There is something missing and this points to scam.
Where is the WeTag expert in this field? They don't even have a captive consultant that will put his or her credentials on the line and say, "I have reviewed the material, the prototypes and the math. This will work if (insert disclaimer here)." There has to be a person who developed the idea available. There is always an "inventor" of a new application for technology who can speak to the concept. But not here.
Many of the people complaining about the science, technology and math have experience in this field. The only critical studies done to this point have been by critics. The "technology papers (2)" put out by WeTag are embarrassing on so many levels so as to be worthless.
There are no parameters stated, no means and methods, no math, no measurement standards, no identification of material, location or conditions. So how can anyone conclude that this is anything but a mash up and scam?
That's my point. Many people complaining about this are experts in the field. iFind and WeTag don't even have a EE on board, and they have no published papers to their name in this field at all. There is NOBODY in the industry that has examined these claims and has come forward to say they are possible as stated. Don't you think at least one bought and paid for consultant with a degree in this field of work could have been found?
Your argument - Many technological items were impossible, then impractical, then suddenly commonplace - tends to resonate with some people. Who is to say that will not happen again? But in using this argument we avoid an unpleasant historical truth; the scientists of that field, the technologist of that field, the experts in that field, were by and large not surprised by the breakthrough and impossible was never part of the equation. Once electricity was understood the light bulb was never seen as Ãoealmost impossibleà by the experts in the field. It was not a Ãoemiracleà at all, rather the logical outgrowth of a systematic and scientific search. There was nothing "sudden" about it.
EdisonÃ(TM)s patents and breakthroughs amazed the common person and headline writers because of the implications on society, not the technology itself. Nobody in the business saw it as a sudden event. The technology was the outgrowth of prior systematic research and studies. It was the average commentator, uninformed investor and Ãoeman-on-the-streetà who were shocked and then delighted. Look at quantum computing today. Researchers, physicists and mathematicians in that field have been hard at work since Feynman proposed it in 1982. When it is enabled those in the field will not be amazed and commonplace use by these people will have been assumed long before we see it.
Set aside the bad science, the ignorance of physics and the lack of EE knowledge.
One of the key aspects of this project is that the iFind people were only seeking $25,000 in the beginning. Their goal for this $22,000 (subtract KS & Amazon fees and the bad credit cards) would not fund even the molds for the plastic housing. There is no mention of any funding source other than Kickstarter, so how could they possibly have succeeded? Another issue are the stretch goals. Most projects set the stretch goals a short distance from the original and add a minor upgrade or color. This project funds at $25,000 and has three stretch goals of $100,000, $150,000 and $500,000.
Now for the science part:
The first stretch goal - a user programmable rope function that is "adjustable in length"? A reliable EE would be thinking "duration or interval" not length. But they really mean "length" as in a lineal distance. They write the product will allows you to set "any range distance" to alert the tag.
So on $22,000 they were producing a energy vampire tag and at $115,000 you get a vampire tag with unlimited range.
Slashdot Mirror
There is something missing and this points to scam. Where is the WeTag expert in this field? They don't even have a captive consultant that will put his or her credentials on the line and say, "I have reviewed the material, the prototypes and the math. This will work if (insert disclaimer here)." There has to be a person who developed the idea available. There is always an "inventor" of a new application for technology who can speak to the concept. But not here. Many of the people complaining about the science, technology and math have experience in this field. The only critical studies done to this point have been by critics. The "technology papers (2)" put out by WeTag are embarrassing on so many levels so as to be worthless. There are no parameters stated, no means and methods, no math, no measurement standards, no identification of material, location or conditions. So how can anyone conclude that this is anything but a mash up and scam?
That's my point. Many people complaining about this are experts in the field. iFind and WeTag don't even have a EE on board, and they have no published papers to their name in this field at all. There is NOBODY in the industry that has examined these claims and has come forward to say they are possible as stated. Don't you think at least one bought and paid for consultant with a degree in this field of work could have been found?
Your argument - Many technological items were impossible, then impractical, then suddenly commonplace - tends to resonate with some people. Who is to say that will not happen again? But in using this argument we avoid an unpleasant historical truth; the scientists of that field, the technologist of that field, the experts in that field, were by and large not surprised by the breakthrough and impossible was never part of the equation. Once electricity was understood the light bulb was never seen as Ãoealmost impossibleà by the experts in the field. It was not a Ãoemiracleà at all, rather the logical outgrowth of a systematic and scientific search. There was nothing "sudden" about it. EdisonÃ(TM)s patents and breakthroughs amazed the common person and headline writers because of the implications on society, not the technology itself. Nobody in the business saw it as a sudden event. The technology was the outgrowth of prior systematic research and studies. It was the average commentator, uninformed investor and Ãoeman-on-the-streetà who were shocked and then delighted. Look at quantum computing today. Researchers, physicists and mathematicians in that field have been hard at work since Feynman proposed it in 1982. When it is enabled those in the field will not be amazed and commonplace use by these people will have been assumed long before we see it.
Set aside the bad science, the ignorance of physics and the lack of EE knowledge. One of the key aspects of this project is that the iFind people were only seeking $25,000 in the beginning. Their goal for this $22,000 (subtract KS & Amazon fees and the bad credit cards) would not fund even the molds for the plastic housing. There is no mention of any funding source other than Kickstarter, so how could they possibly have succeeded? Another issue are the stretch goals. Most projects set the stretch goals a short distance from the original and add a minor upgrade or color. This project funds at $25,000 and has three stretch goals of $100,000, $150,000 and $500,000. Now for the science part: The first stretch goal - a user programmable rope function that is "adjustable in length"? A reliable EE would be thinking "duration or interval" not length. But they really mean "length" as in a lineal distance. They write the product will allows you to set "any range distance" to alert the tag. So on $22,000 they were producing a energy vampire tag and at $115,000 you get a vampire tag with unlimited range.