A SIMPLE ELECTRIC HEATER, WHICH HAS EFFICIENCY GREATER THAN 1

[George1]

Hi Floor,
If you have no objections, then this means that you accept the simple fact any water electrolysis and hydrogen generating process theoretically has efficiency, which is bigger than 1.
----------------------------
Ok, there are already two brave persons in this forum (Floor and me) who accept the simple obvious fact that any standard water electrolysis process has efficiency, which is bigger than 1.
Any other brave persons in this forum who would share our revolutionary opinion?
Looking forward to your answer.
George       

[Floor]

I have no objections because I am not a chemist nor an physicist. Also, I am not familiar with the Russian texts / works you reference.

I doubt those authors actually intended to represent the electrolysis processes as O.U.

I doubt also that those authors / others, would have simply failed to notice that it was O. U. .

I think it's most likely that there has been, either a misinterpretation of, or an accidental misstatement of the electrolysis interactions.  Other wise those authors might have
received a Nobel prize.

Do you agree ?

It (as I previously stated) seems to me that that resistive heating is unity (by definition) and
that the water molecule splitting will require additional energy.

[George1]

Hi Floor,
Thank you for your reply.
I am tired of repeating one and same things over and over again for thousands of times. But I will do it again. (Not only for you but for any experts in physics and chemistry (if any in this forum).)
----------------------
It directly follows from Prof. S. L. Srivastava's solved problem and from our further development of this problem (our additional simple calculations) that any standard water electrolysis process THEORETICALLY has efficiency which is bigger than 1. And if THEORY is correct, then the related PRACTICE has to be also correct. And it directly follows from the last sentence that any standard water splitting and hydrogen generating electrolyzer has efficiency, which is bigger than 1.
----------------------
HOW TO EXPLAIN THE THINGS IN A SIMPLER AND EASIER MANNER?
Looking forward to your answer.
George1
   

[Floor]

It directly follows from Prof. S. L. Srivastava's solved problem and from our further development of this problem (our additional simple calculations) that any standard water electrolysis process THEORETICALLY has efficiency which is bigger than 1.

1. YOU say that it directly follows. This is your statement / folly

2. You did not say that Prof. S. L. Srivastava states or said that it directly follows.

3. What I said is that it is likely that Prof. S. L. Srivastava  would have noticed the O.U.
and therfore he would also have straight forward / directly stated such.

                I DON'T KNOW  HOW TO EXPLAIN THE THINGS IN A SIMPLER AND EASIER MANNER?

   
I'm done with you / your topics

[George1]

Prof. S. L. Srivastava did not noticed the O. U. It's obvious. Otherwise  he would become a Nobel prize winner. (The same for his Russian/Soviet colleagues 50 years ago.)
-----------------------------------
Please read carefully the text below.
-----------------------------------
1) THEORY and PRACTICE! Two words! It is a SIMPLE OBVIOUS FACT that if a certain scientific THEORY is correct, then the related PRACTICE has to be also correct. And if you have any objections against this SIMPLE OBVIOUS FACT, then you have some mental problems for sure.
2) In overunity.com and in besslerwheel.com/forum we (our team) released ABSOLUTELY FREE two pieces of THEORETICAL research, whose titles are " IS THIS A REACTIONLESS DRIVE OR A PERPETUAL MOTION MACHINE?" and "A SIMPLE ELECTRIC HEATER, WHICH HAS EFFICIENCY GREATER THAN 1", respectively. For these two pieces of scientific THEORETICAL research is valid the statement in the previous item 1.
3) These two pieces of scientific THEORETICAL research (mentioned in the above item 2) unambiguously show (no serious and reasonable THEORETICAL  objections within a period of two years in overunity.com and in besslerwheel.com/forum) that the law of conservation of energy and the law of coservation of linear momentum are not always correct. But there is nothing special, tragic and disturbing in this fact as any rule/law has its exceptions.
4) Our third piece of technology is a new electric technology which increases many times (at least twice as a minimum) the distance traveled by any standard electric vehicle on a single charge. 
5) Our new electric technology has both THEORY and PRACTICE. In other words, we have a WORKING PROTOTYPE which perfectly confirms the correctness of the theoretical concept on which is based the principle of operation of our new electric technology. The latter is practically ready for production on a large industrial scale.
6) The secret of our new electric technology however is NOT FREE. It costs already 40,000,000 (forty) million dollars and this price will further rise if our first two pieces of THEORETICAL  research (mentioned in the above item 2) do not win public recognition in the nearest future.
7) These 40,000,000 (forty) million dollars will be used mainly for charity and only a small part of this money will be used for some R&D work.
We (our team) are looking for buyers of the secret of our new electric technology (and of our next 7 (seven) inventions and technology innovations).
-------------------
George1