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: <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
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: <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
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
