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: GrokSoup who wrote (351)	4/15/1999 11:45:00 PM
From: George T. Santamaria	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 626

I am still wondering what I am doing debating whether a private Co in which I cannot invest is a con or not. I've been taken before and this thread has been a way to get my anger out. It's safer than getting pumped over a public company!

To: GrokSoup who wrote (351)	4/16/1999 7:08:00 PM
From: Kachina	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 626

>I'm confident it's not a scam: the office is real, the people are real, the confidence is real. < Those items mean nothing vis-a-vis "is it a scam". Scams have real offices, real employees, and most of the people have real confidence. This could just be a real big scam. Hiring the less competent, (eclectic?) a religious type of mind set like that - that's suspicious to me. Very. People hire the lesser lights because they can fool them. Confidence games work like that. Appeal to a person's greed, and they convince themselves. That wil give your crew an atmosphere of confidence bordering on religious conversion. If they can't understand the kernel, they will paper it over in their own mind with what they want it to be. And having no real beta's at this point? That one is a red flag screamer to me. That is a very big one. Why? Because that is what you would do if you were salting the money away. I am thinking now that the distance learning beta sounds like BS. Somebody check the equipment and see what it is. All those factors you cited about the weirdness and behavior and problems - those are red flags to me. I'm moving back in the other direction now toward thinking someone is pulling a snow job here. It would be very, very interesting to develop a picture of two things: 1. How much money has come in, versus how big is their burn rate. 2. Who actually works in the lab and puts the equipment together? Who are they? What is the equipment that they have actually produced? The first will tell you if this is what is somtimes called a "salt mine". (Meaning, that the money is being mined and salted away.) The second will tell you if they actually have a real product - even a real beta. If you see one or two principals, or a particular "trusted technician" putting the equipment together - that's a red flag. This is not sounding good. This is sounding really bad.

To: GrokSoup who wrote (351)	4/18/1999 6:56:00 PM
From: ahhaha	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 626

You stated that a professor friend said something like: - the problem is not well defined; it appears to be something to do with the design of an optical modulator that accepts light from a polarization maintaining (PM) input fiber What problem? The problem that eludes this thread is the secret of refractive mixing: how to embed compact multiple RF signals onto a light beam. How does one maintain channel or signal integrity at the edge while cleanly muxing? - the problem outlined above is straightforward. Which problem? Accepting multiple feeds into the crystal is no problem. Preparing the crystal's atomic structure and doping properties is. The crystal must be able to accomplish refraction without dispersion or destructive interference. You have an RF input into a crystal and you have a light beam passing through. The RF signal will "jiggle" the crystal and the E field components will mix. Now send a second RF signal into a second crystal next to the first. If you give it a frequency domain sufficiently removed from the first so there isn't any mucking, it will add cleanly to the beam E field amplitude. The crystal has a refractive effect and so the first RF mixed beam is bent by the crystal. At the boundary layer of the second crystal it is bent again and spread out in spacetime rather than just in space. The second crystal has its own script for jiggling according to the input RF signal to it. The second RF signal is mixed onto the beam without stepping on the other RF domain already residing there. Refraction accomplishes time spreading or density increasing. The "jiggling" is crystal atomic orbital resonance and it forces the beam to gain multiples of spin in LaGuerre order which enable the beam to accommodate more load that it picks up from the RF inputs. Energy transfer must be conserved in spacetime, so if you borrow from time you have pay back to space at the same "time". Now, if you could change abruptly the crystal's refractive index, alter the way photon spin couples with orbital spin, you could eliminate all those other eaters, crystals, waiting in line with their hands out. In one time domain you add one RF signal and change the refractive index and then you add the next RF signal onto the beam whose LaGuerre order has been modified. The changes of refractive index enable the channeling of the beam. How do you change the crystal's refractive index? Must be that certain doped crystals change indices depending on the frequency of the RF pumping. Just guessing. It does not throw into doubt the fundamental equations of physics, as the author implies, nor does it require some re-interpretation of dearly held physical concepts. The author never claimed doubt was being thrown on fundamental physics. His supporters should have said that he had made a novel electro-optical engineering break through. The Maxwell Field equation comments were pertinent in that the Maxwell equations are invariant under the transformations of special relativity. When you alter the path of the em field, it is altered in space and in time. The Doppler shift comes from a source change in space and the corresponding change in frequency is the change in time. Since all the velocities in optics are c, you have to find another way to get the component E-field to be modified in time without giving up its "shape". - the paper is full of mistakes, conceptual difficulties, etc. For example, the modulation of an optical beam is through the electro-optic effect, and is proportional to the electric field, not the magnetic field, as he states I read about 10 papers from LANL every week, and just about all of them have typos, errors of expression, and math errors. It doesn't detract all that much from the ideas presented unless the idea is unclear, mistaken, or its characterization misleads me. Many of the theses of these papers are beyond the ability of the authors to rigorously defend. It just isn't possible because it would take years to do so. To a certain extent like in many fields the situation is a Tower of Babel, so that only a few specialists can follow what is being presented. - the paper would have zero chance of being accepted in any of the reputable optics journals, for example the Journal of the Optical Society of America. You misunderstand what Journals represent. Journals' referees often only accept what is commonly in the lore. Practically speaking they can't admit every unusual concept. An argument based on what experts know will not be helpful when a radically new idea is available, since it is outside of what experts know. Down this line I am still struggling with this technology and I'm sure Palmer would laugh at the above attempts to explain. They only explain my own failure to gedanken back engineer this technology.