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
