At 04:59 PM 6/19/2011, Stephen A. Lawrence wrote:
On 11-06-19 04:38 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:
At 11:57 AM 6/19/2011, Stephen A. Lawrence wrote:
I won't argue this with you again, Jed, I had enough trouble
getting you to admit that it's possible to have steam at higher
than 100 C at 1 atmosphere of pressure.
Stephen, perhaps you are making the same mistake here,
misunderstanding what's being said.
? What point did I miss ?
It's possible to have steam at higher than 100 C, but it would take
post-generation heating.
Obviously. It boils at 100C, and to make it hotter than that, you
need to heat it some more.
Right. The transfer of energy from the walls of the cooling chamber
to the steam is inefficient, compared to the transfer to water.
I'm sorry, but I seem to have totally missed the point of what follows.
It appears to be a rehash of all that's been said already regarding
steam. Certainly there's nothing to disagree with in it (save one
item I flagged), but I don't understand what point you were trying to make.
The point is that Jed was probably talking about the practical
situation, that, in it, there would be no practical way to get steam
at higher than 100 C.
BTW regarding fire walkers, part of the trick may be something
Lawrence was made to say in the film Lawrence of Arabia: "The
'trick' is not caring that it hurts."
That's an effect, for sure. However, that would not explain the lack
of burns. From what I understand, sometimes there are minor burns,
and if a person were to react to the pain, then might then suffer
greater burns, so both effects could be operating. The relative lack
of burns would be a protective effect from water vapor. The close
contact with the coals is kept very short. Fire walking is not a
casual stroll, with pauses!
My guess, though, the Rossi devices would spit water. That could be
avoided by redesign, and this may be what they have done. It would
spit water if the manner of heating, inside, allowed pockets of
steam to be trapped, with water blocking the exist path, so the
water would be blown out. Basically, gravity could be used to keep
the water in the bottom of the cell, with the steam rising out the
top. But the E-Cat appears to have a horizontal design. So that it
would spit isn't terribly surprising. This might be avoided by
simply tipping the thing a little, so that the exit tube is the
highest point inside, and bubbles of steam rising from anywhere
inside would rise directly to that point, with no place for them to be trapped.
Once the thing doesn't spit, there is no need for the tube to the
sink, nor any need to collect water, since there would be no water
coming out at any point.
There is a need, actually. It's generating so much heat (10 kW + )
that it would rapidly turn the lab into a sauna if it weren't vented
someplace. Stuffing the hose down the sink dumps the heat, not just the water.
That sounds like a nifty excuse to me. How about ventilation of the
lab, fans blowing. If it gets warm, that will just improve the
impressiveness of the demonstration. Don't turn the fans on until
people ask for it!
The window would have been OK but the sink was apparently more
convenient (and besides, if it were spitting out the window,
passersby might object).
If it's spitting, there would be more objections than that. Spitting
is trivial to handle in ways that would be completely visible. It can
simply spit into a jar. But it shouldn't be spitting at all, unless
it's not properly designed.
The worry would be that it was designed to spit.... and thus to
appear to be generating more heat than it actually was. More likely,
though, they simply did not take care to prevent spitting.
I find Rossi's claim that pulling the hose up was dangerous to be
evidence that it, at least sometimes, spits.
