Repost: lost in cyberspace Recent comments here seem to suggest that the E-Cat "chimney" is simply filled with hot water during operation.
Maybe, but think about it. Common sense would indicate that the fabrication of this chimney is evidence of too much effort to be merely a "receptacle" for water. For whatever reason, the images of the chimney indicate that a considerable amount of fabrication effort was put into the design (poorly crafted welds and so on). A water receptacle alone should be much simpler to construct. A more likely explanation (for the cynics) is that the chimney contains a "thermosyphon" "Wu-tube" or heat pipe - the function of which is to concentrate the average heat of the hot water produced - for the purpose of raising what may appears to be a fraction of drier steam - at least drier than would otherwise be possible. Why would one want to concentrate the average heat this way? (i.e. to bifurcate the thermal distribution of the output) ? Could it be to give an appearance of drier steam, when the average thermal energy cannot support the results which are sought ? Well, a few cynics here will probably opine that this technique would indeed allow more dry steam at the expense of colder liquid water, since the higher end of the thermal distribution (Boltzmann's tail) of the liquid water has thus been transferred to the steam, cooling the bulk water - and the two flows are now bifurcated. Net heat is unchanged. Consider two cases: 1) Natural steam, accompanied by the expected flux of hot water from which the dry steam is raised. These are well-known assumptions, and would be taken for granted. 2) Drier than natural steam, accompanied by cooler than expected water, from which the heat has been concentrated to dry the steam. The net result of this could be that a group of professors watching a demo would assume when dry steam is measured at the start of the demo - that all the water which accompanies it (later in the demo) and which has been weighed - "must be" the same water from which the dry steam was derived normally - and thus normal assumptions about the heat being transferred from it will prevail. Does this really add anything to the big picture? Maybe not, IF we could trust the February demo where thermal gain was seen which was apparently not dependent on dry steam - but which demo has its own set of problems. Nevertheless - getting back to the main point of this post: common sense still dictates that the fabrication of this chimney represents a lot of work and effort for the purpose of serving merely as a receptacle for hot water. In the end, skeptics will not be convinced that a strong anomaly has been demonstrated - until accurate calorimetry testing has taken place. It has not. Does it matter what skeptics think? Probably not to Ing. Rossi. Jones
<<attachment: winmail.dat>>
