----- Original Message ----- From: Nick Palmer To: Vortex-L Sent: Thursday, March 15, 2007 11:53 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]: Cold Fusion skeptic Dr. Michael Shermer ... Oh BTW Ed, Michel is pointing out that the palladium itself is not electrolysed, although this is what the title of the paper appears to say. I would prefer a scientist to be doing these experiments, rather than a linguist... If by this you mean that a scientist can be approximative, or even plain wrong as is the case here (not just in the title but throughout the whole paper), wrt the terminology of his own research field, I fully agree with you (although Michael Faraday who finely chiseled the vocabulary in question here, cf refs below, probably wouldn't appreciate), provided he acknowledges the error goodheartedly.
What I find dangerous for the field, and for science in general, is when as seems to be the case here a scientist won't admit a minor error, because this implies that a fortiori he will be unable to admit a major one. I am not saying that Ed has committed such a major error since I haven't studied his work yet, only that he cannot be trusted to retract if he finds such. Someone wrote to me privately "you are being quite merciless to poor Ed Storms". I am of the opinion that letting silently a colleague err in science is more damaging to him than pointing out matter-of-factedly his errors. Note I only point out such errors publicly when the work itself has been made public. "CF right or wrong" is not my philosophy, but of course I may be wrong :) Michel References 1.. ^ Ross, S, Faraday Consults the Scholars: The Origins of the Terms of Electrochemistry in Notes and Records of the Royal Society of London (1938-1996), Volume 16, Number 2 / 1961, Pages: 187 - 220, [1] consulted 2006-12-22 2.. ^ 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, [2] consulted 2006-12-27 (in which Faraday introduces the words electrode, anode, cathode, anion, cation, electrolyte, electrolyze) 3.. ^ Faraday, Michael, Experimental Researches in Electricity, Volume 1, 1849, reprint of series 1 to 14, freely accessible Gutenberg.org transcript [3] consulted 2007-01-11 ----- Original Message ----- From: Michel Jullian To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Thursday, March 15, 2007 10:24 AM Subject: [Vo]: Re: Ed Storm's confusion (was Re: [Vo]: Cold Fusion skeptic Dr. Michael Shermer) I am not pressing you for an answer Ed, but I Googled for your book soon to be published you advertised here the other day: "The Science of Low Energy Nuclear Reaction" and found its home page here: http://www.worldscibooks.com/physics/6425.html It says "Pub. date: Scheduled Fall 2007", hopefully it is not too late to correct it for such errors? Or have you had it proofread by an electrochemist maybe? I imagine you hadn't taken such precaution for the paper you submitted last year to Thermochimica Acta whose terminology of title and abstract we are discussing (haven't read it further yet BTW, waiting until we agree on the definition of electrolysis since that's what the paper is about). A pity since the thermochemists who reviewed that paper probably read no further than the title and abstract before rejecting it, whereas apart from terminology the paper may be quite good on the merits! Michel ----- Original Message ----- From: "Michel Jullian" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> Sent: Thursday, March 15, 2007 7:05 AM Subject: [Vo]: Ed Storm's confusion (was Re: [Vo]: Cold Fusion skeptic Dr. Michael Shermer) > Do you still not see it Ed? > > Michel > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Michel Jullian" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> > Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2007 12:29 AM > Subject: Re: [Vo]: Cold Fusion skeptic Dr. Michael Shermer > > >> I'll let you find the error yourself it's quite obvious. Same error in the two quotes. >> >> Michel >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "Edmund Storms" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> To: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> >> Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2007 12:17 AM >> Subject: Re: [Vo]: Cold Fusion skeptic Dr. Michael Shermer >> ... >>>> -> Ed >>>> The title of your paper: >>>> "Anomalous Heat Produced by Electrolysis of Palladium using a Heavy-Water Electrolyte" >>>> comprises a surprising confusion in electrochemical terms. >>>> At least I thought it was only in the title until I read the abstract: >>>> "a sample of palladium foil was electrolyzed as the cathode in D2O+LiOD" >>>> Can you see your error Ed? I am just making sure you are like Jed and myself the humble type who gladly admit their errors and even go out of their way to do so, as a real scientist should, unlike two other famous CF researchers we know, who would rather die :) >>>> >>> >>> I don't see what your problem is. >>> >>> Ed >>> - >>>> Michel >> >> >
