----- Original Message ----- From: "Edmund Storms" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Thursday, March 15, 2007 4:01 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]: Re: Ed Storm's confusion (was Re: [Vo]: Cold Fusion skeptic Dr. Michael Shermer)
> Michel, electrolysis is a process. When I said palladium was > electrolyzed, I'm saying that palladium was subjected to the process of > electrolysis. This is a common usage that I don't think is important > enough to debate. Ed, this is not even open to debate. If it was a common usage among professional electrochemists, which it isn't fortunately, then it would be a common mistake. Believe the man who invented the terms rather than the first ignoramus who "electrolyzed palladium" whoever that was: "Many bodies are decomposed directly by the electric current, their elements being set free; these I propose to call electrolytes ([Greek: elektron], and [Greek: lyo], soluo. N. Electrolyte, V. Electrolyze). Water, therefore, is an electrolyte. [...] Then for electro-chemically decomposed, I shall often use the term electrolyzed, derived in the same way, and implying that the body spoken of is separated into its components under the influence of electricity: it is analogous in its sense and sound to analyse, which is derived in a similar manner." Faraday, Michael, Experimental Researches in Electricity. Seventh Series, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London (1776-1886), Volume 124, 01 Jan 1834, Page 77, reprinted in: Faraday, Michael, Experimental Researches in Electricity, Volume 1, 1849, freely accessible Gutenberg.org transcript http://www.gutenberg.org/files/14986/14986-h/14986-h.htm Controversy solved? -- Michel
