A SIMPLE ELECTRIC HEATER, WHICH HAS EFFICIENCY GREATER THAN 1

[George1]

To lancaIV.
====================
You haven't read carefully my previous post.
Firstly, please read carefully and thoroughly my post of November 27, 2020, 10:17:39 AM. For your convenience it is given below. But please read it in original on page 25.
=====================
=====================
=====================
=====================
A hot discussion occurs in besslerwheel.com/forum. The title of the topic is just the same.
I am giving below again the text of our last post of October 18, 2020, 08:15:09 PM. The post's text is surrounded/limited up and down by double dashed lines.
====================
Let us assume that the energy consumed by the standard water-splitting electrolyzer is just equal to the sum of (a) the Joule's heat and (b) the heat, generated by the burning/exploding of the released hydrogen. Therefore we can write down the equality
V x I x t = (I x I x R x t) + (Z x I x t x (HHV)) (1)
where
V = DC source voltage
I = DC current
R = Ohmic resistance
t = time
Z = electrochemical equivalent of hydrogen
HHV = higher heating value of hydrogen
Therefore we can write down the inequalities
V x I x t > I x I x R x t (2) <=> V > I x R (3) <=> V/R > I (4).
-----------------------
The last inequality (4) unambiguously shows that Ohm's law is not valid for liquid resistors.
----------------------
The above considerations are not very precise however. In order to be precise enough we have to introduce the quantities v an i. In other words, we must write down the equality
(V - v) x (I - i) x t = ((I - i) x (I - i) x R x t)+(Z x (I - i) x t x (HHV)) (5)
where
V = DC source voltage
I = DC current
R = Ohmic resistance
t = time
Z = electrochemical equivalent of hydrogen
HHV = higher heating value of hydrogen
v = minimum voltage necessary for the water-splitting electrolysis to begin
i = the related small decreasing of current I, caused by the presence of v.
And from here we can write down the inequalities
(V - v) x (I - i) x t > (I - i) x (I - i) x R x t (6) <=>
<=> V - v > (I -i) x R (7) <=> (V - v)/R > I - i (.
-----------------------------------------
The last inequality ( shows again that Ohm's law is not valid for liquid resistors.
------------------------------------------
It is evident that if V is much bigger than v (and I much bigger than i, respectively), then v and i can be neglected and in this case inequality ( can be replaced with inequality (4).
In one word, if equalities (1) and (5) are valid, then inequalities (4) and ( are valid too. But this means that Ohm's law is not valid for liquid resistors.
----------------------------------------
Ohm's law is the most basic and most fundamental axiom of electric engineering. No Ohm's law -- no electric engineering.
==============================
Looking forward to your answer.
=========================
P.S. Number eight in brackets is replaced by some stupid head with black spectacles. Some error of the system.

[George1]

To lancaIV. And here is also our post of November 24, 2020, 02:07:08 PM, p. 25. It is given below.
=================================
=================================
=================================
=================================
Let us focus again on pure theory.
---------------------------------------
Please have a look again at our post of October 31, 2020, 10:07:39 AM. For your convenience I am giving below the text of this post. (The text is surrounded/limited up and down by double dashed lines.)
===============================
Here is a continuation/variation of our previous post of October 18, 2020, 05:28:00. (Please look at besslerwheel.com/forum. Almost the same text in the related topic of the same title.)
------------------------------------------------------
1) Let us assume again that the energy consumed by the standard water-splitting electrolyzer is just equal to the sum of (a) the Joule's heat and (b) the heat, generated by the burning/exploding of the released hydrogen. Therefore we can write down the equality
V x I x t = (I x I x R x t) + (Z x I x t x (HHV)) (1)
where
V = DC source voltage
I = DC current
R = Ohmic resistance
t = time
Z = electrochemical equivalent of hydrogen
HHV = higher heating value of hydrogen
------------------------------------------------------
2) Let us decrease n times voltage V, that is,
V x I x t = (I x I x R x t) + (Z x I x t x (HHV)) (1) <=>
<=> (V/n) x (I/n) x t < ((I/n) x (I/n) x R x t) + (Z x (I/n) x t x (HHV)) (2)
where
n > 1
R = const.; for how to keep R constant please refer for example to our post of July 04, 2020, 01:38:09.
-------------------------------------------------------
3) Now let us increase n times voltage V, that is,
V x I x t = (I x I x R x t) + (Z x I x t x (HHV)) (1) <=>
<=> (nV) x (nI) x t > ((nI) x (nI) x R x t) + (Z x (nI) x t x (HHV)) (3)
where
n > 1
R = const.; for how to keep R constant please refer for example to our post of July 04, 2020, 01:38:09.
--------------------------------------------------------
4) In one word, it is evident that:
a) equality (1) shows that efficiency is equal to 1;
b) inequality (2) shows that efficiency is bigger than 1;
c) inequality (3) shows that efficiency is smaller than 1.
---------------------------------------------------------
5) Therefore by regulating the value of V we can regulate and control the value of efficiency. In other words, efficiency can be either (a) bigger than 1 or (b) equal to 1 or (c) smaller than 1. And this depends on the value of V.
---------------------------------------------------------
6) let us remind again that in order to be more precise we have to use V - v instead of V and I - i instead of I, respectively. (For v and i please refer to our previous post of October 18, 2020, 05:28:00.) But if V (and V/n too!) is much bigger than v (and I (and I/n too!) much bigger than i, respectively), then v and i can be neglected and therefore (1), (2) and (3) are perfectly correct.
----------------------------------------------------------
7) In one word, we proved theoretically again that the law of conservation of energy is not always valid for any standard DC water-splitting electrolysis process.
---------------------------------------------------------
Do you have any theoretical (ONLY THEORETICAL!) objections against the text above? Is there any formula/logical construction in the text above which is incorrect and if yes, then why? Please focus solely and only on the analysis (line by line) of the text above.
================================
Looking forward to your answer.
George1
Looking forward to your answer.
George1

[lancaIV]

To lancaIV.
-----------------------------------------------
Well, as if I can't understand something. It is a basic axiom of electric enginnering that for a standard solid resistor the consumed electric energy transforms entirely into Joule's heat (DC circuit). You claim that this is not true?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joule_heating
Joule heating, also known as resistive, resistance, or Ohmic heating, is the process by which the passage of an electric current through a conductor produces heat.
Joule's first law, also known as the Joule–Lenz law,^[1] states that the power of heating generated by an electrical conductor is proportional to the product of its resistance and the square of the current:
     P ∝  I  2   R   {\displaystyle P\propto I^{2}R}  (https://wikimedia.org/api/rest_v1/media/math/render/svg/eebd9f8c2cf3ac1419096c3555c6dcc560db3d63) Joule heating affects the whole electric conductor, unlike the Peltier effect which transfers heat from one electrical junction to another.

But : after theory change !
In 1841 and 1842, subsequent experiments showed that the amount of heat generated was proportional to the chemical energy used in the voltaic pile that generated the template This led Joule to reject the caloric theory (at that time the dominant theory) in favor of the mechanical theory of heat (according to which heat is another form of energy).^[2]
Resistive heating was independently studied by Heinrich Lenz in 1842.^[1]


Speaking/writing about "Axiom" :
                                                  would this mean "universal" ,
the industry ,worldwide, would has have concentrated their production over the centuries to one,

                         THE PERFECT ELECTRIC TO HEAT CONVERTER,shortly:heater device


what did not happen !


A. functional application,heater output

B. temperature from heater surface
C. applied wire material ,dis-/advantages
D. far/near infrared radiation

..........
                                         Some unconformal "very efficient heater" news during the last decade :




Measurement error (analog instruments versus electric sensoric instruments), ? ,



                                                                                        or wire configuration/material(mix)related , ? , :



                       10%,50%,100%,500% more efficiency claimed ? Measurement error preservation : 10%,25%,50 % ?


I.

http://www.rexresearch.com/suekran/suekran.htm
A Denizli based company FUNIKA Teknoloji A.S. has invented a hybrid heating material called HIM to generate high heating energy using with low electricity. This new material is a chemical compound of many organic and inorganic materials so that it substitutes resistance wires used to convert electricity to heating energy to heat air, water or oil. It can be used in many areas such as; - heating homes and offices, - heating air, water or oil, - in electrical appliances using resistance wires, bars or plates, - to generate steam etc...



The official report has been given by Energy Dept. of Mugla University on 20th Feb. 2008 stating that coefficient of performance (COP) of HIM is 2.25 times more than standard resistance wires.
C.O.P. for a wire ?





II. conventional (physics formulas) electric consume by given heat output volume ?



Ambiental,outer, temperature ,before/during heating process not given !


https://www.wireservice.ca/index.php?module=News&func=display&sid=8843
Al Bernstein, Inventor:



»The sensational input from the public grid or from a small PV-system for 150 m2 heated areas, (calculated with 40-60 watts per square meter complying to new standards) like for a new single-family home or a suite, is ± 700 Watt/h (0,7kW/h, or ± 2389 BTU/h), which is below that of a kettle or a hair dryer - the output of the radiators / underfloor-heating system is ± 8 - 10 kW or ± 34130 BTU heating energy.
No additional auxiliary energy, heat pumps, oil, gas, pellet, fuel type burner and no approval from the energy provider is required (small consumers).



The constant system temperature of the radiators with max. 80 ° C correspond to the norm 90/70/20, while the constant floor heating system temperature (temperature of the heat carrier cells) is max. 50 ° C.«
   

                                                          34130 BTU equates x 0,293 = 10 000 W



III.

https://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/biblio?DB=EPODOC&II=4&ND=3&adjacent=true&locale=en_EP&FT=D&date=20030424&CC=US&NR=2003077078A1&KC=A1
[0015]    The present invention achieves low thermal conductivity, has a substantially uniform structure and allows for rapid heating efficiency. Energy savings of up to about 75% are realized over conventional heater elements and radiating infrared methods. 


IV.
company Unites ,Ucraine,  silicium-carbide wire






                                               " You claim that this is not true? "

                                                                       I do remark,I do not claim anything !


                                                         Related room-heating systems I remarked also  :

Dr.Helmut Reichelt "thermotexx"             2 W/sqm area electric consume     bio-resonant heating
https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=de&tl=en&u=https://www.slimlife.eu/reichelt_heizung.html





Gerhard Beier                                         4 W/sqm  area electric consume     bio-resonant heating
https://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/biblio?DB=EPODOC&II=21&ND=3&adjacent=true&locale=en_EP&FT=D&date=20080925&CC=DE&NR=202008007815U1&KC=U1#
For example, a room with a floor area of 20 m2 with approx. 80 Watts at a voltage of 35 volts to a body-friendly warmth of 18-20 ° C permanently.





Peter Filip                                              6 W/sqm  area  electric consume    Graphit IR-heat panel

https://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/description?CC=DE&NR=202008006432U1&KC=U1&FT=D&ND=3&date=20080724&DB=EPODOC&locale=en_EP#

The inventive applications mentioned above have improved the radiating element by five times from the original position. The surface without these applications required 1000 watts of energy in the first laboratory tests and thanks to the inventive aspects, the energy requirement could be reduced to 270 watts in order to achieve the same effectiveness.
- The applied electronic control of the core temperature of the heat conducting layer leads to further energy savings which increase up to 40%. The continuous measurements of the power consumption of the 270 watt element have shown a constant energy consumption of 150–180 watt / h.


Disputing about laws or applied "AXIOM"s also related :
https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=de&tl=en&u=https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boltzmann-Statistik

Happy reading wishing
OCWL


p.s.: " Let us focus again on pure theory."

Then work with Physics literature and search for all the applied theory related laws and to each law given conditioning

But included chemistry literature !         

[George1]

To lancaIV.
--------------------------------------- 
1) Interesting post, very interesting! Thank you for it. BUT:
1A) Most of these concepts (not to say all of them) are quite expensive, if applied practically.
1B) Many of these concepts are actually working hypotheses, whose validity is not completely proved. There are still too many unknown things, contradictions, ambiguous and uncertain theoretical and/or experimental results, etc.
2) While our standard DC water-splitting electrolysis OU concept is simple for understanding and simple and cheap for practical realization.   

[lancaIV]

https://www.intechopen.com/books/electrolysis/water-electrolysis-with-inductive-voltage-pulses

2.4 Water splitting with the pulse electrolysis
Many new patents on pulse electrolysis appeared in 1970-1990 (Horvath, 1976; Spirig, 1978; Themu, 1980; Puharich, 1983; Meyer, 1986; Meyer, 1989; Meyer, 1992a, 1992b; Santilli, 2001; Chambers, 2002) stating to be invented over-effective electrolysis (i.e. the current efficiency is higher than 100%).
The water splitting scheme described in these patents initiated a huge interest, but nobody has succeeded in interpreting these schemes and their performance mechanisms up to now, and what is more important, nobody has succeeded to repeated patented devices experimentally as well.

Probably by the above inventors patent applications  in their  citing documents or cited documents similar solutions to find !

Good luck
OCWL