On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 2:59 PM, Jed Rothwell <[email protected]> wrote:
> This is a problem because of powder is expensive and difficult to > fabricate. > Not according to Rossi, who says it is easy to fabricate, and the cost is negligible. > 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. > Or use two ecats. Then of course you'd need someone independent to select which one to use for the 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. > How on earth is it like that? Your analogies become lamer all the time. > 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." > A well-planned blank run would resolve controversy, which non-sensical or not, is clearly present. And it wouldn't have to take longer, since it could be done in parallel. If the blank ecat was chosen at random by an independent observer, and Rossi were kept at a distance, it would not be that easy to falsify. > Regarding the title of this thread, Krivit (and Yugo too, I think) claim > it is possible to commit fraud with an escrow agreement [...] > I don't think you paid attention. Customer fraud was not suggested; investor fraud was. Rossi asked for money from NASA without an escrow. He didn't get it, but that still indicates his motivation. Scams can fail sometimes too.
