InvestorsHub Logo
Followers 21
Posts 475
Boards Moderated 0
Alias Born 01/22/2013

Re: snow post# 268746

Thursday, 05/29/2014 2:54:06 PM

Thursday, May 29, 2014 2:54:06 PM

Post# of 312015
And the second was the "heat transfer fluid"

They were paying for "oil" to run through the "processor" using the premise that it was "necessary" for even heating of the plastic in order to "aid" the "efficiency" of the process when in fact it was just an easy way to boost the output numbers.

Here is why that too was just another unfounded claim-

Because they were making oil (heat transfer fluid),
all they had to do is redirect a portion of the output back into the processor to use it as "heat transfer fluid" and there would have been no need to pay for it.

Of course this would have greatly reduced the output numbers and the "efficiency" and the true lack of a novel process would have been revealed much sooner. (but they needed to keep the dream alive somehow to squeeze out as much money as they could from shareholders that refused to believe the math or the reality of this epic fail).

Reality is simple, plastic that is needed for this process is worth more on the open market as plastic than it is worth as fuel.

And if the truth was any different they would be running these "great" machines continuously and turning a profit selling the output.



The chicken that lays golden eggs needs to be fed golden corn that costs more than the eggs its lays.