<?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 09:04:11 +0000</lastBuildDate>
		<generator>JComments</generator>
		<atom:link href="http://www.quantumheat.org/index.php/en/component/jcomments/feed/com_content/286" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
		<item>
			<title>Ecco says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-3448</link>
			<description><![CDATA[The T_Amb sensor didn't seem to show such pattern, however.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Ecco</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Wed, 26 Jun 2013 15:21:20 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-3448</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Ryan Hunt says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-3446</link>
			<description><![CDATA[@ecco - I believe that would be real room ambient cycling causing that signature. The CTC ambient is in the open air in the same room and would be a good source to refer to. Our air conditioning has not proved effective enough.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Ryan Hunt</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Wed, 26 Jun 2013 15:20:02 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-3446</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Ecco says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-3443</link>
			<description><![CDATA[US Cell A http://i.imgur.com/WEso0m2.png http://i.imgur.com/WEso0m2.png US Cell B http://i.imgur.com/SluQEAD.png http://i.imgur.com/SluQEAD.png Whatever it's causing this, it's affecting US Cell A slightly more than US cell B.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Ecco</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Wed, 26 Jun 2013 15:07:28 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-3443</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Ecco says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-3395</link>
			<description><![CDATA[After the 45W step is done (in about 15 minutes as of writing), cool, measure cold active wire resistance, then 50W passive heating? Seeing how the more heat is applied, the more loading rate appears to increase, it would be very tempting to do so. http://i.imgur.com/FuRBjXA.png http://i.imgur.com/FuRBjXA.png]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Ecco</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Mon, 24 Jun 2013 21:45:26 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-3395</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Ecco says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-3393</link>
			<description><![CDATA[If what I've written above is true, it implies that we want really hot hydrogen inside the cell. Therefore, by taking this concept further, ionized hydrogen. Also, we want the ionized H2 to come in contact as much as possible with the active wire. Does this ring any bell? It does to me! BTW: US Cell A with 44W of heating power is currently behaving as I previously written. 45W will improve loading further.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Ecco</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Mon, 24 Jun 2013 20:58:29 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-3393</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Ecco says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-3379</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Another explanation could be that when you increased power to 45W, the active wire immediately received irradiated heat from the passive wire, which caused an immediate increase of its resistance as a result, maybe improving hydrogen loading marginally. Then, as time passed, hydrogen started getting heated too, which improved absorption in the active wire noticeably. If this makes sense to you, perhaps it would be useful to heat the hydrogen atmosphere more efficiently rather than the wire itself, for example by keeping the gas actively moving around inside the cell. Things could get really interesting. Just a hunch.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Ecco</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Mon, 24 Jun 2013 18:49:06 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-3379</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Ryan Hunt says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-3376</link>
			<description><![CDATA[@ Ecco - in previous temperature stepping we have seen that there are optimal temperatures for causing the resistance drop. When we went too high, the resistance increased.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Ryan Hunt</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Mon, 24 Jun 2013 18:15:47 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-3376</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Ryan Hunt says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-3374</link>
			<description><![CDATA[@ Ed - it sure seems to be improving the slope. We are upping the power by 1 watt every 45 minutes up to 45 W to see where it likes to decrease resistance best. My hypothesis is that our wire might need higher temps to achieve the large resistance drop that Mathieu saw on his.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Ryan Hunt</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Mon, 24 Jun 2013 17:55:37 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-3374</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Edwin Pell says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-3373</link>
			<description><![CDATA[It will be very interesting to see if the 10 degree increase in temp improves the loading rate. I especially want to see the power off resistance. It seems each time the temp is increases it activates more of the impurities and increases the resistance which is fine and expected, but it makes it hard to see what effect the loading is having. The off state should tell us.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Edwin Pell</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Mon, 24 Jun 2013 17:44:35 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-3373</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Robert Greenyer says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-3362</link>
			<description><![CDATA[@Sanjeev Yes the gas leak is quite obvious. @Edwin Good question, but it does point to the importance of having multiple experiments. @Maxwell61 The passing of Sergio Focardi saddens us greatly, his contribution will never be forgotten and hopefully we can all here play a role in realising the potential of the technology he helped advance.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Robert Greenyer</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Sun, 23 Jun 2013 13:23:41 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-3362</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Edwin Pell says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-3354</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Why is the U.S. cell loading total different than the E.U. cell?]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Edwin Pell</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Sat, 22 Jun 2013 20:35:17 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-3354</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Maxwell61 says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-3335</link>
			<description><![CDATA[OT: Segio Focardi died this morning, on a terminal illness. R.I.P.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Maxwell61</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Sat, 22 Jun 2013 11:40:44 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-3335</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Ecco says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-3321</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Something strange definitely happened: http://i.imgur.com/UNymp2s.png http://i.imgur.com/UNymp2s.png Was a global offset applied or did temperatures and pressure actually suddently increase for some reason?]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Ecco</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Fri, 21 Jun 2013 17:31:15 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-3321</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Ecco says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-3320</link>
			<description><![CDATA[@Ryan Hunt Please review US Cell A data from 14:20 UTC to about 15:00 UTC. Even if the wires didn't see almost 1 kW of total input power as indicated by the data, some sort of actual power spike might have actually happened, seeing how temperature and pressure readings behaved after that. I doubt that was only due to an instrumental artifact.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Ecco</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Fri, 21 Jun 2013 17:18:54 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-3320</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Ryan Hunt says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-3319</link>
			<description><![CDATA[When the power meter loses a ground reference, all bets are off on the power reading. On the CuNi wire, the amps and volts went negative, which mathematically worked out to a positive power, but was not possible with the DC power supply. The NiCr wire probably did increase in power as the power control algorithm saw low numbers and cranked it up. Both the DC power supplies are hardware power limited, now (after burning out the last wire from a control glitch like this) to between 35 and 40 W, so there is highly unlikely that the wires saw more than they can handle. Aren't experiments fun?]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Ryan Hunt</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Fri, 21 Jun 2013 17:10:49 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-3319</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Ecco says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-3318</link>
			<description><![CDATA[If it was just an instrumentation artifact, how did that also cause a natural-looking increase in cell temperatures and gas pressure? BTW: currently active wire power is again below 250 mW ... 63 mW which is probably causing irregular looking resistance readings.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Ecco</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Fri, 21 Jun 2013 16:53:46 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-3318</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Ryan Hunt says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-3317</link>
			<description><![CDATA[That was when the ground wire on the sensor was coming disconnected when we moved the power supply unit a little bit. That was just an instrumentation artifact and not an actual power spike, luckily.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Ryan Hunt</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Fri, 21 Jun 2013 16:51:39 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-3317</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Ecco says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-3316</link>
			<description><![CDATA[I see that a powerful short input power spike at 14:25 UTC on both the active and the passive wires increased US Cell A temperatures significantly. Shortly before that, active wire resistance started increasing weirdly, together with temperatures and pressure and seemingly without external input. Is the active wire ok? What happened? Did both wires short circuit?]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Ecco</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Fri, 21 Jun 2013 16:41:36 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-3316</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Ecco says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-3306</link>
			<description><![CDATA[The way active wire resistance on US Cell A is decreasing surely is strange. Maybe there are contaminants in the cell?]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Ecco</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Thu, 20 Jun 2013 22:56:02 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-3306</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Ecco says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-3304</link>
			<description><![CDATA[It looks like 250mW applied to the active wire not only improved resistance readings but also started to get things moving. See how T_Mica temperature immediately started increasing. It would have been interesting to check out if that would have been enough to trigger the "Celani wire" loading effect. Currently it does seem the cell is producing more heat than what the additional 2W to the initial 30W input of the heater wire would suggest. This could be a transitory chemical effect though. > The power out measurement is NOT to be believed because we are in H2 instead of a vacuum where the calibrations were done. Wouldn't a lower pressure increasee output power since less heat is being convected to the glass tube where the thermocouple used for calculations is located? Or does the opposite happen under vacuum?]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Ecco</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Thu, 20 Jun 2013 22:13:43 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-3304</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Ryan Hunt says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-3303</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Good Eyes. We did have to adjust the power up to the heater to get it to loading temperature. Our cells run cooler than the EU cells, probably because there is air moving past them actively. We also turned up the power to the Celani Wire to get a more accurate resistance measurement. It jumped around int he process, but looks good just before it decided to start dropping some. The power out measurement is NOT to be believed because we are in H2 instead of a vacuum where the calibrations were done.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Ryan Hunt</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Thu, 20 Jun 2013 22:09:04 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-3303</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Ecco says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-3302</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Resistance readings from the active wire in US Cell A seem more jumpy than those of EU Cell A. Maybe you need to raise power a bit? EU Cell A uses about 200mW for its active wire. T_Mica temperature also seems low compared to the EU cell. BTW: should the output power reading be trusted?]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Ecco</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Thu, 20 Jun 2013 21:46:27 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-3302</guid>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
