Re: [Vo]: Cold Fusion skeptic Dr. Michael Shermer
Not pressing you for an answer but I don't follow your reasoning Ed. I would think early superconductivity researchers answered 10°K right away when asked about their transition temperature. If they had been evasive, I doubt further research would have been financed. Or what am I missing? Michel - Original Message - From: Michel Jullian [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sunday, March 11, 2007 1:37 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]: Cold Fusion skeptic Dr. Michael Shermer CF is not at the What's the good stage yet I am afraid. What was the COP then? Michel - Original Message - From: Edmund Storms [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sunday, March 11, 2007 12:16 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]: Cold Fusion skeptic Dr. Michael Shermer ... What was the magnitude of your last heat production BTW, in terms of COP? These are the wrong questions to ask. This is like asking about superconductivity 20 years ago and rejecting the answer when the transition temperature is quoted as being only 10°K. What's the good of such a low temperature you would ask. After many millions of dollars and thousands of man hours, superconductivity is a practical technology. No one at the time believed the transition temperature could be increased to near room temperature. Yet people kept working and are now gradually succeeding. Cold fusion is real. When the conditions are understood, the effect will be huge and will work every time. Or you can believe the effect is pure nonsense and never make an effort to improve the results. The people who succeed will be very wealthy and the people who reject the idea will look like fools. Your choice. Regards, Ed Michel - Original Message - From: Edmund Storms [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Saturday, March 10, 2007 8:12 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]: Cold Fusion skeptic Dr. Michael Shermer My last successful heat production was about 6 months ago. At the present time, the effect is initiated by chance when the required conditions happen to be in place. We do not yet know how to create the conditions on purpose. However, I can tell you a lot of conditions that don't work, conditions worth avoiding. Also, some conditions are more likely to work than others, but not every time. This problem is not caused by error or by cold fusion not being real. It is caused solely by ignorance. People who have the financial support to run many studies are having increased success, but still not every time. Like all complex phenomenon, parameter space is huge and success only happens after a considerable investment of time and money. This investment has not been applied, thanks to the skeptics. Ed Michel Jullian wrote: Paul probably meant in your experience, could you e.g. relate when you last witnessed the effect personally Ed? Michel - Original Message - From: Edmund Storms [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Saturday, March 10, 2007 6:57 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]: Cold Fusion skeptic Dr. Michael Shermer In answer to your question, cold fusion is real. In fact it is more real than is the uninformed opinion of Michael Shermer. By this I mean, cold fusion is a phenomenon of nature that has been witnessed now by hundreds of people. Obviously, Michael Shermer has not taken the responsibility to learn about the field even thought he prides himself on being an honest skeptic. As a result, it is hard to believe anything he says about any subject. A book entitled The Science of Low Energy Nuclear Reaction will be published soon by World Scientific Publishers that will summarize the evidence for the reality of cold fusion and give a plausible model for its initiation. Regards, Ed Storms Paul Lowrance wrote: Did anyone listen to Coast to Coast AM (replay) last night where the skeptic Michael Shermer, director of The Skeptics Society, kept using Cold Fusion as a prime example of a debacle hoax. For those working in cold fusion, is cold fusion real? Regards, Paul Lowrance
Re: [Vo]: Ozone and isotopes of O by microwave exitation
Ozone O3 is a well known chemical product of air discharges, whether MW induced or otherwise, but isotopes certainly aren't, did the OP really mean isotopes??? Michel - Original Message - From: Jones Beene [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sunday, March 11, 2007 3:42 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]: Ozone and isotopes of O by microwave exitation Using the 'find similar' feature on the Harvard Site, this one comes up: http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-bib_query?bibcode=1999SPIE.3571..229Bamp;db_key=PHYamp;data_type=HTMLamp;format=amp;high=45f369a03b24421 Interesting that there are dozens of these papers, coming out of Russia and former allies... and few from elsewhere. Not that they have anything to do with weather modification, or anything like that... ... not sure exactly what angle, exactly, our former enemies were going for, unless they know something that is not obvious. Creating ozone in the upper atmosphere is generally seen as a good thing, so perhaps one should not be cynical about their ultimate motives. ... or in the spy-vs-spy tradition, maybe the ozone is some kind of countermeasure against out noble intentions... HAARP and all ;-) Zachary Jones wrote: http://www.springerlink.com/content/l36272x3106h58p5/ http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1991SvJPP..17.1159S On 3/11/2007, R.C.Macaulay [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Howdy Vorts, I cannot find the source, but I recall reading somewhere that experiments using microwave have produced ozone gas and isotopes of Oxygen up to O7. Anyone know about such a process ?
Re: [Vo]: Outrage !!
Kyle R. Mcallister wrote: Then give me my Monte Carlo back and tax me less, with 28mpg average, and even less if and when I drive the efficiency up higher. Of course people who drive more efficient cars should pay less! That is my point. People who walk should pay practially nothing. Beg to differ here. And in case you didn't notice, this is not Europe nor Japan. We are no less clever or resourceful than they are. I do not think Americans require special coddling. If they can pay the full cost for their energy, we can too. You are saying that the rest of us to pay for your lifestyle. The hell I am. I work for a living and pay my taxes . . . But not enough to cover the cost of pollution or the war -- which is mainly a war for oil. That is why the nation runs a deficit, and why the pollution problem has not been fixed. To where? Most of us cannot afford to leave...transitioning means time with no income, and the cost to move. That's why I said the rest of the country has to help, for a while. If I move X miles, under your system, I also have to pay X mileage tax. Either YOU pay it, or I pay it. Since you are the one who is moving you should pay it. I pay for my car, my fuel, upkeep and repairs on my own, you don't. No you do not. That's the problem. Your fuel costs you $2 per gallon and it costs the rest of us $3 extra in hidden costs. You are forcing the rest of us to bail you out. As far as global warming, I don't want to hear it. It is still being debated, and should be. No it should not. It is a sure thing. You might as well debate whether cold fusion is real. As far as pollution, some of us are actively trying to find ways to reduce it or get rid of it by experimentation. Do you do experiments, or just rock back and forth in your chair and shout orders to us dirty, polluting little people? What are YOU doing to make a difference? I am helping people do cold fusion experiments, in many ways. Can't be made economical with today's technologyyet it worked 50 years ago. Exactly. Resources are scarcer. The Chinese and Indians now want oil and they can afford to buy it. Technology is ever changing. How about Pelosi and her jet she has been demanding? You and the media have this story backwards. She wants to ride commercial jets. The government asked her to take a small government jet instead for security reseans. She said 'either provide a larger jet or I will take a commercial flight.' I think the security should butt out an let her fly commercial. There is no significant danger. Why are you preaching to me about help lasting for 20 years? I was the one who complained about multitudes of blacks and other minorities on welfare for no reason other than not wanting to work. Why do you not see that YOU too want something for nothing? You want us to put you on permanent welfare and support your oil addiction, and let you live in a part of the country where there is not enough work. I do not see any difference between your demands and the demands of people who do not want to work at all. Both of you cost me. At least the people who do not work are not polluting or forcing us into war in the Middle East. Frankly, I would rather pay you to sit on your butt than to burn up lots of gasoline. There is no reason we cannot make synthetic fuels using energy derived from solar power, as far as I know. I think it would be more practical to use the solar power directly, for electricity and heat. To make synthetic fuel nuclear energy might be a better choice. This has nothing to do with how the middle and lower class people live their lives, it has to do with the people on top not being willing to get off their asses and do something about it. Only the top people at U.S. corporations. Toyota is selling hundreds of thousands of Prius automobiles. If everyone drove one, the U.S. would be exporting oil. GM is selling SUVs. Our corporations and consumers are at fault. Some leaders in the U.S., such as the U.S. Toyota managers, and some U.S. consumers -- such as me -- have done a lot to fix these problems. Actually Cold fusion ain't the damned answer either, and it looks like it never will be in the forseeable future. I disagree. If it has been developed properly starting in 1989, I am pretty sure that by now it would supply most of energy, or all of our energy. Post something here explaining exactly how to do it and make it generate enough excess heat to boil me a pot of coffee . . . I have posted 500 papers explaining exactly how to do it. No one on earth has circulated more information about cold fusion than I. Of course it is not easy, and you cannot reduce it to single formula, but that is true of all other energy systems and complex technology. I cannot post a message here explaining exactly how to make a Pentium processor or a nuclear fission reactor either. Dog eat dog, eh? Ok. How about a federal ban on any
[Vo]: Re: Ozone and isotopes of O by microwave exitation
BlankThanks Vorts, For the response. My interest in ozone gas is for disinfection of water. The ozone in atmosphere is another study. Isotopes of O make for some interesting study also. Hmmm O6 for example.. such a strange beast to be lurking in the shadows. Richard - Original Message - From: R.C.Macaulay To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Saturday, March 10, 2007 8:15 PM Subject: [Vo]: Ozone and isotopes of O by microwave exitation Howdy Vorts, I cannot find the source, but I recall reading somewhere that experiments using microwave have produced ozone gas and isotopes of Oxygen up to O7. Anyone know about such a process ? Richard -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 268.18.8/716 - Release Date: 3/9/2007 6:53 PM Blank Bkgrd.gif Description: GIF image
[Vo]: Re: Re: Ozone and isotopes of O by microwave exitation
Are you into the design of an ozonizer Richard? O6 is not an oxygen isotope BTW, isotopes of oxygen are 12-O to 28-O (I put in the hyphen so they don't look like 120 and 280): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isotopes_of_oxygen I imagine O6 must be an unstable molecule of oxygen, just like ozone O3. Michel - Original Message - From: R.C.Macaulay [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sunday, March 11, 2007 3:41 PM Subject: [Vo]: Re: Ozone and isotopes of O by microwave exitation BlankThanks Vorts, For the response. My interest in ozone gas is for disinfection of water. The ozone in atmosphere is another study. Isotopes of O make for some interesting study also. Hmmm O6 for example.. such a strange beast to be lurking in the shadows. Richard - Original Message - From: R.C.Macaulay To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Saturday, March 10, 2007 8:15 PM Subject: [Vo]: Ozone and isotopes of O by microwave exitation Howdy Vorts, I cannot find the source, but I recall reading somewhere that experiments using microwave have produced ozone gas and isotopes of Oxygen up to O7. Anyone know about such a process ? Richard -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 268.18.8/716 - Release Date: 3/9/2007 6:53 PM
Re: [Vo]: Cold Fusion skeptic Dr. Michael Shermer
Michel, no one is being evasive. The data have been made public in many publications. I identify over 1000 in my book. People who are truly interested in the subject can read my reviews and get the answers to most of their questions. Many people have done this and a few who are wealthy enough are putting money into the research. The problem of acceptance involves people who will not read the literature or are not able to understand the information. Of course, a few people, such as Shermer do not want the effect to be real because the myth is too useful to their skeptical view of science. In any case, if you want answers to your questions, read my reviews or buy my book. Regards, Ed Michel Jullian wrote: Not pressing you for an answer but I don't follow your reasoning Ed. I would think early superconductivity researchers answered 10°K right away when asked about their transition temperature. If they had been evasive, I doubt further research would have been financed. Or what am I missing? Michel - Original Message - From: Michel Jullian [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sunday, March 11, 2007 1:37 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]: Cold Fusion skeptic Dr. Michael Shermer CF is not at the What's the good stage yet I am afraid. What was the COP then? Michel - Original Message - From: Edmund Storms [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sunday, March 11, 2007 12:16 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]: Cold Fusion skeptic Dr. Michael Shermer ... What was the magnitude of your last heat production BTW, in terms of COP? These are the wrong questions to ask. This is like asking about superconductivity 20 years ago and rejecting the answer when the transition temperature is quoted as being only 10°K. What's the good of such a low temperature you would ask. After many millions of dollars and thousands of man hours, superconductivity is a practical technology. No one at the time believed the transition temperature could be increased to near room temperature. Yet people kept working and are now gradually succeeding. Cold fusion is real. When the conditions are understood, the effect will be huge and will work every time. Or you can believe the effect is pure nonsense and never make an effort to improve the results. The people who succeed will be very wealthy and the people who reject the idea will look like fools. Your choice. Regards, Ed Michel - Original Message - From: Edmund Storms [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Saturday, March 10, 2007 8:12 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]: Cold Fusion skeptic Dr. Michael Shermer My last successful heat production was about 6 months ago. At the present time, the effect is initiated by chance when the required conditions happen to be in place. We do not yet know how to create the conditions on purpose. However, I can tell you a lot of conditions that don't work, conditions worth avoiding. Also, some conditions are more likely to work than others, but not every time. This problem is not caused by error or by cold fusion not being real. It is caused solely by ignorance. People who have the financial support to run many studies are having increased success, but still not every time. Like all complex phenomenon, parameter space is huge and success only happens after a considerable investment of time and money. This investment has not been applied, thanks to the skeptics. Ed Michel Jullian wrote: Paul probably meant in your experience, could you e.g. relate when you last witnessed the effect personally Ed? Michel - Original Message - From: Edmund Storms [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Saturday, March 10, 2007 6:57 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]: Cold Fusion skeptic Dr. Michael Shermer In answer to your question, cold fusion is real. In fact it is more real than is the uninformed opinion of Michael Shermer. By this I mean, cold fusion is a phenomenon of nature that has been witnessed now by hundreds of people. Obviously, Michael Shermer has not taken the responsibility to learn about the field even thought he prides himself on being an honest skeptic. As a result, it is hard to believe anything he says about any subject. A book entitled The Science of Low Energy Nuclear Reaction will be published soon by World Scientific Publishers that will summarize the evidence for the reality of cold fusion and give a plausible model for its initiation. Regards, Ed Storms Paul Lowrance wrote: Did anyone listen to Coast to Coast AM (replay) last night where the skeptic Michael Shermer, director of The Skeptics Society, kept using Cold Fusion as a prime example of a debacle hoax. For those working in cold fusion, is cold fusion real? Regards, Paul Lowrance
Re: [Vo]: Cold Fusion skeptic Dr. Michael Shermer
No, no, I was asking specifically about your last overunity COP, which you got personally 6 months ago. I know about your reviews, they are available on lenr.org. Michel - Original Message - From: Edmund Storms [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sunday, March 11, 2007 4:57 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]: Cold Fusion skeptic Dr. Michael Shermer Michel, no one is being evasive. The data have been made public in many publications. I identify over 1000 in my book. People who are truly interested in the subject can read my reviews and get the answers to most of their questions. Many people have done this and a few who are wealthy enough are putting money into the research. The problem of acceptance involves people who will not read the literature or are not able to understand the information. Of course, a few people, such as Shermer do not want the effect to be real because the myth is too useful to their skeptical view of science. In any case, if you want answers to your questions, read my reviews or buy my book. Regards, Ed Michel Jullian wrote: Not pressing you for an answer but I don't follow your reasoning Ed. I would think early superconductivity researchers answered 10°K right away when asked about their transition temperature. If they had been evasive, I doubt further research would have been financed. Or what am I missing? Michel - Original Message - From: Michel Jullian [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sunday, March 11, 2007 1:37 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]: Cold Fusion skeptic Dr. Michael Shermer CF is not at the What's the good stage yet I am afraid. What was the COP then? Michel - Original Message - From: Edmund Storms [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sunday, March 11, 2007 12:16 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]: Cold Fusion skeptic Dr. Michael Shermer ... What was the magnitude of your last heat production BTW, in terms of COP? These are the wrong questions to ask. This is like asking about superconductivity 20 years ago and rejecting the answer when the transition temperature is quoted as being only 10°K. What's the good of such a low temperature you would ask. After many millions of dollars and thousands of man hours, superconductivity is a practical technology. No one at the time believed the transition temperature could be increased to near room temperature. Yet people kept working and are now gradually succeeding. Cold fusion is real. When the conditions are understood, the effect will be huge and will work every time. Or you can believe the effect is pure nonsense and never make an effort to improve the results. The people who succeed will be very wealthy and the people who reject the idea will look like fools. Your choice. Regards, Ed Michel - Original Message - From: Edmund Storms [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Saturday, March 10, 2007 8:12 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]: Cold Fusion skeptic Dr. Michael Shermer My last successful heat production was about 6 months ago. At the present time, the effect is initiated by chance when the required conditions happen to be in place. We do not yet know how to create the conditions on purpose. However, I can tell you a lot of conditions that don't work, conditions worth avoiding. Also, some conditions are more likely to work than others, but not every time. This problem is not caused by error or by cold fusion not being real. It is caused solely by ignorance. People who have the financial support to run many studies are having increased success, but still not every time. Like all complex phenomenon, parameter space is huge and success only happens after a considerable investment of time and money. This investment has not been applied, thanks to the skeptics. Ed Michel Jullian wrote: Paul probably meant in your experience, could you e.g. relate when you last witnessed the effect personally Ed? Michel - Original Message - From: Edmund Storms [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Saturday, March 10, 2007 6:57 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]: Cold Fusion skeptic Dr. Michael Shermer In answer to your question, cold fusion is real. In fact it is more real than is the uninformed opinion of Michael Shermer. By this I mean, cold fusion is a phenomenon of nature that has been witnessed now by hundreds of people. Obviously, Michael Shermer has not taken the responsibility to learn about the field even thought he prides himself on being an honest skeptic. As a result, it is hard to believe anything he says about any subject. A book entitled The Science of Low Energy Nuclear Reaction will be published soon by World Scientific Publishers that will summarize the evidence for the reality of cold fusion and give a plausible model for its initiation. Regards, Ed Storms Paul Lowrance wrote: Did anyone listen to Coast to Coast AM (replay) last night where the skeptic Michael
Re: [Vo]: Outrage !!
- Original Message - From: Jed Rothwell [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-l@eskimo.com; vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sunday, March 11, 2007 8:50 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]: Outrage !! But not enough to cover the cost of pollution or the war -- which is mainly a war for oil. That is why the nation runs a deficit, and why the pollution problem has not been fixed. I seriously doubt that the hidden costs of your use of electricity is completely covered by what you pay. Want to pay more? Say, $500-600 per month more? Much electricity is derived from oil, and almost all of it is from fossil fuels. You get no free ride either, buddy. But again, of course it is different when it is YOU. Either YOU pay it, or I pay it. Since you are the one who is moving you should pay it. If I have to pay for something, then you have no say over what I do. If you or anyone else attempts to have a say, it better not be within striking range of myself, or there will be a serious problem. I pay for my car, my fuel, upkeep and repairs on my own, you don't. No you do not. That's the problem. Your fuel costs you $2 per gallon and it costs the rest of us $3 extra in hidden costs. You are forcing the rest of us to bail you out. Buses and trains use fossil fuels as well. As I said above, so does most electricity in this nation, and the world in fact...particularly the hell than is China...with their coal plants they must be accruing a SERIOUS hidden cost... maybe we should destroy that nation entirely for the good of the planet? Logic such as yours can be dragged out to ridiculous extremes. Again, you want to pay a few hundred extra per month for electricity? No? Then screw off attempting to control our lives. As far as global warming, I don't want to hear it. It is still being debated, and should be. No it should not. It is a sure thing. You might as well debate whether cold fusion is real. Tell that to Freeman Dyson, Richard Lindzen, Fred Singer, etc. They question what is going on. I suppose you think they are all idiots. People like Park feel the same way about cold fusion researchers. There is no black and white here, we need far more studies and less talk, and to not try and destroy our civilization in the process...which is what your plan will do. You really don't get it do you? If you put that kind of tax on travel, you will DESTROY the US economy overnight. People will starve, riot, the cities will burn. People are already getting tired of the crap they have to put up with from the lazy on the one hand, and the high-minded on the other hand. They will not keep putting up with more forever. Your tax will also affect heavy trucking across state lines, so the price of food for you to eat will skyrocket as well. Do you really understand that you can't just play around with values and settings in the real world economy like that? It is not self-correcting forever. Prod it too much and it will crash sadistic sarcasm...much like the climate will crash if I crank my Buick up later todayheh heh heh. /sadistic sarcasm I am helping people do cold fusion experiments, in many ways. Do tell. Exactly. Resources are scarcer. The Chinese and Indians now want oil and they can afford to buy it. Technology is ever changing. And of course, they can burn it without having to pay the hidden costs the rest of us have to pay forKyoto exemption being but one weasel-out they get. Anyone with half a brain can see that carbon-credit trading is political and profit driven. It has little or nothing to do with actually changing things. You and the media have this story backwards. She wants to ride commercial jets. The government asked her to take a small government jet instead for security reseans. She said 'either provide a larger jet or I will take a commercial flight.' I think the security should butt out an let her fly commercial. There is no significant danger. Now I did not know that. I would have expected the media to have defended her, as one of their own. Probably the truth didn't make a very interesting story, however. Shame on me for listening to the mass media. Why do you not see that YOU too want something for nothing? So do you, we are all interconnected. You want us to put you on permanent welfare and support your oil addiction, and let you live in a part of the country where there is not enough work. I do not see any difference between your demands and the demands of people who do not want to work at all. Both of you cost me. At least the people who do not work are not polluting or forcing us into war in the Middle East. Frankly, I would rather pay you to sit on your butt than to burn up lots of gasoline. You see no difference between people who provide a service to the people around them, by working and making a product for the consumer to consume (sometimes literally) and people who say screw it, I'm gonna sit on my ass and do nothing?
[Vo]: Re: Ozone and isotopes of O by microwave exitation
Both studies sent deal with ozone production in a controlled air space, then extrapolate it to the upper atmosphere. Many commercial ozone producers for water purification feed the produced gased through the water in a way that encourages mixing. Would you be unveiling a master plan to mention what you need that a commercial ozone unit won't provide? Zak
Re: [Vo]: Cold Fusion skeptic Dr. Michael Shermer
Excess energy from electrolysis is seldom over unity. Energy in excess of that applied to the cell is the only important measurement during such studies. My latest excess energy is about 2.5 W for a calorimeter with an error of about 25 mW. The cell was not designed to maximize the efficiency. Therefore, the Power out/Power in ratio has no meaning. Ed Michel Jullian wrote: No, no, I was asking specifically about your last overunity COP, which you got personally 6 months ago. I know about your reviews, they are available on lenr.org. Michel - Original Message - From: Edmund Storms [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sunday, March 11, 2007 4:57 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]: Cold Fusion skeptic Dr. Michael Shermer Michel, no one is being evasive. The data have been made public in many publications. I identify over 1000 in my book. People who are truly interested in the subject can read my reviews and get the answers to most of their questions. Many people have done this and a few who are wealthy enough are putting money into the research. The problem of acceptance involves people who will not read the literature or are not able to understand the information. Of course, a few people, such as Shermer do not want the effect to be real because the myth is too useful to their skeptical view of science. In any case, if you want answers to your questions, read my reviews or buy my book. Regards, Ed Michel Jullian wrote: Not pressing you for an answer but I don't follow your reasoning Ed. I would think early superconductivity researchers answered 10°K right away when asked about their transition temperature. If they had been evasive, I doubt further research would have been financed. Or what am I missing? Michel - Original Message - From: Michel Jullian [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sunday, March 11, 2007 1:37 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]: Cold Fusion skeptic Dr. Michael Shermer CF is not at the What's the good stage yet I am afraid. What was the COP then? Michel - Original Message - From: Edmund Storms [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sunday, March 11, 2007 12:16 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]: Cold Fusion skeptic Dr. Michael Shermer ... What was the magnitude of your last heat production BTW, in terms of COP? These are the wrong questions to ask. This is like asking about superconductivity 20 years ago and rejecting the answer when the transition temperature is quoted as being only 10°K. What's the good of such a low temperature you would ask. After many millions of dollars and thousands of man hours, superconductivity is a practical technology. No one at the time believed the transition temperature could be increased to near room temperature. Yet people kept working and are now gradually succeeding. Cold fusion is real. When the conditions are understood, the effect will be huge and will work every time. Or you can believe the effect is pure nonsense and never make an effort to improve the results. The people who succeed will be very wealthy and the people who reject the idea will look like fools. Your choice. Regards, Ed Michel - Original Message - From: Edmund Storms [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Saturday, March 10, 2007 8:12 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]: Cold Fusion skeptic Dr. Michael Shermer My last successful heat production was about 6 months ago. At the present time, the effect is initiated by chance when the required conditions happen to be in place. We do not yet know how to create the conditions on purpose. However, I can tell you a lot of conditions that don't work, conditions worth avoiding. Also, some conditions are more likely to work than others, but not every time. This problem is not caused by error or by cold fusion not being real. It is caused solely by ignorance. People who have the financial support to run many studies are having increased success, but still not every time. Like all complex phenomenon, parameter space is huge and success only happens after a considerable investment of time and money. This investment has not been applied, thanks to the skeptics. Ed Michel Jullian wrote: Paul probably meant in your experience, could you e.g. relate when you last witnessed the effect personally Ed? Michel - Original Message - From: Edmund Storms [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Saturday, March 10, 2007 6:57 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]: Cold Fusion skeptic Dr. Michael Shermer In answer to your question, cold fusion is real. In fact it is more real than is the uninformed opinion of Michael Shermer. By this I mean, cold fusion is a phenomenon of nature that has been witnessed now by hundreds of people. Obviously, Michael Shermer has not taken the responsibility to learn about the field even thought he prides himself on being an honest skeptic. As a result, it is hard to believe anything he says about any
Re: [Vo]: Cold Fusion skeptic Dr. Michael Shermer
Thanks Ed, to get a better picture I would have liked to know at least an order of magnitude of the input (or output) power too, I mean is it closer to 100W or to 1kW? Also, among your published CF experiments on LENR.org, which one in your opinion presents the best evidence of excess heat? Michel - Original Message - From: Edmund Storms [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sunday, March 11, 2007 8:44 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]: Cold Fusion skeptic Dr. Michael Shermer Excess energy from electrolysis is seldom over unity. Energy in excess of that applied to the cell is the only important measurement during such studies. My latest excess energy is about 2.5 W for a calorimeter with an error of about 25 mW. The cell was not designed to maximize the efficiency. Therefore, the Power out/Power in ratio has no meaning. Ed Michel Jullian wrote: No, no, I was asking specifically about your last overunity COP, which you got personally 6 months ago. I know about your reviews, they are available on lenr.org. Michel - Original Message - From: Edmund Storms [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sunday, March 11, 2007 4:57 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]: Cold Fusion skeptic Dr. Michael Shermer Michel, no one is being evasive. The data have been made public in many publications. I identify over 1000 in my book. People who are truly interested in the subject can read my reviews and get the answers to most of their questions. Many people have done this and a few who are wealthy enough are putting money into the research. The problem of acceptance involves people who will not read the literature or are not able to understand the information. Of course, a few people, such as Shermer do not want the effect to be real because the myth is too useful to their skeptical view of science. In any case, if you want answers to your questions, read my reviews or buy my book. Regards, Ed Michel Jullian wrote: Not pressing you for an answer but I don't follow your reasoning Ed. I would think early superconductivity researchers answered 10°K right away when asked about their transition temperature. If they had been evasive, I doubt further research would have been financed. Or what am I missing? Michel - Original Message - From: Michel Jullian [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sunday, March 11, 2007 1:37 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]: Cold Fusion skeptic Dr. Michael Shermer CF is not at the What's the good stage yet I am afraid. What was the COP then? Michel - Original Message - From: Edmund Storms [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sunday, March 11, 2007 12:16 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]: Cold Fusion skeptic Dr. Michael Shermer ... What was the magnitude of your last heat production BTW, in terms of COP? These are the wrong questions to ask. This is like asking about superconductivity 20 years ago and rejecting the answer when the transition temperature is quoted as being only 10°K. What's the good of such a low temperature you would ask. After many millions of dollars and thousands of man hours, superconductivity is a practical technology. No one at the time believed the transition temperature could be increased to near room temperature. Yet people kept working and are now gradually succeeding. Cold fusion is real. When the conditions are understood, the effect will be huge and will work every time. Or you can believe the effect is pure nonsense and never make an effort to improve the results. The people who succeed will be very wealthy and the people who reject the idea will look like fools. Your choice. Regards, Ed Michel - Original Message - From: Edmund Storms [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Saturday, March 10, 2007 8:12 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]: Cold Fusion skeptic Dr. Michael Shermer My last successful heat production was about 6 months ago. At the present time, the effect is initiated by chance when the required conditions happen to be in place. We do not yet know how to create the conditions on purpose. However, I can tell you a lot of conditions that don't work, conditions worth avoiding. Also, some conditions are more likely to work than others, but not every time. This problem is not caused by error or by cold fusion not being real. It is caused solely by ignorance. People who have the financial support to run many studies are having increased success, but still not every time. Like all complex phenomenon, parameter space is huge and success only happens after a considerable investment of time and money. This investment has not been applied, thanks to the skeptics. Ed Michel Jullian wrote: Paul probably meant in your experience, could you e.g. relate when you last witnessed the effect personally Ed? Michel - Original Message - From: Edmund Storms [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Saturday, March 10, 2007 6:57 PM
Re: [Vo]: Cold Fusion skeptic Dr. Michael Shermer
The input in my case was about 0.5 watt with 2.5 watts excess. The ratio looks good in this one case, but it means nothing. The best and most complete heat measurements have been published by McKubre et al. However, similar results have been experienced in at least 157 independent studies. Ed Michel Jullian wrote: Thanks Ed, to get a better picture I would have liked to know at least an order of magnitude of the input (or output) power too, I mean is it closer to 100W or to 1kW? Also, among your published CF experiments on LENR.org, which one in your opinion presents the best evidence of excess heat? Michel - Original Message - From: Edmund Storms [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sunday, March 11, 2007 8:44 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]: Cold Fusion skeptic Dr. Michael Shermer Excess energy from electrolysis is seldom over unity. Energy in excess of that applied to the cell is the only important measurement during such studies. My latest excess energy is about 2.5 W for a calorimeter with an error of about 25 mW. The cell was not designed to maximize the efficiency. Therefore, the Power out/Power in ratio has no meaning. Ed Michel Jullian wrote: No, no, I was asking specifically about your last overunity COP, which you got personally 6 months ago. I know about your reviews, they are available on lenr.org. Michel - Original Message - From: Edmund Storms [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sunday, March 11, 2007 4:57 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]: Cold Fusion skeptic Dr. Michael Shermer Michel, no one is being evasive. The data have been made public in many publications. I identify over 1000 in my book. People who are truly interested in the subject can read my reviews and get the answers to most of their questions. Many people have done this and a few who are wealthy enough are putting money into the research. The problem of acceptance involves people who will not read the literature or are not able to understand the information. Of course, a few people, such as Shermer do not want the effect to be real because the myth is too useful to their skeptical view of science. In any case, if you want answers to your questions, read my reviews or buy my book. Regards, Ed Michel Jullian wrote: Not pressing you for an answer but I don't follow your reasoning Ed. I would think early superconductivity researchers answered 10°K right away when asked about their transition temperature. If they had been evasive, I doubt further research would have been financed. Or what am I missing? Michel - Original Message - From: Michel Jullian [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sunday, March 11, 2007 1:37 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]: Cold Fusion skeptic Dr. Michael Shermer CF is not at the What's the good stage yet I am afraid. What was the COP then? Michel - Original Message - From: Edmund Storms [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sunday, March 11, 2007 12:16 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]: Cold Fusion skeptic Dr. Michael Shermer ... What was the magnitude of your last heat production BTW, in terms of COP? These are the wrong questions to ask. This is like asking about superconductivity 20 years ago and rejecting the answer when the transition temperature is quoted as being only 10°K. What's the good of such a low temperature you would ask. After many millions of dollars and thousands of man hours, superconductivity is a practical technology. No one at the time believed the transition temperature could be increased to near room temperature. Yet people kept working and are now gradually succeeding. Cold fusion is real. When the conditions are understood, the effect will be huge and will work every time. Or you can believe the effect is pure nonsense and never make an effort to improve the results. The people who succeed will be very wealthy and the people who reject the idea will look like fools. Your choice. Regards, Ed Michel - Original Message - From: Edmund Storms [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Saturday, March 10, 2007 8:12 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]: Cold Fusion skeptic Dr. Michael Shermer My last successful heat production was about 6 months ago. At the present time, the effect is initiated by chance when the required conditions happen to be in place. We do not yet know how to create the conditions on purpose. However, I can tell you a lot of conditions that don't work, conditions worth avoiding. Also, some conditions are more likely to work than others, but not every time. This problem is not caused by error or by cold fusion not being real. It is caused solely by ignorance. People who have the financial support to run many studies are having increased success, but still not every time. Like all complex phenomenon, parameter space is huge and success only happens after a considerable investment of time and money. This investment has not
[VO]:Re: Ozone and isotopes of O by microwave exitation
Blank Michael wrote.. Are you into the design of an ozonizer Richard? Zachary wrote.. Would you be unveiling a master plan to mention what you need that a commercial ozone unit won't provide? We have some experience in industrial size ozone generating systems in the 1000PPD and above range. The problems, the maintenance and the trouble mixing ozone beg for better technology. It seems that microwave may have some application considering the huge transformer banks required to boost voltage for the present technology, plus the problems with drying the air or the dangers of using pure oxy. Ozone gas is so stubborn that it resists mixing with water, the residual properties are extremely short lived and it is deadly. Takes the finger nail polish off my nails grin Somewhere lurking in the back of my mind is an idea for using O6 as a grease to slide the O3 into the water molecule.. I know, Yes , I know it can't be done because O6 may not be O6.. hmmm. But if it is.. and it can be borrowed while it's extremely short life is around to argue the point.. it may be possible to fold the two into water before O6 catches on .. by using a form of velocity shear upwards to 150f/s periphical velocity of a parabolic segment shaped knife. We have been successful using this method for oxidation systems but O3 alone doesn't want to play fair. Microwave may be the trigger to generate O3 and O6 in the actual water process stream and have the mixing as a function of the O3 generating process. We have had our Gasmastrrr units returned for service that have the UHMW rotating member shot with electro-chem pitting that is a form of SL cavitation. Ultra high molecular weight polyethelene does not pit.. we all know that. Richard Blank Bkgrd.gif Description: GIF image
Re: [Vo]: Cold Fusion skeptic Dr. Michael Shermer
- Original Message - From: Edmund Storms [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sunday, March 11, 2007 11:45 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]: Cold Fusion skeptic Dr. Michael Shermer The input in my case was about 0.5 watt with 2.5 watts excess. The ratio looks good in this one case, but it means nothing. 0.5W electrical in, 0.5W+2.5W=3W heat out? So this would be a COP of 6, why do you think it means nothing? The best and most complete heat measurements have been published by McKubre et al. However, similar results have been experienced in at least 157 independent studies. No, I was asking about a published excess heat experiment of yours, sorry if I was unclear. Michel Ed Michel Jullian wrote: Thanks Ed, to get a better picture I would have liked to know at least an order of magnitude of the input (or output) power too, I mean is it closer to 100W or to 1kW? Also, among your published CF experiments on LENR.org, which one in your opinion presents the best evidence of excess heat? Michel - Original Message - From: Edmund Storms [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sunday, March 11, 2007 8:44 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]: Cold Fusion skeptic Dr. Michael Shermer Excess energy from electrolysis is seldom over unity. Energy in excess of that applied to the cell is the only important measurement during such studies. My latest excess energy is about 2.5 W for a calorimeter with an error of about 25 mW. The cell was not designed to maximize the efficiency. Therefore, the Power out/Power in ratio has no meaning. Ed Michel Jullian wrote: No, no, I was asking specifically about your last overunity COP, which you got personally 6 months ago. I know about your reviews, they are available on lenr.org. Michel - Original Message - From: Edmund Storms [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sunday, March 11, 2007 4:57 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]: Cold Fusion skeptic Dr. Michael Shermer Michel, no one is being evasive. The data have been made public in many publications. I identify over 1000 in my book. People who are truly interested in the subject can read my reviews and get the answers to most of their questions. Many people have done this and a few who are wealthy enough are putting money into the research. The problem of acceptance involves people who will not read the literature or are not able to understand the information. Of course, a few people, such as Shermer do not want the effect to be real because the myth is too useful to their skeptical view of science. In any case, if you want answers to your questions, read my reviews or buy my book. Regards, Ed Michel Jullian wrote: Not pressing you for an answer but I don't follow your reasoning Ed. I would think early superconductivity researchers answered 10°K right away when asked about their transition temperature. If they had been evasive, I doubt further research would have been financed. Or what am I missing? Michel - Original Message - From: Michel Jullian [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sunday, March 11, 2007 1:37 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]: Cold Fusion skeptic Dr. Michael Shermer CF is not at the What's the good stage yet I am afraid. What was the COP then? Michel - Original Message - From: Edmund Storms [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sunday, March 11, 2007 12:16 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]: Cold Fusion skeptic Dr. Michael Shermer ... What was the magnitude of your last heat production BTW, in terms of COP? These are the wrong questions to ask. This is like asking about superconductivity 20 years ago and rejecting the answer when the transition temperature is quoted as being only 10°K. What's the good of such a low temperature you would ask. After many millions of dollars and thousands of man hours, superconductivity is a practical technology. No one at the time believed the transition temperature could be increased to near room temperature. Yet people kept working and are now gradually succeeding. Cold fusion is real. When the conditions are understood, the effect will be huge and will work every time. Or you can believe the effect is pure nonsense and never make an effort to improve the results. The people who succeed will be very wealthy and the people who reject the idea will look like fools. Your choice. Regards, Ed Michel - Original Message - From: Edmund Storms [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Saturday, March 10, 2007 8:12 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]: Cold Fusion skeptic Dr. Michael Shermer My last successful heat production was about 6 months ago. At the present time, the effect is initiated by chance when the required conditions happen to be in place. We do not yet know how to create the conditions on purpose. However, I can tell you a lot of conditions that don't work, conditions worth avoiding. Also, some conditions are more
