----- 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 >>>>>>>>>>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 >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>> >> >> >
