Greetings Mike,
Would you be pleased to know that you are the first to find a flaw in our
article? I am honored that it was found by you and I am not surprised
considering your expert background.
"current" now reads "potential"
I'll run that B-field value by the team early next week and report back
here with my findings.
Remind me to include you next time on the technical proofreading! :)
Steve
At 06:35 PM 11/10/2006, you wrote:
----- Original Message ----- From: "Mark S Bilk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: [Vo]: New Energy Times
Those are indeed wonderful results from the, er, space war people,
but I don't understand how an external DC electric field can have
any effect inside the electrolytic cell. The resistance of the
container walls is so much greater than that of the electrolyte
that all of the voltage drop, i.e., the electric field, would be
across the walls, and none across the electrolyte and its contents.
Mark's point is well taken. The voltage drop across the electrolyte will
not be zero, however. The text is also slightly in error in referring to a
6000 volt current. Again, starements about the field strength of the
magnets are way off. The magnets might produce a 12 kilogauss field under
test conditions, but not with the large gap involved, and 12,200 gauss is
by no means a "moderate" strength; it is quite high.
These quibbles aside, what is important that immediate effects were
produced by these fields, even though their mnagnitude at the active site
is not correctly stated.
Mike Carrell
