Bedwards, I know what you're saying but I think it would also be worthwhile to consider something else. Sure it operates at only 30% efficiency but that's not saying it still can't work for an application. Now if the company deems it as not being good enough, Mr. Huffman will simply throw up his hands and say to shareholders, "I'm sorry but I've crapped all over myself again. We need to make tough choices and take positive steps and that includes going to a more efficient version, the EC version VI."
At that point the CEO will have recovered and will be dragging shareholders through the whole convoluted process again just like he did for the EC V and every version prior to the EC V.
One could logically ask Mr. Huffman, "How do you know it's not suitable for any application since you've never actually found a suitable application and how do you plan on optimizing the next version for any application since you've never found an application" but that would be moot.
One could also wonder what possessed them to think a positive displacement engine with at least 27 moving parts per slice, with at least 26 points where parts slide over each other immersed in some uncontrolled 'waste' fluid can be more efficient than a turbine where the single bearing is isolated from the fluid and has a mean failure time of 1,300 years but that's neither here nor there.
AI
Market Data 
Markets 
