A SIMPLE ELECTRIC HEATER, WHICH HAS EFFICIENCY GREATER THAN 1

[Floor]

@George1

1. Didn't you know that the electrolysis plus the burning of the H and O is not O.U..

2. Didn't you know that this forum has had dozens of explorations of, and thousands of pages dedicated precisely to the examining of variations of the electrolysis process in an O.U. context ?

3. The electrical energy converted to heat energy in a PURELY resistive circuit is 1 per 1.

4. This is true for  ANY  PURELY  resistive electric circuit whether the resistor is solid or liquid.

5. An electrical circuit is   NO LONGER a PURELY   resistive circuit when electrolysis occurs.

What next ?

You going to sell us on the phallicy that an electrically energized coil is O.U. because the magnetic field is in addition to the heat produced ?

Or that in a wire coil with an AC current, total resistance is only the ohmic and doesn't include impedance  ?

   floor

[George1]

To Floor.
-------------------------
Dear Floor,
You demonstrate again a shocking lack of understanding of basic terms and axioms of electric engineering. For example how could you even dare to compare directly and quantitatively HEAT and MAGNETIC FIELD? HEAT is measured in Joules (J) and INTENSITY(!!!!) OF MAGNETIC FIELD (not magnetic field itself, but only one of its properties!) is measured in Tesla (T). Do you know what is the difference between Tesla (T) and Joule (J)? How to discuss the matter with "expert" like you? Please firstly educate seriously yourself and just then take part in this discussion! 

[George1]

To all other QUALIFIED(!) members of this forum.
===============================
4) Now let us divide both sides of inequality (2B) by (I x t), that is,
V x I x t > I x I x R x t (2B) < = >
< = > (V x I x t)/(I x t) > (I x I x R x t)/(I x t) (3B) < = >
< = > V > I x R (4B).
===============================
The text above, surrounded/limited up and down by doubled dashed lines is an abstract from our post of December 03, 2020, 10:53:16 AM.
Any comments and/or questions?

[George1]

I am giving below again (with some small changes and additions) our post of December 03, 2020, 10:53:16 AM.
===================== 
1) Actually the correct equation is
V x I x t = (I x I x R x t) + (Z x I x t x (HHV)) + (X) (1B),
where
V x I x t = input energy = electric energy, which is generated by the DC source, and which is consumed by the electrolyzer
I x I x R x t = Q = Joule's heat, which is generated by the electrolyzer = output energy 1
Z x I x t x (HHV) = output energy 2 = heat, which is generated by burning/exploding of the released hydrogen
X = output energy 3 = sum of all additional energies, which are necessary (a) for splitting of water molecules into hydrogen and oxygen atoms, (b) for collateral chemical reactions due to the impurity of the electrolyte, (c) for forming of bubbles etc., etc.
----------------------------------
2) It is evident from the above equality (1B) that (V x I x t) is the sum and that (I x I x R x t), (Z x I x t x (HHV)) and (X) are the addends, respectively.
----------------------------------
3) According to the rules of standard arithmetic the sum is always bigger than any of the addends (forming that same sum). Therefore the
sum (V x I x t) is bigger than the addend (I x I x R x t). Therefore we can write down the inequality V x I x t > I x I x R x t (2B).
----------------------------------
4) Now let us divide both sides of inequality (2B) by (I x t), that is,
V x I x t > I x I x R x t (2B) < = >
< = > (V x I x t)/(I x t) > (I x I x R x t)/(I x t) (3B) < = >
< = > V > I x R (4B).
-----------------------------------
5) The last inequality (4B) shows a severe violation of Ohm's law. (Because the correct mathematical expression for Ohm's law is V = I x R (5B), isn't it?)
-----------------------------------
6) The obvious invalidity of inequality V > I x R (4B) directly leads to the invalidity of equality V x I x t = (I x I x R x t) + (Z x I x t x (HHV)) + (X) (1B). Therefore the law of conservation of energy is not valid in this particular water-splitting electrolysis case. (I am tired of repeating hundreds of time one and same obvious fact: Any rule/law has its exceptions and there is nothing special, tragic and disturbing in this fact.)
------------------------------------
Important note. This discussion is focused SOLELY and ONLY on water-slitting electrolysis! AND ON NOTHING ELSE!
------------------------------------
Any questions and/or comments? (But questions and/or comments, which are reasonable and qualified!)

[Floor]

Hello George 1

You started this topic on 01/28/19. 

   Here is your original statement / claim / bait.

https://mypicxbg.files.wordpress.com/2019/01/pages_1-6.pdf

Since that time (10 months), have you conducted and presented any
experiment which would support your claim that a simple electrolysis process
which results in H and O release is over unity, once the H and O
are then burned ?

Have you learned anything in those 10 months, from this topic?
If  so, what and will you share that with us ?

I for one, do not believe that you, your self, think this claim is O.U...

@ George1

1. Didn't you know that the electrolysis plus the burning of the H and O is not O.U..

2. Didn't you know that this forum has had dozens of explorations of, and thousands of pages dedicated precisely to the examining of variations of the electrolysis process in an O.U. context ?

3. The electrical energy converted to heat energy in a PURELY resistive circuit is 1 per 1.

4. This is true for  ANY  PURELY  resistive electric circuit whether the resistor is solid or liquid.

5. An electrical circuit is   NO LONGER a PURELY   resistive circuit when electrolysis occurs.


     floor