joined: Fri Mar 12, 2010 2:17 am
Location: Qld, Australia

re: A simple electric heater, which has efficiency greater t

Post by Tarsier79 »

You are simply not familiar with the basic axioms of electric engineering.
And by your answer, it seems you are unfamiliar with basic chemistry.
The first Joule's law clearly states that if a standard conductor (no matter solid, liquid or gaseous) is connected to a standard DC source, then the electric energy consumed by this standard conductor (no matter solid, liquid or gaseous) turns entirely into heat.

And you are taking Joules first law out of context.

I have given you an example of this, yet your ignorant arrogance blinds you. You are not interested in understanding, you are only interested in your self image.

If your heater is over-unity, then so is every electric motor, every light bulb, every LED, every speaker, every solenoid and the computer screen you are staring at.

As far as I am concerned, in the fringe science of over-unity, there is one ultimate proof. Close the loop.

I too am no longer interested in arguing with an idiot. Believe what you want to. Ignore whatever facts you choose to. You are ignored by the scientific community, and anyone else with any sense because of both your poor attitude, lack of understanding and inability to quantify logic. Keep up the good work.
Post Reply