sci.energy

H. E. Taylor wrote:

> In article < $ @ >,
> Dan Bloomquist wrote:
>
>>H. E. Taylor wrote:
>>
>>>In article < @ >,
>>> Eeyore [aka Graham] wrote:
>>>
>>>>"H. E. Taylor" wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Have EEStor mentioned a dielectric constant for their new material?
>>>>
>>>>A figure is mentioned in the patent IIRC. The number appears to be unrealistic.
>>>
>>> Well we will see eventually.
>>
>>Means you don't know how to crunch the numbers......
>>
> Oh quit flexing your muscles. Nobody is impressed.

The last thing I'm out to do is impress someone on usenet.

> What it means is that I don't know what EEStor may have.
> This is not a case like Steorn where someone is claiming
> to violate the law of conservation of energy or something
> like that. And they are not following the typical fraudster
> pattern of seeking investors. I am not saying they have
> their ridiculously high dielectric constant material, but
> there is no theoretical reason it couldn't exist, as unlikely
> as that may seem to you. I am willing to wait and see.

You have not paid attention to what I've been posting. Ridicules is an
understatement where their claim is concerned......