[Vo]: Re: Ed Storm's confusion (was Re: [Vo]: Cold Fusion skeptic Dr. Michael Shermer)
A last word on this. It is true as was pointed out to me that correct original definition and dictionaries and textbooks are one thing, and usage is another thing. So it seemed to me only fair to check current usage as well. To Ed's discharge, a quick Google search shows that several other CF researchers e.g. J. Dash also write electrolysis of palladium, although the vast majority of them, especially the professional electrochemists among them e.g. M. Fleischmann, write electrolysis of heavy water for PF type experiments. Outside of CF Ed's use is much rarer (a handful of hits for electrolysis of platinum, hundreds of thousands for electrolysis of water) Anyway I would be happy if I could have modestly contributed to a better use of electrochemical terms in CF, since such better use and more rigorous scientific practises in general could only help recognition of CF research in mainstream science, which we would all welcome heartily. Michel P.S. Interestingly this discussion has shown that rightness or wrongness is not absolute but largely depends on who says, and on who hears. If a Dr Tempests had said I have analyzed a blood tester using blood everybody would have agreed he was wrong. Here Dr Storms said I have electrolyzed palladium using D2O and hardly anybody here even considered that he might be wrong. Even more interestingly maybe, Ed himself still doesn't seem to admit he could have been wrong or even a little inaccurate in his use of the terms, in spite of what Faraday and all present day dictionaries and textbooks may say. This is unfortunate for a scientist who in my view should always doubt. - Original Message - From: Michel Jullian [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Saturday, March 17, 2007 2:43 AM Subject: Re: [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 or excess heat it means the same thing to everybody. Now Faraday lived a long time ago, that's true. Words do change over time, but when they do, traces of such changes usually can be found in recent dictionaries. Let's pick one at random: http://www.thefreedictionary.com/electrolyze e·lec·tro·lyze (-lktr-lz) tr.v. e·lec·tro·lyzed, e·lec·tro·lyz·ing, e·lec·tro·lyz·es To cause to decompose by electrolysis. Short of writing one up yourself, can you find a dictionary where the definition of 'electrolyze' is so different from the above that it could even remotely apply to the electrode rather than to the electrolyte? When you electrolyzed water at school, did you in fact electrolyze platinum? Does your car drive you? Someone has attacked me, virulently, not on the merits of my contribution, but on the way I communicated it with the drama and all. I will reply that all Ed had to do, instead of replying he didn't see what my problem was, was reach for a dictionary to see what the hell I could mean, realize his error, and reply gruffly but honestly right, my mistake, it's the D2O which is electrolyzed and there would have been no drama. That's what I expected him to do, like I would have expected any scientist, because that's what I would have done in his place. Now should scientists criticize each other over scientific communications? I think so, and I think CF in particular would be in better health if there had been less leniency towards each other's mistakes. Michel - Original Message - From: Jed Rothwell [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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 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 own language. Words mean whatever we say they mean, and they are used however we use them. Words change over time. Faraday lived a long time ago. - Jed
[Vo]: Re: Ed Storm's confusion (was Re: [Vo]: Cold Fusion skeptic Dr. Michael Shermer)
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
Re: [Vo]: Re: Ed Storm's confusion (was Re: [Vo]: Cold Fusion skeptic Dr. Michael Shermer)
Michel, It might be more helpful if you would say how you would title the paper. Harry 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
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 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
Re: [Vo]: Re: Ed Storm's confusion (was Re: [Vo]: Cold Fusion skeptic Dr. Michael Shermer)
Dear Ed, 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. So that no confusion remains in any reader's mind indeed, instead of: Anomalous Heat Produced by Electrolysis of Palladium using a Heavy-Water Electrolyte the title should have been, as would be obvious to even a first year student in chemistry: Anomalous Heat Produced by Electrolysis of a Heavy-Water Electrolyte using a Palladium Cathode but correcting the title would not be enough I am afraid, the very same erroneous terminology occurs inside the paper. Michel P.S. Will we have to call on independent referees (professional electrochemists) to solve this controversy? :) - Original Message - From: Edmund Storms [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-l@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 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
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 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 own language. Words mean whatever we say they mean, and they are used however we use them. Words change over time. Faraday lived a long time ago. - Jed
Re: [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 or excess heat it means the same thing to everybody. Now Faraday lived a long time ago, that's true. Words do change over time, but when they do, traces of such changes usually can be found in recent dictionaries. Let's pick one at random: http://www.thefreedictionary.com/electrolyze e·lec·tro·lyze (-lktr-lz) tr.v. e·lec·tro·lyzed, e·lec·tro·lyz·ing, e·lec·tro·lyz·es To cause to decompose by electrolysis. Short of writing one up yourself, can you find a dictionary where the definition of 'electrolyze' is so different from the above that it could even remotely apply to the electrode rather than to the electrolyte? When you electrolyzed water at school, did you in fact electrolyze platinum? Does your car drive you? Someone has attacked me, virulently, not on the merits of my contribution, but on the way I communicated it with the drama and all. I will reply that all Ed had to do, instead of replying he didn't see what my problem was, was reach for a dictionary to see what the hell I could mean, realize his error, and reply gruffly but honestly right, my mistake, it's the D2O which is electrolyzed and there would have been no drama. That's what I expected him to do, like I would have expected any scientist, because that's what I would have done in his place. Now should scientists criticize each other over scientific communications? I think so, and I think CF in particular would be in better health if there had been less leniency towards each other's mistakes. Michel - Original Message - From: Jed Rothwell [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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 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 own language. Words mean whatever we say they mean, and they are used however we use them. Words change over time. Faraday lived a long time ago. - Jed
[Vo]: Re: Ed Storm's confusion (was Re: [Vo]: Cold Fusion skeptic Dr. Michael Shermer)
I am not pressing you for an answer Ed, but I Googled for your book soon to be published you advertised here the other day: The Science of Low Energy Nuclear Reaction and found its home page here: http://www.worldscibooks.com/physics/6425.html It says Pub. date: Scheduled Fall 2007, hopefully it is not too late to correct it for such errors? Or have you had it proofread by an electrochemist maybe? I imagine you hadn't taken such precaution for the paper you submitted last year to Thermochimica Acta whose terminology of title and abstract we are discussing (haven't read it further yet BTW, waiting until we agree on the definition of electrolysis since that's what the paper is about). A pity since the thermochemists who reviewed that paper probably read no further than the title and abstract before rejecting it, whereas apart from terminology the paper may be quite good 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 - 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 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 The title of your paper: Anomalous Heat Produced by Electrolysis of Palladium using a Heavy-Water Electrolyte comprises a surprising confusion in electrochemical terms. At least I thought it was only in the title until I read the abstract: a sample of palladium foil was electrolyzed as the cathode in D2O+LiOD Can you see your error Ed? I am just making sure you are like Jed and myself the humble type who gladly admit their errors and even go out of their way to do so, as a real scientist should, unlike two other famous CF researchers we know, who would rather die :) I don't see what your problem is. Ed - Michel
Re: [Vo]: Cold Fusion skeptic Dr. Michael Shermer
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, you will remember that there does indeed appear to be a temperature range for electrolytical CF to manifest itself but, while the temperature of the cell is indeed influenced by the input electrical power, it is not necessary for the raised temperature of the cell to be created by the electrolysis - it is a misleading side effect. It takes a temperature of at least 60 degrees C to fire off (that is from memory/educated guess) - I'm sure Jed knows the correct figure. Actually, there is a danger here that Mitchell Swartz will swoop in with his OOP theory (optimal operating point) so don't shout it out too loudly... Oh BTW Ed, Michel is pointing out that the palladium itself is not electrolysed, although this is what the title of the paper appears to say. I would prefer a scientist to be doing these experiments, rather than a linguist...
Re: [Vo]: Cold Fusion skeptic Dr. Michael Shermer
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 heating. Lasers and other methods have also been use to trigger or enhance reactions, so perhaps it does take some external energy to get the reaction going, but after that it goes by itself. That is is, it self-sustains or as Martin Fleischmann put it: Afficionados of the field of Hot Fusion will realise that there is a large release of excess energy during Stage 5 at zero energy input. The system is therefore operating under conditions which are described as 'Ignition' in 'Hot Fusion'. It appears to us therefore that these types of systems not only 'merit investigation' (as we have stated in the last paragraph) but, more correctly, 'merit frantic investigation'. http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/Fleischmanreplytothe.pdf I do not know of anyone who has tried to start a cold fusion reaction at freezing or cryogenic temperatures. It would be interesting to see if you could. 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. That's plausible. - Jed
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 Michel Jullian wrote: I am not pressing you for an answer Ed, but I Googled for your book soon to be published you advertised here the other day: The Science of Low Energy Nuclear Reaction and found its home page here: http://www.worldscibooks.com/physics/6425.html It says Pub. date: Scheduled Fall 2007, hopefully it is not too late to correct it for such errors? Or have you had it proofread by an electrochemist maybe? I imagine you hadn't taken such precaution for the paper you submitted last year to Thermochimica Acta whose terminology of title and abstract we are discussing (haven't read it further yet BTW, waiting until we agree on the definition of electrolysis since that's what the paper is about). A pity since the thermochemists who reviewed that paper probably read no further than the title and abstract before rejecting it, whereas apart from terminology the paper may be quite good 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 - 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 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 The title of your paper: Anomalous Heat Produced by Electrolysis of Palladium using a Heavy-Water Electrolyte comprises a surprising confusion in electrochemical terms. At least I thought it was only in the title until I read the abstract: a sample of palladium foil was electrolyzed as the cathode in D2O+LiOD Can you see your error Ed? I am just making sure you are like Jed and myself the humble type who gladly admit their errors and even go out of their way to do so, as a real scientist should, unlike two other famous CF researchers we know, who would rather die :) I don't see what your problem is. Ed - Michel
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 much bigger No Harry, the error you made is exactly the one I pointed out using an accelerator (gas) pedal as an analogy. 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. Many people have brought up your point before. Most people skilled in the art, and those who follow them, realise that the electrolysis is only a means of preparation of the conditions necessary for CF to occur. The fact that heat after death is a well known phenomenon, where there is no further electrolysis (no input electrical, or other, energy) but heat continues to be generated for some time ( approaching infinite COP), shows the relative meaninglessness of chasing this form of COP - which is exactly what Ed Storms said originally. Try not teaching your grandmother to suck eggs for a change...
Re: [Vo]: Cold Fusion skeptic Dr. Michael Shermer
I disagree Nick, even the old timers in Cold Fusion can learn from newbies, as surprising as it may seem. A few recent examples taken from this newbie's one year experience in the field: 1/ Only last year I taught Michael McKubre how to derive simply the thermo-neutral voltage in H2O electrolysis (cf 'JHS questions on evolved gas energy in CF' thread). He requested permission to quote or paraphrase my derivation with credits, kudos for that, he behaved like a great scientist. 2/ Only a few months ago I taught Melvin Miles and Mitchell Swartz the general definition of 'anode' (which they both called wrong, and never admitted afterwards having been wrong themselves in doing so, I say they didn't behave like great scientists) 3/ Even now I am in the process of teaching Edmund Storms what 'electrolysis' means, which I am sure he will acknowledge gracefully. I have more examples if you're interested. So you see even the mothers of all grandmothers are perfectible in the art of egg sucking, and admitting they are makes them even greater great grandmothers in my view. Michel - Original Message - From: Nick Palmer [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: 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 much bigger No Harry, the error you made is exactly the one I pointed out using an accelerator (gas) pedal as an analogy. 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. Many people have brought up your point before. Most people skilled in the art, and those who follow them, realise that the electrolysis is only a means of preparation of the conditions necessary for CF to occur. The fact that heat after death is a well known phenomenon, where there is no further electrolysis (no input electrical, or other, energy) but heat continues to be generated for some time ( approaching infinite COP), shows the relative meaninglessness of chasing this form of COP - which is exactly what Ed Storms said originally. Try not teaching your grandmother to suck eggs for a change...
Re: [Vo]: Cold Fusion skeptic Dr. Michael Shermer
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 using an accelerator (gas) pedal as an analogy. 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. Many people have brought up your point before. Most people skilled in the art, and those who follow them, realise that the electrolysis is only a means of preparation of the conditions necessary for CF to occur. The fact that heat after death is a well known phenomenon, where there is no further electrolysis (no input electrical, or other, energy) but heat continues to be generated for some time ( approaching infinite COP), shows the relative meaninglessness of chasing this form of COP - which is exactly what Ed Storms said originally. Try not teaching your grandmother to suck eggs for a change... Input power can come from outside the system or from inside the system. 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. If you think COP is meaningless in this situation, then it is because you have a (theoretical) bias against my interpretation. Harry
Re: [Vo]: Cold Fusion skeptic Dr. Michael Shermer
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
Re: [Vo]: Cold Fusion skeptic Dr. Michael Shermer
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 ever required to maintain production of excess heat. The input power of electrolysis is required to form the materials, or the NAE. Once the NAE is in place, electrolysis is no longer required. I think heat after death occurs when the deuterium in the palladium gradually evolves and reaches the surface where the NAE lives. - Jed
Re: [Vo]: Cold Fusion skeptic Dr. Michael Shermer
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 not think that power is ever required to maintain production of excess heat. The input power of electrolysis is required to form the materials, or the NAE. Once the NAE is in place, electrolysis is no longer required. I think heat after death occurs when the deuterium in the palladium gradually evolves and reaches the surface where the NAE lives. - Jed In hot fusion a critical temperature must be reached before the fusion process becomes self-powering. Cold fusion does not seem to require the temperatures and pressures of hot fusion, but is an NAE enough? Is it so unreasonable to imagine that a given NAE must be at a critical temperature before cold fusion process becomes self powering? 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. Harry
[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 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 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 The title of your paper: Anomalous Heat Produced by Electrolysis of Palladium using a Heavy-Water Electrolyte comprises a surprising confusion in electrochemical terms. At least I thought it was only in the title until I read the abstract: a sample of palladium foil was electrolyzed as the cathode in D2O+LiOD Can you see your error Ed? I am just making sure you are like Jed and myself the humble type who gladly admit their errors and even go out of their way to do so, as a real scientist should, unlike two other famous CF researchers we know, who would rather die :) I don't see what your problem is. Ed - Michel
Re: [Vo]: Cold Fusion skeptic Dr. Michael Shermer
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 electrochemical considerations, such as the distance between the anode and the cathode. These considerations are well understood, so there is no point to bothering with them. We can improve the COP anytime, but that proves nothing and contributes nothing to our understanding of the phenomenon. A cold fusion cell is not designed to be efficient or to have a high COP; it is designed to reveal something important about the phenomenon. In some cases, generating a high COP would actually interfere with the observations you are trying to perform. In other cases it would simply waste the researcher's time and money. As I mentioned, the only reason anyone wants to raise the COP is to improve the calorimetry, and increase the s/n ratio. This can also be done by other means, which are sometimes easier or better. - Jed
Re: [Vo]: Cold Fusion skeptic Dr. Michael Shermer
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. For crying out loud, Michel! You should read all the papers by Storms, plus everything by McKubre, Miles, Fleischmann and Pons, at least. Do not ask questions until after you have read the literature. - Jed
Re: [Vo]: Cold Fusion skeptic Dr. Michael Shermer
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 electrochemistry knows how to improve the overall COP, when you define that as electrochemical power input versus total output. Improving that ratio proves nothing. The only thing you want to improve is the power of the cold fusion reaction, which is separate and not directly correlated with electrolysis power. It is time for more science, and fewer I-don't-do-engineering excuses. Improving the COP would be engineering, not science. As I said previously, it would also interfere with the science in many cases, which is why it is not done. - Jed
Re: [Vo]: Cold Fusion skeptic Dr. Michael Shermer
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 said in full: The required level input power is governed by mundane electrochemical considerations, such as the distance between the anode and the cathode. These considerations are well understood, so there is no 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 the COP. Anyone with knowledge of electrochemistry knows how to improve the overall COP, when you define that as electrochemical power input versus total output. Improving that ratio proves nothing. The only thing you want to improve is the power of the cold fusion reaction, which is separate and not directly correlated with electrolysis power. It is not about improving the ratio for the sake of improving the ratio. It is about testing the assumption that they know how to improve the ratio. Don't you understand the difference? It is time for more science, and fewer I-don't-do-engineering excuses. Improving the COP would be engineering, not science. As I said previously, it would also interfere with the science in many cases, which is why it is not done. 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! Harry
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. It is hypothetical until you try it. It may be that the conditions which they think will increase the COP actual decrease the COP. Okay, hypothetical. But the methods have been common knowledge since around 1840, and I doubt you will find many people who do not believe they work. They work only a little, however. The COP cannot be improved enough to make a practical device, or any useful difference. If you doubt that the textbook methods of improving electrochemical efficiency work, I suggest you do some electrochemistry yourself. Calling these methods hypothetical is like saying that Faraday's laws are hypothetical, and you will not believe that coulumbs = amps * seconds until I prove it to you. Go test it yourself. - Jed
Re: [Vo]: Cold Fusion skeptic Dr. Michael Shermer
- Jed I think you mean the ratio of chemical energy out (energy stored in electrolysis products H2 and O2, which you can recover as heat by recombining them) to electrical energy in. This ratio is close to but cannot exceed one, and not only won't it make any useful difference to improve it, but since the difference is not lost but recovered as heat, it won't make any difference _at all_ to the overall COP, which will always be: COP = (electrical_in + nuclear)/electrical_in = 1 + nuclear/electrical_in agreed? - Ed The title of your paper: Anomalous Heat Produced by Electrolysis of Palladium using a Heavy-Water Electrolyte comprises a surprising confusion in electrochemical terms. At least I thought it was only in the title until I read the abstract: a sample of palladium foil was electrolyzed as the cathode in D2O+LiOD Can you see your error Ed? I am just making sure you are like Jed and myself the humble type who gladly admit their errors and even go out of their way to do so, as a real scientist should, unlike two other famous CF researchers we know, who would rather die :) -- Michel - Original 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 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 the COP. Okay, hypothetical. But the methods have been common knowledge since around 1840, and I doubt you will find many people who do not believe they work. They work only a little, however. The COP cannot be improved enough to make a practical device, or any useful difference. If you doubt that the textbook methods of improving electrochemical efficiency work, I suggest you do some electrochemistry yourself. Calling these methods hypothetical is like saying that Faraday's laws are hypothetical, and you will not believe that coulumbs = amps * seconds until I prove it to you. Go test it yourself. - Jed
Re: [Vo]: Cold Fusion skeptic Dr. Michael Shermer
Michel Jullian wrote: - Jed I think you mean the ratio of chemical energy out (energy stored in electrolysis products H2 and O2, which you can recover as heat by recombining them) to electrical energy in. This ratio is close to but cannot exceed one, and not only won't it make any useful difference to improve it, but since the difference is not lost but recovered as heat, it won't make any difference _at all_ to the overall COP, which will always be: COP = (electrical_in + nuclear)/electrical_in = 1 + nuclear/electrical_in agreed? - Ed The title of your paper: Anomalous Heat Produced by Electrolysis of Palladium using a Heavy-Water Electrolyte comprises a surprising confusion in electrochemical terms. At least I thought it was only in the title until I read the abstract: a sample of palladium foil was electrolyzed as the cathode in D2O+LiOD Can you see your error Ed? I am just making sure you are like Jed and myself the humble type who gladly admit their errors and even go out of their way to do so, as a real scientist should, unlike two other famous CF researchers we know, who would rather die :) I don't see what your problem is. Ed - Michel - Original 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 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 the COP. Okay, hypothetical. But the methods have been common knowledge since around 1840, and I doubt you will find many people who do not believe they work. They work only a little, however. The COP cannot be improved enough to make a practical device, or any useful difference. If you doubt that the textbook methods of improving electrochemical efficiency work, I suggest you do some electrochemistry yourself. Calling these methods hypothetical is like saying that Faraday's laws are hypothetical, and you will not believe that coulumbs = amps * seconds until I prove it to you. Go test it yourself. - Jed
Re: [Vo]: Cold Fusion skeptic Dr. Michael Shermer
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 trying to explain to you that this figure is only marginally relevant to improving the CF reaction. This topic was discussed right back at the beginning, almost 17 years ago. This COP ratio that you think is so important is somewhat like reducing the force necessary to push the accelerator (gas) pedal in a car and then claiming that halving the foot pressure has doubled the efficiency of the motor... Nick Palmer
Re: [Vo]: Cold Fusion skeptic Dr. Michael Shermer
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 The title of your paper: Anomalous Heat Produced by Electrolysis of Palladium using a Heavy-Water Electrolyte comprises a surprising confusion in electrochemical terms. At least I thought it was only in the title until I read the abstract: a sample of palladium foil was electrolyzed as the cathode in D2O+LiOD Can you see your error Ed? I am just making sure you are like Jed and myself the humble type who gladly admit their errors and even go out of their way to do so, as a real scientist should, unlike two other famous CF researchers we know, who would rather die :) I don't see what your problem is. Ed - Michel
Re: [Vo]: Cold Fusion skeptic Dr. Michael Shermer
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 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 The title of your paper: Anomalous Heat Produced by Electrolysis of Palladium using a Heavy-Water Electrolyte comprises a surprising confusion in electrochemical terms. At least I thought it was only in the title until I read the abstract: a sample of palladium foil was electrolyzed as the cathode in D2O+LiOD Can you see your error Ed? I am just making sure you are like Jed and myself the humble type who gladly admit their errors and even go out of their way to do so, as a real scientist should, unlike two other famous CF researchers we know, who would rather die :) I don't see what your problem is. Ed - Michel
Re: [Vo]: Cold Fusion skeptic Dr. Michael Shermer
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 the COP actual decrease the COP. Okay, hypothetical. But the methods have been common knowledge since around 1840, and I doubt you will find many people who do not believe they work. They work only a little, however. I am not talking about increasing the COP of a electrochemical cell. That would mean getting the cell to generate more electrical power. I am taking about increasing the COP of a CF cell which happens to be partly electrochemical. This means getting the cell to generate more heat for the same or less input power. Ed claims he knows how this can be done. Why not turn his claim into a testable conjecture? If you doubt that the textbook methods of improving electrochemical efficiency work, I suggest you do some electrochemistry yourself. Calling these methods hypothetical is like saying that Faraday's laws are hypothetical, and you will not believe that coulumbs = amps * seconds until I prove it to you. Go test it yourself. When you combine electrochemistry with CF you are entering uncharted territory. Harry
Re: [Vo]: Cold Fusion skeptic Dr. Michael Shermer
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 output heat. Jed was trying to explain to you that this figure is only marginally relevant to improving the CF reaction. This topic was discussed right back at the beginning, almost 17 years ago. This COP ratio that you think is so important is somewhat like reducing the force necessary to push the accelerator (gas) pedal in a car and then claiming that halving the foot pressure has doubled the efficiency of the motor... Nick Palmer 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. Harry
Re: [Vo]: Cold Fusion skeptic Dr. Michael Shermer
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 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? It means nothing because no effort was made to control or maximize the COP. The COP is an engineering measurement that is only be relevant to a working device. Once the mechanism is understood and can be modified to maximize efficiency, the COP can be made very large. At the present time, the important parameter is the measurement of excess energy. Even the amount is not important as long as it is greater than the error in the calorimeter. The important issue is measuring and understanding the phenomenon, not making it efficient. 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. I tried to publish the 2.5 W measurement but this was rejected. As a result, I have stopped wasting my time publishing experimental work. I will probably describe the result at ICCF-13. Writing a book is a better use of my time and it cannot be stopped by skeptics. My last experimental publication was at ICCF-10. Ed 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
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 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. It has no meaning in the sense that it does not predict whether cold fusion can be made practical. It tells us nothing about whether one technique is more promising than another in the long term. However, a high ratio does make the calorimetry easier. That is to say, it is easier to measure 2.5 W with 5 W of electrolysis input than with 35 W input. (The input power is sometimes called the background, as in a 5 W background.) It resembles instrument noise in this respect, except that electrolysis input is a deliberate and inescapable part of the experiment. Gas loading and some other methods have no input background power, so they are easier to confirm with a high s/n ratio. - Jed
Re: [Vo]: Cold Fusion skeptic Dr. Michael Shermer
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 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 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. It has no meaning in the sense that it does not predict whether cold fusion can be made practical. It tells us nothing about whether one technique is more promising than another in the long term. However, a high ratio does make the calorimetry easier. That is to say, it is easier to measure 2.5 W with 5 W of electrolysis input than with 35 W input. (The input power is sometimes called the background, as in a 5 W background.) It resembles instrument noise in this respect, except that electrolysis input is a deliberate and inescapable part of the experiment. Gas loading and some other methods have no input background power, so they are easier to confirm with a high s/n ratio. - Jed
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 do not report input electrolysis power for the reasons described by Ed. Mitchell Swartz is the only researcher I know who thinks the C.O.P. is important. I believe he has optimized for it, and achieved some high C.O.P.s. He has not contributed papers to LENR-CANR, and I do not find them elsewhere on the net, so I cannot cite an on-line example. - Jed
Re: [Vo]: Cold Fusion skeptic Dr. Michael Shermer
Er... Jed, are you saying that most CF papers reporting excess heat do not report input power (or energy), nor output power (or energy) !? Or just that they don't use the term COP? Michel - Original Message - From: Jed Rothwell [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-L@eskimo.com Sent: Monday, 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 do not report input electrolysis power for the reasons described by Ed. Mitchell Swartz is the only researcher I know who thinks the C.O.P. is important. I believe he has optimized for it, and achieved some high C.O.P.s. He has not contributed papers to LENR-CANR, and I do not find them elsewhere on the net, so I cannot cite an on-line example. - Jed
Re: [Vo]: Cold Fusion skeptic Dr. Michael Shermer
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, as Ed says, the input electrolysis power is generally considered irrelevant. It is a little like taking into account the energy consumed by the instruments used to measure the effect. (Of course you do have to do this when some of the instrument energy leaks into the calorimeter, for example when you use a fan inside a Seebeck calorimeter to make the inside air temperature uniform, you have to keep track of the fan input electricity.) Or just that they don't use the term COP? Now that you mention it, I see only two refs for it with the Google search box at LENR-CANR: Dardik and one other. Dardik is here: http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/DardikIprogressin.pdf - Jed
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 is output minus input. Of course there are papers that report all values. 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 really only useful for a comparison, not to get the absolute value. This proves that some materials work much better than others but there is no telling how much power was actually involved. The column headings are: Source, the supplier who provided the Pd d, cm, diameter in centimeters V, cm3, voltage normalized to the volume of Pd. (And who knows what that was?) Px/V, W/cm3, excess power per volt or watts per cm3. (Apparently the same in all cases? This must be the maximum for all run, such as the 9 positive runs with JM Pd, row #5) There is no mention of COP in any of Miles' papers as far as I can recall. He does often discuss electrochemical properties and recombination, especially in the context of his papers about his disagreement with Jones et al. But the ratios of input electrolysis power to output power (the COP) is not discussed. Miles or any electrochemist will know many steps for lowering this ratio by improving efficiency electrolysis. They do not take these steps because there is no point or because the steps will interfere with the experiment. For example, everyone knows you can reduce electrolysis power by putting the cathode and the anode closer together. Having the anode and cathode too close together makes it difficult to assemble the cell and observe the reaction (with a glass cell) so they leave them far apart. You cannot let them touch. With a liquid electrolysis when the anode and cathode touch it is short circuit and game over. For that matter, you can reduce electrolysis powered by a factor of a thousand or more by using a solid-state gas loaded proton conductor. This brings the anode and the cathode so close they touch, and it eliminates almost all resistance. Mizuno, Oriani and others reported some success with this technique. Input power is trivial -- less than a milliwatt, as I recall, and the output range from about half a watt to a burst large enough power to melt the ceramic proton conductor and vaporize the silver power leads. (This was probably thousands of watts or so for a few seconds.) But unfortunately, while this technique did show promise it is very difficult to do and after several years of struggle they gave up trying to improve it. They simply did not have the resources to make progress. If that avenue of research had been properly funded it might have panned out by now. I think Biberian is still pursuing this. His biggest problem is that the anode and cathode heat up and lose contact. In other words, they do not touch, which causes a failure -- the opposite from liquid electrolysis. - Jed
Re: [Vo]: Cold Fusion skeptic Dr. Michael Shermer
Thanks Jed but IMHO a CF paper claiming excess heat which wouldn't state -or provide the data to derive- the values which were subtracted from each other to derive it, would be definitely incomplete. A proper description of such an experiment would obviously state not only the values found, but also the method used to measure them. So my question to Ed is, among such proper descriptions of your own excess heat experiments, as I am sure there are plenty, is there one you could recommend? Michel - Original Message - From: Jed Rothwell [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 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 is output minus input. Of course there are papers that report all values. 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 really only useful for a comparison, not to get the absolute value. This proves that some materials work much better than others but there is no telling how much power was actually involved. The column headings are: Source, the supplier who provided the Pd d, cm, diameter in centimeters V, cm3, voltage normalized to the volume of Pd. (And who knows what that was?) Px/V, W/cm3, excess power per volt or watts per cm3. (Apparently the same in all cases? This must be the maximum for all run, such as the 9 positive runs with JM Pd, row #5) There is no mention of COP in any of Miles' papers as far as I can recall. He does often discuss electrochemical properties and recombination, especially in the context of his papers about his disagreement with Jones et al. But the ratios of input electrolysis power to output power (the COP) is not discussed. Miles or any electrochemist will know many steps for lowering this ratio by improving efficiency electrolysis. They do not take these steps because there is no point or because the steps will interfere with the experiment. For example, everyone knows you can reduce electrolysis power by putting the cathode and the anode closer together. Having the anode and cathode too close together makes it difficult to assemble the cell and observe the reaction (with a glass cell) so they leave them far apart. You cannot let them touch. With a liquid electrolysis when the anode and cathode touch it is short circuit and game over. For that matter, you can reduce electrolysis powered by a factor of a thousand or more by using a solid-state gas loaded proton conductor. This brings the anode and the cathode so close they touch, and it eliminates almost all resistance. Mizuno, Oriani and others reported some success with this technique. Input power is trivial -- less than a milliwatt, as I recall, and the output range from about half a watt to a burst large enough power to melt the ceramic proton conductor and vaporize the silver power leads. (This was probably thousands of watts or so for a few seconds.) But unfortunately, while this technique did show promise it is very difficult to do and after several years of struggle they gave up trying to improve it. They simply did not have the resources to make progress. If that avenue of research had been properly funded it might have panned out by now. I think Biberian is still pursuing this. His biggest problem is that the anode and cathode heat up and lose contact. In other words, they do not touch, which causes a failure -- the opposite from liquid electrolysis. - Jed
Re: [Vo]: Cold Fusion skeptic Dr. Michael Shermer
On 3/12/07, Michel Jullian [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Thanks Jed but IMHO 'H'??? I have seen no evidence of this. T
Re: [Vo]: Cold Fusion skeptic Dr. Michael Shermer
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 really only useful for a comparison, not to get the absolute value. . . . Come to think of it, the purpose of this table is to make a comparison, and the only way to do that is to normalize the values for different samples. Otherwise you are comparing apples to oranges. So that was a dumb thing for me to say. Miles assumed that the volume of the Pd is the key factor. I think nowadays many people think the surface area is key. Ed Storms would say it is the NAE, but that is impossible to measure with our present state of knowledge. So normalizing against volume is imperfect but better than nothing. - Jed
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 temperature fusion process. This is why they tend not to be interested in power measurements and focus on energy measurements instead. Basically, this reflects the theoretical bias that cold fusion does not depend on any LofT violations. Or to put it another way cold fusion is a process which releases stored energy, instead of producing power from nothing. Harry 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 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 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. It has no meaning in the sense that it does not predict whether cold fusion can be made practical. It tells us nothing about whether one technique is more promising than another in the long term. However, a high ratio does make the calorimetry easier. That is to say, it is easier to measure 2.5 W with 5 W of electrolysis input than with 35 W input. (The input power is sometimes called the background, as in a 5 W background.) It resembles instrument noise in this respect, except that electrolysis input is a deliberate and inescapable part of the experiment. Gas loading and some other methods have no input background power, so they are easier to confirm with a high s/n ratio. - Jed
Re: [Vo]: Cold Fusion skeptic Dr. Michael Shermer
Sure, but then the COP can be calculated from the energy measurements, since both input and output are measured over the same duration. Michel - Original Message - From: Harry Veeder [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 temperature fusion process. This is why they tend not to be interested in power measurements and focus on energy measurements instead. Basically, this reflects the theoretical bias that cold fusion does not depend on any LofT violations. Or to put it another way cold fusion is a process which releases stored energy, instead of producing power from nothing. Harry 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 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 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. It has no meaning in the sense that it does not predict whether cold fusion can be made practical. It tells us nothing about whether one technique is more promising than another in the long term. However, a high ratio does make the calorimetry easier. That is to say, it is easier to measure 2.5 W with 5 W of electrolysis input than with 35 W input. (The input power is sometimes called the background, as in a 5 W background.) It resembles instrument noise in this respect, except that electrolysis input is a deliberate and inescapable part of the experiment. Gas loading and some other methods have no input background power, so they are easier to confirm with a high s/n ratio. - Jed
Re: [Vo]: Cold Fusion skeptic Dr. Michael Shermer
As a cold fusion researcher, I can tell you that your opinion is not correct. First of all, cold fusion is only cold because the energy provided by a high temperature, as is necessary for hot fusion too work, is not needed for cold fusion. Second, cold fusion and hot fusion make energy by similar nuclear reactions. Third, we in cold fusion measure power. As I said before, we do not focus on COP because this is not an engineering program, but one trying to understand the phenomenon. Regards, Ed Harry Veeder wrote: 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 on energy measurements instead. Basically, this reflects the theoretical bias that cold fusion does not depend on any LofT violations. Or to put it another way cold fusion is a process which releases stored energy, instead of producing power from nothing. Harry 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 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 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. It has no meaning in the sense that it does not predict whether cold fusion can be made practical. It tells us nothing about whether one technique is more promising than another in the long term. However, a high ratio does make the calorimetry easier. That is to say, it is easier to measure 2.5 W with 5 W of electrolysis input than with 35 W input. (The input power is sometimes called the background, as in a 5 W background.) It resembles instrument noise in this respect, except that electrolysis input is a deliberate and inescapable part of the experiment. Gas loading and some other methods have no input background power, so they are easier to confirm with a high s/n ratio. - Jed
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 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 even if noone else has found them or is likely to find them. Actually a humble person does not need to defend their humbleness. BTW, I will be in Montreal this week with some extra time on my hands. Are you the Dr. MJ from there? If so, can you recommend how I might spend some spare time other than exploring the Raelean Compound that is up for sale? Thanks in advance, T
Re: [Vo]: Cold Fusion skeptic Dr. Michael Shermer
- 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 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 even if noone else has found them or is likely to find them. Actually a humble person does not need to defend their humbleness. Only when I am asked about it, otherwise I am quite humble about it. BTW, I will be in Montreal this week with some extra time on my hands. Are you the Dr. MJ from there? If so, can you recommend how I might spend some spare time other than exploring the Raelean Compound that is up for sale? 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 :) Michel Thanks in advance, T
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 with a funny accent living on an unhospitable continent :) \/,, ` Alors, merde. -Transgenic orangutan in Michael Crighton's Next. T
Re: [Vo]: Cold Fusion skeptic Dr. Michael Shermer
On 3/12/07, Terry Blanton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: -Transgenic orangutan in Michael Crighton's Next. Crichton. Je ne peux pas orthographier . T
Re: [Vo]: Cold Fusion skeptic Dr. Michael Shermer
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 subject, notably one of yours if you could advise me. Below is a list of those available in Jed's excellent library at LENR.org if I am not mistaken. --- Michel Storms, E. Measurement of Excess Heat from a Pons_Fleischmann Type Electrolytic Cell. in Third International Conference on Cold Fusion, Frontiers of Cold Fusion. 1992. Nagoya Japan: Universal Academy Press, Inc., Tokyo, Japan. Storms, E., Measurements of excess heat from a Pons-Fleischmann-type electrolytic cell using palladium sheet. Fusion Technol., 1993. 23: p. 230. Storms, E., How to produce the Pons-Fleischmann effect. Fusion Technol., 1996. 29: p. 261. Storms, E. Anomalous Heat Generated by Electrolysis Using a Palladium Cathode and Heavy Water. in American Physical Society. 1999. Atlanta, GA. Storms, E. Excess Power Production from Platinum Cathodes Using the Pons-Fleischmann Effect. in 8th International Conference on Cold Fusion. 2000. Lerici (La Spezia), Italy: Italian Physical Society, Bologna, Italy.
Re: [Vo]: Cold Fusion skeptic Dr. Michael Shermer
Didn't you mean Merde, alors (expressing one's surprise) rather? Merde, alors, tu n'es pas canadien? Alors, merde is generally used to express impatience: Alors, merde, ça vient? Michel Jullian, Of the proper use of the word 'merde' - Original Message - From: Terry Blanton [EMAIL 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 with a funny accent living on an unhospitable continent :) \/,, ` Alors, merde. -Transgenic orangutan in Michael Crighton's Next. T
Re: [Vo]: Cold Fusion skeptic Dr. Michael Shermer
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
Re: [Vo]: Cold Fusion skeptic Dr. Michael Shermer
What makes you sure that COP measurements are not vital to understanding the phenomena? Harry Edmund Storms wrote: As a cold fusion researcher, I can tell you that your opinion is not correct. First of all, cold fusion is only cold because the energy provided by a high temperature, as is necessary for hot fusion too work, is not needed for cold fusion. Second, cold fusion and hot fusion make energy by similar nuclear reactions. Third, we in cold fusion measure power. As I said before, we do not focus on COP because this is not an engineering program, but one trying to understand the phenomenon. Regards, Ed Harry Veeder wrote: 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 on energy measurements instead. Basically, this reflects the theoretical bias that cold fusion does not depend on any LofT violations. Or to put it another way cold fusion is a process which releases stored energy, instead of producing power from nothing. Harry 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 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 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. It has no meaning in the sense that it does not predict whether cold fusion can be made practical. It tells us nothing about whether one technique is more promising than another in the long term. However, a high ratio does make the calorimetry easier. That is to say, it is easier to measure 2.5 W with 5 W of electrolysis input than with 35 W input. (The input power is sometimes called the background, as in a 5 W background.) It resembles instrument noise in this respect, except that electrolysis input is a deliberate and inescapable part of the experiment. Gas loading and some other methods have no input background power, so they are easier to confirm with a high s/n ratio. - Jed
Re: [Vo]: Cold Fusion skeptic Dr. Michael Shermer
Yes...assuming they are measured over the same period of time. Harry Michel Jullian wrote: Sure, but then the COP can be calculated from the energy measurements, since both input and output are measured over the same duration. Michel - Original Message - From: Harry Veeder [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 temperature fusion process. This is why they tend not to be interested in power measurements and focus on energy measurements instead. Basically, this reflects the theoretical bias that cold fusion does not depend on any LofT violations. Or to put it another way cold fusion is a process which releases stored energy, instead of producing power from nothing. Harry 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 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 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. It has no meaning in the sense that it does not predict whether cold fusion can be made practical. It tells us nothing about whether one technique is more promising than another in the long term. However, a high ratio does make the calorimetry easier. That is to say, it is easier to measure 2.5 W with 5 W of electrolysis input than with 35 W input. (The input power is sometimes called the background, as in a 5 W background.) It resembles instrument noise in this respect, except that electrolysis input is a deliberate and inescapable part of the experiment. Gas loading and some other methods have no input background power, so they are easier to confirm with a high s/n ratio. - Jed
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]: 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 Shermer
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
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
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
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
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
It's a chicken and egg problem, money can only come with demonstrable success, and success once every 6 months is hard to demonstrate obviously. What was the magnitude of your last heat production BTW, in terms of COP? 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
Michel Jullian wrote: It's a chicken and egg problem, money can only come with demonstrable success, Many eggs have been laid. The chickens are now growing. Success has now been demonstrated over 200 times and people who study the effect every day have a much better success rate than mine. How much success is required? and success once every 6 months is hard to demonstrate obviously. 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
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
