A SIMPLE ELECTRIC HEATER, WHICH HAS EFFICIENCY GREATER THAN 1

[Floor]

To Floor.
------------------------------
If there exist any energy Esw, which is necessary for splitting of water, then equality V x I x t = (I x I x R x t) + (Z x I x t x (HHV)) (1) must be transformed into
equality  V x I x t = (I x I x R x t) + (Z x I x t x (HHV)) + (Esw)  (1A). But despite of this transformation inequality  V x I x t > I x I x R x t remains valid.

I find no explanation of the meaning of the expression you have used "Esw" in my internet searches.

1. The not so obvious. That energy from the electricity, which was not transformed into heat, is present in the ionization states of the derived gases.

2.  The not so obvious.  Your equations are misapplied.  This has already been explained to you
several time in this topic.

3. The not so obvious.  Some of the evolved gases will recombine into water before they escape from the electrolyte.  BEFORE ! (they will recombine within the electrolyte).
Guess what ?  This is an oxidation.
Guess what else ?  It produces heat. 
Guess what else again ?  It is the SAME AMOUNT of heat energy that would have been produced per joule of electric energy when transformed directly into heat via resistance heating.

4.  The obvious. The splitting of the water molecule by electrolysis DOES require an input
of energy.

5.  The obvious.  The heat evolved within the electrolyte due to electrical resistance heating is NOT
the cause of the water molecule splitting into H and O.

6. The obvious.  That input energy which IS NOT transformed into heat DOES NOT just go away.
That energy is present in the ionization states of the gases evolved.

7.  That ionization energy is transformed into heat when the gases are recombined as they are burned together.

8.The obvious. You, yourself do not believe the claim you are making is true.

I recommend that all interested readers, read through this topic from its start.  It has some very good input from some very knowledgeable people.

                   floor

[George1]

To Floor.
-------------------------------
But dear Floor, you are not reading carefully and thoroughly my posts. (If reading them at all.) Please read my posts, if possible.
1) Any outlet energy is put on the right side of the equation.
2) It is a matter of entirely Ohmic resistance.
3) Etc, etc.

[George1]

To Floor.
-------------------------
Please read carefully my posts!

[Floor]

@George1

1. Didn't you know that the electrolysis plus the burning of the H and O is not O.U..

2. Didn't you know that this forum has had dozens of explorations of, and thousands of pages dedicated precisely to the examining of variations of the electrolysis process in an O.U. context ?

3. The electrical energy converted to heat energy in a PURELY resistive circuit is 1 per 1.

4. This is true for  ANY  PURELY  resistive electric circuit whether the resistor is solid or liquid.

5. An electrical circuit is   NO LONGER a PURELY   resistive circuit when electrolysis occurs.

What next ? 

You going to sell us on the phallicy that an electrically energized coil is O.U. because the magnetic field is in addition to the heat produced ?

Or that in a wire coil with an AC current, total resistance is only the ohmic and doesn't include impedance  ?


     Me thinkest thow knowest not the shit where of ye speak .....
        I cry B.S. on you.

       floor

[George1]

To Floor..
--------------------------
Hi Floor,
Yes, you are absolutely right that some additional aspects of the problem have to be further clarified and discussed. And here they are.
--------------------------------------
1) Actually the correct equation is
V x I x t = (I x I x R x t) + (Z x I x t x (HHV)) + (X) (1B),
where
V x I x t = input energy = electric energy, which is generated by the DC source, and which is consumed by the electrolyzer
I x I x R x t = Q = Joule's heat, which is generated by the electrolyzer = output energy 1
Z x I x t x (HHV) = output energy 2 = heat, which is generated by burning/exploding of the released hydrogen
X = output energy 3 = sum of all additional energies, which are necessary (a) for splitting of water molecules into hydrogen and oxygen atoms, (b) for collateral chemical reactions due to the impurity of the electrolyte, (c) for forming of bubbles etc., etc.
----------------------------------
2) It is evident from the above equality (1B) that (V x I x t) is the sum and that (I x I x R x t), (Z x I x t x (HHV)) and (X) are the addends, respectively.
----------------------------------
3) According to the rules of standard arithmetic the sum is always bigger than any of the addends (forming that same sum). Therefore the
sum (V x I x t) is bigger than the addend (I x I x R x t). Therefore we can write down the inequality V x I x t > I x I x R x t (2B).
----------------------------------
4) Now let us divide both sides of inequality (2B) by (I x t), that is,
V x I x t > I x I x R x t (2B) < = >
< = > (V x I x t)/(I x t) > (I x I x R x t)/(I x t) (3B) < = >
< = > V > I x R (4B).
-----------------------------------
5) The last inequality (4B) as if shows a violation of Ohm's law. Because the correct mathematical expression for Ohm's law is V = I x R (5B), isn't it?
----------------------------------
Everything in the above considerations seems to be logically and mathematically correct, doesn't it? What is your opinion?
(I am not pressing you to accept the validity of anything at once. We are simply seeking for the truth together. I am not in a hurry. I will be patient. I promise.)
Looking forward to your answer.
Respectfully yours,
George