<?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>Thu, 16 Apr 2026 06:24:26 +0000</lastBuildDate>
		<generator>JComments</generator>
		<atom:link href="http://www.quantumheat.org/index.php/en/component/jcomments/feed/com_content/176" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
		<item>
			<title>artefact says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-1297</link>
			<description><![CDATA[have a nice lunchtime!]]></description>
			<dc:creator>artefact</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Fri, 14 Dec 2012 14:10:53 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-1297</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Robert Greenyer says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-1296</link>
			<description><![CDATA[@all Lunch with CELANI - OPEN GOOGLE HANGOUT NOW! Search for bob greenyer]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Robert Greenyer</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Fri, 14 Dec 2012 13:57:22 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-1296</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Ron B says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-1294</link>
			<description><![CDATA[How does the accuracy of the thermocouple affect the readings we are viewing? This is the accuracy for the thermocouples: Temp Type E J K N R S T 200 1.7 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.0 1.0 0.8 http://digital.ni.com/public.nsf/allkb/776AB03E065228408625727B00034E20]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Ron B</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Fri, 14 Dec 2012 13:03:54 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-1294</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Gerrit says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-1293</link>
			<description><![CDATA[ If the P_Xs calculation is based on the difference between a measured temperature and T_Ambient, then an increasing T_Ambient will decrease the offset and thus decrease P_Xs.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Gerrit</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Fri, 14 Dec 2012 12:14:30 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-1293</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Philip Quarles says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-1292</link>
			<description><![CDATA[I googled "Seebeck Calorimeter" and found this: "Use Of A Very Sensitive Seebeck Calorimeter To Study The Pons-Fleischman n And Letts Effects" at http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/StormsEuseofavery.pdf]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Philip Quarles</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Fri, 14 Dec 2012 11:45:54 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-1292</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Ecco says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-1291</link>
			<description><![CDATA[The higher the T_Ambient, the less the P_xs, though.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Ecco</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Fri, 14 Dec 2012 11:37:15 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-1291</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Gerrit says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-1290</link>
			<description><![CDATA[It seems the increase in power from 48W to 55W influenced T_Ambient.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Gerrit</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Fri, 14 Dec 2012 11:32:24 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-1290</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Ecco says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-1289</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Following the latest input power increase to 55W, active wire impedance started acting weirdly, decreasing in sudden steps. I think that after power will be brought back to 48W, wire impedance will turn out to be lower than before the power rise. It will also be interesting to see if after decreasing input power back to 48W, excess power will be the same or will have increased. I'm starting to think that it's not got a definite relationship with wire impedance.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Ecco</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Fri, 14 Dec 2012 10:58:28 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-1289</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Gerrit says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-1288</link>
			<description><![CDATA[I looked at temp values from 8 december 01:00 to 12:00. There was no power switched on during that time. All the temperature readings are in phase with T_Ambient. Offset of T_Well, T_Mica, T_GlassIn and T_GlassOut could be due to pressure decrease during that time. Larger offset of T-Board (approx +5°C) should be explained. http://i.imgur.com/gXOcb.png]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Gerrit</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Fri, 14 Dec 2012 10:48:04 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-1288</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Ecco says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-1287</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Offtopic, but Danielle Passerini (22passi) is live blogging today's "Coherence 2012" conference in Rome attended by Masteromatteo (STMicroelectro nics), Celani and Bob Greenyer (and others in the LENR scene, of course). Google Translation needed: http://22passi.blogspot.com/2012/12/coherence-2012-introduzione-e-mattina.html]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Ecco</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Fri, 14 Dec 2012 09:50:02 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-1287</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Eric Walker says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-1285</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Re next steps -- although I gather that a flow calorimeter will be very helpful here, it seems like it would be a big mess to immerse the cell in a fluid bath of sufficient size. Another possibility is a Seebeck calorimeter: http://bit.ly/12p1sMJ.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Eric Walker</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Fri, 14 Dec 2012 09:34:22 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-1285</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>123star says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-1284</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Is it possible to have an official and updated chart like the one Ecco posted (thanks Ecco!)? This is the chart that he posted: i.imgur.com/6yf 8z.png]]></description>
			<dc:creator>123star</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Fri, 14 Dec 2012 09:12:12 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-1284</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Eric Walker says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-1283</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Three thoughts to add to what has been said: 1. A promising case has been made that the HVAC system is kicking in and is adding a near-hourly period to P_Xs Low. 2. When you subtract out the period, I suspect you'll get a fairly smooth curve, with several watts above Power (Blue). As Jed Rothwell has pointed out elsewhere (http://bit.ly/SVw04s), I think the kind of signal we're probably looking for if LENR is underway is going to be very jumpy -- first up, then way down, then way up, etc. This leads me to think we have a calibration problem in this instance. In any event, the SB argument that Sanjeev has made suggests that the error bars are quite large here; if we do things right, I think we can get them down to the milliwatts. 3. If we don't have a calibration problem, the current result would be pretty exciting. It would appear that we have accomplished the goal of replicating Celani, and can then address how to make the error bars smaller.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Eric Walker</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Fri, 14 Dec 2012 08:59:22 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-1283</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Rats says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-1281</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Cool, 3000 views on this post so far. Gangam style ain't got nothing on the MFMP! ;-)]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Rats</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Fri, 14 Dec 2012 02:44:40 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-1281</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Ecco says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-1274</link>
			<description><![CDATA[@Sanjeev: ah, now I see. That was with the active wire under helium, before hydrogen loading. It's the calibration run I highlighted with a red arrow in this chart: http://i.imgur.com/6yf8z.png http://i.imgur.com/6yf8z.png However, that run was running at much lower temperatures than previous ones made with the oxidized inactive constantan wire. The current "conservative" P_xs calculation is instead based on the highest one on this chart among those runs. Unfortunately, this makes it unclear whether excess power is being produced right now.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Ecco</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Thu, 13 Dec 2012 22:20:21 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-1274</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Sanjeev says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-1273</link>
			<description><![CDATA[@ecco, If you see the log entry 2012-12-10-16:0 0CET, I used that time period. Plot is for P=1.3 bar. Mathieu mentions new tube and active wire. This is the closest calibration I could find, conditions totally match with present. Edit: Cell#2-360L-201 21210-He-P1.xls x]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Sanjeev</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Thu, 13 Dec 2012 22:02:05 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-1273</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Ecco says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-1272</link>
			<description><![CDATA[@Sanjeev: very interesting. Probably, my concerns regarding SB discrepancies were excessive. I was aware that some heat (for example from the glass tube ends) was unaccounted for, but I forgot about other energy transfers. I will think twice before posting about something I'm not expert in, next time. If you chose the calibration called Calib-He-P1 (essentially what is considered "conservative") , that was with the inactive, untreated oxidized constantan wire if I remember correctly. The calibrations called 360L-He-Px were with the active (Celani) wire.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Ecco</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Thu, 13 Dec 2012 21:46:54 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-1272</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Sanjeev says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-1271</link>
			<description><![CDATA[ We have discussed this before. The SB power will be less because it ignores energy transfer by convection and conduction, which the calibration curve does take into account. Anyway, I found something interesting while messing with calibration data. This is the SB(radiated) power out during calibration with He, pressure 1.3 bar (with active wire?). The last step is at 46 W, note that the Pout is only 22 W. The one I posted for the run on 12/12 showed 31 W, a 9 W excess radiated power.... http://i49.tinypic.com/2yl702x.jpg http://i49.tinypic.com/2yl702x.jpg]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Sanjeev</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Thu, 13 Dec 2012 21:29:36 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-1271</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Ecco says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-1270</link>
			<description><![CDATA[I'm wondering: is the T_GlassIn thermocouple too just barely touching the glass surface? I'm asking because it's already pretty close to T_GlassOut temperatures. As internal temperatures should be hotter, this means that T_GlassOut temperature readings shouldn't improve too much, assuming that the thermocouple isn't optimally placed.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Ecco</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Thu, 13 Dec 2012 21:29:07 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-1270</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Ecco says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-1269</link>
			<description><![CDATA[After all these useful posts I think that a list of things which can be quickly, simply and cheaply improved to make the experimental set-up more reliable could be made.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Ecco</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Thu, 13 Dec 2012 20:50:29 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-1269</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Ged says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-1268</link>
			<description><![CDATA[I think I have to agree with Alan. His explanation makes sense of the data behavior. I think this is the first thing to address, but ultimately a full out calorimeter will yield the best data.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Ged</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Thu, 13 Dec 2012 20:43:35 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-1268</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Chuck says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-1267</link>
			<description><![CDATA[I apologize if this has been discussed already, but I think that the way things are currently set up will only lead to criticism of the measurement technique. Why not immerse the whole affair in a bath of Fluorinert (FC-43 might be a good choice) being circulated at a known rate and measure the delta T of the liquid on either side of the device? Of course, you'd want a heat-dissipatio n device (e.g. radiator) somewhere in the loop to dump any excess heat, but since you'd only be measuring the delta T and flow rate, that shouldn't matter to the calorimetry.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Chuck</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Thu, 13 Dec 2012 20:38:25 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-1267</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Ecco says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-1266</link>
			<description><![CDATA[@Alan Goldwater: I think the MFMP wants to avoid this: http://www.quantumheat.org/images/IR_0008.jpg The hotter square on the glass tube is where thermoresistant tape was applied during a test a couple of months ago.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Ecco</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Thu, 13 Dec 2012 20:19:24 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-1266</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Rats says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-1263</link>
			<description><![CDATA[It has been fascinating watching this run for the last 24 hours. Just wondering if any conclusions can be be made from the observations thus far. I think it would be fair to say ambient temperature is having an effect on P_Xs but how much of an effect is it? Did we see any excess power from LENR?]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Rats</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Thu, 13 Dec 2012 19:32:28 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-1263</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Job001 says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-1262</link>
			<description><![CDATA[The spiky exponential heat release as the temperature starts to rise maybe a good thing. All reaction rates including chemical and physics can be modeled with the temperature inverse exponential Arrhenius kinetic rate equations: Example see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arrhenius_plot To control this thing properly it needs little heat nudges to maintain the output without wrecking the local NAE or active sites. It is not unexpected that a tiny nudge gives a big bounce.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Job001</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Thu, 13 Dec 2012 19:12:34 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-1262</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Chuck says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-1261</link>
			<description><![CDATA[I curious why the whole affair hasn't been stuck in an insulating box (polyisocyanura te foil-backed insulating foam is an inexpensive building material) with a theromostatical ly-controlled fan to keep the internal heat at a constant level. It seems that ambient temperature variatiosn are raising the devil with your metrology.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Chuck</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Thu, 13 Dec 2012 18:40:11 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-1261</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Sanjeev says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-1260</link>
			<description><![CDATA[@Dennis 12/12/2012 21:37 to 13/12/2012 09:36 This is in their time zone, as it appears in the data.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Sanjeev</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Thu, 13 Dec 2012 18:39:45 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-1260</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Ron B says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-1259</link>
			<description><![CDATA[@Mitch, I was thinking that something non conductive would be great for a bath but would there be enough power input to be able to get the cell temperature up high enough for the effect?]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Ron B</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Thu, 13 Dec 2012 18:35:49 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-1259</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Mitch says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-1257</link>
			<description><![CDATA[From the peanut gallery, I'm curious about whether there's any way to immerse the cell itself in a boiling water bath or something similar. I'd imagine bringing ambient up to a fixed 100C would be helpful, and I'm curious why none of these experiments try to do this. Thanks, and thanks for the fantastic work you are doing! Beyond any results you get, you are demonstrating how open-source, worldwide, transparent scientific experiments can take place. It's a joy to watch from the gallery, and I'm sure I'm speaking for a great many lurkers.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Mitch</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Thu, 13 Dec 2012 16:33:24 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-1257</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Ecco says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-1255</link>
			<description><![CDATA[I propose to temporarily switch input power back to the NiCr wire (perhaps at 60W or more just to see how the cell behaves now that the active wire is well loaded) to see if P_xs still fluctuates noticeably with ambient temperature.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Ecco</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Thu, 13 Dec 2012 15:48:57 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-1255</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Sanjeev says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-1254</link>
			<description><![CDATA[The radiated power using SB law. Assuming 100% emissivity and surface area of 0.037 m^2. This is the bullet proof way. The P_in is 48 W, so we see that EU cell needs to show ~ 20 W excess to prove the effect beyond any doubt. (i.e. by SB law, not by calibrations) http://i50.tinypic.com/2e49mbd.jpg http://i50.tinypic.com/2e49mbd.jpg]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Sanjeev</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Thu, 13 Dec 2012 13:09:59 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-1254</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Craig Haynie says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-1253</link>
			<description><![CDATA[The power was shut off from around 4:30 am EST until around 5:45 am EST. Why did you do this? Thank.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Craig Haynie</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Thu, 13 Dec 2012 12:51:48 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-1253</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Sanjeev says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-1252</link>
			<description><![CDATA[The first run has started and we are seeing the same trend of P_xs. The pressure should have been set to 8 bars to match Celani's setup. I guess there will be runs with different pressures ?]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Sanjeev</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Thu, 13 Dec 2012 12:09:49 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-1252</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>klmdb says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-1251</link>
			<description><![CDATA[@Ecco: Yes I think so too, but I must say this business with the funny temperature readings (the delay in peaks as mentioned by Alan Goldwater and the temp build up around the cell as shown by Sanjeev) really seem to make all the temperature readings suspect. BTW Did anyone fugure out the reason for the temperature delay as described by Alan Goldwater?]]></description>
			<dc:creator>klmdb</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Thu, 13 Dec 2012 11:36:56 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-1251</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Ecco says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-1250</link>
			<description><![CDATA[@klmdb: I think previous calibrations would then not be valid anymore.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Ecco</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Thu, 13 Dec 2012 10:58:26 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-1250</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>klmdb says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-1249</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Maybe add a big fan in the room to avoid local temperature build up?]]></description>
			<dc:creator>klmdb</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Thu, 13 Dec 2012 10:53:02 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-1249</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Ecco says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-1248</link>
			<description><![CDATA[It looks like my suggestion of making vacuum to further decrease wire impedance didn't have much immediate effect (if anything, impedance increased very slightly). Maybe after power is reapplied? We'll see.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Ecco</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Thu, 13 Dec 2012 10:43:31 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-1248</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Ecco says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-1246</link>
			<description><![CDATA[I see that power has been removed from the cell. Flushing hydrogen at this stage could be an idea (since some oxygen might have been displaced from the wire during the loading process when impedance suddenly dropped). Making vacuum would also further reduce active wire impedance according to previous experiments by MFMP and Celani.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Ecco</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Thu, 13 Dec 2012 10:04:33 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-1246</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>123star says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-1245</link>
			<description><![CDATA[@David Roberson From your analysis of temperature variation in the time domain of T_glassout, are you able to distinguish a "direct IR heating" contribution from a "conduction/con vection" one? I'd expect the temperature vs time curve to be two "blended" exponentials with different time constants, small for direct IR heating, and large for conduction/conv ection. I haven't checked the shape of those functions yet, I am hoping you could enlighten me a bit. Thanks]]></description>
			<dc:creator>123star</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Thu, 13 Dec 2012 07:36:47 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-1245</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Andrew C. says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-1243</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Sorry about the poor grammar above, it's late and I'm typing from my bed!]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Andrew C.</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Thu, 13 Dec 2012 04:12:24 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-1243</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Andrew C. says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-1242</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Great work everyone. I've been following the lenr story for about a year now your live test of Celini's cell is a very interesting way in spurring interest in what could be a pivotal time in our energy history. I am a biologist, not a electrochemist or physicist, so excuse my ignorance of the minute details. Do you plan on running multiple replicates of the experiment? I look forward to you calculations comparing total energy output from the experiment to any possible chemical reactions over the same time period. Very exciting and important work. Kudos to you all for your efforts at transparency. There has been enough cloak and dagger in this field.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Andrew C.</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Thu, 13 Dec 2012 04:09:04 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-1242</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>AlanG says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-1241</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Here's a segment of the 12-8 calibration data, normalized to make comparing the curves easier. http://magicsound.us/Cell2_12-8_1600.jpg The effect of T_ambient on the glass temperature is pretty clear, with a delay of about 2 minutes for T_out and 3 minutes for T_in. The dispersion of the glass temperature data also suggests there is convective instability around the outside of the cell, since T_out seems to lead T_in for these short -term variations.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>AlanG</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Thu, 13 Dec 2012 03:45:24 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-1241</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Rats says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-1240</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Interesting, it does appear the peaks and troughs of P_Xs lag a few minutes behind the peaks and troughs of T_Ambient.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Rats</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Thu, 13 Dec 2012 03:24:49 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-1240</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Ron B says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-1236</link>
			<description><![CDATA[@#61 Ecco 2012-12-12 23:41 The timing seems to be that the ambient temp increases just a little while after the power supply is ramped up. Are we seeing the heat from the power supply on ambient?]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Ron B</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Thu, 13 Dec 2012 00:17:00 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-1236</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Rats says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-1235</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Hmm, for the first time since switch on I'm seeing P_Xs drop below 3W ...]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Rats</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Thu, 13 Dec 2012 00:06:21 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-1235</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Ecco says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-1234</link>
			<description><![CDATA[T_Glassout and T_Ambient: http://i.imgur.com/xMGCm.png http://i.imgur.com/xMGCm.png]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Ecco</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Wed, 12 Dec 2012 23:41:45 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-1234</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Dennis says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-1233</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Thanks, Sanjeev... had done that but had poor setting on imported file... corrected... :-)]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Dennis</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Wed, 12 Dec 2012 23:29:58 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-1233</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Robert Greenyer says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-1232</link>
			<description><![CDATA[@Ron B Search for "Robert Greenyer" and MFMP for the live google hangout.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Robert Greenyer</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Wed, 12 Dec 2012 23:26:22 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-1232</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Ecco says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-1231</link>
			<description><![CDATA[@Rats: it's an observation after seeing data from the previous 4 hours. I also did notice yesterday that ambient temperature appeared to swing significantly (~1°C of difference often in less than 15 minutes) at regular intervals. Basically I'm concerned that some kind of complex air flow from heaters or air conditioning might block pockets of hot air around the reactor and make it rise in temperature at regular time intervals. This is a further difference with the US cell: temperature control doesn't seem as sophisticate, and there's not a constant, semi-controlled air flow around the reactor. I think this might affect short term temperature measurements significantly. Over a longer amount of time (12 hours - days) it shouldn't matter too much, though. However, this might also have affected calibration runs, thinking about it. Each calibration step lasted one hour, which means they were in sync with this 1 hour long air conditioning (?) cycle.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Ecco</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Wed, 12 Dec 2012 23:16:48 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-1231</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Rats says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-1230</link>
			<description><![CDATA[@ #54 Ecco Is this an observation or have you run some calculations on this?]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Rats</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Wed, 12 Dec 2012 23:12:04 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-1230</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Ron B says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-1228</link>
			<description><![CDATA[@Mathieu any chance of a live video feed of the hardware setup?]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Ron B</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Wed, 12 Dec 2012 23:07:40 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-1228</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Ecco says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-1227</link>
			<description><![CDATA[I'm noticing a correlation between T_Ambient and P_Xs (low). It looks like peaks in T_Ambient are followed by peaks in P_Xs with about a 30 minutes lag.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Ecco</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Wed, 12 Dec 2012 22:55:49 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-1227</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Rats says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-1226</link>
			<description><![CDATA[@ Martin I was thinking of the same thing. It would be great if someone could work out how different types of chemicals could produce the same amount of energy in the same amount of time.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Rats</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Wed, 12 Dec 2012 22:44:30 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-1226</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Sanjeev says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-1225</link>
			<description><![CDATA[ You can set a time range with "History" option and click "Export as csv" after the data loads.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Sanjeev</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Wed, 12 Dec 2012 22:42:53 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-1225</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Ged says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-1223</link>
			<description><![CDATA[@Sanjeev, I think you're completely right. As the P_xs Low has now rebounded above it's previous limits and is now hitting 7.6 W, I think this up and down may simply be a signature of a LENR reaction in this Celani style cell; as you pointed out. Well, time to watch this over the long haul and see just what it can do.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Ged</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Wed, 12 Dec 2012 22:25:13 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-1223</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Dennis says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-1222</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Way to go! What is your (raw) sample rate? Can you include a small file of raw data? 10 min? 30 min? Would love to diddle it in xcel.... Congratulations ! D]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Dennis</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Wed, 12 Dec 2012 22:20:32 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-1222</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>artefact says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-1220</link>
			<description><![CDATA[rising again]]></description>
			<dc:creator>artefact</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Wed, 12 Dec 2012 22:12:43 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-1220</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Ged says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-1219</link>
			<description><![CDATA[@Sanjeev, Or 3) the reaction is fitful as Sanjeev just brilliantly pointed out.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Ged</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Wed, 12 Dec 2012 22:10:02 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-1219</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Ged says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-1218</link>
			<description><![CDATA[T_Ambient went back up and the reaction is rebounding. Either: 1) The reaction is very sensitive to disturbance, or 2) there was some sudden ventilation air flow through the location of the cell that greatly increased convection, and that air flow has stopped now.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Ged</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Wed, 12 Dec 2012 22:09:17 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-1218</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Sanjeev says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-1217</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Going up again. I wouldn't worry too much about ups and downs. If you see the original Celani graph, its a mess of peaks and valleys, it seems to happen in bursts.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Sanjeev</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Wed, 12 Dec 2012 22:08:40 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-1217</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Jhammin says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-1216</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Whoa, what is going on right now? Going straight up!]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Jhammin</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Wed, 12 Dec 2012 22:07:30 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-1216</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Ged says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-1215</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Just as a reminder for viewers joining us: we have to have sustained excess for a day or two to be able to rule out any sort of chemical reactions.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Ged</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Wed, 12 Dec 2012 22:00:46 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-1215</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Ged says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-1214</link>
			<description><![CDATA[@Sanjeev, Thanks for the check! Can't wait to see the full long term view of the data. This current petering out is very interesting. Was there a reconfiguration of the wire during the resistance drop? Or is something else occuring and it'll recover? Notice too that T_Ambient has dropped. So... not sure what is going on with that or what it implies for our cell.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Ged</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Wed, 12 Dec 2012 21:50:51 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-1214</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Ged says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-1213</link>
			<description><![CDATA[@Ecco, I think we should keep it going for awhile first and see what happens. A lot of data to munch, but I think we've hardly seen it all; if it goes up or down, and what that suggests. @clovis, That's a big subject indeed! Well, with the P_xs, that is calculated using the calibration curves, where you have a certain amount of Watts in and a certain corresponding temperature. So, if we look at the temperature now, and we look at the calibration curve, we can ask "for this temperature, what was the Watts that were put in to achieve it?". That Watt figure is the Watts out for this temperature. That is what's used to calculate the P_xs. With P_xs Low, it's using the calibration curve that showed the highest temperature per Watt in. With P_xs High, it uses the first calibration curve. P_xs Low should be used for maximum confidence. Hope that helps!]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Ged</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Wed, 12 Dec 2012 21:48:37 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-1213</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Sanjeev says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-1212</link>
			<description><![CDATA[@Ged Just checked. Both T_Mica and T_Glassout were 2 degree below current values. So there is some rise, but not as big as compared to calibrations. Best case is showing 20 W excess....]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Sanjeev</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Wed, 12 Dec 2012 21:45:49 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-1212</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Ecco says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-1211</link>
			<description><![CDATA[That the burst of excess power immediately following the sudden drop in active wire impedance seems to be petering out, makes me think that some sort of chemical reaction (for example due to wire deoxidation by heating in hydrogen atmosphere) might have happened for a while. If this is what happened I would personally suggest to remove power, let the cell cool, flush hydrogen and refill again (perhaps at a higher pressure) to reduce the amount of possible gaseous impurities (oxygen?) inside the cell. Anyway, the experiment can be considered a success, since output power under direct heating is still higher than how it was during indirect heating. Maybe an idea before flushing hydrogen could be seeing how long this power excess can potentially last.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Ecco</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Wed, 12 Dec 2012 21:41:26 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-1211</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Rats says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-1210</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Power seems to be dipping over the last 10 minutes. Gone from around 6W to 4.5W. Still, I'll settle for a constant 3W for 12 hours. That would be awesome.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Rats</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Wed, 12 Dec 2012 21:40:43 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-1210</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>clovis ray says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-1209</link>
			<description><![CDATA[looks like it going down now]]></description>
			<dc:creator>clovis ray</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Wed, 12 Dec 2012 21:40:41 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-1209</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>clovis ray says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-1208</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Hey, Ged. would you like to explain a little about what is going on, with temp, and watts out and p_xs and the like. i think i know , but would you refresh,]]></description>
			<dc:creator>clovis ray</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Wed, 12 Dec 2012 21:32:39 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-1208</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Ged says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-1207</link>
			<description><![CDATA[@Sanjeev, I don't really remember the T_GlassOut, but I think it was 110 C on the inactive heating wire, before the switch over? I know the T_Mica was only 159 C, so we are now almost 10 C above that; and since pressure is holding stable I think the Mica is a true measure of the heat without any worry about emissivity or the like. Also, since the LENR event could have been going at a slow rate during the inactive heating wire... these current results are even more significant from what I know of the data. Not sure why T_GlassOut is taking so long to catch up; or put another way, why the ratio of T_Mica to T_GlassOut seems larger with the active wire than it was with the inactive. I think that suggests that the glass/thermalco uplers are missing more of the heat with the active wire now (e.g. more lost as IR which they cannot detect, or in some other undetected form). We'll have to see as the run goes on.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Ged</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Wed, 12 Dec 2012 21:27:10 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-1207</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Sanjeev says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-1206</link>
			<description><![CDATA[ Good point Ged. That can be an immediate comparison. Can you recall what was the T_Glassout for inactive wire at 48W and 1.3 bar ? The signal is very clear, this is a significant result.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Sanjeev</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Wed, 12 Dec 2012 21:21:46 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-1206</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Paul H says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-1205</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Guys, really proud on you all. You may have produced the first fully open LENR replication in the world! Fingers crossed for some good results and get another bottle of the bubbly just in case :-)]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Paul H</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Wed, 12 Dec 2012 21:19:12 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-1205</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Ged says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-1204</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Looks like we may finally have leveled off. Still seems to be some slow resistance drop going on?]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Ged</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Wed, 12 Dec 2012 21:17:56 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-1204</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Robert Greenyer says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-1203</link>
			<description><![CDATA[@All we have a PUBLIC google hangout, you will need to have a Google+ account to view MFMP See it!]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Robert Greenyer</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Wed, 12 Dec 2012 21:17:44 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-1203</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Guy Ben Zvi says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-1202</link>
			<description><![CDATA[You said We have a “deliberate mistake” in the data viewer, if you are sober enough at this time in the day, we challenge you to spot it. One obvious mistake is: Power (Red) (bar) should be (W) Guy]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Guy Ben Zvi</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Wed, 12 Dec 2012 21:17:16 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-1202</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Greg Denysenko says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-1201</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Good luck, guys! Truly been awesome to watch!]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Greg Denysenko</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Wed, 12 Dec 2012 21:16:36 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-1201</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>artefact says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-1200</link>
			<description><![CDATA[VERY COOL! That will be a short night for me :)]]></description>
			<dc:creator>artefact</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Wed, 12 Dec 2012 21:14:21 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-1200</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Ged says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-1199</link>
			<description><![CDATA[@Rats, we can be sure we're not dealing with stored chemical energy once the run has settled and lasted at a constant power rate for a long enough time. If we can have a few days of this and we'll be well, well outside the range of any chemical energy process.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Ged</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Wed, 12 Dec 2012 21:09:58 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-1199</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Ged says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-1198</link>
			<description><![CDATA[The temperature climb has accelerated. Not sure when it'll level off, but we are well above the temperatures of the inactive heating wire at the same power. 6.2 W excess on my screen, that's 13% excess power by the most conservative measurement... I think... we have ignition.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Ged</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Wed, 12 Dec 2012 21:07:47 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-1198</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>clovis ray says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-1197</link>
			<description><![CDATA[HEY, U'ALL I'M KEEPING VIGIL,good luck]]></description>
			<dc:creator>clovis ray</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Wed, 12 Dec 2012 21:06:44 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-1197</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Arnaud says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-1196</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Since the R/R0 drop at 20:42, the temperature is slighty increasing ! Promising results. Good works. Do you have estimate the time constant of the thermal model ?]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Arnaud</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Wed, 12 Dec 2012 21:06:17 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-1196</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Lu says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-1195</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Looks a lot like ignition to me! Fingers crossed that it continues...]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Lu</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Wed, 12 Dec 2012 21:06:16 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-1195</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Ryan Hunt says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-1194</link>
			<description><![CDATA[We can surpass all possible chemical energy sources after a couple hours of 1 watt excess. I am starting to believe, here!]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Ryan Hunt</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Wed, 12 Dec 2012 21:04:54 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-1194</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Rats says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-1192</link>
			<description><![CDATA[OMG! Am I watching history in the making?!]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Rats</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Wed, 12 Dec 2012 21:01:37 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-1192</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Rats says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-1191</link>
			<description><![CDATA[This is riveting stuff. I've been glued to my screen watching that slim yellow line head north and it's been doing so for about an hour now! :-) At what stage can we be confident the excess energy is not from stored chemical, pressure anomalies etc?]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Rats</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Wed, 12 Dec 2012 21:00:51 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-1191</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Ron B says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-1190</link>
			<description><![CDATA[The trend is going the right direction (that's for sure) Putting the bubbly on ice, just in case Are you getting this on video (not that it will be so interesting but it would be fun to have a video of it) It's great to watch the excess power and mica temp continue to rise and see the voltage/current input remain flat and stable]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Ron B</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Wed, 12 Dec 2012 20:57:05 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-1190</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Ged says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-1189</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Internal mica temperatures are now rising too. Did we hit some sort of "ignition" transition stage?]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Ged</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Wed, 12 Dec 2012 20:50:31 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-1189</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Mathieu Valat says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-1188</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Massive resistivity drop now!]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Mathieu Valat</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Wed, 12 Dec 2012 20:47:44 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-1188</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Ecco says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-1187</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Something unexpected is happening with active wire (Red) impedance. It's decreasing quickly.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Ecco</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Wed, 12 Dec 2012 20:45:58 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-1187</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Mathieu Valat says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-1186</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Thank you guys for you kind comments.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Mathieu Valat</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Wed, 12 Dec 2012 20:39:12 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-1186</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Ged says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-1185</link>
			<description><![CDATA[@Ecco, I think Mathieu said he was using the lower pressure to try to stimulate the disassociating of molecular hydrogen into atomic (active) hydrogen.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Ged</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Wed, 12 Dec 2012 20:39:02 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-1185</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Ecco says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-1184</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Active wire impedance is decreasing, which is a good thing. By the way this experiment still differs from Celani's and even the MFMP US cell in the hydrogen pressure. Starting pressure for this experiment was just 1 bar. Was this chosen on purpose (for example to compare output power with the NiCr and active wire under the same testing conditions) or did MFMP forget to set pressure back to 2 or 3.5 bar (which might improve loading under active wire heating - since again, active wire impedance appears to be currently decreasing) ?]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Ecco</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Wed, 12 Dec 2012 20:37:06 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-1184</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Ecco says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-1182</link>
			<description><![CDATA[It looks like using the active wire makes the mica hotter. The external glass still has to recover the heat lost during the wire switch, which means that for now p_xs is lower than it previously was, although currently increasing.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Ecco</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Wed, 12 Dec 2012 20:25:20 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-1182</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Rats says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-1181</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Oh man, I can't contain my excitement. I've been running around my office telling everyone about this experiment. Naturally I'm getting some rather perplexed looks but one guy remembered P & F from 1989. He seems genuinely interested. :-)]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Rats</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Wed, 12 Dec 2012 20:23:42 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-1181</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Ged says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-1180</link>
			<description><![CDATA[@Ecco, Ryan, I think the mistake is saying that the "Power (Red) (bar)" instead of "Power (Red) (W)"?]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Ged</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Wed, 12 Dec 2012 20:14:35 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-1180</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Ged says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-1179</link>
			<description><![CDATA[@Ecco, Indeed! That's part of my excitement, to see which way all this will go once we pop on the active wire. The inactive wire could always be more efficient per watt at making heat too, but soon we'll know for sure if what we're seeing is differences in the wire, or a real event!]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Ged</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Wed, 12 Dec 2012 20:13:34 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-1179</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Ryan Hunt says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-1178</link>
			<description><![CDATA[That is a very real possibility, Ecco. I hope to see temps rise, but I wouldn't be surprised if they go down for that reason, either.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Ryan Hunt</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Wed, 12 Dec 2012 20:12:26 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-1178</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Ged says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-1176</link>
			<description><![CDATA[On man. Considering the performance with the inactive wire passively heating the Celani wire, already, this is looking to be one bang of a run. I feel like I'm waiting for the ball drop on New Year's Eve :D]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Ged</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Wed, 12 Dec 2012 20:03:03 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-1176</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Ron B says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-1172</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Great news guys! I still want to know about gamma rays though! : )]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Ron B</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Wed, 12 Dec 2012 19:47:10 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-1172</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Ryan Hunt says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-1171</link>
			<description><![CDATA[We're expecting to start running current through the Celani wire at 12:12:12 pm on 12/12/12 Pacific Standard Time. ;-)]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Ryan Hunt</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Wed, 12 Dec 2012 19:41:40 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-1171</guid>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
