<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
	<channel>
		<title>QuantumHeat.org</title>
		<description>Discuss QuantumHeat.org</description>
		<link>http://www.quantumheat.org</link>
		<lastBuildDate>Tue, 05 May 2026 09:54:44 +0000</lastBuildDate>
		<generator>JComments</generator>
		<atom:link href="http://www.quantumheat.org/index.php/en/component/jcomments/feed/com_content/207" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
		<item>
			<title>Dieter Seeliger says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-2311</link>
			<description><![CDATA[@Observer If you try to read this blog and the specifications of the experiment, you will find the we are not running on AC power !]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Dieter Seeliger</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Tue, 26 Feb 2013 11:46:41 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-2311</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>observer says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-2310</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Also, have you noticed there have been no ecat demos for almost 6 months since the Swedish test team revealed the problem with input power measurement? Do you think this is due to the fact they wouid have to use a true RMS meter instead of an average RMS meter to measure the input power? This also make me wonder about the tests where it was claimed they were seeing 100x or more gains. Perhaps they were just running it at a higher frequency so that much more of the input power was not being measured by the average RMS meter.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>observer</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Tue, 26 Feb 2013 11:18:39 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-2310</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>observer says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-2309</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Listen very carefully to what I say here. I've reviewed every demo of the ecat prior to Sept 2012. In every demo as far as I can tell, an average RMS meter is used to measure the input power. An average RMS meter only measures the input power around a certain frequency range where it assumes all the power lies. The Swedish national test team measured the input power using a true RMS meter which measures all the input power at all frequencies. So, they measured the true total input power which, for that particular test was 3X what the ecat team measured. Can you accept and understand that the input power for all Ecat tests was understated for possibly all ecat tests prior to Sept 2012 because only power at one frequency band and not all frequencies was measured?]]></description>
			<dc:creator>observer</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Tue, 26 Feb 2013 11:14:00 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-2309</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>observer says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-2306</link>
			<description><![CDATA[ The Swedish team used true rms input power measurements while, it's possible the ecat team used average rms measurements for the input power up to that point. I'll let you research the difference between the two.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>observer</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Mon, 25 Feb 2013 04:32:56 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-2306</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>clovis says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-2305</link>
			<description><![CDATA[clovis ray Hi, guys, Whas sup, with these Swiss folks, they just don't get it, about lenr or anything else, they pue poed, Dr. Rossi's work, and couldn't take measurements correctly, now another bunch says they cant find any excess energy, and now these guys are trying to make the old Carnot effect, deliver electricity, what next, it like a Chinese fire drill,--- lol]]></description>
			<dc:creator>clovis</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Mon, 25 Feb 2013 04:01:43 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-2305</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Rats says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-2304</link>
			<description><![CDATA[@ #107 observer So what you're basically saying is STMicroelectron ics is NOT a " professional, well funded, reputable organization" Sigh, some people are very difficult to please.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Rats</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Mon, 25 Feb 2013 02:55:24 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-2304</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Ron B says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-2303</link>
			<description><![CDATA[#106 Dieter Seeliger It's something I gleaned from listening to one of the talks about the e-cat from the man himself, and heard the term "triple nickle" for the first time. Since there's quite a bit of misinformation on the web, I phrased it as "rumor". I'm surprised that this recent experiment was run with the quality of the nickle as being "unknown". I guess everyone loves a good mystery though : )]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Ron B</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Sun, 24 Feb 2013 22:53:54 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-2303</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>observer says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-2302</link>
			<description><![CDATA[The Swedish team was a clearly well funded, thorough organization. They even received consultations and advice from prominent LENR individuals. Still, the results are always the same when LENR tests above the garage lab level are done: NULL. This has happened since 1989 when all those Universities tried to replicate P&F's experiments. There will be excuses made for this later failure. Just as there were excuses for the failure to replicate in 1989, excuses for why P&F weren't able to replicate during the 90's despite significant investment, excuses for why the Swedish team last year found a null result for the hotcat, and excuses for why this Swedish team found yet another null result. Only when a professional, well funded, reputable organization, above the garage lab level, obtains a non-Null result will LENR (if it even exists) move forward.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>observer</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Sun, 24 Feb 2013 22:05:06 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-2302</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Dieter Seeliger says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-2301</link>
			<description><![CDATA[@Ron B. "Rumors of 99,9% pure Ni" implicit that Celani`s cell with Constantan won`t work at all? Do you have any link to this "Rumors" ?]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Dieter Seeliger</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Sun, 24 Feb 2013 18:26:58 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-2301</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Ron B says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-2300</link>
			<description><![CDATA[#101 barty 2013-02-22 14:11 Thanks for the link, it was an interesting read : ) Rumor is that the nickle must be 99.9% pure for a reaction to take place. In the report that you referenced they may not have used pure nickle, matter of fact is they reported quality as "unknown". The rest of the tests used samples clearly not pure.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Ron B</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Sun, 24 Feb 2013 16:24:22 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-2300</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Ascoli65 says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-2298</link>
			<description><![CDATA[About the wire resistivity. An Italian site has recently announced (1) that Celani has found an old but very interesting paper (2) on the oxidization behavior of constantan. The experimental data show that constantan is subject to strong oxidation, and consequent large increase in resistivity, if heated over 350°C in air. On the contrary, oxidation does not take place in H2 atmosphere. This confirms that the different behavior of the constantan resistivity compared to that of Ni-Cr can be easily explained on the basis of oxidation/reduc tion of Cu contained therein, without appealing to the H2 loading/unloadi ng in the wire metal lattice. The matter had been already debate on these pages a few months ago (3). (1)	http://22passi.blogspot.it/2013/02/oxidation-behaviour-of-costantan-films.html (2)	http://www.22passi.it/downloads/TSF1995258252.pdf (3)	http://www.quantumheat.org/index.php/follow/154-help-needed-wire-temp-hypothesis]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Ascoli65</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Sat, 23 Feb 2013 19:30:23 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-2298</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>jumpjet says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-2297</link>
			<description><![CDATA[I have to ask: how much do you fellows pay attention to other developments in the field of LENR? Do you do much reading of available material? Have you checked out NASA or Brillouin Energy's contributions to the physics behind it all? Maybe that could help you in reproducing Celani's effect.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>jumpjet</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Sat, 23 Feb 2013 03:53:18 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-2297</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>barty says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-2296</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Hello together! The swedish scientists from FMV did some experiments with nickle hydrogen and released a (negative) report: http://www.lenr-forum.com/showthread.php?1183-Swedish-Defence&p=4058#post4058 Here the PDF of the report: http://www.lenrnews.eu/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/Reactions-with-nickel-and-hydrogen142972_TMP.pdf They saw no excess heat, but are open to start new experiments. Do you think you could help them? Greetings barty]]></description>
			<dc:creator>barty</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Fri, 22 Feb 2013 22:11:23 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-2296</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>David Roberson says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-2295</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Thanks guys for the hydrogen added pressure test. It looks as though the temperatures of the internal monitors does in fact go down with the added density of the conducting gas. The outer glass does not appear to be affected to a large degree, although it does show variation. In my opinion, we need to determine whether or not there is excess power by ensuring that the hydrogen density is at the same levels for each comparison. Perhaps it would be a good idea to perform a calibration at a defined pressure, or continue to use the latest one with the conditions that existed at that time. Then, we could use Ascoli's corrections on the internal heat readings to compare with my calculations on the outer glass. I am concerned that there might be additional variables which we are not able to control. We need to measure larger values of excess power to gain confidence in the system.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>David Roberson</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Fri, 22 Feb 2013 16:46:25 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-2295</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Robert Greenyer says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-2294</link>
			<description><![CDATA[@All We are preparing a lot at this time, bear with us!]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Robert Greenyer</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Thu, 21 Feb 2013 20:46:44 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-2294</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>David Roberson says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-2293</link>
			<description><![CDATA[What are your current plans regarding the testing? Would it make sense to add hydrogen to the cells to bring the pressure back up to the starting point for this latest experimental period? Of course, I always appreciate a cell power down until cold followed by a power up sequence. Could you report the status of the stainless cell and the calorimeter? Keep up the good work guys, you are doing a fine job.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>David Roberson</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Thu, 21 Feb 2013 15:53:21 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-2293</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Ascoli65 says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-2292</link>
			<description><![CDATA[@ 123star (# 94) I have already answered David in # 65. I agree with him when he says that wire heating derives from gas leakage. It is also reasonable that this fact increases the fraction of radiated heat passing through the glass without heating it, but I have not personally verified. It should be recalled that only less than half of the irradiated heat goes toward the glass, the rest reaches the mica and a large portion (ca. 10%) is collected directly by the central rod. Probably most of this last heat reaches the 2 flanges. When the cell interior heats up, this heat flow increases, so reducing the heat flow through the glass. Even if the cell is conceptually simple, there are several heat paths. The way the heat splits among them depends on many factors. Anyway, I agre with you, what happened until now can find plain explanations within the known physics, without necessarily having to assume the presence of excess heat.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Ascoli65</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Wed, 20 Feb 2013 20:19:22 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-2292</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Robert Greenyer says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-2291</link>
			<description><![CDATA[@Ron B Good data points there Can you pull out the equivalent T_Macor, T_Mica and T_Glassout temperatures for these data points. Also - remember, we hit these resistances on the way down and on the way back up. But the higher might be partly due to the elevated wire temperatures. B]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Robert Greenyer</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Wed, 20 Feb 2013 11:27:59 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-2291</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Ron B says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-2290</link>
			<description><![CDATA[At the points where we had the most excess power we had Cell 1.1 15.28 Ohm = 10W excess Cell 1.0 15.08 Ohm = 15W excess Currently Cell 1.1 15.11 = 0.45 excess Cell 1.0 14.86 = -1.8 excess Ged, You're right, to keep the pressure as constant as possible would really help us sort this thing out.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Ron B</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Wed, 20 Feb 2013 02:57:25 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-2290</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>123star says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-2289</link>
			<description><![CDATA[@Ascoli #91 By confusing I mean that we cannot conclude much: 1.1 P_xs (drift-correcte d by you) seems to swing around 0. Cell 1.0 T_glassout is dropping. Can we claim any excess heat from these premises? I don't think so. I think that the mechanism described in David Roberson post #54 may apply at least to cell 1.0, then. Does it? Thank for anyway for the clarification and for reminding me of your earlier post.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>123star</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Wed, 20 Feb 2013 02:30:55 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-2289</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Ged says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-2288</link>
			<description><![CDATA[@Robert, The P_xs is starting to climb again now that loading is finishing. Intriguing. Just gotta watch that pressure and try to keep it as stable as possible as the reaction recovers, as that is another smoking gun (non-loaded having no excess and loaded having plenty of excess).]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Ged</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Wed, 20 Feb 2013 01:31:15 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-2288</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Robert Greenyer says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-2287</link>
			<description><![CDATA[@All Both wires appear to be concluding their loading, maybe they have reached the critical values needed to see a more sustained upward trend in the next few days.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Robert Greenyer</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Wed, 20 Feb 2013 00:41:05 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-2287</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Ascoli65 says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-2286</link>
			<description><![CDATA[@ 123star (# 81) you can find the trend of the power unbalance corrected with the density in the chart I already posted in # 52. During the first week of February, it is almost costant on average. The residual oscillations, around zero, have a daily pace and therefore depend on some cause external to the cell. I do not think that the situation is unclear or confusing. Not in this case. The HUGteam is doing an excellent job, all the main variables are properly measured, collected, and made available. Their behavior can be easily explained by the usual laws of the present physics and putting into account the normal indeterminacies affecting this type of experiments.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Ascoli65</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Tue, 19 Feb 2013 21:15:39 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-2286</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Ron B says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-2284</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Arnaud, The quartz cell seems to have the red resistance has reached bottom and we see that the mica temp is now starting to increase.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Ron B</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Tue, 19 Feb 2013 14:18:15 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-2284</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Arnaud says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-2283</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Yes I see the bottom of the bowl. The loading of H2 takes time to achieve. The vacuum, even without heating the wire, has deloaded partly the wire. Once the loading is applied again, the excess heat seems to recover. Still to be confirmed. I'm curious if the other cell will have the same behavior. It's a shame that pressure decrease due to a small leakage somewhere inside the cell. This crucial variable plays tricks against us ...]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Arnaud</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Tue, 19 Feb 2013 10:29:16 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-2283</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Ron B says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-2282</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Arnaud, if you look at cell 1.1 (Macor) 02/16/2013 08:00:00 02/19/2013 01:00:00 Just looking at the Red channel resistance, again you can see that the resistance has reached the bottom of the bowl shape and the macor temp starts to increase. Very curious. I think you might be right about the wire being loaded and perhaps it's at that time the wire reaction stops being endothermic.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Ron B</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Tue, 19 Feb 2013 09:29:29 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-2282</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Arnaud says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-2281</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Something has happened on the Pyrex-Macor cell at 3am GMT (20130219). All the cell temperatures (Well, mica, glassin, glassout) have increased of a few degrees. 2 hours before, the ambient temp has slightly decreased of a few tenth of degree. The input power stay constant. There was then an excess heat generated which has been evaluated by the model to be around 1W more then before 3am GMT event. What happened to the cell around that time that we can not see from logs ? Is the wire recovering from the vacuum applied ? Arnaud]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Arnaud</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Tue, 19 Feb 2013 08:23:59 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-2281</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Ron B says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-2277</link>
			<description><![CDATA[#80 123star 2013-02-18 12:39 The computer just records the raw values, Think the values are computed or measured at the cell? 1% accuracy is 1W of power at 100W input. Bowl Shape Curious that at the bottom of the red resistance bowl (about 2 weeks after the start of the test) the excess power starts its big climb. pressure goes below 1 bar the resistance slightly increases Good question. It would be great if we could submerge the entire cell is a fish tank of DI water :) We could check for leaks and do calorimetry...]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Ron B</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Mon, 18 Feb 2013 23:45:33 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-2277</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>123star says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-2276</link>
			<description><![CDATA[@Ascoli65 It's true, for cell 1.1 P_xs was positive in the first two weeks of February. I'd like to see the same data with your density compensation adjustment applied. I agree that the situation is still quite unclear/confusi ng!]]></description>
			<dc:creator>123star</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Mon, 18 Feb 2013 21:03:36 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-2276</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>123star says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-2275</link>
			<description><![CDATA[@Ron The computer just records the raw values, P_in is just the sum of Power Red and power Blue. If there is some noise and/or unwanted little excursions it's our job to interpret/filte r/take account of them. Oh I see what you mean by bowl shape (channel resistance red, right?). Red channel is for the active wire (I checked the logs). Here we clearly see how hydrogen loading can be a slow process (days!) and that's how we get those slopes. By the way I noticed that when the pressure goes below 1 bar the resistance slightly increases (could it be due to gas contamination?) .]]></description>
			<dc:creator>123star</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Mon, 18 Feb 2013 20:39:01 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-2275</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Ron B says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-2274</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Thanks for taking the time for explaining 123Star : ) I'll get the times in there in the future. I guess the 100-200MW of power inconsistency for a short amount of time would be one thing but if that occurs over a 12 hour(for example) period of time, that seems significant. Do you have any idea if the "computer" knows about this power deviation and has accounted for it in the power-in measurements? Bowl Shape 01/14/2013 12:00:00 02/18/2013 12:07:00 Unfortunately the division for resistance calculation blows up and reports ridiculous values and that messes up the long term graphs because no Y-scaling is included in the data viewer, so I'm forced to present data sans the full length of testing.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Ron B</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Mon, 18 Feb 2013 20:09:56 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-2274</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Ascoli65 says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-2273</link>
			<description><![CDATA[@ 123star (#68), neglecting the excursions due to contingent factors, T_GlassOut grows even during MFMP test. For cell 1.1, it grows on average by a couple of K in the first week of February, after the odd excursion in late January. This increase is less than the 7 K in 3 days shown by Celani at ICCF17 (slide 33). It should however considers the differences between the cells: First, the vertical orientation increases much the convective coefficient, reducing the required dT. And makes the internal T_gas much more uniform compared to the horizontal cell. Second, the leakage rate of Celani cell was much greater. Slide 48 at ICCF17 shows that P halved in less than 5 days. The initial P was much larger, too. Third, P_in slightly decreases with increasing R at constant V. It would be useful to repeat exactly the Celani test of June 2012, with a horizontal cell, the same gas leakage rate, and the same calibration procedure.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Ascoli65</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Mon, 18 Feb 2013 19:00:59 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-2273</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Ron B says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-2268</link>
			<description><![CDATA[123Star 02/15/2013 12:00:00 to 02/17/2013 22:13:23 When I look at the times listed above, I see that the red power is not constant. ??? Should it be? Did you notice the bowl shape of the resistance? Any idea why?]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Ron B</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Mon, 18 Feb 2013 04:58:15 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-2268</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Rats says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-2264</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Aaaaargh, this is all too confusing. :-(]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Rats</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Sun, 17 Feb 2013 22:52:52 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-2264</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>123star says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-2263</link>
			<description><![CDATA[@Ascoli65 Since you agree with David Roberson comment #54, which is similar to my comment in the previous thread (#89), I'd like to ask you a question. Do you think it is possible that in the experiment made by Celani the probe happens to be an exceptionally good IR absorber so that the effect is reversed, that is the more IR radiation escapes, the more the T_glassout probe heats up? In our experiment (the MFMP one) is happening the opposite (the more IR escapes, the lower is T_glassout temperature). Here is the link to my comment in the previous thread: http://www.quantumheat.org/index.php/follow/follow-2/206-tgoc#comment-2185]]></description>
			<dc:creator>123star</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Sun, 17 Feb 2013 21:43:02 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-2263</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>David Roberson says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-2262</link>
			<description><![CDATA[I just completed a program run for the well calibrated cell FC0103 that begins at the step to the high power level. The curve fit is reasonable as before. The start sequence for the high blue power was a little rough, but did not damage the curve significantly. The end result is that a power input equivalent of 101.4 watts is calculated. The actual pin was 101.7 watts, so it looks like we are low by .3 watts. I suspect that the density variation is in play for a reading that is below the input, but that needs to be proven. My time domain program seems to like being conservative but I wish it were showing lots of excess power. I do notice that the noise reading about the average are quite visible which may be showing some activity that is positive and then negative, but this may just be excess noise.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>David Roberson</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Sun, 17 Feb 2013 01:52:55 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-2262</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Arnaud says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-2259</link>
			<description><![CDATA[@123star: In Austin and ICCF 17, Celani had also a decrease of pressure due to leakage.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Arnaud</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Sat, 16 Feb 2013 21:24:35 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-2259</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>123star says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-2258</link>
			<description><![CDATA[@David Roberson Ok, I understand that the strategy now is now to wait for the new calorimeter. Should that fail too, wouldn't it be really interesting to know why we didn't get the same results as Celani's, and to pinpoint the exact flaw of this experiment (if there is one, and since our results are quite discordant with Celani's ones it is likely that there is a flaw somewhere)?]]></description>
			<dc:creator>123star</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Sat, 16 Feb 2013 20:08:25 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-2258</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>123star says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-2257</link>
			<description><![CDATA[@Edwin Pell #60 The MFMP team did an estimation of the power loss through the cell. See http://www.quantumheat.org/index.php/follow/follow-2/104-energy-density-calculations. A problem is, I think they only considered the whole cell as radiating, so they put "Cell temperature" on the x axis. Actually is the wire that radiates most IR direct radiation, because it is the hottest part. The IR radiation scattered by gas is negligible. So I modified the graph and put "wire temperature" instead of "cell temperature" and extended it with a pair of data points to 900 K. Here is the modified graph: http://img22.imageshack.us/img22/5181/powerloss.jpg http://img22.imageshack.us/img22/5181/powerloss.jpg]]></description>
			<dc:creator>123star</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Sat, 16 Feb 2013 19:57:54 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-2257</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Edwin Pell says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-2256</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Are the calibration curve filed here online? If so, where do I find them? If not, could you add them? Thanks.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Edwin Pell</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Sat, 16 Feb 2013 17:40:13 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-2256</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Edwin Pell says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-2255</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Is the clear glass you are using also clear in the IR? If so the IR escapes without impacting the outer glass temperature. Which is OK IF you have a calibration curve with the same density distribution as the experimental data point. Same inner temp, same outer temp, same pressure, same convective flow. Otherwise it is not clear what is happening. Might be interesting to paint the outer glass black? Might be interesting to force mix the gas, maybe with a magnetic stir slider inside.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Edwin Pell</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Sat, 16 Feb 2013 17:36:33 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-2255</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Edwin Pell says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-2254</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Ascoli65, I take your point that it is density that counts and that density is a function of pressure, temperature, and number of H atoms. I will assume the volume is constant. So, density can vary radially even at a constant pressure if temperature varies radially. Density can vary point by point with convective flow.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Edwin Pell</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Sat, 16 Feb 2013 17:31:00 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-2254</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Ron B says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-2250</link>
			<description><![CDATA[@All, Pressure, temperature and active wire resistance all vary with each other. I'm not sure if the pressure can affect the diameter of the wire and therefore it's surface area but that might account for some of the dynamics of the cell. At some point it might be interesting to vary the pressure at low temperatures and see the effect on the wire resistance.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Ron B</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Sat, 16 Feb 2013 10:53:36 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-2250</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Ged says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-2247</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Hm, seems we're at negative excess after the vacuuming. The core temp is pretty low too, so that might be part of it. Hopefully the wires didn't de-gas(?), but I have a feeling its more a critical temperature issue now. This will require a lot more watching... perhaps once the blue channel goes on... This supports the excess power we've been seeing previously (and at 1.5 bar), but raises reliability concerns if the reactors are now no longer functioning for an unknown reason.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Ged</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Fri, 15 Feb 2013 22:55:39 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-2247</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Ryan Hunt says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-2245</link>
			<description><![CDATA[@David Roberson - That is really interesting considering we were just sitting here trying to figure out why it appears that both cells leveled off notably below our calibration. Any idea how to reconcile the different approaches? And now, it seems to show a little rise in all the cell temperatures above where they had settled.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Ryan Hunt</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Fri, 15 Feb 2013 20:43:51 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-2245</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Malachi Heder says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-2243</link>
			<description><![CDATA[@ Ron B Would 105.3 Watts for cell 1.0 and 103.4 Watts for cell 1.1 be good? I was looking back at our calibrations and these were the averaged values that we used for our calibration curves. We would achieve this be subtracting from the blue channel.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Malachi Heder</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Fri, 15 Feb 2013 18:07:44 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-2243</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Andreas Van Rooijen says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-2241</link>
			<description><![CDATA[@Robert, yes it does.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Andreas Van Rooijen</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Fri, 15 Feb 2013 13:29:46 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-2241</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Robert Greenyer says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-2240</link>
			<description><![CDATA[@Andreas Van Rooijen The Steel Cell and AFC in the US have been undergoing preliminary calibration testing - given the long time constant (several hours), the calibrations will take a fair time to do, even if there are no snags. The Current US cells are undergoing a lengthy "shutdown" set of experiments, piling up data to address many of the doubts that people have had in recent weeks. This is looking very interesting. The US dual V1.3 cells are ready, waiting to be hooked up, the EU equivalent one arrived Wednesday along with the mod kit for the original EU cell to Mathieu. The Original EU cell is in transit to Mathieu in France by swiss post and is expected today. These four cells are awaiting 4 pieces of the same batch of Celani 400+ layer wire which he has committed to deliver. In the mean-time we are looking at acquiring the Heatflux/Type K thermocouple sensors to remove further questions as per my previous comment. We have to be incontrovertibl e, with advancements like this and the Celani V2 protocol, this simple experiment, if everyone can agree does what it should do, will be nice and affordable for a global science effort. There will still be those that question the type of calorimeter until the wire has been proven to show debate-proof results in a well designed Mass Flow Calorimeter, that which has been demanded by leading scientists since early on. Once proven in this apparatus, people will more readily accept the results from other apparatus - and the Celani cell is easier to do further exploration with. The Quartz and Steel hybrid cells, which are intended to satisfy this demand are under construction, expect an update on their progress this week. All the parts are there. What will be needed is the construction of the calorimeter and currently this falls on Mathieu's doorstep (who is very capable and willing). However, Mathieu has just moved house and will be running the EU dual V1.3 cells under the new Celani protocol first. So, these cells will be tested later, unless some nice, respectable institution can come forward with the equipment and resources to accelerate this - or the Kickstarter is a resounding success and we can pull in more resources ourselves. As for the powder cell research programme, this is just $30 away from initiation. We will launch a mini-project and try and crowd source all of the best knowledge out there to accelerate the learning curve in a similar manner to that which has occurred with the Celani cell replication. We believe the crowd has shown such great team spirit and the quality engagement is only improving. We don't want to waste our time - if people have insight or knowledge, let's share it, this is for everyone. I hope this answers your question.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Robert Greenyer</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Fri, 15 Feb 2013 11:05:38 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-2240</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Andreas Van Rooijen says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-2239</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Robert, Can you tell me when all of these cells will be operational?]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Andreas Van Rooijen</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Fri, 15 Feb 2013 07:43:24 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-2239</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Robert Greenyer says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-2238</link>
			<description><![CDATA[@ALL The active and control cell is planned and detailed in the "Genius of Celani" thread. In the US there will be active and control identical cells in same environement running V2 protocol There will also in the US be the Steel cell in AFC + a foil wrapped earlier cell also running V2. In the EU there will be active and control identical cells in same environement running V2 protocol There will also be in the EU the hybrid quartz/steel cell running in a highly accurate fluid based calorimeter. We may add these sensors to the cells (based on a tip off from the site member "bobicanprogram ' in the forum). http://www.rdfcorp.com/products/hflux/hfs-a_01.shtml http://www.rdfcorp.com/products/hflux/hfs-a_02.shtml http://www.rdfcorp.com/products/hflux/hfs-a_03.shtml They would appear to resolve many outstanding issues with previous cell wall energy assessment such as - internal Thermocouple failure and positional issues - Convection, conduction and IR debates - heat distribution on glass - thermal gradient loss to air and contact and positional issues of the outside - calibration questions B]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Robert Greenyer</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Fri, 15 Feb 2013 05:43:55 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-2238</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Ged says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-2237</link>
			<description><![CDATA[@Edwin Pell From what I understand, both cells are in experimental runs right now, and the control runs were already done in them a long time ago. But you bring up a good point; it would be excellent to have two cells side by side, one being control and one experimental at the exact same moment. It's a powerful visual that can be directly watched by people. Can't be done with these two cells because they are different materials (different core and different glass) so there is no way to isolate the variables.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Ged</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Fri, 15 Feb 2013 03:47:52 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-2237</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Edwin Pell says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-2236</link>
			<description><![CDATA[If I use the idea of looking at the delta between the two cells I see 114W and 115W slightly before 2/11. So a delta of 1W out of 114W, 0.88% excess power. With a pressure difference between the two cell of 0.80 versus 0.81, a delta of 0.01 or 1.25%. If we use a 0.67 power for turbulent convection that pressure delta translates into a power delta of 0.82% that leaves us with 0.06% for LENR. GED you are right having both cells really pins things down.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Edwin Pell</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Fri, 15 Feb 2013 01:13:54 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-2236</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Chuck says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-2235</link>
			<description><![CDATA[To be perfectly frank, I just don't know. With really good calorimetry, the results might be more compelling. How about a bunch of wires, and really good calorimetry? Remember that it was calorimetry that impugned the original P&F experiment. We have to be careful not to tread in those footsteps.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Chuck</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Fri, 15 Feb 2013 00:58:29 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-2235</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Ged says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-2234</link>
			<description><![CDATA[@David, Thanks for your continued analysis! Your model seems quite conservative, which makes the results all the more significant. Glad it appears to be working out now too.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Ged</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Thu, 14 Feb 2013 23:22:54 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-2234</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Ged says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-2233</link>
			<description><![CDATA[5 W excess in cell 1.0 at 1.5 bar pressure is certainly looking to be setting records.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Ged</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Thu, 14 Feb 2013 23:21:51 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-2233</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>David Roberson says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-2232</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Program results for step at 2/14/2013 @17:10. This was a full power step that started at 0 input power and ended at 105 watts. I ran the results for cell FC0103 since that cell has calibration values that I trust and the monitor was not adjusted after the factors obtained. I have interesting result to report: Initially the power was calculated to be 102.5 watts which is -1.9 watts low. This rose steadily to 103.5 watts until a small input boost was seen at approximately 10000 seconds after the step began. The boost was ~.6 watts. The boost seems to have initiated a large rise in output power to 106 watts which is approximately 1 watt above the drive level. The power output appears to be stable at +1.0 watt for the remainder of my program run. The variation in power about the average is moderate during the run. We may be seeing a small amount of excess power according to my process.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>David Roberson</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Thu, 14 Feb 2013 23:07:55 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-2232</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Ascoli65 says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-2231</link>
			<description><![CDATA[@ HuGTeam, I just saw that you have increased at 1.39 bar the pressure in the cell 1.1. This is a good idea in order evaluate the effect of the gas on T_Macor, and on P_out. However, it should be noted that in order to restore the same density at the beginning of the last transition, that began on January 25, it is necessary to further raise the pressure. In fact before starting the red power (at 0:10), the pressure was 0.94 bar and the T_GlassIn, which is supposed to give a good estimate of the average value of T_gas, was equal to 23 °C (296 K), then the molar density was 3.18 mbar/K. But, at the time of the last refilling, T_GlassIn was 208 °C (481 K). So, in order to restore the same amount of gas, and hence the same density, in the cell, it was necessary to rise the pressure inside the cell to the value of: 3.18/1000*481 = 1.53 bar. Be aware, thermal convection depends on density, not on pressure!]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Ascoli65</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Thu, 14 Feb 2013 22:01:07 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-2231</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Ged says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-2229</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Am I right in seeing a near 15 W excess in cell 1.0 and a near 10 W excess in cell 1.1? This is after the cool downs and restarts? Is the analysis calculation for the viewer valid at these pressures here, or should we wait for a bigger write up and analysis? That's a huge excess.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Ged</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Wed, 13 Feb 2013 22:29:29 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-2229</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Malachi Heder says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-2228</link>
			<description><![CDATA[@ Dieter In the 5 min cool down I just did, I can see that the resistance spike in cell 1.1 is still there. I did however think about how I switched off the red channel. Instead of setting the voltage to zero I just turned off the red channel physically, this is most likely what caused the artifact that we can see. I am going to do another cool down, but this time I will be setting the voltage to zero using the control software.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Malachi Heder</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Wed, 13 Feb 2013 17:54:49 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-2228</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Dieter Seeliger says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-2227</link>
			<description><![CDATA[@Malachi, yes, now both cells seem to react in the same manner. Must be an artifact from the power off cycle yesterday...]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Dieter Seeliger</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Wed, 13 Feb 2013 16:57:33 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-2227</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Malachi Heder says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-2226</link>
			<description><![CDATA[@ #26 Dieter I fixed a loose connection yesterday in the cell 1.1 power supply. This may have caused the near 1 ohm spike in resistance yesterday during the 5 minute cool off. I will propose another 5 minute cool off today after the cell is fully heated in and hour or two. Then we can determine where it is coming from as it looks like an artifact to us.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Malachi Heder</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Wed, 13 Feb 2013 14:58:54 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-2226</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Ged says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-2224</link>
			<description><![CDATA[@Edwin Pell, They aren't doing absolute values, they are doing comparative values between the experimental and the control runs. Whatever the breakdown of heat transfer is as pressure drops, that behavior should be the same for the control as it is the experimental. Only difference is the presence of an active Celani wire. Controls are vitally powerful things; part of the foundation of science. Whatever we hypothesizes must explain the differences between control and experimental.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Ged</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Wed, 13 Feb 2013 05:13:22 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-2224</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Dieter Seeliger says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-2223</link>
			<description><![CDATA[@Alan, Yes, the Siena presentation, I read this several times but missed this topic :-( Thank you for the reference. @0800peter thank you for the link, this should work for me !]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Dieter Seeliger</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Wed, 13 Feb 2013 05:11:02 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-2223</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Edwin Pell says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-2222</link>
			<description><![CDATA[If laminar and about half the heat transfer is convective or if turbulent and about one third the heat transfer is convective the data is explained without any special heat generation. Using the data from cell 1.0 Do we know anything about the breakdown between conduction, convection and radiation?]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Edwin Pell</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Wed, 13 Feb 2013 01:16:24 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-2222</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>AlanG says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-2221</link>
			<description><![CDATA[@ Dieter From a report by Celani and others April 2012, posted at http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/CelaniFexperiment.pdf 4) The effect of resistance decrease due to H2 absorption was reported also by Szafranski in his paper (ref. 3, H. J. Bauer and F.E. Wagner, 2004) and happened only after large H2 absorption while, for low H2 absorption, was measured a slightly increase of resistance. Exactly the same effect was observed in our sample. and g) Another phenomena that we observed, after 5 months of experiments, is the apparent NTC (Negative Temperature Coefficient of the resistivity) behaviour of nano-structured alloy, after interaction with hydrogenated compounds. Anyway, a new experimental set-up, as simple as possible, is needed to study such unexpected/inte resting effect and rule-out any uncontrolled interference.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>AlanG</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Wed, 13 Feb 2013 00:52:00 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-2221</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>0800peter says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-2220</link>
			<description><![CDATA[.. Could you please add these two curves here for a public discussion, as I cannot do this in the comment section. Thanks Dieter Dieter, sceenshot and share via 666kb.com hoster e.g.like http://666kb.com/i/cbihzge6t88m1iheb.jpg me showing you this example, if you can see it all can http://666kb.com/i/cbihzge6t88m1iheb.jpg]]></description>
			<dc:creator>0800peter</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Tue, 12 Feb 2013 22:34:16 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-2220</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Dieter Seeliger says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-2219</link>
			<description><![CDATA[@Malachi What if the ongoing reaction in the active wire emmits a current right after the heating current was dropped to near zero? And the sign of the current is oposite in the two cells? Could you add a current measurement without residual current into your plan to clarify this? The measurement should also be isolated from the blue channel. The shape of the curves reminds me of something like a deloading capacitor....]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Dieter Seeliger</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Tue, 12 Feb 2013 20:55:38 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-2219</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Dieter Seeliger says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-2217</link>
			<description><![CDATA[@MFMP Team If you shut down the power to the red channel, is there a small current left eg. 1mA to calculate the resistence ? I`m curious about the shape and the sign of the resistance curve which are very different in cell 1.0 and 1.1. Could you please add these two curves here for a public discussion, as I cannot do this in the comment section. Thanks Dieter]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Dieter Seeliger</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Tue, 12 Feb 2013 20:40:44 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-2217</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Ron B says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-2216</link>
			<description><![CDATA[What's the logic in waiting so long (at least a day) after the power cycle. Wouldn't it most likely be obvious within a couple hours what the effect was? Is? I don't have a problem with waiting, was just curious.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Ron B</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Tue, 12 Feb 2013 20:21:04 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-2216</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Ascoli65 says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-2214</link>
			<description><![CDATA[@Edwin (# 9), You are right in saying that thermal conductivity (k) does not vary much with pressure. But k is only one of the parameters that determines h. In our case, the greatest influence depends on ro. @AlanG (#97 of previous post), In my opinion, the value of k does non vary with the (mass) specific heat.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Ascoli65</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Tue, 12 Feb 2013 18:56:30 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-2214</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>AlanG says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-2212</link>
			<description><![CDATA[@Ryan Hunt Your suggestion of copper migration to the glass seems possible. Copper vapor deposition is increasingly used in chip fabrication, with hydrogen as a "carrier gas" in one description I saw. Wikipedia adds this: "Copper monohydride is an unstable gas and is the lightest group 11 monohydride. It can be made by addition of hydrogen to laser abblated copper. Cu(g) + H2(g) ↔ CuH(g) + H(g) " I can't find any references for IR reflectivity of very thin coatings and the calculation looks daunting. Too bad the Chavascience model doesn't include IR radiated through the glass. Clearing and recharging to 1 bar equiv. will be a good test. If the cells return to previous start-up conditions there's probably no copper on the glass.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>AlanG</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Tue, 12 Feb 2013 18:05:14 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-2212</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Robert Greenyer says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-2211</link>
			<description><![CDATA[@Dieter Seeliger I was thinking just that Very curious.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Robert Greenyer</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Tue, 12 Feb 2013 17:39:57 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-2211</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Dieter Seeliger says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-2210</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Why is the resistance curve so different ??? Any idea ?]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Dieter Seeliger</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Tue, 12 Feb 2013 17:22:02 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-2210</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Robert Greenyer says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-2209</link>
			<description><![CDATA[@All OMG - it's so exciting! Keep your eyes peeled peoples!]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Robert Greenyer</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Tue, 12 Feb 2013 16:58:52 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-2209</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Ryan Hunt says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-2208</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Is there a possibility copper atoms are depositing on the inside of the glass, even at these relatively low temperatures? If the glass had a tiny amount of metal on the inside, would that make it more IR reflective, thus explaining the higher inside temperatures? How much copper would it take to throw off the internal temperatures by 10%? Anyone have time to research this?]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Ryan Hunt</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Tue, 12 Feb 2013 16:52:16 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-2208</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>David Roberson says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-2207</link>
			<description><![CDATA[The pressure curve has an interesting shape during the power down test. It appears to be composed of two separate functions. One is a very fast acting edge which I suspect is associated with the gas in close thermal contact to the hot wire. This falls much faster than the second portion of the response which is more likely a measurement of the average temperature variation of the gas. Good plan guys.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>David Roberson</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Tue, 12 Feb 2013 16:44:41 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-2207</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Malachi Heder says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-2206</link>
			<description><![CDATA[@ Ron B Yes, both will be given the same treatment.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Malachi Heder</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Tue, 12 Feb 2013 16:38:59 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-2206</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Ron B says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-2205</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Good plan Ryan! Do you plan on doing this to both cells at the same time?]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Ron B</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Tue, 12 Feb 2013 16:18:30 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-2205</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Ron B says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-2203</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Ed, Does this data take into account heat transfer by convection? I just wonder if that wild ride that the t-glass out sensor is seeing is just convection currents moving heat around inside the glass container.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Ron B</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Tue, 12 Feb 2013 07:23:07 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-2203</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Edwin Pell says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-2202</link>
			<description><![CDATA[You need a calibration curve at one input power. That is temperature versus pressure. It should clearly show if pressure is important. From Handbook of Applied Thermal Design By Eric C. Guyer, David L. Brownell on Google books. we have "For gas pressures between 0.001 and 10 atm thermal conductivity increases by about 1 percent per atmosphere" I am surprised. Maybe it does not make much difference.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Edwin Pell</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Tue, 12 Feb 2013 02:25:39 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-2202</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Edwin Pell says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-2201</link>
			<description><![CDATA[don't forget to put an oil trap between the bubbler and the experiment]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Edwin Pell</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Tue, 12 Feb 2013 02:15:35 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-2201</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Edwin Pell says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-2200</link>
			<description><![CDATA[If pressure makes a difference you could run at room pressure with a bellows attached. If the internal gas volume increases the bellows expands and the internal pressure remains constant. Well follows air pressure as it moves with weather. The weather +-5%, the experiments data 40% delta. I also worry about incoming air making an explosive mixture. The way around this is to run at a positive pressure with respect to the room. Not much 1.001 times room pressure. You put on a bubbler at the output and set the input flow to give one bubble per hour. Ed Pell]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Edwin Pell</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Tue, 12 Feb 2013 02:14:03 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-2200</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Dieter Seeliger says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-2199</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Along this discussion about hydrogen pressure sensors my coulleague told me also, that most standard sensors will give bad measurements as the room behind the steel membrane in a standard pressure sensor is filled with oil. If hydrogen leeks through the mebrane into this oil, a backpressure is slowly build up, which gives you bad readings. I don`t know, if your sensors are built in the same way, but I would recommend to talk to the manufacturers support team to clarify this issue. So the slow pressure drop in the cells could also be an artefact of the pressure sensor !]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Dieter Seeliger</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Tue, 12 Feb 2013 01:59:15 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-2199</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>AlanG says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-2196</link>
			<description><![CDATA[I've put some notes about the hydrogen leakage on my web site: http://magicsound.us/MFMP/hydrogen_permeation_through_glass.rtf Of particular relevance is a study showing increased permeation through metal- doped glass when exposed to IR. The glass used for future cells should be completely free of metallic ions if possible. Many of the Schott products do not meet this requirement.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>AlanG</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Tue, 12 Feb 2013 00:45:34 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-2196</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Rats says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-2195</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Guys, I think the only conclusion we can draw from all of this is the measurement methods used to date are inadequate to make any conclusions. How much money would you need to set up a proper experiment using mass calorimetry?]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Rats</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Mon, 11 Feb 2013 23:23:04 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-2195</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>David Roberson says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-2194</link>
			<description><![CDATA[A cool down and restart procedure will be interesting. This should be followed up with a reload of hydrogen to the value that was operational at the conclusion of the latest calibration run. A new start up run with the higher pressure would be convincing. I think that each gas behaves according to its own diffusion coefficient when a membrane is encountered. The hydrogen leaks out since there is very little concentration outside the glass envelop and the oxygen and nitrogen tend to go the other way for the same reason. Avoid Dr. Bob at all costs!]]></description>
			<dc:creator>David Roberson</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Mon, 11 Feb 2013 22:44:42 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-2194</guid>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
