"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
On 14/10/16 17:49, tim... wrote:

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
On 14/10/16 17:14, tim... wrote:

"Tim Streater" wrote in message
.. .
In article , tim...
wrote:

"Tim Streater" wrote in message

Above, you say:

The point is that should this trial prove the technology they
build complementary barriers elsewhere.

Which looks like an endorsement to me.

what part of SHOULD do you not understand?

Surely by using the word I am implying that I don't know the answer.

If I suspected that it would be proven I would use the word WHEN

There is no need to "prove the technology",

I didn't mean it in the technical sense

I meant it in the financial sense

"prove that the technology produces the required rate of return"


You don't need to build it to demonstrate that it doesn't.

You do if you are just trying to take advantage of the gullibility of
your investors.

Many a start up has gone down that path.


Yeah. I used to work for Clive Sinclair, too.

:-)

He predated the hunger for VCs to throw money at every tech idea that
crossed their desk in the hope that one of them would go mega (to be fair
some did) making it possible for "clever" inventors to game the system. Of
course, most Start up failures were down to bad choices rather then bad
faith actors.

CS failed for the first

tim