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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
Horace Heffner writes:
The Letts effect is not merely due to the heat pulse (heating) from a laser.
That's what I said.
- Jed
, 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
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
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
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
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
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
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
21 matches
Mail list logo
