Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Technology Stocks : Silkroad -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: ahhaha who wrote (268)	3/3/1999 9:57:00 PM
From: ahhaha	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 626

2 hours and six pages into the patent and I must say I owe Woreless_Wonk for hitting me over the head for being a typical SI superficial fool. I failed to investigate. For 3 months that patent has been sitting there and it spells it out, loud and clear, and I have been chasing around with a lot of nonsense and listening to a bunch of skeptics who know less than I do. That goes double for the airhead criticism I got months ago, but I deserved it, not for failing to know this technology, but failing to do something that is obvious. My only excuse is that there wasn't some money in it motivating me to make a little effort. Some scientist. At this point I see absolutely no reason why this invention won't do exactly what is claimed. The challenge is whether it will work adequately in the field, not whether the theory is in place. The theory was in place years ago. It isn't an issue of theory. It's a question of whether the device can take full throttle without falling apart or whether it will last more than 6 months in operation. I can see some weaknesses in device longevity like the mechanical component 500 rps spinning mirror. There has to be a solid state equivalent of accomplishing a similar function. The grating and parabolic mirror are questionable in the issues of collimation and grating diffraction dispersion interference. The parabolic mirror is also questionable. Instead of focusing the entire beam, an interferometer type selection arrangement may be all that is necessary. We want the data, we don't need all the light. You should be able to accomplish this adequately enough with two flat mirrors of high albedo. MIT has recently invented the almost perfect mirror that seems very appropriate here. Maybe the whole mirror focusing has to go. I guess I should take my own advice and study this until I have a better understanding before making too many unfounded comments. I have to keep reminding myself that this is science, not investing. There are patents which are associated with this device, but each has a substantially different direction. Lots of people are thinking down these general lines. Palmer is the first to bring it all together for his application. The others primarily are fishing for coverage hoping to be key to a lucrative idea. Palmer's patent seems clean.