Archive
The Standard 28C64 Circuit Induces a Noisy End
An inquiry suggests it is past time to report that after four years of observing apparently random failures of Unimprinted Electrical Devices (UEDs) and Intention-Imprinted Electrical Devices (IIEDs) in 2010 this lab indeed discerned why all conventional Ally-type designs eventually become inert.
Surveying the Atmel data sheet, one reads that a Software Data Protection (SDP) lock is invokable via a specific code sequence that makes the memory unchangeable. As an early-generation device, this mechanism was useful if not necessary to prevent data corruption during power-on/off cycles.
This problem I have patiently observed over several years with concern and caution, of time and again seeing these cells die (meaning they objectively test as a FAILED device), is explained by the SDP sequence being triggered by noise. When this happens, the cell’s sensitive CMOS transistors can no longer adapt to intentional nor environmental conditioning.
Unfortunately, it becomes statistically inevitable that all conventional Ally-type designs ever offered will eventually become latched and unresponsive due to noise triggering the SDP lock. That is why I have recalled the SC30/PS30 and its variants from general sales.
To really know what is going on, you must regularly monitor these chips with an EEPROM reader, or work closely with us to periodically ensure that your cells are still electronically ‘alive.’ Any lesser practice is seriously uninformed; guaranteeing that the device without indication decays into a rock-like placebo.
Following our conservative, methodical, finely-researched course regardless of any impact on sales is how we maintain our bearing: Credibility pursuing Incredibility.
Jan 2009 01
Bad Intentions: Tiller’s ‘White Paper II’ Undermines Legacy
By Stanley JungleibNo CommentsRevised: 20121201
Compare the history illustrated in this column particularly in the range of 2006 April-November with this recent account of Tiller’s, to learn how desperately one can stoop to so rewrite history to fit the persona. Tiller’s retrospection is bogus, made of transparently whole cloth.
The record shows that I called the problems to his attention, I recreated the intended designs, I created a control system that would allow the UED to be wired any way desired; yet for no reason than that the production could not guarantee his Master Intention of what was good, he destroyed the partnership that could have brought them to the public by the end of 2006, six years ago, when 50 in fact were made.
Followers must remember that Tiller’s experiments used a meditative team with a combined experience approaching 100 years. This is a significant hurdle to replication, one that no other academic team has yet met, and that lay folk are not likely to be able to overcome.
Despite the practical difficulty of anyone besides Tiller’s own team imprinting a UED into an IIED, Tiller dismisses UEDs as noisy and useless. Here again, I have demonstrated exactly the opposite, that meditators are unnecessary to the process. The entire potential under discussion can instead of a maintained fantasy, be exhaustively explored and replicated by the sensitive electronics of our sensing and generating circuitry.
In hindsight it could not have been a clearer warning, that in 2005 October at book signing after his talk Dr. Tiller had no answer to my question whether the 3-EEPROM schematic that he printed wasn’t missing a power line to all of the chips. By 2006 June Tiller’s fear of my work began when I sent him UEDs that easily overpowered all of his experiments in progress. The trajectory was clear; the technology was no longer in his control. That this fundamental mistake is repeated in Tiller’s 2009 re-issued drawing speaks volumes as to his actual care and expertise. Moreover, the diagrams above still do not show the correct schematics for the original devices used in Tiller’s imprinting research. Is this endemic carelessness or intention to mislead?
Saved from the combination of Randy Zeisenis’s humbug, Clarus’s manufacturing incompetence, Tiller’s simultaneously naive and incomprehensible tomes ignorant of the basic design and performance of his main tools: I forged this amateurish mess into the new independent and objective, patent-pending science to be carried forward.
Despite his subsequent attempts to rewrite history, the fact is Dr. Tiller was willing to have me develop his UED devices because from the day I reviewed his laboratory program in March, he learned more about UEDs—such as the crippling manufacturing flaws in the devices he was using–from me than I did from him.
Note the amateurish form of his proposal—their ‘intellectual property’ is not defined—with capricious gating terms inflexible and impossible (50% of gross!) to bring to any experienced investor. And this was after review by a purported Finance professional.
The question never answered is that if Dr. Tiller were ultimately so concerned about untoward uses of the IIED—one of the nominal excuses for his vague, chaos-creating prime directive—why in the first place did he intentionally publish the Ally design in his book CAC specifically to gain the broadest attention?
The upshot of that a) apparently unauthorized and self-immolating Ally schematic printing, b) a half year of disinterest if not deception as to who actually invented and owned the technology he was attempting to sell, together with c) this deeply unrealistic LOI, demonstrated an unusual level of confusion with intellectual property management virtually guaranteeing habitual business failure. My associates and I could not accept this unmitigated risk in a partner, so readily ended the negotiation.
