<?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>Fri, 17 Apr 2026 20:49:31 +0000</lastBuildDate>
		<generator>JComments</generator>
		<atom:link href="http://www.quantumheat.org/index.php/de/component/jcomments/feed/com_content/167" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
		<item>
			<title>Ged says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-1012</link>
			<description><![CDATA[At 1 Bar of pressure in He, the P_xs seems to be well into negative temperature, bouncing up around 0. This is in opposition to the 1 W or so P_xs of the hydrogen runs at this pressure. Still a very minor "signal" in the noise, if it is such (which one can only know after full analysis of the data). Still makes me wonder just how functional the wire is; but it leaves the mystery of the hydrogen/argon pressure-temper ature relationship... still no full explanation.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Ged</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Wed, 05 Dec 2012 16:59:07 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-1012</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Robert Greenyer says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-1002</link>
			<description><![CDATA[@Dieter In order to rapidly meet your call and others to know what is being run in the cells. I suggested and interim solution to Ryan last night which he has implemented. It is linked at the top of the page next to the LIVE data. From tomorrow, everyone should be able to see what is going on in various reactors at these links. Keep those ideas coming!]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Robert Greenyer</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Wed, 05 Dec 2012 08:37:38 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-1002</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Dieter Seeliger says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-1001</link>
			<description><![CDATA[@Robert, thanx for your return, also a link with descriptions would be great ! Keep up your great work and tnx for publishing your data. BR Dieter Found the log link in the top row :-) Perfect !!!]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Dieter Seeliger</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Wed, 05 Dec 2012 06:57:01 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-1001</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Ged says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-1000</link>
			<description><![CDATA[@123star, Yeah, it was dropping for the while I was watching, but did jump on the next pressure release. I have a limited view of the data unfortunately. This'll be very interesting, and we should be able to directly compare this to the previous "experimental" runs.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Ged</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Wed, 05 Dec 2012 05:06:18 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-1000</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>123star says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-999</link>
			<description><![CDATA[@Ged T_Glassout seems increasing (while pressure is decreasing) so far to me. Are you sure you are looking at the right cell (#1)?.We are at 4 bar now. Of course, we can only really compare the data points corresponding to (48W, 3.5bar) and (48W, 0.5 bar). Let's see if T_Glassout will decrease between 3.5 and 0.5 bar. I suggest taking more data points around these two pressures.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>123star</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Wed, 05 Dec 2012 04:12:27 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-999</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Ged says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-998</link>
			<description><![CDATA[@123star, Actually, nevermind. The calibration was a spread of input powers at the same pressure. This is the same input power over a spread of pressures. This will be effectively a new calibration curve. The T_GlassOut is apparently dropping with pressure so far though.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Ged</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Wed, 05 Dec 2012 03:04:17 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-998</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Ged says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-997</link>
			<description><![CDATA[@123star, I would expect the P_xs then to run near 0 all the way through, since it's based on helium as its calibration point? This'll be fun to watch, see if we reconfirm our earlier findings.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Ged</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Wed, 05 Dec 2012 02:53:16 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-997</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>123star says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-995</link>
			<description><![CDATA[I see from the Cell #1 log that a pressure drop test in Helium is in progress. From the previous calibrations we expect the temperature to drop as the pressure drops (at least in a particular pressure range), unlike the Hydrogen/Argon case. Can't wait to see what will happen :)]]></description>
			<dc:creator>123star</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Wed, 05 Dec 2012 00:00:30 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-995</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Pelluet says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-994</link>
			<description><![CDATA[seems to be a good way that to increase the controlled environment of the cell, even if it could also introduce other complexities when the target of th experiment is only to deliver the proof ... what it could be ?]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Pelluet</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Tue, 04 Dec 2012 22:51:49 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-994</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>charlie tapp says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-992</link>
			<description><![CDATA[mabee try putting a positive charge on the wire before loading with hydrogen, kind of like what you would do with an electrophorus, so the -13.6 ev hydrogen will be more atracted to the warm wire , mabee that is why it works sometimes and not others.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>charlie tapp</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Tue, 04 Dec 2012 20:33:23 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-992</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Rats says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-990</link>
			<description><![CDATA[ Once again I second what Observer has said. As per your own analysis it is highly likely there were measurement errors made by Celani. It is paramount this issue is resolved before you continue with your experimentation .]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Rats</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Tue, 04 Dec 2012 19:30:46 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-990</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Ged says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-989</link>
			<description><![CDATA[A lot of detractors here suddenly, but the Robert and crew are handling them with aplomb. Keep up the great work guys!]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Ged</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Tue, 04 Dec 2012 16:43:31 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-989</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Robert Greenyer says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-988</link>
			<description><![CDATA[@Dieter This is a top priority but awaiting the open sourcing as resources are constrained. Maybe a temporary measure would be to have a Google spreadsheet (possibly linked) with start/stop times and a basic descriptions.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Robert Greenyer</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Tue, 04 Dec 2012 16:23:57 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-988</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>observer says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-983</link>
			<description><![CDATA[My comments are due to the fact there appears to be a positive bias to this experiment. Meaning, it appears you want to prove Celani's results. My opinion is to do the science properly. If you happen to disprove and invalidate all of Celani's work along the way, that's how science works. Likewise, if you prove him right, that is good science also.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>observer</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Tue, 04 Dec 2012 10:30:16 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-983</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Dieter Seeliger says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-982</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Hi there, thank you for publishing a future view of your new reactor types and measuring gear. It`s nice to see this developing ! Though there is one question I have after watching your video teaser. Why do you want to go with an air flow calorimeter and how do you want to measure the volume of air flow inside the calorimeter and how good is the accuracy of this volume measurement? My personal opinion is, that the exact volumetric measurement of a gas flow is a very complex thing, as there are too many different variables which must be observed and which will all add to a possible measurement error ! (A thing we don`t want :-) ) The volumetric measurement of the flow of a liquid is very much simpler, so flow calorimeter are mainly built with a liquid coolant medium (oil or water, depending on the temperature range of the reaction). Just my 2 cent`s....]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Dieter Seeliger</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Tue, 04 Dec 2012 09:33:09 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-982</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Sanjeev says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-981</link>
			<description><![CDATA[ Can be because of T_Ambient oscillating almost in a perfect sine wave ! If you have noticed the temperature is very high now, and may be the error bars are bigger here causing the P_Xs to vary too much for small variations in conditions. On the EU side, the resistance is showing very strange behavior at high temperature (>250`C at present). I guess it still has the inactive wire ? Which is why I'm puzzled. @Robert That's great.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Sanjeev</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Tue, 04 Dec 2012 07:25:04 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-981</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Robert Greenyer says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-980</link>
			<description><![CDATA[@Sanjeev That is the approach - move ahead and try and solve the problems.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Robert Greenyer</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Tue, 04 Dec 2012 07:10:53 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-980</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Sanjeev says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-979</link>
			<description><![CDATA[ Why can't we do both - move ahead and go on solving the problems ? If there is no excess energy, it will become obvious soon. The last experiment had too many uncertainties to conclude anything about this cell or Celani's cell.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Sanjeev</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Tue, 04 Dec 2012 07:03:18 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-979</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>David Roberson says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-977</link>
			<description><![CDATA[The latest step up in power from 82.2 watts input to 118 watts is demonstrating far more temperature instability than I had noticed before. It is not uncommon for the T_GlassOut to vary by 4 degrees C or more. I noticed that the pressure is set to around 1 bar for this experiment and I was able to get a good match for the time domain response with the measured time constant of 203 seconds. This latest time constant is shorter than most earlier ones by a good margin. I wonder if the variability of the temperature along with the shortened time constant is associated with excess power? Do you know of any reason why the temperature is varying to this degree? It is wandering by a relatively large amount over the entire heating up period including the initial rise time.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>David Roberson</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Tue, 04 Dec 2012 06:24:16 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-977</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Robert Greenyer says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-976</link>
			<description><![CDATA[@observer The EU cell and possibly at least one more US cell will be looking at exploring these pressure issues more completely. In fact, if you read Mathieu's blog entries you will see he is doing specific calibration runs to help establish the veracity of the US cells findings.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Robert Greenyer</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Tue, 04 Dec 2012 06:17:44 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-976</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Eric Walker says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-975</link>
			<description><![CDATA[@Ryan Hunt, This is exciting. Someone please correct me if I'm wrong, but supposing we can get this kind of resolution and the calibration curves line up the way they should, then even if we observe only 2 W P_xs, we could tentatively conclude either that there has been excess power or that there has been systematic error. (But I'm no expert, so don't take my word for it! Just enjoying being part of the peanut gallery.)]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Eric Walker</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Tue, 04 Dec 2012 04:05:46 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-975</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Eric Walker says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-974</link>
			<description><![CDATA[@observer, I don't see how the previous USA cell runs can be construed to invalidate all of Celani's results, as the operating regimes were very different. Celani was seeing on the order of 17 W at one point, while the maximum I saw the USA cell get up to was about 1 - 2 W (although it might have gotten higher at some point). Celani's cell was operating at a maximum of 9 bar, while the highest I saw the USA cell reach was 4.5 bar. With these discrepancies, it's hard to draw firm conclusions from one to the other. It does seem there might have been systematic error in Celani's results relating to the effect of pressure; but for all we know, dropping pressure could as well be an important catalyst for a real reaction. All we have at this points are questions.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Eric Walker</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Tue, 04 Dec 2012 03:55:51 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-974</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>observer says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-973</link>
			<description><![CDATA[It sounds like you are trying to move forward without resolving perhaps around 6 open issues. The most important issue that needs to be resolved before moving forward is whether or not your work regarding the pressure invalidates some or all of Celani's results. Please try to resolve the open issues before moving forward.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>observer</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Tue, 04 Dec 2012 02:05:18 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-973</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Ged says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-971</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Fascinating guys. Looking forward to the science we are doing together!]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Ged</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Mon, 03 Dec 2012 23:01:43 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-971</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Ryan Hunt says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-970</link>
			<description><![CDATA[@ Charlie - Correct, the thermal imager does not get past the glass or the polycarbonate. Maybe we should make a small door just the right size for the thermal camera lense.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Ryan Hunt</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Mon, 03 Dec 2012 22:47:29 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-970</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>David Roberson says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-967</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Very much depends upon the calibration curves. If the measured output power matches the calibrated input power over a wide range of powers then our concerns are relieved. I plan to wait patiently for the data that will demonstrate whether or not this has be achieved. The radiation calibrated simple system that was initially used had several flaws that were revealed. I clearly calculated that the power output calibration followed a second order curve instead of the expected forth order Stefan-Boltzman n equation. That was a red flag. This time we should all be expecting the calibration to be accurate and follow the laws of physics that we assume are applicable. It might even be wise to continue improving the set up until if finally does match these rules.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>David Roberson</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Mon, 03 Dec 2012 20:10:47 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-967</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Al Potenza says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-966</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Problems with the air flow calorimeters can include heat leaks and non-uniformity of the insulation. You can mitigate this with a type of calorimeter called variously a gradient layer or envelope or Seebeck effect calorimeter in which you measure the heat loss through the walls as well as the heat taken away by the air flow. That does add a lot of complication. It is also harder to get a temperature measurement representative of the mixed mean (if you will) in air than it is in liquid. Again I ask if you have true experts in heat transfer and fluid flow working with you on the design. That would seem important. I will be very interested to see your design of the calorimeter and its calibration data.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Al Potenza</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Mon, 03 Dec 2012 19:55:22 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-966</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>123star says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-965</link>
			<description><![CDATA[I'd also like to ask the same questions as Al, such as: what is the expected sensitivity of this type of air flow calorimeter?]]></description>
			<dc:creator>123star</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Mon, 03 Dec 2012 19:50:02 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-965</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>123star says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-964</link>
			<description><![CDATA[ I was thinking about the same thing once I saw the video! I'm not sure that some nasty "IR escape" is really negligible. That's it, nothing to add.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>123star</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Mon, 03 Dec 2012 19:33:25 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-964</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>David Roberson says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-963</link>
			<description><![CDATA[ Will you ensure that any IR radiation from the wires, etc. is captured and contributes to the air flow heating? I am concerned about any open windows for viewing. Also, do you plan to use plenty of insulation around the calorimeter to reduce conduction and convection heat escape? With this new plan of action, I assume that you are going to be measuring the actual energy being released by the device. This should match the input heat energy closely when there is no excess energy being generated. The closer these numbers agree, the more confidence others will have in your measurements.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>David Roberson</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Mon, 03 Dec 2012 19:21:19 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-963</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Robert Greenyer says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-962</link>
			<description><![CDATA[@ Al It is not ideal, but it is progress. There will be a related video later in the week explaining the design and we look forward to your opinion. We have the potential to build a liquid based calorimeter on on of the other cell types and this is on the cards. @Pekka The calibration wire is not a Celani wire but his source wire. We have been told by more than one source that it may have issues and so we are considering running the calibrations again with another wire variant. This wil give us many sample points.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Robert Greenyer</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Mon, 03 Dec 2012 18:41:07 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-962</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Al Potenza says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-961</link>
			<description><![CDATA[I am delighted to hear that you will use calorimetry but I am curious about why you chose an air rather than a liquid calorimeter. Do you have heat transfer and fluid flow physicists or engineers advising you? I think liquid calorimetry is inherently more stable than using air and it may be easier to make a more sensitive calorimeter with liquid as well. I suppose that good calibration will reveal whether your air flow calorimeter is stable and sensitive enough to serve your needs. Has anyone made some advance calculations and/or tests? Are there good examples in literature of air flow calorimeters used successfully to measure fairly low levels of energy production such as those you can expect?]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Al Potenza</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Mon, 03 Dec 2012 18:33:51 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-961</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Robert Greenyer says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-959</link>
			<description><![CDATA[We need to build momentum. The idea is for constant learning and leapfrogging where possible. The Air Flow Calorimeter has a fair few tricks up its sleeve - keep logging in for an up and coming video that details how it is built. There is confidence - but we need to show evidence, this can not be an opinion or matter of faith, only incontrovertibl e evidence will do - then we will be prepared to look to the multiple replications of what ever variant of the technology is repeatable.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Robert Greenyer</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Mon, 03 Dec 2012 17:51:35 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-959</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Ecco says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-958</link>
			<description><![CDATA[After watching the video it looks indeed that quite some effort is being put on perfecting the experimental set-up. It looks promising! (although some will probably object that the proposed calorimetry won't be adequate enough). However, since one of the previous blog posts exposed that most of the reported excess heat might be due to unexpected (although not anomalous) artifacts, wouldn't it have been safer (economically speaking) to begin all this after performing a deeper analysis of available and upcoming data from the EU cell (which will be closer to Celani's original experiment) with fresh wires? It seems as if you (and dr. Celani since more wires and of different types will be provided?) are pretty confident you will get excess heat; is this the case?]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Ecco</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Mon, 03 Dec 2012 17:43:23 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-958</guid>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
