So, this complex process you just described, whereby Li plates on and reacts with the Pd to form soluble alloys, these dissolve and the Pd is replated back on the cathode surface --- which indeed involves decomposition and electric current flowing through a solution, just like electrolysis! --- is in fact what your paper talks about principally, and that's why it says "electrolysis of palladium", right? Oh dear, how unfortunate, you forgot to mention this process in the paper!
I hope Profs. Fleischman and Pons did mention it in their paper, since you write in page 1 that in 1989 they too "electrolyzed a platinum anode, a palladium cathode, using a LiOD + D2O electrolyte". Note they seem to have beaten you, they even managed to electrolyze platinum, will you please explain the detailed process too? Apart from that, any electrolysis of heavy water going on, accessorily? ;-) Thanks for the good laugh Ed :)))) Michel ----- Original Message ----- From: "Edmund Storms" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, March 19, 2007 3:48 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]: Which is electrolyzed in P&F, palladium or heavy water? (was Re: [Vo]: Re: Your ad hominem attack) > > > Michel Jullian wrote: > >>>No decomposition is not the only definition. Electroplating is also >>>considered electrolysis. >> >> >> If by this you mean that electroplating >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electroplating is not electrical decomposition >> you are quite mistaken Ed, it is. What decomposes in electroplating is --as >> in any electrolysis-- the electrolyte, a metal salt solution whose metal >> component plates out on the cathode, by the dissolved positive metal ion >> acquiring one or more electrons from the power supply's negative pole to >> become solid metal. >> >> In one technique (but not all) electroplating also involves dissolution of >> the _anode_ as a way to replenish the ions in the bath. However in P&F >> experiments such as yours palladium is the _cathode_ so this phenomenon >> doesn't occur, therefore it cannot be invoked to say that palladium is being >> "electrolyzed". >> >> Controversy solved? > > > I now see the problem, you have not read or believe what I write. First > of all, I did not say that electroplating was not decomposition. I said > that electroplating is a another form of electrolysis. As to the issue > regarding palladium, palladium does in fact dissolve as the cathode. The > process begins by Li plating on and reacting with the Pd to form soluble > alloys. These dissolve and the Pd is replated back on the cathode > surface. The process is complex, but involves decomposition and electric > current flowing through a solution. Rather than insisting on your > interpretation being the only correct one, I suggest you expand your > viewpoint. I might point out I have been studying electrochemistry for > the past 18 years and do understand the subject. > > Ed >> >> Michel >> >> Lobbying for a proper use of the terms of electrochemistry --terms on which, >> which may explain my sensitivity to their misuse, I have become by chance a >> specialist cf my contributions to the anode and cathode articles on >> wikipedia-- and more generally for "calling a cat a cat" (sorry for being >> such a smug aristocratic French smart ass Terry) >> >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "Edmund Storms" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> To: <[email protected]> >> Sent: Sunday, March 18, 2007 7:10 PM >> Subject: Re: [Vo]: Re: Your ad hominem attack >> >> >> >>> >>>Michel Jullian wrote: >>> >>> >>>>----- Original Message ----- >>>>From: "Edmund Storms" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>>>To: <[email protected]> >>>>Sent: Sunday, March 18, 2007 3:52 PM >>>>Subject: Re: [Vo]: Re: Your ad hominem attack >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>>The issue of importance on Michel's mind is whether the word >>>>>electrolysis is being used correctly. >>>> >>>> >>>>I must be inhabited by Faraday's ghost ;-) >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>>He and I agree that the word >>>>>describes initiation of a chemical reaction by passage of current. >>>> >>>> >>>>Yes but not any reaction, check the definition, a reaction of decomposition. >>>>Decomposition of course is separation of a composed body into the elements >>>>it is composed of, e.g. D2O -> D2 + 0.5 O2 >>> >>>No decomposition is not the only definition. Electroplating is also >>>considered electrolysis. >>> >>>> >>>>>Thus, >>>>>H2O can be electrolyzed. In fact, palladium can also be electrolyzed >>>>>because it is chemically changed by passing current trough it in an >>>>>electrolytic cell, something Faraday did not know. The palladium reacts >>>>>to form PdD and it dissolves in the solution. >>>> >>>> >>>>Therefore it is not decomposed. Palladium cannot be decomposed BTW, as you >>>>know it is an element, not a composed body. >>> >>>Palladium is converted from a metal to an ion. D2O is converted from an >>>ion to neutral elements. The issue is only the direction of the reaction. >>> >>>> >>>>>Both reactions are >>>>>consistent with chemical reactions being initiated by flowing current. >>>>>Therefore, it is correct to say that palladium is being electrolyzed. >>>> >>>> >>>>It would only be correct if it was decomposed into constituting elements, >>>>which even if it was (it isn't because it can't as I said) would be of >>>>course a minor effect compared to the main decomposition that takes place, >>>>that of D2O, which would make your description about as accurate as >>>>"Dissolution of a mug" to describe an experiment where you dissolve sugar >>>>in your coffee. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>>The problem with Michel's approach is that he is unwilling to see beyond >>>>>the conventional and limited understanding of electrolysis while >>>>>maintaining that only he is correct in how the word is used. >>>> >>>> >>>>Not just me, me and all dictionaries and textbooks which say that >>>>electrolysis is electrochemical decomposition. >>> >>>I suggest the dictionaries are not up to date or at least not complete. >>> >>> >>>>Does this put an end to the controversy? >>> >>>I hope so. >>> >>>Ed >>> >>>>Michel >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>>Ed >>>>> >>>>>Terry Blanton wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>On 3/18/07, Michel Jullian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>>In the same book he also illustrated what I was saying yesterday BTW, >>>>>>>the fact that a good scientist always doubts :)) >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>Yes, but this whole issue has arisen because you French are so bloody >>>>>>anal about language. I have a contract administrator who is French >>>>>>and she is excellent in what she does. She speaks perfect english and >>>>>>will enter into heated arguments about some fine aspect of her second >>>>>>language. >>>>>> >>>>>>Indeed, she is usually correct in her argument; but, in the process, >>>>>>she alienates herself from her coworkers. She comes off as smug and >>>>>>aristrocratic. Sometimes it's better to let us wallow in our ignorant >>>>>>bliss. >>>>>> >>>>>>Terry >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>> >> >> >
