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 (269)	3/3/1999 10:37:00 PM
From: wonk	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 626

ahhaha: Thanks for taking the time to review the patent. I have been mostly lurking on the thread but find the story quite interesting. As for: 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.... I am not qualified to discuss the specifics of the patent. However, years ago my father was granted a patent. If my memory serves, at the time counsel advised that patents utilizing mechanics to demonstrate the innovation - in contrast with electrical or electronic techniques -- were stronger because they better illustrated the fundamental principals of the innovation. Quite frankly, I do not know if it was true then or is still true today. ...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.... Absent this thread, I would not have heard about that discovery as well. My thanks again to you and Frank for keeping the discussion going. ww

To: ahhaha who wrote (269)	3/4/1999 7:21:00 AM
From: Frank A. Coluccio	Respond to of 626

That's interesting, and suggests what we've discussed in the past, re pure. You may recall this from elsewhere, perhaps in an email message or in the Last Mile thread somewhere, I/we spoke of the probable irony that would eventually ensue in the opto-electronic realm. I.e., in order to arrive at pure optical, one may have to remove the overt mechanics, and most of the physical optics. And correct, the moving parts have to go. Here the suggestion is to take the larger optical components (especially those with moving parts) out of optical communications systems, along with those whose surface area attributes can be replaced by organically-grown crystals under logical controls. Reference in part, the recent Scientific American article which was alluded to upstream. You would replace a mirror. How about replacing 128, or 384 of them in competing techs? No doubt, it's time to sit down with this patent now. Thanks for the push.

To: ahhaha who wrote (269)	3/4/1999 1:07:00 PM
From: Kachina	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 626

I spent a number of years managing very large scale factory automation development. I have done in-depth failure analyses for the DOE, building up from each chip in a system, to a full-scale deployed network. This is quite an educational excercise. I would not consider a mechanical rotating mirror to be an inherently problematic issue. Such parts can be be manufactured so as to be as, if not more reliable electronic methods. Usually the issue is cost in such, not reliability. The idea that electronic componentry of this kind is inherently better is incorrect. But it is very difficult to cut manufacturing cost in large volume production. But for their initial product, I would not consider that an issue. I can think of a slew of reasons why the mechanical component could be much more reliable - particularly if there is a lot of energy involved. Thanks for your read of the patent. I have not been able to get to it yet. And I appreciate substantive commentary.