Brilliant post FreezingMc, and your thoughts are supporting my...

Brilliant post FreezingMc, and your thoughts are supporting my contention. Specifically, the established Assay companies are thinking ‘we are already profitable, we have our fire assay systems and infrastructures working perfectly and we have work in front of us. Why cannibalise this for a new technology which adds an additional layer of expenses (the monthly lease) and we have to explain the new methodology to our skeptical clients.” Besides, they are hardly likely to go to their clients and say, our fire assays aren’t as accurate or as fast because that would cast their business in a bad light. And as to the health issue, how can they say to staff, our fire assay system has potential hazards we can now avoid.
In short, there’s not enough WIIFM to make them want to switch (what’s in it for me).
And your comment about still needing the old system for the many others minerals is a good one. Hadn’t thought of that. All the more reason to continue with fire assays.
The horse trainers and buggy makers resisted the car for awhile, thinking it would not last. But it did. And maybe this is our lot. Time is required to prove up our assertions.
Yep, we are at a very intriguing stage. Is the slowness to deploy a ruse to ‘wait & see’
We really desperately need a track star to endorse the Proton methodology.
I still say they (C79) need to risk reverse in order to get the units in because ‘land & grab’ is a proven formula.