The American Computer Company's claims... Fact or Fiction?

Latest Info

The American Computer Company has made some very strong claims about the U.S. government reverse engineering alien technology garnered from crashed UFO's near Roswell, New Mexico in 1947.

This technology was allegedly fed to companies such as Bell labs who he claims used it to develop, among other things, the transistor, and laser.

Further, he claims to have technical specifications for a device called the transcap - or transfer capacitor.  This device allegedly "blows away" the transistor.

I will try to address over the next few weeks at least a few of these claims, and what I think the owner of this company is trying to do.
 

A little bit about my qualifications.
 

As an introduction, I would like to say that his account is interesting and exciting.  When I heard about it first on a radio show called "Sightings on the radio", by Jeff Rense, I thought it was interesting enough to check out his web page to see what this was all about.

As a source for my analysis, I am using the web pages that have been posted by ACC.  Additionally, there is a Sightings On The Radio web site that has Real Audio recordings of the shows on which Jack Shulman from ACC has appeared.  I will reference these as well.


Here's a direct quote from his page on the transcapacitor:
  While the above sound impressive, it is simply wrong.  1023 power can be represent easily by 77 bits of standard bi-level (on/off) type of memory.  So the maximum ratio is 1/77,  not 1/1000.  Also, he doesn't take into account the sense amps that would need to be constructed that can differentiate these 1023 levels and convert that to data that a run-of-the-mill microprocessor could understand.  The signal-to-noise ratio problems there are staggering (especially when considering the thermal range over which computer components must operate).  I find it interesting that he chose the number 1023... it happens to be similar to Avagadro's number (6.022x1023), which is the number of molecules per mole.  I suspect that he pulled this out of the air (and from some vague recollection from a chemistry class) as an impressive, large sounding number.

Here's another quote:

This is a very unusual claim.  They offer no explanation as to how this could work.  Also, synapses of the brain do not record information in "fragments".  They record via the strength of the synaptic connections.

More quotes:

This 80MV number that he refers to seems to have some magic significance to Jack Shulman (see later references in the audio archives).  As for any silicon device handling 80MV of potential, I find that very hard to believe.  All known materials become completely conductive at a specific voltage per meter ratio, depending on their insulating value.  Silicon is not a terribly good insulator - in fact it's a semiconductor!  If one were to look up the voltage/cm of silicon, one would find it would require many meters thick of silicon to insulate 80MV, let alone the sub-micron device scales that is referred to in the web page. Interesting term, "energy-modulation signature".  Anyone heard of this before?  Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think it's techno-gibberish.

Unfortunately, there is an absolute upper limit on the data rate that plain old telephone lines as they exist today can handle - 64Kbits/second, at least without upgrading the telephone exchanges to handle higher data rates (see a technology called ADSL for a real way of doing the upgrade).

He makes some comments about how it could replace vacuum tubes.  Well since he hasn't shown at all how this device might function, it's impossible to evaluate this claim.

The last few paragraphs of this particular page make it sound as it he's gearing up to make it look like IBM etc. are suppressing this development (and he has since alleged that Lucent Technologies broke into his building to steal information).

Here's a short transcript from the January 14th airing of the Jeff Rense Sightings on the Radio show.  Beginning at approx. the 2:49 minute mark:
 

For a person who claims to have studied physics extensively, he frequently mixes up his terms.  He says 80 million Volts is a lot of power.  This is not correct.  Voltage is not a measure of power, but rather of electrical potential.

Further, he says "80 million Volts of electrons".  Well, again, Volts are not measured in electrons.  A small number of excess electrons can create a large voltage potential, and  conversely a large number of excess electrons can create a small field, all depending on the physical dimension and type of material from which the device is constructed.

If 80MV were enough to warp space-time, we'd be seeing a lot more warping!  Lightning bolts from storms are typically 1MV to 3MV per meter.  If the height of the cloud is 1000 meters, 1 GigaVolt to 3 GigaVolts is the total potential - more than ten times the 80MV he claims is needed!

Further in the recording, Jack tries to explain what a hologram is to a caller, contrasting it with what the photonitron could do in its image projection mode:

This is not an accurate description of a hologram.  It's not even close.  I don't know where he gets the term "randomized recreation"... but there's nothing random about a hologram.  Also, it's more than stereoscopic (which implies a two perspective view used to create the illusion of three dimensions).  It is a true 3 dimensional image of the original object from a sector of viewing angles, albeit to the limit of the coherent light sources that were used to illuminate the object to being holographed.

Earlier in the recording, he says that the photonitron requires 6 coherent light sources - "very high speed, high power lasers".  As any freshman in physics would know, one laser is as fast as another laser.  Light travels at the speed of light, no slower, no faster (the speed of light does vary depending on the medium the light is traveling through, but it is not dependent on the source of the light).  However, on this particular point, I'll give him the benefit of the doubt, assuming that he meant "short pulse duration laser".

After reading his pages and listening to some of the interviews with Jack Shulman, I've come to a few conclusions:

  1. It's a scam.
  2. It's not a particularly intelligent scam.
  3. It's designed to milk followers for a long period of time, doling out little [fraudulent] bits of information, much like the "MJ-12 documents".
  4. There will be numerous books authored by Jack Shulman et. al., none of which will contain any real designs of the alleged devices.  The profits will of course go to him and his cohorts.
  5. None of the identities of the alleged insiders in IBM, the government, or the military will ever be divulged, because they are all fabrications, and if a name was published the story could be checked (unless the person is dead  - so you might see them claim a dead person as an insider)
  6. You will not see a single one of these devices make it to market, not because of conspiracy, but because it's all a sloppy fabrication.
  7. Expect to see highly-paid speaking engagements being arranged, similar to Richard Hoagland's books about signs of ancient civilizations on Mars.
  8. New!  Expect to see TCAP or other devices offered in products such as laptops, but in a way such they are unverifiable in operation. e.g., they won't ever offer a 80GB mass-storage device on a chip, but they might offer something like "a TCAP device that sharpens the contrast of the screen".  Something that's subjective.
Notice that all the conspiracies and break-in attempt stories give him a back door for not being able to produce the alleged documents if ever cornered.  He could say they were stolen by either the government, military, or big business (IBM, Lucent Technologies, GTE, etc.).  After being cornered, he has an avenue to get the documents back again through his "unamed sources" so that he can begin scamming again.

If you are a follower of this guy, please consider what I've said... look into it very carefully before you spend any money on books, computers, etc. from this fellow.  I can almost guarantee that even though he says this is a purely philanthropic activity he's engaged in, that he's out to make money - plain and simple.


Update 3/29/98

After the above was written, Jack now claims to be shipping a laptop with a TCAP device in it, used for power management and also to speed up the cache.  While I find the intertwining of those two features to be unlikely in a single device (power control is not normally related to the cache memory subsystem in any computer), I find it more interesting that he's shipping a device which he claims they barely understood how it worked just two months ago.  Also, how is one to verify that the laptop that's shipped to them actually contains a TCAP device?  He says it's in a chip carrier labeled DPM (digital power miser), and that it's sealed in the thermoplastic case for heat dissipation reasons (which begs the question, "if it's so efficient, why is it dissipating so much heat?").  He says this will make it very difficult to examine the device because one must nearly destroy it with a drill in order to open it.  If one were to open up the case using any means (using a drill, acid, solvent, etc.), only a semiconductor expert with an electron microscope and tools to get a cross section of the chip would be able to tell you if the chip you are looking at is unusual or not.  If a claim was made that after examination there was no TCAP device found, Jack could simply say "you weren't looking in the right place... it's there."  So, in effect, it's all but unverifiable.

ACC also claims to be selling a development kit for the TCAP, priced at $25,000.  The development kit supposedly contains a TCAP device, plus specs, design guidelines, and spice models, etc., to be able to utilize the device.  ACC requires that the buyer sign a non-disclosure agreement in which ACC agrees not to divulge your identity, while you agree not to divulge the technology contained in the kit.  This gives ACC an easy out when someone asks, "Who has purchased one of these kits?  I'd like to talk to them to see if it's worth buying."  They can rightly say, "We aren't allowed to discuss that."

The more expensive kits (~ $100,000) claim to give the technology for a 90GB to 2TB mass storage device of some sort, which utilize TCAPs.  On the forum, the claim was made that this kit wouldn't be available for 3-5 years, but elsewhere on the ACC web site, they claimed they'd pulled in the delivery date of the 90GB and 2TB device to early 1999.  Seems inconsistent at least, a tip of the fraud iceberg at worst.

Update 4/30/98

As far as I can tell, ACC has pulled all TCAP storage device info from its web pages [nope! see update 8/15/98.  I'm leaving this stuff here for historical purposes].  It's not clear if he plans to reintroduce more info later or not.  I suspect he's now trying to play it down because there's been a lot of clamoring in the tone of "put up or shut up".  He appears to be attempting to delve more deeply into government, corporate, and now religious conspiracy charges, shying away from technological claims.

It has been theorized that he's stirring up all this nonsense so that he can get a high hit rate on his web site.  This is to attract possible advertisers.  Two things make me doubt this:  1) so far there are no other advertisers on his site.  2) who would advertise on a site of such incredulity?  If you have any thoughts on the subject, I'd be interested to see them.

Update 5/3/98

Jack is now claiming that the all the nonsense responses and whacked out conspiracy theories have been coming from his "software avatars", apparently trying to distance himself somewhat postings being made on his web site.  He's recently picked up on this idea to say it's all software-based, rather than of human origin.  It's interesting that these so-called avatars misspell the same words, use the same idiomatic grammar and use of capitalization and punctuation as Jack himself.

Jack had another interview with Jeff Rense on May 1.  In my opinion, he didn't do very well.  A caller named Edith, who uses a web site bulletin board called ISUR, leveled some heavy questions at him, and he all but refused to answer her, accusing her of being someone with the name of Rose.  Jeff started taking a hard line with Jack, because Jack started becoming furious, nearly shouting at the caller and Jeff - ending up with Jeff cutting Jack off at one point.   Soon after this call, Jack said this was the last time he'd appear on Jeff's show, because he felt it was a set-up.  Have a listen for yourself... Edith's call starts about 25 minutes into the first hour, I think.

Update 5/30/98

ACC just made some new claims about the TCAP mass storage device (about half-way down that web page).  Here are some excerpts:
 

The statement about it requiring an "exciter current of 2.2 vdc" doesn't make any sense because current is not measured in Volts - it's measure in Amps.

The statement about it can  "respond to [...] sensor-data voltages up to +/- 72 vdc" is odd.  Does this part require that external circuitry be able to drive +/- 72VDC signals into the chip?  First of all, this is a lot of voltage to be driving around on a computer card... most of which operate on 2V to 5V.  Secondly, if we combine this information with what has been previously published about the TCAP (chiefly that it can store 1023 levels per TCAP), then that's a voltage swing of 144 volts (-72..+72) divided by 1023 levels which yields 4.4x10-23 Volts per level.  That's an absurdly small voltage delta to try to measure and convert to a digital value.  Now, to be fair, it doesn't say that 1023 levels are encoded onto the sensor-data lines, so perhaps I'm reading too much between the lines.

The statement "The 'locator' time to retrieve a particular Simulated 'Track' is said to be approximately 25 nanoseconds, corresponding to 'average seek time', making it 24-96 times the speed of a conventional hard disk drive." shows a lack of math ability.  The average seek time of a conventional hard disk is on the order of 3 ms (.003 seconds).  3 ms/25 ns is 120,000, not in the range of 24-96.  Two possibilities here... the quoted 25 ns was a misprint and should have read 25 ms, or it's all just a sloppy fabrication.  I tend to believe the latter.

And just to be picky, the abbreviations for Volts DC and Megahertz are done incorrectly and inconsistently.  Volts DC should be VDC, and Megahertz should be MHz.

Further on in the web page:

What does the Department of Energy have to do with chip manufacture?  Nothing.  And why would they be at the Environmental Protection Agency (and what do they have to do with it?)

In my opinion, this just gives them another way to stall release of their so-called TCAP storage device.


Update 8/4/98

In the last few weeks, ACC has made a flurry of new statements.  However, the site has recently petered out again.  It appears he's getting little interest.

The statements started out with ACC saying that their lawyers had determined that it would be illegal to patent the TCAP due to the international Outer Space Treaty of 1967.  I won't comment on that because it's not a technical claim.  To examine all the claims of ACC would require an entire team of people.

ACC, in the same statement, said that they would commence releasing information on the TCAP and the shopkeeper's notebook into the public domain so that no one else could patent it, and so that everyone could benefit.

So far, very little information about the TCAP has come out - no technical papers other than a brief web page which I examine below.

Here are some excerpts from that page:

First of all, Terahertz is spelled incorrectly.  At least he's consistent about his misspelling.  He appears to have corrected most of the places where he misspelled "femtosecond" as "fematosecond".  There are a few left on his web site, though, if you look carefully.
  Notice how the LBL "scientist" is never named.  In this paragraph, the word "dielectric" is misspelled as dialectrics.  Also the phrase "charge coupling on dialectrics" doesn't make any sense.  Dielectric is the material that occupies the space between the plates or elements of a capacitor... it determines in part how much charge a capacitor can hold.  At first he was using the spelling from a
(misunderstood) MSNBC news article which erred in the way it spelled the word - "Di Electric".  He's fixed some of the misspellings but missed others.  He also doesn't appear to have a clear idea what dielectric is.  In a forum posting, he stated "it's a capacitive ciruit! Specifically a low capacitance one!"  This is just plain wrong - it's not a circuit, it's part of a capacitor, whether discrete or distributed.  It's also, not low or high.  Some materials are designed specifically to give a higher capacitance value... this is done where a large energy charge is desired (for various reasons).  For integrated circuits, it's usually desirable to lower the dielectric constant of signal paths as capacitance and resistance are the main factors in slowing signal propagation with the end result of slowing the chip.
  No one these days builds CPUs out of TTL.  TTL is just too slow.  GaAs (Gallium Arsenide) ECL (Emitter Coupled Logic) has been used on that fastest of circuits for many years.  Check out Cray's or Fujitsu's web site if you'd like details on that.  This tells me that Jack really doesn't know what he's talking about here... he's using really outdated knowledge from the 70's. This is very poorly stated, if nothing else.  When talking about the execution time of a single instruction, a time should be used, not a frequency.  This is roughly the equivalent of saying "This car can travel one foot at 120 MPH!"  Also, here we are with the bad spelling of Hertz again. This 45 Mbit limit might well be true.  I don't know.  I do know that sections of the Internet are running at over 1 Gigabit per second on a single fiber using ATM (Asynchronous Transfer Mode).  End-to-end rates are probably lower.  However, none of this means that this phantom technology will be able to improve the state of affairs.

There's lots of stuff on this page about the TCAP being able to perform a boolean XOR function.  It's really not clear what he means with this.  Does the XOR function operate on all 512 to 16,000 bits at once?  It is so poorly described that's it's hard to know where to start.  I won't even bother.

We're still where we were 5 months ago.   ACC has yet to produce anything substantive, like a working prototype, an independent review by a reputable firm, or real technical papers, rather than foaming hyperbole.


Update 8/16/98

ACC recently posted this in response to a person who calls himself Dean Kain.  Dean Kain apparently took part or all of this web page and posted it to ACC's roswell board.  I'm not Dean Kain, but I feel compelled to respond to ACC's reply since ACC is, in effect, talking about what I wrote:

He's just plain wrong.  Current is never measured in Volts.  Ask any physics or electronics professor or engineer.  If he had said that the TCAP requires a "2.2V exciter supply" that would be a different story [I wouldn't have quibbled with it], but he didn't and he remains wrong. Yes, I was wrong about this.  They moved some of the pages around on the web site and I wasn't able to find them at that time. I'll address this one below at h) I think when Dean pasted this web page, it missed the superscript formatting that puts the 23 above the 10.  See near the top of this page for that discussion. Where?  I've seen nothing but techno-jibberish on the forum.  Where are the real (peer reviewed) scientific papers? It doesn't matter.  Show me ANY material that can withstand 80MV across a .14 micron (or even 1cm!) space without breaking down.  You'd win the Nobel prize in physics for that alone.
  Perhaps I did get those two confused.  ACC did claim at one point that agents of Lucent Technology had hacked into his web site.  This was quite a while ago. With the thousands of scientific and engineering web pages on the net, you'd think I'd find one instance of the phrase "energy modulation signature" or "energy modulation signaturing" outside the ACC site.  There aren't any.  Try www.altavista.digital.com or any other search engine for that matter.  I'll publicly say I was wrong if ACC will provide at least one reference.  It doesn't have to be on the
web.  Take a scientific paper or text book reference and scan it into a web page, and state the book's name, author,  date, etc. so that it can be verified independently.

As far as I can tell, there doesn't exist any Chemical Engineering department at Lawrence Berkeley Labs.  I've looked around on their web site and it just doesn't show up.  There is a Chemical Science department, however.  More about this below.

About the 'divot Tunnel electron Transfer' approach... this just doesn't make any sense to me...  let's see a real technical with peer review from a respected institution.  I'm waiting.
 

It would be a very bad thing for dielectric to become metallic.  Dielectric is suppose to be an insulator, not a conductor.  All metals are pretty good conductors,... many of them are excellent conductors.

A "Coulombic charge" is just another name for an electronic charge.  It has nothing to do with standing waves.  Furthermore, standing waves have minimas and maximas, but not necessarily a focus.

There is not any mention (that I can tell) of how the actual 16,000 bits are kept in the device.  There's a lot of stuff in there about throughput and holding electrons, but nothing really about how the actual bits are stored, nor how they are read out and translated to a standard binary representation.  Are the bits stored by the level of charge state or not?  If it is by charge state (or any sort of "level"), being able to discern 216,000 levels such that external logic such as a conventional CPU can read the data seems beyond impossible - in the realm of bad science fiction.  Just for reference, 216,000 = 3.019466x104816, which is about 3 followed by 4816 zeros...  Being that large a number doesn't make it wrong, just extremely improbable to be real.

Notice that he doesn't give the full name of "Harris" at Berkeley.  I've looked at Lawrence Berkeley Labs web site phone book.  It lists about ten people with the name "Harris", but none of them are in the so-called "Chemical Engineering" division.  There are two in the engineering department.  If I have some time this coming week, I'll give them a call.


Update 8/20/98

I  believe I have found the "Harris" that ACC is referring to.  His name is Charles Harris.  Here's a web page that he's put up on the net describing some of the science he's working on.

There is some talk of the forming energy wells which electrons eventually tunnel out of, but I haven't found any talk of a "dielectric junction".

I will send this fellow some email to see if he recognizes any of the stuff ACC is referring to regarding the dielectric junction.


Update 9/30/98

It's been a while since my last update, but I have something very interesting here.  I just received some email from an anonymous source who sent mail to Charles Harris at Lawrence Berkeley Labs and received a reply.  He forwarded it to me.  I'm posting it here, but I'm removing the sender's name at his request. Click here to see the crux of the mail.
 

Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1998 10:34:53 -0700 (PDT)
From: #@#
Subject: Shulman

Sent from your page at:
http://geocities.datacellar.net/CapeCanaveral/Hangar/9587/
IP: #.#.#.#

Just found your very interesting site on Shulman today, answered alot
of questions. I posted numerous messages on the ACC Forum as
####. I had
thought ACC was probably a real company with a wacko at the helm, but
now it seems to be just a Web site. Here's an E-Mail I received from
Charles Harris of Lawrence Labs----

Dear Mr. Harris,
>
>I saw a report on your work on dielectric junctions on a message board
of a
>small computer manufacturer, American Computer Company. A part of the
posting:
>
>
>  "[QUOTE from Lynn L. at LBNL]
>
>In their latest round of experiments in dielectric junctions, the
Lawrence
>Berkeley team coated a silver surface with a layer of alkane
molecules. After
>the silver was zapped with the pump pulse, the researchers, through
the probe
>pulse, observed that the electrons are initially delocalized so that
they move
>freely through the alkane layer parallel to -- but at a fixed
elevation above
>-- the surface layer of silver atoms. Within a couple of hundred
femtoseconds,
>however, these electrons become
>localized within the alkane overlayer as polarons. A polaron is an
electron
>whose interaction with the atoms in a crystal lattice creates a
deformation
>(an energy "well") that traps the electron, like a divot on a fairway
can trap
>a golf ball.
>According to the Team Leader, the lattice deformation in which the
electron
>traps itself is caused by small shifts in the positions of positively
charged
>atomic nuclei around the negatively charged electrons. After the
passage of
>more than a thousand femtoseconds, the self-trapped electron is
finally able
>to escape the trap by quantum-mechanically "tunneling" its way back
into the
>metal.
>
>[[ NOTE: This is the Transfer Capacitor effect - causing the bond
species of
>the dielectricalkane/silver junction to switch between conductor and
non-
>conductor. In the LB test, they are not using a special insulated
conductor we
>added to make the small polaron self-trap the electrons for up to an
hour or
>so before requiring the divot trap to be re-excited... -- Charlie
Gordon]]  "
>
>ACC claims to have duplicated LBL's research, indeed surpassed it, and
when
>asked how this was possible ,the following rather frenzied reply:
>
>(Partial quote)....." We're YEARS ahead of Lawrence Berkeley!!! They
haven't
>even gotten to the phase loop circuit capable of driving a Dielectric
Junction
>Array yet and its already September of 1998! ACC has had operating
ones since
>May of 1997!
>You guys LOSE!! ACC wins!!! We won, the ENTIRE WORLD KNOWS, thousands
of
>people are logging in every hour from Germany, England, New Zealand,
Japan,
>Russia, Everywhere and reading about our BREAKTHROUGH, and realizing
from the
>Lawrence Berkeley disclosures that THEY'VE JUST VERIFIED ACC'S
TECHNOLOGY.
>Tell Lawrence Berkeley to eat our dust, moron. "

There is more in the same
>vein, and a lot of technical terms I suspect they lifted from LBL's
releases.
>I'm sorry to interrupt your surely very busy schedule, but I wonder if
you or any of your associates have ever
>heard of these people?
>
>                           Thank you for your time,
>

No I havent and I have no idea what they're talking about.  It surely
doesn't have anything to do with our work.  Sincerely, Charles Harris

Professor Charles B. Harris
Department of Chemistry
University of California
Berkeley, California 94720

office (510 ) 642-2814
fax (510) 642-6724

........................................

You can use this if you wish, please leave out my name and E-Mail, no
telling what the nuts(nut) at ACC will do. By the way, I was banned
from posting, second time....


Update 5/5/99
 

Here it is about seven months since my last update of this web page. Still nothing substantial from ACC or Jack Shulman with regards to the TCAP or any other technology they claim to posess.  Notice that ACC claimed that the 90GB TCAP storage array was going to be ready in early 1999.  Where is it?

The main reason I'm updating this web page is because someone using the name Mike Nevin posted on ACC's forum asking if supercapacitor technology was anything like the TCAP or if they were related at all.  He had seen a posting at Lawrence Livermore Labs site which said that they had developed some new technology that allowed higher performance supercapacitors.  Here was Jack's reponse (via his so-called software avatar named Sandy):
 

The TCAP is a SEMICONDUCTOR used in Microprocessors, not a big
                     SuperCapacitor in Power Co. Lines!

                     Posted By: Sandy <sandy@compamerica.com>
                       Date: Wednesday, 5 May 1999, at 8:20 p.m.

                     In Response To: Super-Capacitor (Mike Nevin)

The TCAP replaces Transistors, runs at low voltages, and can switch an audio or digital logic circuit at about .5 a
millionth of a billionth of a second. It is a peach.

You would use a submolecular sized TCAP as one of 40 million TCAPs in a PENTIUM X CPU which ran at 12
Teraherz.

On the other hand a SuperCapacitor is a pair of huge metal plates separated by an insulator which can store a lot
of voltage measured in megawatts. It is a banana.

You would use a 3 foot tall SuperCapacitor with an oil filed 10 foot tall Transformer on your HIGH TENSION
WIRES to transmit 440 Volt AC Current between a Power Plant and your Home.

Hence, one is a replacement for a transistor (the TCAP), the other is used in a High Tension Wire System by the
Power Company.

Get lost, Nevin, if that's your real name, which I seriously doubt.

You must be using a fake name. Hit the road, Mike.

Sandy
 

It's clear to me that whomever wrote this (Jack) doesn't understand electronics.  Allow me to enumerate the errors:
  1. Terahertz is spelled incorrectly again!
  2. A supercapacitor is not "a pair of huge metal plates separated by an insulator".  A supercapacitor is a capacitor with an unusually high energy storage capability for its volume (i.e. physical dimensions).  A supercapacitor can actually be very small or very large... it doesn't matter.  And the plates of the capacitor are not necessarily metal.  In the one that Mike was referring to, the plates are made of carbon fiber, which I assume is used to provide a much larger surface area than a smooth metal plate.
  3. A capacitor or supercapacitor does not "store voltage measured in megawatts".  First of all, voltage is not measured in any sort of watts.  Note that elsewhere Jack has said thatVoltage is measured in Amps, which is also incorrect.  Secondly, capacitors store electrical energy, not Voltage, and it's measured in Joules.
  4. Supercapacitors are not used in a "High Tension Wire System".  They would have no particular advantage for that purpose since compactness is not really necessary.  They have been proposed to be used in applications where quick charge and discharge rates are needed in, for example, electric automobiles, where the fast discharge rate is needed for brief bursts of acceleration during passing.


Update 7/27/99

I recently had a look around ACC's web site and ran across an ad for "their" Valkyrie Accent Supercomputer Server.  All the  web pages about their system have their name plastered all over it and attempt to give you the impression that they designed it themselves.  Have a look here to see what I'm talking about.

Well, I had a suspiscion that they didn't actually develop it themselves based on their lack of knowledge in other areas of computing.  I asked around a bit, and found out that ACC, if they are really selling this machine, is just OEM'ing it.  It's really made by  a company called AXIL.  Here's AXIL's web page on the system that ACC is misrepresenting (I'd say)  as their own.  If you click on the "Features/Performance Specs" link, you can see where ACC got all of its graphics and other marketing info.

There is another "supercomputer" on their web-site (scroll all the way to the bottom), called the Valkyrie XMI which makes some pretty wild claims:

VALKYRIE XMI
 SuperComputer
    Up to 16,000,000 CPUs per
    node and up to 1024 nodes
    per cluster! "IBM Deep
    Blue's" BIGGER,
    SMARTER BROTHER!!
    Have it your way!! Based on a
    choice of CPU: INTEL
    XEON,
    INTEL MERCED or
    HP-PA-RISC,
    or ULTRASPARC CPUs.


but there doesn't appear to be any links to more information about it.  This is a system that Jack spends a lot of time crowing about,  but I suspect it doesn't actually exist: it's just vapor.  ACC hasn't provided any pictures or detailed specs.


Links to related sites

So far there're only two links.  If you have more, let me know.

Please tell me what you think of this web page, or about ACC and Jack Shulman.

Sign Guestbook

Or have a look at what others have written.

View Guestbook

Thanks for stopping by!

P.S.  I put adverts on this page to keep Geocities happy, not for any personal gain.

1