<?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 08:03:50 +0000</lastBuildDate>
		<generator>JComments</generator>
		<atom:link href="http://www.quantumheat.org/index.php/en/component/jcomments/feed/com_content/177" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
		<item>
			<title>123star says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-1450</link>
			<description><![CDATA[@Ged 1- Ok I got the graph wrong before. But I did some calculations: the IR radiated portion for a blackbody at 600°C from 750 nm to 2500 nm (IR range for which the borosilicate is transparent) is T= 650 °C --> IR power (range 750 nm- 2500 nm) = 12% T= 900 °C --> IR power (range 750 nm -2500 nm) = 26% So a consistent part of the radiated power still escapes. Anybody please check this calculation :-) About the graphs you posted, I see your point, at some low pressures the T_glassout decreases (especially with Helium). But the general trend is that at high pressures (>3 bar) the temperature drops. This is consistent with Gipsel interpretation: compressed gas cools the wire by convection and hinders IR radiation. Then the thermocouple reads a lower value because it sensitive to IR radiation. By the way, the pressure dependence is not related to emissivity at all, it's just cooling by convection.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>123star</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Wed, 19 Dec 2012 01:23:15 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-1450</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Ged says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-1448</link>
			<description><![CDATA[@Gispel, The last observation I make is that for the EU cell, when power_in was raised from 48 W to 54 W or so, the P_Xs also did not increase much, not until the resistivity of the wire began to become unusual and funky. This too is contrary to the emissivity hypothesis, as significantly higher internal temperatures did not result in a significantly altered (over basline) T_GlassOut reading (until, again, resistance began to get weird). There is just too much handwaving and too many holes in the idea it can account for a significant portion of anything. Ultimately, I really like 123Star's idea for experiments to quantitate the effect if it exists. If it does, and you were right and supported by direct data, then the quantitation would allow us to factor it out and see if any excess was left over.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Ged</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Tue, 18 Dec 2012 23:44:39 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-1448</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Ged says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-1447</link>
			<description><![CDATA[@Gispel (character limits can be a pain XD) Finally, look at these two graphs: http://www.quantumheat.org/images/blog/data/t_T_GlassOut%20vs%20Pressure%20110W.png and http://www.quantumheat.org/images/blog/data/t_T_GlassOut%20Rise%20vs%20Pressure%2048W.png Not only do the show the behavior I'm talking about where there's an optimal pressure, but even worst for the emissive hypothesis, the higher 110 W show even less of an effect! That is absolutely opposite what your hypothesis claims. Here a hotter wire with more emissivity is giving less of an effect over a cooler wire, and this effect falls faster with pressure drops than the cooler wire (less of a hump too). The fact the P_xs did -not- increase with increasing power in directly falsifies and torpedoes the emissivity hypothesis. Unless there is an alternate explanation. So, the data continues to leave me unconvinced of this emission hypothesis.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Ged</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Tue, 18 Dec 2012 23:36:55 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-1447</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Ged says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-1446</link>
			<description><![CDATA[@Gispel Take a look at this graph, http://www.quantumheat.org/images/blog/data/explained/12-5-T_GlassOut%20Rise%20vs%20Pressure%2048W.png Look at the calibration curves, not the experimental curves (which yours is), as the experimental curve may have been showing actual production, it's impossible to know but obfuscates the discussion. If you look at those shapes, you'll see exactly what I mean. Here's Ecco's picture for borosilicate transmission of IR http://i.imgur.com/EIZzK.png . Anything longer than 4 um is fully absorbed at our thickness. Ecco also posted a picture for quartz somewhere, but it's really buried, and is quite different than borosilicate.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Ged</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Tue, 18 Dec 2012 23:32:13 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-1446</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Gipsel says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-1443</link>
			<description><![CDATA[I remember a different behaviour: http://www.quantumheat.org/images/blog/data/explained/H_Ar%20press_sweep.png That's not true neither. Borosilicate has some partial transparancy below 3.5µm and is basically fully transparent below 2.8µm. With quartz the partial transparency starts at about 4µm, and gets fully transparent (for 3-4mm thickness) below about 3.5µm to 3µm depending on the quality. Quartz just lets through a bit more at lower wire temperatures already. That's all.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Gipsel</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Tue, 18 Dec 2012 22:07:35 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-1443</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Ged says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-1437</link>
			<description><![CDATA[@Gispel, Remember, the US cell is transparent to IR. IR is already making it fully through the cell. Or put another way, the thermalcoupler is already seeing the full IR radiation of the cell at all times. That is lost energy from the system that is not detected, but became detected on a very narrow band of pressure in accordance with particular types of gas. And this effect did not appear to be power-in sensitive (which your hypothesis necessitates it would be). That is in direct opposition to the emissivity hypothesis. Then you have to factor in the magnitude of the effect in the EU cell (the magnitude of the worst case in the US cell was still much smaller than what the pressure steady EU cell saw), and the fact that the NiCr wire also saw a small anomaly of excess heat over the highest baseline -only- when the Celani wire was loaded with hydrogen, and not during the calibrations in the presence of the naive wire (or helium).]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Ged</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Tue, 18 Dec 2012 19:09:52 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-1437</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Ryan Hunt says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-1432</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Here is a link to the calibration plans and data for the US Cell. https://docs.google.com/document/pub?id=15PJCoxRbSm2yDNbtp7RhA_ADp7B8s5bfHjW9Pc5kNmo We have all the data for 4 cell temperatures. One inside the thermal well in the middle, one on the mica wire support, one on the inside of the glass (held by spring pressure of the thermocouple) and one on the outside of the the glass held in place by kapton tape. We looked at the variation of each temperature in different gasses at different pressures. The temperatures in the thermal well and the mica were greatly affected by gas and pressure. The external glass temperature minus the ambient was more independent. The difference across the glass was explored, but showed all sorts of unexpected deviation. See the blog post http://www.quantumheat.org/index.php/follow/132-maybe-measuring-the-heat-across-the-glass-isn-t-a-good-idea I agree we should chat directly about this and future options, but I wanted to share some of the methodology with anyone else wondering.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Ryan Hunt</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Tue, 18 Dec 2012 17:18:39 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-1432</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Edmund Storms says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-1429</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Ryan, I would like to add a bit more to my comment. As I noted before, the calorimeter will have two different time delays. This makes a determination of when equilibrium has been achieved very difficult. You need to place a thermocouple on the metal flange and use this to determine when the SYSTEM has achieved a constant temperature. The glass will appear to be constant long before the flange is constant. As long as the flange is soaking up energy, the ∆T between the inside and outside of the glass will be too small compared to the correct value. If you are not using the ∆T across the thickness of the glass, as your comment below suggests, the calculated excess would have no meaning. Please consider my comments seriously and perhaps discuss this directly.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Edmund Storms</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Tue, 18 Dec 2012 16:46:45 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-1429</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Edmund Storms says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-1427</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Rayn, the measurement is based on determining the ∆T across the glass surface, is it not? This value is then related to applied power. If the method you describe were used, the ∆T would be based on the difference between the glass and room temperature. While this method can be used, it would be very inaccurate. Clearly, a great deal of confusion exists in this study by exactly how an isoperibolic calorimeter works. The method requires measuring the ∆T across a STABLE thermal barrier. Nothing else matters. This ∆T MUST represent the average over the entire thermal barrier. Since the barrier in this case is glass, some energy will be lost by radiation, but this is small compared to the claimed amount of excess power being reported. You need to address the biggest error first. The biggest error appears to be in the calibration.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Edmund Storms</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Tue, 18 Dec 2012 15:32:35 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-1427</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Edmund Storms says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-1419</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Ged,the effect I'm describing is not a subject for debate. It is a well understood fact of Nature. The amount of error will depend on just how the calibration was done. Until that information is made public, no conclusions can be made. Of course other errors can be introduced, each of which must be examined individually. I'm only discussing this one source of error, which is potentially a major one because it is easy to miss. In addition, I see no awareness in what has been reported by Celani or by MFM of this error. Therefore, this remains a potential source error.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Edmund Storms</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Tue, 18 Dec 2012 00:28:17 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-1419</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Zeddicus Zorander says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-1414</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Hi All, Just wanted to say that I'm very happy Doctor Edmund Storms decided to join our quest. To my mind his presence gives the project even higher credentials so I'm very happy the project managed to attract such a respected scientist. I feel very positive about his remarks as we need some really critical minds examining the work done here. Some of us may feel a bit offended by his comments, but that will be nothing compared to what will happen once the reactors and documentation will be sent out in the open. We need some serious critics on our methods from some keen minds to stand a chance of surviving the scientific community when this get's reviewed. We can expect really harsh critics once the reactors are send out, so let's all be open to Doctor Storms very constructive contribution. Also, big thanks to both the Europe and the US team and all the contributors. You're doing a great job!]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Zeddicus Zorander</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Mon, 17 Dec 2012 22:10:04 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-1414</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>clovis ray says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-1410</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Hi gents, Thanks to Dr. Edmund Storms, for his contribution on the calorimetry and measurements: , and to this brilliant team of investigators i think this group can do any and all that is necessary to nail this experiment down, with a new lab in Switzerland , wow this is great news, how exciting good work guys.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>clovis ray</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Mon, 17 Dec 2012 18:28:49 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-1410</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Gipsel says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-1409</link>
			<description><![CDATA[ Actually, it is not immediately clear, in which direction this would influence the calculated output power with the current methodology. This is dependent on details like the thermal contact of the thermocouples to the tube and the emissivity of these sensors. Radiation transmitted through the glass doesn't heat the tube (lowering the glass temperature) but could on the other hand directly heat the temperature sensor on the outside (raising the measured temp). It is simply a potential source of error one should avoid. Good thermal contact of the glass_out sensor to the tube and low emissivity of the sensor results in an underestimation of the output power, bad thermal contact and high emissivity leads to an overestimation.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Gipsel</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Mon, 17 Dec 2012 17:50:59 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-1409</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Ged says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-1408</link>
			<description><![CDATA[@Gipsel, Very interesting, thanks for that info. That could be a significant amount of undetected energy then (it'll make our detected excess lower than it is). We are indeed in need of those calorimeters, but let's see if the new Swiss lab location can control the ambient factors tightly enough to give us a good replication of the Celani cell before we improve it.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Ged</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Mon, 17 Dec 2012 16:57:06 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-1408</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Ecco says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-1407</link>
			<description><![CDATA[@Robert Greenyer: it's been suggested that you should contact Dr. Storms directly if possible for discussions on how to improve measurements as he probably might prefer a different channel than this blog. Have you read his analysis of Celani's set-up by the way? Link on Vortex: http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l%40eskimo.com/msg74056.html]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Ecco</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Mon, 17 Dec 2012 15:35:14 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-1407</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Robert Greenyer says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-1406</link>
			<description><![CDATA[@Ron B We are now at a lab in Switzerland and will publish a video of the facility later. We have just been cleaning the hood where the cell will soon be cited. I think people will approve of the new environment. We aim to take on board much of what has been discussed here where possible.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Robert Greenyer</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Mon, 17 Dec 2012 15:26:49 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-1406</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Ron B says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-1405</link>
			<description><![CDATA[What happened to the Euro Cell? I read in the log about it being shipped out. What's the plan?]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Ron B</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Mon, 17 Dec 2012 13:50:17 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-1405</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Gipsel says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-1404</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Just as a small addition: Celani itself estimated the wire temperature to be between 350°C and 400°C (623-673K) for a 200°C cell temperature. With 650K, the maximum of the emission is at 4.45µm and it extends down to about 2µm with some intensity. Borosilicate isn't opaque for this anymore. Maybe 10% of the total emitted radiation from the wire (the gas doesn't emit) could pass the glass tube in that case (depending on the exact temperature).]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Gipsel</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Mon, 17 Dec 2012 10:47:04 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-1404</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Gipsel says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-1403</link>
			<description><![CDATA[While I largely agree with the position of Edmund Storms regarding the problems of the current estimation of the output power, I have a small addition to this sentence: I don't think one can take this for granted (123star also said this a few times). It is only true, if the cell is contained in or made of some intransparent material. Glass tubes don't qualify for that (also not borosilicate). It has significant transparency below 3.3µm. Wire temperatures as low as 500K (227°C) start to show some significant thermal emission in that range (and the wire temperature is higher than T_mica). If the Celani wire gets hotter (because of lower diameter or lower emissivity), more and more radiation escapes the cell.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Gipsel</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Mon, 17 Dec 2012 10:29:07 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-1403</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Robert Greenyer says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-1402</link>
			<description><![CDATA[@All Great suggestions and wonderful to have you on board Edmund, we will endeavour to address all matters when the EU team is together later today, this is exactly the kind of constructive criticism that we welcome and sought and is precisely why we planned the internal replications first. We are not concluding or publishing anything like a definitive paper as we progress - we are saying what we see and leaving it open to the floor for discussion. It is absolutely fundamental that both the experiment and the protocol is water tight and clearly shows signal above any noise before we attempt to send replications of the resulting evolved experiment to respected institutions across the globe. We want and desire all the well considered challenges we can get such that they can be adressed NOW not after. We want to have the debate concluded BEFORE the final results from across the world are forthcoming, those results need to be incontrovertibl e. We are serious. As many that have worked in this field before, we are putting our time and cash into this to make it happen, with your help, we can get this right together, it is too important to our children not to.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Robert Greenyer</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Mon, 17 Dec 2012 06:23:49 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-1402</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Paul Hunt says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-1401</link>
			<description><![CDATA[@ Edmund Storms I agree with your assessment. That is why, while the rest of the team has been copying Celani's work, I have been working toward the next step, which is to create some practical accurate calorimeters for this kind of work. A good calorimeter should eliminate about 80% of the work and 95% of the inaccuracies in these tests.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Paul Hunt</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Mon, 17 Dec 2012 06:08:04 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-1401</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>AlanG says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-1400</link>
			<description><![CDATA[The forum software seems to have mangled Eric's posted link. Here's a tinyurl link to Dr. Storms' analysis of the Celani cell calorimetry: http://tinyurl.com/cl6bqnx I think his comments and suggestions deserve respect and a close reading, given his experience and achievements in the field. ]]></description>
			<dc:creator>AlanG</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Mon, 17 Dec 2012 04:46:15 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-1400</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Ron B says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-1399</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Does the following article shed light on the resistance of the active wire with exposure to hydrogen? http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0360319910007470]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Ron B</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Mon, 17 Dec 2012 04:00:06 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-1399</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Eric Walker says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-1397</link>
			<description><![CDATA[For the many here who are not on Vortex, here is Ed Storms's writeup: http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg74056.html]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Eric Walker</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Mon, 17 Dec 2012 01:39:08 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-1397</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>hveeder says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-1395</link>
			<description><![CDATA[ The paper describes calorimetry for electrolytic cells, which is is different from the gaseous cells being studied here. I think the people doing the experiments on gaseous cells are the "experts".]]></description>
			<dc:creator>hveeder</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Mon, 17 Dec 2012 00:12:13 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-1395</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Edmund Storms says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-1394</link>
			<description><![CDATA[For those who are interested, I'm posting my understanding and analysis of the Celani calorimeter on CMNS and Vortex as a word file. Any comments are welcome.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Edmund Storms</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Mon, 17 Dec 2012 00:11:43 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-1394</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Rats says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-1393</link>
			<description><![CDATA[@ #93 Edmund Storms Well Edmund that is good to hear and it's not what you are suggesting as much as the way you're suggesting it.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Rats</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Sun, 16 Dec 2012 23:36:14 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-1393</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Philip Quarles says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-1392</link>
			<description><![CDATA["Calorimetry 101 for Cold Fusion; Methods, Problems and Errors" by Edmund Storms http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/StormsEcalorimetr.pdf Describes Isoperibolic Calorimetry and other types :of calorimeters used to measure excess heat.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Philip Quarles</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Sun, 16 Dec 2012 23:23:38 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-1392</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Edmund Storms says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-1391</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Well Rats, I'm writing just such an analysis as you requested. However, this takes time. As for my advice, why is a suggestion that you learn something about calorimetry considered a condescending attitude? That is not my intent. This study is important to many people. Although the approach allows universal comment, to be useful the comment must be based on knowledge, not pure imagination. I'm only suggesting that you obtain this knowledge. Many good books and papers are available. Since I have no contact with the people doing the work, except this website, I do not know how much they understand about the measurement. Hopefully, my impression is unjustified.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Edmund Storms</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Sun, 16 Dec 2012 23:19:42 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-1391</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Rats says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-1390</link>
			<description><![CDATA[@ #90 Edmund Geez mate, you must have gotten out on the wrong side of the bed this morning. Though I agree with what you're saying, what's with the attitude? How about some constructive criticism rather than this condescending attitude of yours. You say, "I do not have enough room in the comment space ...". Well duh, how about you write something elsewhere and link to it?!]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Rats</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Sun, 16 Dec 2012 23:03:38 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-1390</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Ascoli65 says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-1389</link>
			<description><![CDATA[@123star You said that emissivity is the cause of difference between wires. May I submit you again this chart http://i.imgur.com/mLIUl.jpg ? It shows that a possible cause for variation of the T_Glass_Out is some sort of modification in the contact between the external TC and the glass, due to two handling events of the cell. What do you think about?]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Ascoli65</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Sun, 16 Dec 2012 22:13:51 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-1389</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Edmund Storms says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-1388</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Please, before any conclusions can be drawn or before any of the discussion can be applied, you MUST understand how a isoperibolic-ty pe calorimeter actually works. I see no evidence in the discussion that this knowledge is being applied. Simply making measurements and speculating about what they might mean is not useful. The method being used here is a poorly designed calorimeter of a type that is well understood. I do not have enough room in the comment space to provide an education about how such a system actually works. You all need to do some study and educate yourself. The method is not as simple as it looks. I can state this for a fact having designed and used most calorimeter types. You need to start from a basic understanding first. Otherwise, we have the blind leading the blind.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Edmund Storms</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Sun, 16 Dec 2012 22:12:59 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-1388</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>123star says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-1387</link>
			<description><![CDATA[@david557 What do you mean by "ordinary wire"? Calibrations were made with NiCr wire, supposed inactive (no excess heat) and Celani wire in Helium, supposed inactive too. I however agree with you, we should test more wires made of different materials and find which thermodynamic property affects the wire "performance". See the difference between Celani and NiCr wire in the calibration graphs. That is still unexplained.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>123star</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Sun, 16 Dec 2012 21:34:30 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-1387</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>David Roberson says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-1386</link>
			<description><![CDATA[You have received a number of interesting requests. I am happy that it is your task to choose how to proceed! I wish to point out one chart characteristic that appears to suggest that there is little difference between the excess power being produced when the active wire is driven versus drive to the heating wire. That chart is I think the 6th one above. There are two noisy points that appear as vertical lines. One is when the Celani wire is driven the other with the heating wire. If you connect these two loci of points together to form the short segment of a curve, it appears that the total curve would fall parallel to the calibration curves below. This implies that it does not matter which wire is heated for you to get the same results. It could be true, but it is more likely that heating the Celani wire would be more effective.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>David Roberson</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Sun, 16 Dec 2012 21:34:24 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-1386</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>david557 says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-1385</link>
			<description><![CDATA[please run a test on a ordinary wire so we can see whether this excess heat is because of celani's wire or a artifact.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>david557</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Sun, 16 Dec 2012 21:17:18 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-1385</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>123star says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-1384</link>
			<description><![CDATA[@Ged First of all, thanks for answering. I see your point, and it makes sense, but then how can you explain that in the calibrations with Celani wire the temperature is well below the one we get using NiCr wire (in Helium)? What is different between these two wires? My guess is emissivity. What other kind of thermodynamical property could it be? Thermal conductivity? Different heat transfer properties at the interface wire/gas? Please elaborate.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>123star</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Sun, 16 Dec 2012 21:16:58 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-1384</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Alain Coetmeur says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-1383</link>
			<description><![CDATA[HI, *firs congratulation fro the preliminary results. hope they are confirmed. It seems question about ambiance impact,and borosilicate glass/SB law, are polluting the debate, spreading some FUD. have to be solved. I propose some experiments that match some of my young-age domain: why not make input power evolve according to a given pattern: sinusoidal, square, triangle, scaw... at first test should be made at low signal, so one can detect the signal response, and it's spectrum and phase, to detect if there is a correlation than is compatible with artifact or with anomalous heat. maybe some test should be made at higher amplitude, to detect non-linearity. at worst it can help you to check the coherence of your data and detect artifact precisely.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Alain Coetmeur</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Sun, 16 Dec 2012 21:13:32 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-1383</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Chuck says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-1382</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Has a pre- and post-reactor chemical analysis been performed with Celani's own wire, paying particular attention to the quantity of nickle hydride present? I mention this only in the interest that the formation of NiH from nickel and hydrogen is an exothermic reaction, which could conceivably pollute the data.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Chuck</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Sun, 16 Dec 2012 20:59:50 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-1382</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Rats says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-1381</link>
			<description><![CDATA[@ #82 Eric Walker I thought Cell 2 was an attempt to replicate Celani's work exactly as he did it. If it wasn't, then why not?]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Rats</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Sun, 16 Dec 2012 20:54:21 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-1381</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Eric Walker says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-1380</link>
			<description><![CDATA[@Robert -- not all votes are equal in this democracy. Most of us seem to be clever amateurs who know only the basics of what is being attempted and are just having fun sussing out patterns in the data. It seems to me that the people you really want to engage for ideas for the next steps are ones like Dr. Storms, who knows the subtleties of this kind of work back and forth, along with his counterparts among the more open-minded naysayers. (I would not worry about the vociferous naysayers who have adopted a committed position that anomalous heat is impossible; they will not be satisfied, no matter what you do.) If you decide to go for liquid calorimetry, it seems like you will need a new cell design to keep the experiment from becoming a big mess. That will take us pretty far from Celani's experiment, which might or might not be desirable. I personally would have liked to see a rock-solid replication of Celani's work before moving on to something significantly different.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Eric Walker</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Sun, 16 Dec 2012 20:25:28 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-1380</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Mayday says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-1376</link>
			<description><![CDATA[ As Martin said, i think also this could be a easy and cheap way to reduce/eleminat e your ambient factor. if you have nuclear reaction, transmutation (primary nickel into copper) should occur, or im wrong? This would be a hard fact to say "yes you had a LENR effect or not"]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Mayday</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Sun, 16 Dec 2012 16:31:02 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-1376</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Edmuns Storms says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-1375</link>
			<description><![CDATA[A calorimeter has a response time to reach equilibrium. No data are valid until equilibrium is reached. What is the response time of this calorimeter? Because of this property, calibration must be taken going up in temperature and then going down, with the two results averaged. Was this done? Scatter in this data gives a measure of the random error. What is this error? The inner glass temperature is determined by convection currents and these currents will be different for the calibration wire and the Celani wire. Consequently, the test of the Celani wire needs to be done while most heat is applied to the calibration wire. Was this done? The situation is similar to that in an electrolytic cell in which gradients present in the electrolyte compromise the temperature measurement of the electrolyte. In your case, these gradients alter the temperature of the inner wall. As a result, delta T is not reproducible and not related to the calibration.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Edmuns Storms</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Sun, 16 Dec 2012 15:50:42 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-1375</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Gaston Leforge says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-1372</link>
			<description><![CDATA[A simple experiment to carry out : Increase P_In from 0 to 64 W by steps. Each step could be an increase of 8 W and last 12 H.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Gaston Leforge</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Sun, 16 Dec 2012 12:48:35 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-1372</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>123star says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-1370</link>
			<description><![CDATA[I think that we should perform more calibration runs and see if T_glassout is a function of the emissivity of the wire, using wires of appositely chosen materials. A possible interpretation is that hydrogen exposure deoxides the metal, reducing its emissivity and incresing its temperature (while keeping the input power constant of course). The T_glassout thermocouple "sees" the direct radiation and gives an incorrect estimate of the real temperature of the glass. That's my take.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>123star</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Sun, 16 Dec 2012 12:34:21 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-1370</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>observer says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-1369</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Can someone post a graph of P excess vs T ambient? Since power is calculated as P_SB_out = CC * (T_glassout^4 - T_ambient^4) , I'd like to see the relationship between power and ambient temperature. Meaning, is ambient temperature constant during the test?]]></description>
			<dc:creator>observer</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Sun, 16 Dec 2012 11:57:05 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-1369</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>David Jones says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-1368</link>
			<description><![CDATA[To test your experimental results (given that your experimental setup is not definitive) I suggest you do a boring but important dummy run. Redo your experiment but for the last step simply place a standard wire instead of the Celani wire and attempt to obtain excess heat. This will show if you can place any trust in your experimental results/setup.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>David Jones</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Sun, 16 Dec 2012 10:16:21 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-1368</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>artefact says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-1367</link>
			<description><![CDATA[@martin or a very smaller chamber and the wire wound tighly so that it triggers itsself with the reaction emissions.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>artefact</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Sun, 16 Dec 2012 09:55:24 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-1367</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Martin says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-1366</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Alternative setup (post I/II) Hello guys. Let me propose an alternative setup Basically what you have is a heater. You are using some 50 W of input power to heat up your room. If there is a LENR reaction, that adds another 10% of excess heat. However, as I understand it, the 50 W of input power is not really required to drive the LENR reaction, but to keep the temperature high enough. I guess no one know the input power needed for the LENR reaction, but what if it’s low? In the following I assume that the LENR 5 W of excess heat is rather coupled to the surface area (or perhaps volume) of the active wire, and only require a small input power. Why not only use 5 W of input power? Then the total output would be 200% of the input! To achieve the proper temperature you need to isolate your devise, not allowing any heat to escape to the room.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Martin</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Sun, 16 Dec 2012 09:29:41 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-1366</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Martin says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-1365</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Alternative setup (post II/II) The easiest way would be to put your entire devise in a stirred liquid medium (an oil bath but perhaps using something more elaborate than oil). Isolation is of course put outside the oil bath but you isolate the hell out of it. No flow is required, as the temperature of the oil bath is allowed to rise. You start at a temperature well below the one needed for LENR. As you add 5 W of input power, the temperature of the oil bath should rise in a linear fashion. When you achieve the needed temperature for LENR, the additional 5 W would kick in, making a twofold increase in the rate of oil bath temperature rise. You get a simple setup, no fluctuation in ambient temperature, and liquid calorimetry. Theoretically reasonable? Practically workable?]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Martin</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Sun, 16 Dec 2012 09:28:36 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-1365</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Maxwell61 says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-1364</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Each room in the building have his individual thermostat. Am i wrong thinking that turning off for an hour the thermo of the room where the cell is, would highlight any residual fluctuation unrelated to the ambient effect? T_ambient will steadly decrease and so the data cannot be correlated to the baseline of cal runs, but at least one can have in no time an important qualitative indication without any stop or manipulation of the test itself. Whteher this is compatible with the test schedule, i do not know.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Maxwell61</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Sun, 16 Dec 2012 08:57:13 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-1364</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Gerrit says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-1362</link>
			<description><![CDATA[@Ryan T_GlassOut is out of phase with T_Ambient, but T_Rise is calculated as the momentary delta between T_Glassout and T_Ambient. T_Rise is used to calculated P_Xs. The noise in P_Xs is the phase shift in temperatures.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Gerrit</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Sun, 16 Dec 2012 07:38:34 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-1362</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Svein says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-1361</link>
			<description><![CDATA[This is lose to MAHG. Look at: http://jlnlabs.online.fr/mahg/index.htm If you puls the input power it might help.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Svein</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Sun, 16 Dec 2012 06:45:55 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-1361</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Ged says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-1360</link>
			<description><![CDATA[@Eric Exactly, but it is doable, since we see the T_ambient's range. We can use that as an offset. For instance, we know any calibration curve that also has a high T_ambient is actually at a low temperature for the cell (forced air is running), and vice versa. It's pretty evident the over all T_ambient sticks to a narrow range. It is far less than ideal, no doubt about it. The best thing would be to have a steady, slow rate of controlled airflow at all times, and eliminate these variations. But in the end, you are exactly right that it's increasing the noise as things stand now. Not impossibly though, and not to the degree some may think, but just adds a bit more numerical complexity. Multivariate analysis should do the trick.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Ged</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Sun, 16 Dec 2012 06:25:05 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-1360</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Eric Walker says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-1359</link>
			<description><![CDATA[@Ged: your point about comparing apples to apples is well-taken. But establishing decent climate control is quite important, and unless we get a handle on it, it will continue to be difficult to separate noise from signal. Comparing the calibration runs, in which the HVAC cycle was going, with live runs, in which it is also running, is subtly challenging. An example of why this is the case is that the calibration runs were shorter than the actual runs, if I remember correctly, and so the HVAC cycle did not necessarily align in the same way as in the live runs. Anything we can do to eliminate considerations of this kind will be very welcome.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Eric Walker</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Sun, 16 Dec 2012 05:50:34 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-1359</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Craig says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-1358</link>
			<description><![CDATA[OK, when I compare the actual values of the running cell #2 with this calibration template, I can see that T_GlassIn is roughly the same, but both T_GlassOut and T_Mica are higher in the live test. Calibration Run from Frame 15 in the link. https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B9qCtGOFmvhmWXUxWGRxYXFmMzg/edit?pli=1 Power (Red) =~ 53.4 T Glass In =~ 130.5 T Glass Out =~ 110.0 T Ambient =~ 18.8 T Mica =~ 172.9 Live Run Power (Red) =~ 54.0 T Glass In =~ 130.8 T Glass Out =~ 119.3 T Ambient =~ 20.6 T Mica =~ 193.5 So, wouldn't the fact that the temperature of the core is significantly hotter also be an indication that they are actually seeing excess heat? (isn't that T Mica) This makes T Glass In look suspicious, rather than the T Glass Out measurement.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Craig</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Sun, 16 Dec 2012 05:44:39 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-1358</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Ged says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-1357</link>
			<description><![CDATA[@Ryan That is -exactly- my interpretation too (it is a negative correlation). Hence why it's a red herring: we don't want forced convection cooling the cell and our sensors, only natural convection from the heat. Forced convection is artificial work being done on the cell to cool it, and so is spurious. In the end, it only matters in relation to the many baselines the group did well. If these forced air situations were not in the baselines, then they must be discarded; if they are in the baselines then they can be used in the analysis equally point for point; if they are the entirety of the baseline, then we can only take the same point from the experiment as comparison. The point is to match the conditions of the experiment with the baselines so we can compare the experimental variables (temperature vs power). So, the fact intermittent forced air is spuriously cooling the cell isn't a surprise, and I don't think we want it in the analysis.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Ged</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Sun, 16 Dec 2012 05:38:29 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-1357</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Ryan Hunt says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-1356</link>
			<description><![CDATA[My interpretation of the T_ambient vs T_Glassout realtionship is that the room is being heated with forced air heat. As the room temperature rises, the furnace is blowing and the air is circulating, more effectively cooling the cell. It sure looks like the Glass temps fall as soon as the ambient temp starts to rise. Then when the fan turns off, the room slowly cools, and the cell heats up because it is only natural convection moving the air around it, now. The fascinating part of that graph is that there is a period at the beginning where the peaks are almost nonexistent, then as the cell temperature rises, the cycles and the average temp goes up. And it seems to correlate with the impedance going all berserk, too. The shape of the impedance line is really strange. It's like it rises fast and then drops off suddenly at some point. It'll be interesting to watch as it rises again slowly and see if it reaches a point where it will do that cycling again. This is weird stuff.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Ryan Hunt</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Sun, 16 Dec 2012 04:44:39 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-1356</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Sanjeev says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-1354</link>
			<description><![CDATA[@Ecco, Thanks for the video and pics. The shield can be a cause of heat buildup. I realized that the impedance will go up with temperature naturally, but it goes up in jumps. Probably nothing to do with lenr.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Sanjeev</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Sun, 16 Dec 2012 01:00:32 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-1354</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Maxwell61 says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-1353</link>
			<description><![CDATA[@Ascoli65 You always miss something from videos Ascoli65..... the heating system is shown in the video of Mathieu office, forced ventilation from the ceiling, look at the round object into the ceiling.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Maxwell61</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Sun, 16 Dec 2012 00:55:38 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-1353</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Ecco says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-1352</link>
			<description><![CDATA[@Sanjeev: air stagnation could be a very local problem. I don't know if you've watched the video of the EU test room posted by Mathieu, but at 5:05 you can see where the T_Ambient sensor is located: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rsbF7q6kPjY It seems to be in a relatively clean location. The reactor on the other hand is on that desk near two PSUs, a PC, some instrumentation , and might also have the safety plexiglass cover installed further hampering air ventilation. (see the following photos: http://www.quantumheat.org/images/blog/IMG_1912%20Medium.jpg http://www.quantumheat.org/images/blog/DSC04746%20Small.JPG Couldn't readily find more suitable ones, sorry)]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Ecco</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Sun, 16 Dec 2012 00:43:15 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-1352</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Sanjeev says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-1351</link>
			<description><![CDATA[@Ecco, Yes, possible. But more air stagnation should cause higher peaks in T_Ambient also. Why only the cell got affected ? Why are the peaks exactly coincide with impedance fluctuations ? And another thing I noticed, when the room is cooling, the cell is heating up and vice versa. I find that strange. Anyway, only EU team can answer whats happening there, I'm just pointing out the strangeness and having fun with the data.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Sanjeev</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Sun, 16 Dec 2012 00:29:55 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-1351</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Maxwell61 says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-1350</link>
			<description><![CDATA[@Ecco I tought something similar at the first Sanjeev graph, looking at the average temp going down at the typical office closing time :-) But how to explain that funny coincidental strong impedence fluctuation ?]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Maxwell61</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Sun, 16 Dec 2012 00:29:39 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-1350</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Maxwell61 says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-1348</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Fascinating Sanjeev, keep going, i think you're highlighting something interesting here..]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Maxwell61</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Sun, 16 Dec 2012 00:13:19 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-1348</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Sanjeev says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-1347</link>
			<description><![CDATA[I mean, the ambient is getting the same peak heat as before, but the cell is somehow getting more peak heat. Here is another strange correlation. Impedance and Glassout. http://i50.tinypic.com/293c7k1.jpg http://i50.tinypic.com/293c7k1.jpg]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Sanjeev</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Sun, 16 Dec 2012 00:09:03 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-1347</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Ascoli65 says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-1346</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Hi Mathieu, is it possible to see some pictures of the heater fans (or wall louvers) from where the hot air comes in the test room? Thank you and congratulation for the good job]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Ascoli65</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Sat, 15 Dec 2012 23:38:46 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-1346</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Ecco says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-1345</link>
			<description><![CDATA[However, if we assume that the lower T_GlassOut peaks are when the reactor is not affected by air stagnation , we can see that the correlation still holds, somehow: http://i.imgur.com/uX92o.png http://i.imgur.com/uX92o.png]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Ecco</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Sat, 15 Dec 2012 23:31:29 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-1345</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Sanjeev says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-1344</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Very unusual behavior. Ambient and T_Glassout are not entirely correlated now. There is a trend in last 10 hours. http://i49.tinypic.com/2lxa2vo.jpg http://i49.tinypic.com/2lxa2vo.jpg]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Sanjeev</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Sat, 15 Dec 2012 23:05:20 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-1344</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Ecco says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-1342</link>
			<description><![CDATA[I think steel tubes would be cheap enough that they could be replaced every month or so for safety, anyway. To play the devil's advocate though, other possible problems might be: - contamination from residual hydrogen in the steel tube walls when using other gases, although I'm not sure how big of a problem this would be. - the tube might eventually become loaded and damaged enough to generate excess heat (!) itself and invalidate calibrations (although this is a very remote possibility).]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Ecco</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Sat, 15 Dec 2012 22:53:31 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-1342</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Ged says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-1341</link>
			<description><![CDATA[If we switch to steel tubes, we'll have to use the proper type of steel, such as low strength (below 1000 MPa) or stainless steels. Those are the sorts that aren't suseptible to embrittlement. Though, maybe we could use aluminum/alumin um alloys instead of steel? It is also not susceptible at all to hydrogen embrittlement and may be an even safer bet than any sort of steel.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Ged</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Sat, 15 Dec 2012 22:34:25 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-1341</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Sanjeev says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-1340</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Ecco, Yes, may be there is a loose connection somewhere. But its a good thing because it is providing a chance to check the effect of power fluctuations.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Sanjeev</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Sat, 15 Dec 2012 22:30:41 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-1340</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Sanjeev says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-1338</link>
			<description><![CDATA[In last 3-4 hours Impedance is doing crazy things. This is causing input power to fluctuate a bit. Interesting thing is Pxs has crossed 7.5W peak. The theory that fluctuations assist lenr can be tested. I suggest sending additional pulsed power of 1 or 2 W through the inactive wire, say at 10 Hz. Celani himself has said that the room temperature fluctuations are helping here (I believe he is not aware of actual data, but he has a point)]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Sanjeev</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Sat, 15 Dec 2012 22:06:13 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-1338</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Gipsel says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-1337</link>
			<description><![CDATA[ As a naysayer I tell you this guy has no clue. :lol: As long as an eventuell excess power grows relatively slowly with the input power (and not with P_in^4 or something), the temperature curve will be bent down at high temperatures. It's not so easy as he claims to categorically dismiss the generation of excess power. That said, I completely agree with others here (and said so before) that the power determination from the glass_out temperature is a somewhat flawed methodology with potentially quite large error bars, especially when using glass tubes. That means, so far everything is still in agreement with the hypothesis that nothing happens.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Gipsel</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Sat, 15 Dec 2012 21:58:36 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-1337</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Morgan says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-1336</link>
			<description><![CDATA[comment from a naysayer (not me): "All of the ΔT versus Power-input curves are sublinear (i.e., convex upward), exactly as would be expected if nothing interesting is happening and thermal radiated power is increasing as the fourth power of temperature. If something interesting were happening, a super-linear response (i.e., concave upward) would be expected, starting at some threshold input power. Of course, they didn't bother to carry the data all the way down to zero input power. All part of the fool-yourself mentality. Nothing to see here. You can all return to your homes." thoughts/respon se?]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Morgan</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Sat, 15 Dec 2012 20:58:39 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-1336</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>hveeder says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-1335</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Hi, I have a couple of questions. 1) Did Celani measure T_glassIn on his active runs and if so were those temperature values also unexpectedly low? 2) Did your T_glassout data of the calibration runs exhibit the same degree of sensitivity to the ambient temperature fluctuations as the active run?]]></description>
			<dc:creator>hveeder</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Sat, 15 Dec 2012 20:22:37 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-1335</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Mitch says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-1334</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Another thing that would be helpful, though I realize it would be asking quite a bit, is for simultaneous side-by-side operation of a dummy wire cell and a Celani wire cell, ideally such that the experimenter has no idea which is which; compairson of the graphs should then tell a story.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Mitch</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Sat, 15 Dec 2012 19:14:40 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-1334</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Chuck says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-1333</link>
			<description><![CDATA[I think we need to step back a bit and put the wires and tubes and gas aside for a bit and examine carefully the calorimetry being performed here. The final consensus of this experiment will rise or fall on the quality of measurement performed, as indeed it has for earlier experiments. I do wonder about Celani's measurement methods--his reported excess is enough to be dismissed as noise. Let's put some serious concerted effort into the measurement methodology and apparatus so that any discounting of the experment due to measurement error doesn't enter the discussion--and then drag out the gas, tube and power supplies. Does this make sense to anyone else?]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Chuck</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Sat, 15 Dec 2012 18:41:04 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-1333</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Eric Walker says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-1332</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Another question I have is why the calibration curves are so smooth in the presence of the HVAC cycle. I would have naively expected them to show some variation as a result of it. But perhaps it's simply the case that the T_GlassIn/Power relationship is simply a lot more robust than any dependence upon time fluctuations?]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Eric Walker</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Sat, 15 Dec 2012 16:31:49 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-1332</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Ecco says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-1331</link>
			<description><![CDATA[@Ryan Hunt: thanks. I'll stress again that a test with a steel tube instead of glass should be made as soon as possible (I'm aware you're preparing one), so that one can safely use just external temperatures for power calculations and leave internal temperature readings for diagnostic purposes only. I'm afraid that using glass is causing too many problems for several reasons. I would also: - Use 3 external thermocouples, one to be placed on the middle on the steel tube, and the other two at some distance from both of its ends. Then, compute their average at all times. - Paint the tube with high emissivity black paint to help making temperature readings more accurate. - Place the tube vertically in order to minimize random influence by convection and stagnating heated air. - Put a constant low flow ventilation in order to further minimize the above problem. - Double the active material mass to improve the SNR.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Ecco</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Sat, 15 Dec 2012 16:29:36 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-1331</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Ryan Hunt says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-1330</link>
			<description><![CDATA[I am hearing your concerns. This is the graph I prepared to look into it. I looked at T_mica, T_glassin, and T_glass_out and compared that to points at the two power levels from the live run. http://www.quantumheat.org/images/blog/data/cell2/Killer3.png The two points I chose were relatively random and may vary a bit from here. From this, it does not look like the internal cell temps are higher. Note: I use the "Rise" to indicate delta T above T_Ambient.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Ryan Hunt</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Sat, 15 Dec 2012 15:34:29 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-1330</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Maxwell61 says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-1328</link>
			<description><![CDATA[@Ecco very interesting graph Ecco, thanks for reposting, i've missed it. Altough some consideration can be made looking at the various pressure/gas combination applied in the calibration runs, it would be easier to wait the tests of cell nr.2 at higher pressures, which i guess are coming in a near future. Hopefully. Thanks for your reply Ecco.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Maxwell61</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Sat, 15 Dec 2012 12:03:17 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-1328</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Ecco says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-1327</link>
			<description><![CDATA[@Maxwell61: could that be because of the lower pressure used? Less gas inside the cell would mean that cell has less thermal inertia and would be more susceptible to external influences. The run just before power was applied to the active wire (under hydrogen/argon mixture) showed less fluctuations. That run was at a higher pressure. This is a picture I made some time back showing this: http://i.imgur.com/cuDEs.png http://i.imgur.com/cuDEs.png This should be easily verifiable by using a higher gas pressure. For some reason the latest runs have all been at a starting pressure of just 1 bar compared to the typical 3.5 bar of the US cell or 7.5 bar in Celani's case.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Ecco</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Sat, 15 Dec 2012 11:45:43 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-1327</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Maxwell61 says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-1326</link>
			<description><![CDATA[@Ecco Yes, i know the blog post you're referring to, and everything makes a perfect sense. But i'm still wondering why the small variation of T_glassout (few tenth of degrees upon 120°) is trasmitted so fast to T_glassin. Even is reasonable to think that US Cell with the fan doesn't suffer of the same problem for the fan itself, nontheless the glass is quartz and i would first carefully analize cell nr.2 for itself.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Maxwell61</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Sat, 15 Dec 2012 11:32:22 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-1326</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Ecco says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-1325</link>
			<description><![CDATA[@Maxwell61: earlier in another blog post I speculated (this was also skillfully highlighted by another user with a nice graph) that the HVAC isn't actually heating the glass tube, but rather displacing stagnating heated air around it. Thus, the reactor heats up when the HVAC is not operating, then cools when its air flow allows stagnating heated air to move away from the glass tube. However, long term average should still show excess heat (whether the excess heat is real or not, it's a different matter) The testing environment for US cell has an extractor fan whose primary purpose was to quickly remove potentially harmful/dangero us gases around the reactor in case of leak, but it turns out it was also important for performance stability.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Ecco</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Sat, 15 Dec 2012 11:14:26 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-1325</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Sanjeev says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-1324</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Another issue is that the three temperatures are all perfectly steady, if you zoom out. There is no overall rise or fall, there is no other frequency there except the small regular variation (due to room heater). There is no randomness. This is a bit worrying. Perhaps it will trigger at 8 bar and 350 C ?]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Sanjeev</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Sat, 15 Dec 2012 11:14:24 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-1324</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Maxwell61 says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-1323</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Lets assume HVAC & environment are influencing T_glassout. Can i ask why T_glassout and T_glassin shows exactly the same fluctuation in the same precise moment? T_glassin should'nt fluctuate at least with a bit of delay due to glass thickness? Why the response of T_glassin should be so fast upon such a small temp oscillation? Thanks for claryfing this.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Maxwell61</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Sat, 15 Dec 2012 11:03:40 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-1323</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Eric Walker says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-1322</link>
			<description><![CDATA[@Ron B: my thought is that if you take out the low frequency ambient jitter, and what you see is something remarkably stable, I would take that as a possible indication that P_Xs is somehow calibrated against an inccorect baseline. Normally there are wild swings in the excess power for this kind of experiment. That's not to say that this is a requirement; perhaps we've stumbled upon a way to get a very smooth reaction. It's just to say that we have to be on the lookout for systematic error, and a relatively smoothly trending signal would be a hint of such error.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Eric Walker</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Sat, 15 Dec 2012 08:47:59 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-1322</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Ron B says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-1321</link>
			<description><![CDATA[While there's a bit of ambient jitter it doesn't seem to really mater when it comes to the excess power. It's climbing over the last 4 hours and in the last 30 minutes it really seems to be climbing faster.Seems that the min values are even above 5W now!]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Ron B</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Sat, 15 Dec 2012 08:04:36 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-1321</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Eric Walker says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-1319</link>
			<description><![CDATA[I would be interested in seeing graphs of T_Ambient and T_Xs (Low) after the near-hourly waveform has been subtracted from them -- I think this can be done with a Fourier analysis, but I've never done it myself.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Eric Walker</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Sat, 15 Dec 2012 05:23:14 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-1319</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Rats says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-1318</link>
			<description><![CDATA[I am honestly surprised to see this post. I think there is every chance we are fooling ourselves. The mere fact the output power is affected by the ambient temperature suggests there are measurement issues. The only way we can prove this beyond a shadow of doubt is to use liquid calorimetery as suggested previously.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Rats</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Sat, 15 Dec 2012 05:22:23 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-1318</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Ged says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-1317</link>
			<description><![CDATA[One thing I've noticed though, is it just me or does the cell seem more stable at this slightly higher power? Or is it the higher temperatures have stabilized it (closer to the 270 C we originally wanted)?]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Ged</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Sat, 15 Dec 2012 02:08:44 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-1317</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Andre Blum says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-1315</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Congratulations to the whole MFMP team on finding the new fire! Great job!]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Andre Blum</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Sat, 15 Dec 2012 01:14:11 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-1315</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Pachu says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-1314</link>
			<description><![CDATA[T_Ambient has a period consistent with some air aconditioner working in the room, is that right ?]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Pachu</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Fri, 14 Dec 2012 23:28:46 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-1314</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Mark Iverson says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-1313</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Are you guys logging ambient room temperature AND humidity? What about when the HVAC (furnace) comes on? Unless the test cell is housed inside an environmental test chamber which maintains constant temp/humidity, and is sheltered from HVAC wind currents (not electrical current!), these variables should also be logged... -Mark Iverson]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Mark Iverson</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Fri, 14 Dec 2012 23:19:43 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-1313</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>pdxjjb says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-1312</link>
			<description><![CDATA[I just did some checking on T_Mica. The difference between T_Mica and T_GlassIn seems to be about 5 degrees larger than it was during calibration. From Cell#2-Master-V ers20121211.xsl x: run "Calib-H2-P1": Pin = 53.37W, TGlassIn = 130.5C, TMica = 172.8C, P = 1.34 bars. Live view, 20121213 from 10:00 to 13:00, eyeball averages: Pin = 54.02W, TGlassIn ~ 130.5C, TMica ~ 178C, P ~ 1.38 bars. I don't know what to make of this. Jeff]]></description>
			<dc:creator>pdxjjb</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Fri, 14 Dec 2012 22:14:21 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-1312</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Sanjeev says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-1311</link>
			<description><![CDATA[ Actually its indicating less than 54 W. I can't answer the question, perhaps the glassin calibration curves are already higher when they should not be. Or in the new tube, the sensor is placed a bit differently and is now measuring low. Is is possible to cross check with T_Mica ?]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Sanjeev</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Fri, 14 Dec 2012 22:12:43 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-1311</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Ecco says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-1310</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Either issues with the wire (maybe it's about to break?) or the power supply. I would try increasing power by 2-3 more watts to see what happens. If the wire fails, it was already going to, anyway.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Ecco</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Fri, 14 Dec 2012 21:46:12 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-1310</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Ryan Hunt says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-1309</link>
			<description><![CDATA[In the last few minutes the resistance of the wire has jumped around a full .1 ohm. I wonder what it is doing.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Ryan Hunt</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Fri, 14 Dec 2012 21:24:44 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-1309</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>MoreInput says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-1308</link>
			<description><![CDATA[My congratulations for this replication ! And one question: Does the excess heat mean that there is really a net energy production?]]></description>
			<dc:creator>MoreInput</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Fri, 14 Dec 2012 21:23:13 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-1308</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Gipsel says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-1307</link>
			<description><![CDATA[ One would also need to check the range invisible to the human eye. ;) Especially if H2 gets adsorbed on/in the Constantan wire, there is the potential for additional (non-thermal) radiation.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Gipsel</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Fri, 14 Dec 2012 20:24:52 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-1307</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Job001 says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-1306</link>
			<description><![CDATA[@Ged & @Klant This cell isn't designed to maximize the effect but to safely demonstrate it. The excess heat is the power of the sun. This cell requires a lot of heat to maintain temperature required to get a little excess heat. The heat release is exponential and spiky as a result of releasing a lot due to a tiny up perturbation in temperature and shuts off when temperature trends down. I understand what is occurring and could assist offline if requested.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Job001</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Fri, 14 Dec 2012 20:24:47 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-1306</guid>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
