A simple electric heater, which has efficiency greater than 1

[Tarsier79]

ME, although they are good points, they do not address the illogical conclusions george has come to.

Hi entire premise is that (in a perfect world) 100 joules of energy will create 100 joules of heat, but will also create hydrogen.

In this theoretical perfect system, the 100 joules of energy used will in fact be divided between heat and hydrogen production and will be at best unity.

[George1]

To ME.
----------------------------
Hi ME,
Thank you again for your last post.
----------------------------
1) This time my respect to your profound knowledge! You are obviously well educated and well qualified in various fields of physics! It would be much better for this forum if most of its members were highly qualified experts like you!
---------------------------
2) Well, I perfectly agree with most of the things that you have written in your last post. And, yes, who could guarantee that the declared PEM electrolyzer's operating characteristics correspond to reality? Nobody.
--------------------------
3) Besides I am absolutely sure that whatever precise experiment to do and share it by video in this forum Tarsier79 (and similar people) would reject it and would declare it false. So it's worthless to carry out experiments. Good theory is the best approach in many cases.
--------------------------
4) I would like to ask you for the present to put off till a later time your considerations of electrolysis and focus on the animation, related to the topic "IS THIS A REACTIONLESS DRIVE OR A PERPETUAL MOTION MACHINE?". Because you are obviously a top-expert in scientifically-oriented animation. (I am not flattering you as it is a matter of a real fact, which can be seen by every member of this forum.)
----------------------
Best regards,
George

[Tarsier79]

Education does not directly relate to understanding. In my industry, most electrical and mechanical engineers come out of University with no real world experience, and no Idea how to apply what they have learnt to the real world.

Do your experiment, or even start by saying what your experiment will be. Your experiment should be simple and repeatable by anyone and prove something specific.

If you falsify your test I will call you on it. If I don't agree with your findings, I might try to mimic the experiment.

Don't pretend to be the victim here. You have constantly belittled anyone that doesn't agree with you, while blowing smoke up ..... of anyone not calling you on your BS.

[George1]

And here is one more mental exercise for entertainment only. :)
------------------------------------------------------
1) An unknown load is hidden inside a black box 1. The load is connected to a standard DC source thus forming a circuit. This circuit is equipped with (a) a voltmeter, (b) an ammeter, (c) an ohmmeter and (d) a watt-meter, which register 4VDC, 4 A, 1 Ohm and 16 Watts, respectively.
------------------------------------------------------
2) Another unknown load is hidden inside a black box 2. The load is connected to a standard DC source thus forming a circuit. This circuit is equipped with (a) a voltmeter, (b) an ammeter, (c) an ohmmeter and (d) a watt-meter, which register 4VDC, 4 A, 1 Ohm and 16 Watts, respectively.
------------------------------------------------------
3) One of the unknown loads is the copper wire and the other unknown load is the PEM electrolyzer. (Please refer to our previous posts.) But you don't know in which black box is hidden the copper wire and in which black box is hidden the PEM electrolyzer, respectively.
------------------------------------------------------
4) Long before the above described measuring procedures we have checked and we have ascertained the fact that the PEM electrolyzer's operating characteristics (please refer to our previous posts) correspond to reality, that is, the PEM electrolyzer's manufacturer has done the job correctly.
------------------------------------------------------
5) Because of some emergency situation in an explosives manufacturing factory for example you have not at your disposal (or you are not allowed to use) any supplementary measuring devices like calorimeters, gas detectors/analyzers, infrared radiation detectors/analyzers, etc. You have at your disposal solely and only voltmeters, ammeters, ohmmeters and watt-meters. Besides you are not allowed to open/brеак any of the two black boxes too.
------------------------------------------------------
QUESTION: In which black box is hidden the copper wire? In black box 1 or in black box 2? (You have to guess because otherwise you have to run very quickly :) in order to avoid meeting with a possible unpleasant accident. Or perhaps it would be much better if you run quickly at once :) without doing any measurements and without trying to guess in which black box is hidden the copper wire? Tarsier79, can you run quickly?:))
-----------------------------------------------------
Looking forward to your answer.
==============================
P. S. If my sense of humour and my attempt to be amusing seem inadequate (more or less) to some members of this forum, then please excuse me. I am ready to apologize. But the question remains: In which black box is hidden the copper wire? In black box 1 or in black box 2? Can you guess this riddle by using solely and only voltmeters, ammeters, ohmmeters and watt-meters?

[ME]

His entire premise is that (in a perfect world) 100 joules of energy will create 100 joules of heat, but will also create hydrogen.

Oh? Missed that complication.

Yeah well George, water is in a lower energy state. It simply requires energy to peel the hydrogen from the oxygen.
It is this separation, provided by the power supply, that puts the Hydrogen in a higher energy state.
As such it is possible to use Hydrogen as a means to store energy. I already mentioned recombination.

Besides I am absolutely sure that whatever precise experiment to do and share it by video in this forum Tarsier79 (and similar people) would reject it and would declare it false.
So it's worthless to carry out experiments. Good theory is the best approach in many cases.

As a brilliant example how not to do it:
There is a currently a guy named T**** in the spotlights who's a master at cheating his way out of any competition or otherwise whine about how things are certainly wrong when out of his control.
The latest example is a simple counting issue.
Even with a recount and verification of the mechanism, no evidence of any misconduct has been found.
Now without any evidence this 'good' theory of mis-calculus simply gets repeated over-and-over like your 'favorite' TV-commercial jingle .
Apparently declaring the most ridiculous theories is enough to mindf*ck tens of millions of people. As of now it's still unclear if that's enough to trigger a 'workaround' via another route.
So, sure, that's one 'example' you could try to follow. But know that simply declaring stuff just doesn't alter the actual numbers.

Another route to take is to avoid opinion altogether no matter how 'convincing' they might be.
You only have to convince yourself by doing experiments. That's just only one annoyance to worry about.
Once you have the data and numbers then you can let the data do the actually job of convincing other people.
Replication and verification of that experiment should produce the same numbers over and over.
With that you can actually build something.

Q: So is it "worthless to carry out experiments"?
A: It depends on your state of truth-finding and who are you try to convince.

[Tarsier79]

George, You still aren't asking the question you want the answer to. The characteristics you have listed are the same, so basically no.

The resistor however will heat up more, will probably be in a smaller container, and as you apply electricity, its characteristics will not vary. Although I have not seen a PEM, I suspect from initial application of electricity to its (hot) running state you will notice some variance in current.

[George1]

To ME.
------------------------------
Hi ME,
Thank you reply. It's a real pleasure to discuss the topic with you.
--------------------------
1) Well, you are absolutely right that the best approach is to carry out an experiment. But how to convince Tarsier79 (and similar people) that the experimental results are correct? This is simply impossible.
------------------------------
2) Still no answer to the question: In which black box is hidden the copper wire? In black box 1 or in black box 2? (Using solely and only voltmeters, ammeters, ohmmeters and watt-meters.)
-----------------------------
3) Please look again at our post of Sat Oct 31, 2020 8:21 am. For your convenience I am giving below the text of this post. (The text is surrounded/limited up and down by double dashed lines.)
====================
1) Let us assume again that the energy consumed by the standard water-splitting electrolyzer is just equal to the sum of (a) the Joule's heat and (b) the heat, generated by the burning/exploding of the released hydrogen. Therefore we can write down the equality
V x I x t = (I x I x R x t) + (Z x I x t x (HHV)) (1)
where
V = DC source voltage
I = DC current
R = Ohmic resistance
t = time
Z = electrochemical equivalent of hydrogen
HHV = higher heating value of hydrogen
------------------------------------------------------
2) Let us decrease n times voltage V, that is,
V x I x t = (I x I x R x t) + (Z x I x t x (HHV)) (1) <=>
<=> (V/n) x (I/n) x t < ((I/n) x (I/n) x R x t) + (Z x (I/n) x t x (HHV)) (2)
where
n > 1
R = const.; for how to keep R constant please refer for example to our post of Sat Jul 04, 2020 11:29 am.
-------------------------------------------------------
3) Now let us increase n times voltage V, that is,
V x I x t = (I x I x R x t) + (Z x I x t x (HHV)) (1) <=>
<=> (nV) x (nI) x t > ((nI) x (nI) x R x t) + (Z x (nI) x t x (HHV)) (3)
where
n > 1
R = const.; for how to keep R constant please refer for example to our post of Sat Jul 04, 2020 11:29 am.
--------------------------------------------------------
4) In one word, it is evident that:
a) equality (1) shows that efficiency is equal to 1;
b) inequality (2) shows that efficiency is bigger than 1;
c) inequality (3) shows that efficiency is smaller than 1.
---------------------------------------------------------
5) Therefore by regulating the value of V we can regulate and control the value of efficiency. In other words, efficiency can be either (a) bigger than 1 or (b) equal to 1 or (c) smaller than 1. And this depends on the value of V.
---------------------------------------------------------
6) let us remind again that in order to be more precise we have to use V - v instead of V and I - i instead of I, respectively. (For v and i please refer to our previous post of Sun Oct 18, 2020 3:13 pm.) But if V is much bigger than v (and I much bigger than i, respectively), then v and i can be neglected and therefore (1), (2) and (3) are perfectly correct.
----------------------------------------------------------
7) In one word, we proved theoretically again that the law of conservation of energy is not always valid for any standard DC water-splitting electrolysis process.
-------------------------------------------------------
Do you have any theoretical (ONLY THEORETICAL!) objections against the text above? Is there any formula/logical construction in the text above which is incorrect and if yes, then why? Please focus solely and only on the analysis (line by line) of the text above.
================================
Looking forward to your answer.
George1

[Tarsier79]

Yes. Your calculations are based on incorrect assumptions, giving you incorrect answers.

V x I x t = (I x I x R x t) + (Z x I x t x (HHV)) (1)

In layman's terms:

Total Power = Total Power + "X"

Apart from X = some made up nonsensical formula, does anyone else see the problem here?'

[George1]

To Tarsier79.
-------------------------
You have a very serious problem in your head. You have to see your doctor. I can recommend you a good psychiatrist.

[George1]

To those who really seek for the truth and do not have psychiatric problems.
----------------------------------------------
3) Please look again at our post of Sat Oct 31, 2020 8:21 am. For your convenience I am giving below the text of this post. (The text is surrounded/limited up and down by double dashed lines.)
====================
1) Let us assume again that the energy consumed by the standard water-splitting electrolyzer is just equal to the sum of (a) the Joule's heat and (b) the heat, generated by the burning/exploding of the released hydrogen. Therefore we can write down the equality
V x I x t = (I x I x R x t) + (Z x I x t x (HHV)) (1)
where
V = DC source voltage
I = DC current
R = Ohmic resistance
t = time
Z = electrochemical equivalent of hydrogen
HHV = higher heating value of hydrogen
------------------------------------------------------
2) Let us decrease n times voltage V, that is,
V x I x t = (I x I x R x t) + (Z x I x t x (HHV)) (1) <=>
<=> (V/n) x (I/n) x t < ((I/n) x (I/n) x R x t) + (Z x (I/n) x t x (HHV)) (2)
where
n > 1
R = const.; for how to keep R constant please refer for example to our post of Sat Jul 04, 2020 11:29 am.
-------------------------------------------------------
3) Now let us increase n times voltage V, that is,
V x I x t = (I x I x R x t) + (Z x I x t x (HHV)) (1) <=>
<=> (nV) x (nI) x t > ((nI) x (nI) x R x t) + (Z x (nI) x t x (HHV)) (3)
where
n > 1
R = const.; for how to keep R constant please refer for example to our post of Sat Jul 04, 2020 11:29 am.
--------------------------------------------------------
4) In one word, it is evident that:
a) equality (1) shows that efficiency is equal to 1;
b) inequality (2) shows that efficiency is bigger than 1;
c) inequality (3) shows that efficiency is smaller than 1.
---------------------------------------------------------
5) Therefore by regulating the value of V we can regulate and control the value of efficiency. In other words, efficiency can be either (a) bigger than 1 or (b) equal to 1 or (c) smaller than 1. And this depends on the value of V.
---------------------------------------------------------
6) let us remind again that in order to be more precise we have to use V - v instead of V and I - i instead of I, respectively. (For v and i please refer to our previous post of Sun Oct 18, 2020 3:13 pm.) But if V is much bigger than v (and I much bigger than i, respectively), then v and i can be neglected and therefore (1), (2) and (3) are perfectly correct.
----------------------------------------------------------
7) In one word, we proved theoretically again that the law of conservation of energy is not always valid for any standard DC water-splitting electrolysis process.
-------------------------------------------------------
Do you have any theoretical (ONLY THEORETICAL!) objections against the text above? Is there any formula/logical construction in the text above which is incorrect and if yes, then why? Please focus solely and only on the analysis (line by line) of the text above.
================================
Looking forward to your answer.
George1

[Tarsier79]

Let us apply your formula to my overunity blender.

My blender is 1000W,l and I will run it for 10 seconds to blend my super-shake.


Power consumption of blender = Heat produced + Blending Power.

V x I x t = (I x I x R x t) + (Z x I x t x (HHV)) (1)

Let us break it down.

V x I x t
Voltage x current = Power in Watts. multiply by seconds = joules.

I x I x R x t
Current x resistavnce = Volts, so the formula can be rewritten as : I x (V) x t, or rearranged: V x I x t

So then we have some made up fairy dust for the last part. Z x I x t x (HHV)
Let us make Z = electrochemical equivalent of kale, almond milk and cinnamon. Since we are pulling variables and values out of our arse let us call this figure 10. I'n not sure if it is supposed to be the equivalent resistance, equivalent heat, equivalent amount of electrons? anyway, it doesn't matter: let us press on.
So multiply 10 x time and current x Higher heating value of Kale. Yep. Definitely 7.

So my 1000W Blender consumes 10,000 joules. It creates 10,000W of heat, and grinds the Kale to the equivalent of 2800 Joules.

10,000 = 10,000 + 2,800

Who wants to buy my blender for one million dollars?

[Tarsier79]

No takers?

OK, how about this. Ill pay you one million dollars, all you have to do is sell 10 blenders. I just bought out the stock of all the blenders at my local Target.

[Tarsier79]

Perhaps you would like to buy a Kale Smoothie for only $1000. It will give you the extra energy you need.

[ME]

Well, you are absolutely right that the best approach is to carry out an experiment. But how to convince Tarsier79 (and similar people) that the experimental results are correct? This is simply impossible.

Option 1. Write a book; sell it to the World; Know there are also people who believe in everything.
Option 2. First things first. Start with the results. When successful, power an appliance at your own home first. Then the rest will follow. If nothing follows, then continue with option 1.

For the main circuit [m], we can convert with Ohm's law:
E&#8344; = P&#8344; · t = U&#8344;·I&#8344;·t = I&#8344;²·R&#8344;·t

a.
We could light up a lamp for a certain amount of time; ideally (P&#8344;) watt for (t) seconds.
Ideally this lamp would only send out photons. But it also heats-up, maybe it buzzes a bit...

b.
We could also dump the lamp and stick the bare wires into water so that amount of power causes the electrolysis of water for (t) seconds.
Ideally the water molecules separate into 2H&#8322; and O&#8322;. But there's also bubble formation, corrosion, sound and whatever.
*Don't forget to add something for better conductivity in order to close the circuit (I mentioned salt earlier, so there's also NaOH formation now I think of it).

c.
We solder the wires to a PEM.
Ideally the water molecules separate into 2H&#8322; and O&#8322;, But ... losses.

There's basically no difference between a, b and c when we consider that action and work simply requires energy, and that action includes losses.
The first, I think main, difference between option (c) and (b) is that the PEM has a higher surface area.
So I assume that corrosion is a lesser issue with PEM. You'll get more H&#8322; per input Joule with a PEM, where (b) will give you less and less over time due to a higher corrosion per area factor.
That's how I would differentiate between (b) and (c).

Now you have used your input energy and created H&#8322;
Let's say we want to form one mole of water (18 gram) from our stored H&#8322; (2 gram) then, if I looked it up correctly, it should give you a total energy equivalent (poof+flash+heat) of 285.83 kJ at 25°C
Your electrochemical equivalent of hydrogen (per mole water produced), assuming the oxygen is just freely available in the air, is thus:
E&#8341; = 285.83 kJ
or E&#8341; =100 Kale Juices.

This is independent of your input current and duration of electrolysis. It's kinetic energy that gets released from recombination at some later convenient moment.
In other words, there is no relation of the kind like: "Z x I x t x (HHV))"

The construction of your formula should look something like:
E&#8344; => E&#8347; + E&#8341;&#8346;
Where E&#8344; is your energy input;
Where E&#8347; is something we lost in that process (creating corrosion, bubbles, light, heat)
Where E&#8341;&#8346; is the hydrogen in its potential form;

E&#8341;&#8346; + E&#8336; => E&#8341;&#8342;

Where E&#8336; is the activation energy to let the hydrogen recombine;
Where E&#8341;&#8342; is *all* the kinetic energy from recombining water (including that stuff you don't capture, things like light and sound: E&#8341;&#8342; = E&#8341;&#8342;(heat) + E&#8341;&#8342;(sound) + E&#8341;&#8342;(light) + E&#8341;&#8342;(...))

[George1]

You have not read my last post. Please read it carefully, if possible.
----------------------------
Our last post contains equality V x I x t = (I x I x R x t) + (Z x I x t x (HHV)) (1),
inequality (V/n) x (I/n) x t < ((I/n) x (I/n) x R x t) + (Z x (I/n) x t x (HHV)) (2) and inequality (nV) x (nI) x t > ((nI) x (nI) x R x t) + (Z x (nI) x t x (HHV)) (3).
----------------------------
Actually you claim that the above three are not in accordance with standard mathematics?