A SIMPLE ELECTRIC HEATER, WHICH HAS EFFICIENCY GREATER THAN 1

[George1]

To floor
-------------------
Hi floor,
Thank you for your reply.
------------------
As I wrote already to Gyula I myself was strongly against stopping performing experiments but the majority of our team insisted on stopping doing all tests. I had to obey our team's majority decision. Nevertheless after some time I will try very carefully to convince the colleagues to start performing experiments again.
---------------
About your step-by-step instruction for performing experiments. Well, some steps seem to be really doable and some steps seem to be quite difficult to be done. And in some instruction steps I cannot understand what exactly do you mean. Nevertheless I will consider carefully your last post and will write to you in the nearest future. Because some questions appear already.
----------------
Regards,
George 

[George1]

To Gyua, to floor and to all other guys, who are interested in the topic.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Let me reproduce part of the last meeting's discussion of our team. One of the colleagues said almost literally the following.
BEGINNING OF THE CITATION
"An obvious paradox exists in the present-day scientific community.
On one hand, all modern physics conceptions are based on various and endless sets of sophisticated, non-understandable and unintelligible equalities, inequalities, formulas, expressions, equations, inequations, etc. And everybody accepts them to be true and nobody wants any experimental proofs for their validity. (And even Nobel prizes are often won for these fantastic mathematically-based theories which have nothing to do with reality.)
On the other hand, we suggest several simple, clear and understandable equalities and inequalities, which simply gather together previously obtained true experimental facts, being considered wrongly in isolation until now. And again some people here want experimental proofs for the validity of facts which have been proving to be true within a period of 200 years.
How's that? Do you understand this? Isn't this a paradox?"
END OF THE CITATION
Well, I will not comment my colleague's opinion. But whatever to say his opinion is logical and reasonable.
Regards,
George

 

[lancaIV]

https://overunity.com/12367/the-conversion-of-electrical-energy-to-heat-energy/

[tinu]

@George1,

Try https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrolysis_of_water :
"Electrolysis of water is the decomposition of water  into oxygen  and hydrogen gas due to the passage of an electric current. The reaction has a standard potential of −1.23 V, meaning it ideally requires a potential difference of 1.23 volts to split water."

Emphasis on: potential difference of 1.23 volts.
Thus, if your electrolysis cell runs at, let's say, 2V and 1A, the power required is obviously 2W. However, the Joule heating is only (2-1.23)V x 1A = 0.77W. The difference of 1.23V x 1A = 1.23W goes into the generation of hydrogen and oxygen.
Fortunately, besides theory there is also a less than 10$ simple setup/experiment that everyone can do at home to check the above. No fancy equipments are needed. If you need help with it, please ask.
I'm really sorry to keep giving you bad news but it's just simple physics and electrochemistry here, not rocket science.
The mistake you did this time was the miss use of  Joule heating fundamentals. Here it is: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joule_heating. Have a look at Formulas/Direct Current and check with the above.

Best regards.

[George1]

Hi tiny,
But you are making an obvious mistake. The generated power is equal to 0.77 W and the consumed power is equal to 0.77 W too. Actually "the countervervoltage" (which is due to the electrode potential/overvoltage) plays the role of small battery that is connected in opposite direction to the main DC source, i.e., plus to plus and minus to minus. Imagine that the main DC source has a voltage of + 1,23 V. Then what will be the value of the consumed/generated power? Answer: just equal to zero.
Besides if the voltage of the main DC source is much bigger than 1.23 V, then the hypothetical (and wrong!) effect, in whose validity you try to convince us, is absolutely negligible.
--------------
And it is also evident for me that you have not read carefully our previous posts. Please read carefully our previous posts as well as the text below, which contains the essence of our concept.
=============================================
There are four experimental facts which have been proving to be true within a period of 200 years and whose validity is beyond any doubt. These four experimental facts are as follows.
--------------
1) Experimental fact 1: (V - v) = (I - i) x t. This is the Ohm's law for any electrolyte.
--------------
2) Experimental fact 2: (V - v) x (I - i) x t = (I - i) x (I - i) x R x t. This is the Joule's heat law for any electrolyte.
--------------
3) Experimental fact 3: m = Z x (I - i) x t = mass of the substance, which is generated in the process of electrolysis. This is the first Faraday's law of electrolysis.
--------------
4) Experimental fact 4: hydrogen LHV = 120000000 J/kg.
--------------
The validity of the above four experimental facts is beyond any doubt.
(Note. Definitions for V, v, I, i, R, t, Z, LHV and HHV can be found in our previous posts. Tinu, please read them carefully!)
--------------
What to do further? We have only to gather together the above four experimental facts. We have only to perform a simple sequence of only two simple operations.
--------------
Operation 1. We multiply m by LHV and get the heat A, which is generated by burning/exploding of hydrogen of mass m, that is, A = m x (LHV).
--------------
Operation 2. We simply add A to the right side of the equality in item 2, thus transforming it into inequality, that is,
(V - v) x (I - i) x t = (I - i) x (I - i) x R x t   <=>  (V - v) x (I - i) x t < ((I - i) x (I - i) x R x t) + A
--------------
The last inequality unambiguously shows that the standard water-splitting electrolysis has COP, which is bigger than 1, that is, COP > 1.
--------------
Simple, clear and understandable. Only two simple operations in a row.
--------------
George