Re: New light on LENR
Earlier I wrote with regard to the Letts-Cravens experiment: Also of interest is the fact that the target itself may be sensitive to the polarization direction of the beam, irrespective of the direction of the magnetic field placed across it in a radial direction. There are thus three things that should be mutally rotated with respect to each other, the magnets, the polarization direction, and the target itself, the crystaline structure of which may have polarising characteristics which may or may not be affected by an imposed magnetic field. The magnetic field could possibly be irrelevant. Alternatively, its effect might be primarily on the structure of the loaded lattice and not directly on the LENR process itself. For maximum effect, the lattice and magnetic field may have to be at a specific angle in addition to the polarization having a specific angle to those things. I would like to further expand on the above by saying that the direction and strength of the magnetic field at the time of surface deposition may be important, especially in the case of codeposition. Codeposition, the laying down of metal on the cathode along with the adsorbtion of hydrogen, in a sense, happens in all electrolysis, whether by design or not. A layer of *some* kind of material is always deposited on the cathode as electrolysis prodceeds. No electrolytic cell or anode is perfectly clean. The longer the electrolysis runs, the more the cathodic surface is changed. This was well known early on. For example, there was much discussion regarding the effect of dendrite formation on the cathode surface. Also noted was the fact that heat events seemed to occur at seemingly random durations following full loading. It was thus well known that the degree of loading was not the only important variable. There was debate as to whether CF was a surface or volume event, or even a volume event triggered by surface interactions and geometry. The then (and even now?) popular use of platinum anodes may have further complicated and cloaked the importance, nature and effects of the cathode surface fabrication during electrolysis. It has been sometimes noted, however, that used or pre-conditioned cathodes seem to be effective more quickly than new cathodes. It is possibly ironic that electrochemists sometimes went to extremes (though not extreme for electrochemists) in preparing clean cathodes by cleaning with solvents, acids, and then further cleaning the electrodes by using them as anodes in clean electrolytic cells prior to use in experiments. The role of a magnetic field may be important in the construction (and maintenance throughout the period of electrolysis) of a specific polarized cathode lattice structure or surface structure. A powerful magnetic field may play a useful role in building the right lattice structures and yet not be significantly involved in the LENR transactions themselves. Simply experimenting with the nearly instantaneous mutual angles and orientations of laser beam polarization, cathode, and magnetic field is not enough. The effect of magnetic field through time, especially during cathode preparation, may be important. It is also unfortunately true that a magnetic field, through polarization of the cathode surface, could thereby be involved in causing erroneous calorimetry. For this reason the use of improved calorimetry, especially dual calorimetric methods, is clearly indicated. Regards, Horace Heffner
RE: New light on LENR
Hi Horace. I have tried this in the past, using a nickle based electrolyte. I was hoping that the magnetic field would cause some obvious morphological changes, or that I would see some remanent magnetism/polarization in the deposited metal after electroplating on the cathode. Sadly, the simple experiments I did showed no such effect. I may return to this in the future; for reasons wholy unrelated to the subject at hand. But if you have any suggestions for things to look for, I'd like to hear them. That said, I suppose with a strong enough field I could effect the pH at certain areas on the cathode. Not what I intend though K. -Original Message- From: Horace Heffner [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, August 23, 2004 3:24 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: New light on LENR Earlier I wrote with regard to the Letts-Cravens experiment: Also of interest is the fact that the target itself may be sensitive to the polarization direction of the beam, irrespective of the direction of the magnetic field placed across it in a radial direction. There are thus three things that should be mutally rotated with respect to each other, the magnets, the polarization direction, and the target itself, the crystaline structure of which may have polarising characteristics which may or may not be affected by an imposed magnetic field. The magnetic field could possibly be irrelevant. Alternatively, its effect might be primarily on the structure of the loaded lattice and not directly on the LENR process itself. For maximum effect, the lattice and magnetic field may have to be at a specific angle in addition to the polarization having a specific angle to those things. I would like to further expand on the above by saying that the direction and strength of the magnetic field at the time of surface deposition may be important, especially in the case of codeposition. Codeposition, the laying down of metal on the cathode along with the adsorbtion of hydrogen, in a sense, happens in all electrolysis, whether by design or not. A layer of *some* kind of material is always deposited on the cathode as electrolysis prodceeds. No electrolytic cell or anode is perfectly clean. The longer the electrolysis runs, the more the cathodic surface is changed. This was well known early on. For example, there was much discussion regarding the effect of dendrite formation on the cathode surface. Also noted was the fact that heat events seemed to occur at seemingly random durations following full loading. It was thus well known that the degree of loading was not the only important variable. There was debate as to whether CF was a surface or volume event, or even a volume event triggered by surface interactions and geometry. The then (and even now?) popular use of platinum anodes may have further complicated and cloaked the importance, nature and effects of the cathode surface fabrication during electrolysis. It has been sometimes noted, however, that used or pre-conditioned cathodes seem to be effective more quickly than new cathodes. It is possibly ironic that electrochemists sometimes went to extremes (though not extreme for electrochemists) in preparing clean cathodes by cleaning with solvents, acids, and then further cleaning the electrodes by using them as anodes in clean electrolytic cells prior to use in experiments. The role of a magnetic field may be important in the construction (and maintenance throughout the period of electrolysis) of a specific polarized cathode lattice structure or surface structure. A powerful magnetic field may play a useful role in building the right lattice structures and yet not be significantly involved in the LENR transactions themselves. Simply experimenting with the nearly instantaneous mutual angles and orientations of laser beam polarization, cathode, and magnetic field is not enough. The effect of magnetic field through time, especially during cathode preparation, may be important. It is also unfortunately true that a magnetic field, through polarization of the cathode surface, could thereby be involved in causing erroneous calorimetry. For this reason the use of improved calorimetry, especially dual calorimetric methods, is clearly indicated. Regards, Horace Heffner
Re: New light on LENR-CANR site
Mitchell, why don't you just send the papers in a Word document or text plus GIFS form on a CD that a standard system can read. If you truly want your papers on the site, then because of the way that the LENR-CANR operators want papers presented, you will have to do that - that is their prerogative. It just looks like you are being an impossibly difficult jerk (again) Nick Palmer
Re: New light on LENR
Horace Heffner wrote: It appears we have made no progress at all on the issues I have raised. Rather than wasting more time on that now, I would very much appreciate information on a side issue you have raised in the discussion. I don't know what you would consider progress short of my agreeing with you that I screwed up. As for the magnet effect, I will explain. An isoperibolic calorimeter, as Letts used, measures power production by determining temperature drop across the cell wall. The inner temperature is measured at one or more locations within the electrolyte. In his case, the outer temperature was the ambient air. Heat is being generated within the electrolyte by the motion of electrons and ions and by the CF process at the cathode, both of which generate convection currents within the fluid having different temperatures. Such a calorimeter is calibrated by assuming that the calibration method produces similar gradients and that these gradients are stable. When the ions and electrons that are moving within the electrolyte are subjected to a magnetic field, their trajectories are changed. This change causes convection currents within the fluid to change their path so that fluid current of a different temperature impacts on the thermistor, hence the the measured inner temperature appears to change. This change is indistinguishable from a change in power production. I explored this effect in some detail using a similar calorimeter. I found that I could obtain apparent excess energy by simply moving the magnets in the absent of the laser. I also measured the laser effect using a Seebeck calorimeter in the absence of a magnet. Because the cell is within a metal box, I would expect any external magnetic field would be significantly reduced within the calorimeter. As for changing laser polarization, this effect may also be an artifact because the laser effect is very sensitive to where on the surface the laser is applied. Unless the exact same spot on the cathode is being irradiated by the same size spot of laser light, the effect of any change in laser characteristics can not be isolated from these effects. These experiments were not done under conditions that would insure consistency of spot size or position. In short, many of the details about the effect still need to be determined. Therefore, it is premature to speculate about a model. I hope this explanation is clear. Regards, Ed At 2:58 PM 8/20/4, Edmund Storms wrote: 2. An isoperibolic calorimeter has an artifact when a magnetic field is applied. Such fields change the internal thermal gradients so that the calibration no longer applies. Therefore, any claim based on such a calorimeter involving a magnetic field can not be believed. Could you explain how a magnetic field significantly changes thermal gradients in an isoperibolic calorimeter? I assume you mean here that even if magnets in the calorimeter are replaced with masses of the same size, shape and thermal properties, but having no magnetic field, the change in calibration will still be seen? If it is known in advance that magnetic fields are going to be used in a calorimeter, it seems like it should be a fairly small issue to use materials in the calorimeter that do not significantly change their thermal properties in a magnetic field. It should of course be impossible for a static magnetic field to actually change the total energy balance of a process, as that would be a violation of conservation of energy. Thus the question arises: even if there is no motion of conductors, and even if no materials are used which have thermal properties which are altered significantly by magnetic fields, can the calibration constant of an isoperibolic calorimeter be altered by magnetic fields enclosed within the calorimeter? Regards, Horace Heffner
Re: New light on LENR
Ed, Thanks for your more detailed answer, which addresses several points of interest in the Letts effect which were unclear from you published experiment, and your previous messages. Perhaps we should even reserve judgement on this name, the Letts effect, pending review of the similar work of Dr. Mitchell Swartz, who seems to claiming some priority in this discovery. More disturbingly, he seems to be insinuating that there is an ongoing effort on the part of LENR-CANR to censor or otherwise obstruct the distribution of his information. But back to the task of looking towards the future of a planet which is desperately in need of a prompt solution to its increasing energy needs, part of which might be met if the [eponymic] effect is truly reproducible, with or without the direct conversion of heat into electricity... I think everyone will agree with your first conclusion: In short, many of the details about the effect still need to be determined. However, in regard to the second, Therefore, it is premature to speculate about a model. Experimenters desirous of efficiency should disagree in the strongest terms with that conclusion for several reasons: 1) The important thing for the future, not only of this experiment but perhaps for the entire field, is to find the correct model expediently, in order to guide in the correct understanding of this anomaly; and this cannot be done efficiently without first designing experiments based on *most likely possible models,* so that the false models can be eliminated, one by one. 2) To proceed in a hit-or-miss fashion, based on incremental improvements of past experiments, might provide some good answers also, but unless one is very fortunate or skilled, it will logically be a semi-blind effort, since there is no satisfactory underlying model. No doubt you have a personal model in the formative stages, which steers the design of ongoing work. But even though this Edisonian approach does work well sometimes, the only problem is, it may not be as efficient for others than yourself as the alternative: which is building speculative models first, and then performing experiments to prove/disprove those. 3) There are some easy-to-disprove new models, based on Quantum Mechanics, which can be put forward. 4) At least one of these models is poised to produce answers for less effort than is involved in the typical calorimetry experiment, because calorimetry is not needed-and in fact, in this model retention of excess heat in the active zone could be inhibitory to the effect. This model will depend on a newfound ability (hopefully), if the obvious extension to the Letts effect is correct, to construct the experiment in two separated steps a) loading and sealing a target, b) irradiating a stand-alone target, not with some randomly chosen frequency but with a frequency determined by the model, and irradiation the target outside of a liquid cell, so that charged particles can be collected, if they are present. If charged particles are not found, and they should be easy to find if they are present, then that would be very temporarily disappointing, but might lead to a more refined model and subsequent experiment to prove/disprove the next model. You are understandably committed to the Edisonian approach - fine - it has worked for you in the past, but that is because you are an exceptionally skilled experimenter, like Thomas A. himself - but the rarity of those traits only reinforces the notion that it is wiser for others to proceed more logically. I just wish you and the others in this field has a staff of 50-60 technicians to push this effort along Regards, Jones Beene Here is a story on the Large Hadron Collider http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3583658.stm which is the latest $5 billion boondoggle which takes away even more potential funding from much higher priority needs - like REAL - solutions to nuclear energy at the low-energy end of the spectrum. Give experimenter like Storms/Letts/Shoulders/Miley/ etc. etc. a small fraction of that and we could already be sitting on the answer to an oil-free future.
Re: New light on LENR
Ed, Thanks for your more detailed answer, which addresses several points of interest in the Letts effect which were unclear from you published experiment, and your previous messages. Perhaps we should even reserve judgement on this name, the Letts effect, pending review of the similar work of Dr. Mitchell Swartz, who seems to claiming some priority in this discovery. More disturbingly, he seems to be insinuating that there is an ongoing effort on the part of LENR-CANR to censor or otherwise obstruct the distribution of his information. I have no idea how Mitchell thinks. I and Jed on numerous occasions have asked him for copies of his work. On the few occasions when he responded, the files were not in the right format to upload. He was told of this problem, but he never sent proper formats. The LENR-CANR site wants his work if he will provide it. As for his claims of previous laser studies, these never came to my attention at the time, nor to anyone else as far as I know. If Swartz wants to take credit for his ideas, he needs to publish them before the fact not afterwards. But back to the task of looking towards the future of a planet which is desperately in need of a prompt solution to its increasing energy needs, part of which might be met if the [eponymic] effect is truly reproducible, with or without the direct conversion of heat into electricity... I think everyone will agree with your first conclusion: In short, many of the details about the effect still need to be determined. However, in regard to the second, Therefore, it is premature to speculate about a model. Experimenters desirous of efficiency should disagree in the strongest terms with that conclusion for several reasons: 1) The important thing for the future, not only of this experiment but perhaps for the entire field, is to find the correct model expediently, in order to guide in the correct understanding of this anomaly; and this cannot be done efficiently without first designing experiments based on *most likely possible models,* so that the false models can be eliminated, one by one. No one is doing the work hit or miss, as you say. Everyone in the field has his own personal model, most of which have not been published. I'm only concerned about time wasted discussing a model that is based on what might be incorrect experimental claims. It is obvious, even without a theory, that the effect of polarization, a magnetic field, laser frequency, and laser power all need to be explored. A theory adds nothing to this effort right now unless you can predict where the best frequency might be. 2) To proceed in a hit-or-miss fashion, based on incremental improvements of past experiments, might provide some good answers also, but unless one is very fortunate or skilled, it will logically be a semi-blind effort, since there is no satisfactory underlying model. No doubt you have a personal model in the formative stages, which steers the design of ongoing work. But even though this Edisonian approach does work well sometimes, the only problem is, it may not be as efficient for others than yourself as the alternative: which is building speculative models first, and then performing experiments to prove/disprove those. 3) There are some easy-to-disprove new models, based on Quantum Mechanics, which can be put forward. No one is going to waste their time trying to disprove some one else's model. Experimentalists spend their time trying to prove their own models. 4) At least one of these models is poised to produce answers for less effort than is involved in the typical calorimetry experiment, because calorimetry is not needed-and in fact, in this model retention of excess heat in the active zone could be inhibitory to the effect. This model will depend on a newfound ability (hopefully), if the obvious extension to the Letts effect is correct, to construct the experiment in two separated steps a) loading and sealing a target, b) irradiating a stand-alone target, not with some randomly chosen frequency but with a frequency determined by the model, and irradiation the target outside of a liquid cell, so that charged particles can be collected, if they are present. Yes, that would be a good and obvious approach. However, we must first discover how to make the active sites. Right now nature does this by a random process. If charged particles are not found, and they should be easy to find if they are present, then that would be very temporarily disappointing, but might lead to a more refined model and subsequent experiment to prove/disprove the next model. A number of people are now looking for and finding charged particle emission using various methods to initiate the nuclear reactions. However, the emission rate is nearly 10 orders of magnitude below He4 production rate, causing a person to wonder if this has anything to do with the F-P effect. You are
Re: New light on LENR
At 04:43 PM 8/21/2004, Jed Rothwell falsely wrote: To be exact, Swartz sent me a CD-ROM which I was totally unable to read. I could not even read the directory. I have had bad experiences with CD-ROMs. There seem to be three or four different, mutually incompatible formats: ISO, SIF, UDF and so on. Swartz sent to the CD-ROM because his files are very big and could not be e-mailed. When people wish to send large files now, I recommend they combine the files together with pkzip and then upload the zip file to a web page somewhere. Most web pages have 10 MB or more free space. You give me the URL and I download the file. I have done this several times successfully. I recommended this method to Swartz, and I also suggested he try another CD-ROM, but he did not respond. - Jed Ed and Jed should not be argumentative (using Jed's previous unwarranted, improper and outrageous admonishment to a good Vortex scientist) but since they have been, here goes. Bzt. Untrue. False. Delusional. Mr. Jed Rothwell is disingenuous with a very selective memory-- again. First, we sent Jed the files he's referred to in several formats. We have proof he received them AND he received the files by email too. No mention of that in his missive. Jed also got them and said that he had them as pdf files but wanted to key word hunts all through them. No mention of that in his missive,either. Briefly, Jed got them multiple times. In addition to CD-ROM, Jed got them by email and by snail mail. In addition to the CD-ROM Jed received four formats. In addition to the CD-ROM the papers handed to him at Gene's funeral. If memory serves, he or Ed also received another copy by regular mail. So there has been a total transmission of about five formats including one or two copies of each paper in hard-copy format, and email and by CD ROM. No mention of THAT in Jed's missive, is there. The problem is that Jed said he was waiting for Ed's approval. No mention of THAT in his missive. Now, most who are familiar with Jed's antics, know that since I previously criticized his lack of thermal ohmic calibrations (and other issues including failure to consider the Bernard stability), I expected some delay, but more than a year of delay has come and gone, and more than a year has passed since Jed's second receipt of the email papers he did not mention in his missive, that he had received, either. Anyway, readdressing Jed's fantasies and zooming back to reality. Next, Rothwell later informed me, at about the time he began verbally attacking my work including here on vortex, that my papers were not acceptable based upon his discussion with Ed Storms. Jed told me that by telephone. Later, in email Jed confirmed that control of the site is by Ed Storms. Here is one of his emails purporting Jed's plausible deniability based on Ed Storms: From: Jed Rothwell [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Thu, 25 Sep 2003 Furthermore, I have no editorial role in LENR-CANR. Ed and others make all decisions about what papers will be uploaded. All I do is OCR the papers and generate the indexes. - Jed Q.E.D. So, the record shows that Jed is disingenuous again. First, Jed got the papers on pdf and other formats. Jed waited for Ed Storms' approval. Jed and Storms also got the papers by mail on hard-copy print. Jed waited for Ed Storms' approval. Jed got the papers in hand at Gene's funeral Jed waited for Ed Storms' approval. Jed got the papers by CD-ROM, and I doubt he had trouble since we discussed the papers AND since no one else had trouble. Jed waited for Ed Storms' approval. Thus, the likelihood of censorship at the LENR site run by Rothwell and Storms, given the absence of three papers (zero of three) and the time involved (more than a year), and the multiplicity of copies received, is probably characterized by a p value by actuarial z test of at least p .01 Q.E.D. Jed has never liked papers involving calibrations because as Jed has said, We don't need no (stinking) calibrations. (Perhaps that was sarcasm, perhaps not.) In any case, Jed's readers ought to have access to his requisite warning label. Hope that helps. Dr. Mitchell Swartz [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: New light on LENR
At 06:30 PM 8/21/2004, Jed Rothwell evasively wrote, hand-waving to his own straw arguments, answering nothing. Rothwell of course is simply ignoring the issues of possible censorship on the LENR website. Could it be? Well, for the record, given Rothwell's evasive nonsense, here is yet another additional corroboration taken from email written by our mutual late friend, Dr. Eugene Mallove. It is about Storms/Rothwell censorship and Gene picked the title. In the missive. Dr. Mallove informed me about a vortex post which I had missed, but which HE thought important, and he wrote his thoughtful and now-relevant comment below. I wished I had looked closer before this latest denial by the Rothwell. == EMAIL from Dr. Eugene Mallove= Subject: Storms/Rothwell censorship = User-Agent: Microsoft-Entourage/10.1.4.030702.0 Date: Mon, 29 Mar 2004 Subject: Storms/Rothwell censorship From: Eugene F. Mallove [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Mitchell Swartz [EMAIL PROTECTED] Mitch, FYI -- this was a message that Rothwell posted to Vortex about a month ago: At LENR-CANR.org we have censored out some of the controversial claims related to CF, such as transmuting macroscopic amounts of gold, or biological transmutations, along with some of the extremely unconventional theories. This is not because we (Storms and Rothwell) oppose these claims, or because we are upset by them. It is for political reasons only. The goal of LENR-CANR is to convince mainstream scientists that CF is real. This goal would be hampered by presenting such extreme views. Actually, I have no opinion about most theories, and I could not care less how weird the data may seem. At the Scientific American and the APS they feel hostility toward such things. They have a sense that publishing such data will harm their readers and sully the traditions and reputation of academic science. I am not a member of the congregation at the Church of Academic Science, and I could not care less about the Goddess Academia's Sacred Reputation. I don't publish because of politics and limited web space. - Jed This is known as science by politics -- it is disgusting. Storms doesn't have leg to stand on and he knows it. - Gene = end of missive === And so, Gene was prophetic. When the web-moderators at LENR were upset about calibrations, or noise measurement, or especially those darn calibrations that semiquantitatively correct their errors secondary to Bernard instability, or anything else as Jed posted, they censored them. Rothwell continues: There may be four formats and there may be a dozen, but I could not read a single byte. Swartz will have to do what 200 other authors have done. They had no difficulty, and neither will he. As much as I might like to make an exception and bend over backwards for him, I could not read the media he sent and I threw it away, so there is nothing more I can do. Swartz should upload the papers on his own site, and give me the URL, so I can download them and prepare them for LENR-CANR.org. For that matter, he should give everyone the URL. - Jed Actually, the offer stands exactly as before. Any vort, student, or scientist who would like a copy of the paper prepublication, please send me a private email, subject: Photoinduced Excess Heat, and I will send a copy of the manuscript thereafter by email. The paper itself runs about 2 Megabytes in a pdf file. Other papers on cold fusion science and engineering not available elsewhere but published will shortly be available at the COLD FUSION TIMES web site http://world.std.com/~mica/cft.html and the JET Thermal Products web site at http://world.std.com/~mica/jet.html The second website includes a page showing our public demonstration of cold fusion, which was openly shown at MIT during the last week of August 2003 at ICCF-10. http://world.std.com/~mica/jeticcf10demo.html They will be out in the Proceedings in any case. I agree with Dr. Mallove's assessment, and do wish that I had spoken to him about this more (and so much else) when there was time, over a nice meal. Dr. Mitchell Swartz [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: New light on LENR
Horace Heffner writes I would certainly agree that it is unfortunate that no one bothered to quantify the fields involved in their publication, or possibly to even measure them or even compute them theoretically. Huh? Fromthe Letts paper, page 7: During the course of experimentation it was discovered that polarization of the laser beam can dramatically affect the thermal response of the cathode to the laser beam. Cravens observed during one of our runs that when the laser beam polarization is perpendicular to an external magnetic field, the thermal response of the cathode is maximized. The polarization of the beam was rotated with a ½ wave retarder; as the polarization of the beam became parallel to the external magnetic field lines, apparent excess power declined. With the ½ wave retarder shown in Figure 9, the laser beam polarization was rotated with respect to an *external magnetic field of 350 Gauss.* How much more specific were you expecting him to be? And 350 Gauss is a fairly weak field, as I would categorize it. Its too bad he didn't get some NIB magnets which can have a surface field of 30x what he used. To that extent it can not be said one way or another the importance of the magnetic fields involved because they were not quantified. It can only be said that Letts observed an experimental effect upon adding or removing the magnets. Not exactly. Polarization is important. Field orientation is important. But Storms has demonstrated that the Laser alone is sufficient and that an axial field does not help at all. Storms also suggests that Letts calorimetry is being affected. If Letts does not acknowledge that point, then what all this says to me is that this experiment begs for more clarification. Ed says, Someday, someone might properly determine if a magnet is important. Meanwhile, I and McKubre replicated the basic observation. You seem to think that the claimed effect of the magnetic field has essential importance while I claim that producing extra heat using a laser is the essential point. This last sentence is clearly NOT true, as Ed previously indicated. I think he must have fired this off in haste. The excess heat is de minimis. The importance of the Laser is clearly related to field alignment within the matrix. From that standpoint the magnetic field should be able to add or subtract, depending on its proper alignment. I sense that Horace has performed this on his own but is not ready to share that work thus far. Understandable, but I hope he will at least share his thoughts on the underlying theory. Do you see this as a robust QM effect, Horace? Jones
Re: New light on LENR
Dear Vorts: Despite the comments posted here, the optical irradiation of cold fusion cathodes dates back to 1989. Our paper from the Proceedings of ICCF-10 discusses this (paper #2 of 3 at ICCF-10), the physics involved, the role of heavy water, and biphasic effects. The paper is, to my knowledge and belief, not available at the censored LENR site. Any vort, student, or scientist who would like a copy of the paper prepublication, please send me a private email, subject: Photoinduced Excess Heat, and I will send a copy of the manuscript thereafter by email. The abstract of this paper is below, and the paper itself runs about 2 Megabytes in a pdf file. Other papers on cold fusion science and engineering not available elsewhere but published will shortly be available at the COLD FUSION TIMES web site http://world.std.com/~mica/cft.html and the JET Thermal Products web site at http://world.std.com/~mica/jet.html The second website includes a page showing our public demonstration of cold fusion, which was openly shown at MIT during the last week of August 2003 at ICCF-10. http://world.std.com/~mica/jeticcf10demo.html Hope that helps. Dr. Mitchell Swartz [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Abstract from ICCF-10 --- Photoinduced Excess Heat from Laser-Irradiated Electrically-Polarized Palladium Cathodes in D2O Mitchell R. Swartz JET Thermal Products There is a positive photothermoelectric response for optically-irradiated [670 nm laser, 3.5 milliwatts] spiral-wound, electrically-polarized palladium cathodes in very low electrical conductivity heavy water. An incremental photoinduced excess heat of ~89+/-16 milliwatts results from a ~3 milliwatt incident optical beam, but only in the presence of a functioning active loaded cathode. The power gain at high input power levels has a biphasic photothermoelectric response.
Re: New light on LENR
Hi Mitchell Any vort, student, or scientist who would like a copy of the paper prepublication, please send me a private email, I would like a copy: [EMAIL PROTECTED] TIA, Jones Beene
Re: New light on LENR
At 10:40 AM 8/20/4, Jed Rothwell wrote: Don't be argumentative. Yes, sorry, I'm in a grumpy mood. What can one expect from a curmudgeon? My only reasonable defense is that if we all agreed on everything there would not be much to discuss! 8^) Regards, Horace Heffner
Re: New light on LENR
I will make one more attempt. 1. I claim that a laser produces extra energy when no magnet is used and when it is orientated the manner I used. Letts showed that the laser produced about the same amount of energy I observed when the magnet was orientated in his manner. He claimed that he got the best effect when he used his orientation. Perhaps a better effect might result using his orientation, but the basic effect occurred with and without a magnet. This all I ever claimed. Without actually using Lett's magnets, it would be impossible to apply an identical field. 2. An isoperibolic calorimeter has an artifact when a magnetic field is applied. Such fields change the internal thermal gradients so that the calibration no longer applies. Therefore, any claim based on such a calorimeter involving a magnetic field can not be believed. 3. I'm confused as to why this is so important to you and why you insist that a magnetic field is so important. You or anyone else are free to explore the effect of a magnet knowing that the basic claim has been reproduced. I assume you find that word more acceptable than replicate. Regards, Ed Horace Heffner wrote: At 7:09 AM 8/20/4, Edmund Storms wrote: Horace, I seem to be having a hard time making my self understood. Funny, I too feel I have not been able to make myself understood. The effect of a magnetic field, no matter how it is orientated, is an artifact of calorimeter used. In the Letts-Cravens experiment the magnetic field is not an atrifact, but rather a critical experimental variable. Determination of the effect of a powerful magnetic field perpendicular to the laser beam is critical to establishing the theory. If the magnetic field were not an important issue the why would both Letts and yourself bother to include powerful magnets in the experiment? Why would there even be a discussion such as we are having? This is not an artifact issue. I would certainly agree that it is unfortunate that no one bothered to quantify the fields involved in their publication, or possibly to even measure them or even compute them theoretically. To that extent it can not be said one way or another the importance of the magnetic fields involved because they were not quantified. It can only be said that Letts observed an experimental effect upon adding or removing the magnets. Even if a magnet does have an effect, this fact could not be determined by Letts because of this artifact. I showed that a laser can increase heat output of a F-P cell, exactly as Letts demonstrated. This much of the claim was replicated. No one, at this time, knows if a magnetic field would have an effect or not. This seems to be a major change of position on your part. It is inconsistent with your recent statment on the issue: I found that a magnetic field was irrelevant to producing the effect. By that I mean that the basic effect occurs with and without a magnet. The magnet would be relevant if I found an effect when the magnet was applied and no effect when the magnet was removed. However, this is not the case. It is possible that the effect could be improved with proper orientation. Such a possible effect does not change the statement that the magnetic field is irrelevant to the basic effect. Someday, someone might properly determine if a magnet is important. Meanwhile, I and McKubre replicated the basic observation. You seem to think that the claimed effect of the magnetic field has essential importance while I claim that producing extra heat using a laser is the essential point. This is not my main point at all. My principle objection is to *your* making any claims that your experiment made any determination whatsoever as to the effect of the magnetic field. I claimed that the effect occurred whether the magnet was applied or not. Therefore, I made a determination about the effect of a magnet. I did not explore any details about how a magnet might improve the effect. You included the magnets in your experiments, but you oriented them so as to be ineffective. You are misleading other researchers when you make statements like I found that a magnetic field was irrelevant to producing the effect. I am simply trying to get you to look at your experiment with a more thoroughly critical eye to see possibly *why* you determined there was no static magnetic field effect, contrary to Letts' results. What would you expected me to see if I applied the magnet in the same way Letts did? Would you expect I would see a much bigger effect? As it was, I saw almost the same effect as Letts did with his magnet, but without a magnet. You seem to be complaining about why I don't see a bigger effect. If you want to produce a bigger effect, I suggest you explore some of the variables, including t magnetic orientation. I'm sure the effect can be made bigger several different ways. However, don't get on my case because I did not try
Re: New light on LENR
Horace Heffner writes: The Letts effect is not merely due to the heat pulse (heating) from a laser. That's what I said. - Jed
RE: New light on LENR
Hi Ed. Presumable you mean this paper. http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/StormsEuseofavery.pdf I had a few questions about the Letts work; true to form you addressed them all in the paper. That you saw no resonant peak for laser frequency is a critical observation; given the fractal nature of the electrodeposited gold I wouldn't expect a resonance effect to be seen and indeed you don't. It would however increase the energy absorbed by the metal surface at that point. Have you tried using a strong light source masked to a pin-point? In my own work I've found that a light source on the cathode can cause a strong increase in electrodeposition at that point; the effect can be very gross in the case of a silver nitrate solution ( the silver dendrites actually grow towards the light ). K. -Original Message- From: Edmund Storms [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, August 19, 2004 8:53 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: New light on LENR Horace Heffner wrote: At 3:23 PM 8/17/4, Jed Rothwell wrote: As I recall, Ed Storms replicated this and was duly impressed, but not all that impressed. Ed Storms did *not* replicate Letts' experiment, as I pointed out here on vortex at the time. He oriented his magnetic field improperly, and thus, as would be expected, he did not observe the Letts effect. His magnetic field was aligned with the laser beam instead of perpendicular to it as Letts required. Of further, but much lesser concern, was the fact that no magnetic field measurments were obtained, or at least published, by either Letts or Storms. I suggest you read my ICCF-10 paper where this work is described. I found that a magnetic field was irrelevant to producing the effect. If I did not replicate the Letts effect than I must have discovered the Storms effect. In any case, I once again showed that a laser does indeed increase the amount of excess energy produced by a F-P cell. That observation is the only aspect of the Letts effect that is important. Letts made several claims about how the effect is affected by external variables that have not been found to be important. This failure does not distract from the basic claim. I think it has been known for some time that things like laser light or a heat pulse will reliably trigger a reaction in a cathode that is otherwise ready to go. I do not know whether a laser is significantly better than the heat pulse, or tapping the cell, or disturbing equilibrium some other way. - Jed The Letts effect is not merely due to the heat pulse (heating) from a laser. The increased temperature produced by a 35 mW laser is trivial, even when it is focused on a person's finger. Regards, Ed Regards, Horace Heffner
Re: New light on LENR
At 9:56 AM 8/19/4, Jed Rothwell wrote: Horace Heffner writes: The Letts effect is not merely due to the heat pulse (heating) from a laser. That's what I said. On the contrary, 3:23 PM 8/17/4, Jed Rothwell wrote: I think it has been known for some time that things like laser light or a heat pulse will reliably trigger a reaction in a cathode that is otherwise ready to go. I do not know whether a laser is significantly better than the heat pulse, or tapping the cell, or disturbing equilibrium some other way. Regards, Horace Heffner
Re: New light on LENR
At 6:52 AM 8/19/4, Edmund Storms wrote: Horace Heffner wrote: At 3:23 PM 8/17/4, Jed Rothwell wrote: As I recall, Ed Storms replicated this and was duly impressed, but not all that impressed. Ed Storms did *not* replicate Letts' experiment, as I pointed out here on vortex at the time. He oriented his magnetic field improperly, and thus, as would be expected, he did not observe the Letts effect. His magnetic field was aligned with the laser beam instead of perpendicular to it as Letts required. Of further, but much lesser concern, was the fact that no magnetic field measurments were obtained, or at least published, by either Letts or Storms. I suggest you read my ICCF-10 paper where this work is described. I found that a magnetic field was irrelevant to producing the effect. My comments above were *based* on that paper and the related discussion here on vortex, in which I pointed out that you had your magnetic field improperly oriented to achieve replication. I suggest you take the prudent scientific approach of actully considering that I may have been correct in that assertion. Are you saying the magnetic field at the laser target was *not* aligned with the beam? As I pointed oout in that discussion, the magnetic field so aligned would certainly be expected to be irrelevant. You therefore did not replicate Letts experiment. If I did not replicate the Letts effect than I must have discovered the Storms effect. In any case, I once again showed that a laser does indeed increase the amount of excess energy produced by a F-P cell. That observation is the only aspect of the Letts effect that is important. Not so. If magnetic field intensity (in the proper direction) affect the energy output, then that is a very significant finding, not only in regards to establishing the fundamental theory, but also in regards to practical considerations. Much more powerful magnetic fields than those used in subject experiments can be provided without significant energy input. If energy output is a function of field strength, then this could have major implications with regard to energy production. Letts made several claims about how the effect is affected by external variables that have not been found to be important. This failure does not distract from the basic claim. The fact you did not replicate Letts distracts from your claim that magnetic field intensity does not matter. Regards, Horace Heffner
Re: New light on LENR
Horace Heffner wrote: At 6:52 AM 8/19/4, Edmund Storms wrote: Horace Heffner wrote: At 3:23 PM 8/17/4, Jed Rothwell wrote: As I recall, Ed Storms replicated this and was duly impressed, but not all that impressed. Ed Storms did *not* replicate Letts' experiment, as I pointed out here on vortex at the time. He oriented his magnetic field improperly, and thus, as would be expected, he did not observe the Letts effect. His magnetic field was aligned with the laser beam instead of perpendicular to it as Letts required. Of further, but much lesser concern, was the fact that no magnetic field measurments were obtained, or at least published, by either Letts or Storms. I suggest you read my ICCF-10 paper where this work is described. I found that a magnetic field was irrelevant to producing the effect. My comments above were *based* on that paper and the related discussion here on vortex, in which I pointed out that you had your magnetic field improperly oriented to achieve replication. I suggest you take the prudent scientific approach of actully considering that I may have been correct in that assertion. Are you saying the magnetic field at the laser target was *not* aligned with the beam? I'm saying that the effect works whether a magnet is present or not. I tried it both ways. I found that the effect of the magnet in the Letts calorimeter was an artifact produced by changes in ion convection, which changed the temperature at the internal thermistor and the apparent amount of excess energy. As I pointed oout in that discussion, the magnetic field so aligned would certainly be expected to be irrelevant. You therefore did not replicate Letts experiment. If I did not replicate the Letts effect than I must have discovered the Storms effect. In any case, I once again showed that a laser does indeed increase the amount of excess energy produced by a F-P cell. That observation is the only aspect of the Letts effect that is important. Not so. If magnetic field intensity (in the proper direction) affect the energy output, then that is a very significant finding, not only in regards to establishing the fundamental theory, but also in regards to practical considerations. Of course it would be important if the magnet had real effect, but it did not. Therefore, the theory needs to be changed. Much more powerful magnetic fields than those used in subject experiments can be provided without significant energy input. If energy output is a function of field strength, then this could have major implications with regard to energy production. Letts made several claims about how the effect is affected by external variables that have not been found to be important. This failure does not distract from the basic claim. The fact you did not replicate Letts distracts from your claim that magnetic field intensity does not matter. What exactly do you mean by replication? Do I have to make the same mistakes? Do I have to use a calorimeter that is affected by a magnetic field? Regards, Ed Regards, Horace Heffner
Re: New light on LENR
At 4:25 PM 8/19/4, Edmund Storms wrote: What exactly do you mean by replication? Do I have to make the same mistakes? Do I have to use a calorimeter that is affected by a magnetic field? You have to do what you apparently thus far have entirely failed to do. You have to have some approximate concept of the size and orientation of the magnetic field you imposed on the target. Removing a nominal or improperly oriented field should of course have no effect whatsoever. That is no guarantee that a field imposed in the manner Letts specifies will work either, but that is not yet a relevant point. Not properly imposing the magnetic field guarantees that the experiment is not properly replicated. Regards, Horace Heffner
Re: New light on LENR
Jed Rothwell writes, Sez who? Where will this headline be? I hope that I am not misinformed on this, but since you have not heard, perhaps it is premature to speculate. I still suspect that an article will appear soon in Fusion Science Technology - the renamed journal of The American Nuclear Society. Since Miley retired and was replaced by Uckan as editor the articles relating to LENR have all but disappeared, but perhaps things are poised to change with higher quality experiments which do not depend on calorimetry. They need something to broaden their ever-narrowing appeal and justify that ~$1500 subscription price for 8 issues. Letts and Cravens are nice guys, but they have not revealed many details or done anything to encourage replication or outside interest. Getting information from them is like pulling teeth. I think this applies to Cravens. He has been surprisingly reticent in the past about information which he had freely given to IE which they never got around to publishing, for instance. If all researchers were that paranoid about sharing results, the field would go nowhere; but the fact that the ICCF-10 paper in question was full of details, and that a normally skeptical Scott Little participated in the findings, and that similar techniques have been used before with lesser success, for the reasons stated in the paper, makes it appear that things have improved dramatically. As I recall, Ed Storms replicated this and was duly impressed, but not all that impressed. That is a surprise for the reason which will be mentioned below. I think it has been known for some time that things like laser light or a heat pulse will reliably trigger a reaction in a cathode that is otherwise ready to go. I do not know whether a laser is significantly better than the heat pulse, If you read the experiment carefully, and understand that it is not just a laser, but a laser tuned to an exact frequency which coincides with a *quantum state,* and saw the part about the adverse effects of polarization, then it is clear that yes, the laser light is absolutely critical for this experiment, heat will not work, and moreover that the effect is a robust QM effect. That last point should be stressed. But the main thing which seems to have been missed here is what is NOT said in this particular experiment, but should be demonstrated soon, hopefully. This will be experimental work from another source than Letts and Cravens, or perhaps from both. The importance is this, as what I am inferring is that for the first time, overunity output of LENR will be in the form of direct ELECTRICAL output, rather than heat. How is that possible? Letts and Cravens, of course, ran their experiment in a water filled cell where heat output was the only option, but since ongoing electrolysis is not necessary with a version of the laser technique, at least not for a substantial time period, then a similar experiment can be run in vacuum with direct conversion of the energy of the charged particles into electricity, rather than into heat. IOW, once the target electrode has been fabricated, loaded and sealed, then it can be placed in a direct converter scheme, like a smaller version of this one: http://fti.neep.wisc.edu/neep602/LEC27/IMAGES/fig7.JPG Which, once irradiated with a laser(s) of precise frequency will stimulate BEC-like fusion and allow the energy of charged particles to be converted directly into electricity at 60-80% efficiency. That is a pretty huge jump over heat output ! This kind of thing will eliminate all the vagueness inherent in calorimetry, even if the initial experiment is not self-powered. By that, it is meant that if you direct converter shows an electrical output of 500 milliwatts from a laser beam of 50 milliwatts, then those results stand by themselves without all the questions which can come up when calorimetry is used. Even J.R. seems to question the calorimetry of the Letts paper, so you can imagine what a Park or other skeptic would say about it. With direct electrical conversion, these kinds of doubts are no longer tenable. Perhaps this shameless optimism is a result of overestimating the impact that a successful direct-electrical-conversion experiment would have on the broader physics community, perhaps not. Time will tell. Jones
Re: New light on LENR
Jones Beene writes: It is a truly impressive claim. An apparent, repeatable, replicated, *on-demand* attainment of a COP of ~17 and greater. A little too impressive. I would like to know more about the calorimetry. I would be willing to bet that a number of other labs, perhaps a large number in Asia alone, have now taken up this technique, either openly or covertly. Not as far as I know, they haven't. I would probably hear something. Do any of them really know why this technique, assuming that it is as repeatable as claimed (and there is mounting evidence of that), is poised to make a huge headline soon? Sez who? Where will this headline be? Letts and Cravens are nice guys, but they have not revealed many details or done anything to encourage replication or outside interest. Getting information from them is like pulling teeth. As I recall, Ed Storms replicated this and was duly impressed, but not all that impressed. I think it has been known for some time that things like laser light or a heat pulse will reliably trigger a reaction in a cathode that is otherwise ready to go. I do not know whether a laser is significantly better than the heat pulse, or tapping the cell, or disturbing equilibrium some other way. - Jed
