A SIMPLE ELECTRIC HEATER, WHICH HAS EFFICIENCY GREATER THAN 1

[George1]

Some careful analysis unambiguously show that the agents, who are in the pay of the official science mafia in this forum, use 6 clumsy and unskillful manipulation methods for rejecting of obvious truths. And these 6 methods are as follows.
-----------------------------------------
1) Simulation of ignorance and/or lack of understanding.
2) Distorting of our words.
3) Writing of long texts, full of semi-truths, absurd hypotheses and deliberately hidden theoretical/mathematical errors.
4) Writing of long texts, which have nothing to do with the discussed topic.
5) Direct ridiculous rejecting of obvious truths by using phrases like " This is impossible, because it is impossible and that's all!" and other similar howlers.
6) Various combinations of the above five,
-----------------------------------------
Our appeal is: Please do not fall under the influence of this forum's clumsy manipulators! These unworthy people are not seeking for the truth! They simply want to earn some money!

[Floor]

@ George1

Good morning, but no over unity here.

@ All readers

Interesting subject and  topic and I think a good /educational read.

Particularly the input from those, other than the topics originator (George1).

best
  wishes
      floor

[George1]

Read very, very, very carefully again our last post of January 03, 2021, 03:48:09 PM.
-------------------------------------------------
Here is Prof. S. L. Srivastava's solution:
Current through the electrolyte is given by I = (m)/(Z x t).
Power consumed = (I) x (I) x (R) =  ((m)/(Z x t)) x ((m)/(Z x t)) x (R) = 31.86 W.
-------------------------------------------------
It is absolutely evident from Prof. S. L. Srivastava's solution (a) that each second the electrolyte (the liquid conductor) consumes 31.86 J of electric energy and (b) that each second the electrolyte (the liquid conductor) generates 31.86 J of Joule's heat. Do you accept this simple obvious truth? Do you accept Prof. S. L. Srivastava's (and his two Russian colleagues' some 40 years ago) solution? Yes or no?

[Floor]

@ George1

The heat and gasses evolved in the electrochemical reactions due to the sulfuric acid
are not a process of simply the electrolysis of water.

Why would you or anyone else assume that the electrolysis of a sulfuric acid solution gives,
the same results as, or is the same process as is the electrolysis of pure water ?

If ones goal is the production hydrogen gas, then it is true that this process can be
more "efficient" at hydrogen production than is that of the electrolysis of pure water.
But it still remains that the process is no more so a COP >1 or over unity, than is the
burning of a piece of wood.

I get it now! That must be your secret / unrevealed, free energy for sale device.  You're looking
for an investor to buy over unity fire wood.  Very clever! Oops did I just reveal the secret ?
Sorry.

      floor

[George1]

To Floor.
-------------------
1) You do not answer my question, you old cheater!:) You are talking again about things that has nothing to do with the topic discussed. Your big mafia masters will not pay you your month salary. You keep failing in your attempts to manipulate the audience and to reject obvious facts. 
2) I am asking again my question. The question is: Do you accept Prof. S. L. Srivastava's solution? Yes or no?