Mike Carrell writes: > The discussion of replication of the PAGD technology is getting a bit wild. > All I have said is that the efforts at replication by Jeff contain gross > errors.
That's true. But your messages also indicated there is a lot unexplained art in the PAGD, with things that the Correas do "simply because they work." Other people have said that, too. There is nothing wrong with that. Many industries and sciences are like that. Electrochemistry is full of protocols you have to "learn from the master." If the PAGD is like this, then it will probably need a hands-on teaching session before a replication works. > When someone follows the recipe in the patents, and the > circuits given, and calibration means shown, and explores the glow discharge > range indicated, and fails to see the PAGD discharge, then one can start > mumbling about mysteries. It one sees the discharge, plenty of mysterious > mumbling will follow. So far as I know no one has done this, they all do > something different, and then talk about failure. True again. And this is not fair to the Correas. > To this point is Ed Storm's position that the effect originates in certain > deposits on the surfaces of cathodes and loading of bulk palladium is > irrelevant. Ed has not yet identified these, or shown how to make lots of > cathodes. Touche. - Jed
