A SIMPLE ELECTRIC HEATER, WHICH HAS EFFICIENCY GREATER THAN 1

[gyulasun]

Hi George,

1)  You wrote: "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."
I already hinted at how it could be achieved but it involves actual measurements...  see my Reply #43 here:
https://overunity.com/18134/a-simple-electric-heater-which-has-efficiency-greater-than-1/msg531870/#msg531870
"... this then could be compared to the input energy needed for electrolyzing a known quantity of liquid (with known start and end temperatures) with a measured amount of DC power during an Y amount of time duration needed for producing the Hydrogen.  I also assume you checked the quantity of the Hydrogen received from the electrolysis during an Y time duration."

Or in my Reply #49 "This would involve either a continuous or a frequently sampled logging of current values from which an average value can be deduced for the electrolysis, to arrive at the consumed input power hence energy.   It is okay that the voltage would be kept at a constant (stabilized) value.  Here I mention M2 (mass of the liquid) which will be changing (reducing) continuously as the H and O leave from it, have you considered this?  ... All in all, with the consideration like using the average current with constant DC input voltage,
equation for the input energy taken from the DC supply would be Ein=V x I_average x t
Equation for one part of the output energy, heat, created in the liquid is:  Eout1 = C2 x M2 x (T2-T) " 
                   Symbol meanings in the formula are defined by you in related earlier posts. 
Then you wrote your Reply #51 in which you wrote: "such a sophisticated experiment is not neccessary".  I answered it of course.

2) Just because manufactured electrolyzers are made to compensate for say the temperature of electrolyte or consumed water or whatever as you referred to,  they clearly influence the parameters of the electrolyte within the cell or chamber in which the electrolysis is carried out. 
This way they kill the simple possibility of measuring say temperature rise under a t time duration the input current creates to have a certain amount of Hydrogen. Your mentioned 'Sub-system 1' just kills that. This is true mainly for Sub-system 2, too.
Otherwise, the use of such sub-systems 1 and 2 is certainly useful in an already working system, I agree but not good at all for validation measurements you are expected to do. 
So I cannot give any simpler method to solve your question on a calorimetric Joule heat measurement other than I repeated here in my quotes.
 
3)  On your equations or equalities:  Yes Ohm's law V=IxR (1) is valid but I must stress the current should be an averaged value calculated from measured sample values for a T time duration as I mentioned already.

Your formula (2), VxI=IxIxR is an equation but again you are making the same (input) power level equal to the same input power level: what sense does this have?

Also formula (3) VxIxt=IxIxRxt is another equation, the left side expresses input energy to the electrolyte and the right hand side also expresses the same input energy: the two are obviously equal. What is your point? 

Now if you add a H heat quantity to the right hand side of your formula (3) to get formula (4), VxIxt=IxIxRxt+H, and then changing formula (4) into an inequality: VxIxt < IxIxRxt+H (5), here is what I think:
I agree that formula (4) cannot be true as you also wrote. I already wrote that the correct formula would be VxIxt=H (or  IxIxRxt=H) where the left side is input energy and the right hand side is the heat from the burning Hydrogen + the created heat in the electrolyte.
And here with these equations VxIxt=H (or IxIxRxt=H) we assume the law of the conservation of energy is valid as an initial condition.  AND whether this equation VxIxt=H (or IxIxRxt=H)  becomes an inequality like either VxIxt < H (or IxIxRxt < H) to give COP>1 or VxIxt > H (or IxIxRxt > H) to give COP<1, it can only be answered by measurements.
You cannot substitute real measurements with some manipulation of equations or inequalities to arrive at a COP>1 "conclusion",  this is nonsense.  Please understand this. 
If I were cynic, I would say the point of writing your equations (2) (3) was to intruduce the validity of the rest of your formulas...
It is not only me who would ask for correct measurements to prove your COP>1 claim for your proposed setup, imagine to market your setup and imagine you would need to persuade a consumer to buy your 'product' or heating system solution: you would need to include technical specifications from which the superiority of your heating system should turn out.
And HOW could you receive proof or licence from authorities to market your heating system if you cannot prove your claims with measurements? They are not interested in your equations or inequalities. 

Please study EXTREMELY carefully Gyula's comments, which are brilliant examples of expert analysis and high qualification.

Thanks but whatever "brilliant examples of expert analysis" I have tried to give you in the past two months or so, you always acknowledged them and then continued with "the how to escape the measurement" game, and this is unfortunate.
By the way, F6FLT did give you very reasonable comments, see for instance his Reply #61
https://overunity.com/18134/a-simple-electric-heater-which-has-efficiency-greater-than-1/msg532237/#msg532237   
and you cannot blame him that he may not have as much patience as I have hence he gives you more criticism. 

Gyula

[F6FLT]

...
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.
...

Even more simply. Imagine you have a 5v battery with a 3 v battery connected in series but in opposition. Then you have now only 2v. So a moron would say to himself: "therefore I can charge a 5 v battery with a 2 v charger! It's overunity. I will publish my article on ou.com, and title it in capital letters "A SIMPLE ELECTRIC CHARGER, WHICH HAS EFFICIENCY GREATER THAN 1. I'm so good! I am the new Tesla!".      

That's what we face: the redox potential of the solution plays the role of the opposing battery.

[lancaIV]

Even more simply. Imagine you have a 5v battery with a 3 v battery connected in series but in opposition. Then you have now only 2v. So a moron would say to himself: "therefore I can charge a 5 v battery with a 2 v charger! It's overunity. I will publish my article on ou.com, and title it in capital letters "A SIMPLE ELECTRIC CHARGER, WHICH HAS EFFICIENCY GREATER THAN 1. I'm so good! I am the new Tesla!".      

That's what we face: the redox potential of the solution plays the role of the opposing battery.

                            Hihihohohaha : IMPOSSIBLE POSSIBILITY

                                    right or wrong polarisation by this
                " A SIMPLE ELECTRIC CHARGER WHICH HAS EFFICIENCY GREATER THAN 1"                                                     
                                                               claim :https://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/description?CC=BE&NR=438189A&KC=A&FT=D&ND=3&DB=EPODOC&locale=en_EP#
Had been a bad time for inventors : WWII years and BE occupation

[F6FLT]

                            Hihihohohaha : IMPOSSIBLE POSSIBILITY

                                    right or wrong polarisation by this
                " A SIMPLE ELECTRIC CHARGER WHICH HAS EFFICIENCY GREATER THAN 1"                                                     
                                                               claim :https://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/description?CC=BE&NR=438189A&KC=A&FT=D&ND=3&DB=EPODOC&locale=en_EP#
Had been a bad time for inventors : WWII years and BE occupation

This patent is the "idea" to couple a motor to a generator and hope for overunity by crossing their fingers. As for this OU heater delirium, it just lacks a magic formula like "abracadabra" for it to work.   
It seems that the text of the patent was written by a 13-year-old child, it is full of spelling mistakes and childish expressions, especially on technical issues. It is not surprising that the industry has never taken anything out of this patent.
Everyone has the right to behave stupidly, but at this point, is that really reasonable? This behaviour of egocentric morons who think to be Tesla without ever having built anything that works, is completely disrespectful of others, it wastes their time.

[George1]

To gyulasun.
-----------------
Hi Gyula.
Thanks a lot for your reply.
1) Yes, you are absolutely right that real measurements cannot be substituted with some manipulations of equations or inequalities which arrive at COP>1 conclusion. (We would not call them manipulations but standard mathematical operations, but anyway.)
2) Yes, we tried to escape the measurement game. But this is obviously not the correct approach. Real experiments have to be carried out.
3) So we are starting to carry out these experiments. The most difficult one seems to be the calorimetric measure of the heat generated by the electrolyte. Any good idea/advice how to do this in a simple and reliable manner?
Looking forward to your answer.
Best regards,
George