Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!sdd.hp.com!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!news.larc.nasa.gov!grissom.larc.nasa.gov!kludge
From: kludge@grissom.larc.nasa.gov ( Scott Dorsey)
Newsgroups: sci.electronics
Subject: Re: Re: Microwave Water Heater
Message-ID: <1991May8.154135.7382@news.larc.nasa.gov>
Date: 8 May 91 15:41:35 GMT
References: <1991Apr28.182011.3357@rodan.acs.syr.edu> <7480018@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM> <1991May6.152846.16704@tc.fluke.COM> <1991May6.211620.6876@rodan.acs.syr.edu> <1991May7.153014.4344@zoo.toronto.edu>
Sender: news@news.larc.nasa.gov (USENET Network News)
Reply-To: kludge@grissom.larc.nasa.gov ( Scott Dorsey)
Organization: NASA Langley Research Center
Lines: 23

In article <1991May7.153014.4344@zoo.toronto.edu> henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) writes:
>In article <1991May6.211620.6876@rodan.acs.syr.edu> amichiel@rodan.acs.syr.edu (Allen J Michielsen) writes:
>>>Yes.  Too bad the process of turning coal into electricity and delivering
>>>it to your plug is only 25% efficient.  :-(
>>
>>In Steam by Babcock & Wilcox 38th edition, it is implied that 85-89% is
>>to be expected...
>
>Uh, for what?  I would be very surprised if B&W had found a way to repeal
>the laws of thermodynamics, which make it very difficult to get an efficiency
>of more than 40-50% out of a heat engine.  Methinks you are reading a number
>for only part of the process, perhaps the efficiency *after* the heat energy
>is converted to mechanical energy.


   I have a much more efficient way to heat water than either the microwave
system described or the coal burning/electrical resistive element method.
Utilizing oxidative combustion methods, our proprietary system combines 
light hydrocarbon gasses under pressure with atmospheric oxygen providing
direct creation of heat at the boiler, with no need for messy and inefficient
electrical transmission systems.  For more information on our patented "Gas
Hot Water Heater," send us all your money please.
--scott