<?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 08:54:55 +0000</lastBuildDate>
		<generator>JComments</generator>
		<atom:link href="http://www.quantumheat.org/index.php/en/component/jcomments/feed/com_content/285" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
		<item>
			<title>Ecco says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-3365</link>
			<description><![CDATA[The resistance of the active wire on US cell A appears to be decreasing, however most of this might be accounted by the internal pressure decrease due to the leaking problem this cell is having.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Ecco</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Sun, 23 Jun 2013 16:29:51 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-3365</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Robert Greenyer says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-3363</link>
			<description><![CDATA[@Edwin Pell It was correct on the document rather than the table. We think we might however start with passive heating and then move to active heating as this is the most cautious approach. The thing about passive heating in the V2.0 Protocol, it will really just be IR as due to the dynamic vacuum there will be no convective heating. It will be interesting to see if we see anything in this mode. Fortunately, we anticipated this during internal discussions and hence the calibrations for both passive and active wire cell performance.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Robert Greenyer</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Sun, 23 Jun 2013 13:57:58 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-3363</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Edwin Pell says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-3356</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Step 8 of the protocol says apply power to the NiCr wire. Should is say the NiCu wire?]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Edwin Pell</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Sun, 23 Jun 2013 02:45:20 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-3356</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Ecco says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-3346</link>
			<description><![CDATA[@Robert Greenyer: how was R0 measured? With a 250mW measuring current under pressurized hydrogen atmosphere before loading started, R0 on the active wire in EU Cell A was ~18.45 Ohm. I think this value is more comparable to current conditions.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Ecco</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Sat, 22 Jun 2013 17:20:43 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-3346</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Robert Greenyer says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-3344</link>
			<description><![CDATA[NOTE: the wire characteristics including R0 (initial resistance value at room temp is on the second tab sheet) for those that missed it]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Robert Greenyer</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Sat, 22 Jun 2013 17:04:18 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-3344</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Ecco says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-3329</link>
			<description><![CDATA[If I remember correctly the bump in pressure after the first power cycle in the graph was due to input power being manually shortly disabled before being bumped up to 35W.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Ecco</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Sat, 22 Jun 2013 08:48:14 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-3329</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Ecco says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-3327</link>
			<description><![CDATA[I meant total absorbed hydrogen and I was referring to the second power cycle in the graph without H2 flushing.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Ecco</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Sat, 22 Jun 2013 02:48:08 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-3327</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Ryan Hunt says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-3325</link>
			<description><![CDATA[One in in temperature and one is translated to equivalent uncertainty in watts.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Ryan Hunt</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Fri, 21 Jun 2013 21:59:20 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-3325</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Edwin Pell says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-3324</link>
			<description><![CDATA[You have two columns under CI 95% which is the +side and which is the -side?]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Edwin Pell</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Fri, 21 Jun 2013 21:56:10 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-3324</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Edwin Pell says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-3311</link>
			<description><![CDATA[I hope you stick with the protocol and do not apply power to the active wire for loading. Sure it is interesting but finishing a complete experiment first is also interesting.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Edwin Pell</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Fri, 21 Jun 2013 02:48:18 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-3311</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Ecco says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-3308</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Active wire resistance on the EU Cell A, after a short pause due to the temporary input power removal, resumed from almost the exact value it reached before power was removed. This is the "memory effect" Celani also talked about in 2012. I don't think that cycling power on and off alone is going to help much active wire loading, though.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Ecco</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Fri, 21 Jun 2013 00:54:57 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-3308</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Ecco says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-3307</link>
			<description><![CDATA[It appears that off-load active wire resistance on EU Cell A is significantly lower than pre-hydrogen flushing conditions. About 14.5 Ohm vs 15.1 Ohm.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Ecco</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Fri, 21 Jun 2013 00:03:30 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-3307</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Ryan Hunt says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-3301</link>
			<description><![CDATA[We will let it cycle a few times and then flush the hydrogen, I think. That way Matt can get some sleep.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Ryan Hunt</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Thu, 20 Jun 2013 21:25:46 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-3301</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Ecco says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-3298</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Then it might an idea to add like 10W to the passive wire and 10W to the active wire to check if resistance decreases further/quicker with the higher temperature and some power to the active wire, but I guess you don't want to potentially screw up this experiment as you want safe results for ICCF18. By the way, if I understand correctly, you are going to flush and refill hydrogen again next time the cell will be temporarily powered off, right? (that would be in about 2 hours, I think).]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Ecco</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Thu, 20 Jun 2013 21:11:51 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-3298</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Mathieu Valat says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-3297</link>
			<description><![CDATA[A lot of the wire resistance variations are related to increase/decrea se in temperature, themselves due to gaz pressure variations. I don't say it is the case here, but there is something to checkout first.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Mathieu Valat</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Thu, 20 Jun 2013 20:31:31 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-3297</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Ecco says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-3296</link>
			<description><![CDATA[For the EU cell, it appears that a second threshold for an additional active wire resistance decrease got triggered when T_Mica reached about 185C. It would be interesting to see if by flushing the cell by applying mild vacuum and then refilling it with hydrogen again the same happens (at a higher temperature?). Probably just removing power as planned isn't enough for this to happen. A higher pressure for the inital loading(s) would have been interesting to check out too, but that probably goes outside the scope of this experiment.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Ecco</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Thu, 20 Jun 2013 18:38:06 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-3296</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Ryan Hunt says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-3295</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Really interesting at 16:50:53, isn't it. It might be that is when the connection between the A cell and B cell were opened under vacuum. Maybe It is interesting and will have to be studied. Maybe a small amount of oxygen or nitrogen got in and affected the surface of the wire.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Ryan Hunt</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Thu, 20 Jun 2013 17:06:10 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-3295</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Ecco says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-3294</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Related to the EU experiment: for some reason active wire resistance in Cell A started increasing just before hydrogen was injected again. Was it starting to get deloaded due to the vacuum? I doubt it, but if it was, this would put the planned experimental protocol in jeopardy.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Ecco</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Thu, 20 Jun 2013 16:59:00 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-3294</guid>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
