I have been re-reading the white paper and think we should break this down in a way that the patent was broken down by ahhaha. I feel it does give a great overview of their product and its potential market to the layperson (I am one), but I don't have the scientific knowledge to tell whether their claims are the breakthrough they claim it to be. In your post you state:
"my suspicions are that SR's technology is not the novel breakthrough that it's claimed to be."
From my stand point the breakthrough seems to be laid out on page 5 of the white paper in the 2nd section "Optical Refractive Synchronization" (see SR websight). SR states that "Snell's Law predicts a continuous bending of the light beam and a subsequent change of speed of the light that is proportional to the index of the refraction of the material". They then state that "When light passes from a modulator into an optical fiber, the beam encounters an abrupt change in index, polarity or phase of the medium." They follow up by saying that this behavior is central to ORS, and that ORS is the basis for SRSC. Then Dr. Palmer's hypothesis are laid out for the basis of the technology.
This to me sounds complicated, but plausible. Can anyone state whether the statements explaining ORS in the White Paper are true or false? If true, would solving equations to predict this behavior be a breakthrough? Could the breakthrough lead to the bandwidth transmission capabilities that SR claims?
Regarding the following statement:
"Their white paper is a lot of lay physics babble followed by a discourse with gaps that a Phd physicist cannot fill."
I don't think the white paper is purely an instrument to bring other physicists and scientists up the the same point in research that Dr. Palmer and SR are at now. It is more to explain the technology and potential to masses. I realize the masses in this case are a bit more sophisticated than your average Joe, but they are not all phd scientists, either.
I have read at least 3 posters that feel that since a researcher or scientist they know doesn't believe it or give it credibility, it is probably bunk. The "mistakes" mentioned in GrokSoup's post bother me, but I still don't know what paper he is referring to. Please take no offense at this, but my logic says that if they were at the level to solve the equations and invent the equipment needed to develop and transmit data in this fashion, they would probably try to make a buck too. Also, it doesn't seem to me like scientists are particularly fond of obscure or out of the ordinary science that they are not yet familiar with. I don't have the guy's name, but I'm pretty sure my memory is decent on the guy that won the Nobel for figuring out what causes Mad Cow Disease. When he 1st came up with the theory he was laughed out of town and none of his scientist friends wanted to play with him anymore. That shows that rejection by your peers does not always mean you wrong.
I'd like to keep this post going and lively if possible. I am particularly curious as to what people think of the main premis of OSR and SRSC stated on page 5 (ahhaha?). To close off I will share a quote that I just came across in an EFII annual report that recognizes some of the difficulties getting a new idea or product introduced.
"There is nothing more difficult to take in hand, more perilous to conduct, or more uncertain in its success, than to take the lead in the introduction of a new order of things."
The Prince, Niccolo Machiavelli |
