Re: The Ismael motor (discovery forever)
- --- In email@example.com, Tom Prucha <tprucha@w...> wrote:
> If Meyers, Newman, or any of the many others, ever had anything trulyThis makes absolutely no sense at all. It was doomed to failure because
> unique, it was doomed to failure from the start.
it could not possibly work. Any speculation on impossible assumptions
- Hi Ley,
> *** The Universal OverUnity CheckList ***We'll count that as one 'YES' (you need to have a score of 5 yes(s) to
>>> 1 . Have you actually built the device ?
> A. Ismael build it.I am witnessed only when it run for 2 hrs. the >2Hp.
>>> 2 . Have you documented the device enough for third-partyreplication ?
> A. We are not stupid yet for replication by third party and we areSo, that would be a NO.
>upgrading it for more bigger load capcacity.
>>> 3 . Have you documented the measurements proving o/u enough for third-party verification?
> A. Third party test are welcome ( in public views ) after the nextuppgraded motor demo, hopefully within this month. The requirement for
third party are their credentials and their test equipment. It must
be both a credible.
So, that is another NO.
>>> 4 . Do you have pictures and/or videos of your device?dismantled already for upgrading.
> A. So far sample demo only at web ismaelaviso.com It was
Dismantled?? I thought for sure you would answer yes, but thats
another NO since it is not running.
>>> 5 . Have you at least a concept to make a self-runner out of thedevice?
> A. Read all my previous posted message we already gave at least 10%idea how it works.
10%? That would also be a NO.
Again, if you can at least answer YES to those 5 simple questions,
then your claim is welcome in the
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]