> 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.
They claimed to have shown it to several academics who agreed there was an 'anomaly' but would not allow their names to be associated with it. > > That makes sense, since a lab would be rubbished for reporting > such. It makes sense if all they saw was an ambiguous excess of energy. Why would they go out on a limb for something that might have a dozen conventional explanations? But if I ran a testing lab and came across 300 percent OU, not some rinky-dink ambiguous excess, and tested the bejesus out of it, and finally came to believe that it really was 300 percent OU, I would shout it to the skies; it would be a bonanza of publicity for my lab. I would want to be closely associated with it. > And what president would collapse the oil industry like that, > certainly not Americas previous president, probably very few of > them at all. If the president or prime minister didn't want to collapse it, then the inventors would be happy to, if only because it would make them multi-billionaires and ensure that they would be remembered for centuries. > > 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. That's not what the engineers said. They claim that there is 300 percent OU. How can you construe that to mean that it is not producing 'truly convincing amounts of energy'? 300 percent OU is not convincing? But aside from the amazing claims of the three engineers, everything points to a scam or monumental self-delusion: People with 300 percent OU don't muck around with some half-baked skdb. You notice the engineers didn't claim to have closed the loop, even with 300 percent OU. None of these amazing schemes are ever able to do that. > > Now I am still skeptical of this crowd, but your scenario is > innocent and child like.
