I’m beginning to think you are a mental case, or perhaps you just refuse to admit you are wrong. You said, “...no money transfers until the customer is satisfied that the device works,” but the article clearly states that they had already paid Rossi a significant amount of money at the time of the article’s writing.
Again, you casually dismiss Rossi’s fraudulent credentials with a casual wave of your hand... Perhaps you are a fellow Kensington “graduate?”
Yes, it does indeed say something IMPLYING that. But that is NOT in contradiction to the "...not paying (Rossi) until the customer is satisified that the technology works...". The gentleman could be equating "paid into an escrow account" as being the same as "paid to Rossi". Or it could even be interpreted as saying that the device has been evaluated, they are satisfied that the device works, and so they paid Rossi the money formerly in the escrow account.
I have a problem with the latter assertion, though, as I can't see why, if there was a significant cash payment to Rossi, Rossi still needed to sell his house to get the cash to build the 1 MW system. My bet is that the money is still sitting in the escrow account, and not in Rossi's hands.
"Again, you casually dismiss Rossi’s fraudulent credentials with a casual wave of your hand... Perhaps you are a fellow Kensington “graduate?”
Yes I do. And I've told you precisely why....multiple times...it's irrelevant.
And I graduated from LSU (which, at the time, had one of the top analytical chemistry faculties in the country...and still does...though I am not sure if the current batch of profs is as good as the ones when I was there).