<?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, 21 Apr 2026 12:33:17 +0000</lastBuildDate>
		<generator>JComments</generator>
		<atom:link href="http://www.quantumheat.org/index.php/en/component/jcomments/feed/com_content/516" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
		<item>
			<title>Eva says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-30826</link>
			<description><![CDATA[I'm extremely impressed with your writing skills as well as with the layout on your blog. Is this a paid theme or did you customize it yourself? Anyway keep up the excellent quality writing, it is rare to see a nice blog like this one these days. Have a look at my homepage ... Hitomi Tanaka: https://hi88.shiksha/]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Eva</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Sun, 21 Dec 2025 18:53:59 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-30826</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Melody says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-28201</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Spot on with this write-up, I absolutely believe this site needs far more attention. I'll probably be back again to read through more, thanks for tthe information! Feel free to surf to my site Flipkart Gift Card Free: http://Archmageriseswiki.com/index.php/User:PatPethebridge]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Melody</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Wed, 07 May 2025 03:52:45 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-28201</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Nidia says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-27788</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Great ifo and straight to the point. I don't know if this is really the best place to ask but do you folks have any ideea where to employ some professional writers? Thanks :) Here iss my web site Lavonne: https://www.digitaljournal.com/pr/news/press-advantage/axis-real-estate-offers-full-service-real-estate-brokerage-services-in-phoenix]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Nidia</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Tue, 29 Apr 2025 18:30:30 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-27788</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Roseanna says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-27342</link>
			<description><![CDATA[This piece of writing is really a fastidious one it helps new web viewers, who are wishing for blogging. my web page ... egift: https://www.megschrock.com/standards/TomdeGallegosxd]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Roseanna</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Sun, 27 Apr 2025 09:06:45 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-27342</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Jacki says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-27087</link>
			<description><![CDATA[This is really interesting, You are a very skilled blogger. I have joined your rsss feed aand look forward to seeking more of your fantastic post. Also, I hawve shared your website in my social networks! Take a look at my web-site :: Chris Quintela Tech Influencer: https://www.Armstrongmywire.com/finance/category/press/article/pressadvantagesyn-2024-1-19-lucid-leverage-innovates-with-a-comprehensive-seo-resellers-program-in-tempe-az]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Jacki</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Sat, 26 Apr 2025 12:17:48 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-27087</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Danielgop says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-24449</link>
			<description><![CDATA[мега официальный сайт - топовый сервис по продаже позиций особого применения. Наиболее удобным для клиента можно выделить моментальные заказы, а так же доступность. После оплаты заказа, вы сразу же сможете забрать товар - не нужно ничего ждать. На сайт МЕГА шоп можно беспрепятственн о зайти, если знаешь ссылку - https://xn--m14-psa.com, сайт доступен как через Тор, так и из обычного браузера. Этот сайт является шлюзом направляющим на официальный ресурс мега магазин https://xn--megweb17-4dd.com . https://xn--megweb18-4dd.com]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Danielgop</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Sat, 19 Apr 2025 02:33:44 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-24449</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Publickt says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-24066</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Мы поможем вам обращайтесь РџР°РІРёР»СЊРѕР ЅС‹ РґР»СЏ РїСЂРѕРґР°Р¶Рё РѕР±РѕСЂСѓРґРѕР ІР°РЅРёСЏ РґР»СЏ РїРѕРґРІРѕРґРЅС ‹С… С„РµСЂРј]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Publickt</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Fri, 18 Apr 2025 02:30:00 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-24066</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>VaniaBold says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-9125</link>
			<description><![CDATA[I have checked your website 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 articles, search for: SSundee advices unlimited content for your blog]]></description>
			<dc:creator>VaniaBold</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Mon, 04 Jun 2018 02:02:31 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-9125</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>BernieChief says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-9051</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 articles, search for: Best article rewritwer Ercannou's essential tools]]></description>
			<dc:creator>BernieChief</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Fri, 09 Mar 2018 13:49:27 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-9051</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>RobinSmall says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-9004</link>
			<description><![CDATA[I have checked your page 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 content, search for; Boorfe's tips unlimited content]]></description>
			<dc:creator>RobinSmall</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Sun, 11 Feb 2018 01:53:31 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-9004</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>RemonaSmall says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-8978</link>
			<description><![CDATA[I have checked your blog 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: Boorfe's tips unlimited content]]></description>
			<dc:creator>RemonaSmall</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Tue, 16 Jan 2018 01:46:28 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-8978</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>jeff morriss says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-8078</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Dust contamination Many comments have mentioned dust contamination as something that might yield false positives, so I ran a quick experiment which consisted of turning on the blower fan in the heating unit in the basement. No heat, just the fan pulling air through the filter. After approximately 1 hour I opened the blower cabinet and measured an enormous level of radiation, almost 10 mrem/hr at the filter. Now things get even stranger. About six hours later the radiation level at the air filter had returned to background level of 0.03 - 0.05 mrem/hr. To make sure that this reading was not a fluke I wiped the TV screen (another place where dust collects) with a paper towel and measured a similar rad level on the towel. Just as before, after ~ 6 hours the level had returned to normal. Here is what I believe is happening but I will not be able to prove it until gamma spectrometer measurements become available. Radon and its decay products may be entering the basement and sticking to dust particles. Most of the time the dust is fairly dilute, but under certain conditions (fans, filters) the dust can become concentrated. That would account for the monotonically increasing radiation levels observed in the airflow calorimeter. Dust was being pulled into the chamber at a faster rate than the Rn decay products were decaying. Once the fan was turned off no new Rn entered the chamber (or furnace air filter) and the radiation level returned to normal. The tricky part is that the half lives of Rn decay products have half lives measured in minutes, so 6 hours is many half lives. That would explain the apparent "activation" that I reported earlier. It was most likely radioactive dust with short lived isotopes of Po, Bi, Pb that I was observing. Look up the Rn decay diagram; half lives and decay products are listed. It would also explain why testing of dust on the floor and in a vacuum cleaner not used for weeks would return background levels. Bottom line: I may not have observed LENR and almost certainly did not observe neutron activation. However, other Celani-type experiments have reported radiation and excess heat, so the experimental approach is still worth pursuing. Note on the high radiation level measured on the air filter. The GM detector was enclosed in a polyethylene bag to prevent dust contamination, so some alphas would be stopped. Inserting 3 mil thick Al foil reduced the level by ~50% indicating that some of the radiation was alphas and betas. Inserting a 1.75 cm lead shield in front of the detector stopped almost all radiation. So it is likely that alphas, betas, and gammas were all present.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>jeff morriss</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Wed, 09 Mar 2016 09:18:57 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-8078</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>EccoEcco says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-8077</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Jeff's results may have actually been for the most part caused by radioactive dust contamination from Radon gas decay products accumulating. Read his comment on LENR-Forum: https://www.lenr-forum.com/forum/index.php/Thread/2847-jeff-Celani-Type-Replication/?postID=15010#post15010. A scintillation detector with a spectrometer will allow to tell more of what's going on. It's not clear why these contamination anomalies haven't been reported before with his previous null results with Celani and Parkhomov replications using the same air flow calorimeter. Similar contaminated dust issues might also be affecting GlowStick-type experiments in unexpected ways, so methods for preventing it with good certainty, given that the elevated radiation measured in GS5.2 was not that much above background, will have to be found. Here's a report of contaminated dust issues from a third party website, which now sounds more plausible (some have noted that since it's a commercial website selling products for measuring air quality, the report might have been "enhanced"): Radioactive Dust - Decay of Radon daughter products: http://www.blackcatsystems.com/GM/experiments/ex1.html 222Rn decay chain: http://i.imgur.com/txGXaoq.png url: http://i.imgur.com/txGXaoq.png]]></description>
			<dc:creator>EccoEcco</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Wed, 09 Mar 2016 08:23:59 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-8077</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>EccoEcco says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-8070</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Jeff Morriss is now reporting a 20x increase in radiation level over background: https://www.lenr-forum.com/forum/index.php/Thread/2850-me356-Celani-Ni-Wire-replication/?postID=14904#post14904 (with a geiger counter) after a further run with his flash-reduced Ni wire in a 5 Torr H2 atmosphere. He's also observing the nuclear activation of elements, dust and equipment nearby the reactor. Intriguing and worrying at the same time. At this level this should be quite easily measurable with a scintillation detector. Since this radiation persists over time even after the reactor is turned off, it would also be quite convenient to measure.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>EccoEcco</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Mon, 07 Mar 2016 11:45:52 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-8070</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>EccoEcco says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-8057</link>
			<description><![CDATA[@jeff morriss: Thanks, this one works. However, it lacks images. Once you get a more powerful power supply I would try repeating the entire process at a higher pressure like you previously planned. The devil in the details; the low pressure used for both the reduction and loading process could be important and is the sort of thing that can make apparently successful replications frustratingly non-replicable.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>EccoEcco</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Sat, 05 Mar 2016 15:10:45 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-8057</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>jeff morriss says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-8055</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Try this link.https://do cs.google.com/d ocument/d/1ZmuV 6b5sQq9bWfeX6cI c1HHJLHDCskDDND olOH7n4hA/edit? usp=sharing]]></description>
			<dc:creator>jeff morriss</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Sat, 05 Mar 2016 09:42:15 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-8055</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>EccoEcco says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-8054</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Thread about jeff's experiment on LENR-Forum: https://www.lenr-forum.com/forum/index.php/Thread/2847-Celani-Type-Replication/: https://www.lenr-forum.com/forum/index.php/Thread/2847-Celani-Type-Replication/ @jeff morriss: it looks like your document on Google Drive requires viewing permission.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>EccoEcco</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Sat, 05 Mar 2016 09:32:58 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-8054</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>jeff morriss says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-8053</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Celani_type Replication report. Radiation levels many times above background and displaying an exponential decay profile were observed on two consecutive runs using H2 loaded Ni as sub-atmospheric pressures and 300-500C temperatures. See URL below. https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B1YNaBYpwLw0dk4zSGhWX21yRnc/view]]></description>
			<dc:creator>jeff morriss</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Sat, 05 Mar 2016 09:29:23 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-8053</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>jeff morriss says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-8012</link>
			<description><![CDATA[[quote name="JustaGuy" ]@#75 The experiment is repeatable, at least with this particular piece of Ni wire. Tonight I was able to reproduce the radiation signature observed last night. Furthermore, the output of the GM detector is now connected to a DAQ module, so a radiation vs. time plot can be generated. The radiation appears to drop off logarithmically with a time constant of approx 1 hour, reaching background is about 3 hours. I'll put a chunk of Al next to the cell and measure before/after radiation levels of the Al. That will demonstrate whether I'm seeing LENR activity or neutron activation in the Al. BTW I really would benefit from getting hold of an energy sensitive detector.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>jeff morriss</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Thu, 03 Mar 2016 10:22:40 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-8012</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>EccoEcco says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-8011</link>
			<description><![CDATA[@jeff morriss: ok, so with 7T you actually meant 7 Torr. For what it's worth - it might or might not be relevant to your findings - Leif Holmlid also generally uses very low pressures with his experiments (significantly less than 100 mbar, more often in the sub-millibar range), which he performs with K:Fe2O3 porous catalysts. He's observed muon emission with his experiments last year (see here: http://scitation.aip.org/content/aip/journal/rsi/86/8/10.1063/1.4928109 and here: http://www.gu.se/english/about_the_university/news-calendar/News_detail/small-scale-nuclear-fusion-may-be-a-new-energy-source.cid1323710). If muon capture occurs within a material, a proton can be turned into a neutron and unstable elements will form without necessarily involving free neutrons. Interestingly once his catalyst (called "emitter") starts emitting muons this effect lasts for a few hours after gas is admitted, which resembles what you're reporting. Holmlid and Ólafsson speculate that muon emission might be inherent in working LENR experiments, so it will be interesting to find out if this is actually what is going on in your case.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>EccoEcco</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Thu, 03 Mar 2016 07:01:32 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-8011</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>jeff morriss says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-8010</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Rerun of Celani-type Experiment. This evening I reran (or started to rerun) a Celani-type experiment using the same Ni wire as was used last night. The first step was to evacuate for 2 hrs at ~200C, powering off, introducing ~7T of H2, and powering on again to 200C. At that time I used a GC to check for radiation levels. Several feet away the background level was~0.05 mrem/hr. Then I tested near the cell The meter indicated some radiation coming from the Ni wire, but the highest reading came from the two type 2024 Al end pieces, where the reading went off scale on the 0.2 mrem/hr scale. So either Al supports LENR activity or else the Al was activated, and that means neutrons. A quick look in Knoll's radiation measurement book confirmed that Al is used as a neutron detector since it absorbs neutrons and then radiates gammas. I'll make another measurement in several hours to see if levels have dropped. Most Al radioactive isotopes have very short half lives. Very interesting...]]></description>
			<dc:creator>jeff morriss</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Thu, 03 Mar 2016 06:25:37 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-8010</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>EccoEcco says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-7986</link>
			<description><![CDATA[@jeff morriss: very interesting. Could you please clarify what you mean exactly with "H2 loading was done at 5T"? Did you use Ni + H only? Or more in general, do you plain writing a short document on the exact process performed? It increasingly sounds like obtaining Ni structures from reduction of NiO at high temperature might be a quicker (and cheaper) way for observing anomalies. Reduction from metal oxides is also a very common catalyst preparation method, from what I've recently learned.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>EccoEcco</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Wed, 02 Mar 2016 10:21:25 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-7986</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>jeff morriss says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-7984</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Excess radiation detected in a Celani-type Setup Tonight I tested a Celani-type setup using previously oxidized Ni wire. H2 loading was done at 5T because otherwise the power supply could not heat the wire to ~800C required for quick NiO reduction. After several loading cycles I monitored the radiation using a Ludlum Model 3 meter with a 44-9 detector. Background radiation measured approximately .04 mrem/hr, while the level next to the quartz cell holding the Ni wire measured as high as 0.15 mrem/hr. This represents a factor or nearly 4 and is well above the limits of experimental error. Furthermore, the radiation persisted after power was removed. I'll need to figure out how to feed the output of the Geiger counter into a counter so I can generate quantitative data. I'll also tear down the apparatus to make sure the radiation is coming from the Ni and not some source of contamination.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>jeff morriss</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Wed, 02 Mar 2016 10:10:53 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-7984</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>AlanG says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-7730</link>
			<description><![CDATA[The screenshots from 20 Feb show what looks like 1-2 watts of gain over an extended period. This looks encouraging as it should be well above the calorimetry resolution. Was anything else happening that might affect the accuracy?]]></description>
			<dc:creator>AlanG</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Sun, 21 Feb 2016 03:51:02 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-7730</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Mathieu Valat says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-7706</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Ecco, The new data was erroneous until this afternoon. The reason lies within labview's programming practice. The problem is fixed. I am sorry but I cannot regenerate the data to add the cold wire resistance. I can only manually swap the column and split the file. It is still a work in progress.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Mathieu Valat</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Wed, 17 Feb 2016 14:11:18 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-7706</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>jeff morriss says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-7704</link>
			<description><![CDATA[I found a very interesting paper on the sintering properties of silica sols as a function of particle size and temperature. In the paper are SEM photos showing the surface morphology for different combinations of the above. What is interesting is there appears to be an optimum combination of the two parameters that yields a morphology that may be conducive for the LENR effects observed by Celani. His patent does not specifically call out details on the temperature or particle size required to stabilize the silica sol, and this fact may be what is missing in replication efforts. For details see the following link: http://www.rug.nl/research/portal/files/3063357/c4.pdf]]></description>
			<dc:creator>jeff morriss</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Wed, 17 Feb 2016 10:31:52 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-7704</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>EccoEcco says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-7692</link>
			<description><![CDATA[@Mathieu Valat: thanks, looking forward to seeing the new data. Can .csv files of old data also be regenerated so that they have the same columns and format of the current one? (run.csv)]]></description>
			<dc:creator>EccoEcco</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Tue, 16 Feb 2016 20:32:40 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-7692</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Mathieu Valat says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-7688</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Ecco, Yes a shift on column labels happened when I modified the program to monitor the hot wire and the cold wire. Now it should be fine again. Additionally, I have made an additional program that does a running average on the flow meter digital measurements, taking in account to the quantity of mass held in the calorimeter.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Mathieu Valat</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Tue, 16 Feb 2016 19:32:11 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-7688</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>EccoEcco says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-7668</link>
			<description><![CDATA[@Mathieu Valat: it appears that "Pressure (barA)" in Labview screenshots is actually showing the "Flowmeter (kg/min)" column from the run.csv file. There might be some mislabeling issues; neither of them seems to be actually showing the equivalent reported water flow in g/s. http://i.imgur.com/sEaSI1y.png Larger: http://i.imgur.com/sEaSI1y.png EDIT: it looks like there might have been a shift in column labels. The last (unlabeled) column should actually be Flowmeter (g/s), the second-to-last should be "Pressure (bar)" and the third-to-last is probably the R/R0 ratio for one of the wires. As a side note, it appears that pressure is rising faster than what would be expected by the power increments applied over time. http://i.imgur.com/a8KfQGY.png Larger: http://i.imgur.com/a8KfQGY.png]]></description>
			<dc:creator>EccoEcco</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Sun, 14 Feb 2016 09:54:37 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-7668</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>jeff morriss says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-7610</link>
			<description><![CDATA[About a year ago I ran some Celani-type experiments using a pressurized cell situated in an airflow calorimeter operating in a closed loop mode. While I did not observe any excess heat, the calorimeter and support equipment have proven to be accurate and reliable, yielding a resolution of approx 0.5 watts. If you could get me a sample of the wire I would be glad to test it in my setup. Jeff]]></description>
			<dc:creator>jeff morriss</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Tue, 09 Feb 2016 07:51:11 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-7610</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Robert Greenyer says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-7603</link>
			<description><![CDATA[@All Images of Mathieu verifying flow rate can be found here: https://drive.google.com/folderview?id=0B9qCtGOFmvhmd2JSWTJ2VWpzcnc&usp=sharing&tid=0B9qCtGOFmvhmTDBqMG5OejhUblU]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Robert Greenyer</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Mon, 08 Feb 2016 17:28:36 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-7603</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Robert Greenyer says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-7596</link>
			<description><![CDATA[@Fcc Thanks for your guidance. Regarding your last point - I shall attempt to explain why I think it is unfortunately not that simple in a video.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Robert Greenyer</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Sun, 07 Feb 2016 21:33:40 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-7596</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>fcc says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-7595</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Bob, some general advise (and yes, I know that this has to come across as know-it-all bulls* from an arrogant SOB to you guys - so feel free to ignore it). Here’s a kind of motherhood blueprint about how we do it in our lab - which is essentially not very different from how you too have probably learned it in college anyway. 1.) Don’t start with the hardware. Model the calorimeter first. Put it through its paces. Form two teams and let one do the analysis while the other throws data at the model. Don’t stop unless you’re certain that the analysis correctly works with everything you throw at it - from simple white noise on any combination of inputs to outright sabotage on any one of them. That only requires Matlab or Excel or Lisp or Prolog or whatever environment you feel most familiar with. It took me about 5 minutes in Matlab to nail your wrong flow measurement/ass umption (and I’m not wise after the fact - I wrote about it on ECN as early as last Tuesday). You would have saved a lot of time and money if you had done all that stuff first - not last (or at all). 2.) While modelling, keep in mind that you’ll eventually have to build the thing. Think about design aspects that are difficult to model and work around them. Keep it as simple as possible and as fool-proof as possible (and as cheap as possible - buying an expensive flow meter is nonsense when there are simpler and less complex alternatives. When the main thing you want to detect is temperature, make sure the thing doesn’t leak heat like a stove etc. no-brainers all along the way but only avoidable if you consider them beforehand). Once you designed the calorimeter, remodel everything and dry-rinse-repea t until you feel there isn’t much to improve. 3.) Only then - build the thing, sticking to the plan as close as possible. If it isn’t, don’t plunge ahead without re-modelling the entire thing first. 4.) When calibrating, don’t just assume properties beyond the scope of your measurement. Try to keep the entire thing as close to the real experiment as possible. Again, form two teams with the first manipulating and the second independently analysing. Don’t attempt the experiment as long as team one can fool team two. Usually all of that takes a lot longer and requires a lot more effort than running the experiment itself - and in your case, order and priority of things seem reversed. I’m not saying we’re doing it right and you’re doing it wrong - but I’d bet on it regardless. Something I could never help wondering about with all this LENR stuff is this: If you have the right environment and heat is all it takes to ignite “the new fire” with the right materials - then why go through all the hassle with calorimeters when all you should need is sufficient insulation to prevent the experiment from leaking more heat than the supposed reaction produces and simply cut all power in as soon as you suspect the “fire” has actually started? No sophistication required, cheap, easy, fast and (if it works) the most convincing demo you could possibly come up with.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>fcc</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Sun, 07 Feb 2016 20:54:22 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-7595</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>fcc says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-7591</link>
			<description><![CDATA[ Bob, forgive me, but how can you say that? This calorimeter still is one big sieve full of holes. You found the biggest of them and (sort of) fixed it but all it's ready for now is finding and fixing the second biggest (which will likely be an unacceptable feedback to ambient temperature). And you really should start checking your data and develop a model which allows you to test their validity. As far as I can see, there is nothing there that goes beyond eyeballing a couple of charts. There is a whole lot more work before you can think about prime time and with losses this high it is questionable whether you'll ever get there with the current design. I understand the impatience but you simply can't expect to catch a mouse with a net so wide that an elephant slipped through (at least almost).]]></description>
			<dc:creator>fcc</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Sun, 07 Feb 2016 12:43:48 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-7591</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Robert Greenyer says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-7590</link>
			<description><![CDATA[@Ecco Our Mica sheets contain no Li.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Robert Greenyer</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Sun, 07 Feb 2016 11:32:34 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-7590</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>EccoEcco says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-7586</link>
			<description><![CDATA[@Mathieu Valat: good to know that the problem was identified. This might sound like a random question, but: are the mica sheets used in the cell still primarily composed of Lepidolite? And: is there still time for a quick test at 70-74W of input power in a residual hydrogen atmosphere of 10-50 mbar?]]></description>
			<dc:creator>EccoEcco</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Sun, 07 Feb 2016 07:58:34 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-7586</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Sanjeev says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-7585</link>
			<description><![CDATA[With the new value of flow, there is no significant excess. Thanks for measuring it.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Sanjeev</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Sun, 07 Feb 2016 00:41:44 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-7585</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Robert Greenyer says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-7584</link>
			<description><![CDATA[@Mathieu Thanks for taking the time when you are ill to go into the lab, which I know is some distance from your home, to do the flow tests. It is very clear now what the problem is and thank you for sharing that. The system is now ready for prime time!]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Robert Greenyer</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Sat, 06 Feb 2016 23:48:16 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-7584</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Mathieu Valat says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-7577</link>
			<description><![CDATA[I think you are pointing to the right data point Ecco. There was something wrong in the flow control on calibrations too. I did find the problem today. We will see what is going on after the test with a new calibration.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Mathieu Valat</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Sat, 06 Feb 2016 17:48:24 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-7577</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>EccoEcco says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-7567</link>
			<description><![CDATA[There were a few potentially interesting outliers, although I suspect there might be something odd with the flow rate values at lower input power steps in the 'Loading-start. csv' file (as it's fixed exactly at 0.15000001 l/min), but by using settled temperatures at higher ones, the result using the formula (RTDΔ*(ml/s)*4. 186) is similar to the calibration in the live document, as user 'fcc' notes. http://i.imgur.com/ebAfxvY.png url: http://i.imgur.com/ebAfxvY.png]]></description>
			<dc:creator>EccoEcco</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Sat, 06 Feb 2016 09:27:21 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-7567</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Robert Greenyer says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-7563</link>
			<description><![CDATA[@fcc You make a good point. Anyhow, we need to wait until Mathieu can get into the lab and verify if the flow is actually running as it was set to (150ml/min) and that the analogue field as placed on the VI and present in the screen grabs is miss-reporting the actual flow rate. A simple series of weighing water into a container over time would suffice, it is the obvious thing we discussed today.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Robert Greenyer</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Fri, 05 Feb 2016 23:33:24 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-7563</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>fcc says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-7562</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Mathieu, think about it for a minute. Suppose the flow rate really was rock solid at 150 cc/min, the analog measurements were somehow wrong and some unknown reaction produced various levels of power over a couple of days: What are the odds that the measurement errors almost exactly cancel out with the excess power? Over time and through a complex formula, no less. And if it isn't random chance, what link could there possibly be explaining the correlation between that particular supposed measurement error and excess power with the latter causing the former?]]></description>
			<dc:creator>fcc</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Fri, 05 Feb 2016 23:29:26 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-7562</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>charlie tapp says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-7561</link>
			<description><![CDATA[@all he will not be missed to bad to he seems to know a lot he could of had some good input with his questioning. I mean after all we are not exactly telling everyone it works we are more like him disproving positives until we are sure. I think anyways?]]></description>
			<dc:creator>charlie tapp</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Fri, 05 Feb 2016 23:15:18 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-7561</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Sanjeev says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-7557</link>
			<description><![CDATA[So any ideas to find the real flow? I think its best to measure the water using a measuring flask after collecting it for exactly 1 min.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Sanjeev</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Fri, 05 Feb 2016 18:18:49 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-7557</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>fcc says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-7556</link>
			<description><![CDATA[I think so, yes. Either Bronkhorst made a pump which is incredibly good at providing stable throughput while, at the same time, is incredibly bad at measuring it - or there was absolutely no LENR in this experiment.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>fcc</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Fri, 05 Feb 2016 18:12:10 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-7556</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Sanjeev says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-7555</link>
			<description><![CDATA[@fcc Yes a combination of 150ml/min and 0.82 works. It gives a 10W excess, like the data says. He said he used 1.222 which is about 0.82 if placed in denominator (1/1.222). So it boils down to which flowmeter reading to use. 150 or the one in the data?]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Sanjeev</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Fri, 05 Feb 2016 18:07:47 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-7555</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>fcc says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-7554</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Sanjeev, if Mathieu was in fact using 150 ml/min, then the factor would have to be more on the order of 0.82. I think he mentioned somewhere below that he used a more conservative value than 0.7772 but am too lazy to look it up right now.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>fcc</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Fri, 05 Feb 2016 17:50:27 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-7554</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Sanjeev says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-7553</link>
			<description><![CDATA[@Mathieu and fcc If I use a factor of 0.7 instead of 0.7772, I get exactly the same output power as that in the data. So I guess the error here is that somehow the calculations are using 0.7]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Sanjeev</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Fri, 05 Feb 2016 17:40:31 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-7553</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Sanjeev says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-7552</link>
			<description><![CDATA[@Mathieu I tried to crosscheck what fcc is saying and I'm getting a maximum of 5W of excess only initially and later no significant excess. If I plug in a value of 150ml/min for the flow, I get about 15W excess for the whole run. Never got ~10W. The file is Run.csv. Can you tell us the values of "calibration (proportional)" and "calibration (constant)" in your diagram ? Do warm salt water gargles to fix your throat :)]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Sanjeev</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Fri, 05 Feb 2016 17:26:58 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-7552</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>fcc says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-7551</link>
			<description><![CDATA[They are complex, yes. Maybe you should regularly run some basic statistical sanity checks on your data. With this stuff, it was apparent from the beginning that excess depended almost exclusively on fluid throughput (indicated by it scoring very high (I think it was over .7) in PCA). Since there should be absolutely no causal relation between flow rate and excess, this would have shown immediately that something was wrong. I'd also recommend running correlation analysis between all outputs. Ambient T seems to have quite an effect in this particular setup.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>fcc</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Fri, 05 Feb 2016 17:26:55 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-7551</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Mathieu Valat says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-7550</link>
			<description><![CDATA[I see, it is difficult to understand this complex acquisition chain, complex system, and the confusion it creates. The RS232 measurement coming form the logic board is always giving 150ml/min. Variations are less than 0.01ml/min. The calibration coefficient is calculated on values done using the RS232 flow-rate measurement. Using this coefficient for the actual test is not proper.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Mathieu Valat</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Fri, 05 Feb 2016 17:09:24 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-7550</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>fcc says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-7549</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Ok, lets do that with a single data point picked at random (i.e. 04/02/2016 03:58:34) We need: Tout: 36,330116 Tin: 30,060184 Flow (assuming this is the analog output): 0,12809077 Here’s what your formula is supposed to do: deltaT = 6,269932 Flowrate in cc/s = Flow * 1000 / 60 = 2.134846167 Output (w/o calibration) = flow(cc/s) x 4.184 x deltaT(out,in) = 56.0042638 Calibartion = 0.7772, so 56.0042638 / 0.7772 = 72.05901158 However your calculated Power out shows 79.763791 in the data table which is more than 7 Watts higher (and corresponding excess, obviously). Can you confirm that RS232 indicated 142 cc/min at the time?]]></description>
			<dc:creator>fcc</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Fri, 05 Feb 2016 16:46:13 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-7549</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>fcc says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-7547</link>
			<description><![CDATA[i see. fact is - if you'd use the analog data for fluid throughput rather than assuming that the pump is actually pushing the requested 150ml/min, you'd end up with a very stable COP of pretty much exactly one. i hope you guys draw the right conclusions from this. thanks for responding so quickly - very refreshing. i also heard from Bob that you're ill. Hope it isn't too bad and wish you a speedy recovery.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>fcc</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Fri, 05 Feb 2016 16:11:06 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-7547</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Mathieu Valat says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-7546</link>
			<description><![CDATA[OK, I got the answer. The problem is coming form the measurement of the flow. I received the flow controller two days before the experiment started. So I have very little hands-on this equipment. It is a Bronkhorst Liquiflow I30 20kg/h. It has two cables coming in and out. The first is RS-232 and the second is the power cable that has analog ins/outs. Its command is set to 150ml/min. While only using the RS232 plus the VI program provided by Bronkhorst, the controller is giving 150ml/min as requested. But I decided to have a counter measurement. So I hooked the analog output to the 10V input of the DAQ, set a basic scale (not related to calibrations), just to have a rough idea if this would give the same value...or not. The latter happened so I had the choice to use either the RS-232 value read from the instrument of the analog out. Since I did the calibration with the RS-232 values, I decided it would be logic to stick to it. Taking in account the calibration where done in the same conditions, using the same inputs, we are comparing what is comparable. But if I want to counter-calibra te the system, I needed to log the analog value, in case the RS-232 is saying wrong. That is where this column comes in. It will allow me to have a trace of the instrument for afterward calculations. As I said already a couple of time, this is an early answer. I do need to check errors and mistakes. It is not meant to be right the first time. Sorry to lower your expectations.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Mathieu Valat</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Fri, 05 Feb 2016 15:58:50 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-7546</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Mathieu Valat says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-7545</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Here is the VI I made for calculation of Power out: https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B9qCtGOFmvhmQlUxR0M3LTRzaU0]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Mathieu Valat</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Fri, 05 Feb 2016 14:55:52 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-7545</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>EccoEcco says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-7544</link>
			<description><![CDATA[@Mathieu Valat: that's unfortunate. More in detail, I wanted to suggest to decrease pressure to a level where, at the operating maximum temperature you plan to run the wire at, the equilibrium vapor pressure of the alkali elements (potassium in particular) embedded in the alumina and fiberglass sheathings is exceeded or closely approached. When this occurs the chances for anomalous effects in these wires should at least in theory increase, according to studies by Holmlid et al. (on the basis of which - as far as I recall - Francesco Celani included Fe and K in large amounts).]]></description>
			<dc:creator>EccoEcco</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Fri, 05 Feb 2016 14:44:13 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-7544</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Mathieu Valat says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-7543</link>
			<description><![CDATA[ OK, I understand what you mean now. I assume the equation was the point or your remark. I have to investigate this in a deeper way. The most probable issue would come from the averaging functions I have done within the LabVIEW program.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Mathieu Valat</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Fri, 05 Feb 2016 14:40:31 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-7543</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>fcc says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-7541</link>
			<description><![CDATA[i'm not multiplying by .7772. i divide by 0.7772, which is the same as multiplying by 1/.7772 (which is 1.2867 by the way, not 1,2987). this is exactly what you show in your calibration curve and it does make absolute sense. i don't think your formula is wrong but it doesn't show any excess heat at all if applied correctly to the data sheets on google. can you pick just one line from any of the sheets and lay out your calculation for power out? they simply can't be what you write in the paper (or i'm looking at the wrong columns - but that would be an odd coincidence with them amounting to almost exactly "power in" over the entire length of the experiment).]]></description>
			<dc:creator>fcc</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Fri, 05 Feb 2016 14:24:42 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-7541</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>EccoEcco says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-7540</link>
			<description><![CDATA[@Mathieu Valat: do you also plan running the wires under a rather low pressure hydrogen/deuter ium atmosphere? (significantly less than 100 mbar at the maximum operating temperature)]]></description>
			<dc:creator>EccoEcco</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Fri, 05 Feb 2016 14:20:34 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-7540</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Mathieu Valat says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-7539</link>
			<description><![CDATA[ I think my document is not clear enough. The coefficient you are referring to is the percentage of heat that is lost by the water while migrating through the calorimeter. In the current run, we are compensating the heat-loss in the calculation by applying a proportional constant to the equation. Hence it is not 0.7772 that you have to multiply, simply because it would square the heat-loss... What you have to do is to multiply the result of your equation by 1/0.7772 = 1.2987. But I only have 95% confidence in the calibration so I applied 1.222 factor to the calculation. BTW can you pass me the values you are using, I want to verify the number, if you don't mind. To give you examples, in the original experiment done by Celani at ICCF17, the calibrations factor was 0.54. Jean-Paul Biberian is using the same body of flow calorimeter and he has 18% of heat-loss.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Mathieu Valat</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Fri, 05 Feb 2016 13:46:26 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-7539</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>fcc says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-7537</link>
			<description><![CDATA[what am i missing here? according to the formula for output power and applying calibration by dividing the result by .77 it more or less matches input power with no access.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>fcc</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Fri, 05 Feb 2016 08:57:44 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-7537</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Mathieu Valat says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-7534</link>
			<description><![CDATA[ Fixed, thanks.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Mathieu Valat</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Thu, 04 Feb 2016 19:32:59 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-7534</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Sanjeev says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-7529</link>
			<description><![CDATA[@Mathieu Regarding the formula for output power. I guess on page 9, the equation should say "Output power" instead of "Excess power" ?]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Sanjeev</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Thu, 04 Feb 2016 15:28:36 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-7529</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Robert Greenyer says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-7527</link>
			<description><![CDATA[@Bob Yes, on your comments. It is remarkable that whatever system we use - we see similar results. 1. Celani cell based on calibration 2. Dual Celani cells under various regimes (active and control) 3. Steel and Glass cells - Isothermal tests 4. Mass Flow Calorimetry Can all of these approaches we have tried at different locations, by different experimentalist s had an amazing set of coincidental systematic errors (but different and specific to that apparatus/exper iment) such that they all produce results in favour of the wires of the same order? Can it be that the results we independently found, that we were mocked for early on for being lower than Celani's NI-Week / ICCF-17, for which we then identified a systematic error in his apparatus accounting for the bulk of the difference - really be so wrong? http://www.quantumheat.org/index.php/en/home/mfmp-blog/495-major-revelation-from-francesco-celani-lends-strong-support-to-mfmps-early-constantan-wire-research-results We already have considered the licensing - Mathieu came up with a solution - see on the bottom of the embedded document here: http://www.quantumheat.org/index.php/en/home/mfmp-blog/503-how-to-make-a-celani-wire-is-coming#!20140527_180740]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Robert Greenyer</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Thu, 04 Feb 2016 13:57:24 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-7527</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Robert Greenyer says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-7526</link>
			<description><![CDATA[@All Important test of wires in MFC supports the data so far... At around hour 52:40 in the experiment, the power was raised by 10W on the suggestion of Francesco Celani. The event and subsequent response by the MFC can be seen in this GIF animation. https://goo.gl/JyLya0 We have added this and Francesco's comments in the Live Doc. What Francesco is basically saying is that after adding 10W, the supposed 9+W 'excess' was instantaneously deducted as one would expect... showing that the calculations underpinning the MFC were potentially valid. He then points to the excess then recovering, lagging by the time constant of the cell, to even a higher level than before the power input increase at times, therefore indicating that the measurement is worth considering.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Robert Greenyer</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Thu, 04 Feb 2016 13:44:08 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-7526</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>bob says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-7525</link>
			<description><![CDATA[@Robert Greenyer It is interesting that these results are in line with the previous positive result a few years ago with the two water buckets. I think it is hard to overstate the importance of a simple standardized LENR apparatus that the crowd can use. Once MFMP certifies the calorimeter in this simple apparatus perhaps a Kickstarter project could be setup to assemble and integrate the kit. Once that kit is widely available, there are several areas that the crowd can be effective in moving the open LENR field forward: i) trying different experimental protocols ii) trying different wire prep protocols iii) replicating other teams work It is not necessary that the crowd teams with expertise in coating wires be the ones testing those wires. If the kit is standardized anyone with a kit can test any wire. To be successful we also need the equivalent of the GPL in open source software to "force" the teams using our open kit to share their results, wire prep recipes and experimental protocols. MFMP has invested lots of resources in getting to this point. If you share the results of your effort freely, it is important that others using this as a starting point are also compelled to share. bob]]></description>
			<dc:creator>bob</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Thu, 04 Feb 2016 13:37:25 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-7525</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Robert Greenyer says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-7517</link>
			<description><![CDATA[@bob I really like the conduction calorimeter design - perhaps the best approach would be that if the back end calibrations support this initial data then we 1. Test a home grown wire... and if that is effective 2. build and test conduction calorimeter - and test, if that is effective 3. look to distribute experiments!]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Robert Greenyer</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Thu, 04 Feb 2016 09:54:32 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-7517</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Mathieu Valat says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-7509</link>
			<description><![CDATA[One additional data point: Original resistance of the platinum wire is 14.07ohm Its length is 108.5cm Its current resistance is 38.77ohm Since it is platinum, we can calculate its average temperature! What I get from my calculation is 467.82°C. The thermocouple screwed on the mica plate is showing 478°C.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Mathieu Valat</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Wed, 03 Feb 2016 17:49:18 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-7509</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Mathieu Valat says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-7508</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Franco, During calibrations, the flange was reaching about the same temperature. Yes it radiates and I should say, hopefully! Otherwise it would melt down. Using screening of aluminum or stainless steel is just making the temperature inside the chamber greater with less power input. Because it lowers the heat radiation, very effectively due to the T^4 factor of the Boltzmann equation. I have talked about that in the document. We need to have thermal loss form the reaction chamber to the water, simply because we want to have a signal, here ∆T we measure. What we don't like is the heat-loss from the water to the envelope then to the bench. That is one thing I know/want to improve. Water inlet is 30°C because the bench is thermally regulated with a heating element controlled by a PID (take a look at the document's schematics), so it needs to be above room temperature with a sufficient margin. Additionally, the flow controller is measuring the flow of water using a expansion based characterizatio n device. It means, water out of the flow-controller is hotter than water in. Hence it is simpler to set the water inlet temperature of the calorimeter higher than room temperature.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Mathieu Valat</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Wed, 03 Feb 2016 12:40:52 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-7508</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Franco says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-7506</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Hi Mathieu, if you allow me, just a couple of things. 1) I suppose that you are aware that temperature of Chamber flange is quite close to 170°C. This means that it dissipates heat also toward the external flange and it contributes to a large heat loss, manly due to radiating way. It suggested (for example) to insert an aluminium translucent foil between them, in order to isolate and reduce losses. 2) It suggested also to cover using polyurethane the calorimeter body, in order to isolate and reduce losses. IMHO 1) and 2) (if not already implemented) these improvements do not affect "availability of time" or "cheap/economy" but benefit will be appreciable. 3) Can you explain why you chose temperature of water inlet of 30°C when your ambient temperature goal is around 25°C? (I understand you have a thermal system to control ambient temperature and a thermostatic system to maintain inlet water temperature, some photos of these systems can be useful)]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Franco</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Wed, 03 Feb 2016 09:52:41 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-7506</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>charlie tapp says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-7505</link>
			<description><![CDATA[@ all awesome day of almost I am going to end up in trouble at work following all of this]]></description>
			<dc:creator>charlie tapp</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Wed, 03 Feb 2016 03:11:55 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-7505</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Mathieu Valat says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-7497</link>
			<description><![CDATA[The heat-loss is supposed to be constant between calibration and the current test because the bench is "controlled" at constant temperature.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Mathieu Valat</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Tue, 02 Feb 2016 13:22:11 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-7497</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Robert Greenyer says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-7496</link>
			<description><![CDATA[@All There were spikes over 17% last night and more recently a sustained period over 15% The excess *estimation* has an 8-hour time constant lag - but the heat in cell and resistance are more instant metrics and strange things are going on there. As Franco notes - this will need exhaustive post test experiment testing and deeper study of the calorimeter, so we, of course, will be very cautious about making judgements.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Robert Greenyer</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Tue, 02 Feb 2016 11:31:17 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-7496</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Sanjeev says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-7489</link>
			<description><![CDATA[@Robert What are the error margins here?]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Sanjeev</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Tue, 02 Feb 2016 05:14:44 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-7489</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Robert Greenyer says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-7487</link>
			<description><![CDATA[@All Possibly over 13% on 02:17 020216 screengrab]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Robert Greenyer</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Tue, 02 Feb 2016 01:25:39 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-7487</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Robert Greenyer says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-7485</link>
			<description><![CDATA[@All Possibly seeing 11.5% at the moment - check the live data screen grabs.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Robert Greenyer</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Mon, 01 Feb 2016 22:28:08 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-7485</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Mathieu Valat says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-7482</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Exactly Bob. Thank you for taking the time to answer in such details issues I am facing and the calculations that needs to be done for proper characterizatio n of this calorimeter.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Mathieu Valat</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Mon, 01 Feb 2016 15:58:33 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-7482</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Robert Greenyer says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-7480</link>
			<description><![CDATA[@Franco Thanks for joining us here. This is by far our most ambitious, time consuming and expensive experiment / apparatus we have attempted to date and in a large part it was an attempt to address the valid criticisms of the Celani borosilicate calorimeter and contributions of project watchers of which you have been the most vocal proponent of this approach. As I understand it - losses are not an issue as long as they are well characterised - I will let others add more detail to that statement as and when they can - however, Mathieu has done calibrations and will point you to that data for your consideration. The time constraints are due to circumstance and must be worked within, however, Mathieu intends to also run a bookend calibration and we look forward to your input on what you would like to see in that part of the process. Right now there is a drive to seek the quanta of any potential signal from these new generation wires - in order to assess the merit of any more detailed characterisatio n of the MFC. Mathieu may elaborate on his intentions, but I think he intends to make a "fake" new generation Celani wire - by similarly wrapping wires in sheaths etc.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Robert Greenyer</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Mon, 01 Feb 2016 13:02:24 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-7480</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Franco says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-7479</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Hi Mathieu, you wrote: "We can see there is an approximate linear loss of 22.3% of the heat put inside the calorimeter. This is mainly due to the body envelope industrialtype insulation jacket used around the body of the calorimeter. Due to the lack of time, I have not been able to improve that part." The heat loss is a main key point for the MF Calorimeter. A so large loss value cannot be tollerate when the object of test is to prove beyond any doubt an excess heat not so large as we seen up to now. Already in past also Celani used one MFC had similar performance (heat loss range 20-25%) and after many years we are still waiting for apersuasive evidence of excess heat. About loss due to the insulation jacket of Teflon their high thermal resistance they cannot be the cause of so high thermal loss. Why tou cannot spend time to improve this? Why this rush after an year of work? Why did you improve thermal isolation using at least polyurethane on outside body? You wrote: "During calibrations, the small variations of room’s temperature impacted the resulting measurement." This is no good start point for an accurate calorimetric system. I doubt that current solution once again it will be able to prove something if this new Celani's wire excess heat will be not huge.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Franco</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Sun, 31 Jan 2016 21:48:42 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-7479</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>EccoEcco says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-7457</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Here are hydrogen absorption and wire resistance decrease since they began: http://i.imgur.com/mQa51DI.png http://i.imgur.com/mQa51DI.png]]></description>
			<dc:creator>EccoEcco</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Fri, 29 Jan 2016 08:27:44 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-7457</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Robert Greenyer says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-7452</link>
			<description><![CDATA[@Ecco/Mathieu This EXTREMELY interesting and large conference proceedings book from 1985 that I would love to get hold of uses Mossbauer radiation to determine that the Debye of Nickel is as low as 406K (132.85ºC) https://goo.gl/WBVC8t]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Robert Greenyer</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Thu, 28 Jan 2016 20:28:58 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-7452</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Mathieu Valat says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-7447</link>
			<description><![CDATA[ @Ecco, Debye temperature is fluctuating depending on the experimental setup you use to measure it. I am referring to the very good document: "Debye Temperature of some cubic elements and alkali halides by Anastasia Konti. It's quite an old document but very well done. Most values you find are close to 477K though. And yes things starts to get funky above Debye's temperature, as said Piantelli.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Mathieu Valat</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Thu, 28 Jan 2016 15:05:26 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-7447</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>EccoEcco says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-7446</link>
			<description><![CDATA[@Mathieu Valat: I tried quickly searching the web for the Debye temperature of Ni since I didn't recall it being this high, and I realized that it ranges from 345K to the value you cited, depending on the source. Which one is the correct value? Does it really apply for nanostructured constantan? Piantelli (from his patents) does say that the Debye temperature of the material used has to be exceeded, though.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>EccoEcco</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Thu, 28 Jan 2016 14:42:24 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-7446</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Mathieu Valat says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-7443</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Please disregard the current calorimetric measurement as it has not been calibrated at this range of power. Calibration started at 30W and ended at 74W. Here I am just trying to "load" the material.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Mathieu Valat</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Thu, 28 Jan 2016 10:46:51 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-7443</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>EccoEcco says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-7430</link>
			<description><![CDATA[I finally took the time to check the data on the public folder: https://drive.google.com/folderview?id=0B9qCtGOFmvhmTDBqMG5OejhUblU&usp=sharing#grid in detail, this is quite interesting, good job. This method of continuously updating (every minute) the data in the csv file, activity log in the txt file, and providing screenshots of the LABView dashboard every 30 minutes is very useful too. Perhaps if bandwidth allowed there could even be a real time image/feed of the dashboard (like AlanG does). Maybe it's an inopportune question, but it looks like the wire is already producing excess heat ...? EDIT: even without taking into account the correction for heat loss through the calorimeter, it appears as if there is some, well before massive hydrogen absorption into the wire took place: http://i.imgur.com/YlRIHol.png Larger: http://i.imgur.com/YlRIHol.png]]></description>
			<dc:creator>EccoEcco</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Wed, 27 Jan 2016 08:49:08 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-7430</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>AlanG says:</title>
			<link>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-7428</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Fantastic job Mathieu! The careful design and meticulous attention to detail will pay off in reliability and accuracy of data. I look forward to seeing some interesting tests with (hopefully) positive results.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>AlanG</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Tue, 26 Jan 2016 21:47:32 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.quantumheat.org#comment-7428</guid>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
