What makes you sure that COP measurements are not vital to understanding the phenomena?
Harry Edmund Storms wrote: > As a cold fusion researcher, I can tell you that your opinion is not > correct. First of all, cold fusion is only cold because the energy > provided by a high temperature, as is necessary for hot fusion too work, > is not needed for cold fusion. Second, cold fusion and hot fusion make > energy by similar nuclear reactions. Third, we in cold fusion measure > power. As I said before, we do not focus on COP because this is not an > engineering program, but one trying to understand the phenomenon. > > Regards, > Ed > > Harry Veeder wrote: > >> Many CF researchers like to compare CF cells to a mini nuclear fission >> reactor, but instead of fission process providing the "excess" heat, it is a >> low temperature fusion process. This is why they tend not to be interested >> in power measurements and focus on energy measurements instead. Basically, >> this reflects the theoretical bias that cold fusion does not depend on any >> LofT violations. Or to put it another way cold fusion is a process which >> releases "stored" energy, instead of producing power from "nothing". >> >> Harry >> >> Michel Jullian wrote: >> >> >>> Since you know them all and for a reason, a link to a CF paper describing a >>> COP of the order that ED described (6) would be welcome Jed. TIA >>> >>> Michel >>> >>> ----- Original Message ----- >>> From: "Jed Rothwell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>> To: <vortex-L@eskimo.com> >>> Sent: Monday, March 12, 2007 5:08 PM >>> Subject: Re: [Vo]: Cold Fusion skeptic Dr. Michael Shermer >>> >>> >>> >>>> Edmund Storms wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>> 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. >>>> >>>> It has no meaning in the sense that it does not predict whether cold >>>> fusion can be made practical. It tells us nothing about whether one >>>> technique is more promising than another in the long term. However, a >>>> high ratio does make the calorimetry easier. That is to say, it is >>>> easier to measure 2.5 W with 5 W of electrolysis input than with 35 W >>>> input. (The input power is sometimes called the "background," as in >>>> "a 5 W background.") It resembles instrument noise in this respect, >>>> except that electrolysis input is a deliberate and inescapable part >>>> of the experiment. Gas loading and some other methods have no input >>>> background power, so they are easier to confirm with a high s/n ratio. >>>> >>>> - Jed >>>> >>> >> >> >
