Jones: If I might provide some additional thoughts/analysis...
1) The only way the resistance heaters can 'heat' is if there's a low resistance path thru the heating element (i.e., a large current flow). If that's the case, then I doubt you could generate any significant voltage potential between the axial heater and the band heater. 2) The only way I see to generate a signif potential between the two heaters is to leave one of the leads floating, thus, BOTH heater leads are at the same potential. However, this means there is no current flow thru that heater and thus, no heating. 3) Could they be using the heaters as heaters for the pre-ignition phase, and then floating one lead of one of the heaters in order to generate the electric field between the two heaters' leads? -Mark -----Original Message----- From: Jones Beene [mailto:jone...@pacbell.net] Sent: Saturday, May 07, 2011 5:55 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: RE: [Vo]:RE: Supersizing the BJT Steven - I did not remember that you were a toroidista :) - but in the end, I think you agree that either it is a toroid or else there has to be some kind of current going through the powder, otherwise - it is not going to heat up. Electrical current directly through the nanopowder has theoretical advantages, as well, since an electron flow could be beneficial to any M.O., but that does not mean it is happening this way, if the facts show otherwise. -----Original Message----- From: OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson >From Jones, > > A schematic view of the E-Cat would be something like this: > > http://i.imgur.com/llVoU.png > > Yes, This is exactly the way it appeared to me at first, given all > that is known from the images - with only an internal cooling tube and > NO external water flow around the outside of the reactor. My original > view is documented > in the archive and it is precisely this image. > > I was completely overruled on that assessment by everyone else on > vortex, without exception AFAIK except for Ed Storms - as they were > convinced that there must be external water flow, as well as internal. > Rossi also claims there is external flow, and since the 'great man' > has spoken, I did not pursue the topic and this layout, which I think > could be correct, but for one detail. > > Thanks for reminding me... As for being "completely overruled" - not quite true, Jones. I recall posting my own my personal thoughts on the idea that the reactor could be designed in the shape of a toroid. I certainly never "overruled" the toroid shape. Makes sense to me. I also wasn't initially aware of the fact that Ed Storms had apparently come up with the same concept, and no doubt before I had. It certainly wasn't a collaborative effort on my part. I still think a toroid reactor design makes the most sense. How can one heat a heater much above 100 c if the conductive heat has to pass through water first. Not going to happen. With that said, I offer my own disclaimer: Ed Storms obviously knows a lot more about what's possibly going on here that I. I feel like I was just shooting in the dark, and got lucky for once! Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
