A SIMPLE ELECTRIC HEATER, WHICH HAS EFFICIENCY GREATER THAN 1

[George1]

Hi Gyula.
--------------
Thank you for your reply.
1) Nobody else is interested in this topic because most people here are not enough qualified like you in order to get the essence of the problem. This is for sure. (Actually I doubt that there is a lack of interest. I am sure that there are certain people who carefully keep an eye on our dialogue without interrupting.)
2) We keep performing experiments. One question related to the experimental approach. Can we use ready table values for electrolytes' conductivities? These values are experimentally proved and verified and can be trusted. What is your opinion?
Looking forward to your answer.
Regards,
George

[George1]

Hi Gyula.
-----------------
Yesterday all members of our team gathered together and after a long discussion we reached a decision. We abandon our intention to perform calorimetric experiments. It will take too much time, money and effort and, most important, we do not have at our disposal a high-tech calorimetric laboratory in which to carry out precise tests according to your requirements. Instead let us write down again (for a last time!) our theoretical considerations.
-----------------
1) A standard solid resisitor is connected to a standard DC source. COP of the system is just equal to 1 and is given by
V = I x R  <=>  V x I x t = I x I x R x t  <=>  COP = 1.
-----------------
2) A standard liquid resistor (a standard electrolyte, which is used in a standard water-splitting electrolysis) is connected to a standard DC source. COP of the water-splitting electrolysis process is bigger than 1 and is given by
(V - v) = (I - i) x R  <=> (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) + (Z x (I -i) x t x (LHV))  <=>  COP > 1.
-----------------
(Note. Definitions for V, v, I, i, R, t, Z, hydrogen LHV and hydrogen HHV can be found in our previous posts.)
-----------------
3) IT IS EVIDENT that there aren't any theoretical contradictions, incorrectnesses and inconsistensies in the above theoretical considerations. HEREAFTER WE ARE OPEN FOR THEORETICAL DISCUSSIONS ONLY as we need time and money for a further experimental perfection of some of our 10 (already) basic inventions, which have nothing to do with electrolysis.
-----------------
4) As mentioned in our first post the above theoretical considerations are an absolutely free technology/scientific information, which can be used absolutely free by anyone for designing and manufacturing of real heaters based on water-splitting electrolysis. We will be glad if somebody manages to do a good business by building and selling such water-electrolysis-based heaters. And we hope that this successful man/woman/company will contact us and will support our charity initiatives.
-----------------
5) And one small question at last. Do you have some friend/colleague who is an expert in the field of computer simulation of real mechanical systems? (This is related to another topic of ours in this forum which is called "IS THIS A REACTIONLESS DRIVE OR A PERPETUAL MOTION MACHINE?".) Such computer simulations can be found for example in the two inks below:
https://www.myphysicslab.com/
https://www.mathworks.com/products/simmechanics.html
------------------
Looking forward to your answer.
Regards,
George

     
       

[gyulasun]

Hi George,

Unfortunately, I cannot advise for you anyone competent in computer simulation of mechanical systems.

I respect your team's decision. Hopefully, either this or the other 10 ideas of yours will bring you success and nevertheless some income too. 

Good luck in your endeavours.

Gyula

[Floor]

@   George
It seems to me that this entire topic has been blown up, made overly complex.

While I can see the reasonableness in not spending many thousands of dollars upon
a one  time usage of HHO generators and other equipment. I do not see any reason for
your not having presented a great deal of experimental results / data, from some much lower
cost experiments (your own). Then seek peer review, later.

Expert or not

Electrical energy input (DC via a watt meter) very simple.

temperature / measurements of electrolyte and liquid  volume of electrolyte (just before and after, also insulate it). also very simple.

measure the temperature of outputted gases (HHO and water vapor).  Less simple but still very do able.

Remove water vapor / freeze the gas mixture.

measure volume of the removed water / calculate the caloric content it had before it was frozen / add these calories to the calories gained in the electrolyte during electrolysis.

measure the HHO gas volume.... or not

Raise the temperature of the dry HHO to the previous temperature (before freezing)

measure the HHO combustion caloric output.

add the calories gained in the electrolyte during electrolysis to the calories gained by the HHO combustion.

Compare these to the electrical energy input.

Some margin of error statement.

Your not likely to acquire an accidental heat content increase, any where in the process...... unless its during the reheating of the HHO.

Undesired heat losses would NOT contribute to an OU conclusion, but rather would serve to
validate any OU measurement results.

Seems, if not simple, none the less very doable.

                floor

[George1]

To Gyula.
-------------------
Hi Gyula,
Thank you for your reply.
Well, 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.
And thank you again for your patience and good will.
I will write to you in the nearest future in order to inform you what happens.
Regards,
George