<?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>Fri, 17 Apr 2026 22:00:00 +0000</lastBuildDate>
		<generator>JComments</generator>
		<atom:link href="http://www.quantumheat.org/index.php/en/component/jcomments/feed/com_content/515" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
		<item>
			<title>ZacharyAlarl says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-25014</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Подскажите где найти лучшие рецепты со всего мира: от классических блюд, которые согревают душу, до современных кулинарных шедевров, которые впечатляют даже самых взыскательных гурманов - https://hexagon.vn/2023/06/22/harnessing-the-power-of-social-media-for-business-growth - домашние рецепты]]></description>
			<dc:creator>ZacharyAlarl</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Sun, 20 Apr 2025 21:03:45 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-25014</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Danielgop says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-24381</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Осуществляя поиск в интернете, веб-серфер,юзер все равно столкнется с маркетплейсом мега официальный сайт: mega зеркало. Многие юзеры сети хотят закупаться моментально и абсолютно безопасно. Реально внушительный IT маркет c необычными позициями,котор ые не найдешь в обычном браузере, представлен на странице mega market - https://xn--m13-psa.com. При регистрации на портале или в переписках никому не сообщайте свои личные данные, придумайте логин и псевдоним, который отличается от логина. Также придумаете надёжный пароль от 8 символов и более. https://xn--m14-psa.com]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Danielgop</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Fri, 18 Apr 2025 21:19:16 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-24381</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>SamuelTucky says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-23849</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Кракен официальный сайт: Ваша тёмная сторона | сайт кракен тор браузера песня правило кракена - https://krakensong.net/ С КРАКЕН сайтом вы получаете защиту от слежки и в торжений. Это ваш личный щит в мире цифровых угроз. Не упустите шанс защитить свою конфиденциально сть накракен сайте. Когда вы заходите по КРАКЕН вход на сайт, вы открываете двери для новых идей и вдохновения. Это торговая платформа для тех, кто хочет изменить мир. Откройтекракен вход на сайти дайте волю своему творчеству! кракен сайт магазин - https://krakenskulls.com/ KRAKEN интернет-магази н Telegram Messenger]]></description>
			<dc:creator>SamuelTucky</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Thu, 17 Apr 2025 13:48:31 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-23849</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Rickyrix says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-22742</link>
			<description><![CDATA[If you're a fan of Sherlock Holmes-style adventures, this Victorian-theme d casino slot will blow you away. Whether you're a casual player or a serious slot fan, this casino experience pulls you into its story with every spin. This game combines the thrill of casino action with the elegance of classic British mystery. Ready to uncover the secrets of this unique slot? Start your adventure here: https://www.heramoving.com.br/ucretsiz-online-casino-oyunlar-341/ Solve the mystery, spin the reels, and unlock big rewards in this standout casino slot.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Rickyrix</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Tue, 15 Apr 2025 12:21:48 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-22742</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Renate says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-20281</link>
			<description><![CDATA[I simply couldn't depart your site prior to suggesting that I actually enjoyed the usual info an individual supply in your guests? Is gonna be back frequently in order to investigate cross-check new posts My web blog :: pronerve 6: https://www.cartagena-colombia-travel.activeboard.com/t71056523/pronerve-6-reviews/]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Renate</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Fri, 30 Aug 2024 02:22:48 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-20281</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Agnes says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-16754</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Hey! I realize this is knd of off-topic butt I had to ask. Does managing a well-establishe d website like yours take a llot of work? I am brand new to operating a blopg but I ddo write in my diary every day.I'd like to start a blog so I can easily share my personal experience and views online. Please let me know if you have any recommendations or tips for new aspiring bloggers. Thankyou! My web-site cheap uk vpn: https://maps.google.no]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Agnes</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Wed, 23 Aug 2023 06:43:20 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-16754</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>DarrylChief says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-9053</link>
			<description><![CDATA[I have checked your website and i've found some duplicate content, that's why you don't rank high in google, but there is a tool that can help you to create 100% unique articles, search for; Best article rewritwer Ercannou's essential tools]]></description>
			<dc:creator>DarrylChief</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Sat, 10 Mar 2018 02:25:50 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-9053</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>EmmanuelSmall says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-9010</link>
			<description><![CDATA[I have checked your website and i've found some duplicate content, that's why you don't rank high in google's search results, but there is a tool that can help you to create 100% unique content, search for: Boorfe's tips unlimited content]]></description>
			<dc:creator>EmmanuelSmall</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Tue, 13 Feb 2018 15:08:03 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-9010</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>IndiraSmall says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-8958</link>
			<description><![CDATA[I have checked your site and i have found some duplicate content, that's why you don't rank high in google's search results, but there is a tool that can help you to create 100% unique content, search for: Boorfe's tips unlimited content]]></description>
			<dc:creator>IndiraSmall</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Tue, 26 Dec 2017 13:35:48 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-8958</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>LucaSmall says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-8944</link>
			<description><![CDATA[I have checked your website and i've found some duplicate content, that's why you don't rank high in google's search results, but there is a tool that can help you to create 100% unique content, search for; Boorfe's tips unlimited content]]></description>
			<dc:creator>LucaSmall</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Mon, 27 Nov 2017 04:56:03 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-8944</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>lada c says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-8889</link>
			<description><![CDATA[I always used to read paragraph in news papers but now as I am a user of internet so from now I am using net for articles or reviews, thanks to web.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>lada c</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Mon, 21 Aug 2017 20:37:36 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-8889</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Robert Greenyer says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-8153</link>
			<description><![CDATA[New test underway... calibrations started.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Robert Greenyer</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Fri, 08 Apr 2016 21:14:52 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-8153</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Robert Greenyer says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-8142</link>
			<description><![CDATA[@Jones Beene, It is not a bad idea and still valid according to Piantelli theory also as it is a transition metal. We do need to focus on our exact replication attempts first. We can look into doing something like this afterwards - should we get lucky!]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Robert Greenyer</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Sun, 03 Apr 2016 22:00:42 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-8142</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Jones Beene says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-8139</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Zinc would be less compelling as a reactant if it were not a Mills catalyst (for hydrogen densification) and it has the lowest Rydberg “hole” (27.2 eV) in addition to its volatility (boiling point is ~900C). Thus it can probably do no harm to add zinc to a fuel mix – and it could have properties of interest. There is almost no downside risk. One suggestion then is to add 100 mg zinc into a fuel mix in order to get data which will either validate what Parkhomov thinks is there, or if the result is null – to write-off the possibility of zinc as a reactant. A sliver of zinc metal can be used since it will vaporize anyway, it does not need to be a powder.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Jones Beene</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Tue, 29 Mar 2016 16:33:29 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-8139</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Jones Beene says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-8137</link>
			<description><![CDATA[@Bob, "I have the answer back from Parkhomov on the "64Ni" question "About high content of 64Ni. We assume that in fact an impurity 64Zn was registered. Mass spectrometer cannot distinguish between these two isotopes." Wow. This could be a major breakthrough... or not. The isotope in question was depleted by almost half, so it provided most of the excess heat. If the 4.4% of mass 64 was due to zinc, then about 8% of the starting nickel was zinc contamination which is high but not impossible. Since Parkhomov sounds fairly sure, then he may have seen the other zinc isotopes which were not mentioned. Obviously, the next questions are something like this: was the depletion of the zinc-64 (compared to the starting level) due to its slight inherent radioactivity, and was the decay vastly accelerated? If so, then we must accept that accelerated beta decay can provide excess heat and possibly avoid detection. Other mechanisms are possible but 64Zn has an extremely long half-life, yet it is known to beta decay. The bottom line is that it would be wise to add zinc to a glowstick experiment to see if it could really be this simple.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Jones Beene</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Tue, 29 Mar 2016 02:07:29 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-8137</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Robert Greenyer says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-8136</link>
			<description><![CDATA[@Jones Beene I have the answer back from Parkhomov on the "64Ni" question "About high content of 64Ni. We assume that in fact an impurity 64Zn was registered. Mass spectrometer cannot distinguish between these two isotopes."]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Robert Greenyer</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Tue, 29 Mar 2016 00:04:33 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-8136</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Robert Greenyer says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-8133</link>
			<description><![CDATA[@Stoyan, Thankyou for the reference.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Robert Greenyer</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Sat, 26 Mar 2016 22:38:24 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-8133</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Dr. Stoyan Sarg says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-8129</link>
			<description><![CDATA[X-rays of the order of 100 keV are reported in the extensive document of the ENEA (Italian National Agency for New Technologies Energy and Environment) on cold fusion research, published in 2008 (see the link). It is shown in page 176. In the same page “a remarkable quantity of Cu and Zn” is also mentioned. Rossi claims a detection of Zn in his patent application WO 2009/125444 A1 (Fig. 3). A mass number 69 is also apparent in the ashes of E-cat test according to Lugano report, corresponding to 69Zn ( Appendix 3, Fig 11). http://www.enea.it/en/publications/volume-pdf/Cold_Fusion_Italy.pdf]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Dr. Stoyan Sarg</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Fri, 25 Mar 2016 23:15:56 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-8129</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Robert Greenyer says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-8121</link>
			<description><![CDATA[@Jones Well - 62Ni will be tested in time - we have it... Will investigate the other.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Robert Greenyer</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Tue, 22 Mar 2016 23:27:40 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-8121</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Jones Beene says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-8120</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Here is a paper on Ni isotope fractionation in meteorites. http://originslab.uchicago.edu/sites/default/files/articles/28_Cook_et_al_MAPS_2007.pdf Russia is the world's largest nickel producer and much of it comes from meteorite impact sites. This nickel can be naturally enriched, substantially in 64Ni, which is the process called fractionation. This is exactly what could have happened with the Parkhomov nickel and he may not have realized this before now, based on the lack of further information in the paper. Needless to say, the situation boils down to this. If you believe Rossi, then 62Ni would be active, but if you believe Parkhomov, then 64Ni is the isotope that works. I do not think it could be both based on Parkhomov's results. Based on everything I have read, Parkhomov would be the one I would choose, especially since the theory behind 64Ni is stronger, and since 64Ni is a singularity of sorts, in terms of neutron heaviness. Plus the naturally enriched version should be much cheaper than buying pure isotope...]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Jones Beene</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Mon, 21 Mar 2016 20:35:49 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-8120</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Jones Beene says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-8115</link>
			<description><![CDATA[@Bob "I shall ask him. After a cursory look at the presentation, I see what you mean in the tables - but, I may be wrong, but the bar charts are not supporting this table data." Yes, that is the problem - but easily explainable since it appears that they tried to combine a bar chart with a logarithmic chart. This is generally a no-no as the two are not easily compatible. Ecco - the master of charts can probably tell us if there was an ulterior motive. It looks to me like they devised the bar chart configuration for the sole purpose of promoting the incorrect notion of a lithium modality, since it makes it stand out. There is nothing significant going on with the Li. As you can see from the data in the Table, the only real anomaly is massive percentage of 64Ni usage, but this very important detail is washed out by the screwy chart. If you can get any information from AP on this subject, please inquire as to the abnormally high starting content of 64. Was this planned or a not? In theory, it could be a natural enrichment and they got very lucky. Otherwise they should have explained the rationale. It would be wise from MFMP to obtain the exact same nickel, with the 64 enrichment, since it is pretty clear that they have identified the active material, whether they intended to do so, or not ... unless there is some kind of weird double error.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Jones Beene</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Mon, 21 Mar 2016 13:35:27 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-8115</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Robert Greenyer says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-8114</link>
			<description><![CDATA[@Jones I shall ask him. After a cursory look at the presentation, I see what you mean in the tables - but, I may be wrong, but the bar charts are not supporting this table data. On another note, perhaps you should watch the last video I made. https://youtu.be/NqyYYAXox4c]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Robert Greenyer</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Mon, 21 Mar 2016 09:18:37 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-8114</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Jones Beene says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-8104</link>
			<description><![CDATA[@ Bob, It would be of great interest to hear what Parkhomov himself has to say about the 64Ni - but it is difficult to make a well-coordinate d mistake on both ends of two measurements (the before and after percentages), such that the mistake is not completely out-of-line, and obviously wrong. In this case, there really is no other explanation for gain other than the one imbalance. But of course, coincidences do happen. Also - for the record - a fairly high percentage of mined nickel comes from sites where there was a prehistoric meteorite impact – like at Sudbury in Canada. Nickel found in ore which comes from an impact site can be enriched naturally in 64Ni, since this one isotope is more prevalent in iron-nickel asteroids from Space, than is the primordial nickel of earth. The enrichment is not uniform from various nickel mine sites. It would possible, in principle, to obtain nickel of approximately 5% in 64Ni enrichment from a particular mine inadvertently- but especially if you were aware of the situation and actually sought out the supplier based on the isotope enrichment. It could also explain why in seemingly good experiments performed elsewhere – the results turned up null. This one of Alan should have shown more. Likely, he did not have the enriched nickel since there is no assurance that the nickel sent by Parkhomov to MFMP in the US was the same mine source used in Sochi. AP could be unaware of all of this … or not. Certainly, he (or anyone) has an incentive to retain some proprietary information. He may not want this info to come out, or he could be unaware ... but it is doubtful that the double mistake found in the paper would be so carefully crafted - if it was simply a typo.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Jones Beene</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Fri, 18 Mar 2016 19:45:05 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-8104</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Robert Greenyer says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-8103</link>
			<description><![CDATA[@Jones Well, we will be running enhanced 62Ni first in Bob Higgins. Also looking to get the Padua cell ash tested against the source Parkhomov Ni - this experiment was the one that run at high temperatures the longest.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Robert Greenyer</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Fri, 18 Mar 2016 19:32:18 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-8103</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Robert Greenyer says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-8101</link>
			<description><![CDATA[@Jones I fully agree that Li isotopes is in the noise and it is difficult to test for anyhow. I don't know about the other]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Robert Greenyer</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Fri, 18 Mar 2016 15:11:41 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-8101</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Robert Greenyer says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-8098</link>
			<description><![CDATA[@Stoyan Sarg Please see here: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B5Pc25a4cOM2cHBha0RLbUo5ZVU/view Parkhomov did an elemental study and there is no 9Be shown in the data.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Robert Greenyer</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Fri, 18 Mar 2016 10:06:27 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-8098</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>AlanG says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-8095</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Here's a postcard from GS5.2 http://magicsound.us/MFMP/GS5-2_tube_post.jpg]]></description>
			<dc:creator>AlanG</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Wed, 16 Mar 2016 21:28:48 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-8095</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>AlanG says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-7968</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Here are the HUGnet data files for the GS5-2 main run (30 Jan 17:00 - 3 Feb 03:00 UTC) in .csv format: http://goo.gl/O01a7P 30 sec data 509 KB http://goo.gl/1Jqh7e raw data 6.75 MB Because of its size, you will need to download the raw data file and open it with a spreadsheet program. The date/time data is in Excel format and should be set up to include seconds. My preferred form for date/time in Excel is dd-mmm-yyyy hh:mm:ss. If there's enough demand, I'll also post the files as Excel workbooks.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>AlanG</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Tue, 01 Mar 2016 17:28:05 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-7968</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Mats002 says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-7869</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Thanks guys! The implications of this experiment is among others that social security board of sweden might start thinking deep about a simplified base income instead of today's many different specialized benefits. In a world of abundance for cheap money we need new social solutions.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Mats002</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Fri, 26 Feb 2016 09:13:18 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-7869</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Sanjeev says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-7850</link>
			<description><![CDATA[@Ecco Thanks for the plot. I agree that only the highest point is somewhat interesting. So it all stands on the radiation signal solely. I hope the experiments using this recipe start soon all over the world.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Sanjeev</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Thu, 25 Feb 2016 13:10:37 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-7850</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Robert Greenyer says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-7848</link>
			<description><![CDATA[@Sanjeev It is only a matter of time, maybe we'll strike gold twice in a row, maybe someone else, but this worked for us. Please see my post on the Signal thread about what Piantelli described.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Robert Greenyer</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Thu, 25 Feb 2016 10:30:36 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-7848</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>AlanG says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-7835</link>
			<description><![CDATA[@Sanjeev Proper calorimetry with the Glowstick is being done by Bob Higgins, but the high operating temperature requires a rather complex design. He's made a lot of progress though and may be inspired to push ahead after this test.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>AlanG</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Thu, 25 Feb 2016 02:40:10 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-7835</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Sanjeev says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-7834</link>
			<description><![CDATA[@Alan Thats what I wanted to know. Its a good sign that at least there was 6% difference. Only way to go forward is proper calorimetry. I hope this will be done in near future. After the announcement, the expectations are touching sky. We are in a critical dangerous zone.You know what I mean.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Sanjeev</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Thu, 25 Feb 2016 01:59:50 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-7834</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Sanjeev says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-7831</link>
			<description><![CDATA[@AlanG Have you plotted the GS5.2 power vs active temperature data? It will be nice to see a comparison for calibration/fue led run/post run. The temperature difference is not much, but perhaps there is something interesting in power ?]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Sanjeev</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Thu, 25 Feb 2016 00:39:53 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-7831</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>JustaGuy says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-7736</link>
			<description><![CDATA[http://tempid.altervista.org/Lost_Pulse_Percentage_A.png]]></description>
			<dc:creator>JustaGuy</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Mon, 22 Feb 2016 02:13:26 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-7736</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>EccoEcco says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-7734</link>
			<description><![CDATA[@Stephen Cooke: thanks again for linking these. I think this might be relevant to what was observed during GS5.2 experiment, as you've also previously written: http://i.imgur.com/gB7Xs39.png Click here for full size: http://i.imgur.com/gB7Xs39.png]]></description>
			<dc:creator>EccoEcco</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Sun, 21 Feb 2016 11:43:29 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-7734</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Stephen Cooke says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-7733</link>
			<description><![CDATA[@JustaGuy I found this intresting link about thermal behaviour of NaI Scintllators. I posted it a bit bellow on this thread but it's easy to miss. May be it adds some more detail to the Wikipedia article. http://www.pnl.gov/main/publications/external/technical_reports/pnnl-14735.pdf This e-book on the Gamma Scitllators and spectra is pretty good too: http://sites.fas.harvard.edu/~phys191r/Bench_Notes/B1/NAI_catalog.pdf I think Ecco has already seen them but I thought they could be intresting for you too. Great work by the way!]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Stephen Cooke</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Sun, 21 Feb 2016 11:13:57 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-7733</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Robert Greenyer says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-7732</link>
			<description><![CDATA[@EccoEcco Good suggestion - that will also reduce the reflected/back radiation that favours the null (since the 'active' has a led well)]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Robert Greenyer</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Sun, 21 Feb 2016 09:18:19 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-7732</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>EccoEcco says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-7731</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Given the low attenuation of even low-energy x-rays in air, wouldn't it be useful to increase a bit the detector distance so that it has less chances of getting affected by heat like it was during the GS5.2 run?]]></description>
			<dc:creator>EccoEcco</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Sun, 21 Feb 2016 07:46:30 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-7731</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Stephen Cooke says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-7728</link>
			<description><![CDATA[@Jones Beene your right I originally meant to ask more generally but got into the discussions on this thread. Good that you have local knowledge about Radon though that's a detail I would never know. I wonder if Alan and/or JustaGuy or someone else have more specific knowledge regarding my question in context with the test? It's an intresting aside (although I don't know if it's relevant for LENR) that certain stable isotopes elements such as Silver have fairly stable isomers at energies around this peak. If so I wonder if the following paper is relevant? http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/0370-1328/82/5/117/pdf Edit on reflection I think that paper is talking about cluster isomers rather than nucleus isomers so probably not directly relevant. Intresting that they try to use bremstrahlung radiation to stimulate them though. Perhaps if Interesting this paper is more relevant to the nucleus isomers. http://link.springer.com/article/10.1134%2FS1063780X11060018 I wonder if either type is relevant to what BLP are doing?]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Stephen Cooke</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Sat, 20 Feb 2016 19:00:31 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-7728</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Jones Beene says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-7727</link>
			<description><![CDATA[@Ecco - "active temperatures were lower during calibration too." Yes, that is why I was hedging. I had some recollection of Alan having moved a TC to correct this, but I can't find it so it must have been imaginary. And even with a bias, it looks like the differential was increased during "Sect. 7" where it is apparently higher with a calibration correction. (just an eyeball appraisal). @Stephen - your comment is the first I have heard of Radon. However, I am aware that Radon levels in this part of California are much higher than the national average.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Jones Beene</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Sat, 20 Feb 2016 18:40:20 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-7727</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>EccoEcco says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-7726</link>
			<description><![CDATA[@Jones Beene: active temperatures were lower during calibration too. See this graph showing the average of all calibrations: all calibrations: http://i.imgur.com/9AqAD5S.png]]></description>
			<dc:creator>EccoEcco</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Sat, 20 Feb 2016 17:58:04 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-7726</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Stephen Cooke says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-7725</link>
			<description><![CDATA[@Jone Beene. Was the peak at around 75 to 85 keV confirmed as being due to the radon progeny? I was trying to find which transitions from the normal progeny nuclei could generate a peak at 80 keV but did not find many suitable candidates. I'm no expert thigh so may be it comes more indirectly from the beta and alpha radiation? http://www.ccnr.org/radon_chart.html Could it alternatively be due to characteristic radiation from the lead. I think lead has K alpha and k beta lines at around these frequencies? http://www.amptek.com/pdf/characteristic_xrays.pdf If it is characteristic X-rays from lead I'm not sure what stimulates them though but maybe backscatter form the lead or something?]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Stephen Cooke</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Sat, 20 Feb 2016 17:42:28 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-7725</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Jones Beene says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-7724</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Any valid conclusion is hard to justify here - but is it fair to say that there is a slight correlation between these two parameters: a) "apparent endotherm" -- which is where (Sect 7, etc) the null temperature exceeds the active temperature by the greatest differential, and b) the radiation spectra anomalies? This assumes that the two sides of the glow-stick would be equal without apparent endotherm or exotherm, which may not be the case.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Jones Beene</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Sat, 20 Feb 2016 16:18:58 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-7724</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>EccoEcco says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-7723</link>
			<description><![CDATA[@AlanG: thanks. Here's a revised graph showing spectra boundaries: http://i.imgur.com/86lLBtBl.jpg Larger and readable here: http://i.imgur.com/86lLBtB.jpg EDIT: this is the code I used for generating the graph above: gs52_annotated. py: https://github.com/eccoyumi/mfmp-test/blob/master/gs52/gs52_annotated.py EDIT2: this is in detail where the spectra showed an apparently anomalous signal: http://i.imgur.com/EQQcfpF.png Larger graph here: http://i.imgur.com/EQQcfpF.png #7 had the largest signal, in #8 it was much lower, #10 showed slight hints of it. Code for generating this plot: gs52_annotated_ detail.py: https://github.com/eccoyumi/mfmp-test/blob/master/gs52/gs52_annotated_detail.py EDIT3: I remember noting in the chat during the experiment that the first excursion to 1025°C external appeared to cause a visible shift in active temperature at a lower power. That was during section #7.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>EccoEcco</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Fri, 19 Feb 2016 22:11:24 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-7723</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>AlanG says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-7722</link>
			<description><![CDATA[I corrected the typo in the Spectra Log file pointed out by Ecco. The file is now at https://goo.gl/73S2ng I checked all the entries against the file creation times and found no other errors.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>AlanG</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Fri, 19 Feb 2016 20:17:53 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-7722</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Jones Beene says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-7720</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Fermilab may be able to help us (unknowingly) with one aspect of the glow-stick type of experiments. It may be too much of a stretch to expect to find muons in this experiment ... and were it not for Holmlid and other hints - we wouldn't even be looking. However, muons from UDH would be consistent with some of the data, and with the shifting line between exotherm and endotherm, and cannot be ruled out. Here is the ongoing experiment at Fermilab which will model the interaction of muons with aluminum. If there is seen to be a tendency for aluminum to capture muons, then the alumina tube will be seen as important. For instance, it might be advantageous to use a much thicker tube. Wasn't Rossi's tube much thicker? http://www.fnal.gov/pub/today/archive/archive_2015/today15-10-22_readmore.html]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Jones Beene</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Fri, 19 Feb 2016 17:50:48 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-7720</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>EccoEcco says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-7719</link>
			<description><![CDATA[I tried checking out in detail again every single trace, I thought this kind of visualization would be interesting. It seems that trace #10 might have shown some of the signal too, although #9 seemingly didn't: http://i.imgur.com/smhFTn3.png url: http://i.imgur.com/smhFTn3.png EDIT: I'm waiting for confirmation on the dates and time zone for the spectra files previously posted as there's at least one typo for the end date for file #6. See the log in this folder: https://drive.google.com/folderview?id=0BxxJkjesxe4kU1NVQTdKbjRKWkU&usp=sharing.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>EccoEcco</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Fri, 19 Feb 2016 10:18:13 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-7719</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Jones Beene says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-7717</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Ecco: "I previously picked the wrong temperature data, now corrected. Surprisingly, conclusions are more or less the same..." Are they the same? Unfortunately there seems to be no obvious way to be sure that the end of the 5.0 test was not the start of a significant zone for gain. Or else I have missed something, One detail worth mentioning is that Holmlid has said that too much potassium can poison the fuel mix, and there could have been too much K used in 5.0, no? Anyway, there could be some room for optimism in looking at both runs together, to conclude that a combination of lithium and potassium, but not too much of the later - could be superior, and at lower temperature.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Jones Beene</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Thu, 18 Feb 2016 15:57:43 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-7717</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>EccoEcco says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-7716</link>
			<description><![CDATA[This is how I'm merging power and temperature data into a single file using Python 3.5 and the Pandas library 0.17: gs52-postcali-p wrvstemp-minima l.py: https://github.com/eccoyumi/mfmp-test/blob/master/gs52-postcali-pwrvstemp-minimal.py]]></description>
			<dc:creator>EccoEcco</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Thu, 18 Feb 2016 10:01:22 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-7716</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>AlanG says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-7714</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Regarding use of Potassium, the first GS5 run used a substantial amount of a catalyst containing 63% K20. Gamma spectra for the GS5.0 run are available at : https://goo.gl/iql8Ku A time log and a spectrum for the catalyst alone are included.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>AlanG</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Wed, 17 Feb 2016 21:39:30 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-7714</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Sanjeev says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-7713</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Etiam has published some pictures of their reactor. No results shown in this part. http://etiam.fi/files/Report_part1.pdf]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Sanjeev</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Wed, 17 Feb 2016 20:37:34 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-7713</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>AlanG says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-7712</link>
			<description><![CDATA[The power files are now all available at https://goo.gl/jfwqt2 The date/time data is in UTC for file 4 and later. Files prior to that are in UTC - 8. File 9 is for the high frequency drive tests and has frequency data included.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>AlanG</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Wed, 17 Feb 2016 19:57:14 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-7712</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>EccoEcco says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-7711</link>
			<description><![CDATA[@Jones Beene: the background Potassium-40 signal I was referring about was the one within the same graph. I simply meant that the ratio of the counts of the peak value at low energy to those of that signal (which is located at about 1460 keV) is very large in trace #7. If we do the same on a graph certainly showing only natural background radiation (like the one from that other website), it would be much lower. The point of this was telling that the increase at low energies (only) doesn't look like it's from natural sources. I didn't mean to directly compare it to the one from that other graph showing background radiation. Maybe there was a misunderstandin g. This being said, using potassium as an alkali metal would probably be a good idea. It volatilizes at lower temperatures, it's more electropositive than Lithium, there are ready-made materials comprising it which have been observed to work. I guess this a matter of priorities, and I'm not the one performing the experiments.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>EccoEcco</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Wed, 17 Feb 2016 19:37:14 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-7711</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Jones Beene says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-7710</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Say ... speaking of a situation where: 1) There is a slightly anomalous emission spectrum which occurs in the absence of the element known to cause it (potassium) 2) That element is absent but could easily be added 3) That element is also the most commonly used element associated with dense hydrogen formation, so its addition would do little harm and possibly help. 4) In many QM systems, emission lines are also stimulation frequencies due to quantum entanglement ERGO - it might make sense to use the previous fuel mix with added potassium. The idea being that anomalous emission will stimulate the potassium in a positive feedback situation Does that reasoning hold water? ... or is it based on a lye :-)]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Jones Beene</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Wed, 17 Feb 2016 18:45:44 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-7710</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Jones Beene says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-7709</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Ecco "I don't think it was a natural signal because peak counts are much larger than the known 40K background, but who knows. An expert opinion would be needed indeed. Or, a new active run with the same testing conditions to see if it the signal can be replicated." You do not need an expert for that particular point. The chart is showing an order of magnitude more than background (unless there is a bag of fertilizer nearby), but still low in terms of a significant energy contribution. Yet it would be nice to replicate the signal while comparing to background often - or to have something like a gamma scout placed well away from the experiment to measure simultaneous background. This could be a big deal... or not. Not sure it would warrant doing the exact same fuel mix though - given the realities of having a limited amount of time and resources.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Jones Beene</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Wed, 17 Feb 2016 18:11:09 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-7709</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>EccoEcco says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-7708</link>
			<description><![CDATA[@Jones Beene: the 40K signal is the small bump at about 1450 keV, peaking at about 40 counts. What I was looking at is the significant broadband increase at lower energies over the background, peaking at over 20000 counts (normalized). http://i.imgur.com/mrTFOhj.png Larger: http://i.imgur.com/mrTFOhj.png Here's a background gamma-ray spectrum example. Note the scale and 40K peak location: Background Example: http://www.randomuseless.info/spectra/results/background/ After looking in detail at the spectra files runtimes while trying to fix the end dates provided by AlanG yesterday, I think I found the correct ones. Here's a new graph showing the new end times. The red box shows the approximate timeframe where the signal probably occurred. (EDIT: it looks like my times could be wrong, which means again that solid conclusions cannot be drawn from them. It's probably best to wait for valid data first) Image here: http://i.imgur.com/jzXwnTb.png The duration of trace #7 is shorter than I assumed from previously provided information. It also occurs earlier than I thought. I now have a few hypotheses: 1) It was a muon-caused signal starting approximately in trace #7, with particles getting increasingly faster over time (as the apparent excess heat increased), eventually passing through the scintillator without being detected. This doesn't seem too likely however (it would be too convenient as an explanation in this case, IMO). 2) Something happened in a burst-like fashion within a short timeframe. It wasn't a persistent muon-caused signal like what Holmlid and Ólafsson are describing. There have often been reports of such events by others in the LENR field. 3) It was an artifact due to outside disturbances to the detector. It might help if AlanG or JustaGuy can remember what happened exactly at that time around the reactor and in the environment. I don't think it was a natural signal because peak counts are much larger than the known 40K background, but who knows. An expert opinion would be needed indeed. Or, a new active run with the same testing conditions to see if it the signal can be replicated.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>EccoEcco</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Wed, 17 Feb 2016 15:59:59 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-7708</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Jones Beene says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-7707</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Gentlemen, Has a cosmic source of the signal been ruled out? If this is a 40K signal, which it looks like, where did the potassium come from? If it isn't K and given the importance of a finding of muons, especially in the context of the Holmlid papers, isn't it worthwhile to try to bring in expert opinion on the subject?]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Jones Beene</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Wed, 17 Feb 2016 15:28:31 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-7707</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Stephen Cooke says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-7705</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Thanks Ecco I'm now Registered so should work. I should have done that ages ago ;-) Edit: Verified :-)]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Stephen Cooke</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Wed, 17 Feb 2016 11:29:25 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-7705</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>EccoEcco says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-7703</link>
			<description><![CDATA[@Stephen: that means you have not created an account on quantumheat.org yet. You can do it through the Login menu on the top of the page. http://i.imgur.com/3qMfqfR.png http://i.imgur.com/3qMfqfR.png: http://i.imgur.com/3qMfqfR.png Good reference there on gamma-ray spectra, by the way.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>EccoEcco</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Wed, 17 Feb 2016 10:13:42 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-7703</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Stephen says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-7702</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Thanks Ecco I was wondering how to edit. Unfortunately Im missing that Icon on my system on Safari, Firefox and Explorer browsers but I will see if i can track it down]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Stephen</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Wed, 17 Feb 2016 10:06:11 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-7702</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>EccoEcco says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-7701</link>
			<description><![CDATA[@Stephen: you can click on this icon to edit your comments so you don't have to write several ones in a row to immediately add or correct information: http://i.imgur.com/inKk69U.png http://i.imgur.com/inKk69U.png]]></description>
			<dc:creator>EccoEcco</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Wed, 17 Feb 2016 09:53:55 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-7701</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Stephen says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-7700</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Oops for got the attachment, here it is: http://sites.fas.harvard.edu/~phys191r/Bench_Notes/B1/NAI_catalog.pdf]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Stephen</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Wed, 17 Feb 2016 09:50:39 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-7700</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Stephen says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-7699</link>
			<description><![CDATA[In case it is interesting I just found this rather nice catalogue on line about Spectra and Scintillators by R.L. Heath, Its quite old but certainly informative. I like it. I hope it helps.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Stephen</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Wed, 17 Feb 2016 09:49:52 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-7699</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Stephen says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-7698</link>
			<description><![CDATA[@Jones Beene. If foil is use Its interesting to note that passing positive Mouns through foil is sometimes used as a method for producing muonium. Im not sure if its relevant but I though it was an interesting enough to mention.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Stephen</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Wed, 17 Feb 2016 09:34:26 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-7698</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Stephen says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-7696</link>
			<description><![CDATA[@Jones Beene. You are right of course about elections from muon decay. But muons themselves would also be subject to Bremsstrahlung radiation. Not just the daughter electrons. This can be muon nucleus Bremsstrahlung Radiation and muon electron Bremsstrahlung radiation from interactions with k shell electrons. If the device and foil is sufficiently close that the muons have not decayed we should get X-Ray bremstrahlung radiation from these muon interactions If further away you are right then the muons are more likely to decay and high energy electrons from the decay should generate higher energy bremstrahlung radiation. So basically it depends on the time of flight between the source, the foil and the detector. Note in the case of muon k shell electron bremstrahlung the electron is also likely to be emitted with part of the kinetic energy. So there maybe a small component due to this as well The observed curve fits that for relatively high intensity Bremstrahlung radiation at lower energy of some kind either muon or electron or possibly but less likely other charged particle source. Of course to be complete Bremstrahlung like radiation could also be due to charged particles rotating in a magnetic field but Maybe this would be at even lower frequencies?]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Stephen</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Wed, 17 Feb 2016 08:39:14 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-7696</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>AlanG says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-7694</link>
			<description><![CDATA[The GS5.2 gamma spectrum files are available at: https://goo.gl/ByTifq A time log for the files is included: https://goo.gl/PwfmIi These are raw data files for the Spectrum Techniques USX software, available free at: http://www.spectrumtechniques.com/software_downloads.htm That software can export to csv for further analysis. Geiger Counter data for 4 Feb - 5 Feb is available at:https://goo. gl/4nMV3g]]></description>
			<dc:creator>AlanG</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Tue, 16 Feb 2016 22:03:47 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-7694</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Jones Beene says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-7693</link>
			<description><![CDATA[@Stephen: The electron which is left over after muon decay should have energy greater than one MeV. It seems likely that the x-ray signal is being cut off in the 25 keV range by intrinsic limitations and a thicker window would not help that situation very much. The bump in the 1.3 MeV range could relate to this electron. However, there could be low energy muons produced by UDH which are at rock bottom, but the minimum energy is the rest mass which is 200x more than the electron, and all of that energy is released in the disintegration, so "low energy" is still very high compared to what "used to be expected" in LENR. In short, the "lowest energy muon decay" still blows the socks off of nuclear fusion - which is one of the reasons why there is so much resistance to Holmlid's results. But since most of that release is lost to the reactor, it is a bizarre situation where more is less. BTW does anyone have contact with the Professor at SJ State, Ken Wharton, who has been trying to replicate Holmlid? He could provide expert opinion about how to verify muons.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Jones Beene</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Tue, 16 Feb 2016 21:49:02 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-7693</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>EccoEcco says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-7691</link>
			<description><![CDATA[@Jones Beene: that could be one reason (maybe), but not the primary one. This one was as far as I recall the first GlowStick experiment where pressure was kept very low on purpose (< 0.5 bar. I would have chosen an even lower pressure), as Parkhomov also indicated. Internal temperatures have also probably been significantly higher than in past runs. The secondary signal from - speculatively - muon emission in spectra files #7 and #8 appears to have originated while cycling temperatures between approximately 1050°C and 1350-1400 °C. This was probably higher if heat was also being internally generated. My idea is that the combination of low pressure + temperature might have caused first the "free" lithium to evaporate and slowly react with the oxides (mainly ceramic parts) surrounding the fuel capsule (which has a venting hole, from which gaseous Lithium could have escaped. Or the capsule itself might even have been corroded away by it); after this the lithium-doped oxides might have started to very slowly release excited (Rydberg-state) Lithium atoms as what happens with Potassium in Holmlid's experiments with the potassium-iron oxide catalysts. A lower pressure also makes Rydberg-state atoms more likely to survive until they can form Rydberg Matter, which is a long-lived state of matter. This is my current interpretation / guess of what is happening in these replications and can of course be wrong. I've already written this several times in past comments, but Holmlid's original finding before he focused on UDH was that alkali atoms in general can desorb from non-metallic surfaces (carbon or oxides) easily directly in a circular Rydberg state. If a large density of circular Rydberg state atoms can be formed and these happen to be in proximity of a surface, Rydberg Matter can form. In a process I haven't fully understood, Rydberg matter of alkali atoms can transfer their excitation energy to hydrogen molecules and atoms in their proximity, which can in turn get excited to their Rydberg state (etc...). So far only hydrogen was observed to have an ultra-dense form. @Stephen: it's possible that if the signal is being generated inside the scintillator / detector casing, significant counts below 30 keV could be produced. However, one also has to consider the possibility that the PMT and the usb spectrometer to which the scintillator is coupled with as a single unit might also be cutting off counts from energies below certain values. If I open the original .csv file for spectrum #7, I see these values in keV: Should this be regarded as the "operating range" where the detector is accurate? I'm not an expert in these devices unfortunately. It does look as if lower energies have a hard cutoff not much below the lower threshold. http://i.imgur.com/2DyixUB.png Trying to add an aluminum foil would be an interesting idea, provided that the signal can actually be reproduced (after confirming that it's indeed anomalous).]]></description>
			<dc:creator>EccoEcco</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Tue, 16 Feb 2016 20:26:50 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-7691</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Stephen says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-7690</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Or perhaps the muons X-rays are generated by the thin aluminium window itself? If so maybe extra or thicker layers of foil may generate more X-Ray's as you suggested.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Stephen</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Tue, 16 Feb 2016 20:02:58 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-7690</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Stephen says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-7689</link>
			<description><![CDATA[@Ecco. An intresting thought just came to me: I understand from the scintillator specification it has a thin window that allows X-Ray's from about 30 keV So if muons are entering the scintillator and generating the signal inside perhaps we would have counts at below 30keV Interestingly there is a rapid drop in the spectrum at low keV. I wonder if this indicates the X-Ray source is outside the scintillator? Or perhaps other factors apart from the window result in low counts at these low energies?]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Stephen</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Tue, 16 Feb 2016 19:34:43 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-7689</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Jones Beene says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-7687</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Ecco: The idea of a magnetic circuit as Alan has drawn up on that thread is also interesting - especially if it could be combined with some way with an addition to capture putative muons. It is worth researching to find the easiest efficient way to collect muons, but definitely the iron pots could be doing that already. Could it really be that simple? e.g. that lack of success in replication has been due to lack of heavy old iron pots? Doubt it, but it is possible.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Jones Beene</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Tue, 16 Feb 2016 19:17:59 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-7687</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>EccoEcco says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-7686</link>
			<description><![CDATA[@Jones Beene: the original idea was Axil's, and it reminded me of that. See: LENR reactors need magnetic confinement: https://www.lenr-forum.com/forum/index.php/Thread/2353-LENR-reactors-need-magnetic-confinement/ I haven't investigated on which materials are good at capturing muons, although I'm aware there are known techniques for this. A homemade cloud chamber - I have suggested this in the past, but it does require some building and preparation effort. It doesn't need to sit very close to the reactor; this would in fact probably be counterproducti ve. It would be interesting to know if the muon emission (if actually present and verified) can be anisotropic, although Holmlid's results probably suggest it's not (I haven't read in very deep detail all of his recent papers yet, however). UDH is apparently a superconductor and superfluid at room temperature: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S037596011100082X (it's not clear if it still is at much higher ones) and conducts heat very well. HRM (the less dense form) apparently also has the capability of self-cooling even in a heated environment as it's a very good radiator, but also for the most part transparent to IR (and the visible spectrum). These might account for some of the endothermic effects observed. Holmlid and Ólafsson suggest that muon emission might actually be an inherent process in LENR / cold fusion, and that it might have escaped detection because researchers don't generally look for it. I think if LENR implies UDH (an extreme form of Hydrogen Rydberg Matter, or in other words, metallized hydrogen - which can be produced in a number of ways, not just an alkali promoted catalyst) muon emission should be expected, at least to some extent. The circumstances might be slightly different than Holmlid's, but the basic process and conditions for creating HRM (and thus UDH) might have been met in the GS5.2 (even if potentially only temporarily), as I highlighted a few times in previous comments. UDH can also emit high energy particles spontaneously: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/281115489_Spontaneous_ejection_of_high-energy_particles_from_ultra-dense_deuterium_D0 (without laser activation). As far as I understand, the laser in Holmlid's case mostly serves to destabilize the UDH, and fusion reactions and other processes aren't directly initiated by its power/temperatu re. It could be seen as the "triggering method" proposed by some LENR researchers. Notably, one of Piantelli's patents: http://www.google.com/patents/EP2368252B1 includes laser triggering. It's possible that temperature and perhaps indirectly other factors (the heating coil?) in these Parkhomov replications can accelerate the formation and disruption of UDH.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>EccoEcco</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Tue, 16 Feb 2016 18:31:18 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-7686</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Jones Beene says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-7683</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Ecco, Interesting thought about the iron pot container of Parkhomov actually capturing muon radiation that is otherwise lost. BTW, let me correct the error in previous post about the energy of muon decay. It is typically 100 times greater than beta decay and 6 times greater than proton fusion with lithium. Thus, even a small fraction which is retained (assuming that the iron pot could do that) could show thermal gain. There could be a way to adapt the split glow tube experiment to show whether more muons are being emitted from one side than another. BTW - a homemade cloud chamber is a possibility for muon detection (it is the way they were discovered). http://www.symmetrymagazine.org/article/january-2015/how-to-build-your-own-particle-detector]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Jones Beene</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Tue, 16 Feb 2016 17:01:52 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-7683</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Stephen says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-7682</link>
			<description><![CDATA[@Ecco I'm getting more and more intrigued. Yup good points. Whatever it turns out to be it's certainly an interesting find. @Jones Beene Would slow muons be more likely to interact and perhaps be more controlable in an EM field than the high energy ones from cosmic sources?]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Stephen</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Tue, 16 Feb 2016 16:50:34 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-7682</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>EccoEcco says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-7681</link>
			<description><![CDATA[@Stephen: I think it's this one: 6S6P1.5VD SCINTILLATION DETECTOR: http://goo.gl/jvFz3n If the signal is really due to high energy particles (muons, etc) coming from the GS, then it is due to these directly reacting with the scintillator material or even the detector housing, causing secondary reactions inside of it. If I understand correctly from this paper: dx.doi.org/10.1 063/1.4928109, Holmlid and Ólafsson suggest replacing the scintillator with solid metallic materials (foils, disks, etc) in order to increase the likelihood of interaction of muons with this part and thus detection by the PMT. Temperature appears to cause a more or less linear shift in energies as the document you liked also appears to show: http://i.imgur.com/jLAl45S.png http://i.imgur.com/jLAl45S.png I have already applied a correction for this effect in my graphs. So, I don't think this is the cause of the low energy increase (by a maximum factor of roughly 40 in trace #7 over all other traces) and different distribution. It will have to be investigated but it's promising. @Jones Beene: the correlation is very interesting. I think the background muon flux is supposed to be more or less constant over time and low, not give a sort of bursty signal like this one. Of course (and again) tests will be needed to confirm it's genuine. If this is how the reaction mainly operates, it could be the main reason why Rossi uses (used to have?) a lead-boron jacket in his devices for "thermalizing radiations". Knowing what's actually going on, it would make sense that one could use the decay products for heat, directly for electricity, or a combination of both. This makes me wonder though how high and powerful the muon flux must be in the case of high COP LENR from these replications using just a ceramic tube. EDIT: but thinking about it, didn't Parkhomov use an old and thick iron (?) pot as a calorimeter? Could that be the "secret"? http://i.imgur.com/ojkSdUxl.jpg]]></description>
			<dc:creator>EccoEcco</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Tue, 16 Feb 2016 16:24:16 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-7681</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Stephen says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-7679</link>
			<description><![CDATA[I'm not sure but may be this document helps? http://www.pnl.gov/main/publications/external/technical_reports/pnnl-14735.pdf]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Stephen</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Tue, 16 Feb 2016 15:43:46 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-7679</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Stephen says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-7678</link>
			<description><![CDATA[I wonder if there is any background information on this kind of scintillator regarding its performance and thermal characteristics ? Do we know if it is much more sensitive to low energy x-rays and gamma if it heats up? It will be interesting to compare the recent results. Would it make sense to provide some thermal insulation between the Scintillator and the Glow Stick? Or would this disturb the signal too much by either blocking the signal or leading to unwanted secondary radiation?]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Stephen</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Tue, 16 Feb 2016 15:34:49 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-7678</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Jones Beene says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-7677</link>
			<description><![CDATA[@EccoEcco" ... discuss how much [Holmlid's results] apply to the results observed with the MFMP Glowstick..." OK. Two obvious things worth noting in the event that there is some kind of correlation. (and muons are being detected near the glowstick). First, 10,000 muons reach earth's surface per minute per meter^2 naturally -- from cosmic rays. Much of what is seen in these charts is already due to cosmic rays, but maybe not all. Second, even if Alan is making muons in the reactor, that does not guarantee thermal gain, and could be exothermic, since almost all of the massive energy of muon decay (which is 50x - 200x more energy than nuclear fusion) is released as neutrinos, which escape without heating anything. How ironic ... that the glowstick could be massively gainful but in a way which is not useful. Maybe the secret of success for thermal gain is a coating or operating parameter which captures muons before they can decay...]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Jones Beene</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Tue, 16 Feb 2016 15:14:24 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-7677</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>EccoEcco says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-7676</link>
			<description><![CDATA[@Stephen: I think the cart was only temporarily moved back in AlanG's case. As far as I understand, Holmlid observed the low energy fraction (the largest) of the signal to decrease with distance, while the high energy fraction increased, indicating a decay of emitted particles before reaching the detector. The low energy fraction of the signal was found to be caused by energetic particles directly interacting with the converter material inside the scintillator housing and giving off beta decay-like electrons. The high energy fraction of the signal was due to x-ray photons emitted by this process, which could be filtered by adding a suitable material between the scintillator and the photomultiplier (PMT). Hopefully people more competent than I am in the subject will examine those papers (or more in general, those published in 2015 by Holmlid et al.) and check out and discuss how much they apply to the results observed with the MFMP Glowstick 5.2.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>EccoEcco</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Tue, 16 Feb 2016 11:51:55 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-7676</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Stephen says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-7675</link>
			<description><![CDATA[I had kind of crazy idea too that maybe high energy electrons are causing some of the broad spectrum as it does apear to be similar to a bremsstrahlung curve. But on closer inspection it may not be as the peak of spectrum 7 is very close to the beginning so may actually continue to rise at lower energies than the device is sensitive to. It's interesting that the high end of the deviation is close to 511 keV I wonder if this is a coincidence. Could it be bremstrahlung radiation with a peak of around 10 or 20 keV or less?]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Stephen</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Tue, 16 Feb 2016 10:53:03 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-7675</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>EccoEcco says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-7666</link>
			<description><![CDATA[@Jones Beene Incidentally, Holmlid and others also observed the emission Rydberg states and matter of potassium atoms from synthesized Cryptomelane: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cryptomelane (KMn8O16) nanorods (a catalyst also called K-OMS-2), see: Emission of highly excited electronic states of potassium from cryptomelane nanorods: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/282047571_Emission_of_highly_excited_electronic_states_of_potassium_from_cryptomelane_nanorods (full pdf available) Given this and what Mills seems to be suggesting, perhaps it wouldn't be too far fetched to expect LiMn2O4 from Lithium batteries to work well (although they would probably lack the favorable surface geometry of those catalysts). However, alkali metals are central in Holmlid's observations. What he's been observing for decades is that they can easily desorb from non-metallic surfaces (as in alkali-promoted metal oxide catalysts) directly in an excited Rydberg state, and that they are able to transfer their excitation energy to other gaseous atoms and molecules, e.g. Hydrogen. It would be hard to imagine that alkali metals could be easily replaced by something else; I don't think he would be able to see anything without them in his experiments. In Holmlid's case, carbon increases the rate of desorption of RM from the surface of the catalysts he's using, so it is likely that it can help the reaction in that sense in Parkhomov's case, provided that it was very finely divided. Alumina powder might have been included both as a filler (to prevent sintering to some extent) and to avoid that free Lithium (for example from the LiAlH4) remains in the liquid phase. The reason why I think so is that at elevated temperatures Lithium would certainly react with the Al2O3, forming different phases of Lithium Aluminate (LiAlO2) in the process, see: The product of the reaction of alumina with lithium metal: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0022311585904544 (paywalled). It is my hypothesis (following Holmlid's observations) that this should be another alkali oxide/metal oxide compound (i.e. an alkali-doped non-metallic material) potentially capable of emitting Lithium atoms directly in a Rydberg state at high enough temperature and/or low enough pressure, as with other alkali-promoted catalysts used by Holmlid and others. To create a cell solely dedicated for the production of UDH would require first a method for reliably producing it, which has not been achieved nor attempted yet by the amateur community. However, it would be an interesting concept. Holmlid actually has envisioned all along in his papers and his (now abandoned) patent application: http://www.google.com/patents/EP2680271A1?cl=en that the UDH could be used as a target for inertial confinement fusion (ICF), to be produced in a different apparatus than where it's actually "burned".]]></description>
			<dc:creator>EccoEcco</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Sat, 13 Feb 2016 19:36:55 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-7666</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Jones Beene says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-7665</link>
			<description><![CDATA[@EccoEcco ...certain Li-ion batteries have a LiMnO4 cathode. FWIW - manganese is also listed as a Mills catalyst (aka Rydberg catalyst) ... and since Mn acts on a different fractional level than does nickel, lithium, potassium, iron and oxygen (all are on the list of Mills catalysts) then it provides a unique and complementary energy level that the others do not have. Also, there could be advantages to a bifurcated process where the UDH is made in one system (the old battery) but is reacted in an unrelated system. If the purpose of the glow-stick is simplified to no longer be required to make UDH, but only burn it, then that simplification could help in several ways. Pressure would be less important. The alumina powder which was found in the Parkhomov fuel, as well as the graphite - could be an addition which is there to help in the conversion of the UDH to release energy. Notably carbon, aluminum, silicon and nitrogen are not Rydberg catalysts so they are essentially counter-product ive to a system which must both make the UDH while also burning it at the same time. I am using the term "burn" in a general what which is beyond chemistry.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Jones Beene</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Sat, 13 Feb 2016 18:32:43 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-7665</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Jones Beene says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-7663</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Ecco, Let me add to your prior analysis of the fuel/ash analysis (Parkhomov at ICCF19). I wasn't aware of your comment before, but thinking about it now in the context of the new experiment -- well, clearly Parkhomov would have known of Galushkin's battery papers in Russia. Some of those papers go back a long way and the two of them are in the same general community (fringe). Parkhomov may have known of Holmlid as well. But all of that could be arguably coincidental - if the original success had been replicated. But Parkhomov (or Celani) wasn't replicated and many high quality experimenters wasted time and money trying. Since Li-ion batteries employ a Lithium Manganese Oxide (LiMn2O4) cathode and a graphite anode, the facts do make it appear that this is what was used, especially with the new info confirming the possibility. I suspect that any battery type using hydrogen in the electrolyte, with a few thousand recharge cycles, and Ni-O electrodes and an alkali - will qualify as a candidate for UDH formation - if Galushkin is even remotely correct. "So, even though Parkhomov never claimed using the content of a Li-ion battery, s_gray's recent experiments with the contents of a NiMH battery reminded me of that." I agree completely. In the end, with both Rossi and Parkhomov, we cannot assume full disclosure. They have an agenda and they are not in the business of giving away everything. Rossi, in particular has withheld critical details. You really cannot criticize that, in a way. All of us have an agenda even if "open source" is the agenda... which makes it honorable, let me say. The problem is that we (society) needs REPLICATION of the new technology soon, before it is completely written off, As things have evolved, there is a strong possibility that there is something valid to the cross-connectio n of this new experiment to Holmlid - and thereby to a new twist on the glow stick. And since the new entrant is up front about the active component, let's hope that it can be replicated soon. The field is currently in a rut and this spent-battery breakthrough could be the way out.... ,,,, or not.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Jones Beene</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Sat, 13 Feb 2016 15:32:18 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-7663</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>EccoEcco says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-7662</link>
			<description><![CDATA[I tried looking at spectrum data files from the online shared folder AlanG previously set up: https://drive.google.com/folderview?id=0BxxJkjesxe4kU1NVQTdKbjRKWkU&usp=sharing (latest data not online yet), and I found out that file #7 looks quite different than other ones on the bottom end. I wonder why. http://i.imgur.com/9WisbDL.png Larger: http://i.imgur.com/9WisbDL.png]]></description>
			<dc:creator>EccoEcco</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Sat, 13 Feb 2016 14:02:39 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-7662</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Jones Beene says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-7660</link>
			<description><![CDATA[A Russian paper was mentioned:.“Pos sibility of obtaining atomic metallic hydrogen by electrochemical method” Nikolay E. Galushkin, Nataliya N. Yazvinskaya, Dmitriy N. Galushkin Because of the possibility that metallic hydrogen found in these old batteries is the same as the UDH of Holmlid, I contacted Galushkin a couple of weeks ago. He is very open about his work and would like to collaborate. Galushkin claims that a dense metallic hydrogen species formed over the years inside of sintered oxide-nickel electrodes of nickel-cadmium battery due to continuous electrochemical redox hydrogenation (more than five years). The density this species is 12 times higher than liquid hydrogen. “It was established that density is 0.85 g/ccm, specific energy of hydrogen recombination is 216 MJ kg” (whoa!) ... (Gasoline contains about 42 MJ/kg) If nothing else, using fuel consisting of an old NiCad battery (MUST be old) would be interesting to compare.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Jones Beene</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Fri, 12 Feb 2016 20:46:53 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-7660</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Sanjeev says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-7658</link>
			<description><![CDATA[@AlanG That's unfortunate. But I see abrupt drops in power. What can explain that? If the H2 is being fed at constant rate then the extra heat from burning should appear simply as an offset at all temperatures. Just guessing.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Sanjeev</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Fri, 12 Feb 2016 19:47:58 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-7658</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>AlanG says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-7657</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Regarding S_Gray's experiment, it is interesting but I have many doubts. For example, he is streaming H2 through a very hot open cell. Seems like the H2 could simply be burning in there, which would certainly create extra heat.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>AlanG</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Fri, 12 Feb 2016 19:37:27 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-7657</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>AlanG says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-7656</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Good suggestion Matts. I'd rather play "We Are The Champions" but that will wait for positive test results. I can run the playlist on the video stream page but I have to collect the mp3's and upload them to my server. Maybe later today.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>AlanG</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Fri, 12 Feb 2016 19:35:06 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-7656</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Sanjeev says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-7655</link>
			<description><![CDATA[S_Grey is claiming a successful replication of Alexander Parkhomov/Ecat reactor using NiMH battery contents. Excess is 100W: https://www.lenr-forum.com/forum/index.php/Thread/2760-Successful-replication-of-Alexander-Parkhomov/ And... David Fojt shared his interesting method for preparing the fuel. https://www.lenr-forum.com/forum/index.php/Thread/2751-Replications-what-s-going-on-in-2016/?postID=13364#post13364]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Sanjeev</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Fri, 12 Feb 2016 19:34:14 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-7655</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Mats002 says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-7654</link>
			<description><![CDATA[So after the aeroplane adventure there will be a music concert? Creativity is soaring! I vote for Queen, Another one bites the dust. That bas punch will light the new fire for shure! Have you seen the big news about another Parkhomov like replication? Success from East again!? Must be the punch in their outlets: https://www.lenr-forum.com/forum/index.php/Thread/2760-Successful-replication-of-Alexander-Parkhomov/?postID=13356#post13379]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Mats002</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Fri, 12 Feb 2016 19:26:51 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-7654</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>AlanG says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-7653</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Due to some equipment problems, I won't be running the audio test today. That will be rescheduled for another time. The system is now running Death Cycle mode, alternating off and full power (~1.2 kW) on 15 minute intervals.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>AlanG</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Fri, 12 Feb 2016 19:11:43 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-7653</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Robert Greenyer says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-7651</link>
			<description><![CDATA[@Stephen That is an excellent idea]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Robert Greenyer</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Thu, 11 Feb 2016 21:07:39 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-7651</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Stephen says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-7650</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Here it is I think: http://www.popsci.com/listen-to-sound-gravitational-waves]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Stephen</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Thu, 11 Feb 2016 19:40:24 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-7650</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Stephen says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-7649</link>
			<description><![CDATA[After today's news about the detection of gravity waves wouldn't it be great to use the sound of the two black holes merging. :-)]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Stephen</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Thu, 11 Feb 2016 19:37:36 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-7649</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>AlanG says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-7648</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Thanks for the suggestion Stephen. I'll definitely add "Fire" (Hendrix) and Firestarter (Prodigy). I'll probably run the test with music tomorrow if I get additional submissions. Could be any synthesized waveform too, as long as you send it to me as an mp3 file.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>AlanG</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Thu, 11 Feb 2016 19:13:19 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-7648</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Stephen says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-7647</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Here are some more fire songs if you are still looking for some: http://ultimateclassicrock.com/fire-songs/ How about firestarter by the prodigy? Plenty of sound in that one ;)]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Stephen</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Thu, 11 Feb 2016 18:49:30 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-7647</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>AlanG says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-7646</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Today I'm doing some some testing with variable frequency and waveform drive power. The PA1000 power analyzer display is set up to show frequency along with the other measurements. The signal source can be sine, square, triangle or pulse waveform from 10 Hz to 25 kHz at power up to 1 kW. I welcome any suggestions for waveforms to try. Follow the test in real-time at http://magicsound.us/MFMP/video]]></description>
			<dc:creator>AlanG</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Thu, 11 Feb 2016 18:38:43 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-7646</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Jones Beene says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-7645</link>
			<description><![CDATA[A meaningful addition to a Parkhomov type experiment is one where the effect of photon intensification at the same input power, is tested. This image shows a simple inverted trough, which would reflect back photons, greatly intensifying their effect. It is easily removed for purposes of comparison - with vs without. http://tinyurl.com/zwj2akg If the differential thermal data between active and null was improved with the reflector in place, that would tell us something about the nature of the reaction itself.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Jones Beene</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Thu, 11 Feb 2016 18:04:35 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-7645</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Robert Greenyer says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-7643</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Are we having fun yet?]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Robert Greenyer</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Wed, 10 Feb 2016 22:02:58 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-7643</guid>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
