On Aug 29, 2011, at 5:14 PM, Joe Catania wrote:
[snip ad hominem and continued mistakes]
We aren't discussing water flow.
[snip ad hominem and continued mistakes]
Of course we are discussing water flow. The device had water pumped
into it at a constant rate. If you chose to ignore that then you
chose to ignore reality. Looking back, I do see that you simply
chose to ignore reality in your discussion with Jed.
Joe
On Aug 26, 2011, at 5:37 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
Joe Catania wrote:
No, its not out of the question at all. Since we don't know the
flow rate of water (whether its flowing or not) and since it isn't
particularly relevant I neglect it.
The water is always flowing. This is a flow calorimeter.
It is completely unrealistic to suppose that you can boil water in
device this size, save up heat in metal, and then continue boiling
at any observable rate for more than a few seconds after the power
goes off. That is out of the question. The temperature of the metal
would be far above the melting point. The metal would be incandescent.
- Jed
Instead of talking imaginary things I suggest a quantitative analysis
to see what kinds of numbers make sense.
I have taken no position on the reality of input t this point except
to say it looks to me that 1 MJ of stored energy seems to be too high
to be real. Still, I ran some numbers that support that
proposition. Applying logic to a proposition is *not* accepting the
proposition as true.
The statement:
If x then y
is not the same as:
x is true.
It merely provides the opportunity to examine y to see if it is
feasibly true.
Best regards,
Horace Heffner
http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
