A SIMPLE ELECTRIC HEATER, WHICH HAS EFFICIENCY GREATER THAN 1

[George1]

While waiting for our calorimetry expert to complete his bunch of most suitable and illustrative experimental data I would llike to suggest a few
simple logical constructions related to the topic. 
And here is the first logical construction. (Please also refer to my previous posts.)
Let us write down again the inequality
50 kWh < 50 kWh + 33 kWh      (1)
where
50 kWh is the electric energy generated by the battery (the left side of the above inequality (1));
50 kWh is the Joule's heat generated by the electrolyzer (the right side of the above inequality (1));
33 kWh is the heat of burning of hydrogen (the right side of the above inequality (1)).
It is evident that the above inequality (1) illustrates a violation of the law of conservation of energy, which is based on the validity of Ohm's law
as well as on the validity of the Joule's first law (related to Joule's heating).
-------------------------------
Furthermore let us write down the equality
50 kWh = 17 kWh + 33 kWh      (2)
where
50 kWh is the electric energy generated by the battery (the left side of the above equality (2));
17 kWh is the Joule's heat generated by the electrolyzer (the right side of the above equality (2));
33 kWh is the heat of burning of hydrogen (the right side of the above equality (2)).
----------------------------
It is evident that the above equality (2) illustrates (a) a violation of the Ohm's law and (b) a violation of the first Joule's law as these two
violations are based on a probable validity of the law of conservation of energy. Therefore it is evident that the problem has two possible solutions.
Firstly, if we assume that the law of conservation of energy is valid, then both the Ohm's law and the first Joule's law (related to Joule's heating) are not valid.
Secondly, if we assume that the first Joule's law (related to Joule's heating) and the Ohm's law are valid, then the law of conservation of energy is not valid.
----------------------------
It is a well-known fact that within a period of more than 150 years electric engineers have been
proving unambiguously the validity of the first Joule's law (related to Joule's heating) and the validity of the Ohm's law. (Perhaphs tens of millions of experiments.) Therefore in this particular case which considers the hydrogen generating electrolyzer as a total heat generator, it is evident, that it is a matter of a violation of the law of coservation of energy.
-----------------------------
In the above text we use the equality 33 kWh/kg = 120 MJ/kg = lower heating value (LHV) of hydrogen. If we use the equality 40 kWh/kg = 142 MJ/kg =
= higher heating value (HHV) of hydrogen, then the result will be even worse for the supporters of the law of conservation of energy in this particular case.
-----------------------------
Besides if we use the equality 142 MJ/kg = 40 kWh/kg = HHV of hydrogen, then equality (2) will be modified as
50 kWh = 10 kWh + 40 kWh     (2A)
It is evident that equalities (2) and (2A) cannot be true simultaneously because the value of the generated Joule's heat as if depends on LHV and HHV of hydrogen.
Therefore here is another proof for the invalidity of the law of conservation of energy in this particular case.
-----------------------------
And at last let me share with you my personal poor opinion. I myself was STRONGLY AGAINST any experiments carried out by our team because of the following reason.
Please look at the five experimentally proved equations below.
1) First Joule's law: Q = I x I x R x t (experimentally proved for both solid and liquid resistors);
2) Ohm's law: V = I x R (experimentally proved for both solid and liquid resistors);
3) Faraday's law of electrolysis: m = z x I x t (experimentally proved);
4) LHV of hydrogen = 120 MJ/kg = 33 kWh/kg (experimentally proved);
5) HHV of hydrogen = 142 MJ/kg = 40 kWh/kg (experimentally proved).
The above 5 (five) equations have been successfully proved experimentally within a period of more than one century. Actually it is a matter of five experimental facts.
You have only to gather together these 5 experimental facts and form one united whole, which inevitably leads to the conclusion that the law of conservation of
energy is not true in this particular case. But let us repeat again that any rule/law has its exceptions and there is nothing special and tragic in this fact.
(Note. Any standard electrolyzer is a simple combination of solid and liquid resistors connected in series.)
------------------------------
Looking forward to your answers.
Best regards,
George

[gyulasun]

Hi George,

The only problem is that real and good science should be based on actual measurement results.  It is okay that by logical deductions which are based on experimentally proven equations, the setup you proposed "should give" efficiency > 1.
BUT this > 1 efficiency then should be measured, that is science in the correct sense.

I am not against you or against your group or against the possibility of having efficiency > 1,  ok?

And especially in such a case when you write this: "Therefore here is another proof for the invalidity of the law of conservation of energy in this particular case."  the measurement results are crucial and simply a must to backup your statement. 

Thanks
Gyula

[Floor]

Here is a similar topic.
https://overunity.com/16302/hho-as-real-uo-system/

But I did not find the topic I had in mind.

[George1]

To gyulasun.
-------------
Hi Gyula,
Thanks a lot for your reply.
=======
1) You wrote: "The only problem is that real and good science should be based on actual measurement results.  It is okay that by logical deductions which are based on experimentally proven equations, the setup you proposed "should give" efficiency > 1.
BUT this > 1 efficiency then should be measured, that is science in the correct sense.
I am not against you or against your group or against the possibility of having efficiency > 1,  ok?
And especially in such a case when you write this: "Therefore here is another proof for the invalidity of the law of conservation of energy in this particular case."  the measurement results are crucial and simply a must to backup your statement."
------------
Yes, after a careful thought we decided that you are absolutely right. We perfectly agree with you. Real experiments are necessary for proving of our statement. So I keep pressing hard our expert in experimental calorimetry to do the necessary things as quickly as possible.
=======
2) Besides (as if already mentioned in some of my previous posts) we do not insist by all means on the necessity of cosidering the hydrogen generating electrolyzer as a machine of efficiency bigger than 1. In our poor opinion it's perfectly enough if the hydrogen generating electrolyzer is considered as a simple and cheap heating device, which (a) is much more efficient than any standard Joule's heating device, and which (b) saves money.
=======
Looking forward to your answer.             
Best regards,
George

[George1]

To Floor.
-----------------
Thanks a lot for your reply.
==========
1) You wrote: "Here is a similar topic. https://overunity.com/16302/hho-as-real-uo-system/".
-----------------
But this is a fantastic idea! This guy is really smart! Thanks a lot for sending to me this link! If this "going-up-hydrogen" idea is added to the conception, described in my previous posts, then the heating efficiency of the electrolyzer would become even much higher. Don't you think so?   
==========
2) You wrote: "But I did not find the topic I had in mind."
------------------
You mean that there is another good idea in this forum related to our discussion? Can't we search for it together?
==========
Looking forward to your answer.
Best regards,
George