Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : Plastics to Oil - Pyrolysis and Secret Catalysts and Alterna -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: scion who wrote (22081)	4/8/2012 8:40:34 PM
From: scion	Respond to of 53574

The control tests could have been run with the table top version, and could still be run, I might add. wEaReLeGiOn Sunday, April 08, 2012 6:29:29 PM Re: 5dollars post# 175930 Post # of 175957 The control tests could have been run with the table top version, and could still be run, I might add. Would that be okay with you? I agree. I'd like to see that one day as well. Except that there is no way I want those processors to be run without our catalyst. The effect on the processors might be a complete failure and actually break the machines. siliconinvestor.com wEaReLeGiOn Sunday, April 08, 2012 7:28:41 PM Re: 5dollars post# 175939 Post # of 175957 I suppose we can suppose, but this is a public company, and proof of concept attracts investment dollars. Since Bordynuik went to great lengths to extol the virtues of the magic catalyst in the early-going, complete with an intrepid saga of finding it on an old R2R tape, from the much touted massive engineering archive, wouldn't it strike you as odd that definitive proof of the catalyst's performance exists, but he chooses not to provide it given the potential investment dollars that would come his way? Wouldn't that be easier than "bolstering" the balance sheet with inflated media credits and risking an SEC investigation, if such definitive proof existed? I would imagine that control tests were done as doing them is a rudimentary step for a lab. It's a provocative proposition as to why no results are forthcoming however. A steal machine isn't going to be wrecked by using a different catalyst, or no catalyst for a test. How could it be? A test with the table top version is all that's needed. Can we rule out with absolute certainty that john did not perform your suggested scientific experiment? Perhaps the result have stayed in house. Can we agree on that? siliconinvestor.com