[Vo]: Re: Ed Storm's confusion (was Re: [Vo]: Cold Fusion skeptic Dr. Michael Shermer)
A last word on this. It is true as was pointed out to me that correct original definition and dictionaries and textbooks are one thing, and usage is another thing. So it seemed to me only fair to check current usage as well. To Ed's discharge, a quick Google search shows that several other CF researchers e.g. J. Dash also write "electrolysis of palladium", although the vast majority of them, especially the professional electrochemists among them e.g. M. Fleischmann, write "electrolysis of heavy water" for P&F type experiments. Outside of CF Ed's use is much rarer (a handful of hits for "electrolysis of platinum", hundreds of thousands for "electrolysis of water") Anyway I would be happy if I could have modestly contributed to a better use of electrochemical terms in CF, since such better use and more rigorous scientific practises in general could only help recognition of CF research in mainstream science, which we would all welcome heartily. Michel P.S. Interestingly this discussion has shown that rightness or wrongness is not absolute but largely depends on who says, and on who hears. If a Dr Tempests had said "I have analyzed a blood tester using blood" everybody would have agreed he was wrong. Here Dr Storms said "I have electrolyzed palladium using D2O" and hardly anybody here even considered that he might be wrong. Even more interestingly maybe, Ed himself still doesn't seem to admit he could have been wrong or even a little inaccurate in his use of the terms, in spite of what Faraday and all present day dictionaries and textbooks may say. This is unfortunate for a scientist who in my view should always doubt. - Original Message - From: "Michel Jullian" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Saturday, March 17, 2007 2:43 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]: Re: Ed Storm's confusion (was Re: [Vo]: Cold Fusion skeptic Dr. Michael Shermer) Yo Jed, it's not a matter of telling someone how to speak his native language. The vocabulary of science is meant to allow accurate communication between scientists, so that e.g. when one says "electrolyzed" or "excess heat" it means the same thing to everybody. Now Faraday lived a long time ago, that's true. Words do change over time, but when they do, traces of such changes usually can be found in recent dictionaries. Let's pick one at random: http://www.thefreedictionary.com/electrolyze e·lec·tro·lyze (-lktr-lz) tr.v. e·lec·tro·lyzed, e·lec·tro·lyz·ing, e·lec·tro·lyz·es To cause to decompose by electrolysis. Short of writing one up yourself, can you find a dictionary where the definition of 'electrolyze' is so different from the above that it could even remotely apply to the electrode rather than to the electrolyte? When you electrolyzed water at school, did you in fact electrolyze platinum? Does your car drive you? Someone has attacked me, virulently, not on the merits of my contribution, but on the way I communicated it with the drama and all. I will reply that all Ed had to do, instead of replying he didn't see what my problem was, was reach for a dictionary to see what the hell I could mean, realize his error, and reply gruffly but honestly "right, my mistake, it's the D2O which is electrolyzed" and there would have been no drama. That's what I expected him to do, like I would have expected any scientist, because that's what I would have done in his place. Now should scientists criticize each other over scientific communications? I think so, and I think CF in particular would be in better health if there had been less leniency towards each other's mistakes. Michel - Original Message ----- From: "Jed Rothwell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: ; Sent: Friday, March 16, 2007 9:15 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]: Re: Ed Storm's confusion (was Re: [Vo]: Cold Fusion skeptic Dr. Michael Shermer) > Michel Jullian wrote: > >>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. > > Yo, Michel: Don't tell a native speaker how to speak his own > language. Words mean whatever we say they mean, and they are used > however we use them. Words change over time. Faraday lived a long time ago. > > - Jed >
Re: [Vo]: Re: Ed Storm's confusion (was Re: [Vo]: Cold Fusion skeptic Dr. Michael Shermer)
Yo Jed, it's not a matter of telling someone how to speak his native language. The vocabulary of science is meant to allow accurate communication between scientists, so that e.g. when one says "electrolyzed" or "excess heat" it means the same thing to everybody. Now Faraday lived a long time ago, that's true. Words do change over time, but when they do, traces of such changes usually can be found in recent dictionaries. Let's pick one at random: http://www.thefreedictionary.com/electrolyze e·lec·tro·lyze (-lktr-lz) tr.v. e·lec·tro·lyzed, e·lec·tro·lyz·ing, e·lec·tro·lyz·es To cause to decompose by electrolysis. Short of writing one up yourself, can you find a dictionary where the definition of 'electrolyze' is so different from the above that it could even remotely apply to the electrode rather than to the electrolyte? When you electrolyzed water at school, did you in fact electrolyze platinum? Does your car drive you? Someone has attacked me, virulently, not on the merits of my contribution, but on the way I communicated it with the drama and all. I will reply that all Ed had to do, instead of replying he didn't see what my problem was, was reach for a dictionary to see what the hell I could mean, realize his error, and reply gruffly but honestly "right, my mistake, it's the D2O which is electrolyzed" and there would have been no drama. That's what I expected him to do, like I would have expected any scientist, because that's what I would have done in his place. Now should scientists criticize each other over scientific communications? I think so, and I think CF in particular would be in better health if there had been less leniency towards each other's mistakes. Michel - Original Message - From: "Jed Rothwell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: ; Sent: Friday, March 16, 2007 9:15 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]: Re: Ed Storm's confusion (was Re: [Vo]: Cold Fusion skeptic Dr. Michael Shermer) > Michel Jullian wrote: > >>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. > > Yo, Michel: Don't tell a native speaker how to speak his own > language. Words mean whatever we say they mean, and they are used > however we use them. Words change over time. Faraday lived a long time ago. > > - Jed >
Re: [Vo]: Re: Ed Storm's confusion (was Re: [Vo]: Cold Fusion skeptic Dr. Michael Shermer)
Michel Jullian wrote: 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. Yo, Michel: Don't tell a native speaker how to speak his own language. Words mean whatever we say they mean, and they are used however we use them. Words change over time. Faraday lived a long time ago. - Jed
Re: [Vo]: Re: Ed Storm's confusion (was Re: [Vo]: Cold Fusion skeptic Dr. Michael Shermer)
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: 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: >> 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: >> 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 >> >> >
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: 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: 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
Re: [Vo]: Re: Ed Storm's confusion (was Re: [Vo]: Cold Fusion skeptic Dr. Michael Shermer)
Michel, It might be more helpful if you would say how you would title the paper. Harry 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: > 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: > 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 >
[Vo]: Re: Ed Storm's confusion (was Re: [Vo]: Cold Fusion skeptic Dr. Michael Shermer)
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: 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: 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
[Vo]: Re: Ed Storm's confusion (was Re: [Vo]: Cold Fusion skeptic Dr. Michael Shermer)
- Original Message - From: "Edmund Storms" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: 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
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 Michel Jullian wrote: 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: 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: 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: 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
[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: 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: > 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: >> 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 >> >> >
