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 >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>> >> >> >
