OK, so the take-away messages is: "No, the authors of the paper have not provided any rational for choosing their form of calorimetry -- not even informally. Moreover, the claim that adequate flow calorimetry for the E-Cat HT would cost 'a couple hundred bucks' likely indicates pseudoskepticism."
On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 1:29 PM, Jed Rothwell <jedrothw...@gmail.com> wrote: > James Bowery <jabow...@gmail.com> wrote: > > >> 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" . . . >> > > I have significant experience with flow calorimeters. I would say: > > 1. It would end up costing much more than a few hundred dollars. > > 2. It would take weeks of testing and futzing around to make it work. > > 3. It would clog up and it would leak. They always do. I would hate to > work with something like this running constantly for months! > > 4. The skeptics would find a hundred reasons to doubt it, as they did with > Rossi's other flow calorimeters (some of which I will grant were not good). > > I agree with Dave Roberson that the "Rossi used the best approach possible > to eliminate the most questions and [the skeptics] still complained." The > "most questions" means the most you can address in one test. No test can > answer all questions or lay to rest all doubts. That's why you have to do > multiple tests. > > - Jed > >
