| "It is of course easier to disbelieve a small unit than to challenge major multinationals with questions such as in last replies, right?"
I am not trying to "disbelieve" anything. You have not given us a single piece of information to use to form any kind of opinion or analysis. The only information on any of your multiple websites is graphics produced by another industry to describe how their CAES site operates. As I wrote previously, the only thing that application has in common with yours is air.
The single piece of data you supplied, your claim of 75 percent efficiency, is based only on a single element of the system. It is misleading to those who don't know any better and I question why you would do that rather than provide information the same way all other legitimate firms do. I can think of only one reason you refuse to provide engineering data.
The efficiency of a boiler on a steamship is in the high 90s. That doesn't mean that the plant is highly efficient. It doesn't mean that a small steam engine is more efficient than a small diesel or worth using on a small boat. Using that figure out of context to promote a product can only lead to the skepticism you have received here.
It only reinforces my skepticism when you reply to the last few posts with another evasive non-response to the questions raised. If you or your engineers can't answer the legitimate questions raised here then what are we to believe other than this is another ponzi scheme of some sort. From my point of view, it looks like an interesting engineering project hijacked by a bunch of, what's a nice way to put it? ... less than completely candid marketing types.
By the way, what did your Spanish representative do to get tossed out?
|