A SIMPLE ELECTRIC HEATER, WHICH HAS EFFICIENCY GREATER THAN 1

[George1]

Hi tinu,
I am also sorry, but you are again entirely wrong. It seems to me that you are not reading at all any of our posts. Besides in one of your comments for example you claim that A is bigger than B and in the next comment of yours you claim just the opposite -- that A is smaller than B. And similar false claims and logical inconsistensies in all of your comments. Do you do this deliberately?
Please understand and accept the simple fact: there are physical processes which have COP > 1.
I am tired of explaining one and same simple thing thousands of times already.
George       

[lancaIV]

George1, you are wright : physical processes with C. O. P.  > 1., but work process meaning

                                             Energy conversion processes with eta  > 1
                                             were,are,will be unknown and never achieveable.
                          When energy has his equivalence to mass : where do you get the mass-surplus ?

The C.O.P. is conventionally only used in closed thermo-dynamic cycle circuits called heat pumps or chiller, whose devices transmit heat from point A to point B.  C.O.P <=> 1 , BUT : eta ever < 1

There are also in existance "external input-free pump"  heat pumps, using the thermo-syphon principle.
                                                             Simple heat collecting devices

From Nernst to Nernst-Planck equitation https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nernst%E2%80%93Planck_equation

You are not have a battle against us or the peers and their test result review,  you are in a battle against physical reality  !
"A SIMPLE ELECTRIC HEATER" can have several mWatt up to 10 Watts per square-centimeter surface,temperature from 50°Celsius up to 2200° Celsius :
1,23 Volt ( Nernst equitation) x low to high amperage : electrolyt ( liquid) volume : expansion ( gas,plasma)volume


Which equitations are used by a.  Friction  b. Cavitation  c. Sonolumniscence devices ?
"Free Energy" ( often abused expression)  and the definition :  https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gibbs_free_energy

[George1]

Hi lancaIV,
Thank you for your reply.
Good analysis, dear colleague. Would you be so polite to give us some time to consider carefully your last post?
I will write to you in the nearest future.
Regards,
George
 

[tinu]

Hi tinu,
I am also sorry, but you are again entirely wrong. It seems to me that you are not reading at all any of our posts. Besides in one of your comments for example you claim that A is bigger than B and in the next comment of yours you claim just the opposite -- that A is smaller than B. And similar false claims and logical inconsistensies in all of your comments. Do you do this deliberately?
Please understand and accept the simple fact: there are physical processes which have COP > 1.
I am tired of explaining one and same simple thing thousands of times already.
George     

Hi George1,
1. Please pinpoint my mistake now!
2. Please state a false claim and logical inconsistency in any of my comments!
3. As I said "no overunity here", please state where did I say that there are no processes of COP>1!
Please do the above now or immediately delete your post.
Thanks!

[tinu]

Hi again Gyula,
And one more 81-pages research experimental work:
http://www.esru.strath.ac.uk/Documents/MSc_2003/papagiannakis_i.pdf
Ready experimental results, confirming COP > 1. Why don't we use them?
Looking forward to your answer.
Regards,
George

Hi George1,

This post is a blatant lie!
The cited paper speaks of efficiency measured between 73-84% (page 72). There is nowhere any mention about COP>1!
Why do you lie, George?
Who gave you the right to come here, lie and insult members?
Again, asking for second time, what exactly is your training and level of expertise?