Dear Ed, How can you persist in this attempt to reivent the terms of electrochemistry? Whatever happens to the palladium, it is not 'electro-chemically decomposed' (the meaning of 'electrolyzed'), cf the Faraday quote.
So that no confusion remains in any reader's mind indeed, instead of: "Anomalous Heat Produced by Electrolysis of Palladium using a Heavy-Water Electrolyte" the title should have been, as would be obvious to even a first year student in chemistry: "Anomalous Heat Produced by Electrolysis of a Heavy-Water Electrolyte using a Palladium Cathode" but correcting the title would not be enough I am afraid, the very same erroneous terminology occurs inside the paper. Michel P.S. Will we have to call on independent referees (professional electrochemists) to solve this controversy? :) ----- Original Message ----- From: "Edmund Storms" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Friday, March 16, 2007 5:58 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]: Re: Ed Storm's confusion (was Re: [Vo]: Cold Fusion skeptic Dr. Michael Shermer) > So that no confusion remains in any reader's mind. The word electrolyze > applies to a process of passing current through an ionic solution. > Various chemical reactions are initiated by this process. The title of > the paper says that the process was applied to palladium. In this > process, deuterium and lithium are added to the palladium, some of the > palladium dissolves in the solution, and occasionally conditions are > produced that result in excess energy. I could have said that palladium > was used as an electrode in an electrolytic cell and was caused to be > modified by the process. While this would have satisfied Michel, it is > too long for a title. The present title accurately and briefly describes > what was done. I hope this discussion can move on to more important issues. > > Ed > > Michel Jullian wrote: > >> It follows that saying "palladium was electrolyzed in D2O+LiOD" is like >> saying "a blood tester was analyzed in blood", sounds absurd doesn't it? If >> it's too late to correct your book for such absurdities, could you correct >> at least the paper so it doesn't disgrace the lenr.org library? >> >> Michel >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "Michel Jullian" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> To: <[email protected]> >> Sent: Thursday, March 15, 2007 10:13 PM >> Subject: [Vo]: Re: Ed Storm's confusion (was Re: [Vo]: Cold Fusion skeptic >> Dr. Michael Shermer) >> >> >> ----- 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 >> >> >
