Jerard,You are off to a good start for the New Year. Your post dated Jan. 2, 1998 is an excellent perspective that certainly anyone can relate to.
Your Question: "Now here's the payoff, Mr. Wendell; assuming the Johnson Process does what it says it does and makes a complex ore assayable, isn't this technique, de facto, the experimental tool which could be used to recover the answer to the "fundamentalquestion" posed above? Don't we already have Mr. Brack's answer for him?"Mr. Matthias Brack is asking certain questions that are so difficult in this science to answer. A cluster might range from 3 atoms to 2000 atoms. Depending on it's size and type determines the stability, charge or valence. The cluster can be mono-elemental (One Metal), like the Au5 or Au7 micro-clusters; or it might be like Au39 as a part of an organic enzyme, compound or caged species; or AuAl as an elemental bi-atomic alloy; but whatever the case, these individuals species, because they all can be found in the same sample, make the recovery and refining complex. Just because the answer is that some of these values or all of them are being recovered by Johnson, does not mean that the final answers are in. He might use electricity, carbon or chemistry to recover or concentrate them, but if he is working below 20,000oF in an electrical field, it is unlikely he is destroying all of the clusters. He may be concentrating them at ambient conditions, but is not likely destroying them. When he goes to sell his metal, I hope he does not have to learn about that while investors are expecting much more. If he truly understands the problem, then he knows the adverse variables are infinite. On the other hand, the correct process that gets all of the species may not be with us yet, but a commercial process is a valuable one, none-the-less. There have been many researchers with micro-cluster processes that have progressed to a certain point just to find that clearly not enough of the process parameters were evaluated. Back to the lab. But with luck, the pilot plant will be made to do what was expected of it. The case of Future Shock is usually because of pre-mature interpretation of research results or by not monitoring enough of the salient important process conditions. This is clearly the best shot Naxos has ever made at the barrel. Of course that is an opinion from a distant bystander.
We are all pioneers here. I am impressed that Johnson seems to have such a good grasp of the energy problems involved. His processes apparently work, at least in lab conditions. That in itself speaks well of the man. I do not know if he really understands what the energy is doing for him in the process, or does he just reap the benefits. He is, in my judgement, a worthy pioneer. There are a couple of other worthy other pioneers, at Global Platinum. But if you talked to them before "pilot plant" they were ready for the "big party". Because the process is proven to work, they are excited. Now that an infinite number of technical conditions have been resolved, they are even worthier than before.
The same can be said for Consolidated Noble. With all problems resolved, there were no problems with microclusters two years ago. After the airplane was invented, the real lessons began. But there were no pilots. Now we are learning to fly. Currently, I could say there are no problems. Except, now I know better and am looking under every wood pile for adversities that might pop up an ugly head.
I am not saying these things to discourage anyone. First you have to invent the plane. The difference may be a huge factor in interpreting the data. I will tell you one thing, Consolidated Noble and Global Platinum will be a lot more careful in predicting current technology reliability as it relates to commercial processes in the future than in the past. It is not that the process doesn't work. It needs a pilot with an in depth understanding of the problem. That is a requirement if the project is to get off the ground. And we are the pioneers. We shouldn't try and fool anyone that we are anything more.
I have heard rumors about the Naxos process that could make me believe the learning experience is not behind the lab as of now. But the comments come from possibly poor questionable sources, so I discount them. By the same hand, progress is progress; the targets are of tremendous importance. None of us have all the answers. It is no big dark secret that there are a number of processes that currently work to some degree. Some will have cost advantages over others. I believe that the better solutions will be defined this year, feasibility will be by the end of next year and commercial production will follow final engineering and plant construction. Commercial impacts will be realized after that. And I believe there will be no short cut processes. However, I will always be looking for them. mike |
