From: Stephen A. Lawrence <sa...@pobox.com>
>To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
>Sent: Thursday, June 23, 2011 9:41 AM
>Subject: Re: [Vo]:E-Cat vs. Water Heater for coffee/tea...
>
>
> 
>
>On 11-06-23 04:23 AM, Joshua Cude wrote: 
>
>>
>>
>>On Thu, Jun 23, 2011 at 2:51 AM, Mark Iverson <zeropo...@charter.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> 
>>>  
>>>You might think that all this time on the steam quality is quibbling over 
>>>minor details, but one of the senior contributors to the Vort collective 
>>>calculated that if only 5% (by mass) of the water going in was not vaporized 
>>>(i.e., ended up as liquid water in the outflowing steam), it would pretty 
>>>much wipe out all excess energy being claimed by Rossi.     
>>
>> 
>>No. Where do you get that? What senior contributer said that? If 95% of the 
>>water (by mass) is converted to steam then Rossi's claims are 95% right. 
>>(Well, ignoring discrepancies in flow rate and input power.) 
>>
>> 
>>What is true is that if the output is 5 % liquid by *volume*, then Rossi's 
>>claims are 6 or 7 times too high. Because 5% liquid by volume corresponds to 
>>99 % liquid by mass.   
>That would probably have been Horace, and I think he may have meant
    "by volume".  The calculations are in the archive, among the most
    recent posts from Horace just before he bowed out due to lack of
    time, if anyone cares to go digging.
>
>
>
>

Reply via email to