Stephen A. Lawrence <[email protected]> wrote:
> The trouble is that H2(gas)+Ni(powder) reacts exothermically, as the > hydrogen is adsorbed onto the nickel. This means that a blank run using, > say, nitrogen in place of hydrogen can be expected to produce *less* > *measured* *heat* than the H2 run . . . Yup. There is another huge practical problem with doing a blank run. Injecting nitrogen, air or some other gas into the powder will probably contaminate and destroy the powder. This is a problem because of powder is expensive and difficult to fabricate. It is also a problem because after you contaminate it, you could not produce heat from it. You would have to produce heat first, then do your destructive blank run. This is like demanding that Mr. Ford first demonstrate that his Model T can drive at 40 mph, then he must demonstrate that when you crash it into a brick wall at 40 mph, it is destroyed and cannot drive at any speed after that. As Valconen pointed out, there is no technical justification for a blank run, and it would be "trivial to falsify. It does not improve the reliability or reduce the probability of a hoax." Regarding the title of this thread, Krivit (and Yugo too, I think) claim it is possible to commit fraud with an escrow agreement in which the customer can do any amount of testing before final acceptance, and the customer is free to return the goods for any reason without executing the escrow agreement. (I assume there is some reasonable time restriction, such as 4 months.) Apparently, these people do not know an escrow agreement is, or what "final acceptance" means. This is business 101. Fraud is impossible with these arrangements, unless the customer defrauds himself. - Jed
