To Floor.
---------------------------------------
It is absolutely evident for all members of this forum that you have no reasonable arguments against the validity of our water-splitting electrolysis OU concept. Your masters will not pay you your month salary and they may even beat you because you keep failing in your desperate and clumsy attempts to reject obvious truths.
---------------------------------------
It is absolutely evident also that all members of this forum are severely tired of your dully repetitive, amateur and clumsy manipulation tricks. You have to change your repertoire. Use more creative and more variegated manipulation methods. Because you have become already a laughing-stock.
----------------------------------------
Read carefully the text below. I hope you will understand it at once. But if not, then I will explain it again as you tend to understand simple things with great difficulty.
-----------------------------------------
1) I am asking you a question: Are you a human being? Yes or no?
Your answer will be "Yes" for sure.
-----------------------------------------
2) I am asking you a question: Are you a donkey? Yes or no?
Your answer will be "No" for sure.
-----------------------------------------
Did you understand well the text above? Shall I repeat it again?
-----------------------------------------
Let us go on with our story.
-----------------------------------------
3) I am asking you a question: Do you have any theoretical (only theoretical!) objections against Prof. S. L. Srivastava's solution? Yes or no?
What is your answer? Yes or no?
Only one word -- either "yes" or "no"!!! Can't you understand this simple requirement???!!!

@George1

I have answered your question perhaps 5 times all ready.
               Check this for your self. 
            Read your own topic...  Idiot!

Additionally, as a gesture of GOOD WILL  to you and your topic
some very knowledgeable in addition to others as EXPERTS in chemistry and / or
other fields of science have responded to your question.

Have some appreciation BECAUSE, while bad critics are a dime a dozen,
believe it or not, a GOOD critic is hard to come by.

All those who have answered, have answered in a resounding and qualified NO !

I have been participating in this topic because of the benefit  I  receive from THEIR
input.  I have been using your topic to gain understanding in a field in which I
wish to increase my knowledge.  Get it ?  Were it not for input from other posters here,
your topic was dead long ago...  Let it go, move forward.  OR...

          P_ss off

George

QuoteDear colleagues,
My name is George Sen. I am a member of a team of inventors-enthusiasts. Please have a look at the link
https://mypicxbg.files.wordpress.com/2019/01/pages_1-6.pdf
The link above describes a simple electric heater, which has efficiency greater than 1.
What do you think about this electric heater? What is your opinion?
Looking forward to your answer.

That is a very interesting idea and I have been doing some similar conduction experiments with respect to the two capacitor paradox.

You are correct and my experiments proved it doesn't matter what kind of resistance is in the circuit. It can be a simple copper conductor, ohmic resistor or water resistor and the dissipation of energy will be identical. The kind of resistance has no bearing on the dissipation of energy which is in line with conventional electrical theory.

There is some interesting logic to be found in what you propose.

The free electrons in the electrical circuit which produced the electron current is finite. That is, by Faradays law all the electrons which left the (-) negative terminal must complete the circuit and return to the (+) positive terminal of the source. This is also the premise of what is known as Kirchhoff's laws saying we cannot gain or lose anything in the closed circuit. No electrons can be lost or gained to the electrolyte and energy/mass are conserved. However another law also applies which states the electron current must dissipate all it's energy as heat in the load resistance or the source resistance for energy to be conserved.

Thus we seem to have a contradiction where one law claims X must happen and another law which claims Y must happen but X-Y contradict one another.

Very interesting, nice catch.

To Floor.
---------------------------------------------
Everybody here in this forum can see that you lose your psychic balance. Your masters will beat you!:)
---------------------------------------------
1) Answer the question: Are you a human being? Yes or no? Only one word -- either "yes" or "no"!
2) Answer the question: Are you a donkey? Yes or no? Only one word -- either "yes" or "no"!
3) Answer the question: Do you have any theoretical (only theoretical!) objections against Prof. S. L. Srivastava's solution? Yes or no? Only one word -- either "yes" or "no"!
---------------------------------------------
4) A piece of ABSOLUTELY FREE technology breakthrogh information! And no public recognition within a period of many months! Absurd and ridiculous discussions within a period of many months for clarifying of simple obvious truths! This is a comedy! Tell your masters that our third piece of EXPERIMENTALLY PROVED technology breakthrough, which increases many times (twice as a minimum and more than 15 times as a maximum) the capacity of any standard electric battery, costs already $100,000,000! And each month this price will be increased with $10,000,000, that is, after one month the price will be $110,000,000, after two months the price will be $120,000,000, etc.

To Floor.
------------------------------
Answer the question: Do you have any theoretical (only theoretical!) objections against Prof. S. L. Srivastava's solution? Yes or no?
Only one word -- either "yes" or "no"!
Looking forward to your answer.