Good point, and I also remember the ceramic nature being mentioned. I am not sure of the nature of the apparently most commonly used sulfone (SP?) compound for absorption chambers, which is supposed to have very good behaviors relative to passing but not absorbing microwaves that are tuned for water, but it may be cheaper and/or easier/faster to fab. But chamber material, even if further improved, has not previously been a show stopper. Hot beverage is similar to some industrial applications (that do exist) of microwave based heating of flowing liquids in that cost differences are not the lead objective, but rather getting the liquid heated as needed at the flow needed with "reasonable" costs and risks is the objective. Here, for market advantage, minimizing total overall cost over unit life (i.e. 7 years with some huge volume of heated water supplied at some temperature) is the main objective. An incremetal gain in chamber design or material, in control of power applied due to better feedback circuitry, reduction of total parts due to novel sensing design, are all good, but do they overcome the inefficiencies of powering the magnetrons, or is that also being adressed ?
I do not mind risk, when I can assess its magnitude. I am just not being given a handle on it, and cannot see why I am being kept in the dark. From all I have seen claimed it may be another 6 months before Robert has numbers of the type he has previously said are what he wants to wait to be able to release (i.e. 3rd party, for final design, etc.)
I do not want to seem disrespectful of Robert, and I am glad he feels things are "competitive", but I would like evidence and not a statement of "feeling" which is subjective and based on someone else's (and to me unknown) criteria.
all jmo and prejudiced by my background as a scientist and engineer
AI
Market Data 
Markets 
