Edmund Storms <stor...@ix.netcom.com> wrote: Jed, the procedures you and we describe improve the chance of creating a > working cathode but this does not make it 100%. >
In other words, it is the pre-modern trial-and-error method of developing technology. It is akin to how ancient people figured out how to make Damascus steel, or stone cathedrals that do not fall down. Their methods were not foolproof; some cathedrals did fall down. This method takes far more time and effort than a modern scientific approach. However, it does work. I think we can say that using your methods, reproducibility is asymptotically approaching 100%. The real value of this would be if someone were to use these methods to manufacture 50 working cells which were then used by researchers to find a theory. That would put the research on a more scientific basis. > Some sources are better than others. Violante has created a source with a > high probability for success but this Pd is not generally available. > If there were funding and Violante were cooperative, these cathodes could be made widely available. That is another way forward. > If we had a laboratory able to combine these ideas and apply them using > modern equipment, we might find the solution. > That is what I have in mind. Not that actual working technology should be developed using pre-modern trial-and-error techniques, but that these techniques & materials might serve as a stepping stone to 21st century style development. - Jed
