Joe:
Water flow is most certainly pertinent to any energy calculations concerning the E-Cat. Your statement that "we aren't discussing water flow" seems to indicate that either we are talking about two completely different calculations or you have no idea what you're talking about. All demonstrations of the E-Cat have had a high quality pump pumping water thru the E-Cat - where do you think the steam comes from? There is some disagreement as to the 'claimed' flowrates which might be in conflict with the apparent flowrate based on the number of 'strokes' per minute, but no one has ever claimed that there is no water flow thru the E-Cat. Given that and the fact that there are few substances that have a higher heat capacity than water, make me seriously question your understanding of the device and/or the physics involved here. Compare the heat capacity of any metal with water and you will see that water can store 100 to 1000 times more heat per mass than any metal. Since the mass of water in the E-Cat and the mass of the metal structure are at least similar, how long the E-Cat could continue to produce steam once the power was turned off is MOST CERTAINLY dependent on the water flow and the temperature of that water. probably much more so than the metal structure. PS: Horace was probably doing these kinds of energy calculations when you were still pissing in your diapers, so I'd suggest that you calm down and stop insisting that all others are wrong and you are right. If you want to gain any credibility on this discussion list then I'd suggest that you stick to facts and figures and calculations to support your points, and stop the personal attacks. -Mark From: Horace Heffner [mailto:hheff...@mtaonline.net] Sent: Monday, August 29, 2011 7:59 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:Corrections to "heat after death" calculations 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/
