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. 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. 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. 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. In short, many of the details about the effect still need to be determined. Therefore, it is premature to speculate about a model. I hope this explanation is clear. Regards, Ed > > > At 2:58 PM 8/20/4, Edmund Storms wrote: > > >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. > > Could you explain how a magnetic field significantly changes thermal > gradients in an isoperibolic calorimeter? I assume you mean here that > even if magnets in the calorimeter are replaced with masses of the same > size, shape and thermal properties, but having no magnetic field, the > change in calibration will still be seen? > > If it is known in advance that magnetic fields are going to be used in a > calorimeter, it seems like it should be a fairly small issue to use > materials in the calorimeter that do not significantly change their thermal > properties in a magnetic field. > > It should of course be impossible for a static magnetic field to actually > change the total energy balance of a process, as that would be a violation > of conservation of energy. > > Thus the question arises: even if there is no motion of conductors, and > even if no materials are used which have thermal properties which are > altered significantly by magnetic fields, can the calibration constant of > an isoperibolic calorimeter be altered by magnetic fields enclosed within > the calorimeter? > > Regards, > > Horace Heffner
