quentron.com

[sarkeizen]

As he points out, it's R&D.

Not really.  There are two reasonably well-used definitions of R&D.  One would be the pursuit of basic science.  This isn't that.  He's not trying to produce a well controlled situation to demonstrate a principle.  He's trying to produce a product.  Which is closer to the other definition which is product development.  Normally product development ends with prototypes and depending on the industry some plan wrt manufacturing.  The problem with calling quenco R&D in this sense is that Philip only last year was "just weeks" from selling hearing aid batteries.  That's a sellable product, not R&D.  So the more accurate statement is that after failing to produce a functioning product Philip has labeled the Quenco R&D.

It seems reasonable to me to evaluate this differently than pure R&D in either sense.

I am sure you could make an accurate schedule for something like - for example -  building a website, because there are no unknown uknowns.

Then you've never managed building a website for a client who is allowed to make scope changes.

But yes, I agree with you re scheduling.  I actually think it would be better if no dates were announced, or if June 1 is the target, to make it Q1 2014 instead to "under promise and over deliver" as the corporate world a lot of us have worked in would have us say.

Rule of thumb:No dates if you don't need them and no dates if you don't know.

But we are not talking about web development, and if Philip was a corporate schmoozer none of us would be talking about this at all, because the info would not have been made public.

"corporate schmoozer" isn't well defined but Philip has many times, some even in this thread claimed that he would be willing to work with industry and in other cases that he was not capable to disclose things because of various ties.

To make myself clear, I am neither true nor false and not specifically for or against anything other than imbiciles ripping on a guy who is dedicating his life to doing a good thing.

If Philip is doing a good thing it's an assumption of yours based on evidence you don't have. The bare facts are either Philip's expectations are not reasonable expectations and therefore affects the suitability of him being in charge of this project, or they are and each failed expectation affects the probability of the outcome.

No false claims of operation have been made.  No "investors" have been solicited.  It's all been as honest as it gets.

Actually you could equally argue - no true claims of operation have been made.  Many investors have been solicited (and either are unknown to you or simply didn't think Philip was worth the risk).  As I keep saying: If Philip is honest, he is not a good candidate for managing this project.  This is not about his character, just his abilities.

To be fair, I am sure you would have been as vocal in ripping the Wright brothers, citing all of the available, flawed Victorian logic regarding size/weight and flight.   A time at the infancy of science when scientists believed all sorts of nutty things and all sorts of nutty laws.

Nobody is "ripping" Philip.  It's just an objective analysis which you don't like.

If I had the time and/or sadness I'd like to use computer science to prove something now known as false as actually being an irrefutable proof, using the information, created by the human imagination (inc accompanying flawed/limited experiments) available at that time.

The only argument I've made that references computer science was one that disproves the false assertion that you must know some arbitrary level of detail of a mechanism before you can claim that it can not work as described.  You can just as easily make the same argument from simple algebra.  The CS argument was just fun because people kept trying to find a loophole.

seemingly logical conclusions are based on human constructs of the information available.

So are entirely logical and inescapably correct conclusions.  If you have a particular criticism about some particular argument I've made you should state it.

[Qwert]

Philip is not a corporate schmoozer. Philip dreams of becoming a corporate schmoozer.

[peakprod]

Why don't all the whinging losers here , go away and do something useful for once!!

[TinselKoala]

Looks like PJH (or whatever he calls himself) has taken your advice.


Meanwhile, if you send me a working Quenco -- which is way past its promised due date, by the way -- I'll be happy to save the world with it. If the military-industrial complex doesn't disappear me, first, that is.

[markdansie]

Hi TK
Profitis is appearing on several forums as a johnny come lately without doing the research. In this case he has little or no expertise to be commenting on. I have quiet a bit of correspondence regarding this technology including some rather funny emails.
Nothing claimed, promised or stated ever eventuated in the last 3 years, so once again the forum comes to its end.
Maybe one day something will come of it and I wish everyone all the best.