<?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 13:49:27 +0000</lastBuildDate>
		<generator>JComments</generator>
		<atom:link href="http://www.quantumheat.org/index.php/en/component/jcomments/feed/com_content/169" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
		<item>
			<title>GlenScarbro says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-7262</link>
			<description><![CDATA[I don't care about this, now i'm making around 4000$ a month. There is tricky way i found on the internet. If you want to learn it too, simply type in google: Riesling's strategy]]></description>
			<dc:creator>GlenScarbro</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Sat, 26 Dec 2015 07:29:04 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-7262</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Sanjeev says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-1053</link>
			<description><![CDATA[@Rats, I think Robert also said the same thing. There was a signal but nothing solid to say. We will know what methods STMicro used to arrive at their results when they publish, and then we can fairly compare.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Sanjeev</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Fri, 07 Dec 2012 01:31:35 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-1053</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Ecco says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-1032</link>
			<description><![CDATA[(Maybe off-topic?) An interesting chart I found on Vortex-l, Re performance of Celani's 2L wires as measured by STM: http://i.imgur.com/pDJoY.png http://i.imgur.com/pDJoY.png While Celani's 2-layer wires perform half as much per weight compared to 300-layer ones, they're much more efficient per number of layers. I wonder if this also means that they're much less expensive/compl ex to produce. If it's indeed the case, them it might be easier with them to increase the amount of material used inside a single reactor. BTW, 1 gram of 2L wire would be 200/0.055 = 3636 mm long. With a denser winding pattern it could still easily fit in a 300 mm long tube together with the heater wire.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Ecco</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Thu, 06 Dec 2012 12:49:22 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-1032</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Robert Greenyer says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-1031</link>
			<description><![CDATA[@Sanjeev We may have already done that. If you recall, when we we running our first test after loading and before we think we fried the wire, we were seeing 6-8W which, given that our wire is 5 times the length, if the effect could be established to scale, it would mean we were showing the same kind of Pxs as the other third party. HOWEVER, we had a LOT more noise in the system from the room temperature fluctuations, sensitive T ambient, the saw tooth Pin (due to cooling fan on Power Supply) etc. Also at that time we were not confident in our use of T-Mica and its corresponding calibration curve as the basis for calculating Pxs. With all this combined we were not comfortable in claiming we had found anything. We hope however that with Mathieu's meticulous approach and the learning from the US cell, we will be much closer to showing any effect if possible.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Robert Greenyer</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Thu, 06 Dec 2012 09:15:12 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-1031</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>David Roberson says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-1030</link>
			<description><![CDATA[A quick calculation suggests that if you were to grind the wire into 10 micrometer diameter spheres and find some way to plate them to achieve the same surface area power density, you would get 17.4 watts of excess power. An experiment with this type of spheres having a total mass of 100 grams would yield around 30,000 watts. This power level is in the ballpark of the claims made by others. This suggests that it will be difficult to achieve more than 1 watt of excess power during your testing. (For this calculation I assumed the excess power to be 1.16 watts.)]]></description>
			<dc:creator>David Roberson</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Thu, 06 Dec 2012 06:34:50 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-1030</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>123star says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-1028</link>
			<description><![CDATA[I have an idea, maybe RunHe2 (Clelani wire in He @ 0.5 bar) is invalid because, since 0.5 bar is lower than the atmospheric pressure, air contamination could matter. @Malachi: Please switch He to 0.5 bar for a while, I'm really curious! I repost the graph of calibrations: http://www.quantumheat.org/images/blog/data/pfT_GlassOutvsPower.png]]></description>
			<dc:creator>123star</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Thu, 06 Dec 2012 00:35:40 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-1028</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Sanjeev says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-1027</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Now that we have a confirmed replication by STMicro of the Celani effect, it is only a question of WHEN will this group confirm the same, not whether there is an effect. Keep going guys, more replications are good. Perhaps now you can update your goals to show more excess energy than ST and a fully functional kit.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Sanjeev</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Thu, 06 Dec 2012 00:34:03 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-1027</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>David Roberson says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-1026</link>
			<description><![CDATA[@rats >You have an error in the mass posted for the wire. You are off by a factor of 10. It should be .56 grams. This is assuming 67% copper and 37% nickel.< Sorry about the confusion: The original mass you posted is correct. I made a little math error. :oops:]]></description>
			<dc:creator>David Roberson</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Thu, 06 Dec 2012 00:32:36 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-1026</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>wookie says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-1024</link>
			<description><![CDATA[great improvements regarding the documentation. its enlightening to have some context what is / was going on. With the EU cell joining i am looking forward to see some interesting things happen soon. thanks]]></description>
			<dc:creator>wookie</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Thu, 06 Dec 2012 00:24:48 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-1024</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Mathieu Valat says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-1023</link>
			<description><![CDATA[@Ron B Thank you for you kind words. It is quite frustrating to keep on doing calibrations as I have a cell that behaves in a good way, it leaks almost nothing, which is an achievement considering the nature of the gas we are using and it shows remarkable stability. I should be done with the data analysis of the calibration data for the oxide wire very soon and will give everybody results. Fastidious is the term, but what should one expect from scientists?]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Mathieu Valat</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Wed, 05 Dec 2012 23:41:36 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-1023</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Tony McConnell says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-1022</link>
			<description><![CDATA[@Ecco, RE thumbs up/down. I agree... but actually neither are necessary on comment posts here :)]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Tony McConnell</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Wed, 05 Dec 2012 23:08:33 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-1022</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Ecco says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-1021</link>
			<description><![CDATA[@Rats: I think that only the "thumbs up" button should be present, for several reasons. Publicly flagging a post as "negative" generally also brings negativity and poisons the ongoing discussion. Actually negative posts are self-evident and don't need further highlighting. Also, it's a function too prone to abuse.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Ecco</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Wed, 05 Dec 2012 22:17:10 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-1021</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Rats says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-1020</link>
			<description><![CDATA[@ Ecco All I can say is everything I've seen being done by the MFMP guys appears overly and unnecessarily complicated. Surely the first and foremost thing should be to prove beyond doubt there is anomalous energy. This can be done using Celani's own cell or failing that using multiple wires as you've pointed out. I hope at some stage the MFMP guys do get access to Celani's cell so they can confirm the effect beyond any doubt. My posts are getting "thumbs down" a lot but I think what I'm suggesting makes sense. It is all good and proper to praise the MFMP guys and say good work, but if the focus of that work is in the wrong direction then what's the point?]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Rats</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Wed, 05 Dec 2012 22:05:32 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-1020</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Ecco says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-1019</link>
			<description><![CDATA[@Rats: you should probably ask that question to members of the MFMP. I think one of the reasons was that wires are hard to come by. I don't know if it's because they're hard to manufacture or if because Celani and/or his investors want a certain degree of control on how much active material gets distributed around in order to avoid potential problems until patents are issued and papers are submitted to scientific journals.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Ecco</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Wed, 05 Dec 2012 21:12:45 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-1019</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>MoreInput says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-1018</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Keep up the good work! It is a fantastic project to follow, and I hope really, you make the breakthrough for the LENR research!]]></description>
			<dc:creator>MoreInput</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Wed, 05 Dec 2012 20:57:24 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-1018</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Rats says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-1017</link>
			<description><![CDATA[@ Ecco If it is that simple why don't we get a whole bunch of wires and run the test again?]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Rats</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Wed, 05 Dec 2012 20:54:05 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-1017</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Rats says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-1015</link>
			<description><![CDATA[@ Ecco Reading from Vortex the independent replication of Celani's work only achieved: 1.16W at 350 °C Wire mass = 0.055 g length = 200 mm diameter = 0.2 mm The input power was unknown but suspected to be 48W. This doesn't fill me with confidence as the excess power is in the order of 2% over the input. Full post here: http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l%40eskimo.com/msg73586.html]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Rats</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Wed, 05 Dec 2012 20:28:07 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-1015</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>freethinker says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-1014</link>
			<description><![CDATA[I'll try to stick my nose in again .... Where is the pressure detector placed? What characteristics does it have? Accuracy, systematic errors, random error? gas law : PV = kNT k Boltzmann,N number of molecules. The gas law give at hand that P/T= constant given a constant volume. Write this P/T=N*C, where n is related to the number of atoms. If you have increased temperature and decreasing pressure, save all mundane explanations as leak etc, This would to me indicate a pressure gradient perpendicular to the axis of the reactor, so pressure measured at the point at the detector will show misguided values, OR, a factual decrease in N, number of molecules taking part in what constitutes the gas i.e being collected hold at the core (How?). Spread some light how you measure the pressure, and data of detector. Thanks. :) Jolly good show.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>freethinker</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Wed, 05 Dec 2012 19:35:28 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-1014</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Robert Greenyer says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-1010</link>
			<description><![CDATA[@Ecco Since this is outed into a public forum by Celani in a way that has allowed redactions to be removed we are probably not bound by our agreement to keep the knowledge private. We have been aware of this successful replication of Celani's version of the New Fire by a 3rd party for several weeks. Knowledge of the findings was meant to be embargoed until the middle of this month. This is an important step in this journey to light the New Fire and has been a great encouragement to our own efforts. We look forward to the publication of the research and data being brought forward.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Robert Greenyer</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Wed, 05 Dec 2012 16:53:16 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-1010</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Ecco says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-1008</link>
			<description><![CDATA[@Ryan Hunt: here: http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l%40eskimo.com/msg73573.html]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Ecco</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Wed, 05 Dec 2012 16:17:44 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-1008</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Ryan Hunt says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-1007</link>
			<description><![CDATA[@Ecco - Where did you see that?]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Ryan Hunt</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Wed, 05 Dec 2012 16:08:08 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-1007</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Ecco says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-1006</link>
			<description><![CDATA[On other news, it appears that STMicroelectron ics independently replicated thermal anomalies from Celani's treated Konstantan wires. What's more, is that their wires only had 2 layers and were 20 centimeters long.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Ecco</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Wed, 05 Dec 2012 15:35:20 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-1006</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Ben says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-1005</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Everybody is biased, and should be. You have to have some kind of mental framework to build upon. Many people are biased towards believing that electrons exist, for example, and that is helpful for doing practical things, like building TV sets. I think that to be totally unbiased towards everything would cause a mental paralysis.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Ben</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Wed, 05 Dec 2012 15:31:31 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-1005</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Ron B says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-1004</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Ryan Mathieau The log is an excellent addition! I hope that lots of detail about the tests in progress will be added. I know this part of the research isn't the fun part but it does really help and we all appreciate it very very much. I wonder if you're planning on tests for effects other than just heat. I am very interested in plans for testing for gamma emissions since a test that gives undeniable evidence of gamma radiation would be a very good data point to have. I also wonder if you've considered studying the wire a bit more and had thought of a time domain reflectometer (TDR) analysis of the wire before and after a test. I'm not sure if you have access to a TDR but if you have a fast o'scope it's possible to use it with some additional circuitry to perform the test.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Ron B</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Wed, 05 Dec 2012 15:10:29 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-1004</guid>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
