Shaun Taylor sez: >The goop is where the bead of the thermocouple was placed. There is no other >reason for anything like that material to be there other than to provide a >good heat exchange between the brass fitting and the thermocouple head. Notice in the other 2 images it has been cleaned off the brass fitting. Not a good idea for it to be there too long as some sharp eyed observers may have questioned why that material was on that brass fitting. Can't have the observers asking awkward questions. Why was the bead placed there? Simple. Doing so would deliver a higher than reality Tout temperature, making the delta T look bigger than it really was and making the Ecat appear as if it was generating more energy than is was consuming.
Shaun, you are in error. I have examined your pictures and like Mary, I do not see the significance of the goop you are referring to. BUT ... For the sake of discussion, I accept your premise that the goop was placed there so that Tout can be higher than it would have been. Then, explain to me why the Tout remained a "flat" line for 4 hours, if there is no active "process" occuring that is generating heat to keep that temp flat. People is that room, including Jed, verified that there was no input power to the heating element, and yet Tout was flat as a pancake, and even increased slightly. You can not explain how this anomaly could have happened no matter how much of "verbal goop" you use. Maybe, like Cude, you will claim that there is some heat storing media in there that is storing the heat and releasing it for 4 hours. If that were so, then explain why Tout slowly dropped after the Hydrogen was vented to end the test after 4 hours. If you invented a heat storing media that can be regulated to release heat in a controlled fashion for over 4 hours causing a flat Tout reading and then for some reason stops releasing the heat on cue after the hydrogen is vented; if you know of such material; by all means, apply for a patent for such a material, as that material would be worth millions in everyday practical applications. Like other pseudo-skeptics, you just accept the data that supports your preconcieved notions. You ignore the "flat" Tout data and you question the integrity and competence of many people much smarter than you who were in fact in that room personally witnessing the test. What makes you think you have come up with a reason that others have not thought of? Don't you think Jed would have forgotten to verify that there was no input power to the heating element? Come on, get real. Jojo
