Recovery.Gov Project Tracker

mvanwink5 · Post by **mvanwink5** » Mon May 03, 2010 9:50 pm

I see your point about delivery on 4/30/10, and on schedule is good news in that regard. I was trying to reconcile that only 1.7 million has been invoiced so far, but there again, we are a month into the next quarter so April expenditures were not included. Pretty exciting. Perhaps Starbucks has coffee and donut delivery... food for info.

KitemanSA · Post by **KitemanSA** » Tue May 04, 2010 2:49 am

Heck folks, if he got the machine on time he could be months away from running it. He needs to wire the power, instrument, install, seal, find leaks, re-install cuz the instruments are in backward, re-seal, trace down that pesky leak....... Give him a month or two.

In government speak, a new facility can be anything from a new building to a new capability / machine in the same old building. Moving people could just be to a new arrangement in the same basic building. Get them away from all those zoomers!

TallDave · Post by **TallDave** » Tue May 04, 2010 3:02 am

I'm remembering the pdf from LANL that said someone solved an arcing problem for them that saved them months of work. I never did figure out if it was for WB-7 or WB-8...

KitemanSA · Post by **KitemanSA** » Tue May 04, 2010 10:59 am

WB-7. IF the Recovery Act funding project is on schedule, CLIN 0001 had delivery of WB-8 as late as 5 days ago. That LANL thing was several years ago.

DeltaV · Post by **DeltaV** » Tue May 04, 2010 7:27 pm

ladajo wrote:I am also guessing that WB 8 containment did not fit in the door at 1202, or exceeded floor loading :shock: "new lab test facility"

Or, maybe the neutron flux from D-D fusion was becoming a problem...

bennmann · Post by **bennmann** » Wed May 05, 2010 12:14 am

KitemanSA wrote:Heck folks, if he got the machine on time he could be months away from running it. He needs to wire the power, instrument, install, seal, find leaks, re-install cuz the instruments are in backward, re-seal, trace down that pesky leak....... Give him a month or two.

In government speak, a new facility can be anything from a new building to a new capability / machine in the same old building. Moving people could just be to a new arrangement in the same basic building. Get them away from all those zoomers!

These are good points. I like to think that "on schedule" for assembly includes "wiring the power, instrument install, ect."

But it could be behind in reality even when the paperwork and report say, "on schedule". Nebel hasn't fudged like that in the past AFAIK though.

I do know that several weeks after WB7 was up and doing things he did speak a little to Alan Boyle of MSNBC fame, I'm hopeful a little more of the same will happen for WB8. However it has more money behind it, which seems to me will make him a little more silent. Please don't be totally silent...

Betruger · Post by **Betruger** » Wed May 05, 2010 1:24 am

DeltaV wrote:
ladajo wrote:I am also guessing that WB 8 containment did not fit in the door at 1202, or exceeded floor loading "new lab test facility"
Or, maybe the neutron flux from D-D fusion was becoming a problem...

It might just be my un-expertness, but I can't think of another good reason for it.

TallDave · Post by **TallDave** » Wed May 05, 2010 2:47 am

Thanks Kite, glad someone was paying attention. I never looked at the date on that thing.

I expect Rick has been asked to keep quiet since about the time we stopped hearing from him. The funders seem to want to keep things under the lid; he raised the cold fusion debacle as a cautionary tale. Since they're paying the bills...

No one who knows me has ever accused me of being patient. I do try to cultivate perspective.

bennmann · Post by **bennmann** » Tue Aug 03, 2010 1:26 pm

Waiting. Soon.

KitemanSA · Post by **KitemanSA** » Tue Aug 03, 2010 3:20 pm

This is odd. I've done a serch by state of Recovery Act recipients and it shows 6 recipients with the word "Energy" in their name in Sante Fe NM, one of whom is EMC2. It shows that EMC2 has (or is receiving) $15,711,008. This is MUCH more than previously indicated. I wonder, WHAT UP??

nextbigfuture · Post by **nextbigfuture** » Tue Aug 03, 2010 4:10 pm

I do not think they got 7,855,504.14 + 7,855,504.14. The two entries have the same contract ids.

Giorgio · Post by **Giorgio** » Tue Aug 03, 2010 4:35 pm

It's the same contract with the award number written in 2 different ways.

The first one covers February till december 2009:
http://www.recovery.gov/Transparency/Re ... =Contracts

The second one has only the first quarter for now:
http://www.recovery.gov/Transparency/Re ... =Contracts

I am monitoring both and I have also a search open to monitor part of EMC2 name in case they write again in a different way the award number of the contract:
http://www.recovery.gov/pages/TextViewP ... ame=matter

Aero · Post by **Aero** » Tue Aug 03, 2010 4:47 pm

I gather there is no information for the second quarter 2010.

Antice · Post by **Antice** » Tue Aug 03, 2010 6:34 pm

Aero wrote:I gather there is no information for the second quarter 2010.

Not yet (at the time of typing this that is.)

ladajo · Post by **ladajo** » Tue Aug 03, 2010 8:48 pm

I have sent several inquiries using the comment function. I recommend all do the same when they check it. The more they get, the more likely the will do something about it.

I went with concerned citizen...

asked why no update, why incomplete postings, why lack of detail.

It is like being Don Quioxte without a lance. But something is better than nothing.

Talk-Polywell.org

Recovery.Gov Project Tracker

It appears to be the same 7,855,504.14 counted twice