Yes...assuming they are measured over the same period of time.
Harry

Michel Jullian wrote:

> Sure, but then the COP can be calculated from the energy measurements, since
> both input and output are measured over the same duration.
> 
> Michel
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Harry Veeder" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
> Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2007 12:18 AM
> Subject: Re: [Vo]: Cold Fusion skeptic Dr. Michael Shermer
> 
> 
>> 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
>>>> 
>>> 
>> 
> 

Reply via email to