Jed, just one reason one proof is more reliable than another. Because you believe? If IH is in control they would come free and not gossip their findings. Tell me one reason they should not. Do not say lawsuit as it is on the contrary if they have solid ground. On May 20, 2016 13:53, "Jed Rothwell" <jedrothw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Lennart Thornros <lenn...@thornros.com> wrote: > > No, it is not real proof, but it is far better reasoning than IH reason to >> not pay only has one explanation ; the ecat does notwork. >> > > Perhaps I.H. has many reasons, but the the reason they gave is that the e- > cat does not work. There is no question this is true. The numbers quoted by > Rossi in the Lewan article are the same ones in my sample data. These > numbers prove that the e-cat produces no excess heat. > > Let us have some sanity in this conversation. Why would anyone pay $89 > million for a machine that does not work??? No sane person would pay even > $1 for it. It has no value. > > Why are you searching, scraping and hypothesizing to come up with some > other reason? The fact that it does not work is reason enough. Would you > pay for a machine that does not work? > > - Jed > >
