On Sat, Jun 1, 2013 at 6:57 AM, Jones Beene <[email protected]> wrote:
But the ecat just uses electricity to make heat. So if the ecat already > makes heat, it should self-sustain on that. Like combustion.**** > > ** ** > > An ICE is self-sustaining. The ecat needs external power. They're > different. Your example is wrong, no matter how much you wriggle.**** > > ** ** > > Yes it was a poor analogy, but so what? Cude’s analysis is wrong no matter > how much he obfuscates and by jumping on a poor analogy – he does not gain > credibility. > Forgive me, but I rather like the analogy. That Joshua is studiously avoiding seeing how it applies does not make it a bad analogy. Note that its limitation -- that in a normal ICE the motion of the shaft can easily be used to recapture the energy, which is different from the case of the E-Cat, is a good and relevant limitation in this context. It improves the relevance of the analogy. It shows that, given the possibility that the E-Cat may require a secondary source of power (let's call it requirement 1), you have to do some fancy footwork in this particular case (Stirling engine, etc.) in order to recapture the energy that was not required in the case of the ICE (let's call this requirement 2). It's not clear that requirement 1 applies in the case of the E-Cat; perhaps it doesn't. This is what Joshua is pointing out. I'm saying that the possibility exists, however (as in the case of the ICE), and that if we assume for the sake of argument that it does, then requirement 2 also applies in this instance. I'm going further and saying that requirement 1 is quite common. These things are all I need to make my point that Rossi's need for an external control system is not outlandish; on the contrary, it's quite reasonable. Eric
