OK, I'll ask the question a different way: Is there any explanation offered, even if only in an interview, by the researchers as to why they did not use normal calorimetry?
On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 12:32 PM, James Bowery <[email protected]> wrote: > I don't think "a couple hundred bucks" would cover the spa-based system > you describe. "On the cheap" is relative. > > > On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 12:29 PM, DJ Cravens <[email protected]> wrote: > >> If the device was in the 1 to 5 kW range, then a simple hot tub should >> work. A typical 6 foot spa heats at about 1 degree F per hour at 1 kW. >> That, some copper tubing coils, and a utility pole meter should be enough. >> If you really wanted to be sure no extra wiring/power was going into it, >> perhaps a 1kW gas generator..... >> >> I personally think heating two hot tubs side by side - one with a ecat >> and one with a R would be a fair demo and a fairly good "proof". >> >> For smaller units (1 to 100W), perhaps heating a tea pot would be >> reasonable. >> >> So yes, I think it could be "done on the cheap". >> >> However, realize Rossi's purpose is not to prove the science. I don't >> think he is things in the best way, but the science should be done in >> controlled science labs- The development in a warehouse perhaps heating a >> pool. People who want proof and science should do their own experiments. >> Anything else will not be adequate for those purposes. >> >> >> D2 >> >> >> ------------------------------ >> Date: Mon, 3 Jun 2013 11:42:07 -0500 >> From: [email protected] >> To: [email protected] >> Subject: [Vo]:A Couple Hundred Bucks Maybe... >> >> >> I've seen it claimed by a rather emotionally committed skeptic -- with >> some background in conducting CF runs with calorimetry -- that an adequate >> 19th century technology water-bath style calorimetry of the E-Cat HT would >> cost "a couple hundred bucks maybe...". Obviously if this is true then the >> $20,000 budget for the E-Cat HT test available to Levi et al (2013) would >> have been more than adequate. Clearly, if this estimate is accurate then >> it is easy to understand why a skeptic might get emotionally committed to >> discounting the report: >> >> Why bother issuing such a report unless you were trying to mind-f*ck >> everyone? >> >> Of course, I can come up with any of a variety of *plausible*explanations >> for why this "couple hundred bucks" estimate may be way off >> but then I haven't actually conducted calorimetry on CF runs. >> >> So the question is "Did this skeptic get emotional because his estimate >> is correct or did he come up with his estimate because he was an emotional >> pseudo-skeptic?" >> >> >
