Hi Reliable, Thx for the feedback... I understand the suggestion and the link to an example... I have hundreds of peer-reviewed and other literature on noninvasive glucose, bioelectromagnetics, the effects of poor glucose control on a person's biology, etc...
The history of noninvasive glucose is quite interesting (and frustrating for me)... The paper you linked to is all about optical technologies. Over the last 30 years, well over a billion dollars, and probably closer to $2B or $3B, has been put into the field, and 95% of that has been for optical (mostly near-IR) based technologies. We are using RF and microwave frequencies which do not have the drawbacks that light-based technologies have. I don't think that ANY of the optical techs that I've seen have been able to achieve predictive accuracy over weeks and months without a Recalibration finger stick or two... if we had these kinds of results back in the 90s when I was also working on this same tech, we would have had no problem getting funding. -Mark -----Original Message----- From: integral.property.serv...@gmail.com [mailto:integral.property.serv...@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, April 20, 2012 2:01 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:Spinon + Orbiton = Electron Mark, Perhaps adding references to your web page such as : http://photonicssociety.org/newsletters/apr98/overview.htm may allow a viewer to grasp the complexity and and importance of your efforts. Warm Regards, Reliable MarkI-ZeroPoint wrote: > > Thanks Dave. I even have a hat that has the phrase, "Think outside the > Box"! > > I've haven't been able to contribute to the idea-tossing within the > Collective for awhile because I've been busy with > discussions/presentations with an investment group for our technology > to do noninvasive (painless) glucose measurement for diabetics. So > far, I've presented the technical evidence three times, the latest to > the CTO, so we're making it up the decision-maker hierarchy. Wish us > me luck! > > We have been working quietly for the last two years, but are preparing > to make our results more widely known. to that end, I have begun to > put together a website with some details and no frills nor > advertisements. I'd appreciate some feedback on the site as to whether > the information is succinct and understandable. does it communicate > the results to the reader in an understandable manner? > > http://webpages.charter.net/markiverson/index.htm > > Thanks, > > -Mark > > *From:* David Roberson [mailto:dlrober...@aol.com] > *Sent:* Friday, April 20, 2012 10:20 AM > *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com > *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Spinon + Orbiton = Electron > > It is an excellent idea to think "out of the box" Mark as in this > case. Keep your ideas coming! > > Dave > > -----Original Message----- > From: MarkI-ZeroPoint <zeropo...@charter.net > <mailto:zeropo...@charter.net>> > To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com <mailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com>> > Sent: Fri, Apr 20, 2012 1:14 pm > Subject: RE: [Vo]:Spinon + Orbiton = Electron > > Where does the charge go? > > Perhaps 'charge' is an effect which only occurs or manifests when spin > and angular momentum are combined... > > -m
