You wrote;
> The concept of selling kits/plans may not be as simple as originally
> suggested, particularly if the device is complex and/or involves
> anything that could go bang.
Why, Dr. Jones, I do believe you are obfuscating the point with one of
the many excuses for failure;
the device is too complex,
the device is too dangerous (it would never make it to market then)
the device has a technical problem so the demo couldn't be carried out,
the device is still under development,
the device is proprietary,
the device was broken while being transported here,
the device is out of calibration,
the device is unfinished or being modified/upgraded,
my backers won't let me show the device or discuss tech details,
the government is suppressing the release of my device,
I'll be killed if I show you how it works,
You'll be killed if I show you how it works,
finally, they snap from the pressure and you get either;
I don't have to prove anything to YOU or anyone else.
or
They move to something ENTIRELY different to try to stay in the public
eye.
Even if investors have put money into the inventor based on CLAIMS, they
get excuses as to WHY it won't work. Keely did this too, claiming he
had 'gone much further' in his research, rather than helping to develop
marketable prototypes from his original research efforts.
Then the claimant disappears, sometimes to resurface years later or under
another name like Dennis Lee has done on several occasions...newest Lee
incarnation, 'Better World Technologies', unfortunately dragging Yull
Brown into the mix....and on and on...
Reality check, if ya ain't got it, don't announce it.
-- Jerry W. Decker / jdecker@keelynet.com http://keelynet.com / "From an Art to a Science" Voice : (214) 324-8741 / FAX : (214) 324-3501 KeelyNet - PO BOX 870716 - Mesquite - Republic of Texas - 75187