No Ed, I didn't find it interesting to show that the words electrolysis and electrolyzed were misused, the painful exchange on this very unininteresting point should have lasted no more than a handful of lines. As you know it was you who made this discussion last for ages, deliberately making me look like a nasty guy torturing poor Ed with great pleasure.
I am glad this minor controversy is over, let's go back to science I agree heartily, I just hope it won't take this long to solve any controversies that may arise on science itself. Michel ----- Original Message ----- From: "Edmund Storms" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, March 20, 2007 1:17 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]: Which is electrolyzed in P&F, palladium or heavy water? (was Re: [Vo]: Re: Your ad hominem attack) > > > Michel Jullian wrote: > >> 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 :)))) > > You many find this funny. I, on the other hand, find your approach very > sad. Your primary interest has been to show that my use of a word is > wrong. Apparently, the results described in the paper in which this word > is used have no value at all to you. You initially asked some good > questions that I accepted as honest interest. When I supplied the > information you requested, the only issue was my use of a word. Am I > mistaken or has Vortex ceased to be where science is discussed? > > 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 >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>> >> >> >
