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