A SIMPLE ELECTRIC HEATER, WHICH HAS EFFICIENCY GREATER THAN 1

[George1]

Do you know this is exactly what Tesla described in his famous article  / What he didn't tell us is the whole process of extracting energy but his analogy was much more nicer being more realistic.
Imagine a lake maybe in high mountain without any possible dam. Lake is very deep. Tesla found a way to extract energy of this lake water without using a dam. You are very close.
-------------------
To forest.
-----------------
Hi forest.
Thanks a lot for your reply.
1) Actually the idea for this original way of water lifting belongs to John.K1. (Please have a look at the link https://overunity.com/16302/hho-as-real-uo-system/ ). We only added the load-pulling balloon conception and combined John.K1's basic idea with our points of view. (I already wrote to this smart man John.K1, but still have no answer from him.)
2) Our team has never heard of the above mentioned Tesla's article. Would you be so polite to give us some more details? How to find this article in order to read it?
Looking forward to your answer.
Best regards,
George     

[gyulasun]

Hi George,

My opinion on the idea member John.K1 wrote is exactly the same what I kindly wrote to you already:

"The only problem is that real and good science should be based on actual measurement results.  It is okay that by logical deductions which are based on experimentally proven equations, the setup you proposed "should give" efficiency > 1.
BUT this > 1 efficiency then should be measured, that is science in the correct sense.
I am not against you or against your group or against the possibility of having efficiency > 1,  ok?
And especially in such a case when you write this: "Therefore here is another proof for the invalidity of the law of conservation of energy in this particular case."  the measurement results are crucial and simply a must to backup your statement."

No offense, I am not being sarcastic, the idea from John.K is also an excellent one for approaching > 1 efficiency, that so far has not been shown possible in a scientific way.

However, I am a bit surprised what you wrote here to me:

To gyulasun.
-------------
Hi Gyula,
Thanks a lot for your reply.
....
Yes, after a careful thought we decided that you are absolutely right. We perfectly agree with you. Real experiments are necessary for proving of our statement. So I keep pressing hard our expert in experimental calorimetry to do the necessary things as quickly as possible.
=======
2) Besides (as if already mentioned in some of my previous posts) we do not insist by all means on the necessity of considering the hydrogen generating electrolyzer as a machine of efficiency bigger than 1. In our poor opinion it's perfectly enough if the hydrogen generating electrolyzer is considered as a simple and cheap heating device, which (a) is much more efficient than any standard Joule's heating device, and which (b) saves money.
=======
Looking forward to your answer.             
Best regards,
George

Why would not the measured efficiency > 1 be needed in your case ?
This questions your whole paper you started with this thread and your original claim on achieving > 1 efficiency.

Eventually what the 800 page long measurement data boils down to ? You could sum it up in a few lines I suppose once you or your group already went through the tests and surely developed an objective opinion based strictly on the measured data. OF course you or your group have plenty of time to do so and consider the teachings of the measurements, I do not mean any hurry.
And you are free to do whatever you wish, even combine ideas from others to improve yours, I have no problem with that.

BUT remember what you wrote: "Therefore here is another proof for the invalidity of the law of conservation of energy in this particular case."   If you do not back up your claim with correctly measured and repeatable results that give > 1 efficiency, your claim is hot air that no need to comment any more. It is totally irrevelant how logical or even straightforward deductions you started out from, you or your group simply have to build it in practice and measure it correctly.  Only then can you claim the invalidity of any law. It is obvious that  if you prove by measurements that your heating device is "cheaper" and "much more efficient" than any other standard heating device, then you surely have achieved something new and useful.  But if it has an efficiency of < 1, then your > 1 efficiency claim (you now seem to abandon) is only hot air. 

Gyula

[Floor]

@George1

The link I sent you was not the same topic I originally had in mind (although same idea).  The topic I was looking for is a more recent
one.      As I  recall.... I posted on that  "more recent"  topic.   I tried searching through my posts.. but was unsuccessful in locating that
other topic.

            floor

[forest]

http://www.shamanicengineering.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/Nikola-Tesla-Problem-of-Increasing-Human-Energy.pdf


Imagine a lake in mountain without any possibility to make a dam. Lake has a lot of water and is very deep. How can we take energy of this whole mass of water ? 
Put an empty tank at  the bottom of lake with a passage of water inside of it. When water is passing it will crank the first generator, then it is converted to hydrogen and oxygen and is released up to the surface where it's converted back to water.
The buoyancy will transfer internal gravity pressure of water column on empty tank into the kinetic force of releases gases so use another generators in the passage. So we have 4 points where energy is converted/used , but  2 of them is roughly balancing itself (converting water into hydrogen and oxygen and back).
Tesla neved told about the usage of gravity in his example.The total converted electrical energy should be more then enough to convert water into gases and keep the tank empty .


As you see this is the same process but quite realistic one. Surely, Tesla would never use the lake when he had better source of pressure....

[forest]

A DEPARTURE FROM KNOWN METHODS – POSSIBILITY OF A "SELF-ACTING" ENGINE OR MACHINE, INANIMATE, YET CAPABLE, LIKE A LIVING BEING, OF DERIVING ENERGY FROM THE MEDIUM – THE IDEAL WAY OF OBTAINING MOTIVE POWER.