This started out as a comment on one of these five questions about water, but I thought (since the comment had a few upvotes on in after a few hours of being there) it ought to be added here as an answer (although it's somewhat of a fragment of an answer).
An argument for...
The OP of the aforementioned questions about water suggested that asking the questions all at once and getting it over with all in one go minimises the effect of the flooding of questions.
Certainly in this case, there were only five questions, and I think this argument stands up in this case, whereas if someone had twice as many, this argument might not scale up to that quantity of related questions (although if someone has that many questions about one topic, that may be indicative of a greater issue...)
An argument against...
For me personally, asking many closely related questions in one go creates the problem that I get bored going through them all, meaning I'm less likely to read each subsequent question properly as opposed to just skim-reading, and less likely to post or vote because I'm getting bored with the subject matter.
If others feel this way as well, then asking all the questions at once may encourage users to skip them (or some/most of them) resulting in most of them not being read, and since they were all asked at once, they will all swiftly drop of the "new questions" page all together, resulting in most of them being largely ignored. If you want these questions to actually get some attention, it would be better to ask them with reasonable time gaps, since asking them all together might not end up being too different to not asking them at all.