At 10:38 AM 8/20/4, Jones Beene wrote: >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 discovered that polarization >of the laser beam can dramatically affect the thermal response of the >cathode to the laser beam. Cravens observed during one of our runs that >when the laser beam polarization is perpendicular to an external magnetic >field, the thermal response of the cathode is maximized. The polarization >of the beam was rotated with a ½ wave retarder; as the polarization of the >beam became parallel to the external magnetic field lines, apparent excess >power declined. With the ½ wave retarder shown in Figure 9, the laser beam >polarization was rotated with respect to an *external magnetic field of >350 Gauss.* > >How much more specific were you expecting him to be? And 350 Gauss is a >fairly weak field, as I would categorize it. Its too bad he didn't get >some NIB magnets which can have a surface field of 30x what he used.
I certainly stand corrected on that! Thank you for pointing that out. I need to go back and read the articles again, I guess, as I have written what I have had to say from memory. I am presently busy with home improvement projects (like putting on a new roof) and probably would not be responding at all if it weren't for the rain. (Winter is coming fast now here in Alaska, maybe in 6 weeks.) I don't recall anything being said about actual measurements of the magnetic field though. > >> 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. > >Not exactly. Polarization is important. Field orientation is important. >But Storms has demonstrated that the Laser alone is sufficient and that an >axial field does not help at all. Storms also suggests that Letts >calorimetry is being affected. If Letts does not acknowledge that point, >then what all this says to me is that this experiment begs for more >clarification. Yes, I think it is fair to assume that Storm's field was mostly axial. However, there may be ambient fields that remain in the apparatus even when Storm's magnets are removed. It's difficult to say what is what for sure unless there are measurements. [snip] > >I sense that Horace has performed this on his own but is not ready to >share that work thus far. Understandable, but I hope he will at least >share his thoughts on the underlying theory. I haven't done any laser work at all, but some years ago (1998?) observed qualitative changes in AC electrospark brightness and destructiveness (cavitation assumed) based on changes in magnetic field intensity and orientation. High power (35 MGO) magnets were used in the experiments. I did not obtain any reliable calorimetry results at the time as I was mainly working on my boiloff calorimetry technique then. I was working at appx 700 volts at the time, I think, using high impedence electrolytes and electrodes conditioned with pre-deposited capacitive coatings. The current vs voltage trace indicated the capacitve layer was intact for much of the AC cycle, and thus had a large breakdown voltage. I think the observation was only 10-15 percent ou, but the calorimetry technique I felt was not yet reliable. My boiloff calorimetry technique got pretty good eventually, but I never went back to look at the magnetic field effect. > >Do you see this as a robust QM effect, Horace? I don't know. I really don't even have a good basis for speculation on that. I can't imagine the effect not being QM in nature, but I can't think of any experimental evidence (as opposed to any theory) that requires long-range coherence. My brain lately has been nearly free of scientific thought, and my memory not so great, so my comments and speculations are probably not of much use. Regards, Horace Heffner
