At 6:26 PM 8/23/4, Keith Nagel wrote:
>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 electro
as 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
i
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
At 06:41 PM 8/22/2004, Nick Palmer
wrote:
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 wi
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 prer
I want to thank Swartz for pointing out the errors. After comparing
the website to his list of references on his website I could find 5 citations
that contained differences, generally of a minor nature. These will
be corrected. However, I did discover that 18 of his papers are missing
on the w
duced some good discussion. Thanks.
K.
-Original Message-
From: Edmund Storms [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sunday, August 22, 2004 8:34 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: New light on LENR
Horace Heffner wrote:
> At 7:40 AM 8/21/4, Edmund Storms wrote:
> >Horace Heffner
At 12:47 PM 8/21/2004, Ed Storms wrote:
> 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
Horace Heffner wrote:
> At 7:40 AM 8/21/4, Edmund Storms wrote:
> >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
At 10:37 PM 8/21/2004, Ed Storm's
wrote:
So that no misunderstanding is generated by
Swartzs comments, let me state clearly the approach taken at
LENR-CANR. We place on the site all published citations we can find
to papers that have any relationship to LENR. Twenty-five citations
are availab
At 10:37 PM 8/21/2004, Ed Storms
wrote:
I take responsibility for such
judgments. Nevertheless, if the author can make a good case for the
value of the work, I can change my mind.
Ed Storms does finally admit that he is the source of the
censorship.
This does appear to totally corroborate
At 7:40 AM 8/21/4, Edmund Storms wrote:
>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 wh
Title: Re: New light on LENR
So that no misunderstanding is generated by Swartz’s comments, let me state clearly the approach taken at LENR-CANR. We place on the site all published citations we can find to papers that have any relationship to LENR. Twenty-five citations are available to
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 anoth
Mitchell Swartz writes:
"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."
Nope. I couldn't read the CD ROM and I never saw an e-mail. Maybe my e-mail
reader has a limit to the size of the message, or the serve
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
> 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
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
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 ag
The laser triggered "exotherm" might be the result of formation of Lithium-Gold, Lithium-Pd,
Li-D, and out gassed Deuterons, or any number of exothermic intermetallic compound/Deuteron
formation reactions.
The exothermic Lithium-Tin reaction was considered for space power applications
in the
At 10:38 AM 8/20/4, Jones Beene wrote:
>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
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.
At 2:58 PM 8/20/4, Edmund Storms wrote:
>2. An isoperibolic calorimeter has an artifact w
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
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
At 10:38 AM 8/20/4, Jones Beene wrote:
>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, pag
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
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
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
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-Crave
Horace, I seem to be having a hard time making my self understood. The effect
of a magnetic field, no matter how it is orientated, is an artifact of
calorimeter used. 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
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
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 approxima
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' expe
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 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
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 di
Horace Heffner writes:
> The Letts effect is not merely due to the heat pulse (heating) from a laser.
That's what I said.
- Jed
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 im
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 expe
Terry Blanton writes,
> Considering the effect of the optical source only, this is a COP of 10.
Or, if looking at an optimized whole system scaled up by factor of 100, if we start
with 3 watts of laser-light in and 50 watts heat out for a COP of ~17 and reduce that
by the conversion efficienc
Jones Beene wrote:
And it works in dark cells. As I mentioned,
tapping a cell sometimes works. So I do not see what can be "absolutely
critical" about it.
The key distinction there is "sometimes". I suppose a magic wand might work
"sometimes," but the whole thrust of the recent effort is to
Jones Beene wrote:
The newer generation of LED array lasers however is high efficiency and, fortunately,
the low-cost diode lasers designed for such things as data storage are exactly in the
correct range for this LENR work.
Okay, I went and read the paper. They were using plain old laser diodes
Jones Beene wrote:
> > But heat does, in fact, work.
>
> Heat does work occassionally in *other* types of cells (Li Cell, Case
Cell) . . .
I mean it works in Pd - D2O Fleischmann-Pons cells.
> . . . but the effect of using heat seem clearly to be far less robust and
> far less reproducible.
As fa
Terry Blanton writes,
> But the laser is notoriously inefficient. It can easily take 500
> milliWatts of input to get 50 milliWatts of laser energy.
Yes, that is true of the older gas discharge laser. The CO2 laser was only 1-2%
efficient, if memory serves.
The newer generation of LED array
Jed Rothwell writes:
> That would be good news, but the editor said she is not interested in
> articles about CF. Who told you she might accept one?
I think the operative distinction here is what is "cold". Arguably, the use of a laser
raises this to a new "category," a notch above the dreaded
Jones Beene wrote:
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.
But the laser is notoriously inefficie
Jones Beene writes:
> 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.
That would be good news,
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 Nuc
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
> numb
Letts and Cravens presented an extraordinary paper: "Laser Stimulation Of Deuterated
Palladium: Past And Present." at the Tenth International Conference on Cold Fusion.
2003. Cambridge. LENR-CANR has it at:
http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/LettsDlaserstimu.pdf
It could end up being the most impor
50 matches
Mail list logo
