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 >
