A simple electric heater, which has efficiency greater than 1

[George1]

To Tarsier79.
------------------------
We can argue who is the idiot here. The simple fact that in this discussion you use terms like "idiot" for your opponent clearly shows that you have lost your psychic balance. This is because you are not able to fulfill your masters' order to manipulate successfully the audience. Your masters may not pay to you and even they may punish you. You are simply an unworthy person! Shame on you!

[Tarsier79]

Who needs physical balance when I can buy it from a shop in the form of a Segway or hoverboard, which according to your flawed logic each contain two over-unity motors, using just 100 watts of power, producing 80 watts of kinetic energy on top of the 100 watts of heat. Calculate that COP! All we need to do is harness the heat in some sort of efficient generator. The answer has been under our nose this whole time! Lucky you are here to point it out!

[George1]

To Tarsier79
------------------------
But dear Tarsier79, you have to educate yourself a little in the field of electric engineering. (I would not like to insult you. But if so, please excuse me, I am ready to appologize.) ONE OF YOUR PREVIOUS POSTS FOR EXAMPLE UNAMBIGUOUSLY SHOWS THAT YOU DO NOT MAKE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN RESISTANCE AND ELECTRIC ENERGY/POWER!:) Now you are talking about some things which are, let's say, moderately unacceptable to some extent from the point of view of classical electric engineering. So may be it's worth to re-fresh your knowledge in electric engineering by reading carefully again some beginner's course of electric engineering? (The latter is only a recommendation. I did not mean to insult you in any way.)

[Tarsier79]

Dear arrogant George.

You are mistaken.I never said resistance is power. Resistance is part of the energy equation. Inductance is an resistance equivalent.

Electricity is my field, and as my work is a large part of my life. I make a point of understanding elecricity, which is much more than I can say for you after reading 5 pages of "Electronics engineering for Idiots".

You have not addressed why your flawed logic stands against conventional electric engineering basics. Why is my electric drill according to your logic over-unity?

BTW, I am writing this on my over-unity laptop.

Your logic is simplistic and flawed. Your arrogance is unwarranted, and your arguments are those of a fool. You incorrectly talk down to people more knowledgeable than you and refuse to even consider the possibility that you are wrong.

Let me spell it out for you:

You are wrong!!!

I thought I pushed the ignore button. Oops

[George1]

To Tarsier79.
---------------------
Don't be so nervous, my friend, it is dangerous for your health!:)
We have three mathematical expressions:
1) Q < I x I x R x t
2) Q = I x I x R x t
3) Q > I x I x R x t
where
Q = Joule's heat
I = DC current
R = Ohmic resistance
t = time
Which of the above three mathematical expressions is correct and corresponds to reality? Please only answer this simple question.

[George1]

Ok, let us assume for a moment that Tarsier79 is right, that is, let us assume 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
Therefore we can write down the inequalities
V x I x t > I x I x R x t (2) <=> V > I x R (3) <=> V/R > I (4).
-----------------------
The last inequality (4) unambiguously shows that Ohm's law is not valid for liquid resistors.
----------------------
The above considerations are not very precise however. In order to be precise enough we have to introduce the quantities v an i. In other words, we must write down the equality
(V - v) x (I - i) x t = ((I - i) x (I - i) x R x t)+(Z x (I - i) x t x (HHV)) (5)
where
V = DC source voltage
I = DC current
R = Ohmic resistance
t = time
Z = electrochemical equivalent of hydrogen
HHV = higher heating value of hydrogen
v = minimum voltage necessary for the water-splitting electrolysis to begin
i = the related small decreasing of current I, caused by the presence of v.
And from here we can write down the inequalities
(V - v) x (I - i) x t > (I - i) x (I - i) x R x t (6) <=>
<=> V - v > (I -i) x R (7) <=> (V - v)/R > I - i (8).
-----------------------------------------
The last inequality (8) shows again that Ohm's law is not valid for liquid resistors.
------------------------------------------
It is evident that if V is much bigger than v (and I much bigger than i, respectively), then v and i can be neglected and in this case inequality (8) can be replaced with inequality (4).
In one word, if equalities (1) and (5) are valid, then inequalities (4) and (8) are valid too. But this means that Ohm's law is not valid for liquid resistors.
----------------------------------------
Ohm's law is the most basic and most fundamental axiom of electric engineering. No Ohm's law -- no electric engineering.
----------------------------------------
Tarsier79, how to interpret the above results?
(Please focus on liquid resistors and DC only and do not involve in your considerations electric drills, inductance, computer screens, etc. because it's ridiculous.)

[Tarsier79]

(Please focus on liquid resistors and DC only and do not involve in your considerations electric drills, inductance, computer screens, etc. because it's ridiculous.

Yes, it is ridiculous. It is also based on your theory of electrical/heat OU, which is also ridiculous, moronically insane even.

[George1]

To Tarsier79.
------------------------------
You are really an aggressive and dangerous ignorant! Or you play this shameful role under the pressure of your masters! You will be beaten soon by them because of your clumsy attempts to manipulate the audience. WHICH WRITTEN BY ME FORMULAS ARE NOT CORRECT, YOU IGNORAMUS?! SHOW EXACTLY THESE FORMULAS!

[Tarsier79]

Dear Arrogant George

You are the one that knows more than anyone here, refuses to listen to any number of well formed arguments by other members of this forum on both of your ill thought out theories.

It is stupidity to argue with you, because you already know it all. Please accept my apology for thinking that I know something about electricity, since I finished my theory at the top of my class as an apprentice, and it has been my career for over 20 years.

Please continue to take formulas out of context and apply them to your own half baked theories. A ramp creates energy, as does liquid, but not anything else that conducts electricity and creates heat. Water is magical, that is why Merlin threw Excalibur into the lake with the lady who doesn't need to breathe...Because she was separating oxygen from the water with the over-unity energy from the pool chlorinator she was using.

[George1]

To Tarsier79.
-----------------------------------------------------
Dear Tarsier79,
Dear colleague,
It's ok. You are free to support your own point of view. Nobody presses you to do and/or accept anything, which is against your own opinion. (But may be it's worth to waste some time for refreshing your knowledge in electric engineering. Please note -- this is only a recommendation. Please do not be angry. If I have insulted you in some way, then please excuse me for this.)
=====================================
=====================================
=====================================
To those members of this forum, who do not share Tarsier79's opinion.
-------------------------------------------------------
Here is a continuation/variation of our previous post of Sun Oct 18, 2020 3:13 pm.
------------------------------------------------------
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.
---------------------------------------------------------
The above theoretical considerations seem to be correct, don't they? What is your opinion? Please share it, if possible.
Looking forward to your answer.
George1

[MrTim]

The above theoretical considerations seem to be correct, don't they? What is your opinion? Please share it, if possible.
Looking forward to your answer.

No you aren't... ;-)

Everything I said on page 13 still applies to your latest 'variation'.
I suggest that you build an actual physical model to test your theory, as you are being hypnotized by your own numbers, and cannot see the reality (nobody else will build it for you, I think we can agree.)

[George1]

To MrTim.
-----------------------------
1) On page 13 you say practically nothing. Your argument is: "This is impossible because it is impossible and that's all." An iron-made argument! My congratulations for this!
2) I am not hypnotized by numbers but you are not familiar with elementary math. You must firstly educate yourself and just then take part in this discussion.

[MrTim]

1) On page 13 you say practically nothing. Your argument is: "This is impossible because it is impossible and that's all." An iron-made argument! My congratulations for this!

The "practically nothing" I have said is the unrefutable fact that "You cannot add (the energy to generate hydrogen) to (the energy released from burning it)"
Maybe in your haste to admire your hypnotizing numbers you became dizzy and missed reading it. (I admit the statement is quite short, and easy for you to miss, despite my repeating it to you ad nauseum.)
I have highlighted it above so that you will notice it better... ;-)

[Tarsier79]

Dear Arrogant George.

It is pretty easy to build and measure this device that confuses you so much. The best way is for you to build it and measure it yourself. As Tim says, none of us are going to do it. None of us are stupid enough to think that it is worth doing, or will take any notice of half baked math. Additionally, none of us are going to pay you one million dollars for you to do it.

[agor95]

When a member has a bad rating then it's best to put the member into the ignore list.

That way you 'Don't Feed the Troll'.