<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
	<channel>
		<title>QuantumHeat.org</title>
		<description>Discuss QuantumHeat.org</description>
		<link>http://www.quantumheat.org</link>
		<lastBuildDate>Tue, 12 May 2026 01:04:39 +0000</lastBuildDate>
		<generator>JComments</generator>
		<atom:link href="http://www.quantumheat.org/index.php/de/component/jcomments/feed/com_content/120" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
		<item>
			<title>MB says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-222</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Have you thought about the possibility that the Celani wire may have a different emission spectrum than the untreated wire? To the extent that the glass heating is due to absorption of emissions vs. heat transfer from the gas mixture, couldn't that explain differential heating of the glass with the two wires? Similarly, could a difference in the He vs H condition be explained by differential absorption of the emissions rather than differential energy production? That's just off the top of my head. This heat measurement thing seems very thorny to me, but I have no expertise in that area. Do you have a calorimetry expert on board? it would be more persuasive if you do.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>MB</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Mon, 12 Nov 2012 15:57:07 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-222</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Sanjeev says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-221</link>
			<description><![CDATA[robiD, If you check the Nov 6th entry here, you will find the calibration runs with Nichrome wire and H-Ar mixture. Pure H is also mentioned, but I couldn't find the data for that. To rule out chemical origins of heat He is a good choice.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Sanjeev</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Mon, 12 Nov 2012 15:21:52 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-221</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Ecco says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-220</link>
			<description><![CDATA[By the way, after giving a second look at the data, I'm wondering if repeating the loading->depres surization/cool down (but not vacuuming) procedure more times might help obtaining a lower R/Ro ratio and therefore a higher hydrogen loading and subsequently a higher excess heat effect. This would be interesting to test. It might even be automated (like the calibration procedure). Also, it might even turn out that it's not necessary to let the cell rest in the loading phase for extended periods of time if the same can be accomplished just by repeating the loading->cooldo wn procedure frequently.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Ecco</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Mon, 12 Nov 2012 15:09:03 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-220</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>MoreInput says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-219</link>
			<description><![CDATA[I got my fingers crossed that you will really replicate Celani's results. Thanks for this project! But what happens, if it doesn't succeed? How long will you try? maybe it is not a nuclear reaction but only a chemical with some measurement errors? Just waiting for your results...]]></description>
			<dc:creator>MoreInput</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Mon, 12 Nov 2012 14:48:52 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-219</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Robert Greenyer says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-218</link>
			<description><![CDATA[@ Ecco Your R/R0 calculations are in line with ours after cool down - this was predicted by Celani, of course there would be some resistivity drop expected anyhow.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Robert Greenyer</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Mon, 12 Nov 2012 13:48:06 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-218</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Ecco says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-217</link>
			<description><![CDATA[The program linked about for viewing csv files is quite useful (it's also multiplatform - works on both Linux and Windows or MacOS, fast and small) - thanks! I suggest adding a "resource" page so that interested people can be pointed to the right applications (such as this one) to analyze and study incoming new data. By the way, is R/Ro measured at ambient temperature, 1atm or during operating conditions? If it's the former, then it reached a value of approximately 0.8 (since resistance dropped to 14.45 during cooldown).]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Ecco</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Mon, 12 Nov 2012 12:47:59 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-217</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>David Jones says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-215</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Hi robiD - Perhaps I can answer this. He and H2 are very similar in thermal conductivity, 0.138 and 0.172 respectively at 20 Celsius (W/m K) and far lower than the conductivity of glass (0.8). (Ref. Young). One would expect (I think!) then a lower temperature at the mica with H2 compared with He as the difference in conductivity is approx. 20% in favour of H2 and consequently equal heat (power) will be lost from the system at a lower temperature gradient. But the total difference of the system has to include the glass – now the difference is even smaller. Of more importance is the shape of the curve of total heat loss from the system versus temperature. For a single source (resistive heating) all curves will have the same profile. But if a second source of heat (LENR power) becomes significant at an intermediate point in the temperature curve – then this will be seen in the curve as a deviation from the original control curves. This is what will be looked for.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>David Jones</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Mon, 12 Nov 2012 11:35:16 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-215</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>David Jones says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-214</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Increase in resistance at end of cool down Perhaps when you re-pressurised, the metal end flanges were still warm and this warmed the hydrogen as it entered the cell. Question is did the increase in resistance remain or return back to the original curve with time? Interestingly, the variation of resistance with temperature is greater now with the loaded wire compared to the controls]]></description>
			<dc:creator>David Jones</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Mon, 12 Nov 2012 11:01:56 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-214</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>robiD says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-213</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Hi to all and congratulations for your wonderful work. Reading a comment by Al Potenza in a previous post, now I have a doubt. The comparison between two runs such as the calibration "Celani's wire + He" and the run "Celani's wire + H" should say whether the anomalous heat is caused by the Hydrogen, but the _value_ of the excess heat should be achieved by a comparison between "normal wire + H" calibration and the run "Celani's wire + H" (i.e. different wires, in the same hydrogen atmosphere) this in order to guarantee that the heat transmission between the wire and the mica, or the glass (that depends on the gas' thermal conductivity) is the same in both cases. Is it right?]]></description>
			<dc:creator>robiD</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Mon, 12 Nov 2012 10:59:29 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-213</guid>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
