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
