On 12-01-22 04:24 AM, Shaun Taylor wrote:
On 22/01/2012 6:57 PM, Mary Yugo wrote:
On Sat, Jan 21, 2012 at 11:45 PM, Shaun Taylor <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
Rossi faked the 6 Oct data and fooled all the "Experts" that
attended the demo. Some BIG names there.
I see goop (probably silicon grease)
on the brass fitting in the third image but I'm not sure what it
tells us.
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.
OK, seems like a reasonable conclusion. But there's something about it
which bothers me.
The brass fitting in question is actually /farther/ from the manifold
body than the stainless nut which Horace (and others) had been assuming
was the location of the thermocouple. What's more, the fitting in
question is sufficiently far from the manifold body that it's not at all
clear to me, at least, how much heat would actually have wicked to the
thermocouple from the steam inlet. But be that as it may, given that
this evidence seems to place the thermocouple farther from the heat
source than had been previously assumed, I don't see how it makes things
any worse for that test than they already were.
So, what did I miss?
(And by the way, Horace wasn't "shouted down". Say, rather, he was
"shouted AT" and I'll go along with it, but some folks agreed, some
disagreed, and some just listened, as usual.)
