Not wanting to share information on the web annymore. - Page 1
Forum section: electronics / general

author: PeterFW
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: March 30, 2016, 12:38:12 am
content: Hello!Im a bit grumpy, this is more a ramble then actual something of substance...So... a few months ago i had an idea, started to do a lot of research and a few weeks back i began to put things together. All the while, i was determined to put what i learned on the web for everyone to benefit from it. (Allready dit that a bit, have a look at my post history, its really outdated though, by now).There is nearly no real information about the thing on the web, a bit of false information and i could not find a single person with expertise who would answer a few of my quesions that are way over my head.What i dit encounter however are dozens of people who tell me "Hey, that does not work!" and all i can show them the pictures that it works and all i want to do now is to establish a reliable process.At this point, i am thinking, screw you guys, i will keep that to myself.Annyone else ever had that feeling?Greetings,Peter

author: ataradov
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 30, 2016, 01:21:58 am
content: This is a complex issue. Typically this kind of reaction is evoked by something that is clearly impossible or nearly impossible to make. Like perpetual motion, for example.What is your goal for sharing? You can publish your stuff "as as", with corresponding disclaimer, but then it is likely that no conversation will follow. And if you want conversation, then you need to present a proof that your thing works.

author: PeterFW
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: March 30, 2016, 01:32:08 am
content: Quote from: ataradov on March 30, 2016, 01:21:58 amIt is nothing really special, selective copper plating, marking and etching of stainless steel in a randomly agitated bath, using modulated dc current.I have copper plating 2 samples on my desk that turned out very well, have exceptional good adhesion and are about 4 weeks old.But i still have problems geting reliable results and have not been able to pinpoint yet were the problem with the failed samples is.In addition it seems i have a bit of a problem with the current density around edges and some chemical things that are a bit over my head.Greetings,Peter

author: ataradov
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 30, 2016, 02:04:25 am
content: I'm no expert on this topic and have no real interest for this, but it sounds like something that is not considered to be straightforward in the industry, so people are reluctant to believe.If you keep on posting your results with continuous improvements, I'm pretty sure normal people will realize that you are not kidding and actually doing something.

author: CatalinaWOW
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 30, 2016, 03:30:12 am
content: What you may be seeing is a reflection of practical fact. For reasons that somewhere between very few and no one understands this type of plating cannot reliably be done. The fact that you have done it proves that it is possible. But you have had quite a few failures. Is it the temperature, the cleaning, some trace element in the plating solution? You don't know yet, and since industry experts say it is impossible quite a few other people don't know. A process that cannot be repeated consistently is commercially impossible.I was once associated with a product based on a very specialized detector material. A small batch of a dozen or so yielded four or five perfectly working examples. A large development program was developed based on the use of this detector, but subsequent batches yielded zero percent. Through dozens of batches. It was many, many months before the process was dialed in enough to provide even the parts required for prototyping. The program went on to production and was a tightrope all through production with yields periodically falling disastrously low and new factors found that were poisoning the process.I have no specialized knowledge to assist you, but will point out that it may be difficult to reliably achieve the results you have demonstrated. It could be difficult only in the sense of learning the required controls, and then relatively easy to implement. But it could also be difficult in the sense of being a process with an extremely small success window that requires either luck or tight control on several dozen parameters for success.

author: PeterFW
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: March 30, 2016, 04:03:26 am
content: Quote from: CatalinaWOW on March 30, 2016, 03:30:12 amYes, that is absolutely true.What keeps me gooing at the moment is that other things work tremendously well, are dead simple and 90% repeatable, when i first started nearly everyone said, that it will never work.For the moment, i just hope that they are wrong on this one as well.Of course, the simple fact that, if it would work someone would do it, is absolutely on my mind.All the time.QuoteMhm, yes, i have considered that i might just have had luck with those two samples.What i suspect at the moment that i got incredibly lucky on the temperature on those tries.All the really interesting information is behind pay walls, when it comes to this sort of thing almost nothing is readily available. So man damn secrets.Greetings,Peter

author: GEuser
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: March 30, 2016, 04:29:17 am
content: PeterFW about first post , imo it's a cycle that the net is going through at the moment regarding the "peoples" , I have recently just got back on the net after a year and a halfs break , I have noticed after looking about quickly a lot has changed , previously big sites/forums with a lot of information have really been trimmed down big time , heaps of files , pictures , general information that has been put up by the forum members has completely gone or has been severely trimmed , I recall this also happening around 6 or so years ago and it took a cupla years to be reinvigorated .There are too many sites to list here that are common so it's just my general observation .In association with that seems to be the mentality? of some said users , not all but there was a lot of $ people who did or contribute to the mentality of no $ = no nothing as all they were looking for is to make a $ .But the above (about the $) still does not explain why all the other stuff has been trimmed , a lot has justGone.Cheers .

author: 3141592
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: March 30, 2016, 05:24:46 am
content: Maybe you would have better experience on a forum frequented by chemists and/or technology experts. It doesn't really sound like a subject EEs would be experts in. You could also try to ask a question on a suitable stackexchange site, or researchgate.Quote from: PeterFW on March 30, 2016, 04:03:26 amIf you are talking about academic publications, you may want to try Sci-Hub.

author: PeterFW
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: March 30, 2016, 05:31:55 am
content: Quote from: 3141592 on March 30, 2016, 05:24:46 amI dit, this is the forum were i feel most at home, i felt like ranting so i came hereQuoteThat looks great, thank you very much!

author: Don Hills
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: March 30, 2016, 09:07:40 am
content: Quote from: PeterFW on March 30, 2016, 05:31:55 amRanting about a chemical process problem in an EE forum is like wetting your pants in a dark suit... it gives you a warm feeling but nobody notices.I hope you find your answers. Many years ago everyone told me you couldn't solder aluminium... so I managed to solder two small pieces of aluminium together with a soldering iron and standard tin/lead solder. (I carefully scraped the mating surfaces clean in an oil bath first.)

author: ElektroQuark
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: March 30, 2016, 09:57:52 am
content: There/We are some chemists among forum users...

author: altaic
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: March 30, 2016, 05:27:32 pm
content: Also check outdeepdyve.com-- served me very well in many different disciplines, covering many major journals. It's like $30/mo with few restrictions depending on the whitepaper. Two-week free trial, too. Definitely gotten my money's worth since I signed up a few months ago; I've read/skimmed hundreds of papers which would have otherwise cost me thousands of $ to purchase.

author: PedroDaGr8
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 04, 2016, 03:53:25 pm
content: Quote from: EdoNork on March 30, 2016, 09:57:52 amyeah a few of us. I think there are two or three others that I know of (your would be number three or four).

author: acolomitchi
author_rank: Contributor
timestamp: July 21, 2016, 07:05:23 am
content: Quote from: PeterFW on March 30, 2016, 04:03:26 amThere is a thing called sci-hub. Which has a twitter account as well, google-fu basics to get to it.And on their twitter account logo (no need to follow them), there are some red-brownish site names, one with a ... shall we say, lachrymatory?... address (just in case the addresses are DNS-blocked in some countries that shall remain unnamed).Please understand I'm not advising anything, just passing info around.

author: Kilrah
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: July 21, 2016, 09:53:03 am
content: The "success" of publishing info about processes is directly proportional to the number of people of the general public it can impact.If lots of people see the use in it and benefit from it then a positive vibe grows and things become great. I work on an open source project that every user in the field can benefit from, it gives them a cheaper and more powerful alternative to other more common options and they're happy to have that.What you do seems not to be something the average Joe would have a need for or understand how to do, it's something that would pretty much only find a use in industrial environments.Industrial environments means some people are paying lots of $$$ for development and execution of solutions, means trade secrets etc. Whoever would have a use for that pays (or is paid) big bucks to do R&D, and they'll for sure look down on the little guy in his garage who had an idea they didn't have or found a way to do something that they didn't. To them you're either making them look stupid or potentially eating into their living, so for sure they won't acknowledge what you're doing, even less help you get there...If you were part of one of the interested industrial groups you'd probably get funding, regognition and awards but as an individual you'll be denied as long as possible, until you've got something absolutely flawless and make a successful business out of it, where they just have no choice but to recognise it.For us of course some established industry players aren't looking at us with a good eye for what we do, but the balance is positive becasue 10s of thousands of users are raving, which gives a good dynamic and that "can't be ignored" power.But nothing of that is either specific to the net nor new at all... that's how society in general has worked for centuries, recognition and influence only comes through large groups.

author: Ducttape
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: August 06, 2016, 12:33:44 pm
content: "All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident." - Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860)

author: IconicPCB
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 29, 2016, 02:14:41 am
content: So where did you ask the questions?

author: mrpackethead
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 29, 2016, 04:53:56 am
content: The world was flat at one point. And that was a fact.

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: September 29, 2016, 05:29:29 am
content: Engineers are generally pretty blunt and will often say what they think.No point getting upset about that, better off to do one of two think:1) Ignore themor2) Challenge them to prove you are wrong. Engineers also like challenges.THat has one of two outcomes:a) If they can't come up with the goods, then ignore them.orb) If they do come up with the goods, except you are wrong and move on.Welcome to the world of online engineering.

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: September 29, 2016, 05:30:23 am
content: Quote from: Ducttape on August 06, 2016, 12:33:44 pmUnless the idea is just inherent crap, like solar roadways, uBeam, Batteriser etc

author: CatalinaWOW
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 29, 2016, 02:03:23 pm
content: Schopenhauer was of course right. But he didn't feel it worth mentioning that many, many arrows are shot towards targets that miss, are lied about, or that many targets are seen by people with badly flawed vision. And all of those arrows and bad targets are why so much skepticism exists about new and different thoughts. And why the rewards are often great for those who pass the gauntlet of this skepticism.

author: @rt
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 29, 2016, 06:41:17 am
content: YouTube video detailing and demonstrating the process is pretty hard to argue with,and sounds a lot easier than whatever you’re doing now.A video also has more merit if it shows you face talking with it (if you’re up for that).Someone can always cry fake, but then you can ask to see their attempt at repeating the process you showed them.I have played around with some electroplating/etching with varying results.Mostly to print text or a logo on one metal with another metal. Fun stuff, I found it quite enjoyable.

author: Dubbie
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: December 29, 2016, 09:25:01 am
content: Yes, note that the quote starts "All truths...." too many inventors misread it as "All ideas....."Sent from my phone using Tapatalk

author: Kilrah
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: December 29, 2016, 11:57:51 am
content: Quote from: @rt on December 29, 2016, 06:41:17 amThat's flawed... when you consider something to be fake you won't attempt to repeat it since by definition you're sure it can't happen.

author: @rt
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 29, 2016, 12:24:12 pm
content: Well that’s the whole point. I would simply ask, “At what point of the process did it not work for you?”,rather than assert that it was not fake. If the video is legit, there is no need for the author to show any doubt.As opposed to describing something in words on a forum, etc.It’s much easier for the reader to assume it’s all conjecture.Quote from: Kilrah on December 29, 2016, 11:57:51 am

author: b_force
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 29, 2016, 01:15:49 pm
content: Well Peter, welcome to the small world of open minded thinkers, makers and world changers.Go read a little history about Einstein, Galileo, Newton, Rutherford and many many many more, and I think it will make you feel better.Pretty much the whole world thought that these guys were weird, insane, stupid or even possessed by the devil.Unfortunately, it almost seems like it's humans nature to be against everything that's new, not 'normal' (whatever that may be) and out of the box.Instead, I personally like a more open discussion.Just see how far you can stretch a certain idea until you really hit the limits of physics.15 years ago no-one (!!!!!) would thought we would be capable of having tiny little super fast computers in our pockets.So don't let people discourage you, it just means you have to find a different audience/group of people.

author: b_force
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 29, 2016, 01:29:58 pm
content: Quote from: @rt on December 29, 2016, 06:41:17 amI like youtube, it's a great platform to get inspired.The only mayor thing I don't like about it, is that nowadays people don't read, believe and respect good articles anymore.If you describe a certain theory, process and idea very well, in a well written article, that's more than enough proof.In my opinion even much stronger.Unfortunately I sometimes have the idea that the majority just only likes to consume.Just watching a video is easier and takes less effort than reading and understanding an article.Maybe I am wrong on this, but it's a strong feel I get.Besides electronics, I am also an acoustic engineer.If you see how many myths there are in the field, even around respected engineers from big companies.It just simply makes you wonder why hard proven experiments and very well written books which proof otherwise are even being published?It's sad.

author: Fraser
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 29, 2016, 02:56:13 pm
content: Thanks for the information about Sci-Hub. Alexandra has done a good job of making research knowledge available.I keep coming up against pay walls asking huge sums of money when I am a non-commercial interested party just wanting to expand my knowledge a little or just interested in a topic with no financial reward for me from such.It is very sad when good research is locked away. So many scientists have given their knowledge and discoveries away for the betterment of mankind (womenkind as well).Fraser

author: Fraser
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 29, 2016, 03:05:06 pm
content: Holy smoke...... I wanted to read some thermal sensor papers that are locked behind a SPIE membership wall.Just entered a doi of 10.1117/12.637979 and there is the document ! WonderfulSharing research and knowledge is good. witholding such is a negative attitude. The OP is brave to float new ideas on a forum, but I urge him to continue. Peer review can be most productive, but you do need a thick skin to deal with the criticism.Fraser

author: Karel
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 29, 2016, 03:10:23 pm
content: I'm allways willing to believe other people when they have an idea.As long as they don't ask for my time or money, I'll never put them down.I'm even willing to believe that there's global warming and that it's caused by us.As long as they don't put any taxes or laws based on it, I'm fine with what other people want to believe.