Edisonian approach

However, if there are so many scientific bases , are they fundamental Do the ideas of the majority of technological patents and know-how appear as a result of an Edisonian approach of trial and error and past art , or as a result of scientific prediction We believe the former predominates. Thus one can consider the modem level of PMs preparation resulting from art, where inspiration and luck are more important than fundamental knowledge. 

Advances in instrumentation have also occurred, so that present day investigators can obtain a detailed structure of a catalyst surface layer. Information can also be obtained about the concentration and chemical state of chemisorbed species. Therefore, even though Edisonian approaches will remain an important aspect of this research, we are entering a new era of research in heterogeneous catalysis. 

Ideally, pigment should provide only color. They are expected to be heat- and light-stable and not have any effect on fiber properties. However interactions do occur. Some are predictable—such as the interaction between some inorganic sulfides with nickel stabilizers. Most interactions are unpredictable and are found only via an Edisonian approach, that is, produce the fiber and test it. 

While EVA wax crystal modihers have a rather mixed performance, including rather significant fractions of inactive materials, the novel line of wax crystal modifiers based on relatively low molecular weight crystalline-amorphous diblock copolymers have proven to exhibit excellent activity as CFPP suppressors even in unruly fuels [77]. This included a number of middle distillate fuels that resisted any treatment or formulations based on the EVA additives. In the case of the EVA copolymers, the application evaluations were based on an Edisonian approach. In contrast, the development of the novel diblock copolymer additives was based on a microscopic scientific approach, where quantitative knowledge of the aggregation behavior guided the optimization of the additive activity. 

One unfortunate, somewhat unexpected, problem arose during the early stages of combinatorial chemistry development. One general reason for combinatorial chemistry development was that the existing theories had a difficult time to predict which molecules would be active and when they could the process was very slow. It became clear that it was faster to do the experiment than it was to model the experiment, and it gave better results. The faster the process became the more mechanical it became or at least the more mechanical it appeared. Consequently, many people developed the attitude that the approach was not science but was rather strictly Edisonian research or, in other words, just highly developed trial and error discovery. This perception somewhat limited the participation of academic groups in the process. 

These two inventions are classical in that they demonstrate the value of both Edisonian and fundamental research. Both seek results, but with different approaches, each valuable in its own way. However fortuitous, it is interesting that these revolutionary developments were both begun about the same time in the late 50s one dedicated to solving a clear and immediate problem, the other dedicated to furthering the science of polymeric membranes with commercial applications anticipated. In any event, each of them has created new excitement in that segment of the electrochemical industry which is more widely practiced than any other. 

---