Hi,
I have used the Ergonom 500 microscope and I am now involved in
translating the information and video material on this microscope from
German into English. Please have a look at the following websites for
more information
http://www.grayfieldoptical.com (General information)
http://www.grayfieldoptical.com/microscience (More detailed info +
videos)

I hope this helps. If you have more specific questions, write to me
directly and I will try to help. peter@grayfieldoptical.com

Regards

Peter

From:	Kevin Cunningham
Subject:	Re: Ergonom 500
Date:	Mon, 06 Dec 2004 13:03:25 GMT

"Peter Walker" wrote in message
news:DMCi75lprbls0Tbfpeter@grayfieldoptical.com...
> Hi,
> I have used the Ergonom 500 microscope and I am now involved in
> translating the information and video material on this microscope from
> German into English. Please have a look at the following websites for
> more information
> http://www.grayfieldoptical.com (General information)
> http://www.grayfieldoptical.com/microscience (More detailed info +
> videos)
>
> I hope this helps. If you have more specific questions, write to me
> directly and I will try to help. peter@grayfieldoptical.com
>
> Regards
>
> Peter

"Great discoveries demand great proof"
Just about everyone I know

Every once in awhile you see something so fraudlent it takes your breath
away. Way to go Grayfield!! First of why specify power? Magnification is
the least valuable tool in the trade. Why not use NA? Next why say that a
light instrument is anything like an SEM? Can this unit do back scatter?

Look what ever advantages you think this instrument has why not state them
specifically. Use drawings and photos to introduce your technology not the
terms you use on the web site.

When you have something interesting let me know.

Kevin Cunningham
SMS

From:	Peter Walker
Subject:	Re: Ergonom 500
Date:	Mon, 27 Dec 2004 21:03:37 +0100

Hi Kevin,

"Kevin Cunningham" wrote in message
news:xMYsd.6793$Va5.4584@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...
>
> "Peter Walker" wrote in message
> news:DMCi75lprbls0Tbfpeter@grayfieldoptical.com...
> > Hi,
> > I have used the Ergonom 500 microscope and I am now involved in
> > translating the information and video material on this microscope from
> > German into English. Please have a look at the following websites for
> > more information
> > http://www.grayfieldoptical.com (General information)
> > http://www.grayfieldoptical.com/microscience (More detailed info +
> > videos)
> >
> > I hope this helps. If you have more specific questions, write to me
> > directly and I will try to help. peter@grayfieldoptical.com
> >
> > Regards
> >
> > Peter
>
> "Great discoveries demand great proof"
> Just about everyone I know

The Ergonom series of microscopes have been developed in Germany since 1972
and have been used in a wide range of applications. Primarily, these
microscopes have been used in industry (mainly within Germany) and as yet
very little in universities or medical research. If you look at the
references on our site, you will find names like Prof. Gerd Binning (noble
prize for physics) who have personally used and validated the Ergonom
microscopes. We have a number of similar references not yet online, they
will appear in due course.

For commercial reasons, we are not releasing the exact working procedure
into the public domain (we do not want the other microscope companies to get
our capabilities for free) although we are very open to anybody coming to
see our microscopes and performing their own tests to validate the
specifications (as many have including all the major microscope
manufacturers).

> Every once in awhile you see something so fraudlent it takes your breath
> away. Way to go Grayfield!! First of why specify power? Magnification
is
> the least valuable tool in the trade. Why not use NA? Next why say that
a
> light instrument is anything like an SEM? Can this unit do back scatter?

You should get your facts right before you call anyone "fraudlent". Just
because you have not seen a microscope with such capabilities before does
not make it in any way fraudulent which I can assure you it is not. In fact
we have often accepted challenges from other microscope companies as to what
can be achieved and we have yet to be beaten. One such challenge from one of
the major microscope manufacturers (I do not want to embarase them by naming
them in this forum) can be found on our site. They sent us the best possible
image they could obtain from a computer chip using their confocal method.
Our version of the same part of the same chip (they supplied) can be seen
here:
http://www.grayfieldoptical.com/microscience/e500/index.html then scroll
down to the picture gallery.

I agree that magnification is not an ideal way of specifing power, but the
operating principle we use is significantly different to standard
microscopes (otherwise we would not be able to achieve more) making a
specification of NA (the highest NA we require is about 0.98) even more
confusing.

We can resolve better than 100nm using white halogen light and dry lenses
(oil immersion and staining, etc. not required). Without going into too much
detail here, we achieve higher magnification not specifically through higher
power lenses, but by vastly improving the resolution achievable through the
optics. Based on over 30 years of research, our engineer (Kurt Olbrich)
found a way of preventing the degradation of the image quality by making
sure the light paths do not cross each other as resolution is lost every
time a light path crosses. By preventing the light ways from crossing plus a
number of other optimizations, higher resolutions can be achieved. For us
the resolution limits are set by the resolution of the photographic film or
digital cameras used.

At about this stage in the discussion, people then start quoting the
problems of the wavelength of light, etc. a problem which has been solved by
our engineer in an ingenious way. We realise that many people have problems
believing this based on their knowledge and experience with other
microscopes, but those who have tested our microscopes for themselves can
see that our system works very well. We will be releasing a video shortly
showing the process of resolving 100nm on a test slide in real time,
optically.

If you are looking for such a microscope and want to test this for yourself,
just contact us bringing your own slides to look at. You can operate the
microscope yourself and you will see that we keep our promises no matter how
fantastic they might sound to you now.

Regarding comparison to SEM. We can view objects at magnifications similar
to that often used on SEMs (more than 10000x optically). The Ergonom cannot
do back scatter, but then again SEM cannot see live images in true colour of
biological specimens without damaging them. We do not need a vacuum or any
kind of staining, either.

>
> Look what ever advantages you think this instrument has why not state them
> specifically. Use drawings and photos to introduce your technology not
the
> terms you use on the web site.

We state a lot on our website and provide detailed video and photographic
images. We will be adding to this in the coming year when we will be
announcing new lower cost microscopes, soon.

>
> When you have something interesting let me know.
>

Just keep watching our website and feel free to contact us directly for more
information. There is a limit to what can be said in an open forum. If you
are located in or visiting Germany, we could arrange for you to test our
equipment
http://www.grayfieldoptical.com

I am sure we have not answered all your questions and it is impossible to do
so over a forum like this. Nothing can beat seeing and testing such
microscopes for yourself.

We only started to market these microscopes outside Germany last year,
please be patient when the information we have put online is not as complete
as you would like. It takes time to translate and prepare all the available
information. We prefer to spend our limited resourses improving the
information available online than get into online discussions about what is
or is not possible. We can substantiate all that we say, we are however
still working on putting that information online and realise that not enough
has been made available yet to satisfy everybody. We ask you to be patient
on that score.

We only occassionally check such forums for messages so do not be surprised
if it takes some time to reply to any further questions you or others might
think of. Answering questions from our own customers and improving our own
online presentations must have priority.

Regards

Peter Walker
Technical Support
Grayfield Optical Inc.

From:	Kevin Cunningham
Subject:	Re: Ergonom 500
Date:	Tue, 28 Dec 2004 02:33:05 GMT

"Peter Walker" wrote in message
news:cqpphp$c6q$01$1@news.t-online.com...
> Hi Kevin,
>
> "Kevin Cunningham" wrote in message
> news:xMYsd.6793$Va5.4584@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...
>>
>> "Peter Walker" wrote in message
>> news:DMCi75lprbls0Tbfpeter@grayfieldoptical.com...
>> > Hi,
>> > I have used the Ergonom 500 microscope and I am now involved in
>> > translating the information and video material on this microscope from
>> > German into English. Please have a look at the following websites for
>> > more information
>> > http://www.grayfieldoptical.com (General information)
>> > http://www.grayfieldoptical.com/microscience (More detailed info +
>> > videos)
>> >
>> > I hope this helps. If you have more specific questions, write to me
>> > directly and I will try to help. peter@grayfieldoptical.com
>> >
>> > Regards
>> >
>> > Peter
>>
>> "Great discoveries demand great proof"
>> Just about everyone I know
>
> The Ergonom series of microscopes have been developed in Germany since
> 1972
> and have been used in a wide range of applications. Primarily, these
> microscopes have been used in industry (mainly within Germany) and as yet
> very little in universities or medical research. If you look at the
> references on our site, you will find names like Prof. Gerd Binning (noble
> prize for physics) who have personally used and validated the Ergonom
> microscopes. We have a number of similar references not yet online, they
> will appear in due course.
>
> For commercial reasons, we are not releasing the exact working procedure
> into the public domain (we do not want the other microscope companies to
> get
> our capabilities for free) although we are very open to anybody coming to
> see our microscopes and performing their own tests to validate the
> specifications (as many have including all the major microscope
> manufacturers).
>
>> Every once in awhile you see something so fraudlent it takes your breath
>> away. Way to go Grayfield!! First of why specify power? Magnification
> is
>> the least valuable tool in the trade. Why not use NA? Next why say that
> a
>> light instrument is anything like an SEM? Can this unit do back scatter?
>
> You should get your facts right before you call anyone "fraudlent". Just
> because you have not seen a microscope with such capabilities before does
> not make it in any way fraudulent which I can assure you it is not. In
> fact
> we have often accepted challenges from other microscope companies as to
> what
> can be achieved and we have yet to be beaten. One such challenge from one
> of
> the major microscope manufacturers (I do not want to embarase them by
> naming
> them in this forum) can be found on our site. They sent us the best
> possible
> image they could obtain from a computer chip using their confocal method.
> Our version of the same part of the same chip (they supplied) can be seen
> here:
> http://www.grayfieldoptical.com/microscience/e500/index.html then scroll
> down to the picture gallery.
>
> I agree that magnification is not an ideal way of specifing power, but the
> operating principle we use is significantly different to standard
> microscopes (otherwise we would not be able to achieve more) making a
> specification of NA (the highest NA we require is about 0.98) even more
> confusing.
>
> We can resolve better than 100nm using white halogen light and dry lenses
> (oil immersion and staining, etc. not required). Without going into too
> much
> detail here, we achieve higher magnification not specifically through
> higher
> power lenses, but by vastly improving the resolution achievable through
> the
> optics. Based on over 30 years of research, our engineer (Kurt Olbrich)
> found a way of preventing the degradation of the image quality by making
> sure the light paths do not cross each other as resolution is lost every
> time a light path crosses. By preventing the light ways from crossing plus
> a
> number of other optimizations, higher resolutions can be achieved. For us
> the resolution limits are set by the resolution of the photographic film
> or
> digital cameras used.
>
> At about this stage in the discussion, people then start quoting the
> problems of the wavelength of light, etc. a problem which has been solved
> by
> our engineer in an ingenious way. We realise that many people have
> problems
> believing this based on their knowledge and experience with other
> microscopes, but those who have tested our microscopes for themselves can
> see that our system works very well. We will be releasing a video shortly
> showing the process of resolving 100nm on a test slide in real time,
> optically.
>
> If you are looking for such a microscope and want to test this for
> yourself,
> just contact us bringing your own slides to look at. You can operate the
> microscope yourself and you will see that we keep our promises no matter
> how
> fantastic they might sound to you now.
>
> Regarding comparison to SEM. We can view objects at magnifications similar
> to that often used on SEMs (more than 10000x optically). The Ergonom
> cannot
> do back scatter, but then again SEM cannot see live images in true colour
> of
> biological specimens without damaging them. We do not need a vacuum or any
> kind of staining, either.
>
>>
>> Look what ever advantages you think this instrument has why not state
>> them
>> specifically. Use drawings and photos to introduce your technology not
> the
>> terms you use on the web site.
>
> We state a lot on our website and provide detailed video and photographic
> images. We will be adding to this in the coming year when we will be
> announcing new lower cost microscopes, soon.
>
>>
>> When you have something interesting let me know.
>>
>
> Just keep watching our website and feel free to contact us directly for
> more
> information. There is a limit to what can be said in an open forum. If you
> are located in or visiting Germany, we could arrange for you to test our
> equipment
> http://www.grayfieldoptical.com
>
> I am sure we have not answered all your questions and it is impossible to
> do
> so over a forum like this. Nothing can beat seeing and testing such
> microscopes for yourself.
>
> We only started to market these microscopes outside Germany last year,
> please be patient when the information we have put online is not as
> complete
> as you would like. It takes time to translate and prepare all the
> available
> information. We prefer to spend our limited resourses improving the
> information available online than get into online discussions about what
> is
> or is not possible. We can substantiate all that we say, we are however
> still working on putting that information online and realise that not
> enough
> has been made available yet to satisfy everybody. We ask you to be patient
> on that score.
>
> We only occassionally check such forums for messages so do not be
> surprised
> if it takes some time to reply to any further questions you or others
> might
> think of. Answering questions from our own customers and improving our own
> online presentations must have priority.
>
> Regards
>
> Peter Walker
> Technical Support
> Grayfield Optical Inc.
>
Sir; Let me make it clear, your company is either fraudlent or stupid, one
or the other.

For instance why not tell us the name of the person you "beat"? If I could
show that my concept worked better than Zeiss or any other good company I
would shout it from the house tops. Isn't it unusual that a physist is
touted when he thinks a microscope works well? When does a physist use a
microscope? I know one and that use is exceptional.

This is one point used by frauds, the special person claim. Prior to the
French revolution any medical person in France would claim to cure a noble
person, curing a peasant was fun but no points. This is what I see with
your claims, a "special person" but no microscope expert says it works
wonderfully. Now how this person know whats going on is a good question.

Your physical description of the events in the microscope makes at best no
sense at all. How does your device act in regards to Abbe's Laws? You seem
to dismiss them but provide no evidence such as publication to prove your
point.

Recently a person at a local university asked me to assist as he bought a
$100K US microscope. I talked with the vendors, they were willing to
provide all the info I could stand. They left the microscope with the user
and the whole staff of the university for at least a week and the constantly
answered questions. This is quite a bit different from you guys.

I did a bunch of research on a creep called Royal Rife. This sound right
down his now dead alley. His point was the microscope worked since it look
complex as anything.
Bausch and Lomb offered him anything to produce this spectacular microscope,
they went and took a look and ran screaming from the place. B and L was
sharp enough to see a fraud when they looked up close. Its easy to make up
stuff when no one is looking.

Here's a challenge, come to a major meeting and present a paper, don't worry
they'll love to hear what you have to say. Then let your customers decide
when they can look at the competitors product and hear your paper. Got the
guts? I now you have the money, I've been a vendor at major meetings.

Great claims demand great proofs.

Thank you

Kevin Cunningham

From:	Peter Walker
Subject:	Re: Ergonom 500
Date:	Wed, 29 Dec 2004 19:28:46 +0100

"Kevin Cunningham" wrote in message
news:BB3Ad.5134$qf5.2755@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...
> Sir; Let me make it clear, your company is either fraudlent or stupid,
one
> or the other.
>
> For instance why not tell us the name of the person you "beat"? If I
could
> show that my concept worked better than Zeiss or any other good company I
> would shout it from the house tops. Isn't it unusual that a physist is
> touted when he thinks a microscope works well? When does a physist use a
> microscope? I know one and that use is exceptional.

Again, I think it is unprofessional to name competitors, but the company
involved in the comparison images was Leica, Germany. At the Microscience
Exhibition in London, I showed an engineer from Leica UK (sorry I do not
have his name, but he was the person demonstrating the confocal microscope
on the Leica stand) these pictures and he was impressed with our version.
Remember, our comparison images were taken optically on photographic film
using white light, true colours in real time.

As others have said, Prof. Binning co-invented the tunneling microscope. He
used the Ergonom 400 microscope extensively in 1993. We have placed a letter
from him online regarding this.
http://www.grayfieldoptical.com/microscience/e500/Binning.gif

>
> This is one point used by frauds, the special person claim. Prior to the
> French revolution any medical person in France would claim to cure a noble
> person, curing a peasant was fun but no points. This is what I see with
> your claims, a "special person" but no microscope expert says it works
> wonderfully. Now how this person know whats going on is a good question.
>
> Your physical description of the events in the microscope makes at best no
> sense at all. How does your device act in regards to Abbe's Laws? You
seem
> to dismiss them but provide no evidence such as publication to prove your
> point.

The German inventor, Kurt Olbrich, has decided not to release the full
working principle for commercial reasons. I am not Kurt Olbrich and I too
have to respect his wishes. Personally, it would make my life much easier if
he were to release the details, but then again the other microscope
manufacturers would then produce their own versions of our microscopes and
with their marketing power, we would not stand a chance. I can therefore not
provide you with full scientific proof of the working principle as such.
However, these microscopes do exist and work with specifications as claimed
and nearly all of the ones sold so far have gone to industry. I am
personally only aware of one Ergonom 400 microscope being used in a
university. It is to be found in the University College London, Department
of Anatomy and Developmental Biology. Film made by Dr. Gary Greenberg Ph.D
from that university can be found in our "Symbiosis or Parasitism" film
which can be viewed online.

I also have more detailed references from German universities, (in German)
that have used the Ergonom microscopes. Those references will be put online
once they have been translated into English.

No Ergonom 500 microscopes have been sold to universities yet, although we
are currently in negotiations with a number of such universities. We expect
to deliver the first such microscopes during 2005.

>
> Recently a person at a local university asked me to assist as he bought a
> $100K US microscope. I talked with the vendors, they were willing to
> provide all the info I could stand. They left the microscope with the
user
> and the whole staff of the university for at least a week and the
constantly
> answered questions. This is quite a bit different from you guys.

We have done this with a couple of German universities. Their detailed
report is very interesting, just needs translating into English (or can you
understand German?).

>
> I did a bunch of research on a creep called Royal Rife. This sound right
> down his now dead alley. His point was the microscope worked since it look
> complex as anything.
> Bausch and Lomb offered him anything to produce this spectacular
microscope,
> they went and took a look and ran screaming from the place. B and L was
> sharp enough to see a fraud when they looked up close. Its easy to make
up
> stuff when no one is looking.

The Ergonom microscope does NOT work in the same way or have any
relationship with the Rife microscopes. Whereas the Rife microscope probably
no longer exists, the Ergonom does and we welcome people to test our claims
with their own samples and methods as many have. We have no problems with
this and I have personally taken a number of scientists to see and test the
microscopes for themselves. They were nearly always sure such resolutions
etc. were impossible before they saw and tested it for themselves and then
shocked to find just how well it does work. I am therefore not at all
surprised at the reactions I am getting here and expect we will always run
into such hostility from those who have never tried our microscopes for
themselves. History is full of scientific advances that were totally
rejected as "impossible" by the "scientists" of the time and this one is no
different. All we can do is increase the amount of verified evidence
available online and sell the things to those who are open minded enough,
can actually need and afford such a microscope (which has dropped
considerably in price due to design changes, by the way).

> Here's a challenge, come to a major meeting and present a paper, don't
worry
> they'll love to hear what you have to say. Then let your customers decide
> when they can look at the competitors product and hear your paper. Got
the
> guts? I now you have the money, I've been a vendor at major meetings.

We exhibited at the Microscience Exhibition in London (the UK's largest
microscope show I believe) this year and I also personally gave a
presentation there (the video is online) with Kurt Olbrich. We talked to a
large number of microscope experts at the show and our stand was one of the
busiest there. We will be demonstating in other shows as we feel fit in the
future.

Again, we accept that our online information is not sufficient and we are
working on correcting that. Our staff is currently too small to do
everything at once and processing customers queries and orders after
Microscience is still taking almost all our available time.

If you have the chance to come to our labs in Germany (south of Frankfurt),
you could try out the microscope for yourself. We hope to have a demo
microscope in the USA sometime during 2005.

To Gorden, I will try and get a better image of a diatom to put online. I
have seen that Kurt does have better ones that he has not given me yet for
releasing online. However, even the picture we put online is a colour image
taken optically (no computer trickery) and clearly shows the "holes". I have
yet to see a colour photo from anyone which shows a diatom in this way.

Enough for now. We will be expanding the information online and providing
more such serious references next year. Time has just prevented us doing
more so far.

I wish everyone a Happy New Year

Regards

Peter Walker
Grayfield Optical, Inc.

From:	Kevin Cunningham
Subject:	Re: Ergonom 500
Date:	Wed, 29 Dec 2004 22:43:21 GMT

"Peter Walker" wrote in message
news:cqut09$9v8$02$1@news.t-online.com...
>
> "Kevin Cunningham" wrote in message
> news:BB3Ad.5134$qf5.2755@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...
>> Sir; Let me make it clear, your company is either fraudlent or stupid,
> one
>> or the other.
>>
>> For instance why not tell us the name of the person you "beat"? If I
> could
>> show that my concept worked better than Zeiss or any other good company I
>> would shout it from the house tops. Isn't it unusual that a physist is
>> touted when he thinks a microscope works well? When does a physist use a
>> microscope? I know one and that use is exceptional.
>
> Again, I think it is unprofessional to name competitors, but the company
> involved in the comparison images was Leica, Germany. At the Microscience
> Exhibition in London, I showed an engineer from Leica UK (sorry I do not
> have his name, but he was the person demonstrating the confocal microscope
> on the Leica stand) these pictures and he was impressed with our version.
> Remember, our comparison images were taken optically on photographic film
> using white light, true colours in real time.
>
> As others have said, Prof. Binning co-invented the tunneling microscope.
> He
> used the Ergonom 400 microscope extensively in 1993. We have placed a
> letter
> from him online regarding this.
> http://www.grayfieldoptical.com/microscience/e500/Binning.gif
>
>>
>> This is one point used by frauds, the special person claim. Prior to the
>> French revolution any medical person in France would claim to cure a
>> noble
>> person, curing a peasant was fun but no points. This is what I see with
>> your claims, a "special person" but no microscope expert says it works
>> wonderfully. Now how this person know whats going on is a good question.
>>
>> Your physical description of the events in the microscope makes at best
>> no
>> sense at all. How does your device act in regards to Abbe's Laws? You
> seem
>> to dismiss them but provide no evidence such as publication to prove your
>> point.
>
> The German inventor, Kurt Olbrich, has decided not to release the full
> working principle for commercial reasons. I am not Kurt Olbrich and I too
> have to respect his wishes. Personally, it would make my life much easier
> if
> he were to release the details, but then again the other microscope
> manufacturers would then produce their own versions of our microscopes and
> with their marketing power, we would not stand a chance. I can therefore
> not
> provide you with full scientific proof of the working principle as such.
> However, these microscopes do exist and work with specifications as
> claimed
> and nearly all of the ones sold so far have gone to industry. I am
> personally only aware of one Ergonom 400 microscope being used in a
> university. It is to be found in the University College London, Department
> of Anatomy and Developmental Biology. Film made by Dr. Gary Greenberg Ph.D
> from that university can be found in our "Symbiosis or Parasitism" film
> which can be viewed online.
>
> I also have more detailed references from German universities, (in German)
> that have used the Ergonom microscopes. Those references will be put
> online
> once they have been translated into English.
>
> No Ergonom 500 microscopes have been sold to universities yet, although we
> are currently in negotiations with a number of such universities. We
> expect
> to deliver the first such microscopes during 2005.
>
>>
>> Recently a person at a local university asked me to assist as he bought a
>> $100K US microscope. I talked with the vendors, they were willing to
>> provide all the info I could stand. They left the microscope with the
> user
>> and the whole staff of the university for at least a week and the
> constantly
>> answered questions. This is quite a bit different from you guys.
>
> We have done this with a couple of German universities. Their detailed
> report is very interesting, just needs translating into English (or can
> you
> understand German?).
>
>>
>> I did a bunch of research on a creep called Royal Rife. This sound right
>> down his now dead alley. His point was the microscope worked since it
>> look
>> complex as anything.
>> Bausch and Lomb offered him anything to produce this spectacular
> microscope,
>> they went and took a look and ran screaming from the place. B and L was
>> sharp enough to see a fraud when they looked up close. Its easy to make
> up
>> stuff when no one is looking.
>
> The Ergonom microscope does NOT work in the same way or have any
> relationship with the Rife microscopes. Whereas the Rife microscope
> probably
> no longer exists, the Ergonom does and we welcome people to test our
> claims
> with their own samples and methods as many have. We have no problems with
> this and I have personally taken a number of scientists to see and test
> the
> microscopes for themselves. They were nearly always sure such resolutions
> etc. were impossible before they saw and tested it for themselves and then
> shocked to find just how well it does work. I am therefore not at all
> surprised at the reactions I am getting here and expect we will always run
> into such hostility from those who have never tried our microscopes for
> themselves. History is full of scientific advances that were totally
> rejected as "impossible" by the "scientists" of the time and this one is
> no
> different. All we can do is increase the amount of verified evidence
> available online and sell the things to those who are open minded enough,
> can actually need and afford such a microscope (which has dropped
> considerably in price due to design changes, by the way).
>
>> Here's a challenge, come to a major meeting and present a paper, don't
> worry
>> they'll love to hear what you have to say. Then let your customers
>> decide
>> when they can look at the competitors product and hear your paper. Got
> the
>> guts? I now you have the money, I've been a vendor at major meetings.
>
> We exhibited at the Microscience Exhibition in London (the UK's largest
> microscope show I believe) this year and I also personally gave a
> presentation there (the video is online) with Kurt Olbrich. We talked to a
> large number of microscope experts at the show and our stand was one of
> the
> busiest there. We will be demonstating in other shows as we feel fit in
> the
> future.
>
> Again, we accept that our online information is not sufficient and we are
> working on correcting that. Our staff is currently too small to do
> everything at once and processing customers queries and orders after
> Microscience is still taking almost all our available time.
>
> If you have the chance to come to our labs in Germany (south of
> Frankfurt),
> you could try out the microscope for yourself. We hope to have a demo
> microscope in the USA sometime during 2005.
>
> To Gorden, I will try and get a better image of a diatom to put online. I
> have seen that Kurt does have better ones that he has not given me yet for
> releasing online. However, even the picture we put online is a colour
> image
> taken optically (no computer trickery) and clearly shows the "holes". I
> have
> yet to see a colour photo from anyone which shows a diatom in this way.
>
> Enough for now. We will be expanding the information online and providing
> more such serious references next year. Time has just prevented us doing
> more so far.
>
> I wish everyone a Happy New Year
>
> Regards
>
> Peter Walker
> Grayfield Optical, Inc.
>
Sir; I speak German resonably well, some of my colleages are native
speakers. Face it, the explanations you give sound fraudulent. If you got
something, show it. I'll be waiting.

Kevin Cunningham
SMS

From:	Peter Walker
Subject:	Re: Ergonom 500
Date:	Mon, 10 Jan 2005 00:27:07 +0100

Hi,
sorry for the delay in replying, I have been very busy. I will try and
address the issues raised in just one message. Rather than quoting
everything, I will try and simply answer the questions.

Kevin made some points regarding how our device reacts compared with Abbe's
laws. I wish to add that Kurt Olbrich (the inventor) always points out that
his invention is NOT breaking any laws, it is the laws themselves which are
incomplete and through a number of optimisations of the entire light path
and a more complete version of the laws, it is possible to greatly enhance
the optical resolution obtainable as has been done with the Ergonom
microscopes. His method would actually work on most conventional optical
microscopes and greatly enhance their resolution, too. However, the
scientific theory involved is highly complex and he is not surprised others
have not been able to work it out (and ALL the major microscope manufactures
have seen and tested the Ergonom microscopes, and spent large sums of money
trying to work it out).

I do not expect anyone on this group to understand how it all works based on
my descriptions. I would need to tell you a lot more than I am permitted to
or even know enough about myself for this to even begin to make sense to you
guys. The fact that my descriptions do not make sense to you is simply
because you have gained your knowledge of how conventional microscopes work
based on very old laws which have little relevance to the updated laws used
by the Ergonom. You need to put what you have learned about optics into
question before you can even start to learn how the Ergonom works.

Kurt did this back in 1972 when he found that existing optical microscopes
did not perform as well as he needed. He then investigated the reasons why
resolution is so limitied in great detail and eventually found a way of
solving the problem in a unique way. After more than 30 years of optimising
the process, he has produced the microscopes he has today.

Kevin tries to call me a fraud for quoting Gerd Binnig's letter! I am sorry
but faced with a genuine reference, all you can come up with is to call it
all a fraud!!! I assure you ALL our references are absolutely genuine
including that from Prof. Gerd Binning. He wanted to purchase an Ergonom 400
at the time but Kurt was not selling to anyone then. He only decided to sell
his microscopes in 2000 when he developed the Ergonom 500. A few Ergonom
microscopes (named Olbrich 4000 at the time) were sold previously only to a
very select group of people who had been working with Kurt for years.

Regarding the German paper I mentioned in a previous post, I have now
translated it and put it online. Let me point out that I am not trained in
Immunology and have not had a chance to ask an expert to check over the
translation yet, I do believe the translation is reasonably accurate but
would welcome any corrections. The original signed German text is included
of course. And before anyone wants to call this reference a fraud, the
addresses are all there, check for yourself. Those guys will not know
Grayfield Optical or myself, they do know Kurt Olbrich!
You will find the reference on the updated history page (Erlangen and
Witten/Herdecke Universitys, then click on the image on the right, a pdf
file will open).
http://www.grayfieldoptical.com/microscience/e500/history.html

Andy Resnick makes a few comments which I would like to comment on:

> 1) You are using this newsgroup to promote your product, a product whose
> manufactuers make spectacular claims, and at the same time refuse to
> provide rigorous justification for their claims. I honestly commend you
> for remaining professional, but you should understand your product will
> never achieve acceptance in the scientific community unless someone
> else, unaffiliated with your company, can duplicate your results. In
> this way, your product is indeed much like Royal Rife's microscopes.

First of all, I am not writing here to promote anything, but to answer
misunderstandings put out by others before me. I did not start this
discussion and I have never made any kind of commercial offers, etc. I am
simply trying to put things straight. I believe this to be perfectly
legitimate.

It is difficult to provide any kind of rigorous justification in a forum
such as this. I have put out a lot of video and photographic evidence on our
website and I have a lot more material waiting to be put up. I have never
claimed to have completed the job of providing evidence and I have pointed
out that more is coming. Kurt has over 30000 images and over 800 hours of
video material on file taken over 30 years to back up what his microscopes
can do. What has been released so far is very much the tip of the iceberg.

And I have already released references from people not affiliated with us at
all. The microscope in London has been in use since the 90s and has already
allowed their research time to be reduced significantly. I am sure the name
Dr. Gary Greenberg is not so unknown to the world of microscopy. He even
mentions the microscope on HIS website.
http://www.edge-3d.com/services.htm under "film credits"

The Rife microscope probably no longer exists as a working microscope. I
would agree that the Rife microscope is difficult to verify and I have no
problem with people doubting that microscope. The Ergonom microscopes
however DO exist and hundreds of people have already seen and tested it for
themselves. If there are any suitably qualified people here who can travel
to our labs in Germany and are prepared to honestly report what they see, I
can arrange a visit where you can test it for yourself. Please contact me
off list.

> 2) As for intellectual property concerns, I believe them to be
> unfounded. If the technology is truly revolutionary, you could obtain
> patents. This pretects you from organizations trying to profit from
> your ideas, while allowing individuals to examine the validity of your
> claims. There is a whole army of patent attorneys willing to represent
> you if you feel someone is making money off your company's idea. A
> similar situation is encountered in laser tweezers: two companies own
> all of the patents, preventing me from building and selling a laser
> tweezer package to another. However, I may build them and use them as I
> like. If your product is truly better than the competition, then enter
> the marketplace and let the buying public decide. I point out that the
> major microscope manufacturers all have detailed product specifications
> readily available on the web.

The subject of patents has been handled well in this discussion by others.
The problem is that a patent is only as good as the lawyers you can afford.
Kurt Olbrich already holds a number of patents and he has looked very
seriously at doing this. It is however the inherent problems which have
stopped him from going down that path and a number of patent lawyers agree
with his decision. Kurt says "The best patent protection is that everybody
believes it cannot work" and therefore do not even try! The only problem is
when people come to see the microscope for themselves, they find it does
work much to well despite the fact that their training tells them it cannot.

> 3) Showing images, presenting testimonials or name dropping is not going
> to convince any good scientist. Until I have the ability to disassemble
> your product, understand how it works differently from 'normal'
> microscopes, as far as I am concerned you have nothing but an orgone
> generator. The fact that you did not bring an actual microscope to the
> conference in itself raises questions.

You actually make a very good point and one we are trying to find a way to
solve. Scientists always need to understand something before they can accept
it. That is probably one of the major reasons why so few have been sold to
scientists so far whereas industry can calculate the financial advantage of
better quality control equipment, etc. and if it does the job, they will buy
it. Remember, Kurt comes from an industrial background and understands that
market. His work mainly for industry is what has paid his bills and his
expensive microscope "hobby" for more than 30 years. All research has been
paid for by such commercial contacts. In particular, the German automobile
industry has been heavily using Kurts microscopes for their internal
research work. Kurt Olbrich has also been Germany's top expert for plastics
for many years and is also a renowned expert for his work on researching
Legionnaires' disease. His film on the subject has yet to be translated and
released online.

For commercial reasons (to stop the big companies stealing his ideas), Kurt
tells nobody (except his own family, his sons know the secrets) exactly how
it works. The components are built to order by a number of top German
companies under non-disclosure agreements.

Let me tell you a true story of just one of the scientists I accompanied to
see the Ergonom 500 in Germany. He was the owner of an American Biotech
company from California with pleanty of letters behind his name who had
flown over to see the microscope for himself. On the way there, he told me
all about how sceptical he was, the kind of arguments you guys are bringing
here. He spent an entire day testing the microscope himself and asking all
kinds of questions. At the end of the day, he was completely satisfied that
the microscope works even though he did not know exactly how. When he got
home and explained his findings to his staff and showed all the images he
had taken himself, his own employies did not want to believe him as it
conflicted with their training. This shows a little bit of the problems we
have and why many scientists who have seen our scope are just not brave
enough to stand up in public and admit that it all does work. That is the
dilema we face daily (although the case in question did lead to an order for
the Ergonom 500 which will be completed this year).

There were a number of reasons we did not bring the Ergonom 500 to
Microscience 2004, although we did present a lot of material about it and
gave away hundreds of DVDs. The main reasons for not showing the Ergonom 500
were that the show is only 3 days long and people just do not have the time
to test the microscope properly. It would also constantly involve us in
discussions like we are having here and not be particually productive. Kurt
was also very concerned about security as the microscope is very expensive
and we could not get the kind of guarantees from the organisers that we
required. As the market of such high power microscopes is small, the costs
and risks of bringing the Ergonom 500 to the show outweighed the possible
advantages and our budget for the show (remember, this was Grayfield
Optical's first exhibition). I feel it was the right decision and those that
were interested in actually investing in such a microscope had no problem
flying over to Germany to see the real thing in the lab after the show. We
made some excellent contacts at the exhibition which have helped us progress
in particular with industrial customers.

We did however still steal the show with our 3D optical microscope with its
28mm depth of field (optical in real time) and its unique lighting system.
We are actually concentrating on marketing that microscope at the moment as
the market for such microscopes is so much bigger and we are not having to
get into arguments with you guys about how it works like with the E500. For
us, a much more interesting position to be in. A large number of people had
a chance to test that microscope which by the way has been considerably
improved since the show.

---

Finally to Aaron's post. I have seen his posts before on the Microscope
yahoogroup which have always been very agressively against us making a large
number of ridiculus allegations mixed with his obvious good knowledge of
conventional microscopes.

First of all, we are asked to provide all kinds of highly documented and
verified references and he does not even give his full name! I have looked
through many of his previous posts and all I have learned is that he is some
kind of microscopy expert living in New Jersey. His posts suggest he is
somewhat biased and I suspect he has a vested interest in being against us
and in particular against the information given in the medical films shown
on our website.

To what he says here, I can assure everybody that all the microscopes work
as advertised (we actually understate if anything). He bases his knowledge
on what he has learned from www.grayfield.com which perhaps explains his
confusion as they produce briefcases and have nothing to do with us :-)

The microscopes shown on our "history" page were all predecessors of which
only the stereo microscope is being sold. Most of them have never even left
Kurt Olbrich's labs so would hardly be of use for what Aaron suggests. They
do all still work and visitors are welcome to test their abilities for
themselves. In fact most of the video films on our site were taken with
these microscopes and I think many of those images speak for themselves.

However, I do trust that the people visiting this group can see through his
ludicrous comments. However, I will go one step further and put out a
challenge to Aaron.

Take the best possible image you can using an optical light microscope of
anything suitable the group will recognise and publish it on the internet
for all to see. Then send us the slide with your image so that we can
duplicate your image and also publish it for all to see. Then everyone here
can see the difference, we will even film the process of imaging your slide
and put that on the internet as well.

I think that is a fair challenge and you can even choose the object. The
members of this group can then judge for themselves which image is better.
Does that sound fair? All it will cost you is a bit of time and the postage
for sending a slide to Germany. If you do not want to admit who you really
are, you can even send us the slide anonymously.

If you are not prepared to accept this fair challenge, I ask you to refrain
from such ludicrous attacks.

By the way, Kurt Olbrich's clients include a number of major European
pharmaceutical companies and scientific organisations who have been using
his expertise and microscopy for many years.

To the real scientists on this group. I fully understand your sceptism as we
are presenting something which does not agree with your textbooks. However,
is it not the job of scientists to research science and to look for the
unknown and test it. How many scientific inventions in the past were
rejected by the peers of the time because it did not agree with their
training. Instead of rejecting new technologies out of hand, should you not
be wanting to test it for yourselves in order to determine the truth?

We have an open door policy and many scientists have already come to our
labs over the past 30 years and I assure you that I am not aware of anybody
who has tested the microscope for themselves that still doubted its
abilities, they did start to question their own textbooks and training,
however.

I am not trying to fool anybody here and I cannot pretend I fully understand
how it all works either. I have however used the microscope myself many
times and seen how scientists are shocked after using it.
I am here because I am trying to put the record straight and ask the real
"scientists" and microscopists to be more open minded for a technology which
has tremendous value when used properly.

A Chinese proverb says: "Those who say it cannot be done should not get in
the way of the person doing it"

The late Nobel prize winning physicist Richard Feynman said the following:
"This method is based on the principle that observation is the judge of
whether something is so or not. All other aspects and characteristics of
science can be understood directly when we understand that observation is
the ultimate and final judge of the truth of an idea. But "prove" used in
this way really means "test," in the same way that a hundred-proof alcohol
is a test of the alcohol, and for people today the idea really should be
translated as, "The exception tests the rule." Or, put another way, "The
exception proves that the rule is wrong." That is the principle of science.
If there is an exception to any rule, and if it can be proved by
observation, that rule is wrong.
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Richard_Feynman

For our part, we will be adding a lot of new information to our website to
further validate our microscopes. We have got a lot of ideas how to do this,
some of which gained from the many questions asked of us in such forums. It
is very much an uphill battle for us now, but we feel that with the kind of
evidence we are planning to release, our critics are going to have a hard
time. We just ask for your patience as such information takes time to
compile and our customers needs must come first.

Grayfield Optical is slowly expanding and we hope to have a demo E500
microscope in the USA (where probably many of you are) sometime in the not
too distant future. Who knows, we might even take it to New Jersey :-)

Regards

Peter Walker
http://www.grayfieldoptical.com

From:	Aaron
Subject:	Re: Ergonom 500
Date:	13 Jan 2005 00:58:06 -0600

Peter

I stand by my comments. Any reader can follow my arguments and view
the supporting evidence for themselves. No amount of verbal abuse
leveled at me will hide the truth..

As for your challenge to provide proof ot the Ergonom's performance, I
recommend that you obtain a Richardson Test Slide.. This test slide
includes test figures and patterns that are suitable for measuring the
performance.of both light and electron microscopes. Since your claims
for the Ergonom put its performance in the range of an electron
microscope, the 80302 test slide (no cover glass) or the 80303 test
slide (with cover glass) with the high magnification test patterns are
the correct test objects. .

See the Richardson website for specifications

http://www.richardson-tech.com/p_test.html
http://www.richardson-tech.com/TestSlideSpec.pdf

I look forward to your posting images of the pertinent portions of
these slides. .

Aaron

On Mon, 10 Jan 2005 00:27:07 +0100, "Peter Walker"
wrote:

>Hi,
>sorry for the delay in replying, I have been very busy. I will try and
>address the issues raised in just one message. Rather than quoting
>everything, I will try and simply answer the questions.
>
>Kevin made some points regarding how our device reacts compared with Abbe's
>laws. I wish to add that Kurt Olbrich (the inventor) always points out that
>his invention is NOT breaking any laws, it is the laws themselves which are
>incomplete and through a number of optimisations of the entire light path
>and a more complete version of the laws, it is possible to greatly enhance
>the optical resolution obtainable as has been done with the Ergonom
>microscopes. His method would actually work on most conventional optical
>microscopes and greatly enhance their resolution, too. However, the
>scientific theory involved is highly complex and he is not surprised others
>have not been able to work it out (and ALL the major microscope manufactures
>have seen and tested the Ergonom microscopes, and spent large sums of money
>trying to work it out).
>
>I do not expect anyone on this group to understand how it all works based on
>my descriptions. I would need to tell you a lot more than I am permitted to
>or even know enough about myself for this to even begin to make sense to you
>guys. The fact that my descriptions do not make sense to you is simply
>because you have gained your knowledge of how conventional microscopes work
>based on very old laws which have little relevance to the updated laws used
>by the Ergonom. You need to put what you have learned about optics into
>question before you can even start to learn how the Ergonom works.
>
>Kurt did this back in 1972 when he found that existing optical microscopes
>did not perform as well as he needed. He then investigated the reasons why
>resolution is so limitied in great detail and eventually found a way of
>solving the problem in a unique way. After more than 30 years of optimising
>the process, he has produced the microscopes he has today.
>
>Kevin tries to call me a fraud for quoting Gerd Binnig's letter! I am sorry
>but faced with a genuine reference, all you can come up with is to call it
>all a fraud!!! I assure you ALL our references are absolutely genuine
>including that from Prof. Gerd Binning. He wanted to purchase an Ergonom 400
>at the time but Kurt was not selling to anyone then. He only decided to sell
>his microscopes in 2000 when he developed the Ergonom 500. A few Ergonom
>microscopes (named Olbrich 4000 at the time) were sold previously only to a
>very select group of people who had been working with Kurt for years.
>
>Regarding the German paper I mentioned in a previous post, I have now
>translated it and put it online. Let me point out that I am not trained in
>Immunology and have not had a chance to ask an expert to check over the
>translation yet, I do believe the translation is reasonably accurate but
>would welcome any corrections. The original signed German text is included
>of course. And before anyone wants to call this reference a fraud, the
>addresses are all there, check for yourself. Those guys will not know
>Grayfield Optical or myself, they do know Kurt Olbrich!
>You will find the reference on the updated history page (Erlangen and
>Witten/Herdecke Universitys, then click on the image on the right, a pdf
>file will open).
>http://www.grayfieldoptical.com/microscience/e500/history.html
>
>
>Andy Resnick makes a few comments which I would like to comment on:
>
>> 1) You are using this newsgroup to promote your product, a product whose
>> manufactuers make spectacular claims, and at the same time refuse to
>> provide rigorous justification for their claims. I honestly commend you
>> for remaining professional, but you should understand your product will
>> never achieve acceptance in the scientific community unless someone
>> else, unaffiliated with your company, can duplicate your results. In
>> this way, your product is indeed much like Royal Rife's microscopes.
>
>First of all, I am not writing here to promote anything, but to answer
>misunderstandings put out by others before me. I did not start this
>discussion and I have never made any kind of commercial offers, etc. I am
>simply trying to put things straight. I believe this to be perfectly
>legitimate.
>
>It is difficult to provide any kind of rigorous justification in a forum
>such as this. I have put out a lot of video and photographic evidence on our
>website and I have a lot more material waiting to be put up. I have never
>claimed to have completed the job of providing evidence and I have pointed
>out that more is coming. Kurt has over 30000 images and over 800 hours of
>video material on file taken over 30 years to back up what his microscopes
>can do. What has been released so far is very much the tip of the iceberg.
>
>And I have already released references from people not affiliated with us at
>all. The microscope in London has been in use since the 90s and has already
>allowed their research time to be reduced significantly. I am sure the name
>Dr. Gary Greenberg is not so unknown to the world of microscopy. He even
>mentions the microscope on HIS website.
>http://www.edge-3d.com/services.htm under "film credits"
>
>The Rife microscope probably no longer exists as a working microscope. I
>would agree that the Rife microscope is difficult to verify and I have no
>problem with people doubting that microscope. The Ergonom microscopes
>however DO exist and hundreds of people have already seen and tested it for
>themselves. If there are any suitably qualified people here who can travel
>to our labs in Germany and are prepared to honestly report what they see, I
>can arrange a visit where you can test it for yourself. Please contact me
>off list.
>
>> 2) As for intellectual property concerns, I believe them to be
>> unfounded. If the technology is truly revolutionary, you could obtain
>> patents. This pretects you from organizations trying to profit from
>> your ideas, while allowing individuals to examine the validity of your
>> claims. There is a whole army of patent attorneys willing to represent
>> you if you feel someone is making money off your company's idea. A
>> similar situation is encountered in laser tweezers: two companies own
>> all of the patents, preventing me from building and selling a laser
>> tweezer package to another. However, I may build them and use them as I
>> like. If your product is truly better than the competition, then enter
>> the marketplace and let the buying public decide. I point out that the
>> major microscope manufacturers all have detailed product specifications
>> readily available on the web.
>
>The subject of patents has been handled well in this discussion by others.
>The problem is that a patent is only as good as the lawyers you can afford.
>Kurt Olbrich already holds a number of patents and he has looked very
>seriously at doing this. It is however the inherent problems which have
>stopped him from going down that path and a number of patent lawyers agree
>with his decision. Kurt says "The best patent protection is that everybody
>believes it cannot work" and therefore do not even try! The only problem is
>when people come to see the microscope for themselves, they find it does
>work much to well despite the fact that their training tells them it cannot.
>
>> 3) Showing images, presenting testimonials or name dropping is not going
>> to convince any good scientist. Until I have the ability to disassemble
>> your product, understand how it works differently from 'normal'
>> microscopes, as far as I am concerned you have nothing but an orgone
>> generator. The fact that you did not bring an actual microscope to the
>> conference in itself raises questions.
>
>You actually make a very good point and one we are trying to find a way to
>solve. Scientists always need to understand something before they can accept
>it. That is probably one of the major reasons why so few have been sold to
>scientists so far whereas industry can calculate the financial advantage of
>better quality control equipment, etc. and if it does the job, they will buy
>it. Remember, Kurt comes from an industrial background and understands that
>market. His work mainly for industry is what has paid his bills and his
>expensive microscope "hobby" for more than 30 years. All research has been
>paid for by such commercial contacts. In particular, the German automobile
>industry has been heavily using Kurts microscopes for their internal
>research work. Kurt Olbrich has also been Germany's top expert for plastics
>for many years and is also a renowned expert for his work on researching
>Legionnaires' disease. His film on the subject has yet to be translated and
>released online.
>
>For commercial reasons (to stop the big companies stealing his ideas), Kurt
>tells nobody (except his own family, his sons know the secrets) exactly how
>it works. The components are built to order by a number of top German
>companies under non-disclosure agreements.
>
>Let me tell you a true story of just one of the scientists I accompanied to
>see the Ergonom 500 in Germany. He was the owner of an American Biotech
>company from California with pleanty of letters behind his name who had
>flown over to see the microscope for himself. On the way there, he told me
>all about how sceptical he was, the kind of arguments you guys are bringing
>here. He spent an entire day testing the microscope himself and asking all
>kinds of questions. At the end of the day, he was completely satisfied that
>the microscope works even though he did not know exactly how. When he got
>home and explained his findings to his staff and showed all the images he
>had taken himself, his own employies did not want to believe him as it
>conflicted with their training. This shows a little bit of the problems we
>have and why many scientists who have seen our scope are just not brave
>enough to stand up in public and admit that it all does work. That is the
>dilema we face daily (although the case in question did lead to an order for
>the Ergonom 500 which will be completed this year).
>
>There were a number of reasons we did not bring the Ergonom 500 to
>Microscience 2004, although we did present a lot of material about it and
>gave away hundreds of DVDs. The main reasons for not showing the Ergonom 500
>were that the show is only 3 days long and people just do not have the time
>to test the microscope properly. It would also constantly involve us in
>discussions like we are having here and not be particually productive. Kurt
>was also very concerned about security as the microscope is very expensive
>and we could not get the kind of guarantees from the organisers that we
>required. As the market of such high power microscopes is small, the costs
>and risks of bringing the Ergonom 500 to the show outweighed the possible
>advantages and our budget for the show (remember, this was Grayfield
>Optical's first exhibition). I feel it was the right decision and those that
>were interested in actually investing in such a microscope had no problem
>flying over to Germany to see the real thing in the lab after the show. We
>made some excellent contacts at the exhibition which have helped us progress
>in particular with industrial customers.
>
>We did however still steal the show with our 3D optical microscope with its
>28mm depth of field (optical in real time) and its unique lighting system.
>We are actually concentrating on marketing that microscope at the moment as
>the market for such microscopes is so much bigger and we are not having to
>get into arguments with you guys about how it works like with the E500. For
>us, a much more interesting position to be in. A large number of people had
>a chance to test that microscope which by the way has been considerably
>improved since the show.
>
>---
>
>Finally to Aaron's post. I have seen his posts before on the Microscope
>yahoogroup which have always been very agressively against us making a large
>number of ridiculus allegations mixed with his obvious good knowledge of
>conventional microscopes.
>
>First of all, we are asked to provide all kinds of highly documented and
>verified references and he does not even give his full name! I have looked
>through many of his previous posts and all I have learned is that he is some
>kind of microscopy expert living in New Jersey. His posts suggest he is
>somewhat biased and I suspect he has a vested interest in being against us
>and in particular against the information given in the medical films shown
>on our website.
>
>To what he says here, I can assure everybody that all the microscopes work
>as advertised (we actually understate if anything). He bases his knowledge
>on what he has learned from www.grayfield.com which perhaps explains his
>confusion as they produce briefcases and have nothing to do with us :-)
>
>The microscopes shown on our "history" page were all predecessors of which
>only the stereo microscope is being sold. Most of them have never even left
>Kurt Olbrich's labs so would hardly be of use for what Aaron suggests. They
>do all still work and visitors are welcome to test their abilities for
>themselves. In fact most of the video films on our site were taken with
>these microscopes and I think many of those images speak for themselves.
>
>However, I do trust that the people visiting this group can see through his
>ludicrous comments. However, I will go one step further and put out a
>challenge to Aaron.
>
>Take the best possible image you can using an optical light microscope of
>anything suitable the group will recognise and publish it on the internet
>for all to see. Then send us the slide with your image so that we can
>duplicate your image and also publish it for all to see. Then everyone here
>can see the difference, we will even film the process of imaging your slide
>and put that on the internet as well.
>
>I think that is a fair challenge and you can even choose the object. The
>members of this group can then judge for themselves which image is better.
>Does that sound fair? All it will cost you is a bit of time and the postage
>for sending a slide to Germany. If you do not want to admit who you really
>are, you can even send us the slide anonymously.
>
>If you are not prepared to accept this fair challenge, I ask you to refrain
>from such ludicrous attacks.
>
>By the way, Kurt Olbrich's clients include a number of major European
>pharmaceutical companies and scientific organisations who have been using
>his expertise and microscopy for many years.
>
>To the real scientists on this group. I fully understand your sceptism as we
>are presenting something which does not agree with your textbooks. However,
>is it not the job of scientists to research science and to look for the
>unknown and test it. How many scientific inventions in the past were
>rejected by the peers of the time because it did not agree with their
>training. Instead of rejecting new technologies out of hand, should you not
>be wanting to test it for yourselves in order to determine the truth?
>
>We have an open door policy and many scientists have already come to our
>labs over the past 30 years and I assure you that I am not aware of anybody
>who has tested the microscope for themselves that still doubted its
>abilities, they did start to question their own textbooks and training,
>however.
>
>I am not trying to fool anybody here and I cannot pretend I fully understand
>how it all works either. I have however used the microscope myself many
>times and seen how scientists are shocked after using it.
>I am here because I am trying to put the record straight and ask the real
>"scientists" and microscopists to be more open minded for a technology which
>has tremendous value when used properly.
>
>A Chinese proverb says: "Those who say it cannot be done should not get in
>the way of the person doing it"
>
>The late Nobel prize winning physicist Richard Feynman said the following:
>"This method is based on the principle that observation is the judge of
>whether something is so or not. All other aspects and characteristics of
>science can be understood directly when we understand that observation is
>the ultimate and final judge of the truth of an idea. But "prove" used in
>this way really means "test," in the same way that a hundred-proof alcohol
>is a test of the alcohol, and for people today the idea really should be
>translated as, "The exception tests the rule." Or, put another way, "The
>exception proves that the rule is wrong." That is the principle of science.
>If there is an exception to any rule, and if it can be proved by
>observation, that rule is wrong.
>http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Richard_Feynman
>
>For our part, we will be adding a lot of new information to our website to
>further validate our microscopes. We have got a lot of ideas how to do this,
>some of which gained from the many questions asked of us in such forums. It
>is very much an uphill battle for us now, but we feel that with the kind of
>evidence we are planning to release, our critics are going to have a hard
>time. We just ask for your patience as such information takes time to
>compile and our customers needs must come first.
>
>Grayfield Optical is slowly expanding and we hope to have a demo E500
>microscope in the USA (where probably many of you are) sometime in the not
>too distant future. Who knows, we might even take it to New Jersey :-)
>
>Regards
>
>Peter Walker
>http://www.grayfieldoptical.com
>

From:	Peter Walker
Subject:	Re: Ergonom 500
Date:	Fri, 14 Jan 2005 01:07:08 +0100

Aaron, everybody,
for your information, producing good images of recognisable test slides is
very high on our list as we fully recognise how important such standards
are.

Up until now, we have been using German made test slides (the ones where we
show 100nm) mainly because they have the numbers close enough to the lines.
Showing the lines in an image without the reference number in the same image
is worthless. This is one of the main problems with other test slides in the
past but the latest versions appear to be much better.

We have been looking at the Geller Magnification Reference Standard MRS-3
(10x - 50,000x) Traceable (http://www.gellermicro.com) and of course the
Richardson test Slides gen III (80302) you mentioned. We will probably go
for the Richardson version although we would be interested to hear the
opinions of the experts on this group as to which of the two (or perhaps
there is an even better one) would be better. We wish to show pictures from
slides you guys can regard as acceptable confirmation of the resolutions we
have stated. As I have said before, we are still in the process of putting
together such information and images for showing online. The images I
receive for putting online (e.g. Diatom images) are usually colour prints
which I then have to scan. This process is not ideal as a lot of definition
gets lost this way. We hope to obtain better images scanned straight from
the original negatives to improve such quality issues.

We will definately be obtaining such slides and using them to provide more
acceptable confirmation of the capabilities. I think such images from more
recognisable slides are very important to confirm the capabilities of the
microscope. I trust we can all agree on that. We will give this a high
priority and release the images online, with video showing how the images
were made.

Let me simply put it this way. I am personally convinced that Kurt Olbrich's
microscopes are of significant value as they allow scientific research of
live samples at high resolutions, etc. This can help to speed up research
into new drugs, etc. and be of tremendous value to scientific research as
has been shown by the work done in the London university, for example.

I realise that my presentation of the microscopes has been far from ideal
and this has led to some people here drawing incorrect negative conclusions
about the Ergonom microscopes. It is also my job to correct this by
providing much more solid evidence on the capabilities of the microscopes
and that will be forthcoming.

Regards

Peter

"Aaron" wrote in message
news:og3cu05u4crlbksbq320vndv2rfo3r1f5l@4ax.com...
> Peter
>
> I stand by my comments. Any reader can follow my arguments and view
> the supporting evidence for themselves. No amount of verbal abuse
> leveled at me will hide the truth..
>
> As for your challenge to provide proof ot the Ergonom's performance, I
> recommend that you obtain a Richardson Test Slide.. This test slide
> includes test figures and patterns that are suitable for measuring the
> performance.of both light and electron microscopes. Since your claims
> for the Ergonom put its performance in the range of an electron
> microscope, the 80302 test slide (no cover glass) or the 80303 test
> slide (with cover glass) with the high magnification test patterns are
> the correct test objects. .
>
> See the Richardson website for specifications
>
> http://www.richardson-tech.com/p_test.html
> http://www.richardson-tech.com/TestSlideSpec.pdf
>
> I look forward to your posting images of the pertinent portions of
> these slides. .
>
> Aaron
>
>
> On Mon, 10 Jan 2005 00:27:07 +0100, "Peter Walker"
> wrote:
>
> >Hi,
> >sorry for the delay in replying, I have been very busy. I will try and
> >address the issues raised in just one message. Rather than quoting
> >everything, I will try and simply answer the questions.
> >
> >Kevin made some points regarding how our device reacts compared with
Abbe's
> >laws. I wish to add that Kurt Olbrich (the inventor) always points out
that
> >his invention is NOT breaking any laws, it is the laws themselves which
are
> >incomplete and through a number of optimisations of the entire light path
> >and a more complete version of the laws, it is possible to greatly
enhance
> >the optical resolution obtainable as has been done with the Ergonom
> >microscopes. His method would actually work on most conventional optical
> >microscopes and greatly enhance their resolution, too. However, the
> >scientific theory involved is highly complex and he is not surprised
others
> >have not been able to work it out (and ALL the major microscope
manufactures
> >have seen and tested the Ergonom microscopes, and spent large sums of
money
> >trying to work it out).
> >
> >I do not expect anyone on this group to understand how it all works based
on
> >my descriptions. I would need to tell you a lot more than I am permitted
to
> >or even know enough about myself for this to even begin to make sense to
you
> >guys. The fact that my descriptions do not make sense to you is simply
> >because you have gained your knowledge of how conventional microscopes
work
> >based on very old laws which have little relevance to the updated laws
used
> >by the Ergonom. You need to put what you have learned about optics into
> >question before you can even start to learn how the Ergonom works.
> >
> >Kurt did this back in 1972 when he found that existing optical
microscopes
> >did not perform as well as he needed. He then investigated the reasons
why
> >resolution is so limitied in great detail and eventually found a way of
> >solving the problem in a unique way. After more than 30 years of
optimising
> >the process, he has produced the microscopes he has today.
> >
> >Kevin tries to call me a fraud for quoting Gerd Binnig's letter! I am
sorry
> >but faced with a genuine reference, all you can come up with is to call
it
> >all a fraud!!! I assure you ALL our references are absolutely genuine
> >including that from Prof. Gerd Binning. He wanted to purchase an Ergonom
400
> >at the time but Kurt was not selling to anyone then. He only decided to
sell
> >his microscopes in 2000 when he developed the Ergonom 500. A few Ergonom
> >microscopes (named Olbrich 4000 at the time) were sold previously only to
a
> >very select group of people who had been working with Kurt for years.
> >
> >Regarding the German paper I mentioned in a previous post, I have now
> >translated it and put it online. Let me point out that I am not trained
in
> >Immunology and have not had a chance to ask an expert to check over the
> >translation yet, I do believe the translation is reasonably accurate but
> >would welcome any corrections. The original signed German text is
included
> >of course. And before anyone wants to call this reference a fraud, the
> >addresses are all there, check for yourself. Those guys will not know
> >Grayfield Optical or myself, they do know Kurt Olbrich!
> >You will find the reference on the updated history page (Erlangen and
> >Witten/Herdecke Universitys, then click on the image on the right, a pdf
> >file will open).
> >http://www.grayfieldoptical.com/microscience/e500/history.html
> >
> >
> >Andy Resnick makes a few comments which I would like to comment on:
> >
> >> 1) You are using this newsgroup to promote your product, a product
whose
> >> manufactuers make spectacular claims, and at the same time refuse to
> >> provide rigorous justification for their claims. I honestly commend
you
> >> for remaining professional, but you should understand your product will
> >> never achieve acceptance in the scientific community unless someone
> >> else, unaffiliated with your company, can duplicate your results. In
> >> this way, your product is indeed much like Royal Rife's microscopes.
> >
> >First of all, I am not writing here to promote anything, but to answer
> >misunderstandings put out by others before me. I did not start this
> >discussion and I have never made any kind of commercial offers, etc. I am
> >simply trying to put things straight. I believe this to be perfectly
> >legitimate.
> >
> >It is difficult to provide any kind of rigorous justification in a forum
> >such as this. I have put out a lot of video and photographic evidence on
our
> >website and I have a lot more material waiting to be put up. I have never
> >claimed to have completed the job of providing evidence and I have
pointed
> >out that more is coming. Kurt has over 30000 images and over 800 hours of
> >video material on file taken over 30 years to back up what his
microscopes
> >can do. What has been released so far is very much the tip of the
iceberg.
> >
> >And I have already released references from people not affiliated with us
at
> >all. The microscope in London has been in use since the 90s and has
already
> >allowed their research time to be reduced significantly. I am sure the
name
> >Dr. Gary Greenberg is not so unknown to the world of microscopy. He even
> >mentions the microscope on HIS website.
> >http://www.edge-3d.com/services.htm under "film credits"
> >
> >The Rife microscope probably no longer exists as a working microscope. I
> >would agree that the Rife microscope is difficult to verify and I have no
> >problem with people doubting that microscope. The Ergonom microscopes
> >however DO exist and hundreds of people have already seen and tested it
for
> >themselves. If there are any suitably qualified people here who can
travel
> >to our labs in Germany and are prepared to honestly report what they see,
I
> >can arrange a visit where you can test it for yourself. Please contact me
> >off list.
> >
> >> 2) As for intellectual property concerns, I believe them to be
> >> unfounded. If the technology is truly revolutionary, you could obtain
> >> patents. This pretects you from organizations trying to profit from
> >> your ideas, while allowing individuals to examine the validity of your
> >> claims. There is a whole army of patent attorneys willing to represent
> >> you if you feel someone is making money off your company's idea. A
> >> similar situation is encountered in laser tweezers: two companies own
> >> all of the patents, preventing me from building and selling a laser
> >> tweezer package to another. However, I may build them and use them as
I
> >> like. If your product is truly better than the competition, then enter
> >> the marketplace and let the buying public decide. I point out that the
> >> major microscope manufacturers all have detailed product specifications
> >> readily available on the web.
> >
> >The subject of patents has been handled well in this discussion by
others.
> >The problem is that a patent is only as good as the lawyers you can
afford.
> >Kurt Olbrich already holds a number of patents and he has looked very
> >seriously at doing this. It is however the inherent problems which have
> >stopped him from going down that path and a number of patent lawyers
agree
> >with his decision. Kurt says "The best patent protection is that
everybody
> >believes it cannot work" and therefore do not even try! The only problem
is
> >when people come to see the microscope for themselves, they find it does
> >work much to well despite the fact that their training tells them it
cannot.
> >
> >> 3) Showing images, presenting testimonials or name dropping is not
going
> >> to convince any good scientist. Until I have the ability to
disassemble
> >> your product, understand how it works differently from 'normal'
> >> microscopes, as far as I am concerned you have nothing but an orgone
> >> generator. The fact that you did not bring an actual microscope to the
> >> conference in itself raises questions.
> >
> >You actually make a very good point and one we are trying to find a way
to
> >solve. Scientists always need to understand something before they can
accept
> >it. That is probably one of the major reasons why so few have been sold
to
> >scientists so far whereas industry can calculate the financial advantage
of
> >better quality control equipment, etc. and if it does the job, they will
buy
> >it. Remember, Kurt comes from an industrial background and understands
that
> >market. His work mainly for industry is what has paid his bills and his
> >expensive microscope "hobby" for more than 30 years. All research has
been
> >paid for by such commercial contacts. In particular, the German
automobile
> >industry has been heavily using Kurts microscopes for their internal
> >research work. Kurt Olbrich has also been Germany's top expert for
plastics
> >for many years and is also a renowned expert for his work on researching
> >Legionnaires' disease. His film on the subject has yet to be translated
and
> >released online.
> >
> >For commercial reasons (to stop the big companies stealing his ideas),
Kurt
> >tells nobody (except his own family, his sons know the secrets) exactly
how
> >it works. The components are built to order by a number of top German
> >companies under non-disclosure agreements.
> >
> >Let me tell you a true story of just one of the scientists I accompanied
to
> >see the Ergonom 500 in Germany. He was the owner of an American Biotech
> >company from California with pleanty of letters behind his name who had
> >flown over to see the microscope for himself. On the way there, he told
me
> >all about how sceptical he was, the kind of arguments you guys are
bringing
> >here. He spent an entire day testing the microscope himself and asking
all
> >kinds of questions. At the end of the day, he was completely satisfied
that
> >the microscope works even though he did not know exactly how. When he got
> >home and explained his findings to his staff and showed all the images he
> >had taken himself, his own employies did not want to believe him as it
> >conflicted with their training. This shows a little bit of the problems
we
> >have and why many scientists who have seen our scope are just not brave
> >enough to stand up in public and admit that it all does work. That is the
> >dilema we face daily (although the case in question did lead to an order
for
> >the Ergonom 500 which will be completed this year).
> >
> >There were a number of reasons we did not bring the Ergonom 500 to
> >Microscience 2004, although we did present a lot of material about it and
> >gave away hundreds of DVDs. The main reasons for not showing the Ergonom
500
> >were that the show is only 3 days long and people just do not have the
time
> >to test the microscope properly. It would also constantly involve us in
> >discussions like we are having here and not be particually productive.
Kurt
> >was also very concerned about security as the microscope is very
expensive
> >and we could not get the kind of guarantees from the organisers that we
> >required. As the market of such high power microscopes is small, the
costs
> >and risks of bringing the Ergonom 500 to the show outweighed the possible
> >advantages and our budget for the show (remember, this was Grayfield
> >Optical's first exhibition). I feel it was the right decision and those
that
> >were interested in actually investing in such a microscope had no problem
> >flying over to Germany to see the real thing in the lab after the show.
We
> >made some excellent contacts at the exhibition which have helped us
progress
> >in particular with industrial customers.
> >
> >We did however still steal the show with our 3D optical microscope with
its
> >28mm depth of field (optical in real time) and its unique lighting
system.
> >We are actually concentrating on marketing that microscope at the moment
as
> >the market for such microscopes is so much bigger and we are not having
to
> >get into arguments with you guys about how it works like with the E500.
For
> >us, a much more interesting position to be in. A large number of people
had
> >a chance to test that microscope which by the way has been considerably
> >improved since the show.
> >
> >---
> >
> >Finally to Aaron's post. I have seen his posts before on the Microscope
> >yahoogroup which have always been very agressively against us making a
large
> >number of ridiculus allegations mixed with his obvious good knowledge of
> >conventional microscopes.
> >
> >First of all, we are asked to provide all kinds of highly documented and
> >verified references and he does not even give his full name! I have
looked
> >through many of his previous posts and all I have learned is that he is
some
> >kind of microscopy expert living in New Jersey. His posts suggest he is
> >somewhat biased and I suspect he has a vested interest in being against
us
> >and in particular against the information given in the medical films
shown
> >on our website.
> >
> >To what he says here, I can assure everybody that all the microscopes
work
> >as advertised (we actually understate if anything). He bases his
knowledge
> >on what he has learned from www.grayfield.com which perhaps explains his
> >confusion as they produce briefcases and have nothing to do with us :-)
> >
> >The microscopes shown on our "history" page were all predecessors of
which
> >only the stereo microscope is being sold. Most of them have never even
left
> >Kurt Olbrich's labs so would hardly be of use for what Aaron suggests.
They
> >do all still work and visitors are welcome to test their abilities for
> >themselves. In fact most of the video films on our site were taken with
> >these microscopes and I think many of those images speak for themselves.
> >
> >However, I do trust that the people visiting this group can see through
his
> >ludicrous comments. However, I will go one step further and put out a
> >challenge to Aaron.
> >
> >Take the best possible image you can using an optical light microscope of
> >anything suitable the group will recognise and publish it on the internet
> >for all to see. Then send us the slide with your image so that we can
> >duplicate your image and also publish it for all to see. Then everyone
here
> >can see the difference, we will even film the process of imaging your
slide
> >and put that on the internet as well.
> >
> >I think that is a fair challenge and you can even choose the object. The
> >members of this group can then judge for themselves which image is
better.
> >Does that sound fair? All it will cost you is a bit of time and the
postage
> >for sending a slide to Germany. If you do not want to admit who you
really
> >are, you can even send us the slide anonymously.
> >
> >If you are not prepared to accept this fair challenge, I ask you to
refrain
> >from such ludicrous attacks.
> >
> >By the way, Kurt Olbrich's clients include a number of major European
> >pharmaceutical companies and scientific organisations who have been using
> >his expertise and microscopy for many years.
> >
> >To the real scientists on this group. I fully understand your sceptism as
we
> >are presenting something which does not agree with your textbooks.
However,
> >is it not the job of scientists to research science and to look for the
> >unknown and test it. How many scientific inventions in the past were
> >rejected by the peers of the time because it did not agree with their
> >training. Instead of rejecting new technologies out of hand, should you
not
> >be wanting to test it for yourselves in order to determine the truth?
> >
> >We have an open door policy and many scientists have already come to our
> >labs over the past 30 years and I assure you that I am not aware of
anybody
> >who has tested the microscope for themselves that still doubted its
> >abilities, they did start to question their own textbooks and training,
> >however.
> >
> >I am not trying to fool anybody here and I cannot pretend I fully
understand
> >how it all works either. I have however used the microscope myself many
> >times and seen how scientists are shocked after using it.
> >I am here because I am trying to put the record straight and ask the real
> >"scientists" and microscopists to be more open minded for a technology
which
> >has tremendous value when used properly.
> >
> >A Chinese proverb says: "Those who say it cannot be done should not get
in
> >the way of the person doing it"
> >
> >The late Nobel prize winning physicist Richard Feynman said the
following:
> >"This method is based on the principle that observation is the judge of
> >whether something is so or not. All other aspects and characteristics of
> >science can be understood directly when we understand that observation is
> >the ultimate and final judge of the truth of an idea. But "prove" used in
> >this way really means "test," in the same way that a hundred-proof
alcohol
> >is a test of the alcohol, and for people today the idea really should be
> >translated as, "The exception tests the rule." Or, put another way, "The
> >exception proves that the rule is wrong." That is the principle of
science.
> >If there is an exception to any rule, and if it can be proved by
> >observation, that rule is wrong.
> >http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Richard_Feynman
> >
> >For our part, we will be adding a lot of new information to our website
to
> >further validate our microscopes. We have got a lot of ideas how to do
this,
> >some of which gained from the many questions asked of us in such forums.
It
> >is very much an uphill battle for us now, but we feel that with the kind
of
> >evidence we are planning to release, our critics are going to have a hard
> >time. We just ask for your patience as such information takes time to
> >compile and our customers needs must come first.
> >
> >Grayfield Optical is slowly expanding and we hope to have a demo E500
> >microscope in the USA (where probably many of you are) sometime in the
not
> >too distant future. Who knows, we might even take it to New Jersey :-)
> >
> >Regards
> >
> >Peter Walker
> >http://www.grayfieldoptical.com
> >
>

From:	Kevin Cunningham
Subject:	Re: Ergonom 500
Date:	Mon, 10 Jan 2005 14:54:40 GMT

"Peter Walker" wrote in message
news:crsejl$loc$01$1@news.t-online.com...
> Hi,
> sorry for the delay in replying, I have been very busy. I will try and
> address the issues raised in just one message. Rather than quoting
> everything, I will try and simply answer the questions.
>
> Kevin made some points regarding how our device reacts compared with
> Abbe's
> laws. I wish to add that Kurt Olbrich (the inventor) always points out
> that
> his invention is NOT breaking any laws, it is the laws themselves which
> are
> incomplete and through a number of optimisations of the entire light path
> and a more complete version of the laws, it is possible to greatly enhance
> the optical resolution obtainable as has been done with the Ergonom
> microscopes. His method would actually work on most conventional optical
> microscopes and greatly enhance their resolution, too. However, the
> scientific theory involved is highly complex and he is not surprised
> others
> have not been able to work it out (and ALL the major microscope
> manufactures
> have seen and tested the Ergonom microscopes, and spent large sums of
> money
> trying to work it out).
>
> I do not expect anyone on this group to understand how it all works based
> on
> my descriptions. I would need to tell you a lot more than I am permitted
> to
> or even know enough about myself for this to even begin to make sense to
> you
> guys. The fact that my descriptions do not make sense to you is simply
> because you have gained your knowledge of how conventional microscopes
> work
> based on very old laws which have little relevance to the updated laws
> used
> by the Ergonom. You need to put what you have learned about optics into
> question before you can even start to learn how the Ergonom works.
>
> Kurt did this back in 1972 when he found that existing optical microscopes
> did not perform as well as he needed. He then investigated the reasons why
> resolution is so limitied in great detail and eventually found a way of
> solving the problem in a unique way. After more than 30 years of
> optimising
> the process, he has produced the microscopes he has today.
>
> Kevin tries to call me a fraud for quoting Gerd Binnig's letter! I am
> sorry
> but faced with a genuine reference, all you can come up with is to call it
> all a fraud!!! I assure you ALL our references are absolutely genuine
> including that from Prof. Gerd Binning. He wanted to purchase an Ergonom
> 400
> at the time but Kurt was not selling to anyone then. He only decided to
> sell
> his microscopes in 2000 when he developed the Ergonom 500. A few Ergonom
> microscopes (named Olbrich 4000 at the time) were sold previously only to
> a
> very select group of people who had been working with Kurt for years.
>
> Regarding the German paper I mentioned in a previous post, I have now
> translated it and put it online. Let me point out that I am not trained in
> Immunology and have not had a chance to ask an expert to check over the
> translation yet, I do believe the translation is reasonably accurate but
> would welcome any corrections. The original signed German text is included
> of course. And before anyone wants to call this reference a fraud, the
> addresses are all there, check for yourself. Those guys will not know
> Grayfield Optical or myself, they do know Kurt Olbrich!
> You will find the reference on the updated history page (Erlangen and
> Witten/Herdecke Universitys, then click on the image on the right, a pdf
> file will open).
> http://www.grayfieldoptical.com/microscience/e500/history.html
>
>
> Andy Resnick makes a few comments which I would like to comment on:
>
>> 1) You are using this newsgroup to promote your product, a product whose
>> manufactuers make spectacular claims, and at the same time refuse to
>> provide rigorous justification for their claims. I honestly commend you
>> for remaining professional, but you should understand your product will
>> never achieve acceptance in the scientific community unless someone
>> else, unaffiliated with your company, can duplicate your results. In
>> this way, your product is indeed much like Royal Rife's microscopes.
>
> First of all, I am not writing here to promote anything, but to answer
> misunderstandings put out by others before me. I did not start this
> discussion and I have never made any kind of commercial offers, etc. I am
> simply trying to put things straight. I believe this to be perfectly
> legitimate.
>
> It is difficult to provide any kind of rigorous justification in a forum
> such as this. I have put out a lot of video and photographic evidence on
> our
> website and I have a lot more material waiting to be put up. I have never
> claimed to have completed the job of providing evidence and I have pointed
> out that more is coming. Kurt has over 30000 images and over 800 hours of
> video material on file taken over 30 years to back up what his microscopes
> can do. What has been released so far is very much the tip of the iceberg.
>
> And I have already released references from people not affiliated with us
> at
> all. The microscope in London has been in use since the 90s and has
> already
> allowed their research time to be reduced significantly. I am sure the
> name
> Dr. Gary Greenberg is not so unknown to the world of microscopy. He even
> mentions the microscope on HIS website.
> http://www.edge-3d.com/services.htm under "film credits"
>
> The Rife microscope probably no longer exists as a working microscope. I
> would agree that the Rife microscope is difficult to verify and I have no
> problem with people doubting that microscope. The Ergonom microscopes
> however DO exist and hundreds of people have already seen and tested it
> for
> themselves. If there are any suitably qualified people here who can travel
> to our labs in Germany and are prepared to honestly report what they see,
> I
> can arrange a visit where you can test it for yourself. Please contact me
> off list.
>
>> 2) As for intellectual property concerns, I believe them to be
>> unfounded. If the technology is truly revolutionary, you could obtain
>> patents. This pretects you from organizations trying to profit from
>> your ideas, while allowing individuals to examine the validity of your
>> claims. There is a whole army of patent attorneys willing to represent
>> you if you feel someone is making money off your company's idea. A
>> similar situation is encountered in laser tweezers: two companies own
>> all of the patents, preventing me from building and selling a laser
>> tweezer package to another. However, I may build them and use them as I
>> like. If your product is truly better than the competition, then enter
>> the marketplace and let the buying public decide. I point out that the
>> major microscope manufacturers all have detailed product specifications
>> readily available on the web.
>
> The subject of patents has been handled well in this discussion by others.
> The problem is that a patent is only as good as the lawyers you can
> afford.
> Kurt Olbrich already holds a number of patents and he has looked very
> seriously at doing this. It is however the inherent problems which have
> stopped him from going down that path and a number of patent lawyers agree
> with his decision. Kurt says "The best patent protection is that everybody
> believes it cannot work" and therefore do not even try! The only problem
> is
> when people come to see the microscope for themselves, they find it does
> work much to well despite the fact that their training tells them it
> cannot.
>
>> 3) Showing images, presenting testimonials or name dropping is not going
>> to convince any good scientist. Until I have the ability to disassemble
>> your product, understand how it works differently from 'normal'
>> microscopes, as far as I am concerned you have nothing but an orgone
>> generator. The fact that you did not bring an actual microscope to the
>> conference in itself raises questions.
>
> You actually make a very good point and one we are trying to find a way to
> solve. Scientists always need to understand something before they can
> accept
> it. That is probably one of the major reasons why so few have been sold to
> scientists so far whereas industry can calculate the financial advantage
> of
> better quality control equipment, etc. and if it does the job, they will
> buy
> it. Remember, Kurt comes from an industrial background and understands
> that
> market. His work mainly for industry is what has paid his bills and his
> expensive microscope "hobby" for more than 30 years. All research has been
> paid for by such commercial contacts. In particular, the German automobile
> industry has been heavily using Kurts microscopes for their internal
> research work. Kurt Olbrich has also been Germany's top expert for
> plastics
> for many years and is also a renowned expert for his work on researching
> Legionnaires' disease. His film on the subject has yet to be translated
> and
> released online.
>
> For commercial reasons (to stop the big companies stealing his ideas),
> Kurt
> tells nobody (except his own family, his sons know the secrets) exactly
> how
> it works. The components are built to order by a number of top German
> companies under non-disclosure agreements.
>
> Let me tell you a true story of just one of the scientists I accompanied
> to
> see the Ergonom 500 in Germany. He was the owner of an American Biotech
> company from California with pleanty of letters behind his name who had
> flown over to see the microscope for himself. On the way there, he told me
> all about how sceptical he was, the kind of arguments you guys are
> bringing
> here. He spent an entire day testing the microscope himself and asking all
> kinds of questions. At the end of the day, he was completely satisfied
> that
> the microscope works even though he did not know exactly how. When he got
> home and explained his findings to his staff and showed all the images he
> had taken himself, his own employies did not want to believe him as it
> conflicted with their training. This shows a little bit of the problems we
> have and why many scientists who have seen our scope are just not brave
> enough to stand up in public and admit that it all does work. That is the
> dilema we face daily (although the case in question did lead to an order
> for
> the Ergonom 500 which will be completed this year).
>
> There were a number of reasons we did not bring the Ergonom 500 to
> Microscience 2004, although we did present a lot of material about it and
> gave away hundreds of DVDs. The main reasons for not showing the Ergonom
> 500
> were that the show is only 3 days long and people just do not have the
> time
> to test the microscope properly. It would also constantly involve us in
> discussions like we are having here and not be particually productive.
> Kurt
> was also very concerned about security as the microscope is very expensive
> and we could not get the kind of guarantees from the organisers that we
> required. As the market of such high power microscopes is small, the costs
> and risks of bringing the Ergonom 500 to the show outweighed the possible
> advantages and our budget for the show (remember, this was Grayfield
> Optical's first exhibition). I feel it was the right decision and those
> that
> were interested in actually investing in such a microscope had no problem
> flying over to Germany to see the real thing in the lab after the show. We
> made some excellent contacts at the exhibition which have helped us
> progress
> in particular with industrial customers.
>
> We did however still steal the show with our 3D optical microscope with
> its
> 28mm depth of field (optical in real time) and its unique lighting system.
> We are actually concentrating on marketing that microscope at the moment
> as
> the market for such microscopes is so much bigger and we are not having to
> get into arguments with you guys about how it works like with the E500.
> For
> us, a much more interesting position to be in. A large number of people
> had
> a chance to test that microscope which by the way has been considerably
> improved since the show.
>
> ---
>
> Finally to Aaron's post. I have seen his posts before on the Microscope
> yahoogroup which have always been very agressively against us making a
> large
> number of ridiculus allegations mixed with his obvious good knowledge of
> conventional microscopes.
>
> First of all, we are asked to provide all kinds of highly documented and
> verified references and he does not even give his full name! I have looked
> through many of his previous posts and all I have learned is that he is
> some
>