A SIMPLE ELECTRIC HEATER, WHICH HAS EFFICIENCY GREATER THAN 1

[Floor]

The topic is that electrolysis of water is O.U..

I DO NOT say absolutely, that there hasn't been and cannot be any O.U..

I only say that there is No reason to believe that conventional
/ typical electrolysis is O.U. and that no evidence, NONE, has been
given by the topics originator, but instead, only the confused,  misapplication of formulas.

  floor

[NdaClouDzzz]

You do not explain something based on only one man's opinion.

It's called economizing. You obviously got the gist, which was the intent. But thank you for the lecture
Cheers

[lancaIV]

You see, Don Smith had his variation, I have my variation, Babosa and leal have their variation, Nelson Rochas has his variation. You do not explain something based on only one man's opinion. Don Smith's work was purely from Tesla. That coil is Tesla coil, not Don Smith coil. Don Smith did Tesla's work, raw, unrefined. Variations today are still from Tesla.

Nikola Tesla (serbisch-kyrillisch Никола Тесла; * 10. Juli 1856 in Smiljan, Kroatische Militärgrenze, Kaisertum Österreich; † 7. Januar 1943

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heinrich_Daniel_RuhmkorffHeinrich Daniel Ruhmkorff (Rühmkorff) (15 January 1803 in Hanover – 20 December 1877 in Paris) was a German instrument maker who commercialised the induction coil (often referred to as the Ruhmkorff coil.)


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicholas_Callan
the " first transformer ",first DC/AC-inverter

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Grafton_Page

who developed innovative work with natural phenomena through direct observation and experimenting
Page developed a deep understanding of electromagnetism

pursuing his own ill-fated dream of electromagnetic locomotion  : we calls it "perpetuum mobile" 


challenging the rising scientific elitism that maintained 'the scientific do not patent'



specific: Family life
"portable electrophorus,"
he experimented with electricity, demonstrated effects that no one had observed before, and improvised original apparatus that amplified these effects.^[6]   

Scientific accomplishments



My work,not,
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yMR45cZbvDw&list=LLKk2eVKooIl1t6KHULYhEVQ&index=941
Thomaner,peh,peh und noch amoi: peh !
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fhJ_wKSWZao 

but information management,giving source find ,references

https://www.biblegateway.com/verse/en/Romans%2013%3A7
AMPCRender to all men their dues. [Pay] taxes to whom taxes are due, revenue to whom revenue is due, respect to whom respect is due, and honor to whom honor is due.


Application "induction coil" :
https://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/description?CC=FR&NR=667647A&KC=A&FT=D&ND=3&date=19291018&DB=EPODOC&locale=en_EP#


Multiple "induction coil"-s array/cascade :
https://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/biblio?DB=EPODOC&II=2&ND=3&adjacent=true&locale=en_EP&FT=D&date=19940318&CC=FR&NR=2695768A3&KC=A3#

https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&u=https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elektromotorische_Kraft

And CAUTION ! by experiments ! Life and fire danger !

[George1]

Thank you for your numerous replies. As if all these replies confirm the validity my last post. So for your convenience I am giving it below again. 
============================
IMPORTANT NOTE. THIS DISCUSSION IS FOCUSED SOLELY AND ONLY ON DC WATER-SPLITTING ELECTROLYSIS! AND ON NOTHING ELSE!
============================
1) The correct equation, related to the law of conservation of energy in any standard DC water-splitting electrolysis process, 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. (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 DC WATER-SPLITTING ELECTROLYSIS! AND ON NOTHING ELSE!
------------------------------------
DO YOU HAVE ANY THEORETICAL (ONLY THEORETICAL!) OBJECTIONS AGAINST THE TEXT ABOVE?

[George1]

Thank you for your numerous replies. As if all these replies confirm the validity my last post. So for your convenience I am giving it below again. 
============================
IMPORTANT NOTE. THIS DISCUSSION IS FOCUSED SOLELY AND ONLY ON DC WATER-SPLITTING ELECTROLYSIS! AND ON NOTHING ELSE!
============================
1) The correct equation, related to the law of conservation of energy in any standard DC water-splitting electrolysis process, 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. (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 DC WATER-SPLITTING ELECTROLYSIS! AND ON NOTHING ELSE!
------------------------------------
DO YOU HAVE ANY THEORETICAL (ONLY THEORETICAL!) OBJECTIONS AGAINST THE TEXT ABOVE?