Ronald:
In reply to your message:
"Did you actually contact IAS and ask if you could come to view what they
have?"
Yes, as I said, at least three times; more, if you count my phone calles prior to the "demo" in June. I was finally told I had to fax my request, which I did. Mr. Johnson told me and my partner during phone calls that they had received my request, which was where they got my voice phone number also (it is not listed and is not in my name and cannot be found unless I give it out, which I usually don't). I didn't worry about it until I was later contacted by others who were seeking my opinion because they believed I had seen the demo, at which point I became concerned, since I had not, and have not, seen it. I don't know precisely who said I had seen it, and it would have to be regarded as "hearsay" in a legal context, since it came to me from a third party, and I didn't hear it myself nor was I told about it by the party who actually heard what was said, though I have since confirmed it with that third party.
IAS is under no obligation to show anything to me, and I'm not worried about it at this point. HOWEVER, I think there has been an implication here that I haven't really tried to see it, because if I had, IAS would certainly have showed it to me as they have to others. Please remember that I was not looking to shoot down the technology; at the time I requested the demo, I believed they had one and just wanted to go through the right steps to get a look at it; in fact, I was a potential "customer" with an application for it in my own business. I'm only saying that I have three times requested to see the demo, IAS has said over the phone that they have my request(s), but I haven't been sent the non-disclosure agreement to sign and haven't been invited to see DWM work. If IAS sees me as an enemy or threat, I can understand that, and I am not trying to pick a fight with them or anyone else. Just to state, simply and without rancor: I have not seen the demo and have not been offered the chance to see it. At this point they probably don't want me to see it.
"From my experience, you have to just keep calling until you get
someone, and don't count on a returned call or e-mail (I don't know why)."
I have done so, have complied with their instructions, and my partner and I were told over the phone on two separate occasions that they had my request, but I have not heard anything further from them. I'm not condemning them for this; I'm simply stating that I have not been invited to see the demo, and have not seen it, thus, I can only speculate about what may or may not be in it. In fact, as I stated in an earlier message, I'm really not doing that any more, just waiting to see what happens next. Their destiny is theirs to control, anyway; whatever they do with me isn't that important, except that it seems to exemplify how the whole situation has unfolded.
"It puzzles me too. Assuming that those at IAS are not aflicted with some
mental handicap (a safe assumption), I think there must be some reason why
a public demo has not taken place. I have no idea what that reason is"
And that is the whole problem, really; if it works, and has been seen by so many, by now there should be someone who can state it does IN THE FIRST PERSON (knowing about someone who said they saw it won't do). All IAS has right now is an unsubstantiated claim to have invented a technology which negates most, if not all, the science upon which many basic principles of electronics, communications, physics, mechanics, thermodynamics, etc., are based. It should be obvious that it will require very, very convincing PUBLIC evidence for the entire scientific community to abandon the rigorous, historically solid foundations of science and technology which have withstood decades of scrutiny in favor of a new concept which, so far, has not been made available for scrutiny; neither the working product, nor the principles upon which it is based, are generally available. The people at IAS seem to be well-liked and respected by those who know them, and I would not presume to make any statements to the contrary, since I DON'T know them. However, one does not need to be intentionally "dishonest" in these cases to make a mistake. And until I see evidence to the contrary, I will presume (1) IAS did not intentionally set out to deceive the world, but at present, they are not being forthcoming in their presentation of the proof they promised to deliver in June, and (2) DWM is an unproven principle which, because it is in such intense conflict with so many fundamental physical laws, will not be acceptable to those whom IAS needs as customers until it is shown to be fully feasible, without qualification, to the very people who now are its greatest critics. DWM has to work by itself; it cannot depend on who sees it work, which is the situation now. Only certain people who see it believe it works; some who see it do NOT believe it works. So for some, even after being shown the demo, there is still controversy over whether or not it works. Obviously, more time is needed to put the question to rest.
One thing which puzzles me, also, is that "good news", ie, news of someone who heard of someone who knew someone who thought it might work, is accepted as fact, while "bad news", ie, scientific arguments about possible problems and reasons why someone believes it CANNOT work, are regarded with contempt and suspicion. Who, of those two opposing camps, would be considered more "objective", and who would be considered more "subjective"? All else aside, it would seem that the proponents, whose stock would become more valuable if DWM could be made acceptable to the scientific community, ought to be under more suspicion than the opponents, who argue simply "on principle", in a manner customary for engineering professionals; who has the most to gain or lose by the outcome? Whomever that is, ought to come under more scrutiny, than those with nothing to gain or lose.
"Now If I did have the money to invest, I would probably take
a trip to Utah, and visit IAS myself, then make a more informed choice.
That friend who I said went to IAS, originally bought in at 43. He was
pretty bummed when it dropped below 10. So, he went to take a look. After
his visit, he said he intended to buy more. I would probably do the same."
Well, I am in the position of having watched IAS make their presentation, so in a sense, I did "visit" IAS myself, at least, I was able to listen to the IAS people speak, which I assume would also happen if I visited their company site. At one point I was going to drive to IAS and just pop in for a visit, but decided against it. I also was standing a few feet from Mr. Johnson after the meeting in June, when he was questioned by a very competent engineer from US Robotics about the same technical issues I have raised here, and was able to get a "feel" for the manner in which those questions were answered which one cannot get here. I haven't seen the demo, but I do know competent engineers who have, and I am satisfied that they are capable of judging the feasibility of DWM as it is represented by IAS. I DON'T know if the DWM that IAS claims they have working is based on the same principles as they have disclosed to the public in their presentations, patents, and web documents; if they have a DWM which does not use the concepts they have disclosed, I can't evaluate it, but I feel confident in my evaluation of the DWM I have seen described so far: you can probably make the system function but the error rate at the receiver is going to be so high that the data, at best, won't be RECEIVED at anywhere near the rates being advertised. (Most of the emphasis to date has been on TRANSMITTING the data correctly, but the trick is, as you may imagine, RECEIVING it correctly.)
I've decided not to pursue further criticism of IAS, but to let the facts so far presented speak for themselves, and then just wait and see what happens next. In order to give IAS a fair chance, I HAVE taken the time to build a simple simulation which I think represents the concepts presented in the diagrams and statements on the IAS/COMTECH web site (It has been suggested that I post those somewhere but I don't plan to at this point). I cannot model DWM in the receiver, because I don't know how to accomplish what they claim, but, I think it is safe to say that, regardless of how the DWM waveform is created by the transmitter, it still must traverse the POTS (Plain Old Tlelphone System) and arrive at the receiver, where data will be extracted from it. In my simple simulations, I do not see any reason to change the positions I have previously taken about the technical aspects of DWM related to POTS operation. Regardless of how well designed the transmitter and receiver are, they are both subject to the performance limitations of POTS; ultimately, it is POTS, and not DWM or QAM or DWMT or any other modulation technology, which sets the limits of performance. There are many analogies to this situation which could be called upon to show the principles involved, but since one of IAS' claims is that the very principles of communications science are wrong, there is little more for any of us to do, but to wait and see if IAS can deliver DWM.
If IAS does show DWM or anything else which can perform like DWM, they will indeed turn the scientific world on its ear! But, by issuing such a challenge, IAS has put itself in the position where it must perform as claimed; nothing short of a "slam dunk" will work now. As others more knowledgeable about the law than I am have already pointed out here, there are also legal issues involved which may transcend the technological questions. I am not qualified to address those issues and I try not to do so.
"You do one of the best jobs of speaking on this subject against IAS
because you make a very clear effort to remain objective, and never belittle
those who differ with you. Thanks again for you input."
Thank YOU! I do not have any bad feelings against IAS or the people there, and have no desire to harm anyone. If the whole issue was not so public, visible, and did not have such potential for "good or evil", it would be merely an interesting sidelight which most would glance at occassionally out of curiosity. But, it seems to have become much more than that; since I am in a nearby community, the subject of IAS and DWM comes up in my daily work, and I've had to learn all I can and then take a position out of professional necessity. If truth be known, I'd bet that there isn't one person who wouldn't like to see DWM work, for the obvious reasons. If IAS has a demo, they need to reveal it publicly ASAP, so the rest of the world can change its plans.
regards,
Larry Holmes |
