A SIMPLE ELECTRIC HEATER, WHICH HAS EFFICIENCY GREATER THAN 1

lancaIV · May 07, 2019, 11:48:10 AM

Quote from: tinu on May 07, 2019, 11:31:07 AM
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?

Yes and page 6 : up/ over 90% - in future- and page 20 under 100% theoretical efficiencies !

Somebody here speaks " Hungarian"( not the Monty Python translation)

and could ask them
https://patents.google.com/patent/WO2006038048A1/fr what they mean with
" it's efficiency exceeds extremely "

as to read in their application device description

https://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/description?CC=WO&NR=2006038048A1&KC=A1&FT=D&ND=&date=20060413&DB=&locale=#
I assume, by given text information :

efficiency same or < 98% University lab max
but higher 75% industrial average efficiency ( 2004 standart)

But by high production rate AND HYDROGEN PURITY

Floor · May 07, 2019, 05:47:26 PM

@George1

Given that the electrolyte container is well insulated.

1. When we electrolyze water into hydrogen and oxygen, heat is generated in the water. The temperature of the electrolyte rises.

2. If the electrolyte is well insulated, caloric losses through its container will be minimal.
Those caloric losses / their rate can be measured.

3. The volume of the electrolyte decreases during electrolysis ..
a. because water is transformed into H and O and leaves the electrolyte during the electrolysis.
b. because water vapor leaves the electrolyte during the electrolysis.

4. The H, the O and the water vapor all have a caloric content which they carry away from the electrolyte.
a. Specific calories were generated by the electrolysis process.
b. The transport of those calories from the electrolyte, cools the electrolyte.
c. Those calories are still present, but they are within the water vapor and HHO gasses.

5. What is the temperature of the Water vapor / HHO gas mixture that is produced during electrolysis ?
Answer 1. It has the same temperature as does the electrolyte, at the time of it's escape from the electrolyte.
Answer 2. Its temperature will increase with time / as the temperature of the electrolyte also increases during electrolysis.

6. If the Water vapor / HHO gas mixture is well insulated, caloric losses through its container will be minimal.
Those caloric losses / their rate can be measured.

7. water vapor does not burn.
HHO will burn.

8. Water (water vapor) can be removed / trapped by freezing (passing it through a long cold tube). The HHO
will not the freeze / be trapped.

9. The temperature of the water vapor before its separation from the HHO and the volume of the water (which we determine after
its separation from the HHO) informs us of the waters caloric content upon its production. This caloric content was generated by the electrolysis (allowing for
initial electrolyte temperature) and should be added to the caloric increase of the electrolyte.

10. Before combustion, the temperature of the HHO should be raised to the temperature it had when it was first generated / released from the electrolyte.

best wishes

George1 · May 08, 2019, 04:16:06 AM

To tinu.
-------------------------------------
Hi tinu,
You either never read my posts carefully or you never read them at all! And you always distort my words!
1) Firstly, I have explained clearly enough that the 81-pages experimental work contains experimental data which, if properly interpreted, would inevitably
lead to COP > 1. I have never mentioned that the 81-pages experimental work directly claims that COP > 1.
2) Secondly, we admit your superiority in the field of electric engineering. OK, you are right and we are wrong. What to argue about then? Please don't be angry with us and consider the COP > 1 heater as a part of the entertainment industry.
Take it easy and be happy!

Regards,
George

George1 · May 08, 2019, 05:17:16 AM

To lancaIV
----------------------
About the 81-pages experimental work -- please read my last post to tinu.
----------------------
Here are our answers to your penultimate post.
1) About eta -- you mean eta = Energy conversion efficiency, I guess. Well, this eta is actually an artificially created item, more or less. Of course in some cases its application is extremely suitable and convenient and there is no doubt about this. But in general the eta-based principle as if does not work properly. For example please consider a simple copper wire in an air environment (in your room) through which flows electric current. The wire generates only Joule's heat. The latter is transmitted in two ways -- the wire directly heats the surrounding air and at the same time generates infrared radiation which heats the surrounding objects like table, chairs, walls, carpets, etc. In this case (and in other many cases too) the transmission of energy from the heater to the surrounding environment gives eta = 100 %.
2) Important is the ratio outlet energy/inlet energy and it doesn't matter how would you call it -- COP, efficiency, etc.)
3) About the mass-surplus. Well, there isn't any mass-surplus at all. The quantity of the generated mass strictly obeys the first Faraday's law of electrolysis.
4) About the Nernst–Planck equation. Official scientific community and conventional orthodox scientists of any ranks do their best to avoid discussing a simple obvious fact -- the Einstein's theory of relativity and Max Planck's quantum mechanics CANNOT BE TRUE SUMULTANEOUSLY. Actually, let us directly say this, these two theories are two naive hypotheses, which generate more questions than answers and all of their postulates and mathematical costructions are questionable, doubtful and unreliable. These two hypotheses clearly illustrate the severe impotence of modern orthodox science.
5) And at last one small appeal for help. I see that you are an expert in the field of physics. So would you be so polite to have a look at the other topic of ours which is called "IS THIS A REACTIONLESS DRIVE OR A PERPETUAL MOTION MACHINE"? How to calculate force Fc and deceleration d? And how would the system behave if the blue component's mass is BIGGER THAN/EQUAL TO/SMALLER THAN the black component's mass?
Looking forward to your answer.
Regards,
George

George1 · May 08, 2019, 05:31:56 AM

To Floor.
--------------
Hi Floor,
Thank you for your reply.
1) Please give us some time to consider carefully your last post. What are you actually suggesting -- a logical costruction, leading to some conclusion, or a step-by-step experimental procedure? Please explain, if possible.
2) And one small appeal for help. Would you be so polite to have a look at the other topic of ours which is called "IS THIS A REACTIONLESS DRIVE OR A PERPETUAL MOTION MACHINE"? How to calculate force Fc and deceleration d? And how would the system behave if the blue component's mass is BIGGER THAN/EQUAL TO/SMALLER THAN the black component's mass?
Looking forward to your answer.
Regards,
George