OK Mary, you have heard my position on this manner, now explain why it is not possible? I refer to the (1) item you list. I expect for you to cry that no one has proved that this is what is happening, etc. Instead, for once let me know why it is not possible.
So, if the water level is changing within the ECAT, why should the power level output be required to hold within 1%? It is your turn now. The first one about the fast action is left for the student. I probably could explain it if I took the time, but why should I ruin your fun? Dave -----Original Message----- From: Mary Yugo <maryyu...@gmail.com> To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com> Sent: Fri, Nov 18, 2011 1:30 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:[Vo] : ECAT 1 MW System-Dazzle or Fizzle "This one is for you to explain. You always complain about the lack of data. If you think about the system long enough, I am confident you will understand why." That's an answer? Yes, please, by all means clarify. ">(1) why is the temperature so stable, requiring power stability of 1% Easy. The water level is adjusting. No requirement of 1% exists. Lets argue this point in a separate posting if you wish." I wish you two would. That would be educational. M. Y. *------- On Fri, Nov 18, 2011 at 10:15 AM, David Roberson <dlrober...@aol.com> wrote: I already did. Do you need clarification? Dave -----Original Message----- From: Mary Yugo <maryyu...@gmail.com> To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com> Sent: Fri, Nov 18, 2011 12:35 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:[Vo] : ECAT 1 MW System-Dazzle or Fizzle On Fri, Nov 18, 2011 at 9:29 AM, Joshua Cude <joshua.c...@gmail.com> wrote: Right, because no one can explain: (1) why is the temperature so stable, requiring power stability of 1% (2) how does he get an 8-fold increase in power transfer in a few minutes, if the first-fold power increase took 2 hours. Excellent questions. Perhaps Jed Rothwell can address them?
