2011/6/25 Joshua Cude :
> Well it might be if the reactor were at the bottom of a tea pot, and the
> output at the top of the pot. But the input and output to the reactor are
> both horizontal at the same level.
here was your misunderstanding. This is not true, because water input
is at the same l
On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 1:53 PM, Horace Heffner wrote:
>
> It is notable that the power input varies depending on the controller
> actions, that if the power input (plus any nuclear output heat if any)
> should become less than that required to convert all the input water to
> steam then the liquid
Re: [SocietyforClassicalPhysics] Hydrinos vs. "Recent Extraordinary Cold Fusion
Claims"
On Jun 22, 2011, at 12:55 AM, scarmani wrote:
> Dear Dr. Mills,
>
> In the email post below, you state "If you are looking for a
> theoretical explanation for recent extraordinary cold fusion
> claims, my as
On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 8:27 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
> Jouni Valkonen wrote:
>
>
>> It is important that tea pot does not overflow, because it messes up
>> calculations, because steam is not dry anymore. Therefore E-Cat's
>> inner volume has to be big enough to account power fluctuations
>> beca
On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 6:43 PM, Jouni Valkonen wrote:
>
> > Well, that would explain the temperature regulation, but it's not exactly
> > the same, because there is no pump pushing whatever is in the ecat,
> > vaporized or not, out. In the case of the teapot, the exiting steam
> leaves
> > as it
On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 8:44 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
> Joshua Cude wrote:
>
> element is always completely submerged. I.E. input flow is adjusted so
>>> that it matches evaporation rate.
>>>
>>
>> First of all, the flow rate is not adjusted in any of the demos after the
>> experiment is started.
On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 8:19 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
> Joshua Cude wrote:
>
> Nope. When you put 800 W into something like this, a large fraction of it
>>> radiates from the cell into the surroundings.
>>>
>>
>> The cell is insulated.
>>
>
> It is too hot to touch according to witnesses.
>
Whic
Joshua Cude wrote:
element is always completely submerged. I.E. input flow is adjusted so
>> that it matches evaporation rate.
>>
>
> First of all, the flow rate is not adjusted in any of the demos after the
> experiment is started.
>
Correct. Only the anomalous heat output is adjusted.
The on
The Witch Doctor Files on Rossi (3 of 4) - Interview Transcript June 9 2011
DISCLAIMER: Readers may agree or disagree with what has been transcribed, or
how I went about assembling (and editing) the information for vortex-l. That
is to be expected. In the end, please evaluate it using your own in
The Witch Doctor Files on Rossi (2 of 4) - Interview Transcript March 5 2011
DISCLAIMER: Readers may agree or disagree with what has been transcribed, or
how I went about assembling (and editing) the information for vortex-l. That
is to be expected. In the end, please evaluate it using your own i
Jouni Valkonen wrote:
> It is important that tea pot does not overflow, because it messes up
> calculations, because steam is not dry anymore. Therefore E-Cat's
> inner volume has to be big enough to account power fluctuations
> because peak power can surge over 120 kW. On the other hand if all
The Witch Doctor Files on Rossi (4 of 4) - Personal Assessments &
Conclusions
The source of this information is of an unorthodox nature. I cannot vouch
for its authenticity. I know of no traditional scientific way of going about
verifying the accuracy of where this information might have bee
The Witch Doctor Files on Rossi (1 of 4) - Introduction
This is an experiment, an experimental inquiry into the continuing
adventures Andrea Rossi and his mysterious e-cats. I hope some here may find
the contents of the following posts interesting. Hopefully it may even be
educational, if not o
Joshua Cude wrote:
Nope. When you put 800 W into something like this, a large fraction of it
>> radiates from the cell into the surroundings.
>>
>
> The cell is insulated.
>
It is too hot to touch according to witnesses. The insulation means it takes
longer to get hot on the outside; the differe
On Jun 24, 2011, at 2:36 PM, Stephen A. Lawrence wrote:
YOW -- WHAT YOU JUST SAID
On 11-06-24 04:20 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
So the only way for Rossi to make it produce a little steam and a
lot of hot water would be for him to adjust the anomalous heat
output. It would be a miracle
2011/6/25 Joshua Cude :
> First of all, the flow rate is not adjusted in any of the demos after the
> experiment is started. The only thing that is necessary to account for a
> flat temperature is, as you say, that the flow rate is high enough so that
> the entire heating element remains wet.
> To
On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 5:36 PM, Stephen A. Lawrence wrote:
> YOW -- WHAT YOU JUST SAID
>
>
> On 11-06-24 04:20 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
>
>>
>> So the only way for Rossi to make it produce a little steam and a lot of
>> hot water would be for him to adjust the anomalous heat output. It would
On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 5:26 PM, Jouni Valkonen wrote:
> 2011/6/25 Joshua Cude :
> > On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 4:29 PM, Jed Rothwell
> wrote:
> >>
> >> If you have a high temperature thermometer, please try this at home:
> >> Boil some water in a teapot so that steam emerges from the spout. Turn
>
YOW -- WHAT YOU JUST SAID
On 11-06-24 04:20 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
So the only way for Rossi to make it produce a little steam and a lot
of hot water would be for him to adjust the anomalous heat output. It
would be a miracle if Rossi has such good control over the anomalous
heat that
2011/6/25 Joshua Cude :
> On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 4:29 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
>>
>> If you have a high temperature thermometer, please try this at home:
>> Boil some water in a teapot so that steam emerges from the spout. Turn the
>> flame down, so that only a little emerges. Measure the temperat
On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 4:49 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
> **
> Joshua Cude wrote:
>
> There is no chance any of the water would vaporize with only ~800 W
>> input.
>>
> You would not any steam at all. Even with this high input power, any
>> steam at all is proof there is anomalous heat.
>>
>
> W
This is going into an infinite loop. Trying to explain that with only
800 is just too hard for me. Thanks for trying.
On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 4:35 PM, Daniel Rocha wrote:
> While I am also a skeptical, even rough approximation gives a huge
> output gain. Above 100 degrees means gas,
A temperature reading within a degree or two of 100C is consistent with a
mixture of gas and liquid.
> and pumping a mixture wo
Joshua Cude wrote:
There is no chance any of the water would vaporize with only ~800
W input.
You would not any steam at all. Even with this high input power,
any steam at all is proof there is anomalous heat.
What are you talking about. You just did the calculation yourself
On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 4:32 PM, Rich Murray wrote:
> Joshua Cude,
>
> Are you conceding that the Rossi device produces some anomalous excess
> heat -- in a fully reproducible setup, capable of explosions, that
> would imply important, accessible new physics...
>
>
I make no definite claims. I am
On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 4:29 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
> If you have a high temperature thermometer, please try this at home:
>
> Boil some water in a teapot so that steam emerges from the spout. Turn the
> flame down, so that only a little emerges. Measure the temperature of the
> steam. You will
While I am also a skeptical, even rough approximation gives a huge
output gain. Above 100 degrees means gas, and pumping a mixture would
require either another pump, by means of ventilation. Ventilation is
noisy and would require a large opening. Even 1% of liquid is a thick
fog, which is not the c
Joshua Cude,
Are you conceding that the Rossi device produces some anomalous excess
heat -- in a fully reproducible setup, capable of explosions, that
would imply important, accessible new physics...
On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 4:03 PM, Jouni Valkonen wrote:
> 2011/6/24 Joshua Cude :
> >
> > On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 3:08 PM, Jouni Valkonen >
> > wrote:
> >> I do not know how many times you and abd have been told that the
> >> measured boiling point of water is 99,7 °C. Therefore if there is mist
>
a mixture of ground coffee and water should do the trick. ;-)
Harry
- Original Message -
> From: Terry Blanton
> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
> Cc:
> Sent: Friday, June 24, 2011 5:10:35 PM
> Subject: Re: [Vo]:[Video] Andrea Rossi Crunches the Numbers for His Energy
> Catalyzer (June 14th)
Joshua Cude wrote:
It is not the temperature reading that convinces me it is at the
boiling point, it is the fact that the temperature is so perfectly
flat. If the steam were dry, its temperature would be free to
increase, but it never does.
If you have a high temperature thermometer, please
On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 3:20 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
> **
> Joshua Cude wrote:
>
> You only get a stable water/steam mixture in a closed vessel (a teapot).
>>
>>
>
> Why? If it takes say 1 kW to raise the temperature of the flowing water
> to 100C, and then you supply 1.5 kW (using only and el
On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 3:23 PM, Daniel Rocha wrote:
> What fluid would you suggest?
Jones suggests therminol which is used in solar power applications;
but, as Peter points out about glycol, there are also disadvantages.
The system would have to be securely closed.
T
2011/6/24 Joshua Cude :
>
> On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 3:08 PM, Jouni Valkonen
> wrote:
>> I do not know how many times you and abd have been told that the
>> measured boiling point of water is 99,7 °C. Therefore if there is mist
>> mixed into dry steam, it will reduce the steam temperature below
>>
Jouni Valkonen wrote:
I do not know how many times you and abd have been told that the
measured boiling point of water is 99,7 °C.
Yup. It is ~99°C here in Atlanta, GA, elevation ~300 m.
Of course this is thermometer reading is trivial to fake e.g. putting
carefully calibrated and electronic
On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 3:02 PM, Daniel Rocha wrote:
> You have to trap most of the steam until all the heat gets
> transfered.
I don't know what that means.
> And 1% by mass is a very think fog, it won't be dragged
> out by the flow.
>
It's not given a choice. There is a pump forcing it ou
On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 3:08 PM, Jouni Valkonen wrote:
> 2011/6/24 Joshua Cude :
> > As soon as it starts boiling, things get very turbulent. Steam is 1700
> times
> > the volume of water for the same mass, so it's gonna push things around.
> > It's gonna push all the water ahead of it out, and co
Joshua Cude wrote:
You only get a stable water/steam mixture in a closed vessel (a
teapot).
Why? If it takes say 1 kW to raise the temperature of the flowing
water to 100C, and then you supply 1.5 kW (using only and electric
heater), then only part of the flowing water will get conve
2011/6/24 Joshua Cude :
> As soon as it starts boiling, things get very turbulent. Steam is 1700 times
> the volume of water for the same mass, so it's gonna push things around.
> It's gonna push all the water ahead of it out, and convert the unboiled
> water behind it to a fine mist. If 1% of the
Isn't there a small transparent hose besides the one that pumps water inside?
You have to trap most of the steam until all the heat gets
transfered. And 1% by mass is a very think fog, it won't be dragged
out by the flow.
It won't change much. I used 1.5g/s which gives 3.300W, so, 1.8g/s
fits the bill. So, it is just a slightly stronger blow.
On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 1:23 PM, Daniel Rocha wrote:
> If you don't want to hot bubbles outside he machine, you have to heat
> almost all to steam. Using a teapot shaped boiler is a way to not let
> that happen. Jed is right this time.
>
>
Huh? You can't heat almost all to steam by will. There ha
On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 2:47 PM, Daniel Rocha wrote:
> > Why? If it takes say 1 kW to raise the temperature of the flowing water
> to
> > 100C, and then you supply 1.5 kW (using only and electric heater), then
> only
> > part of the flowing water will get converted to steam, and you will have
> t
> Why? If it takes say 1 kW to raise the temperature of the flowing water to
> 100C, and then you supply 1.5 kW (using only and electric heater), then only
> part of the flowing water will get converted to steam, and you will have to
> have a mixture of liquid and gas coming out. What other possibi
On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 1:15 PM, Daniel Rocha wrote:
> But 2KW does give a very feeble buff, unless it is ousted in a very
> thin cavity and accelerated by propellers, like in a hand vaporizer.
>
>
And in any case, Rossi is claiming 5 kW, not 2.
On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 1:15 PM, Daniel Rocha wrote:
> But 2KW does give a very feeble buff, unless it is ousted in a very
> thin cavity and accelerated by propellers, like in a hand vaporizer.
>
>
I doubt is is accelerated by anything but its own pressure. And the rate of
production is far highe
The best heat transfer liquid is water, any organic heat transfer liquid
(Defkalion speak about glycol but this has to be a glycol of higher moleculr
weight) is dangerous- comustible toxic and is degrading and fouling the very
hot surfaces as in this case.I have worked long years with Diphyl, not a
On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 1:56 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
> **
> Joshua Cude wrote:
>
> If it was overflowing that would be obvious from the temperature.
>>
>
> How? If part of the water was converted to steam, then the water/steam
> mixture would be at 100C.
>
>
> With this flow configuration, in
What fluid would you suggest?
Peter Daniel,
I think the steadiness of the heat transfer is the only real
problem and I suspect that the water pump is making it worse. A simple drain
valve on the output of the e-cat using a high temperature transfer FLUID would
make the rate of heat transfer much more stable
>
> However, other people have published similar helium results in the
> peer-reviewed literature.
>
> No quantitative correlations were published in peer-reviewed literature.
>
> Even advocates admit that Miles' results were preliminary and crude, and
>> they were controversial, and challenged
From: Joshua Cude
>To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
>Sent: Friday, June 24, 2011 2:20:40 PM
>Subject: Re: [Vo]:E-Cat vs. Water Heater for coffee/tea...
>The vessel will boil away all of the water at these flow rates.
>
>
>
>To get water to boil, you only have to heat it to 100C. To convert it all to
>st
Joshua Cude wrote:
If it was overflowing that would be obvious from the temperature.
How? If part of the water was converted to steam, then the water/steam
mixture would be at 100C.
With this flow configuration, in my experience it would around ~95°C as
soon as the feed water starts ov
On Jun 24, 2011, at 10:08 AM, Joshua Cude wrote:
On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 12:34 PM, Daniel Rocha
wrote:
The output temperature and flow output, even visually, are convincing.
They are visually equivalent to putting off a candles by blowing them,
that is 0.2W - 0.4W. But to make it only by
On possible explanation for the difference is that LENR processes are common.
Harry
NASA Mission Suggests Sun and Planets Constructed Differently
http://www.spacedaily.com/reports/NASA_Mission_Suggests_Sun_and_Planets_Constructed_Differently_999.html
"These findings show that all solar sy
Excuse me I don't get exactly what you are saying.\
It seems there are 2 problems;
a) we don't know exactly how the system has to be controlled to give maxim
performance i.e. intensity and efficiency (output/input0;
b) Rossi is not mastering perfectly the same parameters - he has made scale
down (f
Peter Gluck wrote:
THe ratio HAS to be made much higher. The story has started from 200:1
according to Focardi.
The ratio has been made infinite in some cases. Rossi has run the cells
with no power input. As I am sure you know he says this is dangerous.
Assuming that is true, it still means
If you don't want to hot bubbles outside he machine, you have to heat
almost all to steam. Using a teapot shaped boiler is a way to not let
that happen. Jed is right this time.
Heh, it would require a Q>1000/pellet for that to happen...
It is, but it is either explosive or the power is too slow, like with
the experiments that you mention of Focardi.
On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 1:05 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
> Joshua Cude wrote:
>
> It is not necessary to do any tests to know that with a given input flow
>> rate of water at room temperature, if the output fluid is at 100C, the
>> corresponding power for 99% liquid (by mass) is about 7 times lower
THe ratio HAS to be made much higher. The story has started from 200:1
according to Focardi.
Peter
On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 8:34 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
> Peter Gluck wrote:
>
> For such a routine-routine calculation he supposedly made hundreds of...he
>> seems a bit slow. Or too pedagogical?
>>
My above answer was to Joshua Cude.
Yes, they were. And this is what makes a Krivit a skeptical of cold
fusion. As I said somewhere else, he believes that what causes the
heat is the transmutation of elements and not just fusion.
But 2KW does give a very feeble buff, unless it is ousted in a very
thin cavity and accelerated by propellers, like in a hand vaporizer.
Joshua Cude wrote:
Of course I knew that. We've been over this a dozen times. That's why
I said *replication*. So it was not dishonest.
Ah. So you did. I did not notice the word "replication." I apologize.
However, other people have published similar helium results in the
peer-reviewed liter
On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 1:05 PM, Daniel Rocha wrote:
> It was replicated several times. But never reliably or convergent,
> that is, around 24MeV. The results always turned out values between 20
> and 80 MeV.
>
>
and were published in conference proceedings or the like...
On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 12:34 PM, Daniel Rocha wrote:
> The output temperature and flow output, even visually, are convincing.
> They are visually equivalent to putting off a candles by blowing them,
> that is 0.2W - 0.4W. But to make it only by heating water and
> vaporizing requires more than 2
It was replicated several times. But never reliably or convergent,
that is, around 24MeV. The results always turned out values between 20
and 80 MeV.
Joshua Cude wrote:
It is not necessary to do any tests to know that with a given input
flow rate of water at room temperature, if the output fluid is at
100C, the corresponding power for 99% liquid (by mass) is about 7
times lower than it is for 100% steam.
This vessel is shaped like a teapo
He doesn't need to provide data for that. 1% of liquid mass would mean
an intense bubbling foam outside the hose. Just for a comparison, a
nebulizer with an output of 46L/min of oxygen takes several minutes to
deplete a shallow reserver of a few grams of liquid, and the fog is
very thick.
http://w
On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 9:42 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
> This comment is tangled in another long thread. I would like to repeat it,
> to draw attention to it.
>
> Joshua Cude wrote:
>
> Until replication of Miles' heat/helium claims makes it past replication,
>> there is nothing to critique.
>>
>
>
On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 9:52 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
> The discussions here about how "wet steam" might produce a gigantic error
> are nonsense. No one has demonstrated such an error with a system like this.
> No one here has run a test demonstrating how to make steam with 6 times less
> energy t
Fusion Experiment Faces New
Hurdles
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/24/us/24bclivermore.html (free
registration may be required)
[ Tritium filters getting clogged ]
The tipping point for nuclear fusion is ignition, the moment when the
lasers release the same amount of energy that is requi
My only complaint it is that Rossi needs glasses. He finds it
difficult to read his own notes.
The output temperature and flow output, even visually, are convincing.
They are visually equivalent to putting off a candles by blowing them,
that is 0.2W - 0.4W. But to make it only by heating water and
vaporizing requires more than 2000KW.
I don't think the con comes from that. If that was so e
Peter Gluck wrote:
For such a routine-routine calculation he supposedly made hundreds
of...he seems a bit slow. Or too pedagogical?
I have done that calculation many times, but if I were doing it on a
blackboard for a video audience in Japanese I doubt I would be as smooth
as Rossi was.
A
On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 10:33 AM, Daniel Rocha wrote:
> Just to be sure of my position. I am completely convinced that the
> data that has been provided is coherent with a power generation of
> 2.5KW.
But the presented data is also consistent with power equal to the input
electrical power of 800
As for the Krivit's test, there is nearly no condensation inside the
hose. That is visible in any of the video. The water output due vapor
doesn't require a very fast flow, so it is certainly free, with no
turbulence. The kinetic energy is just too small due vapor, 0.2W.
On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 6:09 AM, Horace Heffner wrote:
> I wrote: "A couple meters of rubber hose can not radiate away 80% of 12 kW
> of heat suggested to be produced in the original runs."
>
> To be more specific, it can be expected the heat flow through the rubber
> tube walls is about 220 W pe
On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 10:01 AM, Peter Gluck wrote:
> And the output/input ratio( 6.7) has to be divided with at least 3 if we
> speak about the value of energy- 1kW electric = 3 kW thermal energy.
Considering the temperature of only 100C of the ecat output, the value of
the thermal energy i
The appended response appears to be nonsensical. Perhaps it is due to
a language barrier?
The calculation provided appears to be meaningless. It appears to
*assume* a priori a free flow of steam, i.e. no percolator effects,
no pressure or flow variations. Also, it would be more professiona
Just to be sure of my position. I am completely convinced that the
data that has been provided is coherent with a power generation of
2.5KW. My doubt is from where the power is drawn. Rossi does have
control over the current, using his computer, so he can surely change
the power while cheating on t
The pressure of the hose is too small, in another thread I wrote this :
"Considering a stream of 10m/s, 1.5g/s out of the hose, with, 5cm2 of
area, the pressure inside above 1atm the chamber is
P=F/A=(1.5*10(-3)*10)/5*10(-4)=(1.5*10(-2)*10(4))/5=1.5*20=30N/m2 or
and increase of 3*10(-4) atm."
It
For such a routine-routine calculation he supposedly made hundreds of...he
seems a bit slow. Or too pedagogical? And the output/input ratio( 6.7) has
to be divided with at least 3 if we speak about the value of energy- 1kW
electric = 3 kW thermal energy.
The Defkalion brochure speaks about output/
Andrea Selva wrote:
Nope. If you use fuzzy data as input and elastic math a power gain of
1 can easily rise to 6 or even more ...
There is nothing fuzzy about the data. The method Rossi is using has
been used successfully by physicists and engineers since the 1840s,
millions of times. The dis
Nope. If you use fuzzy data as input and elastic math a power gain of 1 can
easily rise to 6 or even more ...
2011/6/24 Jed Rothwell
> Andrea Selva wrote:
>
> Rossi could have shown the line voltage too in order to better support his
>> claim of 750W.
>> Very smart guy, isn't it ?
>>
>
> You c
. right you are - MoB.
> 230 Volt AC (single phase) is the average AC voltage and not the "peak".
So 230 Volt AC means essentially 325 Volt AC peak.
Kind regards,
MoB
This comment is tangled in another long thread. I would like to repeat it,
to draw attention to it.
Joshua Cude wrote:
Until replication of Miles' heat/helium claims makes it past replication,
> there is nothing to critique.
>
Miles' heat/helium claims were published in peer reviewed journals in
Andrea Selva wrote:
Rossi could have shown the line voltage too in order to better support
his claim of 750W.
Very smart guy, isn't it ?
You can say the line voltage was 260 V. That would not affect the
conclusion.
This kind of nitpicking is a waste of time. Anyone can see that Rossi is
m
Akira Shirakawa wrote:
Here's a video that will generate MUCH discussion, filmed by Steven
Krivit during his visit in Bologna on June 14th:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YrTz5Bq6dsA
I do not see anything controversial about it. He almost forgot to
multiply the mass of water times 7 kg, but
Joshua Cude wrote:
Until replication of Miles' heat/helium claims makes it past
replication, there is nothing to critique.
Miles' heat/helium claims were published in peer reviewed journals in
1993 and 1994.
- Jed
-Original Message-
From: Horace Heffner
Thanks for jumping back into the analysis, as tiresome as it has gotten to
be (even for this particular audience).
Almost everyone agrees that it would be very easy for Levi and his crew to
rectify the wet/dry steam controversy - that his continui
On 11-06-23 11:23 PM, Joshua Cude wrote:
On Thu, Jun 23, 2011 at 7:26 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax
mailto:a...@lomaxdesign.com>> wrote:
It's flowing water, not a kettle. So the input power can only
heat it so much.
In the chart of temperature, a sudden change in rate of
Hi,
On 24-6-2011 15:22, Jones Beene wrote:
*From:*Andrea Selva wrote:
Angela Kemmler wrote:
The electrical input was 750W
No, it was between 784 and 805 W (230x3.4 or 230x3.5). The tension is 230 V in Italy. This is called in Italy "eurotensione", google it.
Sorry but this is still i
From: Andrea Selva wrote:
Angela Kemmler wrote:
The electrical input was 750W
No, it was between 784 and 805 W (230x3.4 or 230x3.5). The tension is 230 V
in Italy. This is called in Italy "eurotensione", google it.
Sorry but this is still incorrect.
You have not taken into accoun
I wrote: "A couple meters of rubber hose can not radiate away 80% of
12 kW of heat suggested to be produced in the original runs."
To be more specific, it can be expected the heat flow through the
rubber tube walls is about 220 W per m of hose.
Using the thermal conductivity for rubber at
On Jun 23, 2011, at 1:02 PM, Daniel Rocha wrote:
2011/6/23 Horace Heffner :
Liquid LiquidGas
PortionPortion Portion
by Volume by Mass by Mass
- --- ---
0.000 0. 100.00
0.001 0.6252 0.3747
I will just concentrate in the second e
1 - 100 of 101 matches
Mail list logo
