QS Energy Inc (QSEP)

[As I See It]

Here is the original statement from your post:

What was the value assigned to those 5 magical pipes? $29k? Books count assets.. why are they barely worth the scrap metal weight?

Nowhere in QSEP's financial statements do they place a value of $29k on their 5 AOT's. If they do, please reference a quote for all of us to read. The reason I am confident you won't find such a quote is the reason I gave before. Under GAAP accounting rules, all of the AOT's were part of the R&D budget. Classified as prototypes their expenses were written off in the quarter in which they were incurred. As a result they can't be carried as assets on the books. You can argue with their accountants if you like, but that won't change the fact that you have misread the financial statements by referencing a mythical "$29k scrap metal" valuation supposedly assigned by QSEP to their five AOTs.

The following statement is totally confused, first arguing that the AOTs have failed to "see the light of commercialization", but then does a 180 and tries to argue that they are a commercial product and can no longer be called a prototype.

Hah hah hah! The only 'distortions' are the ones claiming this company year after year through multiple different projects will actually see the light of commercialization. THOSE statements are the ones that are proven wrong year after painful year. And a device made and used on a commercial line, and called a commercial deployment under a lease is no longer a 'prototype'. Nice try though.

According to GAAP:

Although new product development costs might result in a product that generates revenue in future periods, a business immediately expenses them because it cannot accurately predict when and if these benefits might occur. For example, if you spend $25,000 on new product development costs this year, you would report the amount as an expense this year, even though you might benefit from the investment in the future.

It is totally absurd to question the "new product prototype" classification of the AOT made by QSEP's accountants. The description above fits the AOT in every way. If you want to dispute this further I suggest you take it up with the Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB).

It is totally absurd to make the claim that QSEP's AOTs are assets carried on "the books......barely worth the scrap metal weight"..... when the financials say point blank that they were part of R&D, classified as prototypes and fully expensed.