<?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>Sat, 02 May 2026 00:52:26 +0000</lastBuildDate>
		<generator>JComments</generator>
		<atom:link href="http://www.quantumheat.org/index.php/en/component/jcomments/feed/com_content/331" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
		<item>
			<title>Malachi Heder says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-4625</link>
			<description><![CDATA[@ Ecco I agree that more loading is needed. Currently the wires are set up only for resistance measurements. It would require another power supply and this is something I also want to see on the wires. This could happen very soon.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Malachi Heder</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Thu, 17 Oct 2013 21:20:13 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-4625</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Malachi Heder says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-4620</link>
			<description><![CDATA[@ All What is next for the multi-wire test? Does anyone have an idea? We've run it up and down through our temperature range, tried to deload the wires and we've tried to reload them. They don't seem to be decreasing any more, in terms of resistance.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Malachi Heder</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Thu, 17 Oct 2013 14:53:50 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-4620</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Ecco says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-4564</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Not too much surprisingly, it appears that decreasing temperatures to improve loading worked. However I think it's the first time this is clearly observed in one of these experiments. It looks like each wire has its own optimal loading temperature range. That of the 270L wire appears to be rather wide (in one of the latest blogpost updates it was observed to decrease resistance at an internal temperature of 208°C while other ones didn't yet). This also means that there's an optimal H2 desorption temperature range too, depending on wire characteristics , which might have some interesting practical implications.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Ecco</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Tue, 08 Oct 2013 23:44:49 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-4564</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Malachi Heder says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-4559</link>
			<description><![CDATA[@ All The calibrations look sound. We are going to increase the hydrogen pressure inside the cell. Then we will try to load the wires as far as we can.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Malachi Heder</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Tue, 08 Oct 2013 15:07:44 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-4559</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Ecco says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-4556</link>
			<description><![CDATA[@Malachi: if you removed the cooling water hose there's a chance that at 35W the outer tube will get hotter than it's supposed to, causing output power will be negatively affected, which could possibly mask any calibration-ind uced positive bias. But I guess we'll see in a while.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Ecco</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Mon, 07 Oct 2013 18:16:50 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-4556</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Malachi Heder says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-4555</link>
			<description><![CDATA[@ Ecco I will set the input power to 35 watts and see if it still holds.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Malachi Heder</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Mon, 07 Oct 2013 18:06:24 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-4555</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Malachi Heder says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-4551</link>
			<description><![CDATA[@ Ecco y = a + bx + cx^2 Fitting target of lowest sum of squared absolute error = 8.8798690830743 515E-03 a = 3.7115236254221 067E+01 b = -3.264323451915 8354E+03 c = 1.2266525881480 571E+04 This is the new fit equation. We can plug it in and see how well it fits. If it does have a positive bias, then we will perform extra calibration cycles, in a decreasing fashion perhaps.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Malachi Heder</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Mon, 07 Oct 2013 15:14:44 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-4551</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Ecco says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-4543</link>
			<description><![CDATA[I wouldn't have taken the latest results at high temperature seriously either, however during previous runs at an outer tube temperature of 46°C, at 26W (the highest input power level at which outer tube temperature never got affected) the calculated excess power was 0.75W, which means a 2.9% excess. Hopefully, perhaps with the aid of the quicker power cycling, temperatures will keep decreasing during the next calibrations, showing that what was observed during the active runs under hydrogen and this prolonged vacuum run was actually real.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Ecco</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Fri, 04 Oct 2013 21:19:43 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-4543</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Ryan Hunt says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-4542</link>
			<description><![CDATA[My take is that our calibration is in question at these temperatures, so we can't really say for sure what we are seeing. I like being able to get up to 500C and higher because the outer tube temperature is higher. Therefore, the best course is to cycle it several times through the range and use that as a new calibration. Unless, of course, the various calibration cycles show big differences between them.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Ryan Hunt</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Fri, 04 Oct 2013 21:05:13 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-4542</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Ecco says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-4540</link>
			<description><![CDATA[@MFMP: by the way, this is the output power curve resulting from this run at a 56°C outer tube temperature: http://i.imgur.com/dPDL7vs.png http://i.imgur.com/dPDL7vs.png Weird, isn'it? I tried adjusting data to the previous runs at a lower outer tube temperature, with a second order polynomial curve, and this is the result: http://i.imgur.com/GBbTK4M.png http://i.imgur.com/GBbTK4M.png I wouldn't take this too much seriously... but it's interesting data nevertheless.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Ecco</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Fri, 04 Oct 2013 19:02:04 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-4540</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Ecco says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-4538</link>
			<description><![CDATA[@Malachi: yes, that could be. I tried adding the second internal thermocouple on my chart and it sorts of "averages out" the apparently weird/anomalous behavior of T_Int1: http://i.imgur.com/4VBPjF4.png http://i.imgur.com/4VBPjF4.png As a side note, it appears that wire resistance is increasing over time noticeably faster than before, after increasing temperatures (besides the immediate increase due to higher temperatures / PTC behavior of the wires at this stage).]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Ecco</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Fri, 04 Oct 2013 16:46:56 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-4538</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Malachi Heder says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-4537</link>
			<description><![CDATA[@ Ecco The inside thermocouples are free floating. They could be shifting when the wires (separated by fiberglass sheathing) get hot and deform. Just a thought, but it could explain the difference in temperature rises between runs or power levels.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Malachi Heder</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Fri, 04 Oct 2013 16:03:49 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-4537</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Ecco says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-4536</link>
			<description><![CDATA[It looks like my exponentially rising temperatures scenario was at least partially unfounded. The rise in temperature from 32W to 34W is lower than that from 30W to 32W. I find weird that there was such a bump at 32W, though, which was there even after taking into account that T_Int1 readings slightly decreased over the previous couple days. I guess that internal temperatures can't be trusted too much. Outer tube temperatures haven't budged yet though, which is a good thing.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Ecco</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Fri, 04 Oct 2013 15:47:12 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-4536</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Ecco says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-4533</link>
			<description><![CDATA[@Paul: for comparison purposes I tried modeling the temperature the inner core would have without [apparent?] excess heat (and the same ideal conditions I previously mentioned): http://i.imgur.com/lbpI3gR.png http://i.imgur.com/lbpI3gR.png With the point being: once input power is high enough, if there really is exponentially increasing excess heat, it will be very noticeable. It shouldn't be visible only through internal temperatures.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Ecco</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Fri, 04 Oct 2013 02:59:29 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-4533</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Paul says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-4531</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Nonlinear hopeful anomalous energy! http://i.imgur.com/w4LLzH3.png]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Paul</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Fri, 04 Oct 2013 02:29:31 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-4531</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Paul says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-4528</link>
			<description><![CDATA[@Ecco: Yes indeed. The 2nd graph is hopeful. However, does the first one show, or hint at a non-linear response to input power? Or, am I being too hopeful there as well.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Paul</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Thu, 03 Oct 2013 22:21:23 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-4528</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Ecco says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-4526</link>
			<description><![CDATA[@Paul: keep in mind that my very rough estimates are based on a few assumptions and some hope that there will indeed be large amounts of excess power. Don't take them too much seriously, they are a moving target and will get adjusted as new data comes in :) By the way, it was so fun toying with the idea that I tried further imagining / figuring out how temperature would progress after 44W, with the hope and assumptions I mentioned. Under that scenario, at 58W of input power the cell would exceed 1000°C of internal temperature, although I haven't taken into account that it would likely go into thermal runaway somewhere before that. Here's the full data set if you really want to play with it: Pin [W] T_Int1 [°C] 34.000	486.30 36.000	509.00 38.000	534.00 40.000	562.00 42.000	593.00 44.000	627.10 46.000	665.00 48.000	707.50 50.000	755.00 52.000	808.25 54.000	868.00 56.000	935.00 58.000	1010.00]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Ecco</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Thu, 03 Oct 2013 19:00:14 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-4526</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Ecco says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-4503</link>
			<description><![CDATA[@MFMP: something strange (not anomalous/relat ed to LENR effects) going on with the cell: http://i.imgur.com/PHF1efJ.png http://i.imgur.com/PHF1efJ.png At low power it takes more effort for the cell to increase the temperature of the inner tube relatively to the outer tube. Normally, the lower the temperature is, the lower the effort required should be. This was the same graph during the first sweep under vacuum and no cooling hose added: http://i.imgur.com/lmZacu9.png http://i.imgur.com/lmZacu9.png Another, likely related strange thing is that at 0W of input power (+ a few milliwatts applied to the wires) the outer tube has a slightly higher temperature than the inner tube. This caused calculated output power to be negative (around -0.5W).]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Ecco</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Tue, 01 Oct 2013 21:05:18 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-4503</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Ecco says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-4493</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Computed excess power graph with an outer tube temperature of 56°C and original output power adjusted upward by 6.9% (in order to match the 22W data point with that of previous runs): http://i.imgur.com/Vugp8J2.png http://i.imgur.com/Vugp8J2.png More data points needed, especially at lower input power, in order to make sure that a single percentage is enough to adjust data to the new outer tube temperature. I feel it isn't because I would have expected the calculated excess power at 30W to be more than that.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Ecco</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Mon, 30 Sep 2013 22:07:59 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-4493</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Ecco says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-4475</link>
			<description><![CDATA[@MFMP: if you were to do again a sweep run from 2W to 34-38W with the outer tube set to a higher temperature (let's say 55 °C) but using the existing calibrations for a 46°C outer tube temperature, calculated output power values would be lower than intended. However, I wonder if adjusting them with a fixed value to the average output power curve of the previous three active runs at 46°C, would work. If it will, the resulting output power curve at a higher outer tube temperature shouldn't diverge significantly or at all from them (at least for the input power range where outer tube temperature wasn't affected). I think this would be an interesting test to try, if you don't have anything else planned for this cell for the time being. I think it's a good trade-off between turning the temperature compensation algorithm off and using only at mid and low input power.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Ecco</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Sat, 28 Sep 2013 16:40:58 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-4475</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Ecco says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-4470</link>
			<description><![CDATA[@Malachi: the resulting plot, although data points are sparse, seems trend-wise almost the opposite of what is happening with CTC #2. http://i.imgur.com/uoArD5D.png http://i.imgur.com/uoArD5D.png]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Ecco</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Fri, 27 Sep 2013 19:59:26 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-4470</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Malachi Heder says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-4469</link>
			<description><![CDATA[@ Ecco Here is what I have so far: Input Power	Apparent Output Power 1 0.7918 10 9.0727 20 18.0732 30 26.4897 The test was done with a fixed position.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Malachi Heder</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Fri, 27 Sep 2013 19:40:53 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-4469</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Malachi Heder says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-4465</link>
			<description><![CDATA[@ Ecco Control over the outer tube is the only way we will eliminate ambient effects. If we turn the fan on high even in low powers we will see these ambient effects and if there are interesting results, we won't be able to back them up. Just for an experiment I am going to see how cool we can get the water bucket. I'm going to set it to 1 C and see how far it can get. @ Charlie Tapp We will think this through for a little while.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Malachi Heder</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Fri, 27 Sep 2013 16:33:29 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-4465</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>charlie tapp says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-4461</link>
			<description><![CDATA[@mfmp would it be possible to get a sparkplug and fire it for say 30 seconds outside of the cell about an inch away just to see if the inside is affected in any way? please]]></description>
			<dc:creator>charlie tapp</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Fri, 27 Sep 2013 15:47:01 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-4461</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Malachi Heder says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-4459</link>
			<description><![CDATA[@ Ecco I just measured the input voltage and calculated the input power. It adds up to 2.5-2.6 mW. This should not be affecting the cell. Would turning off the water flow to the hose be sufficient? Instead of removing all the wraps? I think the next step will be to increase the input power to 32 watts. We can figure out whether to turn the fan on full after that step or maybe after 34 watts?]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Malachi Heder</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Fri, 27 Sep 2013 14:36:29 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-4459</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Ecco says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-4456</link>
			<description><![CDATA[@MFMP: I noticed that for the same input power (28W, 30W), internal temperatures are currently 3-4°C higher than during the sweep run ended couple days ago. If wonder if for some reason the rubber hose, which decreased outer tube temperature slightly (and therefore, inner tube temperature as well) is causing this, either directly or indirectly. It would seem strange at first, but you never know... There was a short period of 0W input power as well. I wonder if this might have influenced this as well in a way that can be conventionally explained. When you have time, I would try removing the rubber hose with the cooling water. If inner and outer tube temperatures will be higher than when the sweep run was performed, then for some reason the cell is producing more heat than it previously did, for the same input power. It might an idea to test whether this is true at lower power where the outer tube isn't affected by cell heat as well.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Ecco</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Thu, 26 Sep 2013 23:43:56 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-4456</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Ecco says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-4453</link>
			<description><![CDATA[@Robert Greenyer: if the excess heat observed on the CTC is real (positive feedback with temperature), without engaging in complex output power measurements, the best experiment would be running a stripped down version of it (with just the LENR stick with a few loaded active Celani wires inside - not just one, but also hopefully more than three - and perhaps some simple tubing to allow a constant and controlled airflow to avoid random variations as in glass cells. However the latter might not be necessary with the temperatures involved) and cyclically applying short high power bursts so that it operates close to its thermal runaway threshold. The resulting temperature curve graph with such usage (again, provided that the effect is indeed real) should be similar to what Levi et al. observed in their Hot-Cat report on ArXiv, which is considerably different than what an inert cell or even a simple resistor would show. http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1305/1305.3913.pdf http://i.imgur.com/i2kni4H.png Page 25, the "Remarks on the test" section explains this behavior well.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Ecco</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Thu, 26 Sep 2013 20:05:22 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-4453</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Robert Greenyer says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-4452</link>
			<description><![CDATA[@Ecco You are right about what Dennis Cravens said and Celani is saying the same thing, and not just because of his work. We are currently securing new, freshly processed wires, from Celani and dealing with the EU cells leak and preparing wider collaborations on LOS to make it easy for many others to get involved. Meanwhile, there is a raft of on-going experiments.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Robert Greenyer</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Thu, 26 Sep 2013 19:12:24 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-4452</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Ecco says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-4451</link>
			<description><![CDATA[@Paul: you might have read about this on E-CatWorld or Vortex-l, but Dennis Cravens demonstrated during NIWeek 2013 a proof of concept of a LENR device activated by just heat. According to him, the more the heat applied, the more efficient the anomalous thermal output becomes. This seems similar to what we're apparently witnessing here.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Ecco</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Thu, 26 Sep 2013 18:38:54 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-4451</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Paul says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-4450</link>
			<description><![CDATA[@Ecco: Thanks for the explanation, it all makes sense and is indeed exciting. However, I'll be a bit surprised if an exponential response occurs because the supposed commercial LENR devices appear to depend on very specific electro-magneti c stimulation. On the other hand, success may be just a matter of cramming enough active material (thanks) and heat (thanks) together to create a runaway reaction. Stay tuned!]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Paul</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Thu, 26 Sep 2013 18:30:57 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-4450</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Ecco says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-4444</link>
			<description><![CDATA[@MFMP: I forgot that the sweep run was intended to operate up to 30W of input power. Since the outer tube heater is currently not performing any work and the fan is pegged at 100% duty cycle, the cell is basically working with a constant ambient temperature air flow ensuring that there won't be random air current variations as with standard glass cells (although I'm not sure what the "active insulation PWM" is supposed to control. I see it increases with input power. If it's adding heat to the cell then it would interfere with my plan). If you don't want to run again a full heating+vacuum cycle, you could attempt extending the ongoing run by increasing input power above 30W. This would test the veracity of the excess heat effect. You could increase power in smaller steps of 1W and 2 hours of time up to 44 or 45W. If the cell is not producing excess heat, at the end of this run internal temperatures will likely settle at about 550 °C. If it is and it will increase exponentially as also implied by dr. Celani in his latest email, the LENR stick or just the wires, if you're lucky, might reach their melting temperature. Are you ready for this challenge? (joking... sort of) EDIT 20130925: here are the final temperature graphs, by the way: http://i.imgur.com/IiMVzvg.png http://i.imgur.com/LY8SJnt.png]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Ecco</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Tue, 24 Sep 2013 23:17:09 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-4444</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Ecco says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-4439</link>
			<description><![CDATA[(I've run out of space in the previous comment) You might be noticing that the resistance of the wires in LENR stick is currently decreasing. This could be because they are getting deloaded. I noticed that fresh, unloaded Celani wires appear to have a visible negative temperature coefficient behavior (= resistance decreases with temperature instead of increasing as with most alloys). If this is indeed what is happening (as usual, there's always the chance it could be an artifact caused by something else, such a a strong temperature decrease somewhere, which I haven't noticed), then 18-20W of input power (310-330 °C) might be the low end range where wires start getting deloaded under active vacuum. Now, whether there really is a correlation between [apparent] excess heat and hydrogen loading in this case, it's a different story.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Ecco</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Tue, 24 Sep 2013 15:27:11 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-4439</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Ecco says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-4434</link>
			<description><![CDATA[@MFMP: thanks for your promptness in applying my suggestion. So far data isn't very exciting. The first two power steps showed almost exactly the same output power values as those calculated for the previous H2 runs, as well as almost the same temperatures measured during the previous 0.5 bar H2 run. http://i.imgur.com/2AN5BOa.png http://i.imgur.com/2AN5BOa.png It's probably still early to tell, but it could be that the lucky hydrogen atoms that are in the active sites (as per Storms' hypothesis) are hard to remove just with vacuum, and even heat applied at the same time, and therefore that the cell keeps producing excess power. However, a more realistic (and disappointing) hypothesis in this case could be that the LENR stick in the CTC was misplaced after fitting the active wires and that the estimated 300 mW uncertainty added to the confidence interval due to that was too optimistic and couldn't account for the fact that for some reason the error margin would keep growing non-linearly with input power. Either way, the good news is that this shows (so far - but that's only two data points, admittedly) that you could calibrate the active wires under vacuum, though. So, you would not need anymore to disassemble the cell to swap the wires/LENR stick, removing a potential source of errors and artifacts. Calibration under vacuum would also have the benefit of thoroughly preparing the wires for the first active run under H2 atmosphere. But let's wait for the full data set first.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Ecco</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Tue, 24 Sep 2013 01:11:40 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-4434</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Ecco says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-4430</link>
			<description><![CDATA[@MFMP: if you're going to leave the wires degassing under dynamic vacuum for a prolonged amount of time while applying power, could you do it while performing a 2-26W sweep? If you're not planning to keep the cell doing this for days, you could do it in 4W steps of 2 or 2.5 hours each. This will allow to see if there is (actually, there should be) an optimal temperature range where wires deload (EDIT: corrected) the most and how as a whole will the computed output power curve compare with the last active runs under H2 at different pressures.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Ecco</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Mon, 23 Sep 2013 20:24:06 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-4430</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Ecco says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-4429</link>
			<description><![CDATA[@Ryan Hunt: is LENR stick integrity that you're worried about (hydrogen permeating the steel container can't be a good thing), or rather something else like hydrogen leaving the cell over time, causing internal pressure to slowly decrease? If it's the latter, I don't think it's that much of a problem to be honest. One could perform H2 loading at lower temperatures when the gas mostly gets adsorbed by the active material, while allowing it to slowly leave the cell when trying to obtain higher excess power levels. The glass cells would probably still leak hydrogen quicker than that.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Ecco</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Mon, 23 Sep 2013 17:13:33 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-4429</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Ryan Hunt says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-4426</link>
			<description><![CDATA[In the 50 meter of wire test, we saw the LENR stick appear to become porous to Hydrogen at temperatures above 450 or so. I haven't seen that happen here, yet, but that is one reason I am ok that we can't reach the high temperatures with the apparatus we have.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Ryan Hunt</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Mon, 23 Sep 2013 16:56:20 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-4426</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Ecco says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-4424</link>
			<description><![CDATA[@Malachi: the data are talking, not me.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Ecco</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Mon, 23 Sep 2013 16:22:18 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-4424</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Malachi Heder says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-4422</link>
			<description><![CDATA[@ Ecco We are going to try for a higher loading ratio. We will vacuum the cell and heat it to 26 watts. This should de-load the wires. Then we will see if we can reload the wires to a higher level. Possibly a higher loading ratio will allow us to see the effect at a lower temperature. Then we might be able to see the exponential increase you've been talking about.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Malachi Heder</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Mon, 23 Sep 2013 16:10:23 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-4422</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Robert Greenyer says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-4418</link>
			<description><![CDATA[@Ecco Thank you for your on-going detailed analysis. It is appreciated.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Robert Greenyer</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Mon, 23 Sep 2013 05:24:44 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-4418</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Ecco says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-4405</link>
			<description><![CDATA[After the current sweep run is done, I propose the following tests: 1) Remove hydrogen from the cell, fill with 1 bar Argon (which has a thermal conductivity not too much different than air). Don't perform deep degassing. The point is to check out if with the wire partially loaded with hydrogen under a different gas there will still be the same excess power behavior with a similar sweep run (which I would reduce to 2 hours per step), and if internal temperatures will increase. 2) After the 1 bar Argon sweep run has ended, apply dynamic vacuum to the cell and about 15W of power at the same time (which should bring internal temperature to about 250 °C) to degas both the wires and the cell. Apply strong dynamic vacuum for 9-12 hours. When you're done, load the cell with 1 bar Argon again and perform a new sweep run. The point of this test is checking out if it is possible to non-destructive ly disable the wires. With the wires unloaded there should be no or little excess heat compared to the previous run. 3) When the post-deep degassing Argon sweep run has ended, dynamically vacuum the cell again with the same procedure described above in order to get rid of as much trace gases as possible. When this has ended, load the cell with typical amounts of hydrogen and start an "active" sweep run. The point of this test is to check out whether after deep degassing H2 loading will improve and (if the previous tests didn't show contradicting data) to confirm that loading hydrogen triggers the excess heating effect. In short: Test 1 - Take out H2. No deep degassing. - Fill with 1 bar Ar - Sweep run 2-26W in 2W steps of 2 hours each + 27W step Test 2 - Deep, heated active vacuum degassing - Fill with 1 bar Ar - Sweep run as above Test 3 - Deep, heated active vacuum degassing - Fill with 3-10 bar H2 - Sweep run as above]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Ecco</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Fri, 20 Sep 2013 13:28:28 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-4405</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Malachi Heder says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-4401</link>
			<description><![CDATA[@ Ecco In those steps on the calibration we lose confidence. Our error increases because the outer tube temp is dependent on the ambient once we are above a controllable temp. I guess this just puts these power levels at a cruder state of calorimetry.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Malachi Heder</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Thu, 19 Sep 2013 21:35:22 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-4401</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Ecco says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-4400</link>
			<description><![CDATA[I was checking calibration data here https://docs.google.com/file/d/0ByUU8sU37DYsbkVZRERoeEVNaVk/edit And it appears that for the last 1 or 2 power steps in a couple calibrations the outer tube temperature increased significantly. Given that outer tube temperature is not supposed to increase, in which way would disregarding data where outer tube temperature wasn't at the intended temperature affect calibration/out put power calculation?]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Ecco</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Thu, 19 Sep 2013 21:26:27 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-4400</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Malachi Heder says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-4397</link>
			<description><![CDATA[@ Ecco A good idea. I think we will try for 0.5 bar or so. Then should we do a sweep like before? Maybe less time on each step? The cell is cooling off now and then we can vacuum out some hydrogen.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Malachi Heder</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Thu, 19 Sep 2013 19:54:04 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-4397</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Ecco says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-4396</link>
			<description><![CDATA[@Malachi: without performing physical modifications, you could try lowering the starting H2 pressure to 1 bar or less so that internal temperatures will increase, in order to check if the apparently exponentially growing excess power effect once input power gets to higher levels (and makes the cell hit a certain trigger temperature?) is due to the total cell heat / input power itself (which might indicate some sort of artifact appearing when the stick gets very hot -- although you didn't experience that during calibrations, did you?) or strictly wire temperature. Actually, since this is starting getting similar to data from mr. Mastromatteo of ST Microelectronic s, who as far as I know uses a very low starting H2 pressure (I think less than 1 bar) and a well insulated cell, I think it's worth trying. http://i.imgur.com/6CP61ez.png This being said, I would first want verify that with averaged data results will be more or less the same, although I personally don't think they will differ much.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Ecco</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Thu, 19 Sep 2013 19:36:20 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-4396</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Malachi Heder says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-4395</link>
			<description><![CDATA[@ Ecco Interesting, unfortunately I don't know if we will be able to get actual data points for that curve. We are limited by the temperature in the room. Maybe we can build a longer isothermal box to run it in.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Malachi Heder</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Thu, 19 Sep 2013 19:24:44 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-4395</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Ecco says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-4393</link>
			<description><![CDATA[@Malachi: have a look at this with eyeballed approximated data points from 20W and up: http://i.imgur.com/jQEBLHR.png http://i.imgur.com/jQEBLHR.png]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Ecco</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Thu, 19 Sep 2013 18:16:49 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-4393</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Malachi Heder says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-4392</link>
			<description><![CDATA[@ Ecco We are limited by the temperature of the room. The CTC uses ambient air to cool to outer tube of the CTC. At 30 watts or so the temperature of the outer tube cannot be maintained and this increases our confidence intervals. Yes, the averages are still coming in and are behind by a few months actually because of a server import problem. We are trying to fix it, currently.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Malachi Heder</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Thu, 19 Sep 2013 18:03:04 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-4392</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Ecco says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-4391</link>
			<description><![CDATA[It looks like input power is too much for CTC#2 to handle. The outer tube is increasing in temperature (although it's supposed to be at a more or less fixed temperature), and was actually starting doing that during the 28W input power step, and to a much lower extent during the 26W input power step too. This is the likely cause of the artifacts I noticed. When averaged data will become available again, this detrimental behavior will be clear from an updated version of the excess power graph like those I recently posted.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Ecco</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Thu, 19 Sep 2013 17:55:44 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-4391</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Ecco says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-4387</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Why is the resistance of the wires in CTC#2 oscillating? http://i.imgur.com/XtSKsF5.png http://i.imgur.com/XtSKsF5.png]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Ecco</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Thu, 19 Sep 2013 16:05:01 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-4387</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Ecco says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-4378</link>
			<description><![CDATA[@Malachi Heder: ok, now I understand. Since oxidized constantan wires are known to not produce excess heat under normal conditions as they don't have microstructures and cracks on their surface needed to trap/adsorb hydrogen, as weird as it might sound to other people reading this (as it looks as if I'm contradicting myself), then you should not pre-vacuum them as I suggested doing for the active Celani wires (although I guess you didn't plan doing that here). I haven't forgot (see edit in my previous comment; I added that before you wrote yours) that I did write in the 50m plain constantan blogpost that for such wires you might want to do the opposite thing: that is, build up as many oxides as possible and then exploit the effect of high temperature hydrogen oxide attack (which at high temperatures creates cracks and craters on the surface of copper alloys such as constantan, by forming high pressure steam - water) in order to create potentially active sites and defects on the otherwise plain constantan wire surface. EDIT: If this is exactly what you planned to do with this oxidized constantan wire, it would be interesting to see SEM photos before and after prolonged high temperature exposure under H2. It would also be interesting to see what will be left after removing oxides completely by heating it under dynamic vacuum.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Ecco</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Wed, 18 Sep 2013 16:15:45 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-4378</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Malachi Heder says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-4377</link>
			<description><![CDATA[@ Ecco It's oxide coated constantan that we have joule heated in air a few times to build up more oxide layers. Not actual celani wire.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Malachi Heder</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Wed, 18 Sep 2013 15:57:37 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-4377</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Ryan Hunt says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-4374</link>
			<description><![CDATA[We have 2 more CTC calorimeters available to play with. I'm thinking of loading one of them up with a freshly joule heated wire.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Ryan Hunt</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Wed, 18 Sep 2013 15:23:31 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-4374</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Ecco says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-4373</link>
			<description><![CDATA[@Ryan Hunt: before fitting new wires, which implies disassembling the cell, I think you should attempt deep vacuuming the ones currently installed. Pull the hardest dynamic vacuum you can, while at the same time heating the cell to moderately hot temperatures (for example 200-250 °C as I suggested in one of my previous comment). Keep applying this vacuum dynamically for several hours. 6-12 hours would probably be ideal. It could be an idea to cycle temperature up/down from 200 to 300 °C while doing it, so that you will more likely hit the "sweet spot" at which hydrogen and oxides desorb the most. Several researchers working on Ni-H LENR systems (like Piantelli, Hadjichristos) seem to suggest that vacuuming the active material and its working environment is a fundamental step for excess heat to show. Trace/alien gases and especially oxides apparently can seriously interfere with excess power production. I think it won't harm trying this with the LENR stick in CTC#2. If after performing this, excess power under typical testing conditions (as during the latest sweep runs at 3-10 bar H2 pressure) will fall to zero or near zero, it will still be a success, in a way. I don't think you've ever managed (or even attempted?) to non-destructive ly disable active Celani wires.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Ecco</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Wed, 18 Sep 2013 15:20:12 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-4373</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Ryan Hunt says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-4372</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Great graphs, Ecco! I am disappointed that the wires aren't showing more loading. I am working on a theory that the longer the wires sit around in plastic bags before they are used, the less loading we see. Think we should heat cycle some constantan and see if we can see some loading on fresh wires?]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Ryan Hunt</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Wed, 18 Sep 2013 14:55:08 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-4372</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Ecco says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-4368</link>
			<description><![CDATA[This is a graph about excess power behavior so far for this experiment: http://i.imgur.com/0EwfE5P.png http://i.imgur.com/0EwfE5P.png Gray line: before vacuum got pulled, data spanning several days. Blue line: current sweep run @ 10 bar, +2W every 5 hours.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Ecco</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Wed, 18 Sep 2013 02:31:51 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-4368</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Malachi Heder says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-4356</link>
			<description><![CDATA[@ Ecco I don't think we were trying to reset the wires totally. The live data is coming back online. We are at 2:00 UTC currently. It will take another few hours to get completely caught up.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Malachi Heder</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Mon, 16 Sep 2013 18:15:41 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-4356</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Ecco says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-4355</link>
			<description><![CDATA[@Malachi Heder: interesting, I will keep an eye on this, although live data isn't streaming at the moment. If you want to truly "reset" the wires and the cell, I would suggest applying some power while vacuum is applied. Proper H2 desorption (if this is what you want to accomplish) has an optimal temperature range too, as adsorption has. http://origin-ars.els-cdn.com/content/image/1-s2.0-S0926860X07006448-gr5.jpg http://origin-ars.els-cdn.com/content/image/1-s2.0-S0926860X07006448-gr5.jpg This is not directly applicable to the constantan wires in CTC#2, but I think it clarifies what I mean. Too little or too much heat slow H2 release significantly. I would suggest heating the cell to about 200-250°C when applying vacuum.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Ecco</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Mon, 16 Sep 2013 16:46:21 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-4355</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Malachi Heder says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-4354</link>
			<description><![CDATA[@ Ecco We are going to vacuum out the cell and then fill it with 10 bar of hydrogen. We will then run the "calibration" script that you proposed using 2 watt steps and 5 hours of settling time.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Malachi Heder</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Mon, 16 Sep 2013 16:24:56 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-4354</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Ecco says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-4338</link>
			<description><![CDATA[@Edwin Pell: I'm simply doing [Output Power - Heater Power], with 15 minute data from the CTC #2: Air Jacket and LENR Stick: Multi-wire tests from data.hugnetlab. com. [graph removed]]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Ecco</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Fri, 13 Sep 2013 18:25:56 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-4338</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Edwin Pell says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-4337</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Interesting data. Resistance up, pressure up, temperature down. http://i.imgur.com/c0C4zsh.jpg The resistance on all three wires track! How is that possible? If it is just diffusion of hydrogen into the material it should be random, not 100% correlated. This is either a significant result or a significant artifact. I think it is the former. This plot is delta resistance not resistance itself. http://i.imgur.com/V5rntOM.jpg 350L and 270L have a .97 correlation coefficient for the data after the most recent step up. [add] Sept 4 data correlation is 0.90 [add] I find correlation even with zero applied power of 0.83 on Aug 28 data. @Ecco how are you calculating excess power?]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Edwin Pell</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Fri, 13 Sep 2013 18:10:05 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-4337</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Ecco says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-4335</link>
			<description><![CDATA[I tried making a chart of how the multi-wire stick has been behaving so far under hydrogen. [redacted] http://i.imgur.com/1fsqvwW.png http://i.imgur.com/1fsqvwW.png If it's supposed to follow the exponential-lik e trend (which would be expected for unstable, positive temperature feedback systems) of the STM cell, at 360 °C there should be twice the excess heat, at 440 °C 4 times, and at about °C 520 8 times the excess heat than what is apparently being produced at the current temperature of 311 °C. However so far the excess appears to be following a linear trend compared to that. But we'll see as temperatures will increase. http://i.imgur.com/WNylCV2.png http://i.imgur.com/WNylCV2.png To clarify, my point is that if there is an excess heat effect similar to what Celani and Mastromatteo (STM) are reporting, increasing cell temperature is the quickest way to make it prominent.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Ecco</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Fri, 13 Sep 2013 16:55:38 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-4335</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Malachi Heder says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-4334</link>
			<description><![CDATA[@ Ecco Here is the calibration information: https://docs.google.com/file/d/0ByUU8sU37DYsbkVZRERoeEVNaVk/edit?usp=sharing We also did a position calibration: https://docs.google.com/file/d/0ByUU8sU37DYsYVNMc0dGSmFkNDQ/edit?usp=sharing Our confidence interval for 99% is from 30 to 90 mW and there is a position effect that could definitely account for the extra 300 mW we are seeing.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Malachi Heder</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Fri, 13 Sep 2013 15:33:55 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-4334</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Edwin Pell says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-4308</link>
			<description><![CDATA[I would say this shows the wire in an active heated experiment is well above 280 degrees. Keep going up to 500 degrees if possible. The quick 2% loading has not even happened yet.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Edwin Pell</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Wed, 11 Sep 2013 18:56:24 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-4308</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Ecco says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-4289</link>
			<description><![CDATA[I see - I didn't know of this feature. Just added a new RSS feed for both logs to my list.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Ecco</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Mon, 09 Sep 2013 15:04:03 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-4289</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Malachi Heder says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-4288</link>
			<description><![CDATA[@ Ecco The experiment logs are available if you click on the picture associated with each test. This is a new feature since the pictures were added. I created a new and separate log from the calorimeter for multi wire test stuff.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Malachi Heder</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Mon, 09 Sep 2013 14:53:48 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-4288</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Ecco says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-4284</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Also, what about calibrations for this run in CTC cell #2?]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Ecco</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Sun, 08 Sep 2013 01:11:12 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-4284</guid>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
