A SIMPLE ELECTRIC HEATER, WHICH HAS EFFICIENCY GREATER THAN 1

[gyulasun]

Hi George,

Well, if you repeat an experiment and presumably measure a few things, it is desirable to include some more details besides you have given in the above text. 

I think of, for instance, the DC voltage amplitude and the measured current you had to provide for 20 minute, you wrote nothing about these. 
This involves using either a separate voltage and a current meter like two DMMs or perhaps such meters are built into a DC power supply if you used such type.

A glass bodied mercury thermometer merged into the electrolyte or say the use of an infra thermometer is also missing from your report: it would be more convincing you check temperature of the electrolyte, after stirring up the electrolyte a little to insure more or less equal temperature for the whole quantity inside the container. 

One more question: how did you measure the electrolyte had indeed 0.5 Ohm resistance between the 2 electrodes?

It would also be good to see your setup in one or two snapshot pictures taken any time within the 20 minute long operating time. The pictures would show the meters together with the glass container and its electrodes.
By the way what material the two electrodes you use are made of?
The inclusion of these all would be a bit more scientific than your written text.

Now comes the most important question: how do you know the quantity of the liberated hidrogen during your test was pretty close enough to 100 mg what the Professor calculated in his textbook example (what he gave as an exercise for his students)? 
You or we know nothing about the test circumstances the Professor had for his example regarding how the electrolyte temperature hence the 0.5 Ohm resistance changed. (It is obvious that from the students point of view the circumstances of such tests are irrelevant, they are 'happy' to use a math formula and calculate say the input power to solve the question.)
You may say I am nit-picking with you but I am not: all these are valid details and questions that such experiment, once performed, should include in a report.  I mean not specifically reporting for me but for the scientific world whenever someone claims an unusual statement.  It is not me who doubts any COP > 1 result here but those professors, MS and Ph 'Doctors' who have already missed this recognition (a 'simple' ego question) you seem to have figured out so they simply will want to fully neglect you unless you show rock stable measurement results. 

And as I already said if a new electric heater is to be produced and marketed, operating on your idea, then specifications for such heater should be provided, from which any higher efficiency than that of the other heaters already on the market should clearly turn out.  Till this is not proved by measurements your claim remains a claim however the common sense or logics suggests otherwise. 
I am still interested in the titles and authors of those scientific papers you have referred to if you do not mind.

Gyula

[George1]

Hi Gyula,
Thanks a lot for your reply.
1) Yes, we perfectly agree with all you have written in your last post. We will do our best to fulfil all of your requirements. But it will take some time because our access to  the high-tech laboratory, in which we carry out experiments, is a little difficult.   
2) Meanwhile I am sending to you some interesting links as you asked in your yesterday post.
2A) http://www1.lsbu.ac.uk/water/electrolysis.html 
This link describes the basic postulates of water-splittig electrolysis. It confirms the validity of our COP > 1 concept.
2B) https://calistry.org/calculate/faradayLawElectrolysis
This link allows to calculate easily the amount of the generated hydrogen by using the experimental data for current I, time t and electrochemical equivalent Z of hydrogen. We used this approach in our experiments without weighing the generated hydrogen.
2C) http://www.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S1516-14392014000100012
This link contains ready experimental data, which confirm again the validity of our COP > 1. Why don't we use ready experimental data instead of performing again experiments that have been already performed?
Looking forward to your answer.
Regards,
George

[George1]

Hi again Gyula,
And one more 81-pages research experimental work:
http://www.esru.strath.ac.uk/Documents/MSc_2003/papagiannakis_i.pdf
Ready experimental results, confirming COP > 1. Why don't we use them?
Looking forward to your answer.
Regards,
George

[George1]

To Gyula and to all other guys who are interested in the topic.
---------------------------
One question.
1) Imagine that an AC or a DC voltage source is connected to a standard resistor of ohmic resistanse R. (The resistor is either solid or liquid or gaseous or some combination of the three.)
2) The AC/DC voltage source generates electric energy of 180,000,000 J.
3) The question is what is the Joule's heat generated by the resistor? Is it possible this Joule's heat to be equal to 60,000,000 J? Or to 40,000,000 J?
4) In the case of the liquid resistor (electrolyte) the AC/DC source's voltage is much bigger than the electrode potential and overvoltage and the latter can be neglected.
5) Let us remind again that the Joule's heat law directly derives from the Ohm's law and vice versa, that is,
V = I x R  (1)  <=>  V x I x t = I x I x R x t  (2)
where
V is voltage;
I is current;
R is ohmic resistance;
t is time.
(Note. We simply multiply by (I x t) both sides of equality (1) in order to get equality (2).)
(Note. In the AC case we consider the effective values of voltage and current.)
6) So let us repeat the question. If the AC/DC voltage source generates electric energy of 180,000,000 J, then what is the Joule's heat generated by the resistor? Is it possible this Joule's heat to be equal to 60,000,000 J? Or to 40,000,000 J?
---------------------
Looking forward to your answer.
Regards,
George

[gyulasun]

Hi again Gyula,
And one more 81-pages research experimental work:
http://www.esru.strath.ac.uk/Documents/MSc_2003/papagiannakis_i.pdf
Ready experimental results, confirming COP > 1. Why don't we use them?
Looking forward to your answer.
Regards,
George

Well, the author of that work used a Proton Exchange Membrane, do you have such device?  The thesis surely includes useful pieces of information, no doubt. 

George,  reading several of your posts, you seem to do quasi everything to convince members  or readers "logically"  that all the work have already been done earlier and you try to imply in most of your 'mathematical' answers that no need to do further tests.

I understand that it is hard to do correct tests, it needs time and resources for sure and as I wrote much earlier, I do not urge you.  I just try to keep you on a 'scientific' track from which you are often attempt wandering off.   

But obviously, you can do it on your own way.  My take on your claim is that it is possible but until not proved by correct measurements, it is just a claim.  Such is science.

Gyula