Re: Ergonom Microscope A Scam!

[Guest guest]

Hi ,

I will try to answer this from memory, I will not be in my office until

Monday.

> 'Forget medicine! If this microscope actually existed, semiconductor

> manufacturers would pay billions for it. But when an engineer I

> personally know asked for a test drive so he could compare it to the

> existing technology, he never got a reply. When an company that

> spends millions on R & D and billions on fabs to make chips can't get

> the inventors to reply, it makes me wonder if they know it doesn't

> work.'

We (but not I) went over to Taiwan to demonstrate the Ergonom microscope to

that industry. The optical system we use requires a sample height of at

least 50 nanometers (nm) in order to resolve down to 100nm. We found that

their latest chip structures were less than 50nm which limits our top

resolution to about 150nm (limitations of our system). We do mention this on

our website. After numerous tests, our microscopes were not suitable for the

fabs and they already had another system they were using that was slightly

better for that application. We were about a year late presenting our

systems to them.

All the same, the computer industry has been using our microscopes for a

long time. Way before they were sold, Kurt Olbrich has been analysing

computer chips from most major chip makers including IBM, Siemens and Intel,

to name but three.

> The'Greyfield Optics' website looks very unprofessional, and poor.

> Why has this microscope, that breaks the laws of physics, not been

> published or written about anywhere? It was a shame that the

> Greyfield team was unable to produce a single one of these

> microscopes at the MicroScience Show in London, due to them selling

> $20million worth of these microscopes to Austrialia.

I am not sure where this particular quote comes from, but a lot of the

discussions you quote come from a discussion on the Usenet back in 2004.

At that time, our website was not particularly well designed and it has

improved a lot since then (completely rewritten). If that comment refers to

our site in 2004, I would agree with them. Sure, our current website needs

improving and we do plan to add a lot more examples, etc. Websites usually

improve with age.

We have never claimed to " break " any laws of physics, and Kurt Olbrich is

very clear is saying we are not breaking those laws - bending them would be

more accurate as under specific conditions, those limits simply do not

apply. Kurt says that what we can achieve is possible through an

optimisation of the entire light path. When light waves cross each other, as

happens in conventional optical microscopes several times, interference

results in a loss of light intensity and resolution. We ensure that these

problems are avoided plus a few other special things we do. We use white

light, but not any white light. That light is filtered in very specific ways

which helps to improve resolution and depth of field. The abilities of our

microscopes are the result of a number of optimizations and unconventional

thinking in their design. The first such microscope built (Ergonom 400) was

made in 1976 and the process has been refined still further since then.

As to MicroScience (the largest bi-yearly microscope exhibition in Europe,

that takes place in London and is organized by the Royal Microscope

Society), Grayfield Optical was very young in 2004 and it was not

logistically feasible to transport the Ergonom 500 to London for that show.

The smaller more portable Ergonom systems had not been developed at that

time. Instead, we premiered the 3D Optical microscope with 28mm depth of

field which caused a big stir at the time.

At MicroScience 2006, we did demonstrate the Ergonom 400-5 which was setup

for viewing computer wafers. You can see the system we demonstrated here:

http://www.grayfieldoptical.com/nano_positioning_system.html

A number of top ranking scientists etc. saw and tested that system at the

show. Due to an accident with the LED lighting system used, the microscope

was inoperative on the final day.

At MicroScience 2008, we only had a small presence for a simple reason. All

our Ergonom 4000 and 3000 microscopes in stock had been sold and we did not

have anything to demonstrate as it takes about 8 weeks to build new

microscopes. The only microscope left in our lab was the Ergonom 500 and as

stated before, Kurt will not let that extremely expensive microscope

leave his lab. Yes, we do have a very major contract with an organization in

Australia which we are in the process of fulfilling, but I disagree with the

number quoted. This all led to us deciding to have a low key, yet targeted

presence this year. I flew to the Rife Congress in Munich straight from

London and I was limited on what I could carry on a plane, as well.

We plan to have a much larger stand with the Ergonom microscopes at the next

show in 2010.

> Has anyone actually used one of these 'micrsocpes' or are you

> relying on mere conjecture and some video's posted on the ergonom

> website {which is not independent, and is biased}. Does anyone here

> have any scientific knowledge on testing such a microscope?

>

Certainly at least one member (apart from myself) of this list, has been to

Germany and tested the Ergonom for themselves. If you want to do so, you are

welcome to come and try it out for yourself with any suitable test slide. If

you cannot come yourself, you can certainly send us your own sample and we

will send you the images we have made. There are some conditions to this

offer which you will find here:

http://www.grayfieldoptical.com/put_us_to_the_challenge.html

Nobody buys our microscopes without testing them first. We would not sell

any if they were not capable of performing as claimed. We always understate

the capabilities of our microscopes. When we claim 100nm resolution

(reflected light), you can be sure we have managed to achieve much better

results than that with suitable slides.

One of the principle problems with selling our microscopes is that a lot of

people could simply not believe what is possible and we were not prepared to

tell them how it worked (otherwise the big 4 would be building and selling

them, not us).

Thanks to Prof. Hell, who recently demonstrated his way of resolving better

than Abbe resolution, our sales have gone up considerably including from

organizations which bought his system first! That is why our presentation at

MicroScience this year was targeted at the people interested in his system.

> BTW , posters do not prove the microscope works. These

> images can easily be produced by Graphic manipulation, and

> professional editing.

>

Now you are just being ridiculous. All the images and videos on our website

are legitimate. We do not have anyone on our staff capable of producing

images of this kind via graphic manipulation (it would cost millions and the

capabilities of industrial light and magic to produce such false images and

videos). Kurt Olbrich cannot even operate a computer himself, let alone

complex graphic work. What good would it do anyway, if our microscopes were

not really capable of such resolutions? We charge nothing to those who want

to come and test our microscopes out for themselves.

As I said before, send me your postal address and I will send you a lot more

material on DVD.

Regards

Re: Ergonom Microscope A Scam!

Well actually, up an till recently, I believed in this nonsense, I

actually defended the Ergonom, me being 'Scorpian'.

SCORPIAN says " Currently, German Rife Researchers are very excited

about a new optical microscope that breaks the laws of physics, or

optics to be exact, which can see a living virus, if rife

researchers obtained one of these expensive microscopes "

I was given this reply:

'Forget medicine! If this microscope actually existed, semiconductor

manufacturers would pay billions for it. But when an engineer I

personally know asked for a test drive so he could compare it to the

existing technology, he never got a reply. When an company that

spends millions on R & D and billions on fabs to make chips can't get

the inventors to reply, it makes me wonder if they know it doesn't

work.'

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=As8u8TuFsU1jo84.uuTlUpLt

y6IX;_ylv=3?qid=20080630132910AANdphF & show=7#profile-info-kM82ym4Vaa

The'Greyfield Optics' website looks very unprofessional, and poor.

Why has this microscope, that breaks the laws of physics, not been

published or written about anywhere? It was a shame that the

Greyfield team was unable to produce a single one of these

microscopes at the MicroScience Show in London, due to them selling

$20million worth of these microscopes to Austrialia.

http://sci.tech-archive.net/Archive/sci.techniques.microscopy/2004-

12/0198.html

Has anyone actually used one of these 'micrsocpes' or are you

relying on mere conjecture and some video's posted on the ergonom

website {which is not independent, and is biased}. Does anyone here

have any scientific knowledge on testing such a microscope?

BTW , posters do not prove the microscope works. These

images can easily be produced by Graphic manipulation, and

professional editing.

[Guest guest]

I apologise if I am in the wrong. This information is conflicting with

alot of what I am being taught at med school. I will hold you to your

word, , and will come and see you and the microscope when

the next rife conference is held in Germany, I believe a year from now.