<?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 17:03:35 +0000</lastBuildDate>
		<generator>JComments</generator>
		<atom:link href="http://www.quantumheat.org/index.php/en/component/jcomments/feed/com_content/156" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
		<item>
			<title>123star says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-1025</link>
			<description><![CDATA[[please delete, posted in the wrong place]]]></description>
			<dc:creator>123star</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Thu, 06 Dec 2012 00:26:41 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-1025</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Sanjeev says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-795</link>
			<description><![CDATA[@Ecco/Ged, If I recall correctly, when the indirect heating was on, the conditions were very different, like pressure/ambien t or the loading were different. Now we have 1 W excess and a different situation. If when the power switches to inactive wire and the P_Xs drops to 0 or less, we can conclude that the 1 W is due to Celani wire. It may remain at 1 W or it may rise a bit because there is indirect heating. These possibilities are also there.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Sanjeev</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Mon, 26 Nov 2012 20:53:01 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-795</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Ron B says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-790</link>
			<description><![CDATA[When I look at the data from 8:30-9:00 PST I see at 8:47 there was a jump up in the ambient temp and at the same time there a jump in power in. At that same time T_well shot up high while glass_in dropped and then shortly after that T_mica dropped. Very curious chain of events]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Ron B</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Mon, 26 Nov 2012 18:12:04 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-790</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Ged says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-787</link>
			<description><![CDATA[@Ecco, Indeed, last try it was all negatives, but that was when the wire was potentially "dead" and before the fix. Now that it is "repaired", perhaps that experiment will yield new results. I think Sanjeev's idea is a good one, and definitely worth trying. Should help tease out some of the variables. @Ryan We're back to hitting over 1 W, but there is definitely something that goes on in that room or affects the cell that strips heat from the outer glass every now and then; or, the LENR reaction can "flicker". I don't see anything in the data that could tell us exactly what causes those transient drops. I think it might be a really good idea to set up an airflow sensor near the reactor. That should illuminate a lot of information for us.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Ged</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Mon, 26 Nov 2012 17:44:39 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-787</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Sanjeev says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-783</link>
			<description><![CDATA[The P_in for inactive wire should be about 20- 24 W, to ensure that the Celani wire is not heated indirectly and remains totally inactive, for this check I suggested.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Sanjeev</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Mon, 26 Nov 2012 16:43:27 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-783</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Sanjeev says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-782</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Is it possible to turn off the Celani wire and heat it only using the inactive wire at 48 W for some hours to see if it shows 0 P_Xs ? It looks like the P_Xs returns to 1W after disturbances in input, so the experiment can continue without problems after this little check.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Sanjeev</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Mon, 26 Nov 2012 16:36:45 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-782</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Ged says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-781</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Pumping up the juice didn't seem to help it any. But pressure drops may be the culprit now. This wire sure likes to tease, but not make our lives easy. Lots of interesting data though.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Ged</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Mon, 26 Nov 2012 16:36:08 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-781</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Red says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-780</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Well that's disappointing :-/]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Red</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Mon, 26 Nov 2012 12:01:05 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-780</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Ged says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-779</link>
			<description><![CDATA[According to the graphs, it seems the hydrogen pressure may be falling low enough to now be negatively impacting heat transfer from the mica to the glass; which will lower P_xs. I wonder if there's any other way to ratchet up the cell temperature while keeping the wire at this amiable power in.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Ged</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Mon, 26 Nov 2012 01:06:31 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-779</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Paul Hunt says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-778</link>
			<description><![CDATA[It appears that the glitch we caused in the software yesterday left some bad offset calibration data in the endpoint that reads voltage and current. Today we realized that and reset the board at about 16:05. The voltage, current, impedance and power were all off a little bit during that 22 hours. They should be more accurate now.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Paul Hunt</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Mon, 26 Nov 2012 00:53:16 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-778</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Ecco says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-777</link>
			<description><![CDATA[@Ryan Hunt: by the way, I was thinking that another, quicker way to test for possible thermal influence on the reactor by radiation from the surrounding causing apparent excess power, would be increasing input power by roughly the average calculated excess power produced, which so far today has been around 1W. Input power has already been increased by 0.25W about 45 minutes ago, so it would have to be increased by an additional 0.75W, for a total of 48.9W as of now. If the excess power is real, but it's also not some sort of gain (rather an absolute value), the cell should resume producing those 1.0-1.2W that in relatively short time, like yesterday after the short unexpected shutdown. If it yet again takes days or otherwise an unreasonably long amount of time to resume producing it, then there's a high chance we've not been witnessing excess heat.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Ecco</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Sun, 25 Nov 2012 22:56:01 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-777</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Rats says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-775</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Interesting ... still climbing after several days. I have a question please. At what level of P_Xs could we confidently say it is above noise/error levels and the cell is definitely producing excess energy?]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Rats</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Sun, 25 Nov 2012 21:56:34 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-775</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>clovis ray says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-773</link>
			<description><![CDATA[hi, guys, wow, 1.1904 and climbing.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>clovis ray</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Sun, 25 Nov 2012 15:01:18 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-773</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Paul Hunt says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-768</link>
			<description><![CDATA[@ Robert G I have been thinking the same thing. It seems to be a 24 hour effect. It is most likely some secondary effect of temperature, but it sure would be fun to find out it has something to do with cosmic rays or nutrinos.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Paul Hunt</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Sun, 25 Nov 2012 03:44:07 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-768</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Ecco says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-767</link>
			<description><![CDATA[I tried. I haven't calculated this myself, but I used manually retrieved data from this website: http://www.pveducation.org/pvcdrom/properties-of-sunlight/sun-position-calculator Blue: solar incidence (degrees) Red: excess power (W) http://i.imgur.com/5HSrN.png (link: http://i.imgur.com/5HSrN.png ) P_xs dates have been moved back 6 hours.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Ecco</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Sun, 25 Nov 2012 03:41:58 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-767</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Robert Greenyer says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-766</link>
			<description><![CDATA[speculative exploration. I would like to see the Pxs plotted against local solar incidence angle to see if there is a correlation with either direct Nutrino exposure or earth defracted/slowe d Nutrinos (at night). Maybe this might account for the timing of upticks and would be a great discovery. Anyone got the time to do that? Remember the cell is in Minnesota and the timecode in the database is UTC.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Robert Greenyer</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Sun, 25 Nov 2012 02:44:48 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-766</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Ryan Hunt says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-764</link>
			<description><![CDATA[As everyone could tell, the power to the cell was turned off briefly. It was not fully intentional. The instrumentation quit reporting as we were in there. I tried rebooting the data collector, and that made it reset the power supply control to zero. Then it was a couple minutes before we identified the problem as the software needing a restart. We're not at all sure how our presence may have made the software stop polling, though. This was an experiment I have been hoping to run, though. The next experiment is to to cool it down longer and then restart and see if it settles to the same spot. And the third experiment is to repressure it and see if it goes back to the same output it was at when it was at 4 to 5 bar. That would indicate it has all been a pressure effect. We got some good thermal imagery on film. It will take me a while to edit it up, though. I am a solo daddy till tomorrow evening.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Ryan Hunt</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Sun, 25 Nov 2012 02:10:08 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-764</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Ecco says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-763</link>
			<description><![CDATA[According to its previous downward trend, pressure is still not as high as it should be, suggesting that the hydrogen atmosphere inside the glass tube isn't as heated as it previously was. It appears the reactor is quickly recovering its previous performance, however a real test would be letting it cool off for several hours, then turning it on again. Only then, if the performance recovery will still be quick, one could rule out that it is an artifact of heat radiated back from its immediate surroundings (I imagine that if this is indeed the case, if it took much time to build up, it might also take much time for such heat to peter out). A more interesting test however would be repressurizing the glass tube to 3.5 bar and see if it will still show excess heat quickly. If it does, then to 7.0+ bar.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Ecco</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Sun, 25 Nov 2012 01:12:06 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-763</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Ged says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-762</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Well, that wasn't a long wait! Already back to 0.2 W of positive on P_xs. Input power is lower than before as well. Fantastic.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Ged</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Sun, 25 Nov 2012 01:04:04 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-762</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Ged says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-761</link>
			<description><![CDATA[This will be very interesting to watch. Hopefully good IR pictures too! Seems to be recovering, at least faster than how it started out.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Ged</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Sun, 25 Nov 2012 01:00:24 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-761</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Ecco says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-760</link>
			<description><![CDATA[@Ryan: I see you turned off the system. That should be an interesting test to see if the excess heat was real (it shouldn't take as long as before to reach the previous value of ~1.2W if it was). To help the reactor reaching the previous operating temperatures quicker I would suggest applying power to both wires until it does. BTW, input power is currently marginally lower than it previously was.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Ecco</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Sun, 25 Nov 2012 00:46:39 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-760</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Ged says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-758</link>
			<description><![CDATA[I'm with Ecco! I think that light experiment would be an interesting and easy thing to attempt. Also nearing 1.2 W. I wonder if a person moving around displaces enough air to cause a flow that disturbs the cell. Is it really that sensitive on the outer glass?]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Ged</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Sat, 24 Nov 2012 23:52:36 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-758</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Ecco says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-757</link>
			<description><![CDATA[@Ryan Hunt: that could be the chance to make a few photos - you know what I mean! (I think) PS: I was actually serious with the camera flash suggestion some time back. If there was a relationship with that sustained P_xs increase and the photo shooting, that might have been due to the interaction of UV photons from the flash bulb (Xenon flash bulbs used in most photo cameras can emit a significant amount of UV light) somehow managing to dissociate (or promoting the dissociation of) some hydrogen molecules into atomic hydrogen, possibly triggering something interesting inside the cell.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Ecco</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Sat, 24 Nov 2012 23:48:30 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-757</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Ryan Hunt says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-756</link>
			<description><![CDATA[I was in the lab from 5:08 to 5:30 I will be back in there to film with the IR camera and see if we can learn anything. The apparent power dropped off pretty good for while, there.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Ryan Hunt</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Sat, 24 Nov 2012 23:36:17 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-756</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Valac  says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-755</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Ideally, you should turn your fume extractor off during measurement as it is a great source of uncertainty (air flow, electrical noises generated by motor...), a constant ambient tempt is best and perhaps should use a low noise, precision linear power supply for the experiment. Any glue used in the device construction should not discharge its chemical constituents into the gas at high tempt.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Valac </dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Sat, 24 Nov 2012 23:06:48 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-755</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Ecco says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-754</link>
			<description><![CDATA[I think this has been posted before, but in order to increase measurement accuracy and reduce the the influence of air currents, a possible solution could be installing 2 or 3 more T_GlassOut thermocouples in different positions and using their average value for P_out calculations. A drawback is that all previous calibrations would have to be remade from scratch, however.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Ecco</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Sat, 24 Nov 2012 22:08:19 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-754</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Ron B says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-753</link>
			<description><![CDATA[It's bouncing above 1W now and the ambient is even lower. Amazing isn't it. Is there any chance to get the FLIR images online for general view? It sucks to be here and not there.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Ron B</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Sat, 24 Nov 2012 21:16:48 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-753</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Ged says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-752</link>
			<description><![CDATA[@Ron Breaking of a metal lattice is going to absorb a lot of energy to accomplish. If embrittlement is exothermic, it'll be very weakly so, since so much enthalpy is lost when atomic bonds are broken in the metal lattice. I would assume entropy is the driving force, but hard to say without some good experimental measurements specifically for this.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Ged</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Sat, 24 Nov 2012 20:21:21 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-752</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Ron B says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-751</link>
			<description><![CDATA[@Eric, Wiki pages on Hydrogen Embrittlement talks about it as atomic hydrogen collecting in voids in the metal and then combining into molecular hydrogen and causing deformation and in extreme cases metallic fractures.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Ron B</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Sat, 24 Nov 2012 19:52:38 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-751</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Ron B says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-750</link>
			<description><![CDATA[@Eric I also think that the hydrogen embrittlement is an exothermic process by the nature of the forces involved that can fracture a metal as hard as nickel. From what I've read, the embrittlement process takes place as long as the metal is exposed to hydrogen and is make worse by pressure and temperature because it can diffuse more deeply and rapidly. I've no clue just how exothermic it is but I believe it's something that should be explored. Again, I'm an electrical engineer not a specialist in material sciences.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Ron B</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Sat, 24 Nov 2012 19:49:14 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-750</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Ecco says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-747</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Another point of concern I noticed just now is the climb seemingly wanting to start at about 12:00 in the chart: http://i.imgur.com/Krwkl.png @Eric Walker: no, I do really mean hydrogen embrittlement. This is a yet not completely understood phenomenon which occurs even just by exposure to hydrogen gas at low concentration and pressure. Under certain conditions and depending on the material it can get worse / quicker. There are many interesting papers on this subject available on the Internet, even dating back to the '60s. Example (for steel): http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19670021605_1967021605.pdf]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Ecco</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Sat, 24 Nov 2012 18:44:45 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-747</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Eric Walker says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-746</link>
			<description><![CDATA[I am excited to watch P_xs climb near one Watt -- hopefully it will continue. I like the fact that it is quite jumpy; I get the impression that this is what is seen in many LENR experiments when there is something going on. My primary concern at this point is that P_xs, graphed over several days, tracks the drop in pressure fairly closely. They could be related -- perhaps the drop in pressure is providing sufficient non-equilibrium conditions to encourage the reaction. Or perhaps the calculation for P_xs incorrectly factors in the pressure, making what is otherwise a stable signal seem to increase. Does anyone have any thoughts on this point?]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Eric Walker</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Sat, 24 Nov 2012 18:28:18 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-746</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Eric Walker says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-745</link>
			<description><![CDATA[@Ecco, by "embrittlement, " perhaps you have in mind the hydrogenation of the nickel. Hydrogenation is generally an exothermic process. I am not an expert in this field, but my understanding is that embrittlement occurs when the loading is too high or is uneven, causing cracks to appear. Embrittlement works against hydrogenation, because the hydrogen can escape. (It also makes the metal more difficult to work with.) Because hydrogenation is exothermic, we have to be on the look out for several processes overlaying one another, making the signal more difficult to interpret. We want to be wary of reading too much into a small signal of excess heat. I think what we want to see is a strong, clear signal -- preferably several sigma above background. I do not believe we'll get there until we see many Watts in P_xs -- someone please correct me if I'm wrong.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Eric Walker</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Sat, 24 Nov 2012 18:22:43 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-745</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Ascoli65 says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-743</link>
			<description><![CDATA[To replicate Celani’s results, you should implement the same “semplified approach” for getting the P_out (see Celani_ICCF17_T rasp3.pdf - slide 22). This approach assumes that all the heat lost by the cell irradiates to the ambient. Therefore P_out = k_ref * (T_ext_glass^4 – T_room^4), where k_ref includes the SB costant, the surface, the emissivity, etc. The single “reference value” (k_ref) is computed by means of a “self calibration”, when “the system had reached enough thermal equilibrium” (slide 31). Presumably, T_ext_glass and T_room values, measured within one hour after the power-on, have been used (slide 29). Therefore you should turn off the cell, let it cool, restore the gas, increase power at once at 48 W and keep it constant, wait about one hour, read T_ Glassout and T_Ambient and compute k_ref, use this value to determine the P_out, and in a couple of days you will see a few watts of “Celani’s power excess”.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Ascoli65</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Sat, 24 Nov 2012 17:56:05 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-743</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Ged says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-742</link>
			<description><![CDATA[@Ecco, Yeah, I hear you about the symbol limit; it does make explanations very brief. Also, I see what you mean and completely agree. Sorry for the misunderstandin g!]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Ged</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Sat, 24 Nov 2012 17:55:59 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-742</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Robert Greenyer says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-741</link>
			<description><![CDATA[@ Ecco Ryan and I have discussed doing the over pressure start thing as you describe]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Robert Greenyer</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Sat, 24 Nov 2012 17:54:02 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-741</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Ecco says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-739</link>
			<description><![CDATA[@Ged: I didn't explain myself correctly (due to the 950 bytes limit), perhaps. I didn't mean that embrittlement and the subsequent microfracturing are exothermic and are causing the calculated excess heat we're witnessing, but that if some sort of uncontrolled LENR is indeed occurring inside the cell and is producing excess heat, it is likely that it's at least partially related to the effects of hydrogen (normally undesired) on the metals and alloys used. If it's the case, then it is in the team's interest to maximize the effect. A cheap way would be increasing pressure. I'm aware there aren't calibration runs for 7-8 bars or more (ideally as much as the glass tube safely allows), but one could simply ignore sensor data until pressure falls back to more familiar levels.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Ecco</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Sat, 24 Nov 2012 17:47:35 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-739</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Ged says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-737</link>
			<description><![CDATA[@Ecco, You make great points, and I understand what you mean. I have to respectfully disagree with some of the analysis at least in so far as magnitude versus what we're seeing; unless there was other data to suggest otherwise. For instance, embrittlement should not cause a -sustained- and growing heat production. If embrittlement is exothermic, and I do not know if it is, then we should see a peak as it occurs to a naive wire and then a cooling of the cell back down as the affect tapers off (it should be maximal at the start as there are the most reactants at that point). We shouldn't see this growth, let alone sustained positive heat over time -- definitely not this long of time being on the order of days. No way can I believe that has the energy release potential unless I see other data -- let alone these kinetic parameters we observe. I think your suggestion about bumping up the pressure is a great one.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Ged</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Sat, 24 Nov 2012 17:33:06 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-737</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Ecco says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-736</link>
			<description><![CDATA[A couple things: - I'm still not convinced we're seeing excess heat - Since we're speaking of a metallic alloy in hydrogen atmosphere, excluding external influences, the only thing I can think of that might be causing a slow heat rise over time might be, as I previously suggested, the slow effect of hydrogen and steam embrittlement (although copper and copper alloys are resistant against it, they aren't immune) causing the gradual forming of microfractures and micro bubbles affecting the material surface geometry and maybe (?) promoting LENR reactions which should occur (perhaps due to quantum effects, although that's a very wild guess on my part) in those tiny cracks with heat or other stimuli. Highly porous and/or microfractured materials such as Celani wires are more susceptible to this gradual surface modification in hydrogen atmosphere. - If the above is true then increasing pressure should make excess heat appear quicker.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Ecco</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Sat, 24 Nov 2012 17:24:18 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-736</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Ged says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-735</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Thank you, Ecco! Just saw quite a number of 1+ W spikes. T_Ambient is still steady, so heat flow away from the cell is still steady, as far as we can see in the data. This is very interesting. You know, I wonder. What if the wire treatment isn't what activates the wire? What if the hydrogen loading isn't what activates the wire? What if it's this slow, several watt climb above baseline at a lower temperature, that is the activation of the wire? Could a few LENR events modify the nano structure of the wire and make more LENR events increasingly likely? Not sure how to test that distinction, so just thinking out loud.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Ged</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Sat, 24 Nov 2012 17:11:36 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-735</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Ecco says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-734</link>
			<description><![CDATA[There have already been spikes of 1 W over the previous hours. This is the trend of P_xs over the past 72 hours (not showing the recent 1W spikes): http://i.imgur.com/9Gpsz.png Assuming a linear trend (which probably isn't), that's roughly 0.9-1.0 W each 48 hours.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Ecco</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Sat, 24 Nov 2012 16:53:53 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-734</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Ged says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-733</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Yep, now seeing spikes of 0.94 W. Should break the 1 W line very soon, if we haven't already. Does anyone know how the overall trend line is looking? Is it staying the same rate, growing, lowering? Reflected heat from surroundings will slow down heat loss, but unless there is a heat source nearby, the surroundings cannot add heat to the cell; just help it to stick around. Since we're comparing with calibration runs of near identical conditions, I think most such effects have been factored out. Also, the sudden transient drops in T_GlassOut I've seen from time to time may be due to a sudden breeze of air (remember, our convection calculations are for static air, not flowing air; flowing air will remove way more heat than static). Could this blips be turning on of the building ventilation system?]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Ged</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Sat, 24 Nov 2012 16:43:13 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-733</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Robert Greenyer says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-732</link>
			<description><![CDATA[@Ron B Ryan will be using the FLIR camera to see if there is evidence of localised busts of heat in the cell that might account for the apparent fluctuations in Pxs that are currently punching through the 1W mark. Maybe there are some "gusts" that are causing the sudden drops - and therefore creating the apparent burst patterns. More investigation needed.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Robert Greenyer</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Sat, 24 Nov 2012 15:55:49 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-732</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Ron B says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-731</link>
			<description><![CDATA[@Ryan, Do you have access to a FLIR camera? It would be very interesting to have a video of the heat profile of the entire setup.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Ron B</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Sat, 24 Nov 2012 15:24:55 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-731</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>robiD says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-730</link>
			<description><![CDATA[@ MFMP team Could you please take a temperature measure of the plane under the reactor and the two lateral supports (aluminium ?), moreover the temperature of the two lateral cylinders that close the cell? Have you considered that the plane and the two lateral supports could radiate heat towards the cell itself? Is it possible to quantify a such effect? Thanks in advance.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>robiD</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Sat, 24 Nov 2012 11:22:39 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-730</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Ecco says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-729</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Just thinking: my opinion is that if the cell is really producing excess heat as in Celani's, it should quickly resume producing it after having been stopped (for example to attempt loading it at a higher pressure - 7.0-7.5 bar), as per charts in his latest presentation. If it will still take days to reach meaningful sustained amounts of apparent (= very low, inconclusive, ambiguous) excess heat, then it is possible that so far we have only witnessed the slow path to thermal equilibrium of not only the cell but also its very immediate surroundings as I and others mentioned before. I don't know if it's possible, but please also consider sending a "ring signal" to the cell from time to time in order to trying to perturbate it in a non-invasive, repeatable way. For example a "square wave" by alternating the current voltage setting to zero volt at a rate of 2-3 Hz for a couple seconds.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Ecco</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Sat, 24 Nov 2012 09:17:39 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-729</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Robert Greenyer says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-728</link>
			<description><![CDATA[We are peaking above 0.7W and the trend is still upwards]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Robert Greenyer</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Sat, 24 Nov 2012 02:26:28 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-728</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Ecco says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-725</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Regarding heat loss by radiation. Aluminum has typically a 90-95% IR radiation reflectivity. Aluminum foil is cheap (although thick foil sheet should be preferred). Besides the need of repeating calibration procedures, would there be any disadvantage in wrapping the reactor glass tube with one or two layers of foil and therefore containing most of the IR radiation within it? http://www.escoproducts.com/assets/images/aluminum.jpg Sorry if I'm bringing out this again, but the aluminum foil idea seems a good one to me if other, more accurate means of containing and measuring heat aren't readily available/possi ble at this stage.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Ecco</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Fri, 23 Nov 2012 22:09:23 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-725</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>123star says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-724</link>
			<description><![CDATA[@Sanjeev I wouldn't be so happy, these are only estimates, and the levels of excess heat are are measuring well within experimental uncertainty. Our calorimeter is rather poor (non-flow, non-envelope, only spot-temperatur e measurements). See the spread in temperatures with different setups in "T_glassout vs total power". That shouldn't happen in a proper calorimeter.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>123star</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Fri, 23 Nov 2012 22:03:22 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-724</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Sanjeev says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-723</link>
			<description><![CDATA[@123star, Thanks. That gives a close match 36+10= 46 W. So as a rough criteria, it should produce ~ 3W excess to be called overunity. If only radiation is taken into account, it should produce above 15W excess (the real life emissivity will be less than 100%). From curve method, its already overunity, we have 0.7 W excess !!]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Sanjeev</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Fri, 23 Nov 2012 21:36:31 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-723</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Ron B says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-722</link>
			<description><![CDATA[@Ged, I see about adding hydrogen. There is a confirmed leak then or is that just an assumption? Could there be other explanations? (such as formation of a hydride) If you added more hydrogen and then got a spike in the excess temp would the excess heat return to .5ish after that extra heat was dissipated or would it start to approach zero or negative again? (any speculation)]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Ron B</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Fri, 23 Nov 2012 21:11:20 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-722</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Ged says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-719</link>
			<description><![CDATA[@Ron B, A dropping pressure removes heat from the cell, and so lowers our estimate of P_xs based on T_GlassOut. If we put in more pressure, we would shoot P_xs artificially up, as pressurizing something heats it while the process is ongoing. @Sanjeev, Very true and great points. I hope someone can use those equations from the reference. I think for convection we'd have to measure airflow to get the convection factor for the equation? And then orientation plays a role too and... way more complex than using the calibration curve as the standard. I agree it's a very good method they are using.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Ged</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Fri, 23 Nov 2012 20:29:45 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-719</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Ron B says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-718</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Is it expected that putting the pressure back up to the point that this all started would make the excess power go back to negative values? Is there a reason that you're not keeping the pressure constant? is the drop in pressure because of a leak? Can you detect the hydrogen leak to confirm this?]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Ron B</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Fri, 23 Nov 2012 20:21:47 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-718</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Sanjeev says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-717</link>
			<description><![CDATA[@Ged If you recall from the earlier posts on this blog, a pre calibrated power-temperatu re graph is being used to get the output power. I guess that's a very good method, if the other variables are almost the same in both calibration and actual run (like pressure and ambient temperature.) Of course the SB formula will underestimate the power because convection loss is totally ignored. Well, Celani used SB eqn and simply showed enough output power, so that COP was greater than 1, even if only radiated power is taken and rest of the extra energy is ignored. His actual excess power must be almost double of reported but conservative calculations avoid the debate and doubts.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Sanjeev</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Fri, 23 Nov 2012 20:17:34 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-717</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Ged says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-715</link>
			<description><![CDATA[@Ryan I found a reference with equations for calculating heat required to replace convection losses, conduction, and radiation losses, as well as using specific heat for calculating watts for raising a mass's temperature. http://www.watlow.com/downloads/en/catalogs/reference-data.pdf pages 588 and 589 (actually just the 4th and 5th pages of the pdf). Quite a bit of goodies here, that hopefully will be useful.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Ged</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Fri, 23 Nov 2012 19:46:06 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-715</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Ged says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-713</link>
			<description><![CDATA[@Sanjeev, I think the equations we want for calculating power from direct temperature, rather than radiation, are ones involving heat capacity and thermal conductivity. I think the heat capacity of their quartz glass is "Specific heat capacity: 45.3 J/(mol·K)", and thermal conductivity is "Thermal conductivity: 1.3 W/(m·K)". I'm a bit rusty with this, but I believe the conductivity will give us the rate of energy we have to put in to hold a stable temperature, while heat capacity will tell us how much energy is needed to bring the glass up to 122 C from the ambient 26 C. We just need the moles of quartz glass (from the mass of the glass versus its molecular weight), as we already have its size. Hmmm. Hopefully they'll chime in and tell us exactly how they are computing things though.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Ged</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Fri, 23 Nov 2012 18:43:13 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-713</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Ged says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-712</link>
			<description><![CDATA[@Sanjeev, At least that is my understanding. Could be wrong!]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Ged</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Fri, 23 Nov 2012 18:28:00 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-712</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Ged says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-711</link>
			<description><![CDATA[@Sanjeev, I think they are basing their P_Out on the measured actual temperature of the glass, versus doing black body radiation from the glass like your calculation is for. Basically, I think directly measuring temperature like they are is measuring conduction and some of (but not all) the radiation component of the power out. Since the glass is not fully opaque to IR, most of the radiation from the inside where the reaction is taking place is lost, and will not appear in a black body calculation from the glass surface. I think you would need to use either the T_Mica, or both the T_Mica and T_GlassOut (that would overestimate though, since some of T_Mica is reflected in T_GlassOut) if you want to do proper black body calculations. Idealy, we'd need actual IR measurements to give us the values we need for black body. But since we have direct temperature measurements, we don't have to deal with that.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Ged</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Fri, 23 Nov 2012 18:22:50 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-711</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Sanjeev says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-710</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Just for fun. Average T_Glassout for last 12 hours = 122.15 C Average T_Ambient = 22.63 C Radius = 20 mm, length = 300 mm , emissivity = 100% Po = 5.67 * (10^(-8)) * (((122.15 + 273)^4) - ((22.63 + 273)^4)) * 2 * PI * 20 * (10^(-3)) * 300 * (10^(-3)) = 35.79 W The value in the data for P_Out is 48.4 W. Is my calculation totally wrong ?]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Sanjeev</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Fri, 23 Nov 2012 17:45:20 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-710</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Ron B says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-708</link>
			<description><![CDATA[@Ged, re gamma rays We're talking particle acceleration is it possible that they could be produced much like those effects of quartz crystals being fractured? When you calculated the energy, did you include the energy required to compress the hydrogen? I'm not sure if diffusion of uncompressed hydrogen into Ni can occur. Hopefully we can get a sustained reaction long enough or large enough to rule out all these possibilities. :-) .]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Ron B</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Fri, 23 Nov 2012 17:07:47 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-708</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Ecco says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-707</link>
			<description><![CDATA[@Ged: although they are more resistant against than other ones, actually copper and copper alloys can be susceptible to hydrogen embrittlement and attack in certain conditions. A quick google search reveals documents like this: http://products.asminternational.org/fach/data/fullDisplay.do?database=faco&record=1673&trim=false http://www.sandia.gov/matlsTechRef/chapters/4001TechRef_Cu.pdf It turns out that the presence of oxides in them can make copper alloys vulnerable against hydrogen embrittlement. Maybe this is one of the reasons why Celani's procedure for active wire "rejuvenation" under free air can help them regain their performance? If it's the case, then one might want a starting wire with as much oxygen content as possible (however, then one would have to take into account possible chemical reactions with hydrogen apparently increasing excess heat).]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Ecco</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Fri, 23 Nov 2012 16:58:21 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-707</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Ged says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-706</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Seeing spikes of 0.64 W now, still climbing! But it may be slowing down, can't tell. Still, this is getting considerable; and hopefully is significantly a signal above noise. Or it should be by Monday -if- trends hold. @Ron, Here's a paper abstract on embrittlement http://oai.dtic.mil/oai/oai?verb=getRecord&metadataPrefix=html&identifier=ADA148322 . Note that copper and copper alloys are not susceptible to hydrogen embrittlement. Also, embrittlement can not release as much energy as combustion (the hydrogen loading is exothermic. Embrittlement only happens to a limited extent after loading), and we've already calculated how much chemical energy is stored in the hydrogen here; that cannot be exceeded but by nuclear processes. Finally embrittlement cannot release gamma rays. The keV energy levels high enough to reach gamma rays aren't going to happen through standard chemical methods. We're talking particle acceleration.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Ged</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Fri, 23 Nov 2012 16:44:58 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-706</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Ecco says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-704</link>
			<description><![CDATA[@Ron B: unfortunately I'm not able to provide a competent answer to your question.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Ecco</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Fri, 23 Nov 2012 14:21:41 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-704</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Ron B says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-703</link>
			<description><![CDATA[@Ecco Do you happen to know if hydrogen embrittlement is exothermic? Since I think it's believed that recombining atomic hydrogen into molecular hydrogen in interstitial voids causes the fractures, it seems like it might be exothermic as well as a source of gamma radiation when the crystals are ripped apart. Sheer speculation of course Temperature, pressure and time all seem to promote it. These are attributes of the embrittlement process as well as the process for the micro evolution of the crystal structure of Ni.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Ron B</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Fri, 23 Nov 2012 13:06:00 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-703</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Robert Greenyer says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-702</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Celani also thinks that merely sitting the wire in H2 for a week may improve the chance of the effect.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Robert Greenyer</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Fri, 23 Nov 2012 11:31:56 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-702</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Ecco says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-701</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Random thought: if Storms' NAE/cracks theory is true, then it might be an idea to try maximizing the hydrogen embrittlement effect on the active wire, which can produce cracks at a nanometric scale. Temperature, pressure and time all seem to promote it.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Ecco</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Fri, 23 Nov 2012 09:21:14 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-701</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Eric Walker says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-699</link>
			<description><![CDATA[As has been noted, there are many variables at work here. I would not assume that you can get a stock replication of Celani, right away, without some initial work. It may be that his own experiments do not show the rapid response until after there's been a breaking-in period, where the wire becomes more and more amenable to the reaction. Also, we should not assume that variables that work for one wire preparation (high pressure, high temperatures) will work exactly the same way for another preparation of wire (e.g., before the wire has been modified sufficiently by whatever is going on to provide a rapid response). As long as there is an upward trend, I would leave everything pretty much how it is. For this reason the drop in pressure is a concern.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Eric Walker</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Fri, 23 Nov 2012 03:49:25 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-699</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Ged says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-696</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Such interesting questions guys. Thanks for all the discussion, it's fun trying to solve these puzzles with both of you. Just got a 0.41 W peak, so we're still climbing at least, even if marginally.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Ged</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Thu, 22 Nov 2012 22:21:18 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-696</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Sanjeev says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-695</link>
			<description><![CDATA[I agree, a pressure of 7 to 8 bars should be attempted (with pure H2, if needed). Note the leveling off in Celani's case when he lowers the pressure below 4 bars approx. Else the Xs kept rising. May be he lowered the pressure to keep total power below the destruction threshold. The reaction lasted for 8 days, so relatively little time may mean a day at least. :lol:]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Sanjeev</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Thu, 22 Nov 2012 22:14:57 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-695</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Ecco says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-694</link>
			<description><![CDATA[In Celani's case, however, it takes relatively little time for the cell to produce significant amounts of excess heat (assuming all calculations and measurements are reasonably accurate). Also, according to the chart you linked, it immediately resumes producing excess heat as soon as power is applied (after he makes vacuum to try 100% H2 concentration). In the MFMP US cell, excess power, when there are hints that it might being produced, appears to be a rather fragile effect. I've pointed often too that Celani uses higher gas pressures, and think that after this run, another one at 7.0 bar should be attempted (in addition of making the glass tube contain IR radiation by adding an outer layer of aluminum foil) as it might be one of the main reasons why, in short, the active wire doesn't seem to be working as expected.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Ecco</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Thu, 22 Nov 2012 21:50:26 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-694</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Ged says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-693</link>
			<description><![CDATA[@Sanjeev, That is also very much a possibility. Thanks for the graph! This is quite a complex issue with a lot of variables. If we follow Dr. Storm's theory of LENR, with nuclear active regions in the lattice being essential, than we have the rate of reaction which is the rate at which new sites open in the lattice versus loss of old ones, to give a final steady state power out. Of course, hydrogen pressure would likely affect hydrogen uptake and thus the speed at which active sites get occupied, and that too would affect the rate of reaction independently of site number. This all assumes that cold fusion events happen at a constant rate velocity once site occupation occurs, and that it isn't affected itself by temperature and pressure within the range we are looking, which it might! That's at least three factors that may affect reaction rate and thus the trend of P_ex and where it will plateau, that I can think of.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Ged</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Thu, 22 Nov 2012 21:47:58 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-693</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Sanjeev says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-692</link>
			<description><![CDATA[May be the slowing down is due to low pressure. (Its now 2.9 bar.) Note that Celani had a pressure of 8 bars when the Xs was 10 W. Just a guess. This is his graph. http://i46.tinypic.com/2wf8m4o.jpg]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Sanjeev</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Thu, 22 Nov 2012 21:38:46 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-692</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Ged says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-691</link>
			<description><![CDATA[@Ecco, Very nice graph. One would expect the rate of reaction to plateau at some point, and then equilibration -- which is the lag time before we get the full P_xs steady state value since we're dealing with a raise in temperature -- to finally catch up our readings. This would be a leveling off. A linear trend will never happen forever, but the linear portion of the trend gives us insight into rates of reaction (Km, Kd, Ka, Kcat if applicable). It might be possible to extract those values, preliminarily, from this data. If there is a reaction like the data suggests to me so far, will it plateau above any doubt regarding noise? Guess we gotta keep watching!]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Ged</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Thu, 22 Nov 2012 21:22:30 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-691</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Sanjeev says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-690</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Well, yes..leveling off. It will take a few more hours for the rate to fall to 0 or it can continue at even slower rate.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Sanjeev</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Thu, 22 Nov 2012 21:21:09 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-690</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Ecco says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-689</link>
			<description><![CDATA[This is what I mean with leveling off. This chart is the 15 minutes average of P_Xs, starting 46 hours ago: http://i.imgur.com/CW5HC.png You can see that it is not rising as much as in the beginning anymore.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Ecco</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Thu, 22 Nov 2012 21:06:28 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-689</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Sanjeev says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-688</link>
			<description><![CDATA[@Ecco, If you plot the 15 min average (or 5 min average) for last 12 hours, you will see the rising trend. If you plot the 30 sec average, you will see it leveling off. It''s a bit confusing. Anyway I think the rate has gone down and it may take many days to see P_Xs above noise.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Sanjeev</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Thu, 22 Nov 2012 21:00:14 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-688</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Ged says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-686</link>
			<description><![CDATA[@Ecco, Temperature equilibrium? I don't think the data supports this hypothesis. T_Ambient is holding steady and the entire cell has risen in temperature while P_in has not been increasing. Power doesn't just appear from no where, and equilibration is about flow of energy, it doesn't make energy appear. Unless there is an unaccounted for energy sink that was removing energy before we could detect it, which has now ceased to do so, I think the "equilibration" hypothesis is proven false. Barring instrumentation error (which could be the factor), this is showing a growing reaction. A slow ramp up over time is also seems consistent with Celani. Additionally, the reason the previous higher temperatures hurt the wire wasn't because of the high temperatures themselves, but due to the massively more input power which was necessary to reach them with this type of glass versus Celani's glass. You know this already, though.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Ged</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Thu, 22 Nov 2012 20:53:47 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-686</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Ecco says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-684</link>
			<description><![CDATA[@Ged: >All this still 100 C below the "proper" activation temperatures. However, higher temperatures have already been attempted (with T_Mica peaking 290 C) with this wire, which might be damaged or not working properly, without any short term positive effect. I do not find it very promising that days at constant power and very stable environmental conditions have to be waited before P_Xs calculation reaches and just barely crosses the 0 line. This looks more like that the reactor environment (the reactor itself and its close surroundings) is reaching a temperature equilibrium. That P_Xs appears to be gradually decreasing its rise seems to be consistent with this hypothesis. Plus, < 1W as a final expected excess power result is most probably still within error margins for this kind of calorimetry.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Ecco</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Thu, 22 Nov 2012 20:25:54 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-684</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Ged says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-683</link>
			<description><![CDATA[We have now hit spikes of 0.37 W, and are keeping the mean around 0.2 W. Should break the 0.4 W barrier soon (a few hours). -If- trends continue, by Monday we should be into the single digit Watt ranges of positive P_xs. All this still 100 C below the "proper" activation temperatures. Both T_Mica and T_GlassOut have continued to climb (so overall energy of the cell has increased), while ambient seems to be staying steady, pressure is still dropping at its same slow rate, and I'm not sure what resistance is doing, but it seems steady if not slowly increasing. P_in is either holding steady, or slowly dropping with time.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Ged</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Thu, 22 Nov 2012 20:08:57 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-683</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Ged says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-681</link>
			<description><![CDATA[@Sanjeev, That would be very cool to find. It's the best explanation for what I know about energy transfer. Only thing we seem to be losing right now as we lose the gas is its thermal inertia. I dunno, could always be some factor I've overlooked or don't know of, but so far as I know and see, increasing energy production by the cell is the best explanation for what we detect at the moment.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Ged</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Thu, 22 Nov 2012 17:47:40 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-681</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Sanjeev says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-679</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Ged I hope you are right and there is an anomalous component there causing the increase in glass temperature.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Sanjeev</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Thu, 22 Nov 2012 17:39:05 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-679</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Sanjeev says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-677</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Ged The conduction will be blocked gradually but glass will be heated by IR directly. This can explain the tiny increase in glass outer temperature. But it seems the interplay of variables is much more convoluted than I thought. We need clear signal. May be 20 W excess !]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Sanjeev</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Thu, 22 Nov 2012 17:24:58 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-677</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Ascoli65 says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-675</link>
			<description><![CDATA[A couple of question about the slow T_glass climb. Although most of heat leaves the glass by convection to the air, part of it is radiated directly to the metallic base and cradle, and part flows by conduction to the SS flanges. Did you occasionally check the temperature of these metallic parts? Have you noticed some regular, albeit small, heating trend of them?]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Ascoli65</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Thu, 22 Nov 2012 17:19:58 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-675</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Ged says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-672</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Well, we are now in the positive excess range. Almost 0.2 W I've seen it spike to now, and it's holding the mean in the positive. Seems to still be rising up. @Sanjeev, As they show in their temperature-pre ssure relation graph, and as the ideal gas law would tell us, the drop in pressure should be -decreasing- the heating of the outer glass, which is where we measure. The pressure drop does not explain the excess, but it can make it harder to detect by decreasing it where we're looking (keeping it locked in the mica). And we know from any ideal gas, that as pressure drops, so does temperature. Since we're heating continuously, we make up for that, but it should actually cause a linear decrease line on the T_GlassOut as heat escapes with the gas. We see the opposite, so it actually strengthens our confidence in this positive P_xs trend. Correct me if I'm wrong. So.. things are looking quite fantastic! Let's see how high it can go.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Ged</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Thu, 22 Nov 2012 16:49:05 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-672</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Ivone M. FitzGerald says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-671</link>
			<description><![CDATA[How about a rebuild of the Avion III and get it it to fly well? It looks cool. Ideally with a CF engine.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Ivone M. FitzGerald</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Thu, 22 Nov 2012 16:47:18 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-671</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Ivone M. FitzGerald says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-670</link>
			<description><![CDATA[The Ader design is a lot more professional looking than the Wright's stick and string. The bumping has sadly returned, but tighten the scarfm and adjust the goggles!]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Ivone M. FitzGerald</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Thu, 22 Nov 2012 16:37:58 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-670</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Andre Blum says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-669</link>
			<description><![CDATA[ Do not forget that LENR was invented by Fleishmann and Pons. The positiion for a LENR Wright brothers equivalent is still open. Let that be enough incentive!!]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Andre Blum</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Thu, 22 Nov 2012 16:36:22 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-669</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Alain Coetmeur says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-668</link>
			<description><![CDATA[ Don't forget that the first flight was by Clement Ader... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cl%C3%A9ment_Ader even if it was short and uncontrolled... Wright brother invented the first wind tunnel to test their wings... anyway, many things looks alike between human flight and LENR...]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Alain Coetmeur</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Thu, 22 Nov 2012 16:10:31 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-668</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Andre Blum says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-667</link>
			<description><![CDATA[let's hope the flight lasts longer than 12 seconds. Thumbs up!]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Andre Blum</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Thu, 22 Nov 2012 15:17:06 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-667</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Ivone M. FitzGerald says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-666</link>
			<description><![CDATA[The aeroplane's wheels are bumping along the runway , but the time between bumps is getting longer and longer...soon the aeroplane will be properly aloft. Cf. the Wright Brother's Flyer.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Ivone M. FitzGerald</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Thu, 22 Nov 2012 15:08:34 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-666</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Robert Greenyer says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-664</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Just breaking through unity now and still continues the upward trend.. Still not significant but worth it to leave it running.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Robert Greenyer</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Thu, 22 Nov 2012 10:04:12 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-664</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Sanjeev says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-663</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Thank you Malachi the wonder-engineer . It does look like the extra heat is mostly due to pressure drop. Do you plan to restore the pressure and check if it still rises ? If you see the page 38 of Celani's report, he deliberately reduced the pressure from 8bar to 3 bar (in many days) to get to 16 W excess. Since he used T_Wall (outside) for computing xs power, we can't say if his setup also shows xs power because of pressure drop. Anyway you have an important variable to watch in future. Lets hope T_Glassout keeps going up.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Sanjeev</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Thu, 22 Nov 2012 10:03:53 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-663</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Ged says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-662</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Well, we have seen it get up to -0.16 W now, but the range seems to have enlarged. I hope the slow leak, or something else, isn't destabilizing the reactor.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Ged</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Thu, 22 Nov 2012 05:35:25 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-662</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Eric Walker says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-661</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Some data files from the NaI detector would be interesting to look at, especially during an upward trend in P_xs. Maybe links can be put up?]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Eric Walker</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Thu, 22 Nov 2012 04:39:41 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-661</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Rats says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-659</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Yes, this is very interesting. The P_Xs is still rising and it appears it is doing so linearly. By my rather crude estimate I believe it's risen about 0.6W in 4 hours. It currently sits on about -0.5W. So if in the next 4 hours we end up at about 0.1W, and then 0.7W in another 4 hours then we may well be on to something.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Rats</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Thu, 22 Nov 2012 02:30:49 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-659</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Ged says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-658</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Hm... those spectra will surely be interesting. The P_xs is still on a positive raise, so this is good to see. May well take.. days, if this trend continues so slow. But, plenty of time to enjoy food and family, and peek at radiation spectra! Have a happy thanksgiving guys, and once again, thanks for the great work.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Ged</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Thu, 22 Nov 2012 02:00:30 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-658</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>123star says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-657</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Hey, you're still spelling "Celcius" instead of "Celsius"! Just saying... see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Celsius]]></description>
			<dc:creator>123star</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Thu, 22 Nov 2012 01:59:17 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-657</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Ron B says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-656</link>
			<description><![CDATA[If we can get the model number of the detector we can look that info up. Might even be able to contact the maker and get web-based s/w to do what we want.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Ron B</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Thu, 22 Nov 2012 01:20:39 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-656</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Ecco says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-655</link>
			<description><![CDATA[What does it take (software, knowledge) to wade through Nal detector spectrum data?]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Ecco</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Thu, 22 Nov 2012 00:32:11 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-655</guid>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
