A SIMPLE ELECTRIC HEATER, WHICH HAS EFFICIENCY GREATER THAN 1

[gyulasun]

Hi George,

I have some problems with your reasonings and I consider them invalid I am afraid.

1) Well, the VxIxt formula as you defined gives the input energy needed for the electrolysis and this is surely equal to the formula IxIxRxt which is the same input energy, no problem here. Of course V=IxR is also correct, (which is Ohm"s law) and if you replace V with IxR in this VxIxt formula, then you get this: IxIxRxt, so they are equal. 
(In fact I do not understand why you express the same input energy with two formulas which are derived from each other?  You can express them like that, of course but here it is not needed.)

BUT if you add H to the right hand side of this equation: VxIxt=IxIxRxt,  then I do not think this is correct, because H is the output energy (you defined H as the heat of burning the Hydrogen), so:

Why would you add the output energy to the input energy in an equality formula where the left hand side is the input energy itself and the right hand side is the same input energy + output energy? Because this is what your equality (1) means to me mathematically. So this is the 1st problem.

Now you introduce inequality (2) as V>IxR and state that if you put together (1) and (2), then ... I do not repeat your text.

So the 2nd problem is that you compare (or relate) energy with voltage.  V=IxR (or V>IxR) is voltage while VxIxt (or IxIxRxt) is energy. Big difference, they are not comparable, they cannot be put together in any way, whatever you mean by "put together".

SO the energy balance (if we assume the law of the conservation of energy is valid) would be: input energy=output energy i.e. VxIxt=H and here H should include not only the energy coming from the burning Hidrogen but from the heat energy created in the electrolyte by the input energy during the t time.   


2) I think Ohm's law (V=IxR) is valid for electrolysers. My only notice with this is that you need to consider the changing current through the electrolyte as it heats up during the process so this law is valid in each single moment, and in another moment say 5 minutes later, a slightly changed current flows because the resistance of the electrolyte has changed, ok? In this sense, using Ohm's law here gives not much sense in itself but this latter is a side note only.
Another side note: this is why I wrote to your earlier (when were discussing the how to measure input energy during the electrolysis) that input current should be measured either continuously or should at least be sampled frequently and calculate from those the average input current for evaluating input energy.

Now you introduce this inequality: VxIxt<IxIxRxt+H   Well, this may be correct because you relate input energy to the (same) input energy + output energy: the sum of the latter two can be higher than the input energy itself, I have no problem with this part.

And then you put your formulas (3) and (4) together (probably you mean: relate them)  i.e. (3) is voltage and (4) is energy and this cannot be done, voltage is not energy.

So I think your listed OPTION 1, 2 and 3 are not correct or valid.  (But see my side note above how Ohm"s law is valid.)

So this situation is not to be explained in theory, no need for that but the input and output energies ought to be measured and then arrive at a COP > 1 claim if the measurements prove it.  I understand this may become expensive and tiresome but I can only repeat: science is correct when claims or theories are proved by repeatable measurements.  Especially so with COP > 1 claims.

Gyula

[F6FLT]

I agree, Gyula.
In other words, U=R*I is what sees the generator, R being the apparent resistance of the solution, not the ohmic resistance.
In the solution, we have U1=R1*I which is the part really dissipated as heat in the ohmic resistance R1, and  U1 = U-U2 where U2 is the oxydo-reduction potential. U1*I is dissipated as heat, U2*I is disspated as chemical energy for gas production, U*I is the total energy provided by the generator, not that dissipated in heat.
That's why U2 is named "reduction potential": the solution is viewed as a battery connected in series but in opposition to the generator.
Those who do not want to make the effort to study and understand, or even experiment, while thinking to be smarter than Faraday and when the well known keys to this were given a month ago, are condemned to go in circles in their faith and of course, without producing anything concrete outside the blah, blah, blah.

[George1]

Hi Gyula,
Hi F6FLT,
Thanks a lot for your replies.
My colleagues and I have been extremely busy for the last 7 days and because of this we could not pay attention to overunity.com.
We will consider very carefully your last posts and will write our answers in the very nearest future.
Best regards,
George

[George1]

To gyulasun.
-----------------------
Hi Gyuala.
Thank you again for your last post. Thank you for your reasonable and professional comments. We highly appreciate this. You are a real expert. And here are our answers.
-----------------------
1) Yes, you are absolutely right that real experiments have to be carried out. But if you consider carefully the main technical data of any industrial hydrogen-generating electrolyzer, then you will see that the electrolyzers' manufacturers have carried out actually all experiments which you are talking about in your last posts. The only exception is the lack of experimental data related to a CALORIMETRIC measure of the Joule's heat, which is generated by the electrolyte. So any good idea in this direction is welcome. (May be it's worth to think over the possibility to calculate indirectly in some way the generated Joule's heat by using the technology parameters of the electrolyzer's cooling agent.)
-----------------------
2) Yes, you are absolutely right that pure water volume decreases while electrolysis takes place. But any industrial hydrogen-generating electrolyzer has two very important sub-systems.
Sub-system 1 always keeps constant the volume of pure water inside the electrolyzer. For example the water consumption of the Hogen's hydrogen-generating electrolyzer is 5.50 L/hr (please refer to Hogen's main technical data) and sub-system 1 always keeps a constant pure water flow of 5.50 L/hr.
Sub-system 2 aways keeps a constant flow of a certain cooling agent, which on its behalf always keeps constant the temperature of the electrolyzer thus avoiding overheating. (If we use the hydrogen-generating electrolyzer as a heater however, then the cooling agent could be for example the circulating water of a certain standard water-heating system. And in addition we wil have the heat of burning of the generated hydrogen.)
------------------------
3) V=IxR. This is the Ohm's law. You agree in your last post that the Ohm's law is valid for both solid and liquid resistors (electrolytes). Therefore for any solid or liquid resistor we can write down the sequence of equalities V=IxR (1) <=> VxI=IxIxR (2) <=> VxIxt=IxIxRxt (3).
In one word, for any solid or liquid resistor the first Joule's law (related to Joule's heating) directly derives from the Ohm's law and vice versa.
Therefore for any solid or liquid resistor the electric energy, generated by the DC source, is just equal to the Joule's heat, generated by the resistor.
In addition to the Joule's heat the liquid resistor (the electrolyte) inside the hydrogen-generating electrolyzer gives a certain amount of hydrogen whose heat of burning is H, where H>0.
Let us add H to the right-hand side of equality (3). The result of this addition will be the equality VxIxt=IxIxRxt+H (4).
The last equallity (4) cannot be true however and it has to be transformed into the inequality VxIxt<IxIxRxt+H (5).
The last inequality (5) leads directly to COP>1.
------------------------
Looking forward to your answer.
Best regards,
George

     
 

[F6FLT]

If we are all more or less ignorant of one field or another, only those who are aware of it can progress, it is enough to learn, and the less ignorant can help while they have no time to waste with the ignorant of his ignorance, it is hopeless.

We can resume the discussion when you have made the personal effort to understand rather than persist in a ridiculous pedantic attitude repeating his act of faith, in full denial of the objections already made.