-> 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: <[email protected]> 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 >
