You are assuming that the labs would openly receive and report, in fact they do claim to have given it to testing labs and they got positive results but didn't want to be named.
That makes sense, since a lab would be rubbished for reporting such. And what president would collapse the oil industry like that, certainly not Americas previous president, probably very few of them at all. Secondly I think it has to do with them not have got it to produce truly convincing amounts of energy even if the ratio of input-output is OU. Now I am still skeptical of this crowd, but your scenario is innocent and child like. On Sat, Oct 2, 2010 at 6:33 AM, peatbog <peat...@teksavvy.com> wrote: > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_HKTYrVjEGY > > "In this video, two engineers and a physicist give their > > reactions to the Orbo Evaluation and Development Unit." > > > > here's a screencapture of the scopeshot: > > > http://scene.org/~esa/merlib/screenshotfrom_testing_of_the_orbo_evaluation_and_development_unit.jpg > > When I see the engineer saying the device is 300 percent OU, and > then think how there are a bunch of people paying 419 euro to work > on the devices - develop them or whatever it is exactly that they > are doing in the skdb, it feels like there is a giant discrepancy > between what I think are the implications of 300 percent OU, and > what is actually being done with it. > > If Steorn have OU beyond any measurement error, and 300 percent > fits that requirement, they should have sent it long ago to > testing labs, and should have had a press conference long ago, > probably standing beside the Prime Minister, and should have been > inundated with more money than George Soros has, and the world > should be in a ferment with people replacing furnace oil burners, > car engines, you name it, with Orbos. > > At least that is the only way I can imagine OU being made public. > > Instead, we have Steorn inviting people to pay them 419 euros for > the privilege of learning about the technology. > > I am confused. > >
