Use of wavepackets in non-digital processimg

Administrador del Nodo Postmaster at neubio.sld.ar
Fri Oct 4 22:14:04 EST 1996


 
Dear neuronetters, 
 
     Contrarily to what "Ricci"'s owner say, the stance they embraced in his
response (forwarded hereby) will not relegate their claims to frivolity, 
amongst academia; not, at least, amongst those really knowledgeable of the 
field. (Less, having made a mention during 1996 of the UK.) Nonetheless, it
not either precludes the lack of seriousness. What it precludes is sharing the 
state of the art. Specially, some suppose, regarding the issue of the control 
of capacitance variation. Surely, it is to be respected as a proper decision 
on bussiness terms, on account of the difficulties in the U.S. Patent Office 
to get revindications of non-classical effects admitted, in the context of 
the trade-off between patent-protected disclosure and unprotected but impublic
means. So not either it precludes the seriousness. It was a real coincidence
that the notice was published in this forum and e-mails on an October the 
second. 
      Greetings, 
        Mariela 
 
---------beginning forwarded messages------- 
>Message-Id: <199610040527.AAA18353 at mail.cei.net> 
>From:	lkh at mail.cei.net (Lee Kent Hempfling) 
>To:	Postmaster at neubio.sld.ar (Administrador del Nodo), lkh at cei.net, 
rcb1 at lex.lccc.edu 
>Subject: Re: Use of wavepackets in non-digital processimg 
>Date:	Fri, 04 Oct 1996 06:27:33 GMT 
>Reply-To: lkh at mail.cei.net 
> 
>On 2 Oct 1996 12:08:13 -0700, you wrote: 
> 
>>Hello, neuronetters!! 
>>Dear Ron (Blue), 
> 
>>                  Thank you for sharing also in our suffered 
>>forum the news on an automaton that claims to use quantum waves 
>>in its processing. Just this is of course the point that I deem 
>>of high interest here, all the remaining staying subsidiary in 
>>our professional concerns. Many neuroscientists have still no 
>>access to the web and only e-mail, so they (including us) can- 
>>not read the specifications.  Besides, it is expectable that 
>>such specifications have been written with commercial purpo- 
>>ses. Could you be so kind as to begin trying to exact the de- 
>>tailed claims ONLY about the "use of waves" in such a processing? 
> 
>>                   Let me insist, to be clear. First off we need 
>>to evaluate the claim itself, to recognize if it is serious or, 
>>instead, revindicates it lightly, as sorry to say it is to be dis- 
>>criminated in a first approach. To this end the sensible point is 
>>knowing just that.  Not what happens with "particles"; and less 
>>the beneficent uses such a device could be later put to. Any insis- 
>>tence into these other subjects is to be interpreted as a swerving 
>>to elude the question.  Also any explanation of physical principles 
>>is completely out of place here.  I am sure that many colleagues 
>>in this forum  --specially, many who abstained in some recent discu- 
>>ssions-- need not such a tutorial.  As you know, we are prone to hail 
>>the advance as it deserves: most enthusiastically, since as you also 
>>know many of us can really appreciate its significance.  But we first 
>>need INEXCUSABLY a down-to-earth description of what is claimed 
>>as the implementation of wavepackets, clearly and succintly claimed. 
>>It is not of course to be evaluated on philosophical grounds. And 
>>its failure to be produced, or its being unoperational, or requiring 
>>anything unacceptable to a Patent Office specification, would be in- 
>>compatible with going ahead with further tests. 
> 
>>         	    Would you try, please, to exact such a clear 
>>and succint explanation describing how wave packets are claimed 
>>to been technically implemented therein?  We eagerly wait for such 
>>a posting! 
>>              Cyberkisses for everybody! 
>>                Mariela 
> 
> 
>>=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*= *= 
>>       Prof. Mariela Szirko, 
>>       <postmaster at neubio.sld.ar>  
>>                             
>>       Centro de Investig. Neurobiologicas, Ministry of Health  
>>& Welfare, Argentine Republic; and  
>>       Lab. of Electroneurobiological Res., Neuropsychiatric 
>>Hospital "Dr. Jose Tiburcio Borda", Municipality of Buenos Aires, 
>>       Office:  Phone/Fax (54 1) 306 -7314 
>>                e-mail <postmaster at neubio.gov.ar> 
>>       Standard disclaimer: Las opiniones de este mensaje son 
>>personales y no comprometen las dependencias a cargo de la firmante 
>>  Reply to THIS message,  ONLY to: <postmaster at neubio.sld.ar>  
>>=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*= *= 
> 
>Professor Szirko; 
> 
>I am unable at the moment to place anything on usenet due to a local 
>server problem so my responding to this challenge, which needs be 
>public as the challenge was, is not at the moment possible. To add to 
>that issue the NTC www pages were inadvertenly destroyed in an address 
>change at aston u. in the UK and they have to be reconstructed. 
> 
>A few topical notes of interest though: The technology detailed in the 
>press release was the tip of what is actually at work. We toned down 
>the claims publicly. How it functions in specifics is, as you 
>correctly assumed, a commercial matter and as such will not be 
>publicly disclosed. 
> 
>I do commend you for a very well written challenge but the terms under 
>which it was presented are not acceptable to the perspective of the 
>company. On the other hand, we will permit limited access to the 
>device and to the specifics of the claims and protocols with signed 
>non-disclosure agreements and within a facility of our choosing where 
>the device never leaves our immediate control.  A group evaluation 
>would be appropriate. When our time table permits. 
> 
>Suffice to say that this is not an academic endeavor and as such the 
>technology is not available in detail for public dissemination. That 
>being so, the challenge you made would require very detailed 
>explanation into areas you have not addressed, as we did not disclose 
>them, and would not be in the current shareholder's interest, 
>potential investor interests or the security of the device. 
> 
>I understand that such a stance will relegate the claims to frivolity 
>amongst academia. The purpose of a corporation is to pay shareholders 
>dividends. I am sure you will understand that undermining the 
>potential income ability of a major breakthrough for those who did 
>stick their necks out in order to impress or please or interest those 
>who did not is not a sound business practice. 
> 
>My best to you and yours, 
> 
>Lee Kent Hempfling 
>Chairman, CEO 
>Neutronics Technologies Corporation. 
> 
>PS: If I ever get back on usenet ( or change servers, which ever comes 
>first) I will post this response to your challenge. Regardless of the 
>reaction. 
>Lee Kent Hempfling                   |lkh at cei.net 
>Neutronics Technolgies Corporation   |http:www.cei.net/~lkh/ntc/ 
>PO Box 3127 Fort Smith Ar 72913      |http:www.aston.ac.uk/~batong/Neutronics 
>Room temperature, cold dynamic system, quantum computation, built and proven. 
>Video available at the above aston UK site. 
> 
------end of forwarded messages------ 
=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*= 
       Prof. Mariela Szirko, 
       <postmaster at neubio.sld.ar>  
                             
       Centro de Investig. Neurobiologicas, Ministry of Health  
& Welfare, Argentine Republic; and  
       Lab. of Electroneurobiological Res., Neuropsychiatric 
Hospital "Dr. Jose Tiburcio Borda", Municipality of Buenos Aires, 
       Office:  Phone/Fax (54 1) 306 -7314 
                e-mail <postmaster at neubio.gov.ar> 
       Standard disclaimer: Las opiniones de este mensaje son 
personales y no comprometen las dependencias a cargo de la firmante 
  Reply to THIS message,  ONLY to: <postmaster at neubio.sld.ar>  
=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=



More information about the Neur-sci mailing list