A SIMPLE ELECTRIC HEATER, WHICH HAS EFFICIENCY GREATER THAN 1

[Floor]

OK, I have certainty of the equivalencies of electrical energy to heat energy due to electrical resistance.
Thanks.

That your method would produce more heat than electric heating alone... is based
in sound / conventional principles. 

But don't you know that...  its not over unity,  it just means the standard of electric to heat equivalency would be changed ...  SMILE

(Opinion) Odds are very good that it is correct. 

I agree with  others / think it would be interesting to see measurements.
           On the other hand...........
The volume of HHO gases that can be conventionally produced... and the caloric content of their combustion
are probably well know / documented.   HHO experimenters / experts on this forum might provide links ??
             Also.........
The O and H gases and any water vapor,  will remove heat from that electrolit / water, as they leave the solution, just as
ordinary evaporation reduces the temperature of the surface it evaporates from.
            But.......
those calories which are contained in the H and O will also increase the temperature of their own combustion.

The same fire fueled by hot air is hotter than if fueled by cold air.

                          Regards
                        floor

[F6FLT]

To F6FLT.
--------------
You greatly surprise me, my friend! You are an expert in mechanics as well as in electric engineering! (And may be in any other field of technology?)
You have written: "  You have simply forgotten the oxidation-reduction potentials! The potential difference that will result in heating is therefore less than the one used. This means in other words that even for the same current, the energy used for producing hydrogen is not used to heat." There is no sense in this composition of words. This is for example something like the following sentence: " The Moon is black and it walks around the green tree." Grammatically correct, but absurd.

We are very impressed by the power of your argument:  nothing on the subject, only an ad hominem answer. Not only did you not understand the objection, but you did not even understand that you did not understand your subject.

I am not an "expert". These things are studied in junior high school, with water electrolysis. Even undergraduate students know this. There is no need to be an expert to see the absurdities of your proposals. This kind of idea seems good to unskilled people, because they don't see what prevents it to work, it's a matter of ignorance. Your announcements of perpetual motion are childish non senses above all pretentious, and I said why: the oxidation-reduction potentials reduce the effective potential difference really used for heating, skilled people will understand. An experimenter can check it by measuring the potential difference with each electrode of the voltmeter placed in the solution near each electrode powering the solution, but without touching them.
I'll change my mind about the vacuousness of your pseudo-inventions when you present us with a working realization from you, and measurements, rather than gibberish.

[Floor]

We are very impressed by the power of your argument:  nothing on the subject, only an ad hominem answer. Not only did you not understand the objection, but you did not even understand that you did not understand your subject.

I am not an "expert". These things are studied in junior high school, with water electrolysis. Even undergraduate students know this. There is no need to be an expert to see the absurdities of your proposals. This kind of idea seems good to unskilled people, because they don't see what prevents it to work, it's a matter of ignorance. Your announcements of perpetual motion are childish non senses above all pretentious, and I said why: the oxidation-reduction potentials reduce the effective potential difference really used for heating, skilled people will understand. An experimenter can check it by measuring the potential difference with each electrode of the voltmeter placed in the solution near each electrode powering the solution, but without touching them.
I'll change my mind about the vacuousness of your pseudo-inventions when you present us with a working realization from you, and measurements, rather than gibberish.

@ F6flt

Yes there is plenty of pseudo science on this board and some good science as well.

But , the tone of your comments are .....  insulting, rude,  totally unnecessary and unwelcome.

We have had plenty of these kinds of disrupting comments over the course of the boards
existence.  It doesn't help any thing. It only impedes the spirit of exploration and learning.

1. If the temperature of the electrolyte changes (up or Down), then its electrical resistance changes with it.

2. If the resistance across the water / electrolyte changes (up or Down), then the electrical power
input changes with it.

............ simply put

Is the  rate at which           electrical energy   is converted  to    heat energy,     WITHIN AN ELECTROLYTE,
decreased due to the  electrolyzing of the water into HHO,
         for reasons other than;
1. caloric loss due to evaporated water
2. caloric loss due to the heat energy content in the removed HHO

Simple yes or no answer to be researched and presented / documented.

No Insulting language needed.

     floor

[F6FLT]

@Floor

"No sense in this composition of words" or "grammatically correct, but absurd", without any technical justification, when I spoke of oxido-reduction potentials, is insulting. The ironic "You are an expert in mechanics as well as in electric engineering!" is insulting, it's an ad hominem argument. It was not from me. I only answered on the same tone. 

You are right to say that "we have had a lot of disruptive comments like that" and "pseudo-science". When it is related to ignorance, it is acceptable. We are all ignorant at one level or another.  But it would require the intelligence to understand that we are ignorant, the modesty to recognize our ignorance and the desire to progress.
When a guy claims almost every week to have discovered overunity in one system or another, without ever having studied the subject he is talking about closely, without ever having built a single device or made a single measurement, it is clear that he is not in a research process, but in the spreading of silly simplistic ideas to satisfy his puffy ego. It's only pollution.

Why should we kindly accept that all these guys are polluting this forum? I notice that this forum has years behind it and still not the slightest practical realization of free energy, that everyone can duplicate. I think that these people have a part of the responsibility for this failure, by disrupting and diverting human energies from their purpose, by attracting even more useless people who recognize themselves in them, and due to their nonsense, by dissuading competent people from coming here.
We must treat them for what they do in order to reduce their nuisances, and quickly send them back to their misplaced self-centredness, their technical incompetence, incurable because they do not want to become aware of it, and their intellectual nothingness.

Normally, to make the stupidity of the original idea understood, it is sufficient here to provide as a key the notion of "oxidation-reduction potential". Anyone of goodwill, and learning about this, will understand why an electrolytic solution is not a simple resistance that will heat according to U=RI and at the same time provide hydrogen! Obviously, when you are unwilling, incompetent and worse, without any desire to understand but only to appear smarter than you are, you don't even want to know which doors open the key you have been given, it's not your problem, you just want to parade in front of the audience, affirming in the name of your ignorant ego and in capital letters, instead of modest and prudent hypothesis,"EFFICIENCY GREATER THAN 1".

Here was my position, and my method, Floor, and I respect yours, we don't have to all have the same.

[nelsonrochaa]

@ F6flt

Yes there is plenty of pseudo science on this board and some good science as well.

But , the tone of your comments are .....  insulting, rude,  totally unnecessary and unwelcome.

We have had plenty of these kinds of disrupting comments over the course of the boards
existence.  It doesn't help any thing. It only impedes the spirit of exploration and learning.

1. If the temperature of the electrolyte changes (up or Down), then its electrical resistance changes with it.

2. If the resistance across the water / electrolyte changes (up or Down), then the electrical power
input changes with it.

............ simply put

Is the  rate at which           electrical energy   is converted  to    heat energy,     WITHIN AN ELECTROLYTE,
decreased due to the  electrolyzing of the water into HHO,
         for reasons other than;
1. caloric loss due to evaporated water
2. caloric loss due to the heat energy content in the removed HHO

Simple yes or no answer to be researched and presented / documented.

No Insulting language needed.

     floor

In time, we had someone in the forum with this same type of behavior and rudeness. I just hope that guy (MH)  have not changed their nickname .......
An opinion or clarification, does not encompass, trample, or reduce another opinion through propitiousness in a response.
Everyone has the right to have an opinion, since opinion provided , not exceed the limit of the reasonable.
it seems we have yet another enlightened limb of wisdom. lol