>From Jed and Josh: >> It is all nonsense and bullshit. The 18-hour tests with >> flowing water proved that the large cell is producing >> ~17 kW. > > If it did, then the steam should have been a few hundred > degrees C in the January test, and not 100C. But of course > it doesn't prove anything other than that Rossi and Levi > are capable of making unproven claims.
Pardon my brief intrusion. This is where I differ with Joshua's conclusion. I tried to explain, unsuccessfully I might add, why in my perception of the events that the steam exiting the eCat reactor is not likely to be much above 100 C no matter how hot the internal eCat temperature core might be...within reason that is. (If memory serves me, I believe the exiting steam temp was recorded to be around 100.1C - 100.2C.) If there is always liquid water present in the reactor core, water which can never reach above 100C at sea level, the nearby gaseous H2O won't have much of a chance to hang around long enough within the reactor core in order to absorb additional temperatures above 100C. Keep in mind that I am assuming that the H2O in its gaseous state is NOT being trapped within the eCat reactor core for any period of time. This ASSUMES the gas has free rein to exit immediately, which I am to understand is precisely what happens. Ironically, the higher the eCat reactor core temperature gets, the more water is converted into steam. This means any converted gas will simply exit the reactor core even faster than before. This means the converted gas doesn't have any more of a chance to absorb additional heat even if the core is hotter, precisely because it leaves faster than before. I would agree with Joshua's conclusion if the converted steam was deliberately being trapped within confines of the reactor core for longer periods of time. Then most certainly the steam WILL absorb additional heat that would be significantly above 100C. However, it is my understanding that this doesn't happen. Therefore, I'm still not inclined to agree with Joshua's conclusion. It is my understanding, however, that Joshua claims my reasoning on this matter apparently violates conservation of energy laws. To be honest, at present I'm not sophisticated enough in my science-speak lingo to challenge Joshua on the matter. So I'll just leave it at that. Regards Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
