<?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, 12 May 2026 18:53:49 +0000</lastBuildDate>
		<generator>JComments</generator>
		<atom:link href="http://www.quantumheat.org/index.php/en/component/jcomments/feed/com_content/366" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
		<item>
			<title>Ecco says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-4982</link>
			<description><![CDATA[@Robert Greenyer: if with "without activating the new Celani wires" you're implying that there will still be at least one in both cells, that might prevent full verification of my hypothesis. What I was actually suggesting is that merely passing a current through them might be causing cause some of the tiniest nano/micro- metric features on their surface to locally heat up at a much higher temperature than the rest of the wire causing - at a very small scale - vaporization and subsequent deposition on the glass surface, especially if under vacuum. Assuming this is what's happening, there are chances that exposing the wires to H2 even once might be increasing the likelihood of this occurring through embrittlement (or otherwise wire surface reorganization, which resistance data seem to suggest), although that might not be needed. Assuming again this is true, once nano particles are sparsely deposited on the glass surface (implying: isolated and fixed in place), it might even turn out that H2 isn't actually needed for them to behave in unexpected ways, as per recent peer reviewed findings of anomalous behavior of isolated nanoparticles under just coherent light: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/03/140331130848.htm, which I deem quite significant. To be fair, this is admittedly non-expert, bystander conjecture with possibly dubious scientific bases. Still, if I were to test this (and only this; you might have different plans) myself, I would put only Celani wires in a cell, only plain/smooth inactive wires on the other one, experiment as usual for a few weeks, then remove all wires and install new heating wires only on both cells and check glass temperatures out again.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Ecco</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Sun, 13 Apr 2014 15:19:21 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-4982</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Robert Greenyer says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-4981</link>
			<description><![CDATA[@Ecco Yes, calibration will be done without activating the new Celani wires. The new temperature sensors are bonded to the glass, so they will retain their position even after active wire removed after full run. It will be easy to mark the glass and flange to ensure that they are re-located in same position for the test you suggest.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Robert Greenyer</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Sun, 13 Apr 2014 13:18:15 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-4981</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Ecco says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-4980</link>
			<description><![CDATA[@Robert Greenyer: on update #1 -- now it will be interesting to check out if after experimenting for a while with new Celani wires (I'm assuming that's what you're going to do) differences will start appearing even without wires or other components inside the tube. It will be even more interesting if one of these new glass tubes will be installed on an active cell with a Celani wire, while the other one on a blank cell where there will never be one. If over time the glass tube in the active cell will develop a divergent positive temperature differential (increasing with input power), even without anything else inside besides a plain heating wire, then that's a strong indication that what these Celani wires are doing, perhaps when high input currents are tested, and maybe mainly in their first few hours of usage, is coating the tubes' inner surface with nano particles, which might be generating some sort of thermal/IR-trig gered excess heat at best or physically affecting the tubes' transmittance properties at worst. Mass flow calorimetry will likely provide a definitive answer about this issue.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Ecco</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Sun, 13 Apr 2014 09:59:24 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-4980</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Robert Greenyer says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-4940</link>
			<description><![CDATA[@Ecco We have already discussed doing precisely that. We will not do it on the differential, but Mathieu has built another cell and after doing calibrated runs, forcing metal vapour deposition is on the cards.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Robert Greenyer</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Tue, 08 Apr 2014 10:13:35 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-4940</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Ecco says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-4937</link>
			<description><![CDATA[What will the old tube be used for? If they will be left unused, what about considering using them for metal deposition tests?]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Ecco</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Mon, 07 Apr 2014 17:44:15 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-4937</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Robert Greenyer says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-4935</link>
			<description><![CDATA[@All The new glass arrived today - wahoo... but Mathieu was all day with Jean-Paul Biberian, so I don't know if it got tested.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Robert Greenyer</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Mon, 07 Apr 2014 17:23:37 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-4935</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Ecco says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-4926</link>
			<description><![CDATA[@Ron B: a possible explanation could be that since early MFMP experiments with glass cells have been performed at a much higher input current than recommended, this deposition effect might have been stronger than in later ones. This might not have been a bad thing at all*** but we would need to determine first whether this was just the effect of glass tube IR transmission being affected (and affecting temperature sensors in turn) or something else instead. *** In fact, it actually might turn out that [thin film] deposition of nanostructures in an H2 rich environment and some kind of external triggering are an important key for LENR to occur. Have a look at this: http://www.nanowerk.com/nanotechnology_news/newsid=35010.php http://www.nature.com/nnano/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nnano.2014.40.html This could have deep implications on observations and hypotheses made so far on observed anomalies, including Celani's (eg Langmuir effect, etc).]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Ecco</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Sun, 06 Apr 2014 09:56:40 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-4926</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Ron B says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-4925</link>
			<description><![CDATA[@Ecco, I can't say that I agree with the idea that the glass cells are flawed. If the excess heat was a function of some odd thing with the glass then why can't it be replicated at will? We saw the excess heat climbing up and up day after day. Since that time, we've not really be able to generate that excess heat to the same degree.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Ron B</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Sun, 06 Apr 2014 09:41:26 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-4925</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Robert Greenyer says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-4922</link>
			<description><![CDATA[@Bob Mathieu is building a separate cell for other calorimetry methods and we have a new team member joining HUG today, perhaps one or other can test using this approach, we have group meet earmarked for this week and will discuss it.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Robert Greenyer</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Wed, 02 Apr 2014 13:51:44 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-4922</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>bob says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-4921</link>
			<description><![CDATA[@Robert G The problem is not with an inexpensive, H2 tight glass enclosure as much as it is trying to make this enclosure double as a calorimeter. Why not just put the whole Celani tube inside a conduction calorimeter and then issues with the glass etc. won't matter? The conduction calorimeter in the simulation a couple of posts down would be very inexpensive to build.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>bob</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Wed, 02 Apr 2014 12:32:12 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-4921</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Robert Greenyer says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-4919</link>
			<description><![CDATA[@Ecco If we see excess heat in the mass flow experiment comparable to the Celani cells, then it will back verify what we think we have seen, so we will hold any judgements. The point then being is that the Celani cells are cheaper to build and run (especially one based on calibrations) than a full mass flow set-up.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Robert Greenyer</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Wed, 02 Apr 2014 10:25:33 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-4919</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Ecco says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-4918</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Deposition is a further issue which could cause a glass tube cell to show excess heat to apparently increase on the long term in unpredictable ways, if one isn't being careful enough. Bottom line is that is that glass tubes cannot be trusted enough for measuring small excess heating effects. Even though I like the guy, I hope Celani will realize this too, as it's putting his findings into question.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Ecco</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Wed, 02 Apr 2014 09:10:15 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-4918</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Robert Greenyer says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-4917</link>
			<description><![CDATA[@Ecco Now you understand our determination to characterise and solve the problem. Perhaps a localised heat capacity, or reflection. There is a chance that the old tubes from the long run had some internal deposition on one, in which case the new tubes will resolve this anyhow. The mass flow will not exhibit an issue like this.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Robert Greenyer</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Wed, 02 Apr 2014 08:37:56 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-4917</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Ecco says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-4916</link>
			<description><![CDATA[If tiny differences in glass tube thickness can cause measurement issues even after wrapping them in aluminum foil, that's a problem with potentially deep implications. What is it that it's actually being affected? Heat conduction to the bases? IR transmittance (and therefore absorption)? Both or possibly even more factors? Are glass tubes really needed anyway? Others seem to be successfully using stainless steel. It doesn't seem like sulfur poisoning is actually that much of a problem.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Ecco</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Tue, 01 Apr 2014 22:34:27 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-4916</guid>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
