>From Josh: > I'm arguing that if dry steam were coming out of the ecat > (corresponding to 5 kW total power), that most of it would > survive to the end of the hose, because I don't think more > than a few hundred watts could be radiated by the hose. > And that what comes out of that hose is completely > inconsistent with 4 or 5 kW of steam enthalpy. It's far > less even than what you get out of a 2 kW steam cleaner > shown on youtube and referenced here previously. > > Instead, I would judge the output to be more consistent > with a few hundred watts of power (1 kW tops) over and > above the power needed to heat the water. This is not > based so much on whether it's visible at the end of the > hose, but on the speed and volume of the gas, once it > does become visible. And in the case of the Lewan run, > on the amount of bubbling when the hose is held under > water (not much).
You give technical reasons for why you have arrived at your conclusions, but I don't feel you have answered the specifics of my original question. I will therefore rephrase it: Do you know if the gas being expelled from the black hose showed any signs of having started to condense into water droplets PRIOR to exiting the end of the hose? IOW, was the observed gas totally invisible at the end of the black hose, or was some condensation (mist) observed directly exiting the hose. My understanding was that the gas was completely invisible at the end of the black hose. Observers subsequently noticed that water vapor (condensation) began to form away from the hose... perhaps a quarter of an inch or so. However, my assumption might be incorrect. I'm hoping someone can clarify the matter. > The consistently flat temperature is also a clear indication > that the steam is not dry. I can see no reason the temperature > of dry steam would remain so closely regulated at the boiling > point. This particular issue has been argued excessively in the Vortex Forum. I gather not everyone agrees with your interpretation. As for me, I remember my own high school chemistry labs. I recall heating solutions of unspecified liquids in order to convert them into gas. As various solutions transformed into a gas they would immediately leave the boiling flask. What was interesting about this experiment was the fact that the temperature of the remaining liquid ALWAYS remained consistent or at the same level of the respective boiling point. Obviously, the liquid that had just been converted into a gas and had immediately left couldn't possibly be any hotter that the respective temperature of the remaining liquid, especially if it was not contained like in a pressure cooker. It's my understanding that Rossi's e-cat is not designed to retain water under pressure as if it is a pressure cooker. The expelled water is going to be pretty darn close to 100 C no matter how hot the Rossi reaction might be. The only difference would be that the hotter the Rossi Reaction might get, the quicker the various solutions will convert to gas based on their respective boiling points. But it won't make the water turned into a gas any hotter. It will just increase the volume of liquid begin converted into a gas. Is it the conversion rate what is being disputed? Regards Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
