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 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. 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. The effect of a magnetic field, or for that matter the temperature, the method of applying the gold, or the phase of the Moon at the time are of lesser importance. Based on your logic, no one has replicated the F-P effect either because they have not used the same kind of calorimeter used before, nor used Pd wire instead of plate, nor used Pd made by J-M, nor worked in Utah.
Regards. Ed Horace Heffner wrote: > 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
