Do the arithmetic, Mark. Although it is true that "a couple hundred bucks" is only 1% of $20,000 and that it is ridiculous think of the other 99% as going into technical aspects alone, even if 90% of the budget were for "overhead" that would still leave a budget of $2,000 for the technical aspects, which means "a couple hundred bucks" would be 10% of the available budget. Are you trying to say that adequate calorimetry wouldn't be worth even 10% of the budget allocated for equipment?
On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 1:12 PM, MarkI-ZeroPoint <zeropo...@charter.net>wrote: > I would think that most of the $20K went to airfare, hotels and meals… you > can’t expect the scientists to work for free…**** > > -Mark**** > > ** ** > > *From:* James Bowery [mailto:jabow...@gmail.com] > *Sent:* Monday, June 03, 2013 9:42 AM > *To:* vortex-l > > *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?"**** > > ** ** >
