I will make one more attempt. 1. I claim that a laser produces extra energy when no magnet is used and when it is orientated the manner I used. Letts showed that the laser produced about the same amount of energy I observed when the magnet was orientated in his manner. He claimed that he got the best effect when he used his orientation. Perhaps a better effect might result using his orientation, but the basic effect occurred with and without a magnet. This all I ever claimed. Without actually using Lett's magnets, it would be impossible to apply an identical field.
2. An isoperibolic calorimeter has an artifact when a magnetic field is applied. Such fields change the internal thermal gradients so that the calibration no longer applies. Therefore, any claim based on such a calorimeter involving a magnetic field can not be believed. 3. I'm confused as to why this is so important to you and why you insist that a magnetic field is so important. You or anyone else are free to explore the effect of a magnet knowing that the basic claim has been reproduced. I assume you find that word more acceptable than replicate. Regards, Ed Horace Heffner wrote: > 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." By that I mean that the basic effect occurs with and without a magnet. The magnet would be relevant if I found an effect when the magnet was applied and no effect when the magnet was removed. However, this is not the case. It is possible that the effect could be improved with proper orientation. Such a possible effect does not change the statement that the magnetic field is irrelevant to the basic 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. I claimed that the effect occurred whether the magnet was applied or not. Therefore, I made a determination about the effect of a magnet. I did not explore any details about how a magnet might improve the effect. > 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. What would you expected me to see if I applied the magnet in the same way Letts did? Would you expect I would see a much bigger effect? As it was, I saw almost the same effect as Letts did with his magnet, but without a magnet. You seem to be complaining about why I don't see a bigger effect. If you want to produce a bigger effect, I suggest you explore some of the variables, including t magnetic orientation. I'm sure the effect can be made bigger several different ways. However, don't get on my case because I did not try everything. > > > 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. Of course. Why would anyone not explore the effect of a magnet just because I found the effect in the absence of a magnet? I found the effect in the absence of many possible variables being applied. Does this mean that no more work should be done on the effect? > > > >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. If you think that the magnetic field would improve the effect, you are free to explore this variable. I simply said that I saw no effect. > > > >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. Strong words that I find impossible to justify. > > > 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
