Let me guess; 20 years for a sensor to appear from this?

On 2020-10-09 11:06, Alan Browne wrote:
On 2020-10-08 20:10, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Thu, 8 Oct 2020 08:43:53 -0400, Alan Browne
wrote:

On 2020-10-05 22:15, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Mon, 5 Oct 2020 19:39:32 -0400, Alan Browne
wrote:

On 2020-10-05 18:58, RichA wrote:
https://www.osa-opn.org/home/newsroo...photodetector/



Or none at all.Â* It's a long way from the lab to a commercially viable
product.

Do you remember when lasers were 'an invention looking for an
application'?

The earliest patent applications note various potential uses so you'll
need a different analogy.

It's not an analogy. Its a quote. I quoted from memory but according
to Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laser "When lasers were
invented in 1960, they were called "a solution looking for a
problem".[75]".

Quoting an patty or ignorance position from 1960 when, in 1959,

WTF? a petty

practical uses for lasers had already been proposed amidst patent
applications, doesn't fly very much.

Wikipedia is fantastic, but cherry picking data from it is not wise.



--
"...there are many humorous things in this world; among them the white
man's notion that he is less savage than the other savages."
-Samuel Clemens

On Fri, 9 Oct 2020 11:06:43 -0400, Alan Browne
wrote:

On 2020-10-08 20:10, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Thu, 8 Oct 2020 08:43:53 -0400, Alan Browne
wrote:

On 2020-10-05 22:15, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Mon, 5 Oct 2020 19:39:32 -0400, Alan Browne
wrote:

On 2020-10-05 18:58, RichA wrote:
https://www.osa-opn.org/home/newsroo...photodetector/


Or none at all. It's a long way from the lab to a commercially viable
product.

Do you remember when lasers were 'an invention looking for an
application'?

The earliest patent applications note various potential uses so you'll
need a different analogy.

It's not an analogy. Its a quote. I quoted from memory but according
to Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laser "When lasers were
invented in 1960, they were called "a solution looking for a
problem".[75]".

Quoting an patty or ignorance position from 1960 when, in 1959,
practical uses for lasers had already been proposed amidst patent
applications, doesn't fly very much.

Patents *have* to include suggestions as to allegedly practical
applications. But my point was not how long it took to produce
suggested practical applications but how long it took to get *actual*
practical applications.

Wikipedia is fantastic, but cherry picking data from it is not wise.

It's called quoting. Without that I have to publish the full extent of
human knowledge.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On 2020-10-09 19:14, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Fri, 9 Oct 2020 11:06:43 -0400, Alan Browne
wrote:

On 2020-10-08 20:10, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Thu, 8 Oct 2020 08:43:53 -0400, Alan Browne
wrote:

On 2020-10-05 22:15, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Mon, 5 Oct 2020 19:39:32 -0400, Alan Browne
wrote:

On 2020-10-05 18:58, RichA wrote:
https://www.osa-opn.org/home/newsroo...photodetector/


Or none at all. It's a long way from the lab to a commercially viable
product.

Do you remember when lasers were 'an invention looking for an [1] -----
application'?

The earliest patent applications note various potential uses so you'll
need a different analogy.

It's not an analogy. Its a quote. I quoted from memory but according
to Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laser "When lasers were
invented in 1960, they were called "a solution looking for a [2] ------
problem".[75]".

Quoting an patty or ignorance position from 1960 when, in 1959,
practical uses for lasers had already been proposed amidst patent
applications, doesn't fly very much.

Patents *have* to include suggestions as to allegedly practical
applications. But my point was not how long it took to produce
suggested practical applications but how long it took to get *actual*
practical applications.

That's a self contradicting paragraph.

a) Your point ([1] above) was to quote the notion of a solution looking
for a problem.

b) Then you referred to a quip in 1960. [2]

c) When the patent applicant was suggesting practical applications in
1959. [3]


Wikipedia is fantastic, but cherry picking data from it is not wise.

It's called quoting. Without that I have to publish the full extent of
human knowledge.

No. It was all available in the same Wikipedia article. [3]


--
"...there are many humorous things in this world; among them the white
man's notion that he is less savage than the other savages."
-Samuel Clemens

On Fri, 9 Oct 2020 21:03:16 -0400, Alan Browne
wrote:

On 2020-10-09 19:14, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Fri, 9 Oct 2020 11:06:43 -0400, Alan Browne
wrote:

On 2020-10-08 20:10, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Thu, 8 Oct 2020 08:43:53 -0400, Alan Browne
wrote:

On 2020-10-05 22:15, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Mon, 5 Oct 2020 19:39:32 -0400, Alan Browne
wrote:

On 2020-10-05 18:58, RichA wrote:
https://www.osa-opn.org/home/newsroo...photodetector/


Or none at all. It's a long way from the lab to a commercially viable
product.

Do you remember when lasers were 'an invention looking for an [1] -----
application'?

The earliest patent applications note various potential uses so you'll
need a different analogy.

It's not an analogy. Its a quote. I quoted from memory but according
to Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laser "When lasers were
invented in 1960, they were called "a solution looking for a [2] ------
problem".[75]".

Quoting an patty or ignorance position from 1960 when, in 1959,
practical uses for lasers had already been proposed amidst patent
applications, doesn't fly very much.

Patents *have* to include suggestions as to allegedly practical
applications. But my point was not how long it took to produce
suggested practical applications but how long it took to get *actual*
practical applications.

That's a self contradicting paragraph.

a) Your point ([1] above) was to quote the notion of a solution looking
for a problem.

With your desire to argue, you are getting as bad as nospam.

I explained my point for you when I wrote "But my point was not how
long it took to produce suggested practical applications but how long
it took to get *actual* practical applications."

b) Then you referred to a quip in 1960. [2]

c) When the patent applicant was suggesting practical applications in
1959. [3]


Wikipedia is fantastic, but cherry picking data from it is not wise.

It's called quoting. Without that I have to publish the full extent of
human knowledge.

No. It was all available in the same Wikipedia article. [3]
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On 2020-10-10 19:53, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Fri, 9 Oct 2020 21:03:16 -0400, Alan Browne
wrote:

On 2020-10-09 19:14, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Fri, 9 Oct 2020 11:06:43 -0400, Alan Browne
wrote:

On 2020-10-08 20:10, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Thu, 8 Oct 2020 08:43:53 -0400, Alan Browne
wrote:

On 2020-10-05 22:15, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Mon, 5 Oct 2020 19:39:32 -0400, Alan Browne
wrote:

On 2020-10-05 18:58, RichA wrote:
https://www.osa-opn.org/home/newsroo...photodetector/


Or none at all. It's a long way from the lab to a commercially viable
product.

Do you remember when lasers were 'an invention looking for an [1] -----
application'?

The earliest patent applications note various potential uses so you'll
need a different analogy.

It's not an analogy. Its a quote. I quoted from memory but according
to Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laser "When lasers were
invented in 1960, they were called "a solution looking for a [2] ------
problem".[75]".

Quoting an patty or ignorance position from 1960 when, in 1959,
practical uses for lasers had already been proposed amidst patent
applications, doesn't fly very much.

Patents *have* to include suggestions as to allegedly practical
applications. But my point was not how long it took to produce
suggested practical applications but how long it took to get *actual*
practical applications.

That's a self contradicting paragraph.

a) Your point ([1] above) was to quote the notion of a solution looking
for a problem.

With your desire to argue, you are getting as bad as nospam.

I explained my point for you when I wrote "But my point was not how
long it took to produce suggested practical applications but how long
it took to get *actual* practical applications."

Oh, it takes time to get from a proposed application to the actual deal.
Wow! What a discovery!

--
"...there are many humorous things in this world; among them the white
man's notion that he is less savage than the other savages."
-Samuel Clemens

On Sun, 11 Oct 2020 10:10:44 -0400, Alan Browne
wrote:

On 2020-10-10 19:53, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Fri, 9 Oct 2020 21:03:16 -0400, Alan Browne
wrote:

On 2020-10-09 19:14, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Fri, 9 Oct 2020 11:06:43 -0400, Alan Browne
wrote:

On 2020-10-08 20:10, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Thu, 8 Oct 2020 08:43:53 -0400, Alan Browne
wrote:

On 2020-10-05 22:15, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Mon, 5 Oct 2020 19:39:32 -0400, Alan Browne
wrote:

On 2020-10-05 18:58, RichA wrote:
https://www.osa-opn.org/home/newsroo...photodetector/


Or none at all. It's a long way from the lab to a commercially viable
product.

Do you remember when lasers were 'an invention looking for an [1] -----
application'?

The earliest patent applications note various potential uses so you'll
need a different analogy.

It's not an analogy. Its a quote. I quoted from memory but according
to Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laser "When lasers were
invented in 1960, they were called "a solution looking for a [2] ------
problem".[75]".

Quoting an patty or ignorance position from 1960 when, in 1959,
practical uses for lasers had already been proposed amidst patent
applications, doesn't fly very much.

Patents *have* to include suggestions as to allegedly practical
applications. But my point was not how long it took to produce
suggested practical applications but how long it took to get *actual*
practical applications.

That's a self contradicting paragraph.

a) Your point ([1] above) was to quote the notion of a solution looking
for a problem.

With your desire to argue, you are getting as bad as nospam.

I explained my point for you when I wrote "But my point was not how
long it took to produce suggested practical applications but how long
it took to get *actual* practical applications."

Oh, it takes time to get from a proposed application to the actual deal.
Wow! What a discovery!

Well its taken you long enough. Especially when you consider that was
my original point.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On 2020-10-11 19:21, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Sun, 11 Oct 2020 10:10:44 -0400, Alan Browne
wrote:

On 2020-10-10 19:53, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Fri, 9 Oct 2020 21:03:16 -0400, Alan Browne
wrote:

On 2020-10-09 19:14, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Fri, 9 Oct 2020 11:06:43 -0400, Alan Browne
wrote:

On 2020-10-08 20:10, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Thu, 8 Oct 2020 08:43:53 -0400, Alan Browne
wrote:

On 2020-10-05 22:15, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Mon, 5 Oct 2020 19:39:32 -0400, Alan Browne
wrote:

On 2020-10-05 18:58, RichA wrote:
https://www.osa-opn.org/home/newsroo...photodetector/


Or none at all. It's a long way from the lab to a commercially viable
product.

Do you remember when lasers were 'an invention looking for an [1] -----
application'?

The earliest patent applications note various potential uses so you'll
need a different analogy.

It's not an analogy. Its a quote. I quoted from memory but according
to Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laser "When lasers were
invented in 1960, they were called "a solution looking for a [2] ------
problem".[75]".

Quoting an patty or ignorance position from 1960 when, in 1959,
practical uses for lasers had already been proposed amidst patent
applications, doesn't fly very much.

Patents *have* to include suggestions as to allegedly practical
applications. But my point was not how long it took to produce
suggested practical applications but how long it took to get *actual*
practical applications.

That's a self contradicting paragraph.

a) Your point ([1] above) was to quote the notion of a solution looking
for a problem.

With your desire to argue, you are getting as bad as nospam.

I explained my point for you when I wrote "But my point was not how
long it took to produce suggested practical applications but how long
it took to get *actual* practical applications."

Oh, it takes time to get from a proposed application to the actual deal.
Wow! What a discovery!

Well its taken you long enough. Especially when you consider that was
my original point.

Whoooooooooooooosh ...

--
"...there are many humorous things in this world; among them the white
man's notion that he is less savage than the other savages."
-Samuel Clemens