On Thu, Jun 23, 2011 at 8:03 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax <[email protected]>wrote:
> >> If all of the claimed input water were converted to steam, that would >> represent 5 kW of power. At least 3 kW, and probably closer to 4 kW would >> escape that hose as steam enthalpy. It is clear that what escapes that hose >> is not even half that, maybe not even a quarter that. So, that means, as I >> said above, that most of the liquid does not change phase. The steam must be >> very wet. Actually. >> > > This is not clear at all. I don't see any way to reliably estimate what is > escaping from the hose, nor how much heat is being lost by the hose as > radiation and convection and conduction. You don't need reliable estimates, only reasonable upper limits to reach the conclusion I did. > It seems odd that the E-Cat would be designed in a way that would make very > wet steam, but, of course, it could be done. It's not odd at all. If the steam is very wet, but Rossi can convince people it's very dry, then he gets a free factor of 7 in energy gain. What's odd about that? Try to think of a 1.5 kW space heater. Do you really think that 3 1-ft >> diameter turns of a rubber hose at 100C would throw that much heat. It's >> completely implausible. >> > > Heat transfer increases with temperature. Right. You can look up the amount of heat transfer per unit area per unit time at 100C for cast iron radiators. It would not be very different for rubber.
