A SIMPLE ELECTRIC HEATER, WHICH HAS EFFICIENCY GREATER THAN 1

[lancaIV]

Take this

https://m.phys.org/news/2014-01-nanoscale-standard-efficiency-limit.html

and combine with this

https://www.allaboutcircuits.com/news/nanoscale-heat-transfer-100-times-stronger-than-previously-thought/
and you will find the answer. !

[George1]

Hi lanca IV,
Thank your reply.
Well, we are talking again about different things.
1) The first link of your last post is about a nanoscale heat engine which exceeds standard efficiency limit. Ok, this only confirms the fact that efficiency bigger than 1 is perfectly possible. At the same time however this nanoscale heat engine has an entirely different principle of operation and for the present is practically an unconfirmed hypothesis. THE GERMAN SCIENTISTS NOWHERE DECLARE CLEARLY AND UNAMBIGUOUSLY LIKE US THAT ANY STANDARD HYDROGEN-GENERATING ELECTROLYZER CAN BE CONSIDERED AS AN ELECTRIC HEATER, WHICH HAS EFFICIENCY GREATER THAN 1!
2) The second link of your last post is about a nanoscale heat transfer 100 times stronger than previously thought. Well, I will not argue about this. May be true, may be not. But the article considers HEAT TRANSFER and we are talking about HEAT GENERATION. These are obviously two entirely different things.
----------------------------
So let us focus again on the target.   
----------------------------
3) I will repeat again the question of my last post. Do you accept the theoretically proved simple fact that (1) COP = 1.35  <=>  COP > 1 (this is our further development of Prof. Srivastava's version of the basic problem) and that (2) COP = 1.35  <=>  COP > 1 (this is our further development of Russian professors' version of basic problem)? Yes or no?
4) In one word, it is obvious that any standard hydrogen-generating electrolyzer can be considered as a heater, which has efficiency (COP) greater than 1. Do you accept this simple fact? Yes or no?
Looking forward to your PERSONAL answers.
George

[lancaIV]

Yes,it is acceptable  ! Personally and by common science !
Electrolyzing is as cracking process also heat generating  !

Sincerely
OCWL

poste scriptum : the global science is not in search for C.O.P. greater 1 hydrolysiss processes,these are existent,but mostly based by expensive elements and/or rare earth/Lanthaniden or by expensive equipment,to reach the point : high C.O.P. - ON DEMAND- hydrogen output production by lowest/competitive to alternatives costs  !

[George1]

Hi lancaIV,
Thank you for your reply.
1) Oh, I am EXTREMELY pleasantly surprised that at last you personally accept the simple fact that any standard hydrogen-generating electrolyzer is actually an electric heater which has efficiency bigger than 1. You are a brave person! Congratulations!
2) But you are ABSOLUTELY WRONG that the mentioned in the above item 1 simple fact is accepted by the common science! ON THE CONTRARY, IT IS SEVERELY DENIED! Can you show us some publication, article, any written text, you tube clip, etc., which unambiguously and directly tells us that any standard hydrogen-generating electrolyzer is actually an electric heater which has efficiency bigger than 1?
3) In your last post you wrote:"... but mostly based by expensive elements and/or rare earth/Lanthaniden or by expensive equipment...". But this is not true! I would absolutely not agree with this! Hydrogen-generating electrolysis is in general one of the most cheap industrial processes! For example sea water hydrogen-generating electrolysis is extremely simple and cheap! (Not to mention and enumerate other methods of simple and cheap hydrogen-generating electrolysis.)
Looking forward to your answer. (Especially your answer related to the above item 2.)
George
     

[lancaIV]

To 3) cheap " a.grey b.blue c.green" hydrogen production is something to defined :
you mean costs fob  source or costs for user/consumer :
new canadian startup Proton Technologies "Hygenic Earth Energy" project costs estimation : 0,1-0,5 US$/ Kg

Solarthermic hydrolysis in the arabian Peninsula for 1,5 -0,8 US$/Kg

judbarovski.livejournal.com CO2-emission free hydrogen 0,5 US$/Kg

To compare with crude oil : 1 barrel ~ 1600 KWh ~ 42,6 Kg hydrogen

Production process costs about 0,5 US$/Kg means simi!ar costs like actual shale gas market price !


January 2020 1 MMBTU shale gas : 2 US$ 

1 barrel crude oil ~ 5,46 MMBTU shale gas ~ 11 US$ barrel- equivalent


Shale gas prices actually without "carbon credit" CO2-certification costs are equivalent with 0,25 US$/Kg hydrogen production costs  !
When we treat shale gas like natural gas - related CO2 emission -  per MMBTU and
calculate by E.U. "carbon credit"- taxation program

for shale gas we have with 25 Euros/tonCO2 certifcation costs and 55 Kg CO2 emission per MMBTU  an environmemtal related tax price increase about 1,375 Euros per MMBTU
or 7,5 Euros (~ 8,25 US$) CO2-tax per barrel -equivalent shale gas  !

Conclusion :
19,25 US$/ barrel-equivalent shale gas included CO2-tax is the target of  " cheap green hydrogen" !

                           ~  45 US$cents/Kg green hydrogen comercial market price

As energy-user it will be easier to generate electricity -on demand-with a generator which delivers 1 KWh electricity ≤ 1,5 US$cents ~ 24 US$/ barrel-equivalent electricity ( CO2-tax free )


To store hydrogen is costly ! And the handling with this gas dangerous !Hydrogen as fuel emitts vapor : the greenhouse gas NR 1 in the GHG-ranking  !

To 1) and 2) a technical C.O.P. higher 1 is nothing special, but it is not a physical C.O.P. and the physical transformation process efficiency  is  smaller-same 1=100 per centum
C.O.P. ,efficiency ? : solarlight + titanoxid + water  :  physical ? chemical ? technical  ?