Horace Heffner wrote:
> At 3:23 PM 8/17/4, Jed Rothwell wrote: > > >As I recall, Ed Storms replicated this and was duly impressed, but not all > >that impressed. > > Ed Storms did *not* replicate Letts' experiment, as I pointed out here on > vortex at the time. He oriented his magnetic field improperly, and thus, > as would be expected, he did not observe the Letts effect. His magnetic > field was aligned with the laser beam instead of perpendicular to it as > Letts required. Of further, but much lesser concern, was the fact that no > magnetic field measurments were obtained, or at least published, by either > Letts or Storms. I suggest you read my ICCF-10 paper where this work is described. I found that a magnetic field was irrelevant to producing the effect. If I did not replicate the Letts effect than I must have discovered the Storms effect. In any case, I once again showed that a laser does indeed increase the amount of excess energy produced by a F-P cell. That observation is the only aspect of the Letts effect that is important. Letts made several claims about how the effect is affected by external variables that have not been found to be important. This failure does not distract from the basic claim. > > > >I think it has been known for some time that things like > >laser light or a heat pulse will reliably trigger a reaction in a cathode > >that is otherwise ready to go. I do not know whether a laser is > >significantly better than the heat pulse, or tapping the cell, or > >disturbing equilibrium some other way. > > > >- Jed > > The Letts effect is not merely due to the heat pulse (heating) from a laser. The increased temperature produced by a 35 mW laser is trivial, even when it is focused on a person's finger. Regards, Ed > > > Regards, > > Horace Heffner
