Hi Ed & Horace. The follow experiment may shed some light on Ed's observations regarding magnetism and ionic flow in electrochemical cells.
An electrolytic cell was constructed using a rectangular transparent vessel, perhaps 1/2" in thickness, with a wire anode and cathode at each end of the cell. As shown... *A C* *A C* *A C* ********** The cell was filled with a neutral salt solution, NaCl is fine if you don't mind a little chlorine being liberated at the anode. Sodium Sulfate would be a better choice. The solution is doped with Phenolphthalein so as to visually indicate areas of excess acid ( positive ions ) or base ( negative ions ). Suitable current was passed through the cell, and a magnet is brought into contact with the cell wall. What was observed was lobes or zones of red and blue, cooresponding with the flux of the magnet. The areas of red and blue tended to be equal, proving that charge was being conserved. Now, presuming that heat is being liberated at both electrodes in differing quantities, it's no great leap to suggest that thermal gradients would be affected accordingly. In a calorimeter which is sensitive to gradients, heat artifacts will be noted. I agree with Horace that it is hard to judge from the paper Ed referenced just how the field is aligned at the cathode. Yet I believe Ed is correct in stating that if he has shown excess heat is stimulated by laser without a magnetic field, and that artifact can be introduced by addition of magnetic field, that the ball is back in Lett's court to show how artifact _wasn't_ the cause of the initial observation. I think all that global warming to your permafrost is making you a bit cranky, Horace (grin). That said, your spirited disagreement has produced some good discussion. Thanks. K. -----Original Message----- From: Edmund Storms [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, August 22, 2004 8:34 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: New light on LENR Horace Heffner wrote: > At 7:40 AM 8/21/4, Edmund Storms wrote: > >Horace Heffner wrote: > > > >> It appears we have made no progress at all on the issues I have raised. > >> Rather than wasting more time on that now, I would very much appreciate > >> information on a side issue you have raised in the discussion. > > > >I don't know what you would consider progress short of my agreeing with > >you that > >I screwed up. > > I only object when there are statements made to the effect that your > experiment showed there to be no magnetic effects. Letts' experiment was > not replicated with respect to magnetic effects because the field > orientation was not valid. In the orientation you used one would expect no > magnetic effects to be obsered, so no conclusion can be drawn from your > experiment that either sustains or denies the magnetic effect Letts' > observed. We seen to have a communication problem here. I said that the magnet I used produced no effect. I said that the effect could be produced without a magnet. All of this is true. However, I did not say that a stronger magnet or one that was oriented differently would not produce an effect, which is what you seem to think I said. > > > > > >As for the magnet effect, I will explain. An isoperibolic calorimeter, as > >Letts > >used, measures power production by determining temperature drop across the cell > >wall. The inner temperature is measured at one or more locations within the > >electrolyte. In his case, the outer temperature was the ambient air. Heat is > >being generated within the electrolyte by the motion of electrons and ions > >and by > >the CF process at the cathode, both of which generate convection currents > >within > >the fluid having different temperatures. Such a calorimeter is calibrated by > >assuming that the calibration method produces similar gradients and that these > >gradients are stable. > > My experience with such assumptions is that they are false, even without > magnets. Instabilities in convection currents are to be expected. There > has been much open discussion in the past about the importance of stirring > the electrolyte in order to avoid a lot of possible calorimetry problems. > Magnetohydrodynamic forces are small at the small currents and fields > involved compared to the effects of stirring of the electrolyte. Stirring > of the electolyte in typical electrolysis experiments can often be achieved > using a very small fraction of the total energy involved in the > electrolysis, less than 1 percent. The total power involved in Letts' > experiment, however, was admittedly too small to easily solve the problem > with stirring. The experiment really needs scaling up. This is not an assumption. This is an easily observed experimental fact. Your speculation shows me that you fail to understand the process within the cell. The power involved in stirring is not involved in the artifact. The problem is temperature measurement. This is why people have switched to flow and Seebeck calorimeters, which do not have this problem. > > > >When the ions and electrons that are moving within the > >electrolyte are subjected to a magnetic field, their trajectories are changed. > >This change causes convection currents within the fluid to change their path so > >that fluid current of a different temperature impacts on the thermistor, hence > >the the measured inner temperature appears to change. This change is > >indistinguishable from a change in power production. I explored this > >effect in > >some detail using a similar calorimeter. I found that I could obtain apparent > >excess energy by simply moving the magnets in the absent of the laser. I also > >measured the laser effect using a Seebeck calorimeter in the absence of a > >magnet. Because the cell is within a metal box, I would expect any external > >magnetic field would be significantly reduced within the calorimeter. > > This is not the case, unless the metal box is thick magnetic material, like > iron. A copper, aluminum or even stainless steel box, for example, would > have almost no effect on field strength in the box. Agreed. The box is steel, which will reduce but not eliminate fields. The only field that was present was the earth's field, which is small to begin with. > > > > > >As for changing laser polarization, this effect may also be an artifact because > >the laser effect is very sensitive to where on the surface the laser is > >applied. > >Unless the exact same spot on the cathode is being irradiated by the same size > >spot of laser light, the effect of any change in laser characteristics can > >not be > >isolated from these effects. These experiments were not done under conditions > >that would insure consistency of spot size or position. > > This certainly strikes me as an excellent criticism, if true. It is, > however, not a major technical feat to change beam polarization without > affecting other beam parameters. It is a major feat if a person does it by hand without a fixed geometry. > > > Also of interest is the fact that the target itself may be sensitive to the > polarization direction of the beam, irrespective of the direction of the > magnetic field placed across it in a radial direction. There are thus > three things that should be mutally rotated with respect to each other, the > magnets, the polarization direction, and the target itself, the crystaline > structure of which may have polarising characteristics which may or may not > be affected by an imposed magnetic field. The magnetic field could possibly > be irrelevant. Alternatively, its effect might be primarily on the > structure of the loaded lattice and not directly on the LENR process > itself. For maximum effect, the lattice and magnetic field may have to be > at a specific angle in addition to the polarization having a specific angle > to those things. As you note, the process may well be very complex with complicated interactions between the variables. This is why a very reproducible geometry is needed, something people have not had the money to buy. > > > >In short, many of the > >details about the effect still need to be determined. Therefore, it is > >premature > >to speculate about a model. > > Yes, agreed. However, if it *is* eventually shown through replication and > refined experimentation that the magnetic effect Letts descibes is real, > then this will certainly eliminate many possible theoretical models, namely > all of those which can not account for the magnetic effect. It also > provides an experimental variable which can readily be beefed up. Agreed Regards, Ed > > > > > >I hope this explanation is clear. > > Yes. Thank you for discussing it. > > Regards, > > Horace Heffner
