[Vo]: Which is electrolyzed in PF, palladium or heavy water? (was Re: [Vo]: Re: Your ad hominem attack)
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 PF 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? 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: vortex-l@eskimo.com 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: vortex-l@eskimo.com 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
Re: [Vo]: Which is electrolyzed in PF, palladium or heavy water? (was Re: [Vo]: Re: Your ad hominem attack)
On 3/19/07, Michel Jullian [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: (sorry for being such a smug aristocratic French smart ass Terry) (You should have placed a comma after 'smug', 'aristrocratic' and 'ass'.) I understand it is your nature. You can no more help it than a frog striking his ass every time he jumps (assuming he has his legs still). ;-) T
Re: [Vo]: Which is electrolyzed in PF, 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 PF 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: vortex-l@eskimo.com 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: vortex-l@eskimo.com 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
Re: [Vo]: Which is electrolyzed in PF, palladium or heavy water? (was Re: [Vo]: Re: Your ad hominem attack)
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: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Monday, March 19, 2007 3:48 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]: Which is electrolyzed in PF, 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 PF 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: vortex-l@eskimo.com 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: vortex-l@eskimo.com 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
Re: [Vo]: Which is electrolyzed in PF, 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: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Monday, March 19, 2007 3:48 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]: Which is electrolyzed in PF, 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 PF 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: vortex-l@eskimo.com 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: vortex-l@eskimo.com 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
Re: [Vo]: Which is electrolyzed in PF, palladium or heavy water? (was Re: [Vo]: Re: Your ad hominem attack)
Ed - I've been following this saga only sketchily, and it only reinforces my observation that there's an enormous number of people who regard this world as a gigantic court of law; that everything (every word) has to be legally justifiable. What a bore The world is NOT like that, and I for one don't tolerate being cross-examined on every word or statement I make. And neither should you. If people don't have (or are *above* having) an intuitive grasp of an idea or statement, that's just too bad. Neither you nor I, nor anyone else, should have to suffer an inquisition; even a so-called scientific inquisition. P. At 08:17 PM 3/19/2007, you wrote: 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: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Monday, March 19, 2007 3:48 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]: Which is electrolyzed in PF, 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 PF 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: vortex-l@eskimo.com 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: vortex-l@eskimo.com 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
Re: [Vo]: Which is electrolyzed in PF, palladium or heavy water? (was Re: [Vo]: Re: Your ad hominem attack)
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: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tuesday, March 20, 2007 1:17 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]: Which is electrolyzed in PF, 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: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Monday, March 19, 2007 3:48 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]: Which is electrolyzed in PF, 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 PF 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: vortex-l@eskimo.com 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: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sunday, March 18, 2007 3:52 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]: Re: Your ad hominem attack The issue of importance on Michel's
Re: [Vo]: Re: Your ad hominem attack
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
[Vo]: Re: Your ad hominem attack
You can call me smug if it pleases you but language has nothing to do with this, J'ai électrolysé du palladium would be just as silly as I have electrolyzed palladium :) Michel - Original Message - From: Terry Blanton [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sunday, March 18, 2007 2:19 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]: Re: Your ad hominem attack 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
Re: [Vo]: Re: Your ad hominem attack
The issue of importance on Michel's mind is whether the word electrolysis is being used correctly. He and I agree that the word describes initiation of a chemical reaction by passage of current. 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. Both reactions are consistent with chemical reactions being initiated by flowing current. Therefore, it is correct to say that palladium is being electrolyzed. 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. 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
[Vo]: Re: Your ad hominem attack
- Original Message - From: Edmund Storms [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 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 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. 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. Does this put an end to the controversy? 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
Re: [Vo]: Re: Your ad hominem attack
Michel Jullian wrote: - Original Message - From: Edmund Storms [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 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
RE: [Vo]: Re: Your ad hominem attack
Thank you for your unique insights Michel, I assume that excerpt had been inserted here for my own benefit. If by perchance you are the actual author I'd say you have a damned good career ahead of you as a SF writer, along with all of your current talents. I am impressed, honestly. Rest assured, I have been given assignments far more challenging than this on occasion. Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com To Steven Vincent Johnson, Share and enjoy (mask the bottom halves of the letters, and read them in the local language of Eadrax) Michel Share and Enjoy is the company motto of the hugely successful Sirius Cybernetics Corporation Complaints division, which now covers the major land masses of three medium sized planets and is the only part of the Corporation to have shown a consistent profit in recent years. The motto stands --- or rather stood --- in three mile high illuminated letters near the Complaints Department spaceport on Eadrax. Unfortunately its weight was such that shortly after it was erected, the ground beneath the letters caved in and they dropped for nearly half their length through the offices of many talented young complaints executives --- now deceased. The protruding upper halves of the letters now appear, in the local language, to read ``Go stick your head in a pig'', and are no longer illuminated, except at times of special celebration. - Original Message - From: Steven Vincent Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Friday, March 16, 2007 9:11 PM Subject: [Vo]: SUBJECT: Jullian Opinions To Michel Jullian, I noticed you recently stated: 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? I scanned through past posts pertaining to the subject thread: Ed Storm's confusion (was Re: [Vo]: Cold Fusion skeptic Dr. Michael Shermer). I see you have made additional posts since then. I gather from your repeated attempts to draw Ed Storms into a dialogue with you that you have extensive knowledge in the field of electrochemistry, that you wish to put your accumulated experience to good use. I'm definitely not speaking from a humble perspective when I strongly suggest that it is not in anyone's best interest to attempt to educate others in a potentially manipulative manner. To inform an individual that they have in your opinion made an error in their work (such as in the title), but then deliberately not tell them specifically what the so-called error might be, as you initially did, is equivalent to a form of manipulative drama on the high seas. Such dialogue, ironically, focus more of the attention on you and the importance of your opinions rather than on the alleged mistake that needs to be corrected. It seems to me that if your objective had been to achieve resolution of the mistake, you would have revealed the specifics of said mistake up front. What I found interesting was the fact that initially you chose not to do so - repeatedly. Repeatedly, you left it as a big mystery - an unfolding drama. That suggests a very different agenda other than having Ed ! Storm's best interests in mind. Performing drama of this nature in a public form should only be conducted by an experienced teacher. Indeed, teachers occasionally DO resort to this tactic if they are sure the students participating in the public dialogue will actually learn something valuable. The best teachers, the most honorable ones, have their student's best interests in mind. Others, on the other hand, who self-appoint themselves in the role of a teacher who then use this tactic on the targeted student are not so much interested in the welfare of their student or even in the learning process for that matter. They are more interested in propagating their personal opinions, attaching importance to them. Maybe you ARE a teacher, professionally speaking. I really don't know. Maybe you are even a GOOD teacher. Perhaps certain teachers really DO need the equivalent of an opinionated attention getting EGO in order to teach the good lessons. Nevertheless, a question you might want to ask yourself is: Did Ed Storm ever ask you to assume the role of a teacher for his educational benefit? And whose benefit was the initial exchange really meant for? Now that the incorrect use of terminology, the dirty laundry you attribute to Storm's title is finally out in the open, the ramifications for all to ponder deeply including your suggested corrections, I noticed you are now stating that his book contains absurdities, that if published as-is, could ...disgrace the lenr.org library. You are entitled to your opinions. With not so many Regards, Steven
Re: [Vo]: Re: Your ad hominem attack
Peace Steven, I am tired of this trial for crime of Lèse Majesté http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L%C3%A8se_majest%C3%A9 The excerpt was from The Restaurant at the End of the Universe by Douglas Adams, sorry I forgot to attribute it. Michel - Original Message - From: OrionWorks [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Saturday, March 17, 2007 4:51 PM Subject: RE: [Vo]: Re: Your ad hominem attack Thank you for your unique insights Michel, I assume that excerpt had been inserted here for my own benefit. If by
RE: [Vo]: Re: Your ad hominem attack
Peace Michel, as am I. Douglas Adams, of course! Why didn't I recognize his timeless satire. Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson www.orionworks.com -Original Message- From: Michel Jullian [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, March 17, 2007 10:21 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]: Re: Your ad hominem attack Peace Steven, I am tired of this trial for crime of Lèse Majesté http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L%C3%A8se_majest%C3%A9 The excerpt was from The Restaurant at the End of the Universe by Douglas Adams, sorry I forgot to attribute it. Michel - Original Message - From: OrionWorks [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Saturday, March 17, 2007 4:51 PM Subject: RE: [Vo]: Re: Your ad hominem attack Thank you for your unique insights Michel, I assume that excerpt had been inserted here for my own benefit. If by
Re: [Vo]: Re: Your ad hominem attack
On 3/17/07, OrionWorks [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Douglas Adams, of course! Why didn't I recognize his timeless satire. Not necessarily timeless; but, more likely, infinitely improbable. ;-) T
[Vo]: Re: Your ad hominem attack
To Steven Vincent Johnson, Share and enjoy (mask the bottom halves of the letters, and read them in the local language of Eadrax) Michel Share and Enjoy is the company motto of the hugely successful Sirius Cybernetics Corporation Complaints division, which now covers the major land masses of three medium sized planets and is the only part of the Corporation to have shown a consistent profit in recent years. The motto stands --- or rather stood --- in three mile high illuminated letters near the Complaints Department spaceport on Eadrax. Unfortunately its weight was such that shortly after it was erected, the ground beneath the letters caved in and they dropped for nearly half their length through the offices of many talented young complaints executives --- now deceased. The protruding upper halves of the letters now appear, in the local language, to read ``Go stick your head in a pig'', and are no longer illuminated, except at times of special celebration. - Original Message - From: Steven Vincent Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Friday, March 16, 2007 9:11 PM Subject: [Vo]: SUBJECT: Jullian Opinions To Michel Jullian, I noticed you recently stated: 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? I scanned through past posts pertaining to the subject thread: Ed Storm's confusion (was Re: [Vo]: Cold Fusion skeptic Dr. Michael Shermer). I see you have made additional posts since then. I gather from your repeated attempts to draw Ed Storms into a dialogue with you that you have extensive knowledge in the field of electrochemistry, that you wish to put your accumulated experience to good use. I'm definitely not speaking from a humble perspective when I strongly suggest that it is not in anyone's best interest to attempt to educate others in a potentially manipulative manner. To inform an individual that they have in your opinion made an error in their work (such as in the title), but then deliberately not tell them specifically what the so-called error might be, as you initially did, is equivalent to a form of manipulative drama on the high seas. Such dialogue, ironically, focus more of the attention on you and the importance of your opinions rather than on the alleged mistake that needs to be corrected. It seems to me that if your objective had been to achieve resolution of the mistake, you would have revealed the specifics of said mistake up front. What I found interesting was the fact that initially you chose not to do so - repeatedly. Repeatedly, you left it as a big mystery - an unfolding drama. That suggests a very different agenda other than having Ed ! Storm's best interests in mind. Performing drama of this nature in a public form should only be conducted by an experienced teacher. Indeed, teachers occasionally DO resort to this tactic if they are sure the students participating in the public dialogue will actually learn something valuable. The best teachers, the most honorable ones, have their student's best interests in mind. Others, on the other hand, who self-appoint themselves in the role of a teacher who then use this tactic on the targeted student are not so much interested in the welfare of their student or even in the learning process for that matter. They are more interested in propagating their personal opinions, attaching importance to them. Maybe you ARE a teacher, professionally speaking. I really don't know. Maybe you are even a GOOD teacher. Perhaps certain teachers really DO need the equivalent of an opinionated attention getting EGO in order to teach the good lessons. Nevertheless, a question you might want to ask yourself is: Did Ed Storm ever ask you to assume the role of a teacher for his educational benefit? And whose benefit was the initial exchange really meant for? Now that the incorrect use of terminology, the dirty laundry you attribute to Storm's title is finally out in the open, the ramifications for all to ponder deeply including your suggested corrections, I noticed you are now stating that his book contains absurdities, that if published as-is, could ...disgrace the lenr.org library. You are entitled to your opinions. With not so many Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com
