<?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>Wed, 15 Apr 2026 08:35:11 +0000</lastBuildDate>
		<generator>JComments</generator>
		<atom:link href="http://www.quantumheat.org/index.php/en/component/jcomments/feed/com_content/162" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
		<item>
			<title>Eric Walker says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-916</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Thanks for the interesting graphs. From Celani's chart above, two things stand out: 1. His experiment is operating in somewhat of a different pressure regime -- between 3 and 9 bar. I think the highest I've seen in the present experiment is 4.5 bar. 2. In Celani's chart, I see that the pressure is going down, and there is a similar inverse relationship between pressure and P_xs. You can also see a response in P_xs to pressure transients. Other points: 3. Like Dave says, there are a large number of variables. They are greatly complicating the analysis. I wonder if there is a way to systematically control for each variable. 4. In the charts above, the real runs are a lot choppier than the calibration runs. I have looked at the calibration data, and it is also choppy -- am I mistaken, or are unfiltered live data being juxtaposed in the charts with smoothed calibration data?]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Eric Walker</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Sat, 01 Dec 2012 06:25:57 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-916</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Robert Greenyer says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-914</link>
			<description><![CDATA[@Ecco We will look to arrange SEM analysis of the first US wires as was always part of our plan]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Robert Greenyer</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Sat, 01 Dec 2012 05:35:33 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-914</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Ecco says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-894</link>
			<description><![CDATA[@Robert Greenyer: off-topic here, but looking at the real-time data for the EU cell, are you sure that the high power (~100 watts directly applied) calibration procedure isn't "frying" the active wire? That's something that was also done for the US cell. I think SEM pictures of the active wire currently installed in the US cell will be interesting on this regard.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Ecco</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Fri, 30 Nov 2012 21:18:19 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-894</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Ged says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-893</link>
			<description><![CDATA[@Ascoli, Completely agreed.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Ged</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Fri, 30 Nov 2012 20:27:03 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-893</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Ascoli65 says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-892</link>
			<description><![CDATA[@ Sanjeev and Ged, Up to now, the HUG team performed an accurate calibration and, if they think it is worthwile, they are able to improve it, including the effect of gas pressure and composition. This will allow them to reduce the magnitude of their P_Xs, which more properly is the error in estimating the P_in. But, in my opinion, the first step is just to reproduce the data showed at ICCF17, by using the same calibration procedure. In his slideshow Tyler wrote that “The Celani demo is considered to be one of the best, simplest, and most conclusive demos to date”. This is the phrase with which I agree more and I am confident that the this worthy MFMP initiative will come to something meaningful and really conclusive. We should recognize that, letting his cell and his wire be tested and providing his open and loyal assistance, Celani is giving one of the best and commendable examples of application of scientific method to the CF field.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Ascoli65</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Fri, 30 Nov 2012 19:28:10 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-892</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Robert Greenyer says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-891</link>
			<description><![CDATA[@Ecco We are feeding him findings and he is assisting greatly]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Robert Greenyer</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Fri, 30 Nov 2012 19:13:43 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-891</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Ecco says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-890</link>
			<description><![CDATA[@Robert Greenyer: just wondering, is Dr. Celani too receiving feedback from these experiments which he might find helpful or is it still pretty much a one-sided learning process on your part?]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Ecco</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Fri, 30 Nov 2012 19:03:33 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-890</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Robert Greenyer says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-888</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Even if we have found something that might appear to account for some of the affect, we are aware that our cell has important differences to Celanis and this wire could be toast also. Let's see what the last few experiments may show us before getting to excited - and remember, we could be wrong. With the EU cell running calibrations now and the US getting closer to running more fresh wire there is going to be much more data to work with and to build on our experiments to date. Celani has spent best part of 2 years on this line on the back of over 20 years of experience. We are coming to the end of week three. But with your help and a scaling of the number of experiments our learning will accelerate. Isn't science FUN!]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Robert Greenyer</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Fri, 30 Nov 2012 18:36:33 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-888</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Ged says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-887</link>
			<description><![CDATA[@123star and Ascoli65, You forget Celani did controls; you also both I think are overlooking the magnitude of Celani's results versus the ones here; an order of magnitude different. That cannot be explained simply by minor math or baseline differences, especially when that does not explain all of the results here either. Don't jump the gun now.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Ged</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Fri, 30 Nov 2012 17:00:36 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-887</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>123star says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-886</link>
			<description><![CDATA[@Ascoli65 Excellent! The leak (both ours and Celani's) + the type of calibration used by Celani could explain everything! @Sanjeev We already did a "same gas - same pressure - different wire" test. Compare Cal1 and RunHe1. They gave different results. Why? Probably this is related to the wire emissivity (and hence the radiated power spectum). Or, in other words, our calorimeter is not a calorimeter :P]]></description>
			<dc:creator>123star</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Fri, 30 Nov 2012 16:52:14 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-886</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Sanjeev says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-885</link>
			<description><![CDATA[@Ascoli65 By your equation I meant the SB eqn which you used to plot the curve. I wanted to see the effect of compensating for pressure variable, but now I think its not very fruitful. At most you will see a bit less P_Xs, but nothing can be concluded. I'm not sure if Celani's excess energy is also a mathematical artifact because, if it is so, all kinds of wires will show the same excess heat. I'm sure that if Celani repeats his experiment with a steel wire of same size, we won't see any P_Xs even with same simple calibration and calculations.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Sanjeev</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Fri, 30 Nov 2012 14:39:40 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-885</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Robert Greenyer says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-883</link>
			<description><![CDATA[@Ascoli65 By being thorough and with the help of you guys the truth will distill out. Expect a data flood to come.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Robert Greenyer</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Fri, 30 Nov 2012 09:17:53 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-883</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Ascoli65 says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-882</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Hi, Sunjeev, the equations on the graphs I have shown are not mine. They are the equations that Celani used for deriving his “excess power” (see my previous comment http://www.quantumheat.org/index.php/follow/156-a-slow-climb#comment-743). The graphs show, unfortunately, that this “excess heat” his only a mathematical artifact, which depends solely from a too simplistic (and favourable) calibration procedure. I fear that using that “self-calbratio n” you get some “excess heat” whatever wire and gas is used, provided that the cell has a gas leak and the test lasts for a few days. Sorry.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Ascoli65</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Fri, 30 Nov 2012 07:49:57 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-882</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Ged says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-881</link>
			<description><![CDATA[hmm, 6.5 bar of pressure, but only -2.9 W? Is this the pure hydrogen?]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Ged</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Fri, 30 Nov 2012 07:12:29 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-881</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>123star says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-879</link>
			<description><![CDATA[@Rats Of course you need a calibration run first. Only then you can evauate P_xs by comparing the data from the experimental run with the data from the calibration run.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>123star</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Fri, 30 Nov 2012 02:39:13 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-879</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Rats says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-878</link>
			<description><![CDATA[@Sanjeev There is no P_Xs for the Euro cell. How do we determine excess power?]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Rats</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Fri, 30 Nov 2012 02:15:22 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-878</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Sanjeev says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-876</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Looks like EU cell is now on. Data is coming.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Sanjeev</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Fri, 30 Nov 2012 01:09:40 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-876</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Sanjeev says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-874</link>
			<description><![CDATA[The rate is actually 1.7 if you see the last test, but 1 is on the conservative side, some excess will be seen.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Sanjeev</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Fri, 30 Nov 2012 00:40:38 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-874</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Sanjeev says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-872</link>
			<description><![CDATA[@Ascoli65 If you check above graph for pressure vs temperature, for 1 bar drop in pressure, temperature rises by approx 1 `C. Can you make another calculation with compensated T_Glassout instead ? You can make another column for T_Adjust, which will fall with the pressure at this rate and then get a T_Comp = T_Glassout - T_Adjust. Use T_Comp in your equation to get the black line.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Sanjeev</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Fri, 30 Nov 2012 00:29:38 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-872</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Ascoli65 says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-871</link>
			<description><![CDATA[@Ryan Surely you can use it as you wish. It 's my pleasure. I tried to plug it directly into my comment, but did not work.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Ascoli65</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Thu, 29 Nov 2012 22:02:05 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-871</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Ascoli65 says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-869</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Let me show the following graphs, exemplifying the application of simplified "self-calibrati on" to the test you started on November 27 at about 17:30. As you can see, the presumed excess heat calculated with the self-calibratio n (P_Xcel=black curve) is always positive and it is constantly growing in a similar way as shown in Celani_ICCF17_T rasp3.pdf (slide 31), apart the peaks due to the heating and air conditioning of his laboratory, . It seems that yours is already a quite good replication of Celani’s cell, provided that the same calibration procedure is used. The image is here: http://i.imgur.com/Zck0q.jpg]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Ascoli65</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Thu, 29 Nov 2012 21:38:05 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-869</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Ged says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-867</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Or, put another way, as we see from the graphs, helium acts exactly like any ideal gas should. As pressure drops, so too does T_GlassOut across the entire range. Exactly as a gas should always do (PV = nRT). And then there's hydrogen. And far weirder still, hydrogen/argon. We're talking about some fundamental properties of gasses and thermaldynamics here that just are not lining up. There must be something going on that at least I'm not familiar with (side interactions of hydrogen with the cell's materials?). Even if we account for hydrogen's (or oxygen's or nitrogen's) additional vibrational energy states from being diatomic, that should only affect heat capacity (thermal inertia) but not the steady state ideal gas characteristics . Who knew trying to replicate LENR would yield such mysteries.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Ged</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Thu, 29 Nov 2012 20:04:32 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-867</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Ged says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-864</link>
			<description><![CDATA[This should be very interesting, good luck guys!]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Ged</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Thu, 29 Nov 2012 16:08:30 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-864</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Ryan Hunt says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-863</link>
			<description><![CDATA[We are gonna do a test today to study the temperatures over various pressures of both the H/Ar blend and straight Hydrogen. We're gonna take the cell up to 8 bar at temp, and then periodically release some pressure and see where things equillibrate again. hopefully that will shed more light onto this phenomenon.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Ryan Hunt</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Thu, 29 Nov 2012 14:58:31 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-863</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Dieter Seeliger says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-860</link>
			<description><![CDATA[http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/Dmitriyevaeffectofte.pdf]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Dieter Seeliger</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Thu, 29 Nov 2012 10:11:34 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-860</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>123star says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-858</link>
			<description><![CDATA[@David Of course, I perfectly agree with you when you say: "I have serious reservations about using the Stefan Boltzmann equation to accurately calculate the output power of the device".]]></description>
			<dc:creator>123star</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Thu, 29 Nov 2012 05:00:42 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-858</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Ryan Hunt says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-854</link>
			<description><![CDATA[I think the Hydrogen and H/Ar blend curves are greatly affected by Hydrogen's diatomic nature compared to monatomic Helium. That means hydrogen has all sorts of extra vibration and spin modes to carry energy away with. I do not understand why Ar in the mix makes it even more exaggerated, though.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Ryan Hunt</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Thu, 29 Nov 2012 02:25:00 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-854</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Ged says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-853</link>
			<description><![CDATA[The last observations I see, is the previous run, from the 21st to 25th, did not show the same dropping curve as the calibrations did, but jumped up instead. Definitely different behavior, but exactly what it means is ambiguous. Seems like a reaction potential though, but small compared to what we're looking for.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Ged</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Thu, 29 Nov 2012 00:54:24 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-853</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Ged says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-852</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Since the new curve is more or less directly shifted upwards from the old hydrogen curve when the wire was "dead", would this offset be a fingerprint of a reaction? Pondering how exactly to dissect and interpret this data. It's very rich, thanks for the plots.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Ged</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Thu, 29 Nov 2012 00:27:36 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-852</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Ged says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-851</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Really fascinating curve shapes. Especially that helium does not show this. What could it be telling us? And why is the hydrogen/argon mix so exaggerated compared to just hydrogen? Presumably this is from "fixing' the wire before the hydrogen/argon. Hm...]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Ged</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Thu, 29 Nov 2012 00:26:00 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-851</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Ecco says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-850</link>
			<description><![CDATA[It looks like p_xs of the current run at 4.5 bar more or less matched that of November 20th.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Ecco</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Wed, 28 Nov 2012 21:56:54 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-850</guid>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
