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: <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
