Michel Jullian wrote:
----- 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?
It means nothing because no effort was made to control or maximize the
COP. The COP is an engineering measurement that is only be relevant to a
working device. Once the mechanism is understood and can be modified to
maximize efficiency, the COP can be made very large. At the present
time, the important parameter is the measurement of excess energy. Even
the amount is not important as long as it is greater than the error in
the calorimeter. The important issue is measuring and understanding the
phenomenon, not making it efficient.
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.
I tried to publish the 2.5 W measurement but this was rejected. As a
result, I have stopped wasting my time publishing experimental work. I
will probably describe the result at ICCF-13. Writing a book is a better
use of my time and it cannot be stopped by skeptics. My last
experimental publication was at ICCF-10.
Ed
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
