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-Cravens experiment the magnetic field is not an atrifact, but rather a critical experimental variable. Determination of the effect of a powerful magnetic field perpendicular to the laser beam is critical to establishing the theory. If the magnetic field were not an important issue the why would both Letts and yourself bother to include powerful magnets in the experiment? Why would there even be a discussion such as we are having? This is not an artifact issue. 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. To that extent it can not be said one way or another the importance of the magnetic fields involved because they were not quantified. It can only be said that Letts observed an experimental effect upon adding or removing the magnets. >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. This seems to be a major change of position on your part. It is inconsistent with your recent statment on the issue: "I found that a magnetic field was irrelevant to producing the effect." >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. This is not my main point at all. My principle objection is to *your* making any claims that your experiment made any determination whatsoever as to the effect of the magnetic field. You included the magnets in your experiments, but you oriented them so as to be ineffective. You are misleading other researchers when you make statements like "I found that a magnetic field was irrelevant to producing the effect." I am simply trying to get you to look at your experiment with a more thoroughly critical eye to see possibly *why* you determined there was no static magnetic field effect, contrary to Letts' results. That said, I do certainly do feel that *if* it is established through replication that a strong ambient magnetic field, oriented as Letts oriented his, parallel to the target surface and perpendicular to the laser beam, has an effect on power output, then that has monumental importance to the underlying theory and likely is of practical significance. Any misstatements that lead to other researchers dismissing this kind of future research certainly require adressing at this 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. You did not mention the phase of the moon in your publication. You did state that you found no magntic field effect. The assertion that there is no magnetic field effect, based on your experimental proceedure, is unwarrented. If you had mentioned the phases of the moon or other red herrings, then those might be under discussion as well. >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 You included the magnets in your experiment. You bungled their selection or orientation. You made false conclusions about the static magnetic field effect, and more importantly, drew conclusions that may lead other researches away from important lines of investigation. You have refused to deal with the issue of field strength and orientation, but rather focus on the importance of the discovery of the laser effect, and other aspects of replication. Yes the laser effect is important, but it is also irrelevant to the points I have been trying to make. Your experiment is *not* a replication of Letts' experiment with regard to the static magnetic field, an experimental variable critical to establishing Letts' theory, his basis for the experiment. Letts' experiment had magnets oriented so as to create a powerful magnetic field in the appropriate direction. Yours did not. What I am saying I think is actually good news. It provides a possible explanation for the discrepancies in results and could help lead to the fully consistent replications necessary for theory development. Regards, Horace Heffner
