Reducing sludge of potassium permanganate

Hi Juzer. I would claim, rather immodestly, that this Hotline-letters area has been a pleasant place of camaraderie for metal finishing industry people to gather and pass time, and that one of the reasons has been a very conventional editorial policy that " ... we don't print 'slams' of either products or people".

I think Damian misunderstood the question (I do a lot of grammar & spelling edits here, and English is very obviously not his native language). He seems to be referring to preventing 'water hardness scale', whereas I think Mr. Morse is using permanganate to remove 'oxide scale' from raw metals.

Although Damian is probably mistaken, I think he has a right to present the proposition that a technology that he is working on may be appropriate. While we certainly don't want commercial postings here, it doesn't seem unreasonable that the advertisers who make it possible for us all to share camaraderie and technical information exchange should be able to say "please contact me".

You've offered many very helpful replies here over the years, and we have greatly appreciated it! But it's been 4 years since you've responded to anything here except Mr. Dinu's letters. Consequently, you appear to be here basically to "follow him around" and publicly challenge his patent claims, so people may find that disappointing too.

Best regards,

Ouch!

Ted, I too have read several of Mr. Dinu's responses, and while I have refrained from posting my own comments, I would have to slide towards Mr. Jangbarwala's point of view. If you read the many postings of Mr. Dinu, it would seem that ECP is the resolution for every single environmental ill that befall the plating industry -- that answer of answers. It is, however, not, and in my professional opinion, entirely unproven in the majority of applications that he represents its success. We are intrinsically involved with the marketing of the particular materials that he has discussed in the USA, and frankly, we have no information that supports anything he has claimed, including that from the original inventors.

In the interest of technological opinion, I agree that this shouldn't be brought to a professional level of attack, but I also think that any respondent should have the ability to disagree with the technical accuracy of the information, as many of your readers are not simply here to pass the time, but to find good advice. Mr. Dinu's right to "hawk" his technology should not be trumped by the fact that your readers expect a degree of accuracy in this forum. It's not rice pulling iridium copper alloy coins, but nevertheless, I have never seen one of them, so who am I to say that it doesn't work? Care to disagree?

Thanks, Tom -- No disagreement. Technical accuracy is very important. But I can't claim infallibility, so I can't censor claims that I disagree with.

Rather, posters claim what they claim, responders challenge what they challenge, and then the reader judges. When a number of highly respected respondents like Juzer and yourself say that Mr. Dinu's claims are greatly in error, as you are obviously doing, the readers will certainly judge any claims in that light. But we ask that challenges remain technical, not ad hominem.

Regards,

Ted: Appreciate your comments. I sold my last company, Hydromatix, which was very actively involved in metal finishing to the BOC Group. Had to work for 3 years for technology transfer, but the focus was semi-conductor industries. I recently finished the employment contract and like to go to engineering forums, this one being one of them to try to help fellow engineers. I have no vested interest in metal finishing ... just trying to be of help. I don't even know who Mr. Dinu is, only that most of his statements have no technical merit.

Having said that, I have 3 patents pending on electrochemistry, and have studied the ECP patent and process in detail. Even the inventors, who I have corresponded with via email don't make the claims Mr. Dinu does. I am sorry if I have misunderstood the intent of this forum. My idea was that people would come to this site to avoid having to "discover" that someone's claims are unfounded by peer review of engineers. Apparently, that is not so.

Sorry for the misunderstandings.

Hi. Juzer, I apologize if my reply was harsh; I greatly respect your expertise and you spirit of helpfulness.

I've been involved in computerized forums since long before there was an internet, and watched sadly as countless of those invaluable resources, including many once priceless sci.chem newsgroups, became worthless when personal criticism started a race to the bottom that bores every reader except the two participants.

This site has been my life for decades, so I desperately don't want that to happen here. You and Tom are welcome to express any opinion or present any evidence on any subject you wish ... and there's no question that your statements are authoritative and convincing! I just ask that we all try our best to do so in a way that doesn't publicly insult another participant.

I've learned something important about site administration from you and Tom here: While the site could not exist if non-advertisers could reach out and encourage readers to contact them, when an advertiser does so we should clearly label it "adv.", so that's what we will do in the future :-)

Regards,