On 23/01/2012 6:08 AM, Stephen A. Lawrence wrote:
On 12-01-22 04:24 AM, Shaun Taylor wrote:
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.)
The bead head was placed on the surface of the brass adapter. On that
surface the bead would be more exposed the surface conducted heat from
the very hot manifold. It was not measuring the flowing water
temperature but a mixture of the cooling effect of the flowing water on
the heated brass fitting. If there was no flowing water in the
secondary, the surface of that brass fitting would be close to that of
the steam inlet temperature (reported as being 110 deg C). It is only
the effect of heat transfer into the water, inside the brass fitting
that would have lowered the temperature of the outside surface of the
brass fitting.
I suggest there was a tappable range of surface temperatures along the
surface of the brass fitting. Hotter at the Stainless nut end and cooler
at the hose adapter fitting end. Easy then to adjust the final bead head
position to deliver the desired Tout temperature and the desired delta T.
It is a smoking gun proof that Rossi manipulated the Tout data to show
an acceptable COP. Horace was right, The 6 Oct data are crap.
Just what you would expect of a serial liar who has no respect for the
truth of his actions nor for the truth of the data he presents.
Shaun
