quentron.com

[mrsean2k]

Hi All,


More photos of quencos under construction at Stanford this past week have been posted on


www.quentron.com


As I understand batch 1 will be finished in a few days, and then we commence producing the commercial batch (the ones we lend out to licencees) with an ETA about mid March.


We will demonstrate the Quencos at the conference but may also do a mini product launch on line if time permits prior to the conference.


I have been invited by a few people to various countires, but before going to Europe I thought I should do a USA demo, I expect to leave USA on 6th April so I will have a week to discuss the quenco with some key people in SF and Silicon valley.


Phil.

Any chance of few bullet points just describing the sequence of events remaining in manufacturing, and then how you intend to handle testing?


Ta


S

[orbut 3000]

Philippe Hardcastle,


my dear friend, don't let those negatrists cloud you positive way of thoughts. There is no need for a requirement of tests and facts. Remember they can ask what they want, and you are free to ignore them. Those silly questions they ask of you are the poisoned stings of the clown-snakes with their not very well hidden agendas. Keep the faith and the faith will keep you on track. Jehova shall guide your soul and make the Quency* a success.




(*Sounds better IMO, maybe you should adopt this name. Quenco (with the 'o' at the end) rhymes with homo, weirdo and negro, which can induce bad thoughts)


May I ask you the following:
Flights from here to SanFfrancisco are pretty expensive, so I have one question you may could answer me regarding the conference in SF:
How many people have been invited yet?
Is it possible to buy a ticket for the conference?


Thanks and God bless you(again),
Orban

[Elisha]

Any chance of few bullet points just describing the sequence of events remaining in manufacturing, and then how you intend to handle testing?

The remaining events in manufacture could be a secret.

But the following steps in the third party testing could be public information.

We have afraid that Philip disclosure too much confidential information.


The Eternal God, Guide Us.

[sarkeizen]

Your stupid point is that if science does not have one in the hand then it cannot be, you should consider the multi billion dollar projects designed to detect exotic particles, or the billions spent by astronomers and cosmologists to prove things.

Philip, as usual needs remedial logic.  In this case he's making a strawman.  Complaining that because Philip doesn't have something does not necessitate that such a thing can not exist but it may mean that such a thing is an open question.  This is in opposition only to people who claim 100% confidence.  Oh hey, that's you.

There's a huge 10,000 lb irony elephant in the room because when theory (oh say information theory) stomps all over your interpretation of your results.  All of a sudden "physical results" mean EVERYTHING so information theory - which has far fewer assumptions than even Physics must be wrong.  However when someone says  "uh well you haven't yet been able to actually produce this thing" all of a sudden theory means EVERYTHING so your failure after failure after failure after failure after failure must be wrong.

and if you had any knowledge and common sense you would have followed the logic from the sebby experiments

Appeal to popularity or anonymous authority.  Did anyone ever teach you how to construct an argument?

I get really irritated by people that do not enter the scientific debate but rather attack the person.

That doesn't really happen.  If you were capable of actually engaging me on a debate.  I would grind this point into dust.  You can't because you kind of suck at logic.

Do you really think we would spend years and about a million dollars of effort to chase an untested idea?

Your problem here is that you failed high-school math.  The question is not, for us "Do we think YOU would do this" but rather "Do we think it reasonable for SOMEONE to do this?" and obviously if you had even taken high-school math you would know that it is.  I don't know how geophysicists can suck so badly at simple math but there it is.

included lots of theory discussion, invited debates

Your theory page begged the question, you never addressed this even lumen who is constantly tongue-lubricating your ass - agreed with this assessment.   You invited a debate for all of a few days before removing the challenge from your site.

So let's, on your say so, call all researchers liars and fools as they pursue outcomes before having them in hand.

Another bit of moron or as we say PJH logic.  The only way for this to be true is if you are presuming that all research without experimental validation is operating on the same quality of evidence.  Clearly this can not be the case.  Ergo clearly Philip is wrong.

Such arguments as yours are so counter productive to the advance of science, you would rather all researchers keep secret their beliefs and theories? then how would they get funding, how would they get replication, and how would they get scientific debate.

There's a difference between saying that there's a theory and saying you are 100% confident.  The former is a statement of fact and the later is the statement of someone who is irrational.  The degree of irrationality varies with the quality of the evidence available.  Right now there

Science, often advances by smaller steps.  A principle is proposed, a validating experiment is suggested the experiment gets funding - often this is a small scale experiment because as the OP suggests pouring large amounts of money into a principle without any evidence is foolish.  If the experiment is successful attempts to scale the experiment up are done.

I am and have been surrounded by experts who have tested and checked my work, they are confident in the outcome, who are you advisors?

I've already outlined my argument and so far you've been unable to mount a cogent response.

[Philip Hardcastle]

@mrsean2k,


The photo from a few days ago was step 18 of 24.


Obviously we have progressed since then.


I am not going to make any public statements until we have a certified report of testing, I am not going to leave any doubt as to the authenticity of the device, this is too important.


As Elisha pointed out we will keep some details of materials and processes confidential until the release of a public paper.


It is my plan to make a public statement on or about 10 March.


Phil