How'sabout you just get-over-it & quit picking on

How'sabout you just get-over-it & quit picking on Snark, "seriously". The post of his that you keep harping on was in response to a post of 'mine' (#10329). And that post only paid-heed (in-passing, as a source of comedy relief) to a PR dated Monday, September 3rd 2018, 8:00 am. Little did I suspect at the time (which was not so "obviously incorrect" ) that the PR was just a (presumably intentional) rinse/repeat of an older "research report", shown on a separate page, but be that as it may, that wasn't why I posted it in the 1st place. As can be seen by the commentary example I posted along with the link, where it states that; "QDSC's are widely used for generation of electricity". Based on the intensive DD I've done over the years on this subject. I can almost certainly say without qualification that statement is 'false', which in turn renders that entire "report" to be without credibility, IMO. Of note & as a matter of course, I've learned to typically hold these incessant 'research reports' in the same regard. To-date, the highest validated efficiency ratings obtained from QDSC;s is a bench-tested 12%, well below the 15 or 16% minimum required to be competitive. There may be some limited usage of QDSC's on the space-station or some other obscure usage, but certainly nothing on the order of "widely used"....that's still a ways-off into the future, if at all. So, in closing, the so-called "research report" in question, for all practical purposes, was no more meaningful than a fart in a windstorm...& should be forgotten just as quickly....no BFD. Time to move-on !