>From: Art Chakalis <<achakali@freenet.columbus.oh.us>
>Subject: Re: Fresson Conjecture & Testing
>To: Dennis Klinker <<DennisKlinker@denklik.demon.co.uk>
>Cc: alt-photo-process-l@skyway.usask.ca
>Comments: "alt-photo-process mailing list"
>
>On Thu, 3 Jul 1997, Dennis Klinker wrote:
>Magic may exist but not when it comes to machines . . . Peter Fredrick has
>my vote on it being a spin coater. I do have some scans of some real
>Fresson paper that I believe support his conjecture. I'll forward them
>if you want to take a look for yourself.
If it is a spin coater then why does it take weeks to adjust it and months of training to use it as Luis inferred. Luis painted a picture of a highly complex machine with sensitive and very precise settings.
Or.... is this snow?
Suppose for instance, that the process was fairly simple, on the order of "Gee, why didn't I think of that." It happens often in the history of technology that the answer to a problem was right under our nose. A generator and light bulb involves such a simple technology that Leonardo could have whipped up one in a week if he had the plans. If the Fresson was the product of insight into a simple principle, and I owned the secret, then I would probably set folks off course with the idea that it involved a highly complex machine. I certainly wouldn't say "Its simple, just think about it for a while."
If it is a spin coater, I find Luis' description of the complexity puzzling.
I have more thoughts on this for later.
Dick Sullivan
<center>
Bostick & Sullivan
Http://www.bostick-sullivan.com
505-474-0890 FAX 505-474-2857
</center>
</x-rich>