<?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 16:11:41 +0000</lastBuildDate>
		<generator>JComments</generator>
		<atom:link href="http://www.quantumheat.org/index.php/de/component/jcomments/feed/com_content/231" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
		<item>
			<title>BestWally says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-9217</link>
			<description><![CDATA[I see you don't monetize your blog, don't waste your traffic, you can earn extra bucks every month. You can use the best adsense alternative for any type of website (they approve all websites), for more info simply search in gooogle: boorfe's tips monetize your website]]></description>
			<dc:creator>BestWally</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Mon, 13 Aug 2018 22:13:26 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-9217</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>KrystleSmall says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-8999</link>
			<description><![CDATA[I have checked your page and i have found some duplicate content, that's why you don't rank high in google's search results, but there is a tool that can help you to create 100% unique content, search for; Boorfe's tips unlimited content]]></description>
			<dc:creator>KrystleSmall</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Wed, 07 Feb 2018 10:45:23 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-8999</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Going Here says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-8938</link>
			<description><![CDATA[I¡¦ve recently started a blog, the info you provide on this site has helped me tremendously. Thanks for all of your time]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Going Here</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Thu, 23 Nov 2017 19:01:38 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-8938</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>PasiH says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-8725</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Hi, Is the "Thermal conductivity of the vacuum" -chart missing per meter from the divider? As the unit for thermal conductivity is W/(m*K)]]></description>
			<dc:creator>PasiH</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Wed, 23 Nov 2016 16:33:13 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-8725</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Malachi Heder says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-2734</link>
			<description><![CDATA[@ Alan G The US cores are oriented almost identically. Using your cross section shape of a trinangle for reference. Our triangle points down in cell B. In cell A it points down with a slight twist clockwise (if you look down the cell from the plumbing end) of 10-15 degrees. Mathieu would have to speak for the EU cells.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Malachi Heder</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Fri, 26 Apr 2013 18:23:46 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-2734</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>AlanG says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-2733</link>
			<description><![CDATA[@Malachi Thanks for the reassuring report. The search goes on... One further consequence of the cell geometry is that the far-field IR (perpendicular to the cell axis) will look something like this: http://magicsound.us/MFMP/polar3a.jpg Are all four cell cores oriented identically?]]></description>
			<dc:creator>AlanG</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Fri, 26 Apr 2013 18:03:50 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-2733</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Malachi Heder says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-2732</link>
			<description><![CDATA[@ Alan G Good point. Though I just made sure that our thermocouples on the inside and outside are not in that double IR exposure area. What we did when the cells were assembled was to put the end of the thermocouple in the middle of one side of the triangle. From your drawing that seems to be in a good area. Those pictures were a little misleading. It's hard to get a good shot with the glass tube and copper bands in the way.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Malachi Heder</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Fri, 26 Apr 2013 14:40:23 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-2732</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>AlanG says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-2731</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Thinking about why the glass TC measurements are sometimes inconsistent, it occurred to me that the cell geometry may be a factor. Consider the following crude drawing of the direct IR radiation from the wires: http://magicsound.us/MFMP/rad1b.jpg The wires as wound on the mica supports radiate roughly in half-space, and there’s a small area of overlap where the IR exposure will be roughly doubled. As the size of the core structure approaches the glass diameter this overlap area becomes smaller: http://magicsound.us/MFMP/rad2b.jpg From the posted pictures dated 2013 2 4, it can be seen that the glass TCs are in fact in or near this small critical area, and that a small displacement might result in a TC junction being outside the region of overlap. Of course this can’t be adjusted without opening the cells, but it might at least explain some of the curious differences we’re seeing.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>AlanG</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Thu, 25 Apr 2013 22:52:01 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-2731</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Malachi Heder says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-2729</link>
			<description><![CDATA[@ Charlie Tap The internal TC is touching the glass, but not attached with any thermal sticky tape, just the spring force of the metal. @ 123star I took Robert Ellefson's advice and put weather stripping along the bottom and lid of the thermal box. Along the bottom, I only put the weather stripping around the perimeter of the chamber where air is pumped in initially.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Malachi Heder</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Wed, 24 Apr 2013 14:13:33 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-2729</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Ecco says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-2728</link>
			<description><![CDATA[@MFMP: will you test this too? http://22passi.blogspot.de/2013/04/altre-ricette-segrete.html Celani suggests that adding small amounts of hydrocarbons, and in particular Acetone, boosts excess heat effects in LENR devices, although no precise figures have been given in the blog above regarding the magnitude of said improvements.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Ecco</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Wed, 24 Apr 2013 13:24:35 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-2728</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>123star says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-2727</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Hello, I noticed that now in Cell EU1.3A T1_Out1 and T1_Out2 are now almost identical, unlike yesterday. What happened? Where are T1_Out1, T1_Out2, T1_Out3 thermocouple placed exactly along the external surface? Thank you.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>123star</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Wed, 24 Apr 2013 04:11:47 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-2727</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>charlie tapp says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-2726</link>
			<description><![CDATA[robert is the tc inside connected to the glass? if so why couldnt it just float inside not touching anything giving absolute inside temp]]></description>
			<dc:creator>charlie tapp</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Tue, 23 Apr 2013 22:23:58 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-2726</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Robert Greenyer says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-2725</link>
			<description><![CDATA[@AlanG You might have something with the heat cycle incident.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Robert Greenyer</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Tue, 23 Apr 2013 17:36:51 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-2725</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Robert Ellefson says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-2724</link>
			<description><![CDATA[ This is an important point. Any time there are two rigid surfaces thermally coupled, small variations in surface conditions can cause large variations in thermal conduction. Mechanically-co mpliant thermal interface materials are critical when the heat transfer is of a significant magnitude. If you keep the bands, I strongly suggest adding some double-sided adhesive heat-sink-mount ing foam or similar interface material.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Robert Ellefson</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Tue, 23 Apr 2013 17:15:01 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-2724</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>AlanG says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-2723</link>
			<description><![CDATA[If there is no improvement and the inside TCs seem to be working correctly, it suggests a large difference in thermal behavior INSIDE the cells. But because the T_Mica measurements are close, the difference must be in the thermal transport behavior. Possible issues: Different gas composition (partial pressure) in each cell from leakage. Different glass IR absorption. This could be from the glass itself or from residual metallic ion deposition from a previous heat cycle incident.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>AlanG</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Tue, 23 Apr 2013 17:05:51 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-2723</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Robert Ellefson says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-2722</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Another potential improvement would be to add structures that encourage laminar airflow when entering each cell. Air is much easier to control properly when it is flowing in a laminar vs turbulent mode. I've seen honeycomb-type materials used as filters, or arrays of tubing (soda straw bundles, for example). The key is to have a good length vs width ratio for each tube. Given the current physical design of the reactors and their stands, it may make sense to re-orient the airflow so that it approaches from an angle normal to the main axis of the reactors. Then, so long as the airflow is reasonably consistent along the entire width of the chambers, the air will mostly interact with the cells at a single point of contact before exiting the chamber. This reduces the sensitivity of total convective coupling to small variations in initial flow conditions that interact with "upstream" and "downstream" portions of the cell structure.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Robert Ellefson</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Tue, 23 Apr 2013 17:05:19 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-2722</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>AlanG says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-2721</link>
			<description><![CDATA[The important fact is that the inside glass temp rise in cell B is about 40% higher than for cell A. The outside glass temps appear to track this as they should. The copper bands can cool the glass by conduction and thus the thermal contact from each band to the glass can affect the internal glass temp measurements. Try removing the bands entirely and see how the T_GlassIn measurements react.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>AlanG</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Tue, 23 Apr 2013 17:04:24 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-2721</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Robert Ellefson says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-2720</link>
			<description><![CDATA[One source of variation could be differences in air mass flowing through the two cells. There is a good volume of plenum after the fan, then an aperture at the junction of the two cells, then air branches into the individual cells. The specific conditions in the relatively turbulent zone at the junction will have a large effect on the division of mass flow between the cells. If there were further apertures at the start and end of each individual cell volume, and the sum of the start aperture areas is smaller than the plenum-to-junct ion-zone aperture area, this will create more evenly-distribu ted airflow. I also noticed that the underside of the new polycarbonate thermal box has a rigid interface between its bottom and the table surface. Any gaps underneath here will cause airflow directly from the plenum to the cell, or to exit the cell. Perhaps a weatherstrippin g-type of compliant interface material will help eliminate potential problems here.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Robert Ellefson</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Tue, 23 Apr 2013 16:38:40 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-2720</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>123star says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-2717</link>
			<description><![CDATA[From LIVE DATA I see that there are 3 different thermocouples on the external surface on each cell and each one reports very different values (except T2out_1 and T2out_2 on the cell B, curiously). I think there may be an instability of the thermal contact (too much - too little thermal grease). Try running one thermocouple without thermal grease and see if the measured value increases or decreases (this may depend on how good is the "radiant coupling").]]></description>
			<dc:creator>123star</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Tue, 23 Apr 2013 05:40:36 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-2717</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Robert Greenyer says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-2714</link>
			<description><![CDATA[@AlanG That's the one.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Robert Greenyer</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Sun, 21 Apr 2013 00:22:43 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-2714</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>AlanG says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-2713</link>
			<description><![CDATA[@Robert Greenyer The Budapest paper is hard to find on the internet, but the search brought me to http://cms.uni-konstanz.de/en/physik/leitenstorfer/research/ultrafast-quantum-photonics/ultrafast-nonlinear-optics-of-plasmonic-nanostructures/ Research described includes working nano-antennas at optical frequencies. One summary describes tunable resonant structures yielding visible light from IR through non-linear harmonic generation. Fantastic concept!]]></description>
			<dc:creator>AlanG</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Sat, 20 Apr 2013 22:22:17 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-2713</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Robert Greenyer says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-2712</link>
			<description><![CDATA[@Robert Ellefson We are debating that at the moment. However, our initial "active" run will be by powering the passive NiCr wires. That way the bulk of the 400L wires should be at a lower temperature. We are interested to see if we can see the ultra-localised nanostructure related 'antenna' driven IR amplification that was recently discussed by the paper from Budapest - reportedly up to 500,000,000 times. Celani's method for de-loading the wire is to power and pull a strong vacuum - but he does say that it is difficult to unload. I guess we will find out.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Robert Greenyer</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Sat, 20 Apr 2013 19:22:47 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-2712</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Robert Ellefson says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-2711</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Do you have any data for the rate of hydrogen unloading vs vacuum pressure? Is this a problem that we could address by "pulsing" the hydrogen loading cycles with higher frequency and/or amplitude?]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Robert Ellefson</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Sat, 20 Apr 2013 18:09:08 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-2711</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Robert Ellefson says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-2710</link>
			<description><![CDATA[OK, I really don't want to kill this horse, so I'll leave the matter alone, given that the (non-quantitati vely estimated) likely contribution to thermal flux variations from ambient radiators is now probably negligible. However, if I could, would you please put somewhere on your massive list of experiments to run, to add mylar isolation to one cell, and quantify the behavior of two cells in the presence of variable environmental radiation sources, such as night-sky windows or steam-driven radiators for room heat, that participating institutions could conceivably experience? It seems to me that we now have IR diffusers, but not isolators. Again, I suspect the net measurable deltas will be very small with the new setup, and since I abhor the odor of putricene I'll leave it at that.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Robert Ellefson</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Fri, 19 Apr 2013 23:25:13 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-2710</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Malachi Heder says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-2708</link>
			<description><![CDATA[@ Robert E The polycarbonate has two layers and is opaque to IR. We also have a black sheet on the inside wall that should separate the two cells from each other. Sorry, you can't see it in the picture well.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Malachi Heder</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Fri, 19 Apr 2013 21:58:44 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-2708</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Robert Ellefson says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-2706</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Ahem. Previous comment too long. Again. Call me an airbag, I don't mind. I fully acknowledge that the magnitude of convective forcing will now likely dominate any contribution of radiant coupling to our cell's overall thermal response. However, variations in incoming radiation between different cells will still drive proportional variations in cell behavior, although to a much less significant amount than before the convective forcing. At the risk of sounding (even more) shrill, I just wanted to point out that we still are not radiatively isolated, but we could be with a small additional step (mylar). Cell visibility with minimal coupling could still be provided with small, low-e windows offset from the cylinders (near the cell ends). A backdrop surface behind the observer station driven to an average facial temperature would then nearly eliminate coupling variations from the window, at the cost of being totally ridiculous overkill.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Robert Ellefson</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Fri, 19 Apr 2013 19:36:08 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-2706</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Robert Ellefson says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-2705</link>
			<description><![CDATA[This is a certain improvement in overall environment thermal isolation. By forcing a massive convective flux via heated airflow you will drive the internal surface temperature of the box with much greater amplitude than the radiative coupling will. However, since you are using a translucent material for the box, you are attenuating coupled radiation by a linear factor using absorbtion. This will reduce the direct radiant flux from environment to cell body. Meanwhile, the absorbtion of this radiation by the much larger exterior shield area will proportionally increase heat flux into the mass of the polycarbonate, which is then emitted by the interior wall in addition to the convectively-fo rced thermal flux. So, we've now got even more radiant coupling to our environment, but a more complex model for what reaches the cell itself. An exterior covering of mylar will reflect almost all of the ambient radiation.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Robert Ellefson</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Fri, 19 Apr 2013 19:19:30 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-2705</guid>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
