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, 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 >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>> >> >> >
