At 10:38 AM 8/20/4, Jones Beene wrote: >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 � wave retarder; as the polarization of the >beam became parallel to the external magnetic field lines, apparent excess >power declined. With the � wave retarder shown in Figure 9, the laser beam >polarization was rotated with respect to an *external magnetic field of >350 Gauss.* [snip] >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.
Say, it just dawned on me that Letts did not move the magnets but simply rotated the polarization angle of the laser beam. Rotating the polarization of the laser beam should not in any way affect the calorimeter constant. There is no apparent way Letts' calorimetry could be affected by simply rotating the polarization of the laser beam. In Letts' experiment the relationship of the magnetic field to the laser beam polarization direction is changed by the rotation of either the magnets or the laser beam polarization direction. The mutual angle is a relative number. In Storm's experiment rotating the laser beam would of course have no effect at all on the polarization/field direction relationship because the magnetic field is parallel to the beam at the target. However, the strength of the magnetic field in Storm's experiment depends entirely on how well centered the target spot was between the magnet faces. Since like poles were opposed in the Storms experiment, if the target were centrally located between the poles, on the central axis between the poles, then the field strength would be roughly zero at the target. There would be no difference in field strength whether the magnets were present or not. It would be near zero in both cases. Regards, Horace Heffner
