: [Vo]: Re: Ed Storm's confusion (was Re: [Vo]: Cold Fusion skeptic
Dr. Michael Shermer)
Yo Jed, it's not a matter of telling someone how to speak his native language.
The vocabulary of science is meant to allow accurate communication between
scientists, so that e.g. when one says electrolyzed
- 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
: [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
@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
@eskimo.com
Sent: Friday, March 16, 2007 5:58 PM
Subject: Re: [Vo]: Re: Ed Storm's confusion (was Re: [Vo]: Cold Fusion skeptic
Dr. Michael Shermer)
So that no confusion remains in any reader's mind. The word electrolyze
applies to a process of passing current through an ionic solution.
Various
Michel Jullian wrote:
How can you persist in this attempt to reivent the terms of
electrochemistry? Whatever happens to the palladium, it is not
'electro-chemically decomposed' (the meaning of 'electrolyzed'), cf
the Faraday quote.
Yo, Michel: Don't tell a native speaker how to speak his
]
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com; vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Friday, March 16, 2007 9:15 PM
Subject: Re: [Vo]: Re: Ed Storm's confusion (was Re: [Vo]: Cold Fusion skeptic
Dr. Michael Shermer)
Michel Jullian wrote:
How can you persist in this attempt to reivent the terms of
electrochemistry? Whatever happens
on the merits!
Michel
- Original Message -
From: Michel Jullian [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Thursday, March 15, 2007 7:05 AM
Subject: [Vo]: Ed Storm's confusion (was Re: [Vo]: Cold Fusion skeptic Dr.
Michael Shermer)
Do you still not see it Ed?
Michel
Harry Veeder wrote:-
Perhaps the critical temperature of a given NAE is more like temperature
range. When the NAE is below a certain temperature it is too cold for cold
fusion, and when it is above a certain temperature it is too hot for cold
fusion
If you've been around since the beginning
Harry Veeder wrote:
Cold fusion does not seem to require the temperatures and pressures of hot
fusion, but is an NAE enough?
Well, higher temperatures do promote the reaction. Fleischmann and
Pons used to trigger a boil off reaction by heating up the cell
rapidly with a pulse of joule
-
From: Michel Jullian [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Thursday, March 15, 2007 7:05 AM
Subject: [Vo]: Ed Storm's confusion (was Re: [Vo]: Cold Fusion skeptic Dr.
Michael Shermer)
Do you still not see it Ed?
Michel
- Original Message -
From: Michel Jullian [EMAIL
Harry Veeder wrote:-
It is more like the difference between burning gasoline as a liquid vs
gasoline as a vapour. While you need to exert some effort to vaporise the
gasoline, the COP is still much bigger
No Harry, the error you made is exactly the one I pointed out using an
accelerator
: Wednesday, March 14, 2007 11:15 AM
Subject: Re: [Vo]: Cold Fusion skeptic Dr. Michael Shermer
Harry Veeder wrote:-
It is more like the difference between burning gasoline as a liquid vs
gasoline as a vapour. While you need to exert some effort to vaporise the
gasoline, the COP is still
Nick Palmer wrote:
Harry Veeder wrote:-
It is more like the difference between burning gasoline as a liquid vs
gasoline as a vapour. While you need to exert some effort to vaporise the
gasoline, the COP is still much bigger
No Harry, the error you made is exactly the one I pointed out
Nick Palmer wrote:
I don't know how long you have been
around, but Jed and I and Ed Storms and Terry Blanton have been commenting
and arguing about this subject since the news broke in 1989.
FYI. I've been following CF on and off since 1989, when I was 24.
Harry
Harry Veeder wrote:
I interpret heat after death as evidence of a self-powered system,
i.e. a portion of the heat produced is being consumed by the system
to maintain the production of excess heat.
I do not think any power is consumed in heat after death, and I do
not think that power is
Jed Rothwell wrote:
Harry Veeder wrote:
I interpret heat after death as evidence of a self-powered system,
i.e. a portion of the heat produced is being consumed by the system
to maintain the production of excess heat.
I do not think any power is consumed in heat after death, and I do
Do you still not see it Ed?
Michel
- Original Message -
From: Michel Jullian [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2007 12:29 AM
Subject: Re: [Vo]: Cold Fusion skeptic Dr. Michael Shermer
I'll let you find the error yourself it's quite obvious. Same
Harry Veeder wrote:
What makes you sure that COP measurements are not vital to understanding
the phenomena?
I think this question is addressed to Ed Storms, but he is probably
sick of responding, so let me answer one last time.
The required level input power is governed by mundane
Michel Jullian wrote:
Now, Edmund, could you please refrain your own humility and kindly
recommend one of your FP excess heat experimental papers? I am not
familiar with FP as you know. I am looking for good experimental
papers on the subject, notably one of yours if you could advise me.
Harry Veeder wrote:
So most reseachers claim they (implicitly) know enough about the phenomena
to improve the COP, but it is beneath them to test this claim??
No, that is not what I mean. Please read the message more carefully
and stop putting words in my mouth.
Anyone with knowledge of
Jed Rothwell wrote:
Harry Veeder wrote:
So most reseachers claim they (implicitly) know enough about the phenomena
to improve the COP, but it is beneath them to test this claim??
No, that is not what I mean. Please read the message more carefully
and stop putting words in my mouth.
You
Harry Veeder wrote:
point to bothering with them. We can improve the COP anytime, but
that proves nothing and contributes nothing to our understanding of
the phenomenon.
It is hypothetical until you try it. It may be that the conditions
which they think will increase the COP actual decrease
@eskimo.com
Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2007 9:41 PM
Subject: Re: [Vo]: Cold Fusion skeptic Dr. Michael Shermer
Harry Veeder wrote:
point to bothering with them. We can improve the COP anytime, but
that proves nothing and contributes nothing to our understanding of
the phenomenon
Message -
From: Jed Rothwell [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: vortex-L@eskimo.com
Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2007 9:41 PM
Subject: Re: [Vo]: Cold Fusion skeptic Dr. Michael Shermer
Harry Veeder wrote:
point to bothering with them. We can improve the COP anytime, but
that proves nothing
Harry Veeder wrote:-
They claim that they know how to improve the COP of a cold fusion cell!
So I cam calling on them to TEST the claim. This is not engineering request.
It is a scientific request!
This COP you are talking about is the ratio of input electrical power to
output heat. Jed was
I'll let you find the error yourself it's quite obvious. Same error in the two
quotes.
Michel
- Original Message -
From: Edmund Storms [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2007 12:17 AM
Subject: Re: [Vo]: Cold Fusion skeptic Dr. Michael Shermer
...
- Ed
Take your time, I'll go offline now. Talk to you tomorrow.
Michel
- Original Message -
From: Michel Jullian [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2007 12:29 AM
Subject: Re: [Vo]: Cold Fusion skeptic Dr. Michael Shermer
I'll let you find the error
Jed Rothwell wrote:
Harry Veeder wrote:
point to bothering with them. We can improve the COP anytime, but
that proves nothing and contributes nothing to our understanding of
the phenomenon.
It is hypothetical until you try it. It may be that the conditions
which they think will increase
Nick Palmer wrote:
Harry Veeder wrote:-
They claim that they know how to improve the COP of a cold fusion cell!
So I cam calling on them to TEST the claim. This is not engineering request.
It is a scientific request!
This COP you are talking about is the ratio of input electrical power to
Michel Jullian wrote:
- 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
Edmund Storms wrote:
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
]: Cold Fusion skeptic Dr. Michael Shermer
Edmund Storms wrote:
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
Michel Jullian wrote:
Since you know them all and for a reason, a link to a CF paper
describing a COP of the order that ED described (6) would be welcome Jed. TIA
I cannot think of any offhand. Most researchers do not report input
electrolysis power for the reasons described by Ed. Mitchell
, March 12, 2007 7:18 PM
Subject: Re: [Vo]: Cold Fusion skeptic Dr. Michael Shermer
Michel Jullian wrote:
Since you know them all and for a reason, a link to a CF paper
describing a COP of the order that ED described (6) would be welcome Jed. TIA
I cannot think of any offhand. Most researchers
Michel Jullian wrote:
Er... Jed, are you saying that most CF papers reporting excess heat
do not report input power (or energy), nor output power (or energy) !?
They often report excess power or energy, which is output minus
input. Of course there are papers that report all values. However,
I wrote:
Er... Jed, are you saying that most CF papers reporting excess heat
do not report input power (or energy), nor output power (or energy) !?
They often report excess power or energy, which is output minus
input. Of course there are papers that report all values.
Some papers report
Sent: Monday, March 12, 2007 9:20 PM
Subject: Re: [Vo]: Cold Fusion skeptic Dr. Michael Shermer
I wrote:
Er... Jed, are you saying that most CF papers reporting excess heat
do not report input power (or energy), nor output power (or energy) !?
They often report excess power or energy, which
On 3/12/07, Michel Jullian [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Thanks Jed but IMHO
'H'??? I have seen no evidence of this.
T
I wrote:
Some papers report only the excess power normalized to volume of Pd,
which is annoying. Especially when you have no idea what the volume
of Pd is. See, for example, Table 10, p. 44 in this otherwise excellent paper:
http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/MilesManomalousea.pdf
This is
paper describing a
COP of the order that ED described (6) would be welcome Jed. TIA
Michel
- Original Message -
From: Jed Rothwell [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: vortex-L@eskimo.com
Sent: Monday, March 12, 2007 5:08 PM
Subject: Re: [Vo]: Cold Fusion skeptic Dr. Michael Shermer
Edmund
]: Cold Fusion skeptic Dr. Michael Shermer
Many CF researchers like to compare CF cells to a mini nuclear fission
reactor, but instead of fission process providing the excess heat, it is a
low temperature fusion process. This is why they tend not to be interested
in power measurements and focus
be welcome Jed. TIA
Michel
- Original Message -
From: Jed Rothwell [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: vortex-L@eskimo.com
Sent: Monday, March 12, 2007 5:08 PM
Subject: Re: [Vo]: Cold Fusion skeptic Dr. Michael Shermer
Edmund Storms wrote:
Excess energy from electrolysis is seldom over unity. Energy
On 3/12/07, Michel Jullian [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Well, you would have if you had looked carefully Terry. As recently as today, I
admitted humbly I had been wrong in stating that ozone was not deadly. I am the
humblest person you can imagine, I even go out of my way to point out my errors
- Original Message -
From: Terry Blanton [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2007 12:32 AM
Subject: Re: [Vo]: Cold Fusion skeptic Dr. Michael Shermer
On 3/12/07, Michel Jullian [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Well, you would have if you had looked carefully
On 3/12/07, Michel Jullian [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
No I am not him sorry, never been to Montreal. I am a real Frenchman, not a
maple syrup drinking one with a funny accent living on an unhospitable
continent :)
\/,,
`
Alors, merde.
-Transgenic orangutan in Michael Crighton's Next.
T
On 3/12/07, Terry Blanton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
-Transgenic orangutan in Michael Crighton's Next.
Crichton.
Je ne peux pas orthographier .
T
Jed, who is humble too, wrote:
... So that was a dumb thing for me to say.
Now, Edmund, could you please refrain your own humility and kindly recommend
one of your FP excess heat experimental papers? I am not familiar with FP as
you know. I am looking for good experimental papers on the
PROTECTED]
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2007 1:23 AM
Subject: Re: [Vo]: Cold Fusion skeptic Dr. Michael Shermer
On 3/12/07, Michel Jullian [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
No I am not him sorry, never been to Montreal. I am a real Frenchman, not a
maple syrup drinking one
On 3/12/07, Michel Jullian [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Alors, merde is generally used to express impatience: Alors, merde, ça
vient?
As stated, a quotation from a book.
T
Subject: Re: [Vo]: Cold Fusion skeptic Dr. Michael Shermer
Edmund Storms wrote:
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
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2007 12:18 AM
Subject: Re: [Vo]: Cold Fusion skeptic Dr. Michael Shermer
Many CF researchers like to compare CF cells to a mini nuclear fission
reactor, but instead of fission process providing the excess heat, it is a
low
?
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
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
: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
: 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
?
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
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
- 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
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
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
. 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
]
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
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
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
65 matches
Mail list logo
